4.2 Article

Immunoadsorption apheresis versus intravenous immunoglobulin therapy for exacerbation of myasthenia gravis

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 95, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/sji.13122

Keywords

anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody; immunoadsorption; intravenous immunoglobulin; myasthenia gravis

Categories

Funding

  1. Health and Labour Sciences Research Grant on Intractable Diseases (Neuroimmunological Diseases) from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan [20FC1030]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A retrospective study comparing IA and IVIg treatment in 19 AChR antibody-positive generalized MG patients showed that IA was safer and more effective in improving MG-ADL scores compared to IVIg. More large prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Immunoadsorption apheresis (IA) or intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) is used to treat exacerbation of myasthenia gravis (MG). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety between IA and IVIg for MG patients with anti-acetylcholine receptor (AChR) antibodies. We retrospectively studied 19 AChR antibody-positive generalized MG patients who underwent IA (n = 9) or IVIg treatment (n = 10). We reviewed the MG activities of daily living profile (MG-ADL) scores at baseline, 1 and 3 months after the treatment. Adverse events during the treatment period were also reviewed. The MG-ADL scores showed significantly greater improvement from the baseline in the IA group than in the IVIg group (1 month: -7 vs -3, P = .035; 3 months -9 vs -2.5, P = .016). An adverse event that led to the discontinuation of the treatment was observed in only one patient in the IVIg group (anaphylactic reaction). Our data suggest that the IA treatment is safe and more efficacious than the IVIg treatment for aggravation of anti-AChR-positive MG. Larger prospective studies are required to confirm the finding.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available