ArticleJournal of neurology2024
Treatment of myasthenia gravis in france: A retrospective claims database study (STAMINA).
Article in Journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comorbidities and Treatment Patterns in People With Myasthenia Gravis in Denmark, Finland and Sweden: A Population-Based Observational Study.Muscle & nerve · 2026Observational
- Early versus late add-on therapy in generalized myasthenia gravis: a multicenter real-world cohort study.Journal of neurology · 2026Observational
- Myasthenia Gravis Outcomes After Use of Statins and Other Contraindicated Treatments: Results From the French National Insurance Database.European journal of neurology · 2026Observational
- Appropriate use of steroids for patients with generalized Myasthenia Gravis: an international Delphi study.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to describe treatment patterns in patients with myasthenia gravis (MG) in France.
methodsA retrospective cohort analysis was performed using the French National Health Data System (SNDS) database between 2008 and 2019. MG patients were identified using ICD-10 codes during hospitalization and/or long-term disease. We defined two adult subpopulations: a prevalent MG population of patients alive on 31/12/2019 and an incident population of newly identified patients with MG in 2012 and 2013.
resultsAmong the 22,079 prevalent patients, 53.1% (n = 11,498) received at least one chronic MG treatment in 2019. Among these treated patients, 52.5% received Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) only, 10.2% were treated with corticosteroids (CS) ± AChEIs, 7.3% with non-steroidal immunosuppressive treatments (NSIST) and CS, 24.2% with NSIST w/o CS, and 5.8% received immunoglobulin and/or plasma exchange. Among the 2,661 incident patients, 84.6% received at least one chronic MG treatment over the 6-year follow-up period, and among them, 79.0% had at least one treatment category change. During the first semester of follow-up, 28.1% of patients were treated with an immunomodulator (CS, NSIST). Among patients starting treatment with immunomodulator, the proportion of those treated with CS decreased from 35.3% at initiation to 10.9% at 6 years.
conclusionThis study illustrates the complexity of MG management. Significant CS sparing was observed over time. The frequent treatment changes especially in patients with an immunomodulator treatment reflect the high variability of the disease severity. The need for personalised treatment approaches in the management of MG to reduce the burden of disease remains.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.