SynthesisJournal of translational medicine2024
Efficacy and safety of immunosuppressants and monoclonal antibodies in adults with myasthenia gravis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of translational medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Various Monoclonal Antibodies in Myasthenia Gravis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Brain and behavior · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of complement inhibitors and FcRn blockers in generalized AChR antibody-positive myasthenia gravis: a meta-analysis.Journal of neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators in juvenile myasthenia gravis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Pooled it
- 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.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- The role and mechanism of IL‑35 in myasthenia gravis (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Efficacy and safety of efgartigimod in very-late-onset myasthenia gravis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Nipocalimab in the management of generalized myasthenia gravis: a new targeted therapeutic approach.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Case Report: Immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated myocarditis in an esophageal cancer patient with myasthenia gravis following combined radiotherapy and immunotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Post-Marketing Safety Concerns with Efgartigimod alfa: A Pharmacovigilance Analysis Based on the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System Database.Clinical epidemiology · 2025Article
- Telitacicept as an alternative to non-steroidal immunosuppressive therapies in the treatment of myasthenia gravis: a study on clinical efficacy and steroid-sparing effect.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Numerous clinical trials for myasthenia gravis (MG) treatment have been conducted recently, with satisfactory cognitive and clinical results. However, due to the limited evidence for direct comparison of the safety and effectiveness of various drugs, there is a need for further exploration of the advantages and disadvantages of different monoclonal antibodies and immunosuppressants. Thus, in the present network meta-analysis (NMA), we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of immunosuppressants and monoclonal antibodies in treating MG. We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials published in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library between January 1, 2000 and March 6, 2024. Statistical analyses were performed using R software (version 4.2.3), JAGS, and STATA (version 15.0). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value was calculated to assess the potential efficacy of each drug and the likelihood of adverse events (AEs), with higher SUCRA values indicating better efficacy or a lower likelihood of AEs. This NMA included 21 randomized controlled trials involving 13 drugs and 1,657 patients. Based on changes in Quantitative MG and MG Composite scores, batoclimab was most likely to exert the best therapeutic effects, with SUCRA values of 99% and 92%, respectively. Rozanolixzumab performed better than the other drugs in terms of the MG Activities of Daily Living score (85%). Eculizumab exhibited the highest potential in reducing the 15-item revised version of the MG Quality of Life score (96%). Regarding safety, belimumab had the highest SUCRA value (85%), demonstrating the lowest likelihood of AEs. In conclusion, all immunosuppressants and monoclonal antibodies analyzed in this study were more effective than the placebo in treating MG, with rozanolixzumab and batoclimab potentially being the most effective. Regarding safety, rozanolixzumab exhibited a higher likelihood of AEs than did placebo. The conclusions guide the clinical selection of effective drugs and offer insights for future drug experiments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.