Retrospective cohort study evaluates zilucoplan's effectiveness in myasthenia gravis, suggesting improved outcomes.
Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of zilucoplan in the real-world treatment setting in France. Methods This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients with generalized anti-AChR myasthenia gravis (MG) failing current therapy enrolled in the French early access program (EAP) for zilucoplan. Patients were evaluated at enrollment and at Months 1, 3 and 6 with the MG-ADL score, the Myasthenic Muscle Score (MMS-Garches), and the MG-quality of life questionnaire (MG-QoL15r). MG crises and on-treatment adverse events were documented. MG medication use was compared between the six months before and after enrollment. Results Forty-eight patients were enrolled and treated with zilucoplan (mean age: 56.2 years; 50.9% men). Thirty patients achieved six months follow-up before the EAP ended. Three patients discontinued zilucoplan due to lack of efficacy. Mean MG-ADL score decreased from 7.4 ± 4.4 to M0 to 2.5 ± 2.7 at M6 ( p < 0.0001). 9/43 patients achieved minimal symptom expression at M3 and 12/30 at M6. Mean MMS-Garches score was 67.5 ± 20.0 at M0 and 87.5 ± 13.2 at M6 ( p < 0.0001). Mean MG-QoL15r score was 18.2 ± 8.6 at M0 and 8.7 ± 8.3 at M6 ( p = 0.0156). 15 patients experienced adverse events, leading to discontinuation in four cases. The mean oral corticosteroid dose decreased from 28.8 ± 11.8 mg to 17.9 ± 11.8 ( p = 0.001). Six patients experienced MG crises on treatment, compared to 22 in the six months preceding enrollment. treatment. Discussion Following initiation of zilucoplan treatment, we observed an improvement in MG symptoms and a reduction in MG crises and in exposure to oral corticosteroids. Overall, zilucoplan was well-tolerated with no major adverse events reported. Trial registration information The study was registered in the clinicaltrials.gov trial registry under the number NCT06815133 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06815133 ) on February 4 th , 2025.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tammam et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: