ArticleAdvances in therapy2026
Indirect Comparison of Nipocalimab Versus Efgartigimod and Rozanolixizumab in the Treatment of Generalized Myasthenia Gravis.
Article in Advances in therapy, 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.
- Depletion and recovery of IgG following treatment with an anti-FcRn antibody and IdeS in pigtail macaques.Clinical and experimental immunology · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNipocalimab, efgartigimod, and rozanolixizumab (the last two cyclically dosed) are approved neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) blockers for treating generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG). No trials have directly compared these therapies; hence, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) were conducted to evaluate their relative efficacy.
methodsMatching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) and Bucher ITCs were used to compare nipocalimab vs. efgartigimod and rozanolixizumab for changes from baseline (CFB) in Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) total score observed in their phase 3 registration trials. Bucher ITCs used the relative treatment effect vs. placebo. As there was considerable cross-trial heterogeneity, including uncertainty in using the placebo arm as a common comparator, active treatment arms were used in unanchored MAICs. MG-ADL CFB was compared between trials (1) at multiple timepoints to evaluate onset of action and disease control over time, and (2) using area under the curve (AUC) as a measure of cumulative effect normalized per week of follow-up.
resultsIn both Bucher ITCs and MAICs, nipocalimab had a comparable MG-ADL CFB at week 1 vs. the other FcRn blockers. In MAICs, MG-ADL CFB was significantly greater with nipocalimab vs. efgartigimod at week 8 sustained up to 24 weeks (p < 0.05), and vs. rozanolixizumab at week 10 sustained up to 14 weeks (p < 0.05); results numerically favored nipocalimab in corresponding Bucher ITCs. Using normalized AUC, MG-ADL CFB with nipocalimab was significantly greater in MAICs (p < 0.05) and numerically greater in Bucher ITCs vs. the other FcRn blockers.
conclusionsSustained disease control is an important consideration in managing chronic diseases with fluctuating symptoms such as gMG. Study results showed that nipocalimab provided a comparable onset of action and consistent and sustained disease control that was numerically or statistically significantly greater (depending on ITC method) when compared with the symptom-based cyclic FcRn blockers efgartigimod and rozanolixizumab.
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.