ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2026
Efficacy and Safety of Rituximab Versus Inebilizumab in Patients With Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder: A Dual-Center, Real-World Cohort Study.
Article in European journal of neurology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the real-world efficacy and safety of rituximab and inebilizumab in patients with aquaporin-4 immunoglobulin G (AQP4-IgG) seropositive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD).
methodsThis retrospective study included patients treated with rituximab or inebilizumab at two tertiary hospitals in China between January 2015 and June 2025. Propensity score matching was conducted to reduce between-group imbalance. The primary endpoint was time to first confirmed relapse. Secondary outcomes included changes in annualized relapse frequency, EDSS scores, and serum IgG and AQP4-IgG levels. Safety profiles were also assessed.
resultsA total of 276 patients were analyzed (rituximab: 211; inebilizumab: 65), yielding 61 well-balanced pairs after propensity score matching. In terms of efficacy, clinical outcomes and AQP4-IgG dynamics were comparable between groups in pre- and post-matching analyses, although inebilizumab exhibited a significantly greater reduction in serum IgG levels at 6 months. Safety profiles differed. Rituximab was associated with a higher incidence of overall adverse events, driven primarily by infusion-related reactions, whereas other adverse events remained comparable.
conclusionsIn our real-world study of 276 patients, rituximab and inebilizumab demonstrated comparable efficacy in the medium term but differed in their safety profiles, with a significantly higher incidence of infusion-related reactions observed in the rituximab group.
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.