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

BackgroundRegular 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.