Comparative efficacy and acceptability of novel biologics in the treatment of myasthenia gravis: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Chang Guan, Peixi Zhao, Meijin Song, Jing Lu, Huijing Cui, Dongxu Li, Tianying Chang, Yingzi Cui, Xikang Ding, Jian Wang, Peng Xu
{"title":"Comparative efficacy and acceptability of novel biologics in the treatment of myasthenia gravis: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.","authors":"Chang Guan, Peixi Zhao, Meijin Song, Jing Lu, Huijing Cui, Dongxu Li, Tianying Chang, Yingzi Cui, Xikang Ding, Jian Wang, Peng Xu","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02859-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a chronic autoimmune disorder affecting the neuromuscular junction. The emergence of molecular therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies, B-cell-depleting agents, and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell-based therapies, has the potential to transform the treatment landscape for myasthenia gravis. The clinical efficacy of novel biologics in the treatment of individuals with myasthenia gravis is still a subject of debate. The objective was to compare and rank the efficacy and acceptability of novel biologics in the treatment of individuals with MG through a network meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) involved a comprehensive search for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) across several databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, SinoMed, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP, covering articles published from inception until July 3, 2024. We included randomized controlled trials involving patients with myasthenia gravis. The main outcome was the overall symptomatology. Random-effects pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted to compute standardized mean differences (SMDs) or risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The research process did not include individuals with lived experience. The studies' quality was evaluated utilizing the risk-of-bias assessment tool created by the Cochrane Collaboration. Network meta-analysis was performed utilizing Stata 16 and R4.2.3.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven RCTs including 840 participants with myasthenia gravis were eligible. Belimumab improvement of the MG-ADL score is compared to placebo (MD = - 3.29, 95% CI (- 5.78, - 0.80), P < 0.05). Compared to placebo, batoclimab enhanced the QMG score (MD = - 4.46, 95% CI (- 7.57, - 1.35), P < 0.05) and the MGC score (MD = - 3.58, 95% CI (- 6.68, - 0.47), P < 0.05). Eculizumab improvement of the MG-QoL 15r score is compared to placebo (MD = - 7.10, 95% CI (- 12.20, - 2.00), P < 0.05). Regarding adverse reactions, we found no difference in the network comparison of novel biologics compared to placebo, but this conclusion requires further validation through rigorous research.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study provides an updated, relative rank-order efficacy of novel biologics therapies for myasthenia gravis. These data may help inform the design and sample size calculation of future clinical trials and assist selection of combination therapy.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42024559757.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"106"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12063394/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02859-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a chronic autoimmune disorder affecting the neuromuscular junction. The emergence of molecular therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies, B-cell-depleting agents, and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell-based therapies, has the potential to transform the treatment landscape for myasthenia gravis. The clinical efficacy of novel biologics in the treatment of individuals with myasthenia gravis is still a subject of debate. The objective was to compare and rank the efficacy and acceptability of novel biologics in the treatment of individuals with MG through a network meta-analysis.

Methods: This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) involved a comprehensive search for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) across several databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, SinoMed, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP, covering articles published from inception until July 3, 2024. We included randomized controlled trials involving patients with myasthenia gravis. The main outcome was the overall symptomatology. Random-effects pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted to compute standardized mean differences (SMDs) or risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The research process did not include individuals with lived experience. The studies' quality was evaluated utilizing the risk-of-bias assessment tool created by the Cochrane Collaboration. Network meta-analysis was performed utilizing Stata 16 and R4.2.3.

Results: Eleven RCTs including 840 participants with myasthenia gravis were eligible. Belimumab improvement of the MG-ADL score is compared to placebo (MD = - 3.29, 95% CI (- 5.78, - 0.80), P < 0.05). Compared to placebo, batoclimab enhanced the QMG score (MD = - 4.46, 95% CI (- 7.57, - 1.35), P < 0.05) and the MGC score (MD = - 3.58, 95% CI (- 6.68, - 0.47), P < 0.05). Eculizumab improvement of the MG-QoL 15r score is compared to placebo (MD = - 7.10, 95% CI (- 12.20, - 2.00), P < 0.05). Regarding adverse reactions, we found no difference in the network comparison of novel biologics compared to placebo, but this conclusion requires further validation through rigorous research.

Conclusions: This study provides an updated, relative rank-order efficacy of novel biologics therapies for myasthenia gravis. These data may help inform the design and sample size calculation of future clinical trials and assist selection of combination therapy.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42024559757.

新型生物制剂治疗重症肌无力的比较疗效和可接受性:随机试验的系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
背景:重症肌无力(MG)是一种影响神经肌肉连接处的慢性自身免疫性疾病。分子疗法的出现,如单克隆抗体、b细胞消耗剂和基于嵌合抗原受体的t细胞疗法,有可能改变重症肌无力的治疗前景。新型生物制剂治疗重症肌无力个体的临床疗效仍是一个有争议的话题。目的是通过网络荟萃分析对新型生物制剂治疗MG患者的疗效和可接受性进行比较和排名。方法:本系统综述和网络荟萃分析(NMA)综合检索PubMed、Web of Science、Embase、Cochrane Library、SinoMed、CNKI、万方、VIP等多个数据库中已发表的随机对照试验(RCTs),涵盖了从成立到2024年7月3日发表的文章。我们纳入了涉及重症肌无力患者的随机对照试验。主要结果是总体症状。采用随机效应两两荟萃分析和网络荟萃分析(NMAs)计算标准化平均差异(SMDs)或95%置信区间(ci)的风险比。研究过程没有包括有生活经验的个体。利用Cochrane Collaboration创建的偏倚风险评估工具对研究质量进行评估。采用Stata 16和R4.2.3进行网络meta分析。结果:11项随机对照试验纳入840名重症肌无力患者。与安慰剂相比,贝利单抗改善MG-ADL评分(MD = - 3.29, 95% CI (- 5.78, - 0.80), P)。结论:本研究提供了新型生物制剂治疗重症肌无力的最新、相对等级顺序的疗效。这些数据可能有助于未来临床试验的设计和样本量计算,并有助于联合治疗的选择。系统评价注册号:PROSPERO CRD42024559757。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信