Turn on cookies to sign in
Signing in saves your progress to your Curie account. We can only do that with cookies on — turn them on to continue.
Treating myasthenia gravis (MG) is getting more nuanced as experts weigh where in the autoimmune cascade each therapy strikes. From complement and FcRn inhibitors to B-cell targeting agents, the choice depends on antibody profile, safety concerns, and patient lifestyle. A key gap remains: current approaches may miss long-lived plasma cells, leaving the door open for continued autoantibody production.
Treating myasthenia gravis (MG) is no longer a one-size-fits-all endeavor. A panel of neurology experts breaks down how the position of a therapy within the autoimmune cascade — upstream or downstream — should guide treatment selection, alongside patient-specific factors like antibody profile, safety tolerance, and lifestyle preferences.
On the downstream end, complement inhibitors are best suited for acetylcholine receptor (AChR) antibody–positive patients, while FcRn inhibitors may apply across a broader antibody-defined population. Complement inhibition carries a notable risk of meningococcal infection, requiring vaccination and prophylaxis — a consideration that can affect patient willingness to start treatment. Shared decision-making and clear communication about administration routes and dosing frequency are emphasized as essential.
Moving upstream, the panel explores B-cell targeting strategies. CD20-directed therapies act on earlier B-cell lineage stages, while CD19 targeting reaches further toward plasmablasts and short-lived plasma cells — but neither fully addresses long-lived plasma cells, which can continue producing pathogenic autoantibodies.
Key Takeaways:
Why it matters: As the MG treatment landscape expands, understanding where each therapy acts in the autoimmune pathway is critical for optimizing outcomes and minimizing risks — especially as newer agents targeting deeper immune mechanisms enter the picture.
