Skip to main content
NCBI home page
CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics logoLink to CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics
. 2019 Feb 26;25(5):647–658. doi: 10.1111/cns.13110

Immunosuppressive and monoclonal antibody treatment for myasthenia gravis: A network meta‐analysis

Liang Wang 1, Xiao Huan 1, Jian‐Ying Xi 1, Hui Wu 2, Lei Zhou 1, Jia‐Hong Lu 1, Tian‐Song Zhang 3,✉, Chong‐Bo Zhao 1,2,✉
PMCID: PMC6488910  PMID: 30809966

Summary

Background

We intended to compare and rank all the immunotherapies including immunosuppressant agents or monoclonal antibodies for myasthenia gravis (MG).

Methods

A network meta‐analysis was performed to synthesize the direct evidence and indirect evidence. Quantitative MG score (QMGS) was defined as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included the glucocorticoid reduction and hazard ratios (HR) from the counts of adverse events (AEs).

Results

We identified 14 studies including 808 MG patients. For the primary outcome, cyclosporine A (CsA) was hierarchically the best with statistical significances of −1.18 (−1.81, −0.59) vs placebo (PLA), −0.98 (−1.72, −0.23) vs mycophenolate mofetil, and −0.77 (−1.57, −0.032) vs tacrolimus (TAC). When the intervention periods were controlled, both eculizumab (ECZ) of −1.50 (−2.81, −0.18) and CsA of −1.23 (−1.81, −0.64) vs PLA reached a statistical significance. Belimumab and ECZ ranked the most tolerable therapies while CsA of 2.41 (0.58, 10.01) ranked the last vs PLA.

Conclusion

These findings demonstrated that ECZ represented the most effective and tolerable therapeutic alternative to be recommended for refractory MG. TAC may be a beneficial therapy to treat MG extensively while the efficacy of CsA and cyclophosphamide may be limited by their multiple or severe AEs.

Keywords: immunosuppressive agents, immunotherapy, monoclonal antibody, myasthenia gravis

1. INTRODUCTION

Myasthenia gravis (MG) is the most common disorder of neuromuscular transmission resulting from antibodies to acetylcholine receptor (AChR), muscle‐specific kinase (MuSK), lipoprotein‐related protein 4, or other components in the postsynaptic membrane at the neuromuscular junction (NMJ).1, 2 This usually leads to characteristically fluctuating muscle weakness. The incidence of MG ranges from 1.7 to 21.3 million person‐years, and prevalence ranges from 15 to 179 per million persons.3

Standard therapy usually includes symptomatic therapy with cholinesterase inhibitors, immunosuppressive agents with glucocorticoids (GC), azathioprine (AZA), ciclosporin A (CsA), cyclophosphamide (CTX), methotrexate (MTX), tacrolimus (TAC), or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF).4 Despite lacking advanced evidence of evidence‐based interventions, GC and AZA remain the first‐line therapies. Thymectomy for MG may be an elective procedure while plasmapheresis (PP), immunoadsorption, and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) produce rapid improvement in weakness. Recently, monoclonal antibodies are emerging therapeutic alternatives for MG. Monoclonal antibodies to CD20 (MabTheraTM), C5b9 (SolirisTM) are beneficial drug to treat severe generalized MG.5, 6 So far, traditional meta‐analysis has evaluated the efficacy and safety of the above single or double intervention.7, 8, 9 However, none of them had included adequate assessment of comparative effectiveness of immunotherapies. Therefore, we performed a network meta‐analysis (NMA) of all relevant immunotherapies to comprehensively compare and rank strategies for MG treatment.

2. METHODS

2.1. Search strategy and selection criteria

Two reviewers (Liang Wang and Xiao Huan) independently searched Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases. A search algorithm including a combination of relevant terms was employed for each database (Appendices 1, 2, 3, 4). The records were limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including crossover trials published up to August 31, 2018, in English. We included all the relevant immunosuppressive agents and monoclonal antibodies. The treatment strategies of high‐dose methylprednisolone (HDMP), IVIg, PP, thymectomy, tirasemtiv, and terbutaline2 were excluded for their short‐term interventions. Two investigators (Liang Wang and Xiao Huan) read the studies integrally to evaluate the appropriate inclusion in the NMA. Any discrepancies were resolved by arbitration of a third investigator (Jian‐Ying Xi) to reach a consensus. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for NMA was followed, and its chart of search strategy was shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

PRISMA chart of selection procedure and reasons for withdrawal from the network meta‐analysis. CENTRAL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials

2.2. Data extraction and outcome measures

Information regarding study design, participant information, intervention or comparison method, and outcome measures was extracted when available. The extracted participant information included sample size, follow‐up months, age at onset, disease duration, number of thymectomy, number of thymoma, and number of anti‐AChR antibody serostatus.

Data were extracted by two reviewers (Liang Wang and Xiao Huan) with a standardized data extraction form and were inspected by another reviewer (Jian‐Ying Xi). We examined the published data provided in the original studies and contacted the corresponding authors for additional unpublished data. Any contradictory data were discussed and reached a consensus finally. For studies lacking change in standardization (SD), a method of single imputation with correlation coefficient was utilized.10

In this NMA, MG Foundation of America (MGFA) quantitative MG score (QMGS)11 was defined as the primary outcome. The secondary outcome included the steroid‐sparing effect measured by GC reduction. Another key secondary endpoint was the safety measured by drug‐related adverse events (AEs) in the follow‐up months. The MG activities of daily living (MG‐ADL),12 serum anti‐AChR antibody titer, and improvement rate were not included for the limited number of eligible studies.

2.3. Quality assessment‐risk of bias

The included studies were graded using the Oxford hierarchy of evidence 2011.13 The Cochrane risk of bias tool was employed to assess their risk of bias.14 Two reviewers (Liang Wang and Xiao Huan) evaluated the quality of studies and risk of bias independently. The criteria for evaluating the methodological quality included random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants, blinding of observers, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other bias. Comparison‐adjusted funnel plot was utilized to test the small‐study effect including publication bias.

2.4. Statistical analysis

Network meta‐analysis was performed with Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo model.15 We estimated relative treatment efficacy of the competing interventions by employing standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Besides, traditional pairwise meta‐analysis of random effects was conducted using “metan” command in each intervention, respectively. Random effects Poisson model was used to evaluate hazard ratios (HR) for count variables with 95% CI. We applied burn‐in phase of 40 000 iterations after 20 000 annealing algorithm to evaluate convergence. And surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was employed to acquire the efficacy hierarchy of competing interventions. Finally, we performed network meta‐regression with controlled intervention periods to figure out the genuine efficacy.

To check for the existence of inconsistency, the method of node‐splitting model by Dias16 was applied. The assumption of consistency was further verified by the design‐by‐treatment interaction model of Higgins.17 WinBUGS 1.4.3 (MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK), Stata 13.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA), and Revman 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) were utilized to perform this NMA.

3. RESULTS

3.1. Study characteristics

There were 1581 studies identified through database searching and other sources. Studies of two or more treatment arms with sufficient data were included in the quantitative synthesis. Considering the placebo effects, data from three trials without controlled placebo18, 19, 20 were excluded in the quantitative analysis. The data from the two studies by Sanders21, 22 were not pooled for different participant cohorts, neither were the data from the four studies by Howard23, 24 or Tindall25, 26 for different time points. Finally, 14 studies21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 were included in the NMA of our study.

In total, 808 MG patients from the combined datasets were included. The clinical and demographic characteristics were listed in Table 1. Different regimens and intervention periods were also summarized across the trials. The median sample size was 39 patients (range: 14‐176). Thymectomy was performed in 245 of 769 (31.9%) reported participants while thymoma was found in 48 of 390 (11.8%) reported participants. The anti‐AChR antibody serostatus was displayed in 725 patients, with 684 (94.3%) seropositive samples. CTX, MTX, eculizumab (ECZ), and belimumab (BLM) with corresponding placebo were administered intravenously while the other agents were taken orally. The median follow‐up time was 7.5 months (range: 3‐36 months).

Table 1.

Randomized controlled trials and patient characteristics

Reference Year Interventions Sample size (I/C) Patients’ muscle involvement Intervention periods (mo) Age (I/C, y) Time since onset (I/C, y) Thymectomy (I/C) Thymoma (I/C) AChR+ (I/C) Regimen Outcome measures
TAC
Zhou28 2017 TAC vs PLA 45/38 GMG 6 41.0/44.0 2.3/5.3 14 13 NA 3 mg/d po 1,2,3
Yoshikawa29 2011 TAC vs PLA 40/40 OMG: I/C = 14/11 7 45.9/44.4 7.4/7.9 28/30 12/18 28/29 3 mg/d po 1,2,3
GMG: I/C = 26/29
MMF
Sanders21 2008a MMF vs PLA 41/39 GMG 3 57.1/55.3 2.0/2.0 0/0 0/0 41/38 2.5 g/d po 1,2,3
Sanders22 2008b MMF vs PLA 88/88 GMG 9 49.0/49.7 2.8/3.3 23/25 NA 88/88 2 g/d po 1,3
Meriggioli27 2003 MMF vs PLA 7/7 GMG 5 57.7/51.3 9.0/9.9 3/5 0/0 5/6 2 g/d po 1,3
CsA
Tindall25 1993 CsA vs PLA 20/19 GMG 6 56.1/43.7 NA NA NA 20/19 5 mg/kg/d po 1,2
Tindall26 1987 CsA vs PLA 10/10 GMG 12 64.0/66.2 NA 0/0 NA 10/10 6 mg/kg/d po 1,3
CTX
De Feo33 2002 CTX vs PLA 12/11 GMG 12 44.2/39.9 NA 8/8 NA 12/11 500 mg/m2/mo iv 2,3
MTX
Pasnoor31 2016 MTX vs PLA 25/25 GMG 12 66.5/68.6 NA 0/0 0/0 25/25 20 mg/wk iv 1,2,3
Heckmann32 2011 MTX vs AZA 16/15 GMG 24 47.9/42.7 7.5/10.3 2/1 3/2 10/9 17.5 mg/wk iv vs 1,2,3
2.5 mg/kg/d po
AZA
Palace30 1998 AZA vs PLA 15/19 GMG 36 58.5/55.7 2.3/2.3 6/5 0/2 15/19 2.5 mg/kg/d po 2,3
ECZ
Howard24 2017 ECZ vs PLA 62/63 GMG 6.5 38.0/38.1 9.9/9.2 37/31 NA 62/63 900 mg/wk‐1200 mg/2 wk iv 1,3
Howarda, 23 2013 ECZ vs PLA 14 GMG 8 48 7 6 0 14 600 mg/wk‐900 mg/2 wk iv 1,3
BLM
Hewett34 2018 BLM vs PLA 18/21 GMG 6 52.7/59.0 8.7/9.0 6/7 0/0 18/19 10 mg/kg/mo iv 1,3
Open in a new tab

Outcome measures: 1. The reduction of quantitative myasthenia gravis score; 2. The reduction of glucocorticoids; 3. Adverse events. Values are n or mean.

AChR, acetylcholine receptor; AZA, azathioprine; BLM, belimumab; C, control; CsA, cyclosporine A; CTX, cyclophosphamide; ECZ, eculizumab; GMG, generalized myasthenia gravis; I, intervention; iv, intravenous; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; MTX, methotrexate; NA, not available; OMG, ocular myasthenia gravis; PLA, placebo; Po, peros; TAC, tacrolimus.

a

Corssover randomized controlled trial.

3.2. Efficacy comparison on the QMGS

There were 12 studies involving eight interventions including immunosuppressive agents and monoclonal antibodies evaluating the reduction of QMGS. The network plot was shown in Figure 2A, and estimated SMDs of the relative efficacy are shown in Table 2 with median values and 95% CI. With traditional pairwise mean‐analysis, statistical significances were calculated in CsA of −1.19 (−1.75, −0.63) vs PLA, ECZ of −0.80 (−1.37, −0.23) vs PLA, and TAC of −0.41 (−0.72 to −0.096) vs PLA. According to SUCRA, CsA was hierarchically the best, with statistical significances of −1.18 (−1.81, −0.59) vs PLA, −0.98 (−1.72, −0.23) vs MMF, and −0.77 (−1.57, −0.032) vs TAC. ECZ was ranked second with statistical significances of −0.75 (−1.33, −0.30) vs PLA while TAC was ranked third of −0.41 (−0.88, 0.065; Figure 3A). BLM, MTX, AZA, and MMF were not demonstrated to be efficacious. Additionally, improved muscle strength with statistical significance (P < 0.025) was reported using CTX although QMGS was not conducted. For the loop was not formed in the primary outcome, there was no source of inconsistency. Comparison‐adjusted funnel plot was shown in Figure 4A and revealed possible small‐study effects for the QMGS. Network meta‐regression was further conducted. When the follow‐up months were controlled, ECZ of −1.50 (−2.81, −0.18) vs PLA and CsA of −1.23 (−1.81, −0.64) vs PLA reached a statistical significance in the QMGS.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

A, Network of treatment comparisons for the primary outcome of quantitative myasthenia gravis score. B, Network of treatment comparisons for the secondary outcome of glucocorticoid reduction. The size of nodes is in proportion to the number of trials that assessed the same intervention and the thickness of lines corresponds to the number of trials which have a direct comparison. AZA, azathioprine; BLM, belimumab; CsA, cyclosporine A; CTX, cyclophosphamide; ECZ, eculizumab; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; MTX, methotrexate; PLA, placebo; PLA, placebo; TAC, tacrolimus

Table 2.

Estimated differences in the efficacy of interventions on quantitative myasthenia gravis score

  Standardized mean difference using traditional pairwise meta‐analysis
Standard ized mean difference with network meta‐analysis Cyclosporine A — — — — — — −1.19 (−1.75, −0.63)
−0.42 (−1.19, 0.40) Eculizumab — — — — — −0.80 (−1.37, −0.23)
−0.77 (−1.57, −0.032) −0.34 (−1.11, 0.29) Tacrolimus — — — — −0.41 (−0.72, −0.096)
−0.78 (−1.85, 0.22) −0.37 (−1.36, 0.59) −0.014 (−0.95, 0.95) Belimumab — — — −0.40 (−1.08, 0.28)
−0.79 (−1.78, 0.14) −0.37 (−1.31, 0.47) −0.024 (−0.90, 0.85) −0.012 (−1.14, 1.09) Methotrexate — — −0.39 (−0.94, 0.18)
−0.86 (−2.18, 0.49) −0.45 (−1.73, 0.86) −0.090 (−1.34, 1.24) −0.084 (−1.52, 1.45) −0.058 (−0.98,0.92) Azathioprine 0.041 (−0.75, 0.83) —
−0.98 (−1.72, −0.23) −0.56 (−1.24, 0.062) −0.22 (−0.80, 0.45) −0.19 (−1.10, 0.74) −0.19 (−0.99, 0.67) −0.12 (−1.41, 1.13) Mycophenolate mofetil −0.17 (−0.41, 0.066)
−1.18 (−1.81, −0.59) −0.75 (−1.33, −0.30) −0.41 (−0.88, 0.065) −0.39 (−1.23, 0.43) −0.38 (−1.11, 0.36) −0.32 (−1.56, 0.83) −0.19 (−0.64, 0.17) Placebo
Open in a new tab

Median values of standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (column vs row) of the efficacy of interventions are exhibited on the lower left part of the table while standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals using metan command are exhibited on the upper right of the table. Values lower than zero favor the column‐defining intervention. Interventions are ordered in accordance with efficacy ranking. Numbers in bold with darker shades show statistically significant results.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

A, Surface under the cumulative ranking curve of available competing interventions for quantitative myasthenia gravis score. B, Surface under the cumulative ranking curve of available competing interventions for glucocorticoid reduction. PLA, placebo; TAC, tacrolimus; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; CsA, cyclosporine A; CTX, cyclophophamide; MTX, methotrexate; AZA, azathioprine; ECZ, eculizumab; BLM, belimumab

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

A, Comparison‐adjusted funnel plot for the primary outcome of quantitative myasthenia gravis score. B, Comparison‐adjusted funnel plot for the secondary outcome of glucocorticoid reduction. The red line is representative of the null hypothesis that the study‐specific effect sizes are not different from the respective comparison‐specific summary estimates. The two black dashed lines are representative of a 95% CI for the difference between comparison‐specific pool effect estimates and study‐specific effect sizes. yixy is the noted effect size for x vs y in study i. μxy is the comparison‐specific summary estimate that compares x with y. AZA, azathioprine; BLM, belimumab; CsA, cyclosporine A; CTX, cyclophosphamide; ECZ, eculizumab; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; MTX, methotrexate; PLA, placebo; TAC, tacrolimus; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; CsA, cyclosporine A; CTX, cyclophophamide; MTX, methotrexate; AZA, azathioprine; ECZ, eculizumab; BLM, belimumab

3.3. Efficacy comparison on the reduction of GC

Eight studies evaluating the reduction of GC with seven immunosuppressive agents were included in this NMA. Figure 2B revealed the network plot while Table 3 listed the estimated SMDs of the relative efficacy with median value and 95% CI, agent by agent. Compared with PLA, only AZA therapy lasting 36 months demonstrated to be statistically efficacious (P = 0.009) while a correlation trend was shown in CTX (P = 0.086). When using SUCRA (Figure 3B), AZA was ranked the best treatment while CTX was hierarchically the second. However, inconsistency existed in AZA vs PLA with the design‐by‐treatment interaction model (P = 0.032) while not significant in the node‐splitting model (P = 0.104). Besides, Figure 4B exhibited the absence of small‐study effects for GC reduction. We further employed network meta‐regression to control the intervention periods. However, compared with PLA, the statistical differences were not significant in any immunosuppressive agents.

Table 3.

Estimated differences in the efficacy of interventions on glucocorticoid reduction

  Standardized mean difference using traditional pairwise meta‐analysis
Stand ardized mean difference with network meta‐analysis Azathioprine — 0.35 (−0.44, 1.15) — — −1.39 (−2.44, −0.35) —
−0.072 (−1.97, 1.73) Cyclophosphamide — — — −0.74 (−1.59, 0.11) —
−0.20 (−1.36, 0.99) −0.13 (−1.89, 1.72) Methotrexate — — −0.19 (−0.75, 0.36) —
−0.41 (−1.92, 1.03) −0.33 (−2.05, 1.37) −0.20 (−1.70, 1.16) Tacrolimus — −0.38 (−0.92, 0.17) —
−0.51 (−2.32, 1.23) −0.44 (−2.43, 1.55) −0.31 (−2.10, 1.38) −0.10 (−1.73, 1.51) Cyclosporine A −0.28 (−0.91, 0.35) —
−0.79 (−1.98, 0.34) −0.71 (−2.14, 0.72) −0.58 (−1.75, 0.48) −0.38 (−1.29, 0.55) −0.27 (−1.60, 1.09) Placebo −0.16 (−0.46, 0.13)
−0.94 (−2.67, 0.73) −0.87 (−2.77, 1.04) −0.75 (−2.47, 0.89) −0.54 (−2.09, 1.01) −0.44 (−2.25, 1.41) −0.17 (−1.43, 1.09) Mycophenolate mofetil
Open in a new tab

Median values of standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (column vs row) of the efficacy of interventions are exhibited on the lower left part of the table while standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals using metan command are exhibited on the upper right of the table. Values lower than zero favor the column‐defining intervention. Interventions are ordered in accordance with efficacy ranking. Numbers in bold with darker shades show statistically significant results.

3.4. Safety comparison of AEs

Adverse events were counted during the intervention combined with the number of participants, respectively. Relative median values with 95% CI were exhibited using HR with random effects Poisson model to control the time and number (Table 4). BLM and ECZ ranked the most tolerable therapies causing the least counts of AEs while CsA of 2.41 (0.58, 10.01) ranked the last vs PLA, implicating the most counts of AEs. Additionally, the counts of AEs in the other immunotherapies did not differ significantly. Although the exact number of AEs could not be acquired from the study about CTX, the incidence between CTX and PLA groups did not show statistical difference.

Table 4.

Estimated hazard ratios of interventions on adverse events

Hazard ratio Belimumab — — — — — — —
1.09 (0.22,6.70) Eculizumab — — — — — —
1.16 (0.28, 4.80) 1.03 (0.36, 2.64) Placebo — — — — —
1.20 (0.11, 11.5) 1.05 (0.11, 8.30) 1.03 (0.15, 6.77) Azathioprine — — — —
1.25 (0.19, 8.46) 1.14 (0.21, 5.53) 1.10 (0.29, 4.13) 1.09 (0.28, 4.29) Methotrexate — — —
1.31 (0.23, 7.31) 1.18 (0.27, 4,31) 1.13 (0.41, 2.97) 1.09 (0.13, 9.24) 1.04 (0.20, 5.41) Tacrolimus — —
1.46 (0.42, 12.61) 1.32 (0.49, 7.77) 1.25 (0.78, 5.29) 1.21 (0.25, 16.6) 1.15 (0.38, 9.60) 1.10 (0.46, 7.27) Mycophenolate mofetil —
2.81 (0.38, 20.73) 2.48 (0.42, 13.54) 2.41 (0.58, 10.01) 2.36 (0.23, 26.29) 2.20 (0.32, 15.27) 2.11 (0.38, 12.59) 1.89 (0.22, 6.78) Cyclosporine A
Open in a new tab

Median values of hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (column vs row) of the safety of interventions are exhibited on the lower left part of the table. Values upper than one favor the column‐defining intervention. Interventions are ordered in accordance with safety ranking.

3.5. Risk of bias

All of the included studies were graded as level 2 for their randomized design. However, it is difficult to assess the risk of bias for the lack of detailed reporting. The overall quality of included studies shown in Figure 5 was moderate to low. Studies were not identified in random sequence generation and selecting reporting with definite high risk of bias. One study had evidence of allocation concealment, and two studies exhibited high risk for incomplete outcome data. Two studies were not definitely blinding in participants while three were not clearly defined in detection blinding. Besides, we identified eight studies with definite high risk of other bias including carryover effect, recruitment bias, and publication bias.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Risk of bias summary: reviewers’ judgments for each included trial about each risk of bias item

4. DISCUSSION

This NMA including 808 patients across 14 RCTs represented the most comprehensive data analysis for current immunotherapies for MG. Principal findings were as follows: First, ECZ represented the most effective therapeutic alternative to improve QMGS with good tolerability, which could be recommended in the refractory MG patients. Second, TAC may be a beneficial therapy to extensively treat MG with relatively favorable results while the efficacy of CsA and CTX could be limited by their multiple or severe AEs. Third, the efficacy of AZA, MMF, MTX, and BLM may not be significant for MG treatment.

Our findings concluded that ECZ could be the most efficacious strategy for MG treatment with minor AEs. Complement activation at the NMJ may be the principal cause of AChR loss and blockade of neuromuscular transmission observed in MG.5 As a humanized monoclonal antibody, ECZ could specifically bind to human terminal complement protein C5 with high affinity to inhibit the formation of proteins C5a and C5b through enzymatic cleavage. The C5a‐induced chemotaxis of proinflammatory cells could be restrained as well as the C5b‐induced membrane attack complex.35 ECZ was recommended in complement‐mediated diseases of atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, and refractory generalized MG which could be unresponsive to GC and at least two immunosuppressive agents.24, 36 Notably, ECZ was employed in the two RCTs (ie, class I, Level A) for refractory generalized MG which may undervalue its genuine efficacy. Compared with PLA in QMGS, a significant difference was calculated both in the NMA (−0.75, −1.33 to −0.30) and in the traditional pairwise meta‐analysis (−0.80, −1.37 to −0.23), with one of the lowest HR of AEs even superior to PLA (1.16, 0.28 to 4.80). Its efficacy was hierarchically the best vs PLA (−1.50, −2.81 to −0.18) when the intervention periods were controlled. Although the reduction of GC was not reported in the RCTs, a steroid‐sparing effect of ECZ was suggested during the extension study.37 ECZ also comes into effect quickly and has long‐standing clinical benefits when compared with other immunosuppressive agents requiring several months to act.38 Therefore, inhibition of complement might be a superactive therapy for MG.

CsA and TAC both belong to calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) while TAC exhibits 10‐100 more potency as well as less incidence of AEs such as renal toxicity and hypertension.39 CNIs were initially used in the organ transplantations and exhibited clinical benefit in the autoimmune diseases including systematic lupus erythematous (SLE). CsA was recommended in MG patients intolerable of AZA and MMF while TAC was suggested if they cannot tolerate CsA further.40 CNIs could inhibit the calcineurin activity as well as the transcription of inflammatory cytokines like interleukin‐2, preventing T cell from activation and B cell from antibody production.41 Besides, CNIs were demonstrated to restrain humoral immunity through acting directly on naïve B cells and inhibit plasmablast differentiation.42 Compared with PLA in QMGS, statistical significance was observed in both CsA (−1.19, −1.75 to −0.63) and TAC (−0.41, −0.72 to −0.096) using pairwise meta‐analysis. As for NMA, however, cyclosporine exhibited statistical significance over TAC (−1.18, −1.81 to −0.59) and PLA (−0.77, −1.57 to −0.032). When controlling the follow‐up months in the network meta‐regression, statistical difference in CsA vs PLA was still significant. This paradox may be attributed to the regimen: TAC was administered 3 mg/d orally while CsA 5‐6 mg/kg/d orally. This could also explain the reason why AEs occurred more frequently in CsA (2.11, 0.38 to 12.59) than TAC. Some people in the CsA group was withdrawn from the study due to the nephrotoxicity while this event was relatively mild in the TAC group. In addition, both TAC and CsA exhibited steroid‐sparing effect but the difference was not significant in our study mainly due to the short‐term follow‐up.

As an alkylating agent, CTX is widely applied in severe autoimmune disorders including MG.42 The hematopoietic and immune system could be repopulated with endogenous stem cells after intermittent high‐dose CTX.6 Although QMGS was not performed, muscle strength was improved with statistical significance. Significant reduction of GC was acquired from the study but not in this NMA or traditional pairwise meta‐analysis. The incidence of AEs between CTX and PLA did not reveal statistical significance. However, compared with PLA, CTX usually induces more severe AEs including diarrhea, hemorrhagic cystitis, infection, and infertility with carcinogenic, teratogenic potential.6

The other four immunosuppressive agents, AZA, MMF, MTX, and BLM were not so efficacious as the above agents. AZA exhibits the steroid‐sparing effect against PLA (−1.39, −2.44 to −0.35) in the 36 months of intervention while the difference was one of the least significant when employing the network meta‐regression. As the recommended first‐line steroid‐sparing agent, it could be more effective and tolerable when AZA was combined with GC than GC alone.30 The inconsistency from design‐by‐treatment interaction model (P = 0.032) above may be originated from the different follow‐up months. A long‐term AZA intervention was needed to induce significance. Although its AEs between AZA and PLA did not reveal statistical significance in this NMA, the potential for myelosuppression and hepatotoxicity is not uncommon.43 MMF, the first‐line steroid‐sparing agent widely used in USA, is also a purine antimetabolite that inhibits T‐cell and B‐cell proliferation like AZA.40 However, statistical significance was not found in the primary or secondary outcome measure. Neither was intravenous MTX which blocks pyrimidine and purine synthesis. MTX was comparable with AZA in the primary (−0.058, −0.98 to 0.92) and secondary (0.20, −0.99 to 1.36) outcome measures including safety in HR (1.09, 0.28 to 4.29). BLM, a human monoclonal antibody against B‐cell activating factor (BAFF),34 is an effective therapy for SLE. It was demonstrated that the level of CD19 + BAFFR + B cells was elevated in MG patients, verifying the increased activation of B‐cell maturation.44 However, the outcome measures of GC and QMGS reduction were negative, also the risk of suffering AEs was the lowest.

Unfortunately, rituximab (RTX), a mouse/human monoclonal antibody against CD20 antigen, was not included to evaluate its therapeutic effect in this NMA for the lack of RCTs. Intravenous RTX was recommended in refractory MG.40 One clinical controlled trial demonstrated the probability of favorable outcomes increases with a significant steroid‐sparing effect in anti‐MuSK antibody‐positive MG patients.45 A meta‐analysis of RTX concluded the overall effective rate was 83.9%, and incidence of AEs was rather low.7

There were several limitations from the evidence and NMA process: First, IVIg, PP, or HDMP was not restricted when the MG crisis happened while some immunosuppressants were administered during the monoclonal antibody therapy, so the specific therapeutic response could not be evaluated properly. Second, some data from these outcome measures were not listed individually so we had to use the estimated value. AEs were counted but severe AEs were not distinguished, leading to the tolerability calculated unproperly. Third, the including criteria of MG patients in different trials were not well controlled as well as the treatment duration, which could also influence the efficacy. Short‐term intervention may limit the steroid‐sparing effect. Moreover, our findings came from the direct and indirect comparisons in NMA model based on relative treatment effects. The reliability of demonstration was limited by few studies and closed loops per comparison. There were many factors which could influence the sensitivity of clinical trials.46 Although from RCTs, the primary outcome was not demonstrated to be improved in some agents, but they were still employed and showed efficacy in clinic. More reasonable clinical trials from the real world should be designed to explore their genuine efficacy and tolerability.

5. CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive NMA concluded ECZ represented the most effective therapeutic alternative to improve QMGS with good tolerability, which could be recommended in the refractory MG patients. TAC may be a beneficial therapy to extensively treat MG with relatively favorable results while the efficacy of CsA and CTX could be limited by their multiple or severe AEs. The efficacy of AZA, MMF, MTX, and BLM may not be significant for MG treatment.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by The National Key Research and Development Program of China (No.2016YFC0901504) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81870988).

APPENDIX 1.

Ovid MEDLINE Search Strategy

  1. myasthenia gravis.mp. or exp Myasthenia Gravis/

  2. myasthen$.mp. [mp=title, original title, abstract, name of substance word, subject heading word]

  3. 1 or 2

  4. azathioprine.mp. or Azathioprine/

  5. cyclosporin A.mp. or Cyclosporins/

  6. Cyclosporine/or cyclosporine A.mp.

  7. ciclosporin.mp.

  8. cyclophosphamide.mp. or Cyclophosphamide/

  9. methotrexate.mp. or Methotrexate/

  10. mycophenolate mofetil.mp.

  11. tacrolimus.mp. or Tacrolimus/

  12. FK‐506.mp.

  13. leflunomide.mp. or Leflunomide/

  14. rituximab.mp. or Rituximab/

  15. belimumab.mp. or Belimumab/

  16. eculizumab.mp. or Eculizumab/

  17. ofatumumab.mp. or Ofatumumab/

  18. etanercept.mp. or Etanercept/

  19. infliximab.mp. or Infliximab/

  20. adalimumab.mp. or Adalimumab/

  21. daclizumab.mp. or Daclizumab/

  22. natalizumab.mp. or Natalizumab/

  23. tocilizumab.mp. or Tocilizumab/

  24. brodalumab.mp. or Brodalumab/

  25. ixekizumab.mp. or Ixekizumab/

  26. daratumumab.mp. or Daratumumab/

  27. brodalumab.mp. or Brodalumab/

  28. secukinumab.mp. or Secukinumab/

  29. immunosuppressive drug.mp.

  30. immunosuppressive agent.mp. or Immunosuppressive Agents/

  31. immunosuppression.mp. or Immunosuppression/

  32. or/4‐31

  33. randomized controlled trial.pt.

  34. controlled clinical trial.pt.

  35. randomized controlled trials/

  36. random allocation/

  37. double‐blind method/

  38. single‐blind method/

  39. or/33‐38

  40. animals/not humans/

  41. 39 not 40

  42. clinical trial.pt.

  43. exp clinical trial/

  44. (clin$ adj25 trial$).ti,ab.

  45. ((singl$ or doubl$ or tripl$ or trebl$) adj25 (blind$ or mask$)).ti,ab.

  46. placebos/

  47. placebo$.ti,ab.

  48. random$.ti,ab.

  49. research design/

  50. or/42‐49

  51. 50 not 40

  52. 51 not 41

  53. comparative study/

  54. exp evaluation studies/

  55. follow up studies/

  56. prospective studies/

  57. (control$ or prospectiv$ or volunteer$).ti,ab.

  58. or/53‐57

  59. 58 not 40

  60. 59 not (41 or 42)

  61. 41 or 52 or 60

  62. 3 and 32 and 61

APPENDIX 2.

Ovid EMBASESearch Strategy

  1. myasthenia gravis.mp. or exp Myasthenia Gravis/

  2. myasthen$.mp. [mp=title, abstract, subject headings, heading word, drug trade name, original title, device manufacturer, drug manufacturer name]

  3. 1 or 2

  4. azathioprine.mp. or Azathioprine/

  5. cyclosporin A.mp. or Cyclosporins/

  6. Cyclosporine/or cyclosporine A.mp.

  7. ciclosporin.mp.

  8. cyclophosphamide.mp. or Cyclophosphamide/

  9. methotrexate.mp. or Methotrexate/

  10. mycophenolate mofetil.mp.

  11. tacrolimus.mp. or Tacrolimus/

  12. FK‐506.mp.

  13. leflunomide or Leflunomide/

  14. rituximab.mp. or Rituximab/

  15. belimumab.mp. or Belimumab/

  16. eculizumab.mp. or Eculizumab/

  17. ofatumumab.mp. or Ofatumumab/

  18. etanercept.mp. or Etanercept/

  19. infliximab.mp. or Infliximab/

  20. adalimumab.mp. or Adalimumab/

  21. daclizumab.mp. or Daclizumab/

  22. natalizumab.mp. or Natalizumab/

  23. tocilizumab.mp. or Tocilizumab/

  24. brodalumab.mp. or Brodalumab/

  25. ixekizumab.mp. or Ixekizumab/

  26. daratumumab.mp. or Daratumumab/

  27. brodalumab.mp. or Brodalumab/

  28. secukinumab.mp. or Secukinumab/

  29. immunosuppressive drug.mp.

  30. immunosuppressive agent.mp. or Immunosuppressive Agents/

  31. immunosuppression.mp. or Immunosuppression/

  32. or/4‐29

  33. Randomized Controlled Trial/

  34. Clinical Trial/

  35. Multicenter Study/

  36. Controlled Study/

  37. Crossover Procedure/

  38. Double Blind Procedure/

  39. Single Blind Procedure/

  40. exp RANDOMIZATION/

  41. PLACEBO/

  42. Meta Analysis/

  43. phase 2 clinical trial/or phase 3 clinical trial/or phase 4 clinical trial/

  44. ((singl$ or doubl$ or tripl$ or trebl$) adj25 (blind$ or mask$)).tw.

  45. placebo$.tw.

  46. random$.tw.

  47. control$.tw.

  48. (meta?analys$ or systematic review$).tw.

  49. (cross?over or factorial or sham? or dummy).tw.

  50. ABAB design$.tw.

  51. or/33‐50

  52. human/

  53. nonhuman/

  54. 52 or 53

  55. 51 not 54

  56. 51 and 52

  57. 55 or 56

  58. 3 and 32 and 57

APPENDIX 3.

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Search Strategy

  • #1. myasthenia gravis (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #2. azathioprine (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #3. cyclosporine (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #4. cyclophosphamide (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #5. methotrexate (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #6. mycophenolate mofetil (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #7. tacrolimus (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #8. FK‐506 (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #9. leflunomide(in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #10 rituximab(in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #11. belimumab (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #12. eculizumab (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #13. ofatumumab (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #14. etanercept (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #15. infliximab (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #16. adalimumab (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #17. daclizumab (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #18. natalizumab (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #19. tocilizumab (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #20. brodalumab (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #21. ixekizumab (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #22. daratumumab (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #23. brodalumab (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #24. secukinumab (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #25. immunosuppressive drug (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #26. immunosuppressive agent (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #27. immunosuppression (in Trials (Word variations have been searched))

  • #28. #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 or #7 or #8 or #9 or #10 or #11 or #12 or #13 or #14 or #15 or #16 or #17 or #18 or #19 or #20 or #21 or #22 or #22 or #23 or #24 or #25 or #26 or #27

  • #29. randomized controlled trial.pt.

  • #30. controlled clinical trial.pt.

  • #31. randomized controlled trials/

  • #32. random allocation/

  • #33. double‐blind method/

  • #34. single‐blind method/

  • #35. #29 or #30 or #31 or #32 or #33 or #34

  • #36. #1 and #28 and #35

APPENDIX 4.

Clinicaltrials.gov Search Strategy

  1. Myasthenia Gravis

Wang L, Huan X, Xi J‐Y, et al. Immunosuppressive and monoclonal antibody treatment for myasthenia gravis: A network meta‐analysis. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2019;25:647–658. 10.1111/cns.13110

Liang Wang and Xiao Huan equally contributed to this work.

Contributor Information

Tian‐Song Zhang, Email: ztsdoctor@126.com.

Chong‐Bo Zhao, Email: zhao_chongbo@fudan.edu.cn.

REFERENCES

  • 1. Conti‐Fine BM, Milani M, Kaminski HJ. Myasthenia gravis: past, present, and future. J Clin Invest. 2006;116(11):2843‐2854. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Gilhus NE, Verschuuren JJ. Myasthenia gravis: subgroup classification and therapeutic strategies. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(10):1023‐1036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Bhatt JM. The epidemiology of neuromuscular diseases. Neurol Clin. 2016;34(4):999‐1021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Hart IK, Sathasivam S, Sharshar T. Immunosuppressive agents for myasthenia gravis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;4:Cd005224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Sieb JP. Myasthenia gravis: an update for the clinician. Clin Exp Immunol. 2014;175(3):408‐418. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Wang S, Breskovska I, Gandhy S, Punga AR, Guptill JT, Kaminski HJ. Advances in autoimmune myasthenia gravis management. Expert Rev Neurother. 2018;18(7):573‐588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Iorio R, Damato V, Alboini PE, Evoli A. Efficacy and safety of rituximab for myasthenia gravis: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Neurol. 2015;262(5):1115‐1119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Wang L, Zhang S, Xi J, et al. Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus for myasthenia gravis: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Neurol. 2017;264(11):2191‐2200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Ortiz‐Salas P, Velez‐Van‐Meerbeke A, Galvis‐Gomez CA, Rodriguez QJ. Human immunoglobulin versus plasmapheresis in guillain‐barre syndrome and myasthenia gravis: a meta‐analysis. J Clin Neuromuscul Dis. 2016;18(1):647‐11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Wiebe N, Vandermeer B, Platt RW, Klassen TP, Moher D, Barrowman NJ. A systematic review identifies a lack of standardization in methods for handling missing variance data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(4):342‐353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Jaretzki A 3rd, Barohn RJ, Ernstoff RM, et al. Myasthenia gravis: recommendations for clinical research standards. Task Force of the Medical Scientific Advisory Board of the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America. Neurology. 2000;55(1):16‐23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Wolfe GI, Herbelin L, Nations SP, Foster B, Bryan WW, Barohn RJ. Myasthenia gravis activities of daily living profile. Neurology. 1999;52(7):1487‐1489. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P, et al. The 2011 Oxford CEBM evidence levels of evidence (Introductory Document). oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Evidence‐Based Medicine; 2011: 5653. [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ. 2005;331(7521):897‐900. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Ades AE. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta‐analysis. Stat Med. 2010;29(7‐8):932‐944. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Higgins JP, Jackson D, Barrett JK, Lu G, Ades AE, White IR. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta‐analysis: concepts and models for multi‐arm studies. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):98‐110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Nagane Y, Utsugisawa K, Obara D, Kondoh R, Terayama Y. Efficacy of low‐dose FK506 in the treatment of Myasthenia gravis–a randomized pilot study. Eur Neurol. 2005;53(3):146‐150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Myasthenia Gravis Clinical Study Group . A randomised clinical trial comparing prednisone and azathioprine in myasthenia gravis. Results of the second interim analysis. Myasthenia Gravis Clinical Study Group. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1993;56(11):1157‐1163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Bromberg MB, Wald JJ, Forshew DA, Feldman EL, Albers JW. Randomized trial of azathioprine or prednisone for initial immunosuppressive treatment of myasthenia gravis. J Neurol Sci. 1997;150(1):59‐62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Sanders DB, McDermott M, Thornton C, et al. A trial of mycophenolate mofetil with prednisone as initial immunotherapy in myasthenia gravis. Neurology. 2008a;71(6):394‐399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Sanders DB, Hart IK, Mantegazza R, et al. An international, phase III, randomized trial of mycophenolate mofetil in myasthenia gravis. Neurology. 2008b;71(6):400‐406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Howard JF Jr, Barohn RJ, Cutter GR, et al. A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled phase II study of eculizumab in patients with refractory generalized myasthenia gravis. Muscle Nerve. 2013;48(1):76‐84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Howard JF Jr, Utsugisawa K, Benatar M, et al. Safety and efficacy of eculizumab in anti‐acetylcholine receptor antibody‐positive refractory generalised myasthenia gravis (REGAIN): a phase 3, randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, multicentre study. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16(12):976‐986. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Tindall RS, Phillips JT, Rollins JA, Wells L, Hall K. A clinical therapeutic trial of cyclosporine in myasthenia gravis. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;681:539‐551. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Tindall RS, Rollins JA, Phillips JT, Greenlee RG, Wells L, Belendiuk G. Preliminary results of a double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled trial of cyclosporine in myasthenia gravis. N Engl J Med. 1987;316(12):719‐724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Meriggioli MN, Rowin J, Richman JG, Leurgans S. Mycophenolate mofetil for myasthenia gravis: a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled pilot study. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003;998:494‐499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Zhou L, Liu W, Li W, et al. Tacrolimus in the treatment of myasthenia gravis in patients with an inadequate response to glucocorticoid therapy: randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study conducted in China. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2017;10(9):315‐325. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Yoshikawa H, Kiuchi T, Saida T, Takamori M. Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study of tacrolimus in myasthenia gravis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2011;82(9):970‐977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Palace J, Newsom‐Davis J, Lecky B. A randomized double‐blind trial of prednisolone alone or with azathioprine in myasthenia gravis. Myasthenia Gravis Study Group. Neurology. 1998;50(6):1778‐1783. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Pasnoor M, He J, Herbelin L, et al. A randomized controlled trial of methotrexate for patients with generalized myasthenia gravis. Neurology. 2016;87(1):57‐64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Heckmann JM, Rawoot A, Bateman K, Renison R, Badri M. A single‐blinded trial of methotrexate versus azathioprine as steroid‐sparing agents in generalized myasthenia gravis. BMC Neurol. 2011;11:97. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. De Feo LG, Schottlender J, Martelli NA, Molfino NA. Use of intravenous pulsed cyclophosphamide in severe, generalized myasthenia gravis. Muscle Nerve. 2002;26(1):31‐36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Hewett K, Sanders DB, Grove RA, et al. Randomized study of adjunctive belimumab in participants with generalized myasthenia gravis. Neurology. 2018;90(16):e1425‐e1434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Dhillon S. Eculizumab: a review in generalized myasthenia gravis. Drugs. 2018;78(3):367‐376. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Sanders DB, Wolfe GI, Benatar M, et al. International consensus guidance for management of myasthenia gravis: Executive summary. Neurology. 2016;87(4):419‐425. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. European Medicines Agency . Soliris (eculizumab): CHMP extension of indication variation assessment report; 2017. http://wwwemaeuropaeu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Assessment_Report_-_Variation/human/000791/WC500233876pdf;Accessed November 10, 2017.
  • 38. Guptill JT, Soni M, Meriggioli MN. Current treatment, emerging translational therapies, and new therapeutic targets for autoimmune myasthenia gravis. Neurotherapeutics. 2016;13(1):118‐131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Sanders DB, Evoli A. Immunosuppressive therapies in myasthenia gravis. Autoimmunity. 2010;43(5‐6):428‐435. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Meriggioli MN, Sanders DB. Autoimmune myasthenia gravis: emerging clinical and biological heterogeneity. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8(5):475‐490. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Flanagan WM, Corthesy B, Bram RJ, Crabtree GR. Nuclear association of a T‐cell transcription factor blocked by FK‐506 and cyclosporin A. Nature. 1991;352(6338):803‐807. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. De Bruyne R, Bogaert D, De Ruyck N, et al. Calcineurin inhibitors dampen humoral immunity by acting directly on naive B cells. Clin Exp Immunol. 2015;180(3):542‐550. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Jack KL, Koopman WJ, Hulley D, Nicolle MW. A review of azathioprine‐associated hepatotoxicity and myelosuppression in myasthenia gravis. J Clin Neuromuscul Dis. 2016;18(1):12‐20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Li X, Xiao BG, Xi JY, Lu CZ, Lu JH. Decrease of CD4(+)CD25(high)Foxp3(+) regulatory T cells and elevation of CD19(+)BAFF‐R(+) B cells and soluble ICAM‐1 in myasthenia gravis. Clin Immunol. 2008;126(2):180‐188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Hehir MK, Hobson‐Webb LD, Benatar M, et al. Rituximab as treatment for anti‐MuSK myasthenia gravis: Multicenter blinded prospective review. Neurology. 2017;89(10):1069‐1077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Benatar M, Howard JF Jr, Barohn R, Wolfe GI, Cutter G. Learning from the past: reflections on recently completed myasthenia gravis trials. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018;1412(1):5‐13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES