Joël Oger

BACKGROUND: Thymectomy has been a mainstay in the treatment of myasthenia gravis, but there is no conclusive evidence of its benefit. We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing thymectomy plus prednisone with prednisone alone. METHODS: We compared extended transsternal thymectomy plus alternate-day prednisone with alternate-day prednisone alone. Patients 18 to 65 years of age who had generalized nonthymomatous myasthenia gravis with a disease duration of less than 5 years were included if they had Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America clinical class II to IV disease (on a scale from I to V, with higher classes indicating more severe disease) and elevated circulating concentrations of acetylcholine-receptor antibody. The primary outcomes were the time-weighted average Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis score (on a scale from 0 to 39, with higher scores indicating more severe disease) over a 3-year period, as assessed by means of blinded rating, and the time-weighted average required dose of prednisone over a 3-year period. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients underwent randomization between 2006 and 2012 at 36 sites. Patients who underwent thymectomy had a lower time-weighted average Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis score over a 3-year period than those who received prednisone alone (6.15 vs. 8.99, P<0.001); patients in the thymectomy group also had a lower average requirement for alternate-day prednisone (44 mg vs. 60 mg, P<0.001). Fewer patients in the thymectomy group than in the prednisone-only group required immunosuppression with azathioprine (17% vs. 48%, P<0.001) or were hospitalized for exacerbations (9% vs. 37%, P<0.001). The number of patients with treatment-associated complications did not differ significantly between groups (P=0.73), but patients in the thymectomy group had fewer treatment-associated symptoms related to immunosuppressive medications (P<0.001) and lower distress levels related to symptoms (P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Thymectomy improved clinical outcomes over a 3-year period in patients with nonthymomatous myasthenia gravis. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and others; MGTX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00294658.).

We compared the diagnostic capabilities of MRI to CT, evoked potentials (EP), and CSF oligoclonal banding analysis in a prospective evaluation of 200 patients with suspected multiple sclerosis (MS). MRI was the best method for demonstrating dissemination in space. An abnormal appropriate EP in monosymptomatic disease was usually supported by MRI and CSF analysis as being predictive of MS as a clinical diagnosis. A normal appropriate EP study was not satisfactory because MRI and CSF analysis often did not support a diagnosis of non-MS. When there is agreement between three of these paraclinical studies, the diagnosis of MS is probably unequivocal. For use in research studies, laboratory-supported definite MS (LSDMS) could be diagnosed in 85 patients of the total 200 (42.5%), in 19/38 (50%) of optic neuritis (ON) patients, and in 24/52 (46%) of chronic progressive myelopathy (CPM) patients. MRI was 100% successful in identifying patients who qualified for LSDMS in the ON and CPM groups. In a short follow-up (less than 1 year), 19/200 (10%) went on to develop clinically definite MS (CDMS), and MRI predicted that diagnosis in 18/19 (95%). Only long-term follow-up will show how well these studies and the category of LSDMS predict the development of CDMS. The clinical diagnosis of MS (CDMS), even though only 95% accurate, must remain the gold standard.

It is well documented that disability accumulation in multiple sclerosis is correlated with axonal injury and that the extent of axonal injury is correlated with the degree of inflammation. However, the interdependence between focal inflammation, diffuse inflammation and neurodegeneration, and their relative contribution to clinical deficits, remains ambiguous. A hypothesis might be that early focal inflammation could be the pivotal event from which all else follows, suggesting the consideration of multiple sclerosis as a two-stage disease. This prompted us to define two phases in the disease course of multiple sclerosis by using two scores on the Kurtzke Disability Status Scale as benchmarks of disability accumulation: an early phase, 'Phase 1', from multiple sclerosis clinical onset to irreversible Disability Status Scale 3 and a late phase, 'Phase 2', from irreversible Disability Status Scale 3 to irreversible Disability Status Scale 6. Outcome was assessed through five parameters: Phase 1 duration, age at Disability Status Scale 3, time to Disability Status Scale 6 from multiple sclerosis onset, Phase 2 duration and age at Disability Status Scale 6. The first three were calculated among all patients, while the last two were computed only among patients who had reached Disability Status Scale 3. The possible influence of early clinical markers on these outcomes was studied using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox models. The analysis was performed in the Rennes multiple sclerosis database (2054 patients, accounting for 26,273 patient-years) as a whole, and according to phenotype at onset (1609 relapsing/445 progressive onset). Our results indicated that the disability progression during Phase 2 was independent of that during Phase 1. Indeed, the median Phase 2 duration was nearly identical (from 6 to 9 years) irrespective of Phase 1 duration (<3, 3 to <6, 6 to <10, 10 to <15, >or=15 years) in the whole population, and in both phenotypes. In relapsing onset multiple sclerosis, gender, age at onset, residual deficit after the first relapse and relapses during the first 2 years of multiple sclerosis were found to be independent predictive factors of disability progression, but only during Phase 1. Our findings demonstrate that multiple sclerosis disability progression follows a two-stage process, with a first stage probably dependent on focal inflammation and a second stage probably independent of current focal inflammation. This concept has obvious implications for the future therapeutic strategy in multiple sclerosis.

The objective of the present study were (1) to ascertain the lifetime risk of a depression in a representative group of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, (2) to assess the morbidity risks for depression among first-degree relatives of these MS patients, and (3) to compare these familial risks for first-degree relatives of MS patients with those for first-degree relatives of a primary depression population, i.e., depression but no MS. We psychiatrically evaluated 221 MS patients (index cases) using a structured clinical interview for the DSM-III-R and calculated the rate and lifetime risk of depression for these index cases using the product limit estimate of survival function. We obtained psychiatric histories for all first-degree relatives of index cases, and we calculated morbidity risks for depression for these relatives using the maximum likelihood approach and compared the risks using the likelihood ratio tests. Index cases had a 50.3% lifetime risk of depression. Morbidity risks for depression among first-degree relatives of index cases were decidedly lower when compared with morbidity risks among first-degree relatives of the reference population. Although there appears to be a very high rate of depression among MS patients, the data for their first-degree relatives do not support a clear genetic basis for this depression, or at least the same genetic basis that probably operates within families when depression occurs in the absence of MS.