Reply to letter in response to Rethinking the diagnosis of double‐seronegative myasthenia gravis
Rodrigo Martinez‐Harms, Carolina Barnett, Monica Alcantara, Vera Bril

Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMyasthenia Gravis and Thymoma
Dear Editor,
We wish to thank Drs. Seok, Kim, Eun, and Lee for their valuable comments about our recently published original article “Clinical Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes in Patients with Double‐Seronegative Myasthenia Gravis” [1]. We are very glad to see that our paper is stimulating further discussion on the topic of patients without detectable antibodies to nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (AChR) and muscle‐specific kinase. The authors correctly point out that we found a significant clinical improvement in double‐seronegative myasthenia gravis (dSNMG) patients in the last clinical evaluation, based on the Myasthenia Gravis Impairment Index and Single Simple Question [2, 3] scores strongly suggesting an immune‐based mechanism and the benefit of immunotherapy in this group of patients.
dSNMG represents a heterogeneous group, and the diagnosis is challenging and commonly based on the clinical presentation and progression. It is fundamental to exclude differential diagnoses such as congenital myasthenia gravis, muscular dystrophies, or other disorders of neuromuscular transmission. The authors think that the electrophysiological findings based on single fiber electromyography and repetitive nerve stimulation are essential in the diagnosis of myasthenia gravis (MG) [4]. There are additional complementary diagnosis tests for MG, for example, the edrophonium and neostigmine tests, which can be reliable, but are rarely used in clinical practice. Therefore, we did not use these tests as an inclusion criterion in our study. We agree fully with Seok et al. that patients who have refractory seronegative MG should be extensively reviewed for the possibility of alternate diagnoses, although we understand that refractoriness alone does not exclude a diagnosis, as seropositive MG patients can be refractory to treatment.
There is a need for further characterization of serological markers in seronegative MG patients. Novel antibodies have been associated with MG and could be present in this group of patients. Especially relevant is the lipoprotein receptor‐related protein 4 (LRP4), which may be an MG marker. One weakness of our study is the absence of LRP4 antibody serology characterization, which might have reduced the numbers considered to be dSNMG. Additional antibodies against other extracellular or intracellular targets have been found in some MG patients, such as agrin, collagen Q, Kv 1.4 potassium channels, titin, the ryanodine receptor, and cortactin, and these may play a role in MG [5]. Nevertheless, whether these antibodies produce disease pathology or are just an epiphenomenon needs to be further studied. Some of these antibodies have been found in healthy controls or associated with other immune conditions like cortactin antibodies, present in 20% of those with poliomyelitis [4]. It may be that dSNMG patients have one of these potential new markers, and this association hypothetically might be associated with a variation in the classic MG treatment response and have a poor response compared to classic AChR‐positive MG.
In conclusion, dSNMG patients have significant clinical improvement after treatment, supporting an immune‐mediated pathophysiology and encouraging efforts to improve the response to treatment. The development of new biomarkers is promising and may improve personalized clinical characterization and individualized therapeutic approaches.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Rodrigo Martinez‐Harms: Conceptualization; writing – original draft; validation; writing – review and editing; supervision; project administration; investigation. Carolina Barnett: Conceptualization; writing – review and editing; supervision. Monica Alcantara: Conceptualization; writing – review and editing; supervision. Vera Bril: Conceptualization; writing – review and editing; supervision; project administration; writing – original draft.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
None of the authors has any conflict of interest to disclose.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1Martinez‐Harms R , Barnett C , Alcantara M , Bril V . Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes in patients with double‐seronegative myasthenia gravis. Eur J Neurol. 2023;31(1):e 16022. doi:10.1111/ene.16022 37531447 PMC 11235949 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 2Barnett C , Bril V , Kapral M , Kulkarni AV , Davis AM . Myasthenia gravis impairment index. Neurology. 2017;89(23):2357‐2364.29101274 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004676 PMC 5719924 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 3Abraham A , Breiner A , Barnett C , Katzberg HD , Bril V . The utility of a single simple question in the evaluation of patients with myasthenia gravis. Muscle Nerve. 2018;57(2):240‐244.28590545 10.1002/mus.25720 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 4Gilhus NE , Tzartos S , Evoli A , Palace J , Burns TM . Verschuuren JJGM myasthenia gravis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2019;5(1):30.31048702 10.1038/s 41572-019-0079-y · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 5Lazaridis K , Tzartos SJ . Myasthenia gravis: autoantibody specificities and their role in MG management. Front Neurol. 2020;11:596981.33329350 10.3389/fneur.2020.596981 PMC 7734299 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
