Clinical trials for myasthenia gravis: a historical perspective

Corticosteroid Treatment-Resistance in Myasthenia Gravis

Chronic, high-dose, oral prednisone has been the mainstay of myasthenia gravis treatment for decades and has proven to be highly beneficial in many, toxic in some way to all, and not effective in a significant minority. No patient characteristics or biomarkers are predictive of treatment response leading to many patients suffering adverse effects with no benefit. Presently, measurements of treatment response, whether taken from clinician or patient perspective, are appreciated to be limited by lack of good correlation, which then complicates correlation to biological measures. Treatment response may be limited because disease mechanisms are not influenced by corticosteroids, limits on dosage because of adverse effects, or individual differences in corticosteroids. This review evaluates potential mechanisms that underlie lack of response to glucocorticoids in patients with myasthenia gravis.

History of Myasthenia Gravis Revisited

The first description of myasthenia gravis (MG) was given by Thomas Willis in 1672. MG was the focus of attention after mid-nineteenth century and a great amount of information has been accumulated in a span of 150 years. The aim of this review is to convey this information according to a particular systematic and to briefly relate the experience of Istanbul University. MG history was examined in four periods: 1868-1930, 1930-1960, 1960-1990, and 1990-2020. In the first period (1868-1930), all the clinical characteristics of MG were defined. Physiological/pharmacological studies on the transmission at the neuromuscular junction were initiated, and the concept of repetitive nerve stimulation emerged. A toxic agent was believed to be the cause of MG which appeared to resemble curare intoxication. Association of MG with thymus was noticed. No noteworthy progress was made in its treatment. In the second period (1930-1960), acetylcholine was discovered to be the transmitter at the neuromuscular junction. Repetitive nerve stimulation was used as a diagnostic test. The autoimmune nature of MG was suspected and experiments to this end started to give results. The hallmark of this period was the use of anticholinesterases and thymectomy in the treatment of MG. The third period (1960-1990) can probably be considered a revolutionary era for MG. Important immunological mechanisms (acetylcholine receptor isolation, discovery of anti-acetylcholine receptor antibodies) were clarified and the autoimmune nature of MG was demonstrated. Treatment modalities which completely changed the prognosis of MG, including positive pressure mechanic ventilation and corticosteroids as well as plasma exchange/IVIg and azathioprine, were put to use. In the fourth period (1990-2020), more immunological progress, including the discovery of anti-MuSK antibodies, was achieved. Videothoracoscopic thymectomy reduced the morbidity and mortality rate associated with surgery. New drugs emerged and clinical trials were performed. Valuable guidelines were published. In the last part of the review, the experience in MG of Istanbul University, a pioneer in Turkey, is related.

Monoclonal Antibody-Based Therapies for Myasthenia Gravis

Myasthenia gravis (MG) is an autoimmune, neuromuscular disorder that produces disabling weakness through a compromise of neuromuscular transmission. The disease fulfills strict criteria of an antibody-mediated disease. Close to 90% of patients have antibodies directed towards the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (AChR) on the post-synaptic surface of skeletal muscle and another 5% to the muscle-specific kinase, which is involved in concentrating the AChR to the muscle surface of the neuromuscular junction. Conventional treatments of intravenous immunoglobulin and plasma exchange reduce autoantibody levels to produce their therapeutic effect, while prednisone and immunosuppressives do so by moderating autoantibody production. None of these treatments were specifically developed for MG and have a range of adverse effects. The extensive advances in monoclonal antibody technology allowing specific modulation of biological pathways has led to a tremendous increase in the potential treatment options. For MG, monoclonal antibody therapeutics target the effector mechanism of complement inhibition and the reduction of antibody levels by FcRn inhibition. Antibodies directed against CD20 and signaling pathways, which support lymphocyte activity, have been used to reduce autoantibody production. Thus far, only eculizumab, an antibody against C5, has reached the clinic. We review the present status of monoclonal antibody-based treatments for MG that have entered human testing and offer the promise to transform treatment of MG.

Advances in autoimmune myasthenia gravis management

INTRODUCTION

Myasthenia gravis (MG) is an autoimmune neuromuscular disorder with no cure and conventional treatments limited by significant adverse effects and variable benefit. In the last decade, therapeutic development has expanded based on improved understanding of autoimmunity and financial incentives for drug development in rare disease. Clinical subtypes exist based on age, gender, thymic pathology, autoantibody profile, and other poorly defined factors, such as genetics, complicate development of specific therapies. Areas covered: Clinical presentation and pathology vary considerably among patients with some having weakness limited to the ocular muscles and others having profound generalized weakness leading to respiratory insufficiency. MG is an antibody-mediated disorder dependent on autoreactive B cells which require T-cell support. Treatments focus on elimination of circulating autoantibodies or inhibition of effector mechanisms by a broad spectrum of approaches from plasmapheresis to B-cell elimination to complement inhibition. Expert commentary: Standard therapies and those under development are disease modifying and not curative. As a rare disease, clinical trials are challenged in patient recruitment. The great interest in development of treatments specific for MG is welcome, but decisions will need to be made to focus on those that offer significant benefits to patients.