ArticleLupus science & medicine2026
Telitacicept versus belimumab for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus: a network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in Lupus science & medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesBoth telitacicept and belimumab are approved for treating active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in China. However, the economic value of these two drugs is unclear. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of telitacicept versus belimumab in SLE from the perspective of Chinese society.
methodsThe network meta-analysis (NMA) and cost-effectiveness analysis included the efficacy and safety of patients from five randomised clinical trials. A microsimulation model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of telitacicept versus belimumab in SLE. The model integrated short-term efficacy and long-term prognosis to simulate the patient's lifetime. Outcome measures included life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), total healthcare costs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The robustness of the model was assessed through sensitivity analyses.
resultsThe NMA suggested the response rate risk ratios (RRs) of telitacicept compared with belimumab were 1.200 (95% CI 0.760 to 1.910). When this RR was used as the model input, the results of the baseline analysis showed an increase in the effectiveness of 0.506 QALYs and an increase in the total cost of US$3026 for telitacicept as compared with belimumab, with an ICER of US$5984 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$40 344 per QALY, the probability that telitacicept would be cost-effective compared with belimumab was 99.1%.
conclusionAlthough the comparative efficacy between telitacicept and belimumab remains statistically inconclusive, cost-effectiveness modelling suggests that telitacicept plus standard therapy is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with SLE in China under current WTP thresholds.
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.