Reported trial results for Myasthenia Gravis
Every Myasthenia Gravis trial Voxsanity tracks that has reported results to a public registry, newest first. These trials have finished, so they are not recruiting. Not medical advice.
35 trials have reported results.
AI generated results summary. Written by an AI model from the official source data and checked on a sample basis. It can contain mistakes, so confirm anything important against the original source. How we use AI
-
NCT03490539 · results posted 18 June 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 82 people with Myasthenia Gravis (a condition that causes muscle weakness), split into two groups: 34 people received a medicine called Azathioprine (AZT) and 48 people received a medicine called Mycophenolate Mofetil (MMF). All 82 participants who started the trial completed it. The trial was measuring things like quality of life, day-to-day functioning, muscle strength, and the balance between clinical improvement and treatment side effects. The reported data shows that for the two main (primary) outcomes — a quality-of-life questionnaire score and a combined measure of clinical improvement alongside mild-or-no side effects — 22 out of 34 participants in the AZT group and 36 out of 48 in the MMF group showed improvement. For the additional (secondary) measures, the reported numbers of participants showing improvement were: muscle function tested by a doctor (MG-MMT): 25 of 34 in the AZT group and 45 of 48 in the MMF group; daily activities questionnaire (MG-ADL): 28 of 34 and 43 of 48; and a combined doctor-and-patient score (MGC): 27 of 34 and 44 of 48. The reported data also shows that 4 participants in the AZT group and 5 in the MMF group were hospitalised for their condition during the trial. It is worth noting that the two groups started with different numbers of participants (34 versus 48), so straight comparisons of the raw numbers between groups should be interpreted with care. Any deeper interpretation of what these figures mean in terms of comparing the two treatments would need to be discussed with a qualified health professional. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT06471361 · results posted 27 March 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 31 participants, all of whom completed the study — none dropped out. The trial was examining a medication called zilucoplan, which was delivered using a special auto-injector device (a pen-like device that people use to inject themselves). The main thing being measured was how often the device successfully delivered the full dose of medication when participants injected themselves, across a series of eight clinic visits. The reported data shows that overall, across all visits, 99.8% of self-injection attempts using the auto-injector delivered the complete dose of medication, as confirmed by a study investigator. At the very first visit (Visit 1), the reported figure was 96.9%, and by the final visit (Visit 8), it had reached 100%. For secondary measures tracking unwanted medical events during the study, the reported data shows that 22.6% of participants experienced what the study called a "treatment-emergent adverse event" — meaning any unexpected medical occurrence that happened after starting the injections. Around 3.2% of participants experienced an event considered to be related specifically to the device itself (such as a problem with how it was used). No participants (0%) experienced a "serious adverse event," which the study defined as a severe medical occurrence such as hospitalisation or a life-threatening illness. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT04524273 · results posted 10 March 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04524273) enrolled 238 people with myasthenia gravis — a condition where the immune system interferes with the signals between nerves and muscles. Participants were divided into groups based on the type of antibody driving their condition (anti-AChR or anti-MuSK), and then randomly assigned to receive either inebilizumab (a study drug given by infusion) or a placebo (an inactive substitute). The trial tracked participants over a main study period and an optional follow-on period. The main goal was to measure changes in two standard myasthenia gravis scoring tools: the MG-ADL (a questionnaire about daily activities, scored 0–24, where a higher number means more difficulty) and the QMG (a 13-item assessment of physical symptoms, scored 0–39, where a higher number means more severe disease). Lower scores over time indicate improvement on both scales. The reported data shows that across the overall study population at 26 weeks, participants in the placebo group had an average MG-ADL score change of −2.3 points, while those receiving inebilizumab had an average change of −4.8 points on the QMG scale. Looking at the individual antibody subgroups, the reported MG-ADL score changes at 26 weeks were −2.4 (placebo) versus −4.2 (inebilizumab) in the anti-AChR group, and −1.7 (placebo) versus −3.9 (inebilizumab) in the anti-MuSK group. For the QMG score at 26 weeks, the reported changes were −2.0 (placebo) versus −4.4 (inebilizumab) in the anti-AChR group, and −3.0 (placebo) versus −5.2 (inebilizumab) in the anti-MuSK group. The trial also measured how many participants showed a meaningful improvement in daily activities (at least a 3-point drop in MG-ADL score) without needing rescue treatments: across the overall population, this was reported as 55% in the placebo group and 79% in the inebilizumab group. One secondary outcome — the same measure at 52 weeks in the anti-AChR group — was listed but no data was reported for it. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT04818671 · results posted 22 January 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 180 people, all of whom received a treatment called efgartigimod PH20 SC (given as an injection under the skin). The participants all had myasthenia gravis, a condition that causes muscle weakness. Of the 180 who started, 138 completed the trial and 42 did not finish. The trial was primarily measuring the number of unwanted medical events (called adverse events) that occurred, and secondarily tracking changes in participants' day-to-day functioning, changes in certain proteins in the blood, and how the drug moved through the body. The reported data shows that across the study period, there were 3,325 adverse events (unwanted medical occurrences of any kind), 107 serious adverse events (more significant medical occurrences), and 420 adverse events classified as being of special interest — in this case, infections, which were specifically watched because the treatment is known to temporarily lower levels of a blood protein called IgG (an antibody that plays a role in the immune system). On the daily functioning scale (scored 0–24, where higher means more difficulty), the reported data shows average score changes from the starting point of −2.2, −3.4, −3.9, and −4.0 at different time points measured during the trial — meaning scores moved downward (toward less difficulty) over time. The reported data also shows that total IgG levels in the blood fell by an average of 62.6% from the starting point, and in participants who had a specific type of antibody linked to myasthenia gravis (called AChR antibodies), those antibody levels fell by an average of 57.6%. Additionally, 35 participants developed antibodies directed against the study drug itself. The reported data shows the average level of the drug measured in the blood was 21,693 ng/mL (nanograms per millilitre, a standard unit of concentration). The time points for some of the secondary measurements were not individually labelled in the submitted data, so it is not possible to specify exactly when during the trial each figure was recorded. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT05230082 · results posted 18 September 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at whether acupuncture had any effect on quality of life and daily activities for people living with myasthenia gravis (MG), a condition that causes muscle weakness. A total of 24 people took part — 10 in a group that started acupuncture straight away ("Immediate Start") and 14 in a group that waited before beginning ("Delayed Start"). By the end of the first 12-week period, 6 of the 10 immediate-start participants and 13 of the 14 delayed-start participants had completed that phase. Both groups then continued into a second 12-week period. The reported data shows that quality of life was measured using a 15-question survey scored from 0 to 30, where a higher number means a lower quality of life. At the start, the Immediate Start group scored 10.8 and the Delayed Start group scored 9.4. By the end of the study, the Immediate Start group's score had dropped to 3.6, while the Delayed Start group's score was reported as 8.3. For daily activities, a separate 8-question survey scored from 0 to 24 was used, where a higher number means more difficulty. The Immediate Start group began at 5.0 and ended at 2.3, while the Delayed Start group began at 3.6 and ended at 3.5. The reported data does not include further statistical detail about what these changes may or may not mean. It is worth noting that several participants did not complete the trial — 4 from the Immediate Start group dropped out in the first period, and 2 from the Delayed Start group did not finish the second period. No information about the reasons for withdrawal was included in the submitted results data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT04951622 · results posted 23 July 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04951622) looked at a medicine called nipocalimab in people with myasthenia gravis — a condition that causes muscle weakness affecting everyday activities like talking, chewing, swallowing, and breathing. The trial had two stages: a 24-week "double-blind" phase (where neither participants nor researchers knew who was getting the real medicine or a dummy treatment called a placebo), followed by an open-label extension phase lasting up to two years where all participants received nipocalimab. In total, 99 people started in the placebo group and 100 in the nipocalimab group during the first stage. In the extension phase, a further 196 participants across several groups were enrolled, though completion data for that phase was not reported. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured was change in a symptom score called the MG-ADL — a scale from 0 to 24 where a higher number means more severe symptoms. Scores were recorded at weeks 22, 23, and 24 and averaged together. The placebo group's average score fell by 3.25 points from their starting score, while the nipocalimab group's average score fell by 4.70 points from their starting score. For the secondary outcome measures — including other symptom scores and the proportion of people who reached certain improvement thresholds — the reported data shows that no numerical results were submitted for those measures on ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT05681715 · results posted 7 May 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 62 people in total for an initial six-week training period, after which 55 went on to a self-administration phase. The trial was looking at a medicine called rozanolixizumab (sometimes shortened to RLZ), and its main question was whether people could successfully give themselves this medicine using two different methods: a device called a syringe driver (which automatically pushes the medicine in) and a manual push method (where the person pushes the plunger themselves). The medicine is given as an injection under the skin. Participants were split into two groups and each group tried both methods across two six-week periods, in different orders. The reported data shows that, for the primary — or main — outcome, 100% of participants in both groups successfully gave themselves the medicine using both the syringe driver and the manual push method, at both the 12-week and 18-week check-in points. Success was defined as choosing the correct injection site, injecting under the skin correctly, and delivering the full intended dose. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that across the whole study period, 75.8% of participants experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event — meaning an unwanted medical occurrence that happened after receiving the medicine. When broken down by period and method, these figures ranged from approximately 27% to 39% depending on the group and time period. No participants in any group reported a local skin reaction within 24 hours of an injection, and no medication errors associated with adverse reactions were reported in either self-administration period. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT04678115 · results posted 22 April 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 16 people in total — 9 were assigned to try one treatment first and 7 the other way around, with 15 completing the study. It was a crossover trial, meaning each participant tried both treatments at different times, so the same people appear in both treatment groups in the results. The trial was measuring how well two different eyelid-lifting devices helped people open and close their eyes. The two devices tested were a Magnetic Levator Prosthesis (MLP) — a small magnetic device designed to help lift a drooping eyelid — and a Kinesiotape Frontalis Sling (KTFS), which uses a strip of elastic tape to support the eyelid. A "sham" (inactive/pretend treatment) baseline was also recorded for comparison. The reported data shows that when measuring how much the eye gap (the opening between the eyelids) closed during natural, spontaneous blinking, the average gap remaining at maximum closing was 2.4 millimetres with the MLP, 4.1 millimetres with the KTFS, and 1.1 millimetres at baseline with no device. For the resting open eye gap (how wide the eye sat open between blinks), the reported averages were 6.8 mm for MLP, 7.0 mm for KTFS, and 3.9 mm at baseline. When participants were asked to deliberately blink fully closed, the reported proportion of blinks that did *not* fully close was approximately 7 in 100 with the MLP, about 36 in 100 with the KTFS, and about 2 in 100 at baseline. Regarding device preference, the reported data shows 7 participants preferred the MLP, 6 preferred the KTFS, and 2 preferred neither device. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT05514873 · results posted 30 March 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 26 people who received zilucoplan at a dose of 0.3 mg/kg. The trial was measuring the experiences of participants — particularly any unwanted medical events (called adverse events) that occurred during treatment — as well as changes in two standard rating scales used to assess the day-to-day impact and physical severity of myasthenia gravis, a condition affecting muscle strength. Of the 26 who started the main treatment period, 23 completed it, and those 23 went on to an extension period, of whom 20 completed that stage. The reported data shows that during the main treatment period, 73.1% of participants (roughly 3 in 4) experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event — that is, an unwanted medical occurrence that happened after starting the study medication. Around 7.7% of participants had an adverse event that led them to stop taking the study medication, and 3.8% experienced what is classified as a serious adverse event (a more significant medical event, such as one requiring hospitalisation). About 11.5% of participants withdrew from the study altogether during this period. On the two symptom-rating scales, the reported data shows an average decrease (improvement in score) of 1.15 points on the MG-ADL scale and 1.24 points on the QMG scale from the start of the trial to week 12 — both scales run from 0 (no impairment) to higher numbers (more severe impairment), so a lower score at week 12 means participants reported fewer difficulties on average at that point. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT04963270 · results posted 28 February 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04963270) looked at a medicine called satralizumab in people with a condition called generalised myasthenia gravis (gMG) — a disease that causes muscle weakness affecting things like swallowing, speaking, breathing, and everyday movements. A total of 188 people took part in the main 24-week double-blind phase, with 92 receiving a placebo (an inactive dummy injection) and 96 receiving satralizumab. Neither the participants nor the medical team knew who was getting which treatment during this phase. The main thing being measured was change in a symptom score called the MG-ADL, which rates how much the disease affects daily activities on a scale from 0 (no problems) to 24 (most severe). The reported data shows that, in the main 24-week period, participants in the placebo group who had a specific antibody type (AChR+) had an average reduction in their MG-ADL symptom score of about 2.6 points, while those receiving satralizumab had an average reduction of about 3.6 points. When looking at all participants regardless of antibody type, the reported reductions were similar — around 2.5 points for the placebo group and 3.5 points for the satralizumab group. For a separate doctor-assessed score called the QMG (also measuring disease severity, scored 0–39), the reported average reductions were approximately 1.8 points (placebo) and 3.4 points (satralizumab) in the AChR+ group, and roughly 1.7 points (placebo) and 3.4 points (satralizumab) across all participants. The reported data also shows that, at 24 weeks, about 59% of placebo participants and about 71% of satralizumab participants in the AChR+ group had their MG-ADL score reduce by at least 2 points — a threshold the researchers used to define a meaningful change. Across all participants, the figures were approximately 61% and 70% respectively. The trial also included a longer open-label extension phase of 92 weeks where all continuing participants received satralizumab, but completion figures for that phase were not reported in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT05218096 · results posted 9 January 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05218096) enrolled 70 participants with myasthenia gravis (MG) — a condition that causes muscle weakness. Participants were assigned to one of three groups: 28 received a higher dose of the investigational drug ALXN2050 (180 mg twice daily), 14 received a lower dose (120 mg twice daily), and 28 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The trial was primarily measuring how many people experienced a meaningful improvement in their ability to carry out everyday activities — scored using a standard questionnaire called the MG-ADL, where lower scores mean less difficulty — without needing any additional rescue treatment, over the first 8 weeks. The reported data shows that, for the main measure, approximately 57% of participants in both the higher-dose and lower-dose ALXN2050 groups met the target improvement in their daily activity scores without needing rescue treatment. In the placebo group, approximately 64% of participants met the same target. For the secondary measures — which looked at changes in scores at Week 8 across several questionnaires — the reported data shows the following average score changes from the start of the trial: on the MG-ADL daily activity scale (0–24, lower is better), scores changed by −2.5 (higher dose), −3.7 (lower dose), and −3.2 (placebo). On a separate muscle strength test called the QMG scale (0–39, lower is better), scores changed by −1.1 (higher dose), −3.0 (lower dose), and −1.4 (placebo). On a fatigue questionnaire (19–95, lower is better), scores changed by −8.7 (higher dose), −10.1 (lower dose), and −8.3 (placebo). The reported data shows changes in scores across all three groups, including the placebo group. No conclusions about whether ALXN2050 works better or worse than placebo can be drawn from this summary alone, as that requires detailed statistical analysis beyond what is presented here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT03579966 · results posted 7 May 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03579966) enrolled 63 participants who were all given a medicine called amifampridine phosphate. The trial ran over approximately 39 months and was designed as a long-term safety study — meaning its main goal was to track and count any unwanted or unexpected health events (called adverse events) that occurred while participants were taking the medicine. Only 3 participants completed the full study, while 60 did not complete it; the reasons for not completing were not detailed in the data provided here. The reported data shows that the primary outcome being measured was the number of participants who experienced what are called "treatment-emergent adverse events" — that is, any health events that appeared or worsened after starting the medicine. According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, 58 out of 63 participants had at least one such event recorded over the course of the study. No further breakdown of what those events were, how serious they were, or any secondary outcome figures appear to have been reported in the submitted data. It is worth noting that this type of outcome measure simply counts and records health events — it does not, on its own, tell us whether those events were caused by the medicine or how they compared to what might happen without treatment. No additional outcome data beyond this count was available in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT05132569 · results posted 8 April 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05132569) looked at a drug called tolebrutinib in people with myasthenia gravis, a condition that affects muscle strength and daily activities. The trial had two stages: a 26-week double-blind period (where neither participants nor researchers knew who received the real drug or a placebo), followed by an open-label extension (OLE) where all participants received tolebrutinib up to around week 61. In total, only 6 people started the double-blind stage — 3 in the placebo group and 3 in the tolebrutinib group — making this a very small study. The primary measure during the double-blind stage was a questionnaire called the MG-ADL, an 8-item scale scored from 0 (normal) to 24 (most severe), which tracks how much myasthenia gravis symptoms affect everyday life such as swallowing, breathing, and moving. The reported data shows that no numerical results were provided for the main double-blind outcome — the change in MG-ADL scores at week 26 — meaning those figures were not reported in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. For the open-label extension period, the reported data shows that among the 2 participants in the placebo-then-tolebrutinib group, 2 experienced adverse events (unexpected medical occurrences during the study), while 0 participants in the tolebrutinib-then-tolebrutinib group (1 person) experienced adverse events. No serious adverse events, no events leading to stopping the drug, and no special-interest adverse events were reported in either group. Regarding blood test abnormalities, 1–2 participants in the placebo-then-tolebrutinib group showed some abnormal readings across several blood measures, while 1 participant in the tolebrutinib-then-tolebrutinib group showed an abnormality in one liver-related chemistry measure (alkaline phosphatase). No abnormal heart tracing (ECG) results were recorded in either group, and one participant in the placebo-then-tolebrutinib group had a recorded weight decrease of 5% or more from their starting weight. It is worth noting that with only 6 participants enrolled overall, this was an extremely small study, and the data as submitted is limited. The trial appears to have been terminated before its planned completion, as no participants finished the open-label extension stage. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT03863080 · results posted 20 December 2023
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this was a small clinical trial that enrolled 17 participants in total across two stages. In the first stage — a six-week "double-blind" period (meaning neither participants nor researchers knew who was receiving which treatment) — 17 people were divided into three groups: 6 received a placebo (a dummy treatment), 5 received a lower dose of the investigational medicine RVT-1401 (340 mg per week), and 6 received a higher dose (680 mg per week). After this stage, a 12-week open-label extension followed, where 15 participants received RVT-1401 at 340 mg every two weeks and everyone knew what was being given. The trial was primarily focused on tracking participant safety — specifically monitoring for unwanted medical events, changes in blood pressure and pulse, and changes in blood and urine test results. The reported data shows that during the six-week double-blind period, 5 out of 6 placebo participants, 4 out of 5 in the lower-dose group, and 5 out of 6 in the higher-dose group experienced at least one adverse event (an unexpected medical occurrence during the trial, which may or may not be related to the treatment). One serious adverse event — defined as a life-threatening event, hospitalisation, or similarly significant occurrence — was reported in the higher-dose group, and none in the other two groups. During the 12-week open-label extension, 10 out of 15 participants reported at least one adverse event, and 1 participant reported a serious adverse event. The reported data shows that no clinically significant (meaning medically noteworthy) changes were recorded in vital signs (such as blood pressure or pulse) or in laboratory test results across any group during either stage of the trial. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT04124965 · results posted 21 August 2023
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04124965) looked at a medicine called rozanolixizumab in people with myasthenia gravis, a condition that causes muscle weakness. Participants were split into two groups based on the dose they received — roughly 7 mg per kilogram of body weight (35 people) or roughly 10 mg per kilogram (36 people). The trial measured how often participants experienced unwanted health events (called adverse events) during treatment, and also tracked changes in their myasthenia gravis symptoms over time using several standard rating scales. The reported data shows that when it came to adverse events during treatment, 76% of participants in the lower-dose group and approximately 78.6% in the higher-dose group experienced at least one such event. A small number — 6% in the lower-dose group and 0% in the higher-dose group — had an adverse event serious enough that they permanently stopped taking the study medication. Regarding the need for "rescue therapy" (additional treatments like immunoglobulin infusion or plasma exchange, given if symptoms worsened significantly), 11.4% of the lower-dose group required this, compared with 0% in the higher-dose group. The reported data also shows changes in symptom scores across several rating scales (each measured at multiple points during and after treatment). On all three scales used — which measure things like daily activities, muscle strength, and overall disease severity — both groups showed reductions in their scores over the course of the study, meaning their recorded scores were lower than at the start. Negative numbers indicate a reduction from baseline; for example, on the daily living scale, changes ranged roughly from −2.7 to −3.1 in the lower-dose group and −3.2 to −4.1 in the higher-dose group across the different time points. On the other two scales, similar patterns of score reductions were reported across both groups throughout the study period. What these score changes mean clinically was not reported in this data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT03971422 · results posted 21 August 2023
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03971422) enrolled 200 people with myasthenia gravis — a condition that causes muscle weakness. Participants were split into three groups: 67 received a placebo (an inactive treatment), 66 received a lower dose of rozanolixizumab (approximately 7 mg per kilogram of body weight), and 67 received a higher dose (approximately 10 mg per kilogram). The trial's main goal was to measure how scores on a daily-living disability scale called the MG-ADL changed over roughly six weeks (from the start of the trial to Day 43). This scale runs from 0 to 24, where higher numbers mean greater difficulty with everyday activities, and a decrease in score means fewer reported difficulties. The reported data shows that by Day 43, the placebo group's MG-ADL score had decreased by an average of 0.78 points from their starting score. The lower-dose rozanolixizumab group showed an average decrease of 3.37 points, and the higher-dose group showed an average decrease of 3.40 points. On a secondary measure — the proportion of people whose score improved by at least 2 points — 28.4% of the placebo group met that threshold, compared with 68.2% in the lower-dose group and 61.2% in the higher-dose group. The reported data also shows reductions across several other secondary scales measuring muscle strength, fatigue, and daily function, with the two rozanolixizumab groups generally showing larger average decreases than the placebo group across all of those measures. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT03770403 · results posted 14 July 2023
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 145 people who received the study treatment, efgartigimod. Of those, 28 completed the trial and 117 did not complete it. The trial was primarily looking at unwanted medical events (called adverse events) that occurred during treatment — including serious ones, those that led to stopping the treatment, and any that resulted in death — in a subgroup of participants who had a specific antibody linked to their condition (known as AChR-positive participants). The reported data shows that, among the AChR-positive subgroup, 92 participants experienced at least one adverse event during the study period, 28 experienced a serious adverse event (meaning something that was life-threatening, required hospitalisation, or was otherwise considered medically significant), 10 had an adverse event serious enough to stop taking the study drug, and 4 experienced a fatal adverse event (meaning they died during the study period). For the overall group of all 145 participants — regardless of antibody status — the reported data shows 124 people experienced at least one adverse event, 36 experienced a serious adverse event, 12 stopped the study drug due to an adverse event, and 5 experienced a fatal adverse event. It is important to note that the trial recorded and counted these events, but the data alone does not tell us whether they were caused by the treatment or by other factors — that kind of detailed analysis was not included in the figures reported here. The number of participants who did not complete the trial was also high, which the data does not fully explain. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT04159805 · results posted 2 June 2023
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04159805) enrolled 36 people with myasthenia gravis — a condition that causes muscle weakness — split evenly into three groups of 12: one group received a placebo (a dummy injection with no active ingredient), one received a 300 mg dose of TAK-079, and one received a 600 mg dose of TAK-079. All 12 placebo participants finished the trial, while 10 out of 12 completed in each TAK-079 group. The trial was primarily measuring how often participants experienced unwanted medical events (called adverse events) during the study, and secondarily tracking changes in several standard scales used to assess myasthenia gravis symptoms and quality of life. The reported data shows that treatment-emergent adverse events (unexpected medical occurrences after starting the study drug) were recorded in 66.7% of the placebo group, 75.0% of the 300 mg group, and 91.7% of the 600 mg group. Serious adverse events were reported in 8.3% of participants across all three groups. No participants in any group stopped the trial due to an adverse event. For the symptom and quality-of-life scales — where a lower (more negative) number means improvement — the reported data shows score reductions across all groups on measures of daily living ability, disease severity, and quality of life, with the numbers varying between groups and across different time points during the study. For example, on one daily living scale (scored 0–24), changes ranged from around −1.8 to −5.0 depending on the group and time point. On a blood test measuring a specific antibody linked to the condition, the 300 mg group showed reductions at all measured time points, while results in the other groups were more mixed. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT04735432 · results posted 28 February 2023
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04735432) enrolled 110 people with myasthenia gravis (a condition where the immune system mistakenly attacks the connection between nerves and muscles). Participants were split into two groups of 55: one group received efgartigimod as an injection under the skin (called the SC form, combined with a substance called PH20 to help absorption), and the other received it through a drip into a vein (the IV form). The trial was mainly measuring how much a particular type of antibody in the blood — called total IgG — changed after four doses of the treatment. IgG antibodies are proteins made by the immune system, and reducing them is the goal of this treatment approach. Three people in the SC group did not complete the study; everyone in the IV group finished. The reported data shows that, by day 29 (seven days after the fourth dose), both groups had large reductions in their total IgG levels from where they started. The SC group showed an average reduction of about 66%, and the IV group showed about 62%. Looking at how IgG levels changed at multiple points across the whole study period, the reported data shows reductions generally peaked around weeks three to four (roughly 62–65% for SC and 59–62% for IV) before gradually coming back up after dosing stopped. For participants who also had a specific antibody linked to myasthenia gravis (called AChR antibodies), similar percentage reductions were reported in both groups across the study period. The reported data also shows that the drug's concentration in the blood (measured before each dose) was slightly higher and more consistent in the SC group compared to the IV group across all four weeks of dosing. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT04115293 · results posted 17 January 2023
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04115293) enrolled 174 adults with myasthenia gravis (a condition that causes muscle weakness), split into two groups: 88 people received a placebo (an inactive treatment) and 86 received a medicine called zilucoplan at a dose of 0.3 mg/kg. The trial ran for 12 weeks and was primarily measuring changes in a patient-reported score called the MG-ADL — an 8-item questionnaire where a lower score means fewer or less severe symptoms. Several other symptom and quality-of-life scores were also tracked as secondary measures. The reported data shows that, on the main measure (MG-ADL, scored 0–24), the placebo group's average score fell by 2.30 points from their starting score, while the zilucoplan group's average score fell by 4.39 points — with a larger drop indicating greater reported improvement. On the secondary measures, similar patterns were reported: the placebo group's muscle-strength score (QMG, scored 0–39) dropped by an average of 3.25 points versus 6.19 points in the zilucoplan group; a broader symptom scale (MGC, scored 0–50) dropped by 5.42 versus 8.62 points; and a quality-of-life score (MG-QoL15r, scored 0–30) dropped by 3.16 versus 5.65 points. Regarding the time to needing rescue (additional) therapy, the data was not reported for either group. For the measure of how many participants reached near-minimal symptoms without needing rescue therapy, 5.8% of the placebo group and 14.0% of the zilucoplan group met that threshold at week 12. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT03759366 · results posted 25 August 2022
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 11 people, all of whom received the study drug eculizumab. The trial was measuring changes in the severity of myasthenia gravis — a condition affecting muscle strength — over 26 weeks. Two scoring tools were used: the QMG (Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis) score, which rates disease severity across 13 areas such as eye movement, swallowing, and breathing on a scale of 0 to 39 (higher meaning more severe), and the MG-ADL (Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living) score, an 8-question tool rating how the condition affects everyday tasks on a scale of 0 to 24 (again, higher meaning more severe). Ten of the 11 participants completed the initial 26-week period, and those 10 then entered a longer follow-up period of up to 208 weeks, of which 2 completed that extended phase. The reported data shows that, on average, participants' QMG scores decreased by 6.1 points from where they started at the beginning of the trial to week 26 — a lower score indicating less severe disease on that scale. On the MG-ADL daily living scale, the average decrease was 2.5 points over the same period. Looking at individual responses, the reported data shows that 70% of participants had a drop of 5 or more points on the QMG score by week 26, and 50% of participants had a drop of 3 or more points on the MG-ADL score. These figures were the same whether or not participants had received any additional ("rescue") treatments during the trial. It is worth noting that this was a very small trial with only 11 participants and no comparison group — meaning there was no separate group of people receiving a different treatment or no treatment to compare these numbers against. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT03920293 · results posted 26 May 2022
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03920293) enrolled 175 adults with myasthenia gravis — a condition that causes muscle weakness. Eighty-six participants were randomly assigned to receive ravulizumab (an intravenous medicine given by drip), and 89 received a placebo (an inactive dummy treatment) during the first 26-week controlled phase. After that, all participants who continued moved into an open-label extension phase where everyone received ravulizumab. The trial was primarily measuring changes in a standard questionnaire called the MG-ADL, which asks patients to rate how their condition affects eight everyday activities, scored from 0 (normal) to 24 (most severe) — a lower score meaning fewer difficulties. The reported data shows that, at 26 weeks, the ravulizumab group's MG-ADL score decreased (improved) by an average of 3.1 points, compared with 1.4 points in the placebo group. For the secondary measures: on a separate 39-point clinical assessment scale (QMG), the ravulizumab group's score fell by an average of 2.8 points versus 0.8 points for placebo; about 30% of ravulizumab participants recorded a drop of at least 5 points on that same scale, compared with about 11% in the placebo group; and about 57% of ravulizumab participants recorded a drop of at least 3 points on the MG-ADL questionnaire, compared with about 34% in the placebo group. On a 30-point quality-of-life scale specific to myasthenia gravis, the ravulizumab group's score fell by an average of 3.3 points versus 1.6 points for placebo. On a 19-to-95-point fatigue survey, the ravulizumab group's score fell by an average of 7.0 points versus 4.8 points for placebo. In all cases, a falling score indicated fewer reported difficulties. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT03896295 · results posted 16 February 2022
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03896295) enrolled 37 participants in total — 7 in the "Placebo then Nipocalimab" group and 30 in the "Nipocalimab throughout" group. The trial was measuring the safety and tolerability of nipocalimab, an investigational medicine given by infusion. None of the participants were recorded as having formally "completed" the study under the trial's own definitions, though this does not necessarily mean they did not finish their treatment — it reflects how the trial categorised its milestones. The reported data shows that, looking at all 37 participants who received nipocalimab at some point across both groups, 22 experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (that is, any unwanted medical event that arose after starting the study drug). Five participants experienced a serious adverse event — defined as events leading to outcomes such as hospitalisation, a life-threatening situation, or significant disability. Two participants experienced an adverse event of special interest, specifically severe infections or a significant drop in a blood protein called albumin. The reported data also shows that no participants had abnormal changes in pulse rate or blood pressure that crossed the pre-set thresholds for concern, though one participant in the Nipocalimab-Nipocalimab group had a physical examination finding noted. For blood protein levels, small average decreases from the starting point were recorded across both groups — for albumin, the change was around −1.2 to −1.5 grams per litre, and for total protein, around −3.5 to −3.8 grams per litre — though what these changes mean clinically is not stated in the reported data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT03669588 · results posted 8 February 2022
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03669588) enrolled 167 people — 84 received the investigational treatment ARGX-113 and 83 received a placebo (an inactive dummy treatment). The trial was measuring whether people with myasthenia gravis (a condition that causes muscle weakness) showed meaningful improvements in their day-to-day symptoms, using two scoring tools: the MG-ADL scale (an 8-question patient-reported survey about daily activities and symptoms, scored 0–24) and the QMG scale (a 13-item clinician assessment of disease severity, scored 0–39). The main result focused on a specific group of participants who tested positive for a particular antibody linked to the condition. The reported data shows that, among the antibody-positive group, approximately 67.7% of participants receiving ARGX-113 were classed as "responders" on the MG-ADL scale during the first treatment cycle (meaning their score dropped by at least 2 points for at least 4 weeks in a row), compared with 29.7% of those receiving placebo. On the QMG scale, the reported data shows approximately 63.1% in the ARGX-113 group were classed as responders, compared with 14.1% in the placebo group. When looking at all enrolled participants (not just the antibody-positive group), 67.9% of the ARGX-113 group were MG-ADL responders versus 37.3% in the placebo group. The reported data also shows several secondary measurements. The percentage of time participants had a meaningful improvement in their MG-ADL score over roughly 18 weeks was reported as approximately 48.7% for the ARGX-113 group and 26.6% for the placebo group. The median time before participants qualified for a repeat treatment cycle was reported as 35 days in the ARGX-113 group and 8 days in the placebo group. Additionally, about 56.9% of the ARGX-113 group showed an early response (within the first two infusions), compared with 25.0% of the placebo group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT03772587 · results posted 27 October 2021
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03772587) looked at a drug called nipocalimab (also known as M281) in people with myasthenia gravis, a condition that causes muscle weakness. A total of 68 people took part across five groups: one group received a placebo (an inactive treatment), and four groups received different doses or dosing schedules of nipocalimab. The trial measured how many people experienced unwanted medical events (called adverse events), and also tracked changes in participants' day-to-day symptoms using a scoring tool called the MG-ADL, which rates things like talking, swallowing, breathing, and getting up from a chair on a scale from 0 (no difficulty) to 24 (severe difficulty). The reported data shows that when it came to unwanted medical events that occurred during the study, 11 out of 14 placebo participants, 12 out of 14 in the 5 mg/kg group, 9 out of 13 in the 30 mg/kg group, 12 out of 13 in the 60 mg/kg group, and 12 out of 14 in the 60 mg/kg every-two-weeks group experienced at least one such event. Serious adverse events — meaning events such as hospitalisation or life-threatening occurrences — were reported in 2 placebo participants, 1 participant in the 30 mg/kg group, and none in the other three groups. No participants in any group experienced the specific high-priority events the trial was watching for (severe infections or a serious drop in a blood protein called albumin). For day-to-day symptom scores, the reported average changes from the starting score by day 57 were: −1.8 points for placebo, −2.5 points for the 5 mg/kg group, −3.9 points for the 30 mg/kg group, −1.5 points for the 60 mg/kg group, and −3.9 points for the 60 mg/kg every-two-weeks group — where a negative number means the score went down (i.e., fewer reported difficulties) from the beginning of the study. The reported data also shows a secondary analysis looking at whether reductions in a blood protein called IgG (which nipocalimab is designed to lower) were linked to changes in symptom scores. Across all participants combined, every 10% reduction in IgG was associated with a reported change of −0.30 points on the symptom scale; among participants who tested positive for a specific antibody (anti-AChR), that figure was −0.33 points per 10% IgG reduction. These figures come from a statistical modelling approach and represent an estimated relationship rather than a direct measurement. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT03052751 · results posted 3 August 2021
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03052751) looked at an investigational medicine called UCB7665 in people with myasthenia gravis, a condition that causes muscle weakness. The trial used a crossover design, meaning participants received different treatments at different stages. In the first dosing period, 22 people received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) and 21 received UCB7665 at a dose of 7 mg/kg. Those participants then moved into a second period where they were split into smaller groups receiving different dose combinations. In total, 43 people began the trial across the two main starting groups. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured was a standardised symptom score called the Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) score, which runs from 0 to 39 — a lower score means less disease activity. At the measurement point the trial was tracking, the placebo group's score had changed by an average of −1.2 points from the start (a small decrease), while the UCB7665 group's score had changed by an average of −1.8 points (also a small decrease). On a separate measure of daily activities (the MG-Activities of Daily Living scale, ranging from 0 to 24), the reported change from the start was −0.4 points for the placebo group and −1.8 points for the UCB7665 group. On a third scale called the MG-Composite score (ranging from 0 to 50), the placebo group showed a reported change of −1.2 points and the UCB7665 group showed −3.1 points. In all cases, a negative number means scores moved in the direction of lower disease activity on that scale. It is important to note that these numbers describe what was recorded and reported — they do not on their own tell us whether any difference between groups is meaningful or due to chance. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT02965573 · results posted 8 January 2021
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02965573) enrolled 24 people in total — 12 received the investigational treatment called ARGX-113 and 12 received a placebo (an inactive dummy treatment). Eleven of the 12 participants in the ARGX-113 group completed the study, while all 12 in the placebo group completed it. The trial was primarily measuring a range of safety-related indicators: unwanted medical events that occurred during treatment (called treatment-emergent adverse events), changes in blood pressure, heart rate, body temperature, and weight, as well as results from heart-tracing tests (ECGs). The reported data shows that 10 out of 12 participants in each group experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event during the study. When looking at more serious adverse events, 8 out of 12 participants in the ARGX-113 group and 3 out of 12 in the placebo group had these recorded. No participants in either group experienced the most severe categories of adverse events (those graded as severe, life-threatening, or fatal). For the physical measurements, the reported data shows small fluctuations in blood pressure, heart rate, body temperature, and weight across both groups at various time points throughout the study — the numbers shifted modestly up or down from each person's starting point in both groups. No participants in either group were recorded as having abnormal, clinically concerning findings on their ECG heart tracings. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT02301624 · results posted 5 February 2020
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02301624) enrolled 117 participants in total — 56 in a group that received the medicine eculizumab throughout the study, and 61 in a group that started on a placebo (a dummy treatment) before switching to eculizumab. The trial was looking at a condition called myasthenia gravis, a disease that affects muscle strength. It measured two main things: how many participants experienced unwanted health events (called adverse events) during the study, and how participants' ability to carry out daily activities changed over time, using a scoring tool called the MG-ADL scale (a questionnaire where lower scores mean fewer difficulties). The reported data shows that, when it came to unwanted health events, 55 out of 56 participants in the eculizumab-only group and 59 out of 61 in the placebo-then-eculizumab group recorded at least one such event during the study. Serious unwanted health events were recorded in 3 participants in the eculizumab group and 5 in the placebo-then-eculizumab group. For daily activity scores, the reported data shows that at the four-week mark, the eculizumab group's score changed by an average of −0.2 points (a very small reduction) from their starting point, while the placebo-then-eculizumab group's score changed by −2.4 points. By week 130, the reported changes from each group's individual starting points were −0.7 points and −3.9 points respectively. On this scale, a lower (more negative) number represents fewer reported difficulties with daily activities. It is worth noting that the two groups had different starting points and different timings of when they began taking eculizumab, which means the numbers between groups are not a straightforward like-for-like comparison. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT02565576 · results posted 25 July 2019
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02565576) looked at a treatment called CFZ533 compared to a placebo (an inactive treatment) in people with Myasthenia Gravis (MG), a condition that causes muscle weakness. A total of 44 people took part — 22 in the CFZ533 group and 22 in the placebo group. Of these, 17 in each group completed the study, and 5 in each group did not finish. The trial was primarily measuring changes in a standard MG symptom score called the QMG score, which runs from 0 (no symptoms) to 39 (severe symptoms), with a lower score indicating fewer symptoms. The reported data shows that, from the start of the trial to week 25, the CFZ533 group had an average decrease in QMG score of about 4.1 points, while the placebo group had an average decrease of about 2.9 points. For a secondary measure — the MG Composite (MGC) score, which runs from 0 to 50 — the CFZ533 group showed an average decrease of 8.0 points compared to 5.6 points in the placebo group. On a daily activities scale (MG-ADL, scored 0–24), the CFZ533 group showed an average decrease of 2.6 points versus 1.1 points in the placebo group. In both groups, 10 and 9 participants respectively showed an improvement of 3 or more points on the QMG score, and 2 participants in each group showed a worsening of 3 or more points. No participants in either group stopped the trial due to their condition getting worse or the treatment not working. The data for steroid tolerance was reported as not available. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT02970162 · results posted 24 December 2018
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02970162) enrolled 26 people in total — 13 received amifampridine phosphate and 13 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). All 26 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring two main things: a doctor-rated score called the Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) score, which rates muscle and physical function on a scale from 0 to 39 (where a higher number means more difficulty), and a patient-rated score called the Subject Global Impression (SGI), where participants rated how they felt on a scale from 1 ("terrible") to 7 ("delighted"). The reported data shows that at the start of the study (baseline), both groups had similar QMG scores — around 7.8 for the amifampridine phosphate group and 8.5 for the placebo group. By day 4, the amifampridine phosphate group's QMG score was reported as 7.9, while the placebo group's score rose to 15.0, representing a reported change of approximately +0.1 in the amifampridine phosphate group versus +6.5 in the placebo group. For the patient-rated SGI score, the amifampridine phosphate group started at 6.1 and ended at 5.3 (a change of −0.8), while the placebo group started at 5.8 and fell to 2.4 (a change of −3.5). A secondary doctor-rated measure of overall change showed a score of 3.8 for the amifampridine phosphate group and 5.5 for the placebo group (where a lower number means less worsening on that scale). For a walking test, the reported data shows 1 participant in the amifampridine phosphate group and 8 in the placebo group had a meaningful increase in the time it took to complete the test. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT02110706 · results posted 2 October 2018
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 52 people in total — 25 received rituximab and 27 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The trial was measuring two main things: whether rituximab helped participants reduce their steroid (prednisone) dose by at least 75% while keeping their symptoms stable or improved over 52 weeks, and how many participants experienced treatment-related side effects. It also tracked changes in two symptom rating scales — the MGC (scored 0–50, where higher means worse) and the QMG (scored 0–39, where higher means worse). The reported data shows that, for the main steroid-reduction goal, 15 out of 25 participants in the rituximab group and 15 out of 27 in the placebo group met that target — meaning a similar number in each group reached this result. Regarding side effects, the reported data shows 19 rituximab participants and 22 placebo participants experienced treatment-related adverse events (unwanted health events thought to be linked to treatment), while 6 in the rituximab group and 8 in the placebo group experienced serious adverse events (more significant health events). For the symptom scales, the rituximab group's average MGC score changed by −5.7 points from the start of the trial to week 52, compared with −4.0 points in the placebo group. The average QMG score changed by −3.95 points in the rituximab group and −1.70 points in the placebo group (a negative number means scores moved toward less severe on the scale). These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT01997229 · results posted 7 February 2018
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01997229) enrolled 125 people with myasthenia gravis — a condition that affects muscle strength and control. Sixty-two participants were assigned to receive eculizumab and 63 received a placebo (an inactive treatment used for comparison). The main thing the trial was measuring was any change in day-to-day functioning over 26 weeks, using a tool called the Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) scale, which captures how the condition affects routine tasks like eating, speaking, and breathing. The reported data shows that results were analysed using a "worst-rank" method. In this approach, all 125 participants were given a rank between 1 and 125 — where a rank of 1 represented the best reported outcome and a rank of 125 represented the worst. The eculizumab group received an average rank of 56.6, while the placebo group received an average rank of 68.3. A lower average rank in this system indicates a relatively better position within the group as a whole. No other outcome measures were included in the structured results data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so no further figures can be reported here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT00294658 · results posted 16 January 2017
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 126 people with myasthenia gravis (a condition that causes muscle weakness). Participants were randomly placed into one of two groups: 66 people received surgery to remove the thymus gland (thymectomy) plus the steroid medication prednisone, while 60 people received prednisone alone. The trial followed participants for up to three years and measured two main things: their muscle weakness scores using a standard scale called the Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) test (where a score of 0 means no weakness and 39 means the most severe weakness), and the average dose of prednisone they were taking over that time. By the end of the study, 60 people in the surgery-plus-prednisone group and 51 in the prednisone-alone group had completed the trial. The reported data shows that, averaged across the three-year follow-up period, the surgery-plus-prednisone group had a mean QMG weakness score of 6.15, compared with 8.99 in the prednisone-alone group. For the average prednisone dose taken on alternating days, the reported data shows the surgery-plus-prednisone group averaged 32 mg, while the prednisone-alone group averaged 54 mg. Secondary analyses broke these same measurements down by subgroups — such as whether participants were already on prednisone at the start, their sex, and their age when the condition first appeared — and the reported numbers followed a similar pattern across all subgroups, though the specific figures varied slightly between subgroups. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT00727194 · results posted 12 December 2016
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00727194) looked at a medicine called eculizumab in people with myasthenia gravis, a condition that causes muscle weakness. The trial used a "crossover" design, meaning participants took either eculizumab or a dummy treatment (placebo) for one period, had a break, and then switched to the other. A total of 30 people entered the screening stage, but 16 did not proceed past screening. Of the 14 who were randomised into the two treatment groups, 7 started in the eculizumab-first group and 7 in the placebo-first group. The main thing being measured was whether patients' muscle weakness scores (using a tool called the QMG score, which rates muscle strength out of 39, with higher numbers meaning more severe symptoms) improved by at least 3 points. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure, 86% of patients in the eculizumab period showed at least a 3-point improvement in their QMG score, compared with 57% in the placebo period. For a secondary measure looking at the average change in the QMG score, the reported figures show an average reduction (improvement) of about 7.4 points during the eculizumab period and about 2.7 points during the placebo period. When data from both treatment periods were combined, those figures were approximately 7.9 points and 3.7 points respectively. The trial also measured daily activities (using a tool called MG-ADL), quality of life (using a survey called SF-36), and breathing function — the reported numbers for those measures are included in the submitted data, though detailed breakdowns of what those changes mean clinically were not elaborated upon in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT00814138 · results posted 23 December 2015
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 50 people with myasthenia gravis (a condition affecting the nerves and muscles), with 25 assigned to take methotrexate (2.5 mg) and 25 assigned to take a placebo (a dummy pill). The trial was measuring whether taking methotrexate alongside the steroid medication prednisone made any difference to the total amount of prednisone participants needed over a nine-month period, as well as looking at muscle strength, symptoms, and quality of life over 12 months. By the end of the study, 24 of the 25 people in the methotrexate group had completed the trial, compared with 18 of the 25 in the placebo group. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured — the total prednisone dose taken over nine months (expressed as a combined figure of dose over time) — was 2,996.6 units in the methotrexate group and 3,484.7 units in the placebo group. For the secondary measures, the average daily prednisone dose was reported as 12.8 mg/day in the methotrexate group and 14.6 mg/day in the placebo group. On a scale of muscle and breathing function (scored 0–39, where higher means more severe), the methotrexate group showed a change of −1.4 points and the placebo group showed a change of +0.3 points from their starting scores. On a muscle strength test (scored 0–76, where higher means more weakness), the methotrexate group showed a change of −5.5 points and the placebo group −3.3 points. For quality of life (scored 0–60, where higher means greater impact on daily life), both groups showed a reduction: −4.6 points for methotrexate and −3.7 for placebo. On a daily symptom scale (scored 0–24), the methotrexate group showed a change of −1.2 points and the placebo group +0.26 points. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
See the full Myasthenia Gravis page · What changed recently
Not medical advice. These are results as reported by the trial sponsor to a public registry, summarised in plain English. They describe what a trial recorded, not whether a treatment is suitable for any person. Verify anything important against the original registry record and discuss what it means for you with your doctor.