Myasthenia gravis patients appear to live significantly longer than those with multiple sclerosis, according to a broad analysis of mortality data. The study suggests that individuals with MG enjoyed a lifespan roughly 15 to 19 years longer than peers with MS across four different datasets. Individuals with MG show a higher mean age at death than the general population, while those with MS show a significantly lower age at death compared with the general population. While MS is known to shorten life expectancy, less is understood about long-term survival in MG.
Comparing Age at Death
A 2026 study published in Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders compared age at death for both conditions with the US population from 2000 to 2015. The authors examined age-at-death patterns during a period preceding today’s high-efficacy therapies for both conditions.
Researchers pulled mortality data from vital records offices in Florida, Wisconsin, Texas, and New York. They matched these against Social Security life tables to establish expected lifespans for the general U.S. population during the same years. The data covers death certificates from 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2013 or 2015. Each state’s data format required custom statistical adjustments, which complicates direct comparison but confirms the consistency of results.
Related: FDA approves Rusfertide for erythrocytosis in polycythemia vera
In Florida and Wisconsin specifically, patients with MS died, on average, 12.4 years earlier than expected. This deficit was statistically significant. Conversely, the MG cohort showed a different trend. These patients lived, on average, 4.8 years longer than the general population. This advantage persisted across the datasets. In New York, the gap between MG and MS survival was even wider, estimated at 18 to 19 years. Texas data supported this, showing individuals over 75 with MG were 15.71 times more likely to be alive than expected. Even though there were differences in data structure and statistical methods, the findings remained consistent.
Treatment Contexts
The study highlights a disparity in medical advancements that may have influenced these outcomes. During the study period, multiple sclerosis treatments were already in use. Disease-modifying therapies like natalizumab and S1P receptor modulators were available and are known to slow disease progression and reduce relapse rates. However, high-efficacy monoclonal antibodies such as ocrelizumab were not approved until 2017.
Myasthenia gravis treatment pathways looked different. While immunosuppressive therapies were used, no novel treatments, including complement inhibitors or FcRn blockers, had been approved, with the last FDA-approved drug for MG dating back over 40 years. This lack of recent pharmacological innovation stands in contrast to the rapidly evolving setting of MS treatment during the same window.
Related: Brain Undergoes Major Change at Thirty Two
Remission and Survival
The type of remission achieved may also play a role in the longevity gap. A 2022 review noted that roughly 40% of people with MG reach complete remission, though that remission isn’t always permanent, as some patients see their symptoms return after a symptom-free period.
For a specific subset of patients, surgery offers a more permanent solution. Among those with MG who also suffer from thyroid hyperplasia, 38% to 60% achieve complete, stable remission after thymectomy. This outcome is linked to both longer life expectancy and better quality of life.
It seems strange to compare survival rates where one group has a clear medical advantage in newer drugs. Yet the data shows MG patients outliving MS patients despite having fewer modern treatments. This suggests that the underlying biology of these autoimmune diseases might differ more than current clinical practice acknowledges. The comparison forces a reevaluation that is arguably overdue.
Related: Trump pushes hospitals to release ER data
Limitations of the Study
Despite the clear trends, the researchers are cautious about the interpretation. The study is observational and cannot establish causation. The authors noted that disease biology, age at diagnosis, and healthcare access patterns may contribute to the observed differences in survival between MG and MS.
The findings relied on death certificate extracts, which did not include age at diagnosis, disease duration, or the exact severity of symptoms. Diagnoses were also not independently verified, though the analysis relied on standard vital records coding. Important clinical factors like race, socioeconomic status, and comorbidity profiles were unavailable.
There is also the issue of survivorship bias. The dataset only includes people who died, meaning it misses the entire population of living patients who might have milder forms of the disease. Furthermore, the MG cohort was substantially smaller than the MS cohort, which can skew the statistical power of the comparison. The data are also limited to 4 states and the years 2000 to 2015, which the authors note may not be generalizable in the way that one would hope.
