Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 11, 2026
Induction of Paralysis and Visual System Injury in Mice by T Cells Specific for Neuromyelitis Optica Autoantigen Aquaporin-4
Published on: August 21, 2017
Network Meta-analysis of Ravulizumab and Alternative Interventions for the Treatment of Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum
Stacey L Clardy1, Sean J Pittock2, Orhan Aktas3
1Department of Neurology, University of Utah, 175 Medical Drive North, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA. Stacey.Clardy@hsc.utah.edu.
Introduction:
Anti-aquaporin-4 antibody-positive (AQP4-Ab+) neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is a complement-mediated autoimmune disease in which unpredictable and relapsing attacks on the central nervous system cause irreversible and accumulating damage. Comparative efficacy of new NMOSD therapies, such as ravulizumab, with established therapies is critical in making informed treatment decisions.
Methods:
Efficacy of ravulizumab relative to established AQP4-Ab+ NMOSD treatments, such as eculizumab, inebilizumab, and satralizumab, was evaluated in a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Data were extracted from trials identified by a systematic literature review. The final evidence base consisted of 17 publications representing five unique and global studies (PREVENT, N-MOmentum, SAkuraSky, SAkuraStar, and CHAMPION-NMOSD). The primary endpoint was time-to-first relapse; other outcomes included annualized relapse rates (ARRs).
Results:
For patients receiving monotherapy (monoclonal antibody only), ravulizumab was associated with a lower risk of relapse than inebilizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.09, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.02, 0.57) or satralizumab (HR 0.08, 95% CrI 0.01, 0.55) and was comparable to eculizumab (HR 0.86, 95% Crl 0.16, 4.52). Ravulizumab + immunosuppressive therapy (IST) was associated with a lower risk of relapse than satralizumab + IST (HR 0.15, 95% CrI 0.03, 0.78); the comparison with eculizumab + IST suggested no difference. No patients treated with inebilizumab received background IST and were thus excluded from analysis. The ARR with ravulizumab monotherapy was 98% lower compared with inebilizumab (rate ratio [RR] 0.02, 95% Crl 0.00, 0.38) and satralizumab (RR 0.02, 95% Crl 0.00, 0.42) monotherapies. The ARR with ravulizumab ± IST showed the strongest treatment-effect estimates compared with other interventions.
Conclusion:
In the absence of head-to-head randomized controlled trials, NMA results suggest ravulizumab, a C5 inhibitor, is likely to be more effective in preventing NMOSD relapse in patients with AQP4-Ab+ NMOSD when compared with other treatments having different methods of action.
