Efficacy and safety of maintenance intravenous immunoglobulin in generalized myasthenia gravis patients with acetylcholine receptor antibodies: A multicenter, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Prospective, randomized, controlled trials of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) maintenance therapy in myasthenia gravis (MG) are lacking. In this trial, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of caprylate/chromatography-purified IVIG; (IGIV-C) in patients with generalized MG undergoing standard care. METHODS: Sixty-two patients enrolled in this phase 2, multicenter, international, randomized trial (1:1 IGIV-C [2 g/kg loading dose; 1 g/kg every 3 weeks through week 21] or placebo). Efficacy was assessed by changes in Quantitative MG (QMG) score at week 24 versus baseline (primary endpoint) and percentage of patients with clinical improvement in QMG, MG Composite (MGC), and MG-Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) scores (secondary endpoints). Safety assessments reported all adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The change in QMG at 24 weeks was -5.1 for IGIV-C and -3.1 for placebo (p = .187). Seventy percent of patients in the IGIV-C group had improvement in MG-ADL (≥2-point decrease) versus 40.6% in the placebo group (p = .025). Patients showing clinical improvement in QMG and MGC (≥3-point decrease) were 70.0% for IGIV-C versus 59.4% for placebo (p = .442) and 60.0% for IGIV-C versus 53.1% for placebo (p = .610). IGIV-C was well tolerated; serious AEs were similar between arms. Three of four MG exacerbations requiring hospitalizations occurred in the IGIV-C arm with one death. DISCUSSION: Several efficacy parameters showed numerical results greater than those seen in the placebo group. This was a small study and may have been underpowered to see significant differences. Additional studies may be warranted to fully determine the efficacy of IVIG maintenance therapy in MG.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".