Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27639853›Full record

ArticleBMC neurology2016

Laquinimod efficacy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: how to understand why and if studies disagree.

Gary R Cutter, Volker Knappertz, Nissim Sasson, David Ladkani

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC neurology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Gary R CutterDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Room 327, 1720 2nd Avenue South, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA. cutterg@uab.edu.
Volker KnappertzDepartment of Neurology and Psychiatry, Heinrich-Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Nissim SassonTeva Pharmaceutical Industries Abic, Ltd, Netanya, Israel.
David LadkaniTeva Pharmaceutical Industries, Petach Tikva, Israel.
Teva Pharmaceuticals (Israel) · ILHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe results of two randomized phase 3 trials that investigated the use of laquinimod in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis were analyzed using a propensity score model.

methodsThe propensity score in each study was defined as the probability of an individual patient being assigned to either the laquinimod or placebo study arm. The analysis included two main stages: (1) calculation of a propensity score for each patient, given a broad set of baseline covariates that included second-degree interactions, and (2) incorporation of the propensity score as another covariate into the predefined primary analysis model to test the treatment effect of laquinimod (0.6 mg/d) vs placebo on the annualized relapse rate (ARR).

resultsThe BRAVO study showed baseline imbalances for T2 volume and the proportion of patients with gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing lesions, both parameters known to correlate with risk of relapse. Adjustment using the propensity score as a categorical variable showed that the estimated difference in ARR between laquinimod and placebo was 0.078, in favor of laquinimod. In ALLEGRO, the baseline Gd-enhancing lesion mean score was higher for placebo vs laquinimod. When the primary analysis model was adjusted for the propensity score as a categorical variable, the covariate adjusted difference in mean ARR between laquinimod and placebo was 0.084, in favor of laquinimod.

conclusionsPropensity scores addressing differences in baseline characteristics may be helpful to better understand whether observed treatment effect differences in randomized controlled trials are accurate results or result from inherent differences between patients with multiple sclerosis.

Indexed as

Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-RemittingPropensity ScoreQuinolonesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicHumansImmunologic FactorsImmunologic FactorslaquinimodQuinolonesInterferon beta-1bLaquinimodPropensity scoreRelapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

Identifiers

PMID27639853
PMCPMC5027083
OpenAlexW2518679442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.