Expert consensus recommendations for improving and standardising the assessment of patients with generalised myasthenia gravis

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundRegular and consistent disease assessment could provide a clearer picture of burden in generalised myasthenia gravis (gMG) and improve patient care; however, the use of assessment tools in practice lacks standardisation. This modified Delphi approach was taken to review current evidence on assessment tool use in gMG and develop expert‐derived consensus recommendations for good practice.MethodsA European expert panel of 15 experienced gMG neurologists contributed to development of this consensus, four of whom formed a lead Sub‐committee. The PICO (Population, Intervention, Control, Outcomes) framework was used to define six clinical questions on gMG assessment tools, a systematic literature review was conducted, and evidence‐based statements were developed. According to a modified Delphi voting process, consensus was reached when ≥70% of the experts rated agreement with a statement as ≥8 on a scale of 1–10.ResultsEighteen expert‐ and evidence‐based consensus statements based on six themes were developed. Key recommendations include: consistent use of the Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living score (MG‐ADL) across clinical settings, followed by a simple question (e.g., Patient Acceptable Symptom State [PASS]) or scale to determine patient satisfaction in clinical practice; use of a Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis [QMG] or quality of life [QoL] assessment when the MG‐ADL indicates disease worsening; and consideration of symptom state to determine the timing and frequency of recommended assessments. Expert panel consensus was reached on all 18 statements after two voting rounds.ConclusionsThis process provided evidence‐ and expert consensus‐based recommendations for the use of objective and subjective assessment tools across gMG research and care to improve management and outcomes for patients.