ArticleRMD open2026
Real-world efficacy and safety of avacopan in ANCA-associated vasculitis: a retrospective comparative study.
Article in RMD open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAvacopan, an oral C5a receptor antagonist, is approved for treatment of severe antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) in combination with rituximab or cyclophosphamide. This study evaluated its real-world efficacy, safety and glucocorticoid-sparing effects.
methodsThis retrospective single-centre study included 35 patients with new-onset or relapsing AAV treated with avacopan plus standard induction therapy (rituximab, cyclophosphamide or both). Outcomes were compared with 70 matched controls receiving standard therapy. Primary endpoints were remission (Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS)=0, prednisolone ≤5 mg/day) at 6 and 12 months. Secondary endpoints included relapse, renal function, glucocorticoid exposure and adverse events.
resultsBaseline characteristics were generally comparable, although median estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was lower in the avacopan group (24 vs 49 mL/min). Induction therapy included rituximab (28%), cyclophosphamide (11%) or combination therapy (61%), reflecting severe disease. Remission rates were similar at 6 months (69% vs 68%) but tended to be higher with avacopan at 12 months (86% vs 68%; p=0.11). Relapses occurred less frequently with avacopan (16% vs 51%, p=0.003), including after treatment discontinuation. Avacopan was associated with accelerated glucocorticoid tapering (≤5 mg/day; 102 vs 164 days, p<0.001), lower cumulative doses (3266 vs 4288 mg, p=0.008) and greater renal function improvement (ΔeGFR+18 vs +7 mL/min after 1 year). Nine patients (26%) discontinued avacopan due to adverse events.
conclusionIn a real-world practice, avacopan was effective with an acceptable safety profile, enabling steroid sparing, improved renal recovery and reduced relapse rates, including in patients receiving combined induction therapy. Benefits persisted beyond 12 months, but prospective confirmation of these presumed long-term benefits is needed.
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.