Skip to main content
. 2024 Apr 20;41(6):2486–2499. doi: 10.1007/s12325-024-02856-3

Table 4.

Relative effect of efgartigimod versus ravulizumab in terms of minimum points improvement from baseline at time of best responsea for MG-ADL in people with AChR-Ab+ gMG derived using MAIC

N Proportion (95% CI) of patients with minimum points improvement in MG-ADL from baseline at time of best response
3 points 4 points 5 points
Adjusted results estimated using reweighted data from the ADAPT study
 Efgartigimod 53 0.752 (0.633, 0.871)*** 0.681 (0.553, 0.809)*** 0.610 (0.476, 0.744)***
 Placebo 55 0.374 (0.241, 0.507)*** 0.253 (0.133, 0.374)*** 0.145 (0.048, 0.243)**
 Efgartigimod vs. placebo 108 0.378 (0.200, 0.556)*** 0.428 (0.252, 0.604)*** 0.465 (0.296, 0.634)***
Results estimated from the CHAMPION study
 Ravulizumab 78 0.567 (0.456, 0.678)*** 0.425 (0.314, 0.536)*** 0.316 (0.211, 0.421)***
 Placebo 82 0.341 (0.236, 0.446)*** 0.247 (0.151, 0.343)*** 0.150 (0.071, 0.229)**
 Ravulizumab vs. placebo 160 0.226 (0.073, 0.379)** 0.178 (0.031, 0.325)* 0.166 (0.035, 0.297)*
MAIC results anchored on above comparisons with placebo
 Efgartigimod vs. Ravulizumab 131 0.152 (– 0.085, 0.388) 0.250 (0.019, 0.480)* 0.299 (0.085, 0.513)**

AChR-Ab+  acetylcholine receptor auto-antibody-positive, CI confidence interval, gMG generalized Myasthenia Gravis, MAIC Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison, MG-ADL Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living

*p value < 0.05; **p value < 0.01; ***p value < 0.001

aWeek 4 for efgartigimod and week 26 for ravulizumab