Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Dec 23:11:596382.
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2020.596382. eCollection 2020.

Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials of Patients With Myasthenia Gravis

Affiliations
Review

Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials of Patients With Myasthenia Gravis

Jan Lykke Scheel Thomsen et al. Front Neurol. .

Abstract

Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a heterogeneous disorder whose clinical presentation ranges from mild ocular deficits to severe widespread weakness. This variance poses a challenge when quantifying clinical deficits. Deficits and symptoms are quantified using standardized clinical scales and questionnaires which are often used as outcome measures. The past decades have seen the development of several validated outcome measures in MG, which are used in clinical trials to obtain regulatory approval. In recent years, emphasis has moved from objective assessments to patient-reported outcomes. Despite a growing body of literature on the validity of the MG-specific outcome measures, several unresolved factors remain. As several novel therapeutics are currently in clinical development, knowledge about capabilities and limitations of outcome measures is needed. In the present paper, we describe the most widely used clinical classifications and scales in MG. We highlight the choice of outcome measures in published and ongoing trials, and we denote whether trial efficacy was reached on these outcomes. We discuss advantages and limitations of the individual scales, and discuss some of the unresolved factors relating to outcome assessments in MG.

Keywords: classification; clinical trials; myasthenia gravis; outcome measure; rating scale; review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

JT has received speaker honorarium from Alexion. HA has received research support from Sanofi Genzyme and CSL Behring, and received travel support and speaker honoraria from Novo, Alexion, Sanofi Genzyme, Octapharma, and CSL Behring and served as consultant on advisory board for NMD Pharma.

References

    1. Gilhus NE, Tzartos S, Evoli A, Palace J, Burns TM, Verschuuren JJGM. Myasthenia gravis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. (2019) 5:30 10.1038/s41572-019-0079-y - DOI - PubMed
    1. Benatar M, Sanders DB, Burns TM, Cutter GR, Guptill JT, Baggi F, et al. . Recommendations for myasthenia gravis clinical trials. Muscle Nerve. (2012) 45:909–917. 10.1002/mus.23330 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Osserman KE, Kornfeld P, Cohen E, Genkins G, Mendelow H, Goldberg H, et al. . Studies in myasthenia gravis: review of two hundred eighty-two cases at The Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City. AMA Arch Int Med. (1958) 102:72–81. 10.1001/archinte.1958.00260190074008 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Oosterhuis HJGH. Studies in myasthenia gravis. Part 1. A clinical study of 180 patients. J Neurol Sci. (1964) 1:512–46. 10.1016/0022-510X(64)90171-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pascuzzi RM, Coslett HB, Johns TR. Long-term corticosteriod treatment of myasthenia gravis: report of 116 patients. Ann Neurol. (1984) 15:291–8. 10.1002/ana.410150316 - DOI - PubMed