ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2020
Effectiveness of fingolimod in real-world relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis Italian patients: the GENIUS study.
Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of fingolimod on focal and diffuse damage in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis - The "EVOLUTION" study.Journal of neurology · 2024Observational
- A two-years real-word study with fingolimod: early predictors of efficacy and an association between EBNA-1 IgG titers and multiple sclerosis progression.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- A Prospective, Observational Study Assessing Effectiveness, Safety, and QoL of Greek Patients with Multiple Sclerosis Under Treatment with Fingolimod.Advances in therapy · 2023Observational
- Long-term real-world effectiveness and safety of fingolimod over 5 years in Germany.Journal of neurology · 2022Article
- Neurological update: treatment escalation in multiple sclerosis patients refractory to fingolimod-potentials and risks of subsequent highly active agents.Journal of neurology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFingolimod is the first oral agent approved for treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). We aimed to evaluate fingolimod effectiveness in a real-world sample of RRMS patients.
methodsA retrospective, multicentre study in patients treated with fingolimod, whom clinical and radiological data were collected in the 2 years preceding and following the initiation of fingolimod.
resultsOut of 414 patients, 56.8% received prior first-line injectable disease-modifying therapies, 25.4% were previously treated with natalizumab, 1.2% with immunosuppressant agents, and 16.7% were treatment naive. The annualized relapse rate decreased by 65% in the first year and by 70% after two years of treatment. Age ≤ 40 years, ≥ 1 relapse in the 24 months before fingolimod initiation and previous treatment with natalizumab were risk factors for relapses. Overall, 67.9% patients had no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) after 1 year and 54.6% after 2 years of treatment. A higher proportion of naïve (81.2% in 1 year and 66.7% after 2 years) or first-line injected patients (70.2% and 56.6%) achieved NEDA-3 than those previously treated with natalizumab (54.3% and 42.9%).
conclusionsFingolimod appeared to be effective in naive patients and after first-line treatment failure in reducing risk of relapse and disease activity throughout the 2-year follow-up.
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.