Risk–Benefit Analysis of Novel Treatments for Patients with Generalized Myasthenia Gravis.

Introduction: This study used network meta-analysis (NMA) to inform and compare the number needed to treat (NNT), number needed to harm (NNH), and cost per improved outcome (CPIO) associated with more recently approved treatments for anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive (anti-AChR Ab+) generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG). Methods: Clinical trials of neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) inhibitors, efgartigimod intravenous (IV) and rozanolixizumab, and complement inhibitors, ravulizumab and zilucoplan, versus placebo (with background conventional treatment) were included in the primary NMA to compare efficacy and safety outcomes. The outputs from the NMAs were used to estimate NNT and NNH of each treatment versus placebo. CPIO (2024 USD) was estimated for a ≥ 3- or ≥ 5-point reduction from baseline in Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) and Myasthenia Gravis-Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) scores. Sensitivity analyses were performed adding efgartigimod PH20 subcutaneous (SC) and eculizumab to the NMA. Results: Efgartigimod IV had the lowest NNT versus placebo for achieving a ≥ 3- and ≥ 5-point reduction in QMG, as well as a ≥ 5-point reduction in MG-ADL, whereas rozanolixizumab had the lowest NNT for a ≥ 3-point reduction in MG-ADL. The NNH versus placebo was similar across comparator treatments. Efgartigimod IV had the lowest CPIO among all treatments for all assessed efficacy outcomes. Sensitivity analyses yielded results consistent with primary analysis and indicated that efgartigimod PH20 SC had comparable NNT and CPIO values to efgartigimod IV, whereas eculizumab had comparable NNT and higher CPIO values compared to other complement inhibitors. Conclusions: FcRn inhibitors and complement inhibitors assessed in this study all demonstrated clinical benefit in terms of NNT as well as an acceptable safety profile in terms of NNH. Within the limitations of this meta-analysis, efgartigimod was associated with a favorable benefit–risk profile as well as a better economic value compared to ravulizumab, rozanolixizumab, and zilucoplan as treatments for anti-AChR Ab+ gMG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]