Evidence Hub

Survival, Prognosis, and Clinical Feature of Refractory Myasthenia Gravis: a 15-year Nationwide Cohort Study

Sohyun Jeong, Yunha Noh, I. Oh, Yoon-Ho Hong, Ju-Young Shin

Journal of Korean medical science, 2021

4,251 participants · 11 citations

Abstract

Background Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a rare classic autoimmune disease where immunosuppressant therapies have been successful to reduce MG attributable mortality fairly well. However, patients with refractory MG (rMG) among the actively treated MG (aMG) are nonresponsive to conventional therapy and display high disease severity, which calls for further research. We aimed to determine survival, prognosis, and clinical feature of patients with rMG compared to non-rMG. Methods Retrospective nationwide cohort study using Korea's healthcare database between 2002 and 2017 was conducted. Patients with rMG (n = 47) and non-rMG (n = 4,251) who were aged > 18 years, followed-up for ≥ 1 year, and prescribed immunosuppressants within 2 years after incident MG diagnosis were included. Patients with rMG were defined as administered plasma exchange or intravenous immunoglobulin at least 3 times per year after receiving ≥ 2 immunosuppressants. All-cause mortality, myasthenic crisis, hospitalization, pneumonia/sepsis, and emergency department (ED) visits were measured using Cox proportional hazard models and pharmacotherapy patterns for rMG were assessed. Results The rMG cohort included a preponderance of younger patients and women. The adjusted hazard ratio was 2.49 (95% confidence interval, 1.26–4.94) for mortality, 3.14 (2.25–4.38) for myasthenic crisis, 1.54 (1.15–2.06) for hospitalization, 2.69 (1.74–4.15) for pneumonia/sepsis, and 1.81 (1.28–2.56) for ED visits for rMG versus non-rMG.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 4,251 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free