ReviewCureus2023
Eculizumab Versus Ravulizumab for the Treatment of Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structural Basis of Shiga Toxin Neutralization by Human Antibodies Targeting Canonical Receptor-Binding and Non-Canonical Assembly Sites.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Article
- Therapeutic advances in eculizumab for atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome: a narrative review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- New Anticomplement Drugs in Nephrology: Mechanism and Indication.Kidney & blood pressure research · 2026Review
- Emerging role of complement system in the induction of neuroinflammation in adenylosuccinate lyase deficiency disorder.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2025Review
- Phenotypic and targeted drug discovery in immune therapeutics: challenges, opportunities, and future directions.RSC advances · 2025Review
- Complement System Inhibitors in Nephrology: An Update-Narrative Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Ravulizumab in treatment-naïve patients with atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome: a real-world case series.Drug target insightsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS) is a type of thrombotic microangiopathy and is characterized by microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and acute kidney failure. The complement cascade plays an integral role in aHUS. Mutations in the complement cascade, especially in the alternative pathway (AP) lead to an unregulated and continuous activation of the cascade. Eculizumab and ravulizumab are humanized monoclonal antibodies that inhibit the complement cascade. This systematic analysis reviews the evidence for both antibodies to compare them in terms of safety and efficacy. This review will also assess the evidence for biomarker associations with interventions, the role of genetic mutations in the prognosis of disease, and the financial burden of both treatment options. An in-depth search was conducted across PubMed, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Both eculizumab and ravulizumab were comparable in safety and efficacy but ravulizumab was preferred by patients and their caregivers as it posed a lower financial burden and had less frequent dosing. Soluble complement 5b-9 (sC5b), especially in urine, has the potential to be used as a biomarker to assess response to treatment. Genetic mutations, especially mutations in complement factor I (CFI), membrane cofactor protein (MCP), and complement factor H (CFH), were associated with a higher risk of recurrence, and therefore care should be taken when attempting to discontinue treatment in this subset of patients. Treatment with a monoclonal antibody should be initiated as soon as a genetic mutation is identified. Blinded, double-arm, clinical trials preferably with larger sample sizes are needed to effectively compare both the monoclonal antibodies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.