Expert consensus recommendations for improving and standardising the assessment of patients with generalised myasthenia gravis
© 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology..
BACKGROUND: Regular 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.
METHODS: A 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.
RESULTS: Eighteen 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.
CONCLUSIONS: This 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.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - year:2024 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
European journal of neurology - (2024) vom: 24. März, Seite e16280 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Meisel, Andreas [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
ADL |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 25.03.2024 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status Publisher |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1111/ene.16280 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM370129849 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM370129849 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240325235828.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240325s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1111/ene.16280 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1347.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM370129849 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)38523419 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Meisel, Andreas |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Expert consensus recommendations for improving and standardising the assessment of patients with generalised myasthenia gravis |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 25.03.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status Publisher | ||
| 520 | |a © 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology. | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: Regular 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 | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: A 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 | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: Eighteen 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 | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: This 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 | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a ADL | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Delphi study | |
| 650 | 4 | |a QoL | |
| 650 | 4 | |a consensus | |
| 650 | 4 | |a generalised | |
| 650 | 4 | |a myasthenia gravis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a patient care | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Saccà, Francesco |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Spillane, Jennifer |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Vissing, John |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a MG Collegium Sub‐committee |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t European journal of neurology |d 1994 |g (2024) vom: 24. März, Seite e16280 |w (DE-627)NLM094480362 |x 1468-1331 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g year:2024 |g day:24 |g month:03 |g pages:e16280 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ene.16280 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |j 2024 |b 24 |c 03 |h e16280 | ||