Immunoglobulin for myasthenia gravis.

rationaleImmunoglobulin has long been used to treat neuroimmunological conditions, including myasthenia gravis (MG). However, the evidence supporting its benefits in MG remains uncertain.

objectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of immunoglobulin in people with generalized MG. Specifically, we aimed to compare 1) intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) versus subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg), and 2) immunoglobulin administered via either route (irrespective of treatment duration, dosage, and regimen) versus no treatment, placebo, plasma exchange (PLEX), corticosteroids, acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, or any other treatment. SEARCH

methodsOn 17 September 2024, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to May 2022. Additionally, we reviewed the references of included studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included parallel and cross-over randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IVIg with SCIg or immunoglobulin versus other interventions in participants with acute exacerbations or chronic active MG, undergoing steroid tapering, or preparing for surgery. We excluded trials without a comparison group. OUTCOMES: We measured critical outcomes over three time intervals: short-term (up to two weeks), medium-term (2 to 24 weeks), and long-term (beyond 24 weeks). They included physician-evaluated change in severity of symptoms and signs, measured by scales such as the Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) score and the Myasthenia Muscle Score (MMS); patient-reported change in functional capacity, measured by scales such as the MG Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) scale, the MG Quality of Life (MG-QOL), and MG-QOL15 questionnaire, and change in measures that incorporate both physician-evaluated and patient-reported items, such as the Myasthenia Gravis Composite (MGC) scale. Prioritized important outcomes were length of hospitalization, incidence of MG-related hospitalizations, and specific treatment-related adverse events. RISK OF BIAS: We used the risk of bias 2 (RoB 2) tool (and its extension for cross-over trials) to assess the risk of bias. SYNTHESIS

methodsWe conducted meta-analyses for each of the possible comparisons using a random-effects model when different scales were used for the measurement of the same outcome or when studies in an analysis included different types of participants. We calculated mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 12 RCTs (11 with usable data; 515 participants) conducted between 1997 and 2025 in Europe, North America, and Asia. All studies assessed IVIg; none assessed SCIg. Comparators included PLEX (six trials), placebo (five trials), and corticosteroids (one trial). SYNTHESIS OF

resultsIVIg versus placebo IVIg did not differ from placebo in physician-evaluated medium-term change in symptom severity. However, a sensitivity analysis excluding one high-risk study showed a small improvement in the QMG score with IVIg (MD -1.86, 95% CI -3.44 to -0.29; I AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe found low-certainty evidence that IVIg may improve symptoms and functional capacity in the medium term in people with MG, compared to placebo, though the effects did not reach commonly used thresholds for clinical significance and were based on sensitivity analyses. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, IVIg probably also increases the incidence of headache. Based on very low to low-certainty evidence, IVIg may be less beneficial than PLEX for short-term improvement in symptoms and may prolong hospital stay, though we found no differences in adverse events. No firm conclusions can be drawn for the comparison of IVIg with corticosteroids. Overall, due to the low or very low certainty of evidence, high-quality trials are needed, including evaluations of SCIg and newer therapies.

fundingThis Cochrane review was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health (NIH), and by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) via Cochrane Infrastructure funding to Cochrane Neuromuscular. REGISTRATION: Protocol (2020) available via doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013801.