ReviewJournal of neurology2004
Importance of benefit-to-risk assessment for disease-modifying drugs used to treat MS.
Review in Journal of neurology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Integration of PKPD relationships into benefit-risk analysis.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015Review
- Interpreting therapeutic effect in multiple sclerosis via MRI contrast enhancing lesions: now you see them, now you don't.Journal of neurology · 2014Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interferon (IFN) beta has been shown to be an effective therapy in pivotal studies of multiple sclerosis (MS), with differences in outcomes based on dose and/or frequency of administration. Glatiramer acetate (GA) has also shown to have an effect on relapses and magnetic resonance imaging measures, but not on disability. All products are associated with adverse events, and utilisation of a specific therapy needs to consider benefit in relation to risk. Evidence-based medicine provides a means of assessing benefit and risk in the context of the number of patients one needs to treat to obtain benefit (NNT) compared with the number needed to treat for an adverse outcome (NNH). Efficacy and safety data are presented from IFN beta-1a (Rebif) clinical trials, including relevant NNT and NNH values, to allow assessment of the overall benefit-to-risk ratio compared with placebo. Additional comparisons are made with published data for other IFN products and GA. The indirect comparative information reviewed demonstrates that IFN appears to have a better benefit- to-risk ratio than GA. Indirect comparisons suggest better efficacy of thrice weekly (tiw) IFN beta-1a compared with alternate-day IFN beta-1b, but no direct comparative data are available. Direct comparative data show that IFN beta-1a at a dose of 44 mcg tiw has a favourable benefit-to-risk ratio compared with both 22 mcg tiw and 30 mcg once weekly, suggesting that 44 mcg tiw currently has the best benefit- to-risk ratio for the treatment of relapsing MS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.