Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32974794›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurology2021

Comparative analysis of dimethyl fumarate and fingolimod in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

Johannes Lorscheider, Pascal Benkert, Carmen Lienert, Peter Hänni, Tobias Derfuss, Jens Kuhle, Ludwig Kappos, Özgür Yaldizli

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Recommendations for the use of propensity score methods in multiple sclerosis research.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. PHRENDFrontiers in digital health · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Johannes Lorscheider *Neurologic Clinic and Policlinic, Departments of Medicine, Biomedicine and Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1100-2506
Pascal Benkert *Clinical Trial Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Carmen LienertRheinburg Klinikum, Walzenhausen, Switzerland.
Peter HänniSwiss Federation for Common Tasks of Health Insurances (SVK), Solothurn, Switzerland.
Tobias DerfussNeurologic Clinic and Policlinic, Departments of Medicine, Biomedicine and Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Jens KuhleNeurologic Clinic and Policlinic, Departments of Medicine, Biomedicine and Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Ludwig KapposNeurologic Clinic and Policlinic, Departments of Medicine, Biomedicine and Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Özgür YaldizliNeurologic Clinic and Policlinic, Departments of Medicine, Biomedicine and Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. oezguer.yaldizli@usb.ch.
University of Basel · CHSwiss Insurance Association · CHUniversity Hospital of Basel · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDimethyl fumarate and fingolimod are oral disease modifying treatments (DMTs) that reduce relapse activity and slow disability worsening in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS).

objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of dimethyl fumarate and fingolimod in a real-world setting, where both agents are licensed as a first-line DMT for the treatment of RRMS.

methodsWe identified patients with RRMS commencing dimethyl fumarate or fingolimod in the Swiss Federation for Common Tasks of Health Insurances (SVK) Registry between August 2014 and July 2019. Propensity score-matching was applied to select subpopulations with comparable baseline characteristics. Relapses and disability outcomes were compared in paired, pairwise-censored analyses.

resultsOf the 2113 included patients, 1922 were matched (dimethyl fumarate, n = 961; fingolimod, n = 961). Relapse rates did not differ between the groups (incident rate ratio 1.0, 95%CI 0.8-1.2, p = 0.86). Moreover, no difference in the hazard of 1-year confirmed disability worsening (hazard ratio [HR] 0.9; 95%CI 0.6-1.6; p = 0.80) or disability improvement (HR 0.9; 95%CI 0.6-1.2; p = 0.40) was detected. These findings were consistent both for treatment-naïve patients and patients switching from another DMT.

conclusionDimethyl fumarate and fingolimod have comparable effectiveness regarding reduction of relapses and disability worsening in RRMS.

Indexed as

Multiple SclerosisMultiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-RemittingDimethyl FumarateFingolimod HydrochlorideHumansImmunosuppressive AgentsDimethyl FumarateFingolimod HydrochlorideImmunosuppressive AgentsDimethyl fumarateEffectivenessFingolimodMultiple sclerosisRelapsing–remitting

Identifiers

PMID32974794
PMCPMC7914245
OpenAlexW3089077454

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.