Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42768201›Full record

ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026

Regimen-stratified Bayesian model-based meta-analysis of targeted biologics in generalised myasthenia gravis: efficacy comparison, mechanism-level class contrast, and endpoint sensitivity with model-informed trial design.

Sayantan Shankar Roy, Biswa Mohan Padhy, Abhishek Anil, Debasish Hota, Anand Srinivasan, Apoorva Wasnik

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sayantan Shankar RoyDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, India.
Biswa Mohan PadhyDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, India.
Abhishek AnilDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, India.
Debasish HotaDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, India.
Anand SrinivasanDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, India. anandsrinivasan@aiimsbhubaneswar.edu.in.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0663-0922
Apoorva WasnikDepartment of Community Medicine & Family Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bibinagar, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nine targeted biologics spanning four mechanisms have reached phase III development for generalised myasthenia gravis, yet no cross-programme comparison accounts for the distinct continuous versus cyclical dosing patterns or integrates both patient-reported (MG-ADL) and clinician-assessed (QMG) scales. We performed a regimen-stratified Bayesian model-based meta-analysis (MBMA) to compare efficacy, evaluate mechanism-level class differences, and inform trial design. Longitudinal MG-ADL and QMG data were extracted from nine placebo-controlled phase III trials. Six hierarchical nonlinear Emax models were fitted with inverse-variance weighting. Drug-specific maximum efficacy, net benefit over placebo, week 26 predictions, time to the minimum clinically important difference (MCID), cumulative efficacy, ranking probabilities, and mechanism-level class contrasts were derived. Robustness was assessed via model comparison, prior sensitivity, and Leave-one-study-out analyses on both scales. Endpoint-sensitivity simulation and a treatment-selection framework were appended. The study was registered with PROSPERO: CRD420261288549. On MG-ADL, zilucoplan led with the highest Emax (4.8 points; 95% CrI: 4.2-5.4) and largest net benefit (2.5; 2.0-3.1). On QMG, batoclimab led (Emax 5.9; 4.4-9.5; net benefit 4.1; 2.7-7.7). Efgartigimod achieved the fastest onset on both scales (≤ 1.6 weeks). At the mechanism class level, neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) inhibitors demonstrated decisive superiority over complement inhibitors on QMG (mean Emax 5.28 vs 3.99; posterior probability 99.7%) while no class difference was observed on MG-ADL (52.5%), identifying a scale-dependent mechanism-efficacy dissociation. The regimen-stratified architecture was decisively favoured over a pooled model (Δ Expected log pointwise predictive density [ELPD] =  + 19.8). Drug rankings were invariant across prior specifications and Leave-one-study-out permutations on both scales (maximum rank shift: 1 position). For rozanolixizumab on MG-ADL, snapshot week 26 endpoints were underpowered (65%); integrated endpoints recovered power to 94-95%. In the treatment-selection framework, batoclimab held the highest composite score in all eight priority profiles, while the identity of the runner-up varied with clinical priority. This analysis identifies a novel scale-dependent mechanism-level class effect - FcRn inhibitors outperform complement blockade on objective motor endpoints with near-certainty, while both classes improve patient-reported function equally. Across the multi dimensional treatment-selection framework integrating efficacy, safety, tolerability, and convenience, batoclimab emerged as the highest-ranked agent in all eight clinical priority profiles. These findings provide a pharmacodynamic evidence base for mechanism-guided treatment individualisation and endpoint optimisation in generalised myasthenia gravis.

Indexed as

Bayesian hierarchical modelClinical trial simulationComplement inhibitorEmaxFcRn inhibitorGeneralised myasthenia gravisModel-based meta-analysisModel-informed drug developmentSUCRATreatment-selection

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.