Trial reportAdvances in therapy2024
Efgartigimod and Ravulizumab for Treating Acetylcholine Receptor Auto-antibody-Positive (AChR-Ab+) Generalized Myasthenia Gravis: Indirect Treatment Comparison.
Trial report in Advances in therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of complement inhibitors and FcRn blockers in generalized AChR antibody-positive myasthenia gravis: a meta-analysis.Journal of neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Network connectivity, between-study heterogeneity and timepoint challenges in generalized myasthenia gravis: a feasibility assessment of indirect treatment comparisons.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative Efficacy of Rozanolixizumab with Efgartigimod or Intravenous Immunoglobulin in Generalized Myasthenia Gravis Using Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparisons.Neurology and therapy · 2026Article
- Patient Perceptions of Needs and Expectations Regarding the Current Management of Myasthenia Gravis: A Biopsychosocial Study.Neurology and therapy · 2026Article
- Indirect Comparison of Nipocalimab Versus Efgartigimod and Rozanolixizumab in the Treatment of Generalized Myasthenia Gravis.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
- Efgartigimod for Generalized Myasthenia Gravis and Beyond: A Narrative Review of Its Pharmacological Profile, Clinical Utility, and Expanding Applications.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Therapeutic strategies targeting complement in myasthenia gravis patients.Journal of neurology · 2025Review
- C5 complement inhibition versus FcRn modulation in generalised myasthenia gravis.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2025Observational
- New and Emerging Biological Therapies for Myasthenia Gravis: A Focussed Review for Clinical Decision-Making.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2025Review
- Treatment of refractory immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy with efgartigimod.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Observational
- Efgartigimod for generalized myasthenia gravis: a comprehensive review of clinical evidence and future perspectives.Frontiers in neurologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEfgartigimod and ravulizumab, both approved for treating acetylcholine receptor auto-antibody-positive (AChR-Ab+) generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG), have not been directly compared. This paper assessed comparative effects of efgartigimod vs. ravulizumab for treating adults with AChR-Ab+ gMG using indirect treatment comparison methods.
methodsThe matching-adjusted indirect comparison used data from two randomized trials of adult men and women. The ADAPT (efgartigimod vs. placebo; individual patient data available) population was reweighted to match the CHAMPION (ravulizumab vs. placebo; index study; aggregate data available) population. The relative effect of efgartigimod versus placebo was estimated in this reweighted population and compared with the observed ravulizumab versus placebo effect to estimate the efgartigimod versus ravulizumab effect. The outcomes were Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL), Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG), and Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life 15-item-revised scale (MG-QoL15r) assessed as cumulative effect (area under the curve; AUC) over 26 weeks (primary) and change from baseline at 4 weeks and time of best response (week 4 for efgartigimod; week 26 for ravulizumab).
resultsFor MG-QoL15r, efgartigimod had a statistically significant improvement compared with ravulizumab over 26 weeks [mean difference (95% confidence interval): - 52.6 (- 103.0, - 2.3)], at week 4 [- 4.0 (- 6.6, - 1.4)], and at time of best response [- 3.9 (- 6.5, - 1.3)]. Efgartigimod had a statistically significant improvement over ravulizumab in MG-ADL at week 4 [- 1.9 (- 3.3, - 0.5)] and at time of best response [- 1.4 (- 2.8, 0.0)] and in QMG at week 4 [- 3.2 (- 5.2, - 1.2)] and at time of best response [- 3.0 (- 5.0, - 1.0)]. For AUC over 26 weeks, improvements were not significantly different between efgartigimod and ravulizumab for MG-ADL [- 8.7 (- 36.1, 18.8)] and QMG [- 13.7 (- 50.3, 22.9)].
conclusionEfgartigimod may provide a faster and greater improvement over 26 weeks in quality of life than ravulizumab in adults with AChR-Ab+ gMG. Efgartigimod showed faster improvements in MG-ADL and QMG than ravulizumab.
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.