ArticleImmunoTargets and therapy2026
Targeting BLyS and APRIL with Telitacicept versus Conventional Immunotherapy in Generalized Myasthenia Gravis: A Comparative Study.
Article in ImmunoTargets 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Telitacicept is approved for acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive generalized myasthenia gravis (AChR-Ab+ gMG) in China. Although clinical trials have demonstrated its efficacy, real-world outcomes and safety require validation. This study compared telitacicept with conventional immunotherapy in a broader AChR-Ab+ GMG population, bridging the gap between RCT data and real-world practice. Methods: This retrospective real-world study (ChiCTR2500109279) included 215 patients with AChR-Ab+ gMG, with 43 receiving telitacicept and 172 undergoing conventional immunotherapy. Propensity score matching (1:1) yielded 35 patients per group. Treatment response was assessed by changes in Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) and Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (ADL) scores, time to minimal symptom expression (MSE), and prednisone use. Results: At week 4, the telitacicept group showed greater improvements than the control group in both QMG and ADL scores (QMG: 3.63±1.48 vs 0.37±2.76, p<0.001; ADL: 2.80±1.13 vs 0.46±2.44, p<0.001). These benefits were more pronounced at week 24 and sustained throughout follow-up (QMG: 10.30±4.19 vs 2.86±3.21, p<0.001; ADL: 8.06±3.37 vs 2.63±2.07, p<0.001). The telitacicept group also reached MSE earlier (median 5 months) and had more patients achieving MSE by week 24 (57.1% vs 11.4%, p<0.001), with lower cumulative prednisone doses over 24 weeks (2325 mg vs 6525 mg, p<0.001). A progressive decrease in IgM/IgG ratio was observed during treatment. Telitacicept was well-tolerated with no serious adverse events. Conclusion: This real-world study demonstrates that telitacicept effectively improves symptoms and maintains stability in AChR Ab+ gMG patients, with faster onset, reduced corticosteroid dependence, and favorable safety versus conventional immunotherapy.
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.