Efficacy of Rituximab in Refractory Generalized anti-AChR Myasthenia Gravis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several retrospective case series have suggested rituximab (RTX) might improve patients with refractory Myasthenia Gravis (MG). OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to evaluate prospectively the efficacy of RTX on muscle function in refractory generalized anti-acetylcholine receptor (AChR) MG patients. METHODS: Enrolled patients received 1 g of RTX at day 0, day 14, and 6-month follow-up (M6). The primary endpoint was improvement of muscle function at 12-month (M12) based on myasthenic muscle score (MMS). Secondary endpoints were an improvement of the MG Foundation of America Postintervention Status (MGFA-PIS), respiratory forced vital capacity, occurrences of acute MG exacerbation and requirement of associated immunosuppressants and immunomodulatory agents. RESULTS: Twelve patients were enrolled, and 11 completed the study. Only a single patient presented an improvement of at least 20 points on MMS at M12, although 2 patients displayed an increase of at least 18 points at M12. MGFA-PIS had improved in 55% of patients by M12. The clinical improvement was not associated with a reduction of immunosuppressant burden. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide data on the effect of RTX in patients with severe, refractory anti-AChR Abs generalized MG. Even though primary outcome was only reached in a single patient at M12, a beneficial effect of RTX on muscle function was seen in half of the patients at M12 and persisted in a third of patients at M18.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".