Abstract
Objectives: To investigate
the short- term efficacy
and safety of Mycophenolate
Mofetil treatment among Jordanian patients with refractory
myasthenia gravis.
Methods: This study was conducted in King Hussein Medical
Centre, Prince Rashed
Hospital and Prince Hashem
Hospital between January
2007 and January 2009. The study included 18 patients with poorly controlled generalized
moderate to severe myasthenia gravis despite treatment with Prednisolone alone
or with Azathioprine. All patients received Mycophenolate Mofetil 1.5-2g daily
for 9 months. The primary efficacy measure was a reduction of three
points in the manual muscle test score and/or a reduction of 50% in
corticosteroid dose.
Results: All patients
completed the study. Twelve patients improved, beginning after 3-5
months. The maximum benefit was after 7
months of treatment. No serious adverse effects were observed.
Conclusions: Mycophenolate mofetil is a promising alternative to
other currently available immunosuppressive drugs for the treatment of
refractory myasthenia gravis.
Key words: Myasthenia gravis, Mycophenolate mofetil, Refractory
JRMS
September 2011; 18(3): 21-26
Introduction
Myasthenia gravis (MG) is an uncommon autoimmune
condition, in which antibodies against the postsynaptic acetylcholine receptors
(AChR) or related structures result in failure of neuromuscular transmission.
Current estimates of prevalence in the United States are about 20 per
100.000.(1)
Therapy for
myasthenia gravis includes symptomatic treatment with cholinesterase
inhibitors, thymectomy for selected patients, immunomodulation with intravenous
immunoglobulin (IVIg) and plasma exchange, and immunosuppressive therapies.
Oral immunosuppressants including corticosteroids,
azathioprine and cyclosporine have been commonly used in MG. However, variable efficacy,
patient tolerance and adverse side effects limit their effectiveness. Thus,
more favorable alternatives are needed. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has been
successfully used for treating patients with allogenic transplants and immune
mediated diseases.(2) The
first report suggesting efficacy of MMF
in myasthenia gravis appeared in 1998.(3) This was
followed by uncontrolled case series,(4-6) a small
double-blind controlled trial(7) and a Cochrane review.(8)
These studies reported benefit in the majority of MG patients treated with MMF,
including those with refractory disease and popularized use of the drug.
However, two recently concluded randomized, controlled trials- the Muscle Study
Group (MSG) and the Aspreva trials - did not demonstrate additional benefit of
MMF over prednisolone as initial immunosuppression in generalized MG or a
steroid-sparing effect over a period of 9 months.(9,10)
On the other
hand, a recently published retrospective analysis has provided class IV evidence that MMF begins to improve AChR-positive MG after 6 months, both with prednisolone and as monotherapy.(11)
Table I. MGFA clinical classification
MGFA Class I:
|
ocular MG
|
MGFA Class IIa:
|
mild generalized MG, predominant limb or axial
muscles involvement
|
MGFAClass IIb:
|
mild generalized MG, predominant bulbar or respiratory muscles
involvement
|
MGFA Class IIIa:
|
moderate generalized MG, predominant limb or axial muscles
involvement
|
MGFA Class IIIb:
|
moderate generalized MG, predominant bulbar or respiratory muscles
involvement
|
MGFA Class IVa:
|
severe generalized MG, predominant limb or axial muscles involvement
|
MGFA Class IVb:
|
severe generalized MG, predominant bulbar or respiratory muscles
involvement
|
MGFA Class V:
|
MG cases requiring intubation
|
|
|
Right
|
Left
|
SUM
|
1.
Cranial
Nerves
|
Lid ptosis
Diplopia
Eye closure
Cheek puff
Tongue protrusion
Jaw closure
|
-------------
-------------
-
-
-
-
Cranial Muscle Score
|
--------------
--------------
-
-
-
-
-------------------
|
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
|
2.
Limb
Muscles
|
Neck flexion
Neck extension
Shoulder abduction
Elbow flexion
Elbow extension
Wrist extension
Grip
Hip flexion
Knee extension
Knee flexion
Ankle dorsiflexion
Ankle plantar flexion
|
-
-
--------------
-------------
--------------
-------------
--------------
-------------
--------------
-------------
--------------
-------------
Limb muscle score
|
-
-
--------------
-------------
--------------
-------------
--------------
-------------
--------------
-------------
--------------
-------------
_______________
TOTAL
|
--------------
-------------
--------------
-------------
--------------
-------------
--------------
-------------
--------------
------------
------------
--------------
|
Score each function as: 0 =
normal; 1 = 25% weak/mild impairment; 2 = 50% weak/moderate impairment; 3 = 75%
weak/severe impairment; 4 = paralyzed/unable to do
Fig. 1. Manual
muscle testing Score (5)
a. Eating
0=normal
1=independent but with difficulty
2=with help
3=unable to perform
|
d. Toilet use
0= normal
1= independent but with difficulty
2=with help
3=unable to perform
|
b. Dressing
0=normal
1=independent but with difficulty
2=with help
3=unable to perform
|
e. Bathing
0= normal
1= independent but with difficulty
2=with help
3=unable to perform
|
c. Transferring (in and out of bed or chair)
0=normal
1=independent but with difficulty
2=with help
3=unable to perform
|
|
Fig. 2. Score for activities of daily living (5)
In this study, we report local experience using MMF in 18 Jordanian
patients with refractory MG, despite treatment with prednisolone with or
without azathioprine.
Methods
This study investigated the short term efficacy and
safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) among Jordanian patients with uncontrolled MG over nine months. The patients
were enrolled for this study from Neurology clinics at King Hussein Medical
Centre (KHMC), Prince Rashed Hospital,
and Prince Hashem Hospital,
between January 2007 and January 2009. All patients previously diagnosed with
MG and having Class III-IV (moderate-severe) disease according to the
Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America (MGFA) classification (Table I) despite
high-dose immunosuppressive treatment were enrolled into the study. The
patients may or may not have had previous thymectomy. Patients were considered
refractory if they had a baseline manual
muscle test (MMT) score of at least 5, despite treatment with prednisolone
20mg/day or more for at least 3 months with or without azathioprine
(100-200 mg/day) for at least 12 months. Patients who had undergone
treatment with plasmapheresis or intravenous immunoglobulin, or had
a change in their immunosuppressive medication during the previous 3 months
were excluded. Azathioprine was stopped if used previously, and all patients
were started on MMF 500 mg twice daily for 4 weeks, and then the dose was
increased as tolerated up to 1 g twice daily.
The primary efficacy measure was a
reduction of at least 3 points in the MMT and/or a reduction of at
least 50% in corticosteroid dose for minimum of 3 months without
worsening of the MMT scores. The MMT (Fig. 1) is a recently described,
physician applied, scoring system of strength in muscles that are typically
affected in MG. It has been shown to have acceptable inter rater reliability
and to correlate strongly with the more established quantitative myasthenia
gravis (QMG) score.(12,13) We also used the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) profile as a
secondary efficacy measure. (Fig. 2)
MMT and ADL scores for each patient were always
estimated by the same author to ensure optimal reliability.
The patients were followed-up in clinic every month
for the first three months, then every two months for the remaining six months.
During these clinic assessments, the MMT and ADL scores were measured, possible
adverse effects of MMF were noted, and blood tests for complete blood count and
biochemical profile were performed.
Results
All 18 patients completed
the study. There were 10 female and
eight male patients, aged from 22 to 64 years (mean 41.5 y). Eleven
patients had undergone thymectomy 3-10 years earlier. The duration of MG varied
from 1 to 12 years (mean 5.1 years).
The clinical and treatment details of all patients are provided in Table
II.
Table III shows the
treatment results. At the end of the
study, the primary efficacy measure was achieved in twelve (66.7%) patients,
nine of whom had an improvement in the MMT score of 3 or more and were able to
reduce their corticosteroid dose by at least 50%. The other three patients did
not have an improvement in their MMT score of 3 or more, but were able to
reduce their corticosteroid dose by at least 50%. Improvement in all responders
started after 3-5 months and was maximal after 7 months. Improvement in the ADL
score was seen in 11 patients.
No major side effects were observed. No diarrhea was reported. Two patients
developed heartburn and three patients developed mild nausea that improved
either spontaneously or with symptomatic treatment. Three patients reported
hand tremors that resolved after 2-3 weeks. One patient had muscle cramps. The
hemoglobin value decreased in one patient (by 1.9 g/dl), but she was found to
have iron deficiency as the cause of her anemia. No
significant leukopenia or thrombocytopenias were recorded. No infections
occurred.
Discussion
Mycophenolate mofetil is a prodrug of mycophenolic acid (MPA), an
ihibitor of inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase, a key enzyme in the de novo
(but not the salvage) pathway of purine synthesis. Since lymphocytes
exclusively use the de novo pathway (whereas other cells use both pathways),
MPA depletes guanosine nucleotides preferentially in T and B lymphocytes and
ihibits their proliferation, thereby suppressing cell mediated immune responses
and anibody formation. MPA also inhibits the glycosylation and expression of
adhesion molecules, and the recruitment of lymphocytes and monocytes into sites
of inflammation. It is through that MMF exert its anti inflammatory activity
via all these mechanisms.(14,15) MMF has a strong safety profile and no major
organ toxicity or mutagenic effect, and has been used safely and effectively in managing patients with renal transplants.(14) Reports in western countries showed that MM
appeared
to be effective as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of
severe, refractory and steroid-dependant myasthenia gravis.(3-6)
Table
II. Clinical characteristics
of study patients
Patient no./sex
|
Age at study, Y
|
Age at MG onset, Y
|
Thymus histology
|
Medications
|
AChR Ab
|
1/F
|
64
|
62
|
Thymoma
|
Pyr/Pred/Aza
|
+
|
2/M
|
52
|
40
|
Atrophic
|
Pyr/Pred/Aza
|
+
|
3/M
|
31
|
25
|
Atrophic
|
Pyr/Pred/Aza
|
-
|
4/F
|
30
|
24
|
Hyperplasia
|
Pyr/Pred/Aza
|
-
|
5/F
|
24
|
21
|
Hyperplasia
|
Pyr/Pred/Aza
|
+
|
6/F
|
40
|
32
|
Atrophic
|
Pyr/Pred/Aza
|
-
|
7/M
|
32
|
25
|
Thymoma
|
Pyr/Pred
|
+
|
8/F
|
38
|
32
|
Atrophic
|
Pyr/Pred
|
-
|
9/F
|
26
|
20
|
Hyperplasia
|
Pyr/Pred
|
+
|
10/F
|
24
|
19
|
Atrophic
|
Pyr/Pred
|
+
|
11/M
|
22
|
20
|
Hyperplasia
|
Pyr/Pred/Aza
|
+
|
12/M
|
47
|
44
|
No thymectomy
|
Pyr/Pred/Aza
|
-
|
13/F
|
52
|
48
|
No thymectomy
|
Pyr/Pred
|
-
|
14/M
|
53
|
50
|
No thymectomy
|
Pyr/Pred/Aza
|
-
|
15/M
|
60
|
53
|
No thymectomy
|
Pyr/Pred
|
+
|
16/F
|
42
|
39
|
No thymectomy
|
Pyr/Pred/Aza
|
+
|
17/M
|
55
|
54
|
No thymectomy
|
Pyr/Pred/Aza
|
-
|
18/F
|
55
|
49
|
No thymectomy
|
Pyr/Pred
|
+
|
AChR-Ab = acetylcholine receptor antibodies; Aza = azathioprine; Pred =
prednisone; Pyr = pyridostigmine; M=male; F=female
Table III.
Manual Muscle Test (MMT) scores, Activities of Daily Living (ADL) scores and
doses of prednisolone (mg) at baseline and 9 months
Patient no.
|
MMT
score
|
ADL
score
|
Prednisolone
dose (mg)
|
|
Baseline
|
9mo
|
Baseline
|
9mo
|
Baseline
|
9mo
|
*1
|
20
|
14
|
16
|
12
|
25
|
10
|
*2
|
18
|
14
|
13
|
9
|
30
|
15
|
*3
|
26
|
19
|
18
|
14
|
40
|
15
|
4
|
16
|
15
|
12
|
10
|
20
|
20
|
*5
|
32
|
24
|
25
|
15
|
40
|
15
|
**6
|
20
|
18
|
14
|
10
|
35
|
25
|
7
|
17
|
17
|
14
|
12
|
35
|
20
|
*8
|
15
|
9
|
11
|
6
|
25
|
10
|
9
|
11
|
12
|
9
|
7
|
20
|
25
|
10
|
30
|
28
|
10
|
11
|
35
|
40
|
**11
|
15
|
16
|
14
|
12
|
25
|
10
|
**12
|
30
|
33
|
20
|
21
|
30
|
30
|
*13
|
20
|
12
|
19
|
11
|
30
|
10
|
14
|
22
|
23
|
19
|
16
|
25
|
30
|
*15
|
17
|
10
|
12
|
8
|
40
|
20
|
*16
|
28
|
21
|
24
|
17
|
35
|
15
|
*17
|
21
|
19
|
21
|
14
|
30
|
15
|
**18
|
22
|
22
|
16
|
17
|
40
|
35
|
* improved in the MMT score of 3 or more and were able to reduce their corticosteroid dose by at least by 50%.
** improved in the MMT score of less than 3, but were able to reduce corticosteroid dose by at least 50%.
Bold and Italic patient numbers: improvement in ADL score
All 18 patients in this study had reached a plateau of
clinical improvement after receiving high doses of pyridostigmine, steroids
with or without azathioprine. Eleven of these patients had successful
thymectomy performed in the early stages of disease. They were still
experiencing severe symptom exacerbation and required high dosages of
medication. Serious medication-related
adverse effects were observed, including steroid-induced hypertension,
hyperglycemia, osteoporosis, Cushing`s syndrome, candidal mucocutaneous
infection, weight gain and other cosmetic side-effects. Patients required high
doses of pyredostigmine, leading to troublesome cholinergic side effects, such
as abdominal pain, diarrhea, excessive respiratory secretions and dyspnea. In
addition, pyridostigmine is an expensive drug and is not always readily
available. Also, patients on azathioprine required regular monitoring for blood
dyscrasias and liver toxicity and surveillance for certain tumors.
After starting MMF, two thirds of our patients had
significant clinical improvement. None of them had subsequent myasthenic crises
requiring ICU admission after addition of MM. Unlike an earlier case report,(3)
we observed symptomatic improvement beginning 3–5 months after starting MMF.
Hence, pyridostigmine and other immunosuppressive medications could be
significantly reduced without causing worsening of symptoms.
Similar to previous reports,(4-7)
our data also suggest a steroid-sparing effect of MMF. All twelve responders
were already on high-dose prednisolone when MMF treatment was started and were
able to decrease the prednisolone dosage without significant clinical
worsening. The reduction was crucial in these patients, as some of them had
already developed serious long-term steroid-induced adverse effects.
This observation may provide the motivation for early
commencement of MMF in future cases of refractory MG.
All our patients tolerated MMF well. The serum
biochemistry and full blood counts that were carried out on all our patients
showed no significant abnormalities. While the short-term safety profile
appeared good with MMF, the long-term adverse effects in our patients remain
unknown. We acknowledge that there have been reports of serious side-effects in
myasthenia patients treated with MMF, including recent reports of an
association between MMF and Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy or
Posterior Reversible Encephalopathy Syndrome.(16,17) However, long-term safety profiles of MMF in
transplant patients have been encouraging.(18) The dosage of MMF used in our patients was
1500-2000 mg per day; other reports have used between 1000 and 2000 mg per day.
The optimal dosage remains uncertain in Jordanian patients. In transplant
patients, MMF day has been used up to 3500 mg per with few side effects.(19)
As to why the results of the MSG and Aspreva trials
were negative and largely different from most other reports, including ours, is
uncertain. Several potential reasons, other than lack of drug efficacy in these
two studies, have been suggested including: (i) the duration of the trials was
too short (neither trial was >36 weeks); (ii) the endpoints were insensitive
or too stringent; (iii) the
greater-than-predicted response to prednisolone masked any benefit of MMF,
perhaps because of differences between subjects; and (iv) patients may not have
been representative of the general population of patients of myasthenia.(20,21)
Additional, larger, multicentre studies
could be useful in answering these questions.
Conclusion
Our experience suggests that MMF is a promising
alternative to other currently available immunosuppressive drugs for the
treatment of refractory MG in Jordanian patients.
References
1.Phillips LH. The epidemiology of myasthenia gravis. Ann NY Acad Sci 2003 (998):407-412.
2.Sollinger HW. Mycophenolate in transplantation. Clin Transplant 2004; 18:485- 492.
3.Hauser RA, Malek AR, Rosen R. Successful treatment of a patient with severe refractory myasthenia gravis
using mycophenolate mofetil.
Neurology 1998; 51:912–3.
4.Chaudhry V, Cornblath DR, Griffin JW,
et al. Mycophenolate
mofetil: a safe and promising immunosuppressant in neuromuscular diseases. Neurology
2001; 56: 94–96.
5.Ciafaloni E, Massey J,
Tucker-Lipscomb B, Sanders D.
Mycophenolate mofetil for myasthenia gravis: an open-label pilot study. Neurology
2001; 56:97–99.
6.Meriggioli MN, Ciafaloni E, Al-Hayk
KA, et al.
Mycophenolate mofetil for myasthenia gravis: an analysis of efficacy, safety,
and tolerability. Neurology 2003; 61:1438–1440.
7.Meriggioloi MN,
Rowin J, Richman JG, Leurgans S.
Mycophenolate mofetil for myasthenia gravis. A double-blind, placebo-controlled
pilot study. Ann NY Acad Sci 2003; 998:494–499.
8.Hart IK, Sathasivam S, Sharshar T. Immunosuppressive agents for myasthenia gravis. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev 2007; 4: 1-31: CD005224.
9.The Muscle Study Group. A trial of mycophenolate mofetil with prednisone as initial
immunotherapy in myasthenia gravis. Neurology 2008; 71: 394 -399
10. Sanders DB, Hart IK, Mantegazza R, et
al. An international,
phase III, randomized
trial of mycophenolatemofetil in myasthenia gravis. Neurology 2008; 71: 400 -406
11.Hehir MK, Burns TM, Alpers J, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil in AChR-antibody- positive myasthenia
Gravis:Outcomes in 102 patients. Muscle Nerve 2010; 41:593–598
12.Sanders DB,
Tucker-Lipscomb B, Massey JM. A simple manual muscle test for myasthenia gravis-validation
and comparison with the QMG score. Ann NY Acad Sci 2003; 998:440-444
13.Barohn RJ,
McIntire L, Herbelin L, et al. Reliability testing of the quantitative
myasthenia gravis score. Ann NY Acad Sci 1998; 841:769-772
14.Allison AC. Mechanisms of action of mycophenolate mfetil. Lupus
2005; 14:s2 s8.
15.Allison AC, Eugui EM. Preferential suppression of lymphocyte proliferation by mycophenolic acid and
predicted long-term effects of mycophenolate mofetil in transplantation. Transplant
Proc 1994; 26: 3205–3210.
16. Vernino S, Salomao DR, Habermann TM,
O’Neill BP. Primary CNS
lymphoma complicating treatment of myasthenia gravis with mycophenolate
mofetil. Neurology 2005; 65: 639–641.
17. Levin N, Mali A, Karussis D. Severe skin reaction related to mycophenolate mofetil
for myasthenia gravis. Clin Neuropharmacol 2005; 28: 152–3.
18.Haberal M, Karakayali H, Emiroglu R, et
al. Malignant tumors after
organ transplantation. Artif Organs 2002; 26: 778–781.
19.Danovitch GM. Mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant: results
from the U.S.
randomized trials. Kidney Int 1995; 52: S93–96.
20.Phan C, Sanders DB, Siddiqi ZA. Mycophenolate mofetil in myastheniagravis: the
unanswered question. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2008; 9: 2545–2551.
21.Benatar M, Roland
LP. The
muddle of mycophenolate mofetil in myasthenia. Neurology 2008; 71: 390-
391.