Eculizumab 300mg/30ml solution for infusion vials

IntroductionNeuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is a rare antibody-mediated neuro-autoimmune disease. Monoclonal antibodies targeting B cell antigens CD19 and CD20, the interleukin-6 receptor, or the complement cascade are used as preventive therapies to reduce relapse rates. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the effect of rituximab on time to first relapse with ravulizumab, eculizumab, inebilizumab, and satralizumab in patients with NMOSD who are aquaporin-4 (AQP4)-IgG-positive.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and gray literature sources up to October 31, 2024, and updated on November 1, 2025, following PRISMA guidelines. A network meta-analysis of randomized and open-label trials was conducted to compare time to first relapse between rituximab and other monoclonal antibody therapies.ResultsFrom 6337 records, 3825 duplicates were removed; 2512 were screened, 2327 excluded, leaving eight trials. The prior treatment, relapse history, and definitions and adjudication of relapse varied across studies. Rituximab showed higher hazard ratio (HR) point estimates for time to first relapse compared with ravulizumab with or without immunosuppressive therapies (IST) (HR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25, 101.01) and eculizumab ± IST (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.12, 10.89), but were lower compared with satralizumab ± IST (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.04, 2.23). In patients not receiving IST, rituximab showed numerically higher HR compared with ravulizumab (HR 3.33, 95% CI 0.13, 83.16) and eculizumab (HR 1.59, 95% CI 0.05, 50.17), but lower point estimates compared with inebilizumab (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.04, 2.31) and satralizumab (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.03, 2.21).ConclusionThis NMA showed hazard ratio point estimates favoring eculizumab and ravulizumab over rituximab. However, wide, overlapping confidence intervals and between-study heterogeneity indicate substantial uncertainty. Head-to-head trials or registry-based studies are needed to determine the most effective treatment for AQP4-IgG-positive NMOSD.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC

ObjectivesTo review how statistically non-significant indirect treatment comparison (ITC) results are interpreted within National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) cost-comparison evaluations (CCEs) and develop a framework to support interpretations of these results from Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs).DesignA systematic review of CCEs between 2017 (first introduced) and April 2025. A framework (point-and-density plots) was developed to better interpret statistically non-significant NMA results for CCEs.Data sourcesCCEs were identified through NICE website searches, references of similar reviews and communications with NICE.Eligibility criteriaNICE technology appraisals (from 2017) that followed a CCE approach ab initio, had final guidance available and used non-statistically significant ITC results were included.Data extraction and synthesisA single reviewer performed screening and data extraction with validation by a second reviewer. Narrative syntheses were performed separately for company, External Assessment Group (EAG) and committee perspectives. Point-and-density plots combine elements of forest plots and density plots alongside reporting the probability that a treatment is non-inferior relative to a comparator. These were applied to a recent CCE (TA1019) for crovalimab for patients with paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria.ResultsAmong 41 CCEs, EAGs raised concerns about statistically non-significant ITC results while companies relied heavily on them. Only ∼32% of CCEs applied formal methods to explore ITC result uncertainty.For the example framework analysis, comparisons of crovalimab to eculizumab (mean difference (MD): 0.018; 95% CIs -0.22 to 0.25) and ravulizumab (MD: 0.079; 95% CIs -0.25 to 0.41) were statistically non-significant, with non-inferiority not demonstrated. However, point-and-density plots indicated a 95.9% and 86.3% probability of non-inferiority of crovalimab versus eculizumab and ravulizumab.ConclusionsInterpretations of statistically non-significant ITC results are inconsistent within individual CCEs and across appraisals. Implementation of the presented recommendations and framework would improve the consistency and robustness of CCEs.Prospero registration numberCRD420251034143.

Abstract licence: CC BY