| Literature DB >> 35456281 |
Laura Diez Porras1, Christian Homedes1, Maria Antonia Alberti1,2, Valentina Velez Santamaria1,2, Carlos Casasnovas1,2,3.
Abstract
Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in myasthenia gravis (MG) is frequently decreased. Further, there are many validated clinical scales and questionnaires to evaluate the clinical status in MG. We aimed to determine if there was an improvement in HRQOL following an intensive treatment for MG, identify which demographic and clinical features influenced patients' HRQOL, and investigate if the questionnaire MG-QOL15 correlated with other evaluation scales. We recruited 45 patients with generalised MG who were starting immunomodulatory treatment with intravenous immunoglobulins and prednisone for the first time. At each visit, we administered several validated scales for MG. The mean MG-QOL15 score improved significantly at 4 and 6 weeks of the study. Additionally, the MG-QOL15 score correlated strong with the Myasthenia Gravis-Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) and the Neuro-QOL Fatigue and weakest with the Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis Scoring System (QMG). The QMG score prior to study enrolment was associated with HRQOL. We observed that HRQOL in MG improved after receiving an intensive immunomodulatory treatment and achieving better control of the symptoms. The questionnaire MG-QOL15 correlated positively with other clinical measures. As MG is a fluctuating condition, and some symptoms are difficult to examine, we direct physicians toward the use of scales and questionnaires composed of items perceived by the patient.Entities:
Keywords: MG-QOL15; intravenous immunoglobulins; myasthenia gravis; prednisone; quality of life; questionnaires; scales
Year: 2022 PMID: 35456281 PMCID: PMC9025772 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11082189
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.964
Demographic characteristics of our population.
| Total (N) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sex | 45 | |
| Woman, | 15 (33.33) | |
| Man, | 30 (66.67) | |
| Age | ||
| Minimum | 26 | |
| Maximum | 85 | |
| Median | 69 | |
| Age at onset, mean (standard deviation) | 62.22 (16.32) | |
| MGFA class | ||
| I, | 0 (0) | |
| IIA, | 10 (22.2) | |
| IIB, | 14 (31.1) | |
| IIIA, | 5 (11.1) | |
| IIIB, | 9 (20) | |
| IV, | 5 (11.1) | |
| V, | 2 (4.4) | |
| Antibodies | ||
| Anti-RAch, | 41 (91.1) | |
| 0 (0) | ||
| Anti-MuSK, | 4 (8.9) | |
| Double seronegative, | 22 (48.9) | |
| Anti-striated muscle, | ||
| Thymus | ||
| Thymoma, | 2 (4.4) | |
| Thymic hyperplasia, | 4 (8.9) | |
| Atrophy or CT without evidence of thymoma, | 39 (86.7) | |
| Score on scales (pretreatment and at V1) | ||
| Pretreatment QMG, Mean (standard deviation) | 17.04 (3.83) | 25 |
| Pretreatment QMG, Median [25%, 75%] | 17 [14; 20] | 25 |
| V1 MG-QOL, Mean (standard deviation) | 25.93 (13.42) | 43 |
| V1 MG-QOL, Median [25%; 75%] | 23 [15; 36] | 43 |
| V1 ADL, Mean (standard deviation) | 5.84 (2.92) | 45 |
| V1 ADL, Median [25%; 75%] | 6 [4; 7] | 45 |
| V1 QMG, Mean (standard deviation) | 14.4 (3.63) | 45 |
| V1 QMG, Median [25%; 75%] | 14 [11; 16] | 45 |
| V1 MG-Composite, Mean (standard deviation) | 9.6 (5.44) | 45 |
| V1 MG-Composite, Median [25%; 75%] | 8 [6; 11] | 45 |
| V1 Neuro-QoL fatigue, Mean (standard deviation) | 44.44 (19.31) | 43 |
| V1 Neuro-QoL fatigue, Median [25%; 75%] | 39 [28.5; 59] | 43 |
Modified from Diez-Porras et al. 2020 [2]. Abbreviations: MGFA, Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America; CT, computed tomography; QMG, Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis Scoring System; ADL, Myasthenia Gravis-Activities of Daily Living Profile; MG-Composite, Myasthenia Gravis-Composite Scale.
Comparison of the mean MG-QOL15 score at the different visits, using a post hoc test based on the last model.
| Visit 1 | 4 Weeks | 6 Weeks | 4 Weeks–Visit 1 | 6 Weeks–Visit 1 | 6 Weeks–4 Weeks | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | CI | Mean | CI | Mean | CI | Dif | CI | Pval | Dif | CI | Pval | Dif | CI | Pval | |
| MG-QOL15 | 25.93 | [22.32, 29.54] | 14.91 | [11.3, 18.52] | 10.53 | [6.93, 14.14] | −11.02 | [−15.05, −7] | <0.0001 | −15.4 | [−19.42, −11.37] | <0.0001 | −4.37 | [−8.4, −0.34] | 0.0301 |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; Dif, difference; pval, p value.
Figure 1Graphical evolution of HRQL over the course of the study with boxplots.
Figure 2Histogram and density of the HRQOL distribution in our sample at visit 1 and at 6 weeks.
Figure 3Correlations between the different clinical scales and the MG-QOL15 at visits 1, 5 (4 weeks), and 7 (6 weeks).
Figure 4Representation of HRQOL according to the MGFA classification (worst MG status) and according to the presence of anti-striated muscle antibodies.