The treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) has entered the era of targeted biological agents. While relapse control has improved substantially, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) remain understudied. This study aimed to explore real-world patient-reported perceptions of inebilizumab therapy in AQP4-IgG–positive NMOSD. We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional survey of AQP4-IgG–positive NMOSD patients receiving inebilizumab using an anonymous online questionnaire (April–September 2025). Data collected included demographics, medication history, and multidimensional quality-of-life changes following inebilizumab initiation. Descriptive statistics and correlation analyses were performed. Key outcomes were patient-reported without objective validation. A total of 275 valid questionnaires were analyzed. Respondents were predominantly female (90.5%) with a mean age of 39.7 ± 11.8 years. Mean inebilizumab treatment duration was 14.5 ± 8.4 months. Of all patients, 33.1% received inebilizumab as initial maintenance therapy, 42.9% had previously used conventional immunosuppressants, and 24.0% had switched from other biologics. Among respondents, 92.4% reported meaningful symptom improvement across multiple domains including bodily pain and mental health. Overall, 96.4% expressed willingness to continue therapy, with symptom improvement cited as the predominant reason (91.7%). Correlation analysis revealed weak associations between treatment duration and satisfaction ( r = 0.12, p < 0.05) and between medication cost burden and satisfaction ( r = − 0.24, p < 0.01). In this cross-sectional survey, Chinese patients with AQP4-IgG–positive NMOSD receiving inebilizumab reported high satisfaction, perceived multidimensional benefit, and strong treatment continuation willingness. These findings provide exploratory patient-reported evidence regarding the acceptability of inebilizumab in routine practice. However, the observed improvements are self-reported and associative rather than causal; interpretation should account for the cross-sectional, non-comparative design, potential selection and recall biases, and lack of objective outcome validation. Prospective controlled studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings.
Yin et al. (Wed,) studied this question.