ArticleEJHaem2025
Effectiveness of Iptacopan Versus C5 Inhibitors in Complement Inhibitor-Naive Patients With Paroxysmal Nocturnal Haemoglobinuria.
Article in EJHaem, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
A Multicenter, Single-arm, Open-label Trial to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety of Oral, Twice Daily Iptacopan in Adult PNH Patients Who Are Naive to Complement Inhibitor Therapy
Hematological Response in Patients With Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria Treated With Anti-C5 Antibody: an External Control Arm Study for Iptacopan Use in Anti-C5 naïve Patients
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-Reported Meaningful Change in Symptoms and Impacts of Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria (PNH) in Three Phase III Clinical Trials of Iptacopan.The patient · 2025Trial
- External Control Arms in Japan: A Systematic Case Analysis of Documented Regulatory Implementation and Uncertainty Management.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Beyond Terminal Blockade: A Mechanism-Based Approach to Complement Inhibitor Selection in Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria (PNH) is characterised by haemolytic anaemia, bone marrow failure and thrombosis. The single-arm phase 3 APPOINT-PNH trial (NCT04820530) investigating iptacopan monotherapy in complement inhibitor-naive patients demonstrated significant haemoglobin concentration improvements. Methods: We used target trial emulation to retrospectively predict outcomes if APPOINT-PNH trial patients had received C5 inhibitors instead of iptacopan. Estimates were derived from the real-world APPEX cohort treated with routine C5 inhibitors. The study used benchmarking and comparative effectiveness to evaluate the haematological response in APPOINT-PNH if patients had received C5 inhibitors. Treatment effect was estimated using propensity scores to model the probability of trial inclusion based on baseline covariates, followed by fitting an outcome model to the APPEX cohort. Results: The analysis of 125 patients showed all estimated treatment effects (95% confidence interval) favoured iptacopan over C5 inhibitors: differences in the proportion of patients achieving haemoglobin increase from baseline of ≥ 2 g/dL, 68.2% (40.9-95.6); haemoglobin levels of ≥ 12 g/dL, 53.4% (31.4-75.3); transfusion independence, 38.8% (15.1-62.5); ratio of percent change from baseline in lactate dehydrogenase levels, 0.51 (0.40-0.67); change from baseline in reticulocytes, -75.5 × 10 Conclusions: Results indicate C5 inhibitor-naive patients with PNH may experience greater haematological response with iptacopan than with C5 inhibitors. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05842486.
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.