ReviewNeurology and therapy2026
Comparative Evaluation of Rituximab Versus Approved Therapies in Aquaporin-4-IgG-Positive Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
Review in Neurology and 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
32 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNeuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is a rare antibody-mediated neuro-autoimmune disease. Monoclonal antibodies targeting B cell antigens CD19 and CD20, the interleukin-6 receptor, or the complement cascade are used as preventive therapies to reduce relapse rates. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the effect of rituximab on time to first relapse with ravulizumab, eculizumab, inebilizumab, and satralizumab in patients with NMOSD who are aquaporin-4 (AQP4)-IgG-positive.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and gray literature sources up to October 31, 2024, and updated on November 1, 2025, following PRISMA guidelines. A network meta-analysis of randomized and open-label trials was conducted to compare time to first relapse between rituximab and other monoclonal antibody therapies.
resultsFrom 6337 records, 3825 duplicates were removed; 2512 were screened, 2327 excluded, leaving eight trials. The prior treatment, relapse history, and definitions and adjudication of relapse varied across studies. Rituximab showed higher hazard ratio (HR) point estimates for time to first relapse compared with ravulizumab with or without immunosuppressive therapies (IST) (HR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25, 101.01) and eculizumab ± IST (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.12, 10.89), but were lower compared with satralizumab ± IST (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.04, 2.23). In patients not receiving IST, rituximab showed numerically higher HR compared with ravulizumab (HR 3.33, 95% CI 0.13, 83.16) and eculizumab (HR 1.59, 95% CI 0.05, 50.17), but lower point estimates compared with inebilizumab (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.04, 2.31) and satralizumab (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.03, 2.21).
conclusionThis NMA showed hazard ratio point estimates favoring eculizumab and ravulizumab over rituximab. However, wide, overlapping confidence intervals and between-study heterogeneity indicate substantial uncertainty. Head-to-head trials or registry-based studies are needed to determine the most effective treatment for AQP4-IgG-positive NMOSD.
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.