Observational studyActa neurologica Scandinavica2019
Real-life use of oral disease-modifying treatments in Austria.
Observational study in Acta neurologica Scandinavica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety of disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis: real-world data from the Austrian MS Treatment Registry (AMSTR).Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- 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
- Favorable benefit-risk ratio with teriflunomide treatment in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: Results of the 2-year, multicenter, prospective, noninterventional TAURUS MS study in Austria.eNeurologicalSci · 2022Article
- Long-term outcome and predictors of long-term disease activity in natalizumab-treated patients with multiple sclerosis: real life data from the Austrian MS Treatment Registry.Journal of neurology · 2021Observational
- Pregnancy Outcomes in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis Exposed to Natalizumab-A Retrospective Analysis From the Austrian Multiple Sclerosis Treatment Registry.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
- Multiple sclerosis.The mental health clinician · 2019Article
- Real-life use of oral disease-modifying treatments in Austria.Acta neurologica Scandinavica · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the efficacy, frequencies and reasons for treatment interruption of fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate (DMF) or teriflunomide in a nationwide observational cohort using prospectively collected data. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo cohorts of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) starting treatment with fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate or teriflunomide documented in the Austrian MS Treatment Registry (AMSTR) since 2014 and either staying on therapy for at least 12 months (12m cohort) or having at least one follow-up visit (total cohort). The 12m cohort included 664 RRMS patients: 315 in the fingolimod, 232 in the DMF and 117 in the teriflunomide group. Multinomial propensity scores were used for inverse probability weighting to correct for the bias of this non-randomised registry study.
resultsEstimated mean annualized relapse rates (ARR) over 12 months were 0.21 for fingolimod, 0.20 for DMF and 0.19 for teriflunomide treatment, causing an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.01 for fingolimod vs DMF (P = 0.96) and 0.92 for teriflunomide vs DMF (P = 0.84). No differences were found regarding the probability for experiencing a relapse, EDSS change, EDSS progression and EDSS regression, except regarding less sustained EDSS progression for 12 weeks concerning DMF vs fingolimod (P = 0.02). The hazard ratio for treatment interruption comparing fingolimod vs DMF was 1.03 (P = 0.86) and 1.07 comparing teriflunomide vs DMF (P = 0.77).
conclusionsIn the AMSTR, there was no difference concerning ARR, probability for a relapse, EDSS change, treatment interruption, EDSS progression or regression between oral DMTs, except regarding less sustained EDSS progression for 12 weeks concerning DMF vs fingolimod.
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.