SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Comparative efficacy and acceptability of novel biologics in the treatment of myasthenia gravis: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMyasthenia gravis (MG) is a chronic autoimmune disorder affecting the neuromuscular junction. The emergence of molecular therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies, B-cell-depleting agents, and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell-based therapies, has the potential to transform the treatment landscape for myasthenia gravis. The clinical efficacy of novel biologics in the treatment of individuals with myasthenia gravis is still a subject of debate. The objective was to compare and rank the efficacy and acceptability of novel biologics in the treatment of individuals with MG through a network meta-analysis.
methodsThis systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) involved a comprehensive search for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) across several databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, SinoMed, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP, covering articles published from inception until July 3, 2024. We included randomized controlled trials involving patients with myasthenia gravis. The main outcome was the overall symptomatology. Random-effects pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted to compute standardized mean differences (SMDs) or risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The research process did not include individuals with lived experience. The studies' quality was evaluated utilizing the risk-of-bias assessment tool created by the Cochrane Collaboration. Network meta-analysis was performed utilizing Stata 16 and R4.2.3.
resultsEleven RCTs including 840 participants with myasthenia gravis were eligible. Belimumab improvement of the MG-ADL score is compared to placebo (MD = - 3.29, 95% CI (- 5.78, - 0.80), P < 0.05). Compared to placebo, batoclimab enhanced the QMG score (MD = - 4.46, 95% CI (- 7.57, - 1.35), P < 0.05) and the MGC score (MD = - 3.58, 95% CI (- 6.68, - 0.47), P < 0.05). Eculizumab improvement of the MG-QoL 15r score is compared to placebo (MD = - 7.10, 95% CI (- 12.20, - 2.00), P < 0.05). Regarding adverse reactions, we found no difference in the network comparison of novel biologics compared to placebo, but this conclusion requires further validation through rigorous research.
conclusionsThis study provides an updated, relative rank-order efficacy of novel biologics therapies for myasthenia gravis. These data may help inform the design and sample size calculation of future clinical trials and assist selection of combination therapy. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024559757.
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.