Skip to main content

Advertisement

You are viewing the new article page. Let us know what you think. Return to old version

Research | Open | Published:

Mycophenolate mofetil as second line immunosuppressant in myasthenia gravis - a long-term prospective open-label study

Abstract

Background

The preferred immunosuppressive drug for long term treatment of myasthenia gravis (MG) is azathioprine (AZA). Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) was suggested as an effective and safe second line alternative to AZA.

Methods

In a prospective open-label study, 11 patients with acetylcholine receptor antibody (AchR-ab) positive MG (n = 4 ocular MG, n = 7 generalized MG) were treated with MMF which replaced AZA. Reasons for the change of immunosuppressant therapy were side effects (n = 9) or unresponsiveness under AZA (n = 3).

Results

Mean duration of MMF treatment was 16.9 months (6-46 months). During MMF treatment AZA side effects resolved in 8/9 patients, concomitant therapy could be discontinued in 4 patients and reduced in 5 patients, and 5 patients remitted and 3 remained in remission. One MMF-refractory patient required add-on IVIG therapy and another with ocular MG showed signs of generalization after 20 months of MG treatment. One patient was diagnosed with bronchial carcinoma after 10 months of MMF treatment.

Conclusion

Due to its favourable spectrum of side effects compared to AZA MMF might serve as a second-line immunosuppressant in those MG patients who have not tolerated AZA.

Introduction

Steroid-sparing immunosupressants such as azathioprine (AZA) for the long-term course of myasthenia gravis (MG) are the preferred first-line treatment for generalized and severe ocular AchR-ab positive MG. However, 10-20% of MG patients treated with AZA do not respond sufficiently to AZA and side effects occur frequently (nausea, elevated liver enzymes, leuco- or thrombocytopenia).

Methods

In the present prospective open-label study we replaced AZA by MMF in eleven patients with AChR-ab positive MG and analysed the effect and safety of MMF for a mean duration of 16.9 months ± 11.1 (6-46). Four patients with pure ocular and seven patients with generalized MG were included. AChR-ab titer, QMGS, MGFA postintervention status, and concomitant drugs were assessed before the beginning and during MMF treatment (Table 1).

Table 1 AChR-ab titer, quantitative MG score, MGFA postintervention status, and concomitant drugs were assessed before and after the beginning with MMF treatment in 11 patients with AChR-ab positive MG.

Results

The reasons for the exchange from AZA to MMF were gastrointestinal (liver enzyme increase n = 4, nausea/vomiting n = 2, increase of pancreatic enzymes n = 1) and haematological adverse effects (leuco- or pancytopenia n = 3), peripheral edema (n = 1), unresponsiveness to AZA (n = 3). According to the QMGS treatment resulted in complete (pat. 8) and incomplete (pat.6, 7, 10, 11) pharmacological remission, three patients remained in complete pharmacological remission (pat. 1, 5) or with minimal manifestation (pat. 2). Clinical improvement was seen after a period of 2-9 months. In two patients clinical improvement along with decreasing AChR-ab occurred after more than six months on MMF (pat. 7, 11). Patient 3 with disabling unilateral ptosis was refractory despite a combined therapy of prednisolone, high dose pyridostigmine, and MMF. Symptoms improved during a concomitant therapy of intravenous immunoglobins. Patient 4 showed signs of generalization (head lifting weakness) after 20 months on MMF. Patient 2 with mild unilateral ptosis discontinued MMF after sixteen months due to its fear of side effects. Concomitant medication (prednisolone, pyridostigmine) could be discontinued in 4 patients (pat. 1, 2, 5, 7) and reduced in 5 patients (pat. 4, 6, 8, 10, 11). Laboratory parameters which had led to the change from AZA to MMF normalized in all patients affected (n = 8) except pat. 9. In the latter patient MMF treatment had to be discontinued due to persistent increase of pancreatic enzymes and recurrent gastrointestinal problems. One patient was diagnosed with bronchial carcinoma after 10 months of MMF treatment (pat. 5). The daily MMF dosage ranged from 0.5 to 2.5 g and had to be reduced in three patients due to gastrointestinal problems (pat. 3), and persistent leucopenia (pat. 10).

Dicussion

Anecdotic reports, uncontrolled open label and retro spective studies with MMF had shown clinical improvement and steroid dose reduction in patients with severe refractory MG [2, 4]. The time to improvement in that trials was highly variable and ranged from 2 weeks to 12 months [6, 7]. A small double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial of MMF with concomitant prednisolon and/or cyclosporine A medication in MG showed a significant improvement of MMF compared to placebo [3]. However, two recent randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled studies with larger cohorts failed to show a benefit for MMF in generalized MG using quantiative MG scores during a treatment period of 12 and 36 weeks, respectively [5, 6]. It is unclear whether this was due to the short duration of the follow-up period, the effect of the add-on steroid therapy, or the insufficient effect of MMF in MG itself. Consistent with our study side effects of MMF are often transitory and mild, including mostly gastrointestinal symptoms as nausea and diarrhoea or headache [4, 5]. However, severe side effects as an increased risk of lymphoproliferative disorders [7] and severe skin reactions might also be associated with MMF therapy. It remains open whether the bronchial cancer diagnosed in one of our patients was related to MMF.

The present study shows that MMF led to the reduction of concomitant medication and of AZA induced side effects in the majority of patients.

References

  1. 1.

    Hauser RA, Malek AR, Rosen R: Successful treatment of a patient with severe refractory myasthenia gravis using mycophenolate mofetil. Neurology 1998, 51: 912–913.

  2. 2.

    Schneider C, Gold R, Reiners K, Toyka KV: Mycophenolate mofetil in the therapy of severe myasthenia gravis. Eur Neurol 2001, 46: 79–82. 10.1159/000050768

  3. 3.

    Meriggioli MN, Ciafaloni E, Al-Hayk KA, et al.: Mycophenolate mofetil for myasthenia gravis: a double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study. Ann N Y Sci 2003, 998: 949–499.

  4. 4.

    Ciafaloni E, Massey JM, Sanders DB: Preliminary results of an open label trial of cellcept in myasthenia gravis. Neurology 2001, 56: 97–99.

  5. 5.

    Sanders DB, Hart IK, Mantegazza R, Shukla SS, Siddiqi ZA, De Baets MH, Melms A, Nicolle MW, Solomons N, Richman DP: An international, phase III, randomized trial of mycophenolate mofetil in myasthenia gravis. Neurology 2008,71(6):390–1. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000324254.97372.e0

  6. 6.

    Muscle Study Group: A trial of mycophenolate mofetil with prednisone as initial immunotherapy in myasthenia gravis. Neurology 2008,71(6):394–9.

  7. 7.

    Vernino S, Salomao DR, Habermann TM, O'Neill BP: Promary CNS lymphoma complicating treatment of myasthenia gravis with mycophenolate mofetil. Neurology 2005, 65: 639–41. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000173031.56429.04

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to F Hanisch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Keywords

  • mycophenolate mofetil
  • myasthenia gravis