ArticleKidney international reports2026
Antimeningococcal Protection in Patients Receiving Terminal Complement Inhibitors.
Article in Kidney international reports, 2026. 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.
- Shifting From Systemic to Precision-Targeted Complement Therapies: Opportunities and Hurdles.European journal of immunology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: C5 inhibitor (C5i) therapy markedly increases susceptibility to invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) by blocking the terminal complement pathway essential for defense against Methods: The analysis included 124 C5i recipients treated for > 6 months. Patients were classified as receiving single protection (vaccination or antibiotic prophylaxis alone) or combined protection (vaccination and continuous antibiotic prophylaxis). The outcomes were analyzed by prescribed and by implemented regimen; the latter accounting for patient adherence to antibiotic prophylaxis. Results: Of the patients, 60% were prescribed combined protection. Booster vaccination coverage was low (< 40%), and one-quarter of patients did not adhere to antibiotic prophylaxis. The overall incidence of IMD was 0.74 cases per 100 patient-years (PY) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37-1.32). After accounting for noncompliance, the incidence of IMD remained significantly lower in the combined protection group (3.1 [95% CI: 1.5-4.8] vs. 0.5 [95% CI: 0.0-2.7], Conclusion: Although guidelines recommend vaccination alone, our findings indicate that combined protection offers substantially greater protection against IMD in patients receiving long-term C5i. Continued prospective monitoring will be essential to define the optimal preventive strategies in this high-risk population.
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.