Trial reportAdvances in therapy2026
Comparative Efficacy of Recombinant C1 Inhibitor Versus Sebetralstat for On-Demand Treatment of Hereditary Angioedema Attacks: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison.
Trial report in Advances in therapy, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPrompt and effective on-demand treatment is critical in hereditary angioedema (HAE). Although multiple on-demand therapies are available, including recombinant human C1 esterase inhibitor (rhC1-INH) and sebetralstat, no head-to-head efficacy trials exist.
methodsA series of indirect treatment comparisons evaluated the relative efficacy of US Food and Drug Administration-approved doses of intravenous rhC1-INH (50 U/kg for patients weighing < 84 kg; 4200 U otherwise) vs oral sebetralstat (600 mg) for the on-demand treatment of HAE attacks. Patient-level data from rhC1-INH trials (C1 1310, C1 1205, and C1 1304 [placebo only]) were reweighted to match aggregate baseline characteristics (i.e., prophylaxis use, pooled attack location) from the sebetralstat KONFIDENT trial; matching variables were identified from a validated, clinician-informed study of treatment effect modifiers. In the primary analysis, time to complete resolution (TTCR) and redosing were compared using unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons. TTCR subgroup analyses were performed for variables not matched for in the primary analysis due to population differences (i.e., attack severity, time to treatment). Scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed to support TTCR results; a scenario analysis was performed to support redosing results. Hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were estimated using a weighted Cox proportional hazards model and a weighted logistic regression model, respectively.
resultsIn the primary analysis, rhC1-INH was associated with a statistically significant 4.5-fold increased likelihood of achieving complete resolution (HR 4.52; 95% CI 2.84-7.18) and a significant 82% reduction in redosing (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.06-0.53) vs sebetralstat. Similar results for TTCR were observed in subgroup analyses of patients with severe/very severe baseline attacks and patients receiving earlier treatment (within the median time to treatment). Scenario and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings.
conclusionsrhC1-INH provides significantly faster symptom resolution and lower redosing rates vs sebetralstat.
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.