ArticleNeurology and therapy2021
Work Productivity Outcomes Associated with Ocrelizumab Compared with Other Disease-Modifying Therapies for Multiple Sclerosis.
Article in Neurology and therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Patients With Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis Switching to Ocrelizumab Due to Suboptimal Treatment Response: Results of the 4-Year CASTING-LIBERTO Trial.European journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Article
- The global patient-reported outcomes for multiple sclerosis initiative: bridging the gap between clinical research and care - updates at the 2023 plenary event.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Review
- Treatment Patterns and Unmet Need for Patients with Progressive Multiple Sclerosis in the United States: Survey Results from 2016 to 2021.Neurology and therapy · 2023Article
- No Increase in Symptoms Toward the End of the Ocrelizumab Infusion Cycle in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis: Symptom Burden on Ocrelizumab: A Longitudinal Study (SymBOLS).Neurology. Clinical practice · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Ocrelizumab for the Treatment of Relapsing and Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis in Portugal.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2023Article
- Does Ocrelizumab Limit Multiple Sclerosis Progression? Current Evidence from Clinical, MRI, and Fluid Biomarkers.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2022Review
- Clinical Evaluation of Siponimod for the Treatment of Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: Pathophysiology, Efficacy, Safety, Patient Acceptability and Adherence.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluated work and activity impairment in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with ocrelizumab (OCR) versus other disease-modifying therapies (DMTs).
methodsData were obtained from the Adelphi Real World Disease Specific Programme for Multiple Sclerosis. Patients with relapsing-remitting or secondary progressive MS who completed surveys in 2018 and 2019 and received ≥ 6 months of an eligible therapy, including OCR, injectable therapy, and oral therapy, were included. Outcomes were assessed using the patient-reported Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire. Doubly robust estimation, which combined propensity score weighting and regression modeling, was used to compare treatments, controlling for baseline clinical and demographic characteristics.
resultsThis study included 630 patients (OCR, n = 90; injectable DMT, n = 224; oral DMT, n = 316) with a mean (standard deviation) age of 42 (11) years. A greater proportion of OCR-treated patients had an Expanded Disability Status Scale score of ≥ 3 at treatment initiation compared with those receiving oral and injectable DMTs (51 vs. 15% and 15%, respectively), and a smaller proportion of OCR-treated patients received treatment for ≥ 1 year (43 vs. 90% and 92%, respectively). OCR-treated patients had higher odds of employment [odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 3.4 (1.5-7.7) vs. oral DMT, 5.6 (2.6-12.0) vs. injectable DMT], lower overall work productivity loss [difference (95% confidence interval) - 10.0% (- 6.1 to - 15.0%) vs. oral DMT, - 13.0% (- 8.5 to - 17.0%) vs. injectable DMT] and lower activity impairment [difference (95% confidence interval) - 11% (- 7.1 to - 16.0%) vs. oral DMT, - 9.7% (- 5.0 to - 14.0%) vs. injectable DMT].
conclusionThis real-world evidence suggests that patients with MS treated with OCR experience lower work and activity impairment than patients treated with other DMTs.
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.