Evidence Hub

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

Chang Guan, Peixi Zhao, Mei-Jin Song, Jing Lu, Hui-Jing Cui, Dong-Xu Li, Tianying Chang, Yingzi Cui et al.

Systematic Reviews, 2025

840 participants

Abstract

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. 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…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 840 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free