ArticleNeurology and therapy2026
Comparative Efficacy of Zilucoplan Versus Intravenous Immunoglobulin, Eculizumab, and Ravulizumab Using Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons.
Article in Neurology and therapy, 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
introductionGeneralized myasthenia gravis (gMG) is a rare, chronic autoimmune disorder which impacts signaling at the neuromuscular junction. While new targeted therapies have emerged, there is no direct comparative evidence. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of zilucoplan with eculizumab, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), and ravulizumab using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs).
methodsPhase 3 studies of complement component 5 (C5) inhibitors and IVIg were identified through a literature review. MAICs were conducted for zilucoplan versus IVIg, zilucoplan versus ravulizumab (both comparisons in patients with gMG), and zilucoplan versus eculizumab (in patients with refractory gMG). Propensity score-based weighting methods were used to balance covariates between trial populations. Continuous outcomes were analyzed through linear regression, and dichotomous outcomes were analyzed through logistic regression. Treatment effects were presented as mean differences or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Scenario analyses were performed.
resultsCompared with IVIg, zilucoplan was associated with statistically significant improvements in the Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis score (QMG) at 2 weeks (OR: - 1.95; 95% CI: - 3.50, - 0.39) and 4 weeks (OR: - 3.30; 95% CI: - 4.89, - 1.71). Compared with eculizumab at 24/26 weeks, the MAIC analysis showed statistically significant differences favoring zilucoplan for the MG Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score (OR: - 1.99; 95% CI: - 3.30, - 0.69), the Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) score (OR: - 3.23; 95% CI: - 4.63, - 1.82), and the Myasthenia Gravis Composite questionnaire (MGC) (OR: - 4.27; 95% CI: - 6.79, - 1.76) in patients with refractory gMG. Compared with ravulizumab at 24/26 weeks, the MAIC analysis showed statistically significant differences favoring zilucoplan for the MG-ADL (OR: - 2.70; 95% CI: - 3.74, - 1.67), QMG (OR: - 5.72; 95% CI: - 7.02, - 4.43), and the Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life 15-item revised scale (MG-QoL-15r) (OR: - 5.51; 95% CI - 7.63, - 3.38) scores.
conclusionsIn this analysis, zilucoplan was associated with a significantly higher magnitude of clinically meaningful improvement in QMG and MG-ADL scores compared to IVIg and two C5 inhibitors, eculizumab and ravulizumab. In the absence of head-to-head clinical data, these findings provide additional evidence to assist with treatment decisions in this setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42786374What 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.