Gender differences in clinical outcomes in myasthenia gravis: A prospective cohort study. Issue 5 (11th June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Thomsen, Jan L. S.; Vinge, Lotte; Harbo, Thomas; Andersen, Henning
• Is Part Of: Muscle & nerve. Volume 64:Issue 5(2021)
• Page Start: 538
• Page End: 544
• Publication Date: 2021-06-11
• Subjects: gender -- myasthenia gravis -- outcome -- prospective -- treatment; Neuromuscular diseases -- Periodicals; Muscles -- Periodicals; Nerves -- Periodicals; 616.74
• DOI: 10.1002/mus.27331
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0148-639X

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction/Aims: It is uncertain whether clinical outcomes differ between male and female patients with myasthenia gravis (MG) while receiving standard clinical care. Methods: In a prospective cohort study of 107 patients with MG receiving standard of care from 2012 to 2019, the Quantitative MG (QMG), the MG Composite (MGC), the MG Activities of Daily Living (MG‐ADL), and the MG Quality of Life 15‐Items (QOL15) were determined. Clinical outcomes were analyzed in relation to gender. Results: Mean follow‐up time was 4.8 (±0.4) y, and 70 patients completed all follow‐up assessments. Patients improved on all clinical scores: QMG ‐1.8 ( P < .001), MGC ‐1.5 ( P < .001), MG‐ADL ‐1.3 ( P < .001), and QOL15 ‐3.0 ( P < .001). Females improved less than males on the QMG ( P = .01), MGC ( P < .001), MG‐ADL ( P = .006), and QOL15 ( P < .001) independent of potential confounders. Males had moderate to strong correlations between changes in all clinical scales ( r range 0.52 to 0.73), whereas females had weak correlations between changes in the QMG and MG‐ADL ( r = 0.13), the QMG and QOL15 ( r = 0.27), the MGC and MG‐ADL ( r = 0.21), the MGC and QOL15 ( r = 0.00), and the MG‐ADL and QOL15 ( r = 0.31). Discussion: Females improved less compared to males on objective and patient‐reported outcomes. Moreover, females improved more on objective measures than on patient‐reported outcomes. These gender differences should receive attention in clinical care and in the design of future trials. Abstract : See Editorial on pages 515–516 in this issue