CHAMGAP
VERIFIEDPassed the Codex final verification and publication gate. Evidence-verification cutoff: 2026-08-18. AI was used for research and drafting; the existence of all 1 cited sources was verified at the original page, followed by blind grading, adversarial audit, and build validation. Methodology v1.0.
Verdict No. 2824 · Search date 2026-08-18 · Methodology v1.0

Inebilizumab,
does it really help with Reduced independently adjudicated NMOSD relapse?

30-Second Summary
C
Evidence Grade C · 54 · Safety caution
Inebilizumab substantially reduced adjudicated NMOSD relapse, but sponsor control, early stopping, and seronegative uncertainty remain
B-cell depletion requires monitoring for infection, infusion reactions, and immunoglobulin reduction. Live vaccines, active infection, and pregnancy planning require specialist review.
What the
research shows
The grade is C with 54 points. During the randomized period, independently adjudicated attacks occurred in 21/174 (12%) versus 22/56 (39%), absolute difference about -27 points, HR 0.272 (95% CI 0.150-0.496).
What the
ads claim
Korean NMOSD patient advocacy and reimbursement discussions make relapse prevention, infection risk, and cost jointly relevant. Current reimbursement eligibility and prior-treatment rules require separate date-specific verification.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • The randomized period lasted up to 197 days.
  • Attack adjudication was separated from rescue-treatment decisions.
  • Only 17 participants were AQP4-IgG negative.
ID

Chamgap Semantic Classification Code

Candidate index · review held

UNK.inebilizumab.UNK.independently-adjudicated-nmosd-relapse.reduce.placebo

Unknown > Inebilizumab > Unknown > independently adjudicated NMOSD relapse > Reduction claim > Placebo

An automated migration candidate, not an issued permanent code; exact claim scope remains under review. This machine-generated migration candidate helps retrieval but is not a permanent assignment. The original verdict ID and URL remain authoritative.

Download semantic index (JSON) · Codebook v1

Gap Measurement · Verdict 2824 · C 54
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

N-MOmentum was a 3:1 double-blind placebo-controlled trial; participants, investigators, and clinical staff were masked and placebo appearance matched. Limitation name: early efficacy-boundary stop. Avoidability: possible - continuing to the planned 67 attacks or 252 treated participants could have improved effect and rare-harm precision. This was a true efficacy stop at about 43 attacks and 231 participants, not recruitment failure. Limitation name: tiny AQP4-negative subgroup in a rare disease. Avoidability: impossible - NMOSD and especially eligible seronegative disease have a very small recruitment pool. This is a precision/applicability limit, not a counted axis-6 defect. MedImmune/Viela Bio sponsored the trial and company authors participated, so I0 applies.

02

Why this is classified as C (54)

Masked placebo control and a hard adjudicated event help, but sponsor control and an early efficacy stop give C.

Counterpoint. Early stopping may inflate the estimated benefit, and seronegative efficacy remains unknown.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — Cross-checked Lancet report, registry, and methods reports for adjudication, event definition, early stopping, event counts, and MedImmune/Viela role

Stored scoring profile
EndpointHHard endpoint - actual events such as death
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI0Evidence comes only from manufacturer studies
Effect sizeE+Meets the clinically important threshold

Stored derived and displayed grades match; this is not a current recalculation or validity check (C).

▦

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Reduced adjudicated NMOSD relapseCThe absolute difference was about -27 points.
Efficacy in AQP4-IgG-negative disease?Only 17 participants precluded interpretation.
✓

Cross-check — AI research and Codex final gate

AI was used for research and drafting. Blind grading, adversarial audit, and the methodology boundary rules were then reapplied before Codex performed the final evidence, grade, copy, and build checks. If a grade cannot be narrowed, both evidence positions and their reasons are published.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Cree BAC et al. 2019 N-MOmentumDouble-blind placebo-controlled 3:1 randomized trial with independent adjudication230 treated; inebilizumab 174, placebo 56Sponsored by MedImmune/Viela Bio; company-employed authors includedTime to first NMOSD attack confirmed by an independent adjudication committee21/174 (12%) versus 22/56 (39%); absolute about -27 points; HR 0.272 (95% CI 0.150-0.496)Single sponsor-run rare-disease hard-event trial stopped early for efficacy
§

Receipt — 1 References

All 1 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-18).

Cree BAC, Bennett JL, et al. Inebilizumab for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. Lancet. 2019. PMID: 31495497. NCT02200770.
checked
Research and draft: AI used · Cross-check: blind grading and adversarial audit
Final verification and publication gate: Codex · Evidence date: 2026-08-18 · Corrections: none
↗

Cite this verdict

Inebilizumab for Adjudicated Relapse in Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder - Benefit Evidence Grade C card
[Chamgap] Inebilizumab for Adjudicated Relapse in Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder - Benefit — Evidence Grade C·54. 1 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/cognition/inebilizumab-adjudicated-relapse-neuromyelitis-optica-spectrum-disorder/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.
↑