ReviewTherapeutic advances in neurological disorders2019
Clinical trials in multiple sclerosis: potential future trial designs.
Review in Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Building digital patient pathways for the management and treatment of multiple sclerosis.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Peripheral myeloid-derived suppressor cells are good biomarkers of the efficacy of fingolimod in multiple sclerosis.Journal of neuroinflammation · 2022Article
- Ethyl Pyruvate-Derived Transdifferentiation of Astrocytes to Oligodendrogenesis in Cuprizone-Induced Demyelinating Model.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2021Article
- Should ocrelizumab be used in non-active primary progressive multiple sclerosis? Time for a re-assessment.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical trials of new treatments in multiple sclerosis (MS) currently require large sample sizes and long durations in order to yield reliable results. The differential responses of an already heterogeneous population of MS patients to individual disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) will further complicate future trials. MS trials with smaller samples and faster outcomes are conceivable through the substitution of current clinical and MRI outcomes with objectively measureable genomic and proteomic biomarkers. Currently, biomarkers that could be utilized for diagnosis and monitoring of MS disease activity are in the early validation phase. The power of single biomarkers or multiple correlated biomarkers to predict prognosis and response to treatment could initially be compared with currently accepted methods. These prospectively validated disease biomarkers could then be used to subcategorize the spectrum of MS patients into a finite number of endophenotypes with demonstrable different molecular pathogeneses and DMT response profiles. Newly developed DMT could potentially be assessed within specific endophenotypes and compared with pharmacogenomically relevant active comparator DMT. This approach may increase the efficiency of MS trials through homogenization of patient population and minimization of nonresponders in study groups, providing the potential for the development of targeted therapies.
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.