Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41550273›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2025

Eculizumab withdrawal and monitoring in atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome (SETS aHUS): a multicentre, open label, prospective, single arm trial.

Andrew Bryant, Jan Lecouturier, Giovany Orozco-Leal, Victoria Brocklebank, Sonya Carnell, Thomas Chadwick, Sarah Dunn, Sally Johnson, David Kavanagh, Ciara Kennedy and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Cost-effectiveness of lifelong eculizumab versus disease monitoring of aHUS.Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Andrew BryantPopulation and Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Jan LecouturierPopulation and Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Giovany Orozco-LealPopulation and Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Victoria BrocklebankNational Renal Complement Therapeutic Centre, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Sonya CarnellNewcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Thomas ChadwickPopulation and Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Sarah DunnNewcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Sally JohnsonNational Renal Complement Therapeutic Centre, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
David KavanaghNational Renal Complement Therapeutic Centre, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Ciara KennedyNewcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Michael MalinaNational Renal Complement Therapeutic Centre, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Emma MontgomeryNational Renal Complement Therapeutic Centre, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Colin MuirheadPopulation and Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Yemi OluboyedePopulation and Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Luke ValePopulation and Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Chris WeetmanPopulation and Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Edwin WongNational Renal Complement Therapeutic Centre, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Neil S SheerinNational Renal Complement Therapeutic Centre, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
SETS aHUS Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Atypical Haemolytic Uraemic Syndrome is a rare disease, associated with high morbidity and mortality. Eculizumab, a monoclonal complement inhibitor, is an effective treatment but the optimal way to use this high-cost medication has not been determined. The SETS aHUS trial aimed to establish the safety of eculizumab withdrawal and the effectiveness of a monitoring protocol to detect disease relapse and reintroduction of treatment if relapse occurs. Methods: The SETS aHUS multicentre, open label, prospective, single-arm trial enrolled participants from 15 UK hospitals. Patients over two years of age with aHUS who were receiving eculizumab therapy for at least six months were eligible to withdraw from treatment, replacing it with monitoring to assess disease activity and treatment re-introduction if relapse occurred. The primary outcome measure was harm to a participant as a consequence of eculizumab withdrawal. Participants met a primary outcome if there was a permanent reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate, requirement for kidney replacement therapy or significant extra-renal manifestation of disease. The Bayes factor single arm binary model was used to monitor and analyse the trial data, applying pre-trial stopping rules. The trial is registered with the European Union Drug Regulating Authority (EudraCT 2017-003916-37) and is closed for recruitment. Findings: One of 28 participants (3.6%) who withdrew from treatment met a primary outcome. Four of the 28 participants (14.3%) relapsed. Only participants with an identified cause of complement dysregulation relapsed. It was possible, by monitoring and rapid participant access, to reintroduce eculizumab treatment. Based on the pre-trial analysis plan, withdrawal from treatment may represent no greater risk to patients. Interpretation: In this single arm study, for patients fulfilling trial entry criteria, which excluded some high-risk patients, withdrawal of eculizumab treatment with monitoring of disease activity was not associated with an increased risk of harm compared to continuation of eculizumab. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Indexed as

Atypical haemolytic uraemic syndromeComplementEculizumabRelapse predictionTreatment withdrawal

Identifiers

PMID41550273
PMCPMC12811780

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.