Observational studyCNS neuroscience & therapeutics2026
Double-Filtration Plasmapheresis Versus Efgartigimod for Generalized Myasthenia Gravis: Severity-Stratified Benefits in a Prospective Observational Multicenter Study.
Observational study in CNS neuroscience & therapeutics, 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.
- An Immune Model Incorporating NK Cells and IL-12 to Predict the Efficacy of the Initial Treatment Cycle of Efgartigimod in Generalized Myasthenia Gravis.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDouble-Filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) and efgartigimod (EFG) are both effective acute exacerbation therapies for generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG), yet real-world comparative evidence remains limited. This study aims to systematically compare their clinical efficacy and safety to guide individualized treatment strategies.
methodsThis prospective multicenter study (Aug 2019-Mar 2025) evaluated gMG patients treated with a cycle of DFPP (3-5 sessions) or EFG (4 weekly infusions). Primary endpoints included changes in Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) and Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) scores from baseline (T0) to post-treatment (T1) and 1 month after T1 (T2). Secondary endpoints covered clinical meaningful improvement (CMI), deep improvement rates (defined as ≥ 5-point reduction in MG-ADL or ≥ 9-point in QMG), immunological changes, and safety.
resultsAmong 66 MG patients (EFG = 41, DFPP = 25), both DFPP and EFG significantly reduced QMG and MG-ADL scores at T1 and T2. In moderate-to-severe gMG (MGFA ≥ IIb), 3/5-session DFPP was superior to 4-infusion EFG at T2 (p < 0.05), while efficacy was comparable in mild cases (MGFA ≤ IIa). Sustained CMI rates (through T2) increased with higher treatment intensity; the 5-session DFPP rate was significantly higher than the 3-session DFPP (85% vs. 45%, p = 0.049) and numerically higher than the 4-infusion EFG (85% vs. 70%, p = 0.413). The proportion of patients achieving deep improvement in 5-session DFPP was higher than 4-infusion EFG. DFPP broadly reduced immunoglobulins/complement versus EFG's selective immunoglobulin G (IgG) reduction. Adverse events occurred in 28.0% of the DFPP group (mainly catheter-related thrombosis) and 39.0% of the EFG group (predominantly headache; p = 0.431), with no serious events reported.
conclusionBoth DFPP and EFG effectively treat gMG, though DFPP offers greater benefit in moderate-to-severe cases, underscoring the need for individualized therapy.
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.