Background

This project is an effort to understand how orders for IV immunoglobulin (IVIg) are documented and prescribed by physicians, and subsequently, how they are reviewed by insurance companies for the treatment of immune neuropathies.

Methods

A panel of neuromuscular specialists reviewed case records from 248 IVIg-naive patients whose in-home IVIg infusion treatment was submitted to insurance for authorization. After reviewing a case record, 1 panelist was asked to make a diagnosis and to answer several questions about the treatment. A second panelist reviewed the original record and follow-up records that were obtained for reauthorization of additional treatments and was asked to determine whether the patient had responded to the treatment.

Results

Our specialists believed that only 32.2% of 248 patients had an immune neuropathy and were appropriate candidates for IVIg therapy, whereas 46.4% had neuropathies that were not immune mediated. Only 15.3% of cases met electrodiagnostic criteria for a demyelinating neuropathy. Our specialists believed that 36.7% of 128 cases with follow-up records had responded to therapy. In cases in which the initial reviewer had predicted that there would be a response to IVIg, the second reviewer found that 54% had responded. This is compared with a 27% response rate when the first reviewer predicted that there would be no response (p = 0.019).

Conclusions

Our expert review finds that the diagnosis of immune neuropathies made by providers, and subsequently approved for IVIg therapy by payers, is incorrect in a large percentage of cases. If payers include an expert in their review process, it would improve patient selection, appropriate use, and continuation of treatment with this expensive therapeutic agent.

Objective

To update the 2016 formal consensus-based guidance for the management of myasthenia gravis (MG) based on the latest evidence in the literature.

Methods

In October 2013, the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America appointed a Task Force to develop treatment guidance for MG, and a panel of 15 international experts was convened. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used to develop consensus recommendations pertaining to 7 treatment topics. In February 2019, the international panel was reconvened with the addition of one member to represent South America. All previous recommendations were reviewed for currency, and new consensus recommendations were developed on topics that required inclusion or updates based on the recent literature. Up to 3 rounds of anonymous e-mail votes were used to reach consensus, with modifications to recommendations between rounds based on the panel input. A simple majority vote (80% of panel members voting "yes") was used to approve minor changes in grammar and syntax to improve clarity.

Results

The previous recommendations for thymectomy were updated. New recommendations were developed for the use of rituximab, eculizumab, and methotrexate as well as for the following topics: early immunosuppression in ocular MG and MG associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

Conclusion

This updated formal consensus guidance of international MG experts, based on new evidence, provides recommendations to clinicians caring for patients with MG worldwide.

Objective

To develop formal consensus-based guidance for the management of myasthenia gravis (MG).

Methods

In October 2013, the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America appointed a Task Force to develop treatment guidance for MG, and a panel of 15 international experts was convened. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology was used to develop consensus guidance statements. Definitions were developed for goals of treatment, minimal manifestations, remission, ocular MG, impending crisis, crisis, and refractory MG. An in-person panel meeting then determined 7 treatment topics to be addressed. Initial guidance statements were developed from literature summaries. Three rounds of anonymous e-mail votes were used to attain consensus on guidance statements modified on the basis of panel input.

Results

Guidance statements were developed for symptomatic and immunosuppressive treatments, IV immunoglobulin and plasma exchange, management of impending and manifest myasthenic crisis, thymectomy, juvenile MG, MG associated with antibodies to muscle-specific tyrosine kinase, and MG in pregnancy.

Conclusion

This is an international formal consensus of MG experts intended to be a guide for clinicians caring for patients with MG worldwide.

Objective

To determine whether rituximab is safe and potentially beneficial, warranting further investigation in an efficacy trial for acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive generalized MG (AChR-Ab+ gMG).

Methods

The B-Cell Targeted Treatment in MG (BeatMG) study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase-2 trial that utilized a futility design. Individuals 21-90 years of age, with AChR-Ab+ gMG (MG Foundation of America Class II-IV) and receiving prednisone ≥15 mg/day were eligible. The primary outcome was a measure of steroid-sparing effect, defined as the proportion achieving ≥75% reduction in mean daily prednisone dose in the 4-weeks prior to week 52 and with clinical improvement or no significant worsening as compared to the 4-week period prior to randomization. The co-primary outcome was safety. Secondary outcomes included MG-specific clinical assessments. Fifty-two individuals were randomized (1:1) to either a two-cycle rituximab/placebo regimen, with follow-up through 52-weeks.

Results

Of the 52 participants included, mean (±SD) age at enrollment was 55.1 (±17.1) years; 23 (44.2%) were female, and 31 (59.6%) were MGFA Class II. The mean (±SD) baseline prednisone dose was 22.1 (±9.7) mg/day. The primary steroid-sparing outcome was achieved in 60% of those on rituximab vs. 56% on placebo. The study reached its futility endpoint (p=0.03) suggesting that the pre-defined clinically meaningful improvement of 30% due to rituximab over placebo was unlikely to be achieved in a subsequent, larger trial. No safety issues identified.

Conclusions

While rituximab was safe and well-tolerated, these results suggest that there is a low probability of observing the defined clinically meaningful steroid-sparing effect over a 12-month period in a phase-3 trial of mild-moderately symptomatic AChR-Ab+ gMG.

Classification of evidence

This study provides Class I evidence that for mild-to-moderate AChR-Ab+ gMG, compared with placebo, rituximab is safe but unlikely to reduce steroid use by an absolute difference of at least 30% at 1 year.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02110706.

Objectives

To approximate the rate of familial myasthenia gravis and the coexistence of other autoimmune disorders in the patients and their families.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Clinics across North America.

Participants

The study included 1032 patients diagnosed with acetylcholine receptor antibody (AChR)-positive myasthenia gravis.

Methods

Phenotype information of 1032 patients diagnosed with AChR-positive myasthenia gravis was obtained from clinics at 14 centres across North America between January 2010 and January 2011. A critical review of the epidemiological literature on the familial rate of myasthenia gravis was also performed.

Results

Among 1032 patients, 58 (5.6%) reported a family history of myasthenia gravis. A history of autoimmune diseases was present in 26.6% of patients and in 28.4% of their family members.

Discussion

The familial rate of myasthenia gravis was higher than would be expected for a sporadic disease. Furthermore, a high proportion of patients had a personal or family history of autoimmune disease. Taken together, these findings suggest a genetic contribution to the pathogenesis of myasthenia gravis.

Objective

To examine whether sustained minimal manifestation status (MMS) with complete withdrawal of prednisone is better achieved in thymectomized patients with myasthenia gravis (MG).

Methods

This study is a post hoc analysis of data from a randomized trial of thymectomy in MG (Thymectomy Trial in Non-Thymomatous Myasthenia Gravis Patients Receiving Prednisone Therapy [MGTX]). MGTX was a multicenter, randomized, rater-blinded 3-year trial that was followed by a voluntary 2-year extension for patients with acetylcholine receptor (AChR) antibody-positive MG without thymoma. Patients were randomized 1:1 to thymectomy plus prednisone vs prednisone alone. Participants were age 18-65 years at enrollment with disease duration less than 5 years. All patients received oral prednisone titrated up to 100 mg on alternate days until they achieved MMS, which prompted a standardized prednisone taper as long as MMS was maintained. The achievement rate of sustained MMS (no symptoms of MG for 6 months) with complete withdrawal of prednisone was compared between the thymectomy plus prednisone and prednisone alone groups.

Results

Patients with MG in the thymectomy plus prednisone group achieved sustained MMS with complete withdrawal of prednisone more frequently (64% vs 38%) and quickly compared to the prednisone alone group (median time 30 months vs no median time achieved, p < 0.001) over the 5-year study period. Prednisone-associated adverse symptoms were more frequent in the prednisone alone group and distress level increased with higher doses of prednisone.

Conclusions

Thymectomy benefits patients with MG by increasing the likelihood of achieving sustained MMS with complete withdrawal of prednisone.

Clinicaltrialsgov identifier

NCT00294658.

Classification of evidence

This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with generalized MG with AChR antibody, those receiving thymectomy plus prednisone are more likely to attain sustained MMS and complete prednisone withdrawal than those on prednisone alone.

Background

Thymectomy has been a mainstay in the treatment of myasthenia gravis, but there is no conclusive evidence of its benefit. We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing thymectomy plus prednisone with prednisone alone.

Methods

We compared extended transsternal thymectomy plus alternate-day prednisone with alternate-day prednisone alone. Patients 18 to 65 years of age who had generalized nonthymomatous myasthenia gravis with a disease duration of less than 5 years were included if they had Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America clinical class II to IV disease (on a scale from I to V, with higher classes indicating more severe disease) and elevated circulating concentrations of acetylcholine-receptor antibody. The primary outcomes were the time-weighted average Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis score (on a scale from 0 to 39, with higher scores indicating more severe disease) over a 3-year period, as assessed by means of blinded rating, and the time-weighted average required dose of prednisone over a 3-year period.

Results

A total of 126 patients underwent randomization between 2006 and 2012 at 36 sites. Patients who underwent thymectomy had a lower time-weighted average Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis score over a 3-year period than those who received prednisone alone (6.15 vs. 8.99, P<0.001); patients in the thymectomy group also had a lower average requirement for alternate-day prednisone (44 mg vs. 60 mg, P<0.001). Fewer patients in the thymectomy group than in the prednisone-only group required immunosuppression with azathioprine (17% vs. 48%, P<0.001) or were hospitalized for exacerbations (9% vs. 37%, P<0.001). The number of patients with treatment-associated complications did not differ significantly between groups (P=0.73), but patients in the thymectomy group had fewer treatment-associated symptoms related to immunosuppressive medications (P<0.001) and lower distress levels related to symptoms (P=0.003).

Conclusions

Thymectomy improved clinical outcomes over a 3-year period in patients with nonthymomatous myasthenia gravis. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and others; MGTX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00294658.).

Importance

Myasthenia gravis is a chronic, autoimmune, neuromuscular disease characterized by fluctuating weakness of voluntary muscle groups. Although genetic factors are known to play a role in this neuroimmunological condition, the genetic etiology underlying myasthenia gravis is not well understood.

Objective

To identify genetic variants that alter susceptibility to myasthenia gravis, we performed a genome-wide association study.

Design, setting, and participants

DNA was obtained from 1032 white individuals from North America diagnosed as having acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive myasthenia gravis and 1998 race/ethnicity-matched control individuals from January 2010 to January 2011. These samples were genotyped on Illumina OmniExpress single-nucleotide polymorphism arrays. An independent cohort of 423 Italian cases and 467 Italian control individuals were used for replication.

Main outcomes and measures

We calculated P values for association between 8,114,394 genotyped and imputed variants across the genome and risk for developing myasthenia gravis using logistic regression modeling. A threshold P value of 5.0×10(-8) was set for genome-wide significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple testing.

Results

In the overall case-control cohort, we identified association signals at CTLA4 (rs231770; P=3.98×10(-8); odds ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.25-1.49), HLA-DQA1 (rs9271871; P=1.08×10(-8); odds ratio, 2.31; 95% CI, 2.02-2.60), and TNFRSF11A (rs4263037; P=1.60×10(-9); odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.29-1.53). These findings replicated for CTLA4 and HLA-DQA1 in an independent cohort of Italian cases and control individuals. Further analysis revealed distinct, but overlapping, disease-associated loci for early- and late-onset forms of myasthenia gravis. In the late-onset cases, we identified 2 association peaks: one was located in TNFRSF11A (rs4263037; P=1.32×10(-12); odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.44-1.68) and the other was detected in the major histocompatibility complex on chromosome 6p21 (HLA-DQA1; rs9271871; P=7.02×10(-18); odds ratio, 4.27; 95% CI, 3.92-4.62). Association within the major histocompatibility complex region was also observed in early-onset cases (HLA-DQA1; rs601006; P=2.52×10(-11); odds ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 3.57-4.43), although the set of single-nucleotide polymorphisms was different from that implicated among late-onset cases.

Conclusions and relevance

Our genetic data provide insights into aberrant cellular mechanisms responsible for this prototypical autoimmune disorder. They also suggest that clinical trials of immunomodulatory drugs related to CTLA4 and that are already Food and Drug Administration approved as therapies for other autoimmune diseases could be considered for patients with refractory disease.

IMPORTANCE: One major advantage of developing large, federally funded networks for clinical research in neurology is the ability to have a trial-ready network that can efficiently conduct scientifically rigorous projects to improve the health of people with neurologic disorders. OBSERVATIONS: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Network for Excellence in Neuroscience Clinical Trials (NeuroNEXT) was established in 2011 and renewed in 2018 with the goal of being an efficient network to test between 5 and 7 promising new agents in phase II clinical trials. A clinical coordinating center, data coordinating center, and 25 sites were competitively chosen. Common infrastructure was developed to accelerate timelines for clinical trials, including central institutional review board (a first for the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke), master clinical trial agreements, the use of common data elements, and experienced research sites and coordination centers. During the first 7 years, the network exceeded the goal of conducting 5 to 7 studies, with 9 funded. High interest was evident by receipt of 148 initial applications for potential studies in various neurologic disorders. Across the first 8 studies (the ninth study was funded at end of initial funding period), the central institutional review board approved the initial protocol in a mean (SD) of 59 (21) days, and additional sites were added a mean (SD) of 22 (18) days after submission. The median time from central institutional review board approval to first site activation was 47.5 days (mean, 102.1; range, 1-282) and from first site activation to first participant consent was 27 days (mean, 37.5; range, 0-96). The median time for database readiness was 3.5 months (mean, 4.0; range, 0-8) from funding receipt. In the 4 completed studies, enrollment met or exceeded expectations with 96% overall data accuracy across all sites. Nine peer-reviewed manuscripts were published, and 22 oral presentations or posters and 9 invited presentations were given at regional, national, and international meetings. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: NeuroNEXT initiated 8 studies, successfully enrolled participants at or ahead of schedule, collected high-quality data, published primary results in high-impact journals, and provided mentorship, expert statistical, and trial management support to several new investigators. Partnerships were successfully created between government, academia, industry, foundations, and patient advocacy groups. Clinical trial consortia can efficiently and successfully address a range of important neurologic research and therapeutic questions.

Importance

One major advantage of developing large, federally funded networks for clinical research in neurology is the ability to have a trial-ready network that can efficiently conduct scientifically rigorous projects to improve the health of people with neurologic disorders.

Observations

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Network for Excellence in Neuroscience Clinical Trials (NeuroNEXT) was established in 2011 and renewed in 2018 with the goal of being an efficient network to test between 5 and 7 promising new agents in phase II clinical trials. A clinical coordinating center, data coordinating center, and 25 sites were competitively chosen. Common infrastructure was developed to accelerate timelines for clinical trials, including central institutional review board (a first for the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke), master clinical trial agreements, the use of common data elements, and experienced research sites and coordination centers. During the first 7 years, the network exceeded the goal of conducting 5 to 7 studies, with 9 funded. High interest was evident by receipt of 148 initial applications for potential studies in various neurologic disorders. Across the first 8 studies (the ninth study was funded at end of initial funding period), the central institutional review board approved the initial protocol in a mean (SD) of 59 (21) days, and additional sites were added a mean (SD) of 22 (18) days after submission. The median time from central institutional review board approval to first site activation was 47.5 days (mean, 102.1; range, 1-282) and from first site activation to first participant consent was 27 days (mean, 37.5; range, 0-96). The median time for database readiness was 3.5 months (mean, 4.0; range, 0-8) from funding receipt. In the 4 completed studies, enrollment met or exceeded expectations with 96% overall data accuracy across all sites. Nine peer-reviewed manuscripts were published, and 22 oral presentations or posters and 9 invited presentations were given at regional, national, and international meetings.

Conclusions and relevance

NeuroNEXT initiated 8 studies, successfully enrolled participants at or ahead of schedule, collected high-quality data, published primary results in high-impact journals, and provided mentorship, expert statistical, and trial management support to several new investigators. Partnerships were successfully created between government, academia, industry, foundations, and patient advocacy groups. Clinical trial consortia can efficiently and successfully address a range of important neurologic research and therapeutic questions.