Observational studyJournal of neurology2019
Treatment escalation leads to fewer relapses compared with switching to another moderately effective therapy.
Observational study in Journal of neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of escalation versus early high-efficacy therapies on progression independent of relapse activity in multiple sclerosis: a Danish nationwide study.BMJ neurology open · 2026Article
- Managing reactivation of multiple sclerosis during treatment with natalizumab.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2026Article
- Evolving Patterns of Initial RRMS Treatment in Finland (2013-2022): Insights From a Nationwide Multiple Sclerosis Register.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
- Real-World Clinical and Economic Outcomes Among Persons With Multiple Sclerosis Initiating First- Versus Second- or Later-Line Treatment With Ocrelizumab.Neurology and therapy · 2023Article
- Effects of horizontal versus vertical switching of disease-modifying treatment after platform drugs on disease activity in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Austria.Journal of neurology · 2023Article
- Iranian specialists' approach to treatment escalation in multiple sclerosis patients with cognitive impairment.Current journal of neurology · 2023Article
- Peripheral myeloid-derived suppressor cells are good biomarkers of the efficacy of fingolimod in multiple sclerosis.Journal of neuroinflammation · 2022Article
- Hormone therapy and disease activity in Danish women with multiple sclerosis: A population-based cohort study.European journal of neurology · 2022Article
- The Danish Multiple Sclerosis Registry.Brain and behavior · 2021Article
- Global overview of multiple sclerosis care units: an international cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
- NARCOMS and Other Registries in Multiple Sclerosis: Issues and Insights.International journal of MS careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with multiple sclerosis who experience disease breakthrough often switch disease-modifying therapy (DMT).
objectiveTo compare treatment effectiveness of switch to highly effective DMT (heDMT) with switch to moderately effective DMT (meDMT) for patients who switch due to disease breakthrough defined as at least one relapse within 12 months of their treatment switch.
methodsWe retrieved data from The Danish Multiple Sclerosis Registry on all relapsing-remitting MS patients with expanded disability status scale (EDSS) less than 6 who experienced disease breakthrough. We used propensity score matching to compare annualized relapse rates (ARRs), time to first confirmed relapse, time to first confirmed EDSS worsening and time to first confirmed EDSS improvement.
resultsEach matched group comprised 404 patients. Median follow-up time was 3.2 years [interquartile range (IQR) 1.7-5.8]. ARRs were 0.22 (0.19-0.27) with heDMT and 0.32 (IQR 0.28-0.37) with meDMT; relapse rate ratio was 0.70 (95% CI 0.56-0.86; p = 0.001). Escalation to heDMT reduced the hazard of reaching a first relapse (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.53-0.80; p < 0.001). We found no evidence of delayed disability worsening (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.62-1.10; p = 0.20) and weak evidence of disability improvement (HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.00-1.76; p = 0.05) with heDMT.
conclusionSwitching to heDMT is associated with reduced ARR and delay of first relapse compared with switching to meDMT. Patients on DMT who experience relapses should escalate therapy to heDMT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30515628What 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.