Trial reportFrontiers in immunology2026
Efficacy and safety of efgartigimod in the treatment of impending myasthenic crisis.
Trial report in Frontiers in immunology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: To compare the short-term efficacy and safety of efgartigimod versus intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) in patients with impending myasthenic crisis (IMC). Methods: This single-center, randomized, open-label, prospective comparative cohort study included 38 acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive (AChR-Ab+) patients with IMC, which was defined as rapid progression of bulbar or respiratory symptoms within ≤2 weeks, meeting at least one of the following criteria:Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America (MGFA) grade IVb, a Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) bulbar subscore of 3, a respiratory subscore of 2, or a combined bulbar-respiratory subscore ≥4. The participants were included and categorized into either the efgartigimod group (n=21; 10 mg/kg weekly for 4 weeks) or the IVIg group (n=17; 400 mg/kg/day for 5 days). The primary endpoints were the rate of IMC remission within one month (defined as a QMG score <2 for both the bulbar and respiratory items, or a combined bulbar plus respiratory QMG score <4, or an improvement of the MGFA classification to below class IVb, sustained for at least 24 hours.) and time to remission. Secondary outcomes comprised changes in QMG total, bulbar, and respiratory subscores, and Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) from baseline to remission. Safety was assessed by rates of progression to myasthenic crisis (MC) and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: Between January 2024 and March 2025, 38 patients were randomized. IMC remission rates were 90.48% with efgartigimod and 94.12% with IVIg (P = 1.000). The median time to remission was significantly shorter with efgartigimod (8 days; 95% CI: 5.75-10.67) than with IVIg (12 days; 95% CI: 9.92-13.20; P = 0.009). One patient per group progressed to myasthenic crisis (4.76% vs 5.88%). No TEAEs were reported. Conclusion: Efgartigimod demonstrated comparable efficacy to IVIg for IMC remission but with a significantly faster onset, supporting its role as a rapid and safe alternative.
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.