Acetylcholine receptor antibody in the diagnosis of myasthenia gravis

The acetylcholine receptor (AchR) antibody assay has a key role in the diagnosis of myasthenia gravis. In this article, the role of AchR antibody assay in the diagnosis of ocular and generalized myasthenia gravis is reviewed, and compared to standard means of diagnosing the disease by clinical and electrophysiological methods.

Comparison of diagnostic tests in myasthenia gravis

Results of 3 tests, intravenous edrophonium chloride, EMG, and acetylcholine receptor antibody testing, were compared in patients with generalised and ocular myasthenia gravis. None of the 3 tests was positive in any patient with a diagnosis other than myasthenia. However, equivocal results were obtained with edrophonium and EMG testing in some patients with myasthenia gravis and in patients with other diseases. It is concluded from this survey that antibody and edrophonium testing were equally efficient in detecting generalised myasthenia gravis. Edrophonium testing was superior in ocular myasthenia gravis. Although the yields from each test varied, all 3 tests were needed for the evaluation of some myasthenia gravis patients as each test may provide additional information.

Acetylcholine receptor antibody in the diagnosis and management of myasthenia gravis

The relationship of acetylcholine receptor (AchR) antibodies to disease activity in myasthenia gravis (MG) is controversial. Some authors claim a direct correlation with disease activity and treatment, in particular plasmapheresis therapy, whereas others have commented on the poor overall correlation of antibody levels with clinical state. Antibody levels were examined in a population of MG patients and correlated with disease activity and response to treatment. Antibodies to skeletal muscle AchR were found in most patients with generalised MG (24/25) and in about half of the patients with purely ocular MG (6/10) and in neither of 2 patients with congenital MG. There was scant correlation with disease activity or response to treatment. It is concluded that the assay is more useful for diagnosis than for management of MG.