Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29274026›Full record

ArticleNeurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics2018

Clinical and Demographic Profile of Patients Receiving Fingolimod in Clinical Practice in Germany and the Benefit-Risk Profile of Fingolimod After 1 Year of Treatment: Initial Results From the Observational, Noninterventional Study PANGAEA.

Tjalf Ziemssen, Michael Lang, Björn Tackenberg, Stephan Schmidt, Holger Albrecht, Luisa Klotz, Judith Haas, Christoph Lassek, Jennie Medin, Christian Cornelissen and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

11 authors.

Tjalf ZiemssenCenter of Clinical Neuroscience, Neurological University Clinic Carl Gustav Carus, University of Technology, Dresden, Germany. tjalf.ziemssen@uniklinikum-dresden.de.
Michael LangNeuroPoint Patient Academy and Neurological Practice, Ulm, Germany.
Björn TackenbergDepartment of Neurology, Clinical Neuroimmunology Group, Philipps-University, Marburg, Germany.
Stephan SchmidtBonn Neurological Practice, Bonn, Germany.
Holger AlbrechtNeurological Practice, Munich, Germany.
Luisa KlotzDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
Judith HaasCenter for Multiple Sclerosis, Jewish Hospital Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Christoph LassekKassel and Vellmar Neurological Practice, Vellmar, Germany.
Jennie MedinNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Christian CornelissenNovartis Pharma GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany.
PANGAEA study group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The population with multiple sclerosis receiving treatment in clinical practice differs from that in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). An assessment of the real-world benefit-risk profile of therapies is needed. This analysis used data from the large, noninterventional, observational German study Post-Authorization Non-interventional German sAfety study of GilEnyA (PANGAEA) to assess prospectively baseline characteristics and outcomes after 12 months (± 90 days) of fingolimod treatment. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts: fingolimod starter [first received fingolimod in PANGAEA (n = 3315)] and previous study [received fingolimod before enrollment in PANGAEA in RCTs (n = 875), some of whom also had baseline data at entry into RCTs (n = 505)]. At PANGAEA baseline, patients in the fingolimod starter versus the previous study cohort had a higher annualized relapse rate [ARR (95% confidence interval): 1.79 (1.75-1.83) vs 1.32 (1.25-1.40)] and Expanded Disability Status Scale score [3.11 (3.04-3.17) vs 2.55 (2.44-2.66)]. A greater proportion in the fingolimod starter versus previous study cohort had diabetes (2.0% vs 0.7%). After 12 months of fingolimod, ARRs were lower than in the 12 months before PANGAEA enrollment in the fingolimod starter [0.386 (0.360-0.414)] and previous study [0.276 (0.238-0.320)] cohorts. Expanded Disability Status Scale scores were stable versus baseline. Adverse events were experienced by similar proportions in both cohorts during fingolimod treatment. Relevant differences exist in disease activity and comorbidities between patients receiving fingolimod in clinical practice versus RCTs. Irrespective of baseline differences indicating a higher proportion at an advanced stage of multiple sclerosis in the real world versus RCTs, fingolimod remains effective, with a manageable safety profile.

Indexed as

AdultDemographyFemaleFingolimod HydrochlorideGermanyHumansImmunosuppressive AgentsMaleMultiple SclerosisObservational Studies as TopicProspective StudiesRecurrenceRisk AssessmentTreatment OutcomeFingolimod HydrochlorideImmunosuppressive AgentsBenefit–risk profileFingolimodMultiple sclerosisObservational studyReal-world evidence

Identifiers

PMID29274026
PMCPMC5794706

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.