SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2026
Comparative efficacy, safety, and functional recovery of neonatal fc receptor inhibitors and conventional immunotherapies for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) management is undergoing a paradigm shift with the emergence of targeted biologicals. We aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and functional outcomes of neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) inhibitors against conventional immunotherapies. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP from database inception to February 2026. Interventions included FcRn inhibitors (efgartigimod alfa, rozanolixizumab), intravenous/subcutaneous immunoglobulin (IVIg/SCIG), corticosteroids, plasma exchange (PLEX), and rituximab. The primary outcome was clinical response rate. Secondary outcomes included serious adverse events (SAEs), discontinuation due to adverse events (DCAE), and grip-strength change as a distal motor outcome. Treatments were ranked using P-scores, and certainty of evidence was summarized using CINeMA/GRADE domains. Findings: Eighteen RCTs (n=2,184) were included. In the primary efficacy network (I2 = 0.37%), PLEX (OR 33.60, 95% CI 3.15-358.90; P-score 0.9415) and corticosteroids (OR 15.44, 95% CI 3.53-67.47; P-score 0.9056) demonstrated the highest probability of achieving clinical response. Efgartigimod alfa showed significant clinical response (OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.34-7.33) and ranked highest for grip-strength change (SMD 0.67, 95% CI 0.09-1.24; P-score 0.8847), although this analysis was based on five studies and should be interpreted as a distal motor outcome rather than a comprehensive functional endpoint. For secondary outcomes, FcRn inhibitors had SAE estimates comparable to placebo (efgartigimod OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.31-3.20; rozanolixizumab OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.05-16.37), and rozanolixizumab ranked highest for DCAE/acceptability (P-score 0.7896). Heterogeneity was low to modest across secondary networks (SAEs I2 = 12.40%; DCAE I2 = 0.00%; grip strength I2 = 24.10%). Interpretation: PLEX and corticosteroids showed the strongest relative effects for short-term clinical response, whereas efgartigimod alfa showed a significant treatment effect and the highest ranking for grip-strength change among studies reporting this distal motor measure. IVIg remains a broadly supported comparator across induction and maintenance settings. These findings should inform, but not replace, individualized clinical decision-making because patient-level treatment-effect modification, biomarker status, prior treatment response, and long-term neurophysiological outcomes were not directly evaluated.
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.