Observational studyFrontiers in immunology2026
Clinical outcomes and safety of efgartigimod in Guillain-Barré syndrome: a retrospective observation study.
Observational study in Frontiers in immunology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acute Management of Guillain-Barré Syndrome: A Narrative Review.Archives of internal medicine research · 2026Article
- Efgartigimod for Guillain-Barré syndrome: rationale, clinical evidence, and future perspectives.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a severe acute autoimmune neuropathy with limited established therapeutic options. Efgartigimod, a human IgG antibody Fc fragment, can increase IgG degradation, which thus may be a promising therapeutic medicine for GBS. The aims of this study were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of efgartigimod in GBS patients. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on GBS patients at the first affiliated hospital of Zhengzhou university and Nanyang central hospital from February 2024 to June 2025. The medical records of patients received IVIg, efgartigimod, or IVIg sequential efgartigimod (ISE) were reviewed. Disease severity was evaluated using GBS disability score (GBS-DS) and Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (INCAT) disability score at baseline, week1, week2, week3, week4, and the final follow-up. The primary outcome was the proportion of good improvement, defined as a reduction of at least 2 points in the GBS-DS score compared to the baseline. All adverse events occurred during the treatment period were documented. Results: 52 patients were enrolled and received IVIg (n=20), efgartigimod (n=16), or ISE (n=16). Good improvement was higher in the efgartigimod group than IVIg group both at week 2 (37.5% vs. 0%, p<0.01) and the final visit (81.3% vs. 40.0%, p=0.02). Throughout follow-up, the proportion with GBS-DS ≤1 in the efgartigimod group was consistently higher compared to the other two groups. Although not statistically significant, the mean time to reach GBS-DS ≤1 was shorter in the efgartigimod group (2.6± 1.2 weeks) compared to the IVIg (3.1 ± 1.1 weeks), In the ISE group, the average time to achieve GBS-DS ≤ 1 was 2.8 ± 1.2 weeks. Regarding safety, the incidence of treatment-related adverse events (TEAEs) was lower in the efgartigimod group18.8% (3/16) than in the IVIg50.0% (10/20) and ISE 43.8% (7/16) groups. Conclusions: Based on the preliminary finding, the retrospective real-world data suggesting a potential signal of benefit for efgartigimod in GBS, with no new safety concerns identified. However, this study cannot establish comparative efficacy given the methodological limitations, and large-scale well-controlled head-to-head trials remain imperative.
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.