ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2020
Effect of switching from natalizumab to moderate- vs high-efficacy DMT in clinical practice.
Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2020. 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.
- Stopping Disease-Modifying Treatments in Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Real-World Studies.CNS drugs · 2023Pooled it
- Real-world effectiveness and safety of ofatumumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: Insights from naïve and switch patients.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025Article
- Predictors of Radiological and Clinical Disease Reactivation in Multiple Sclerosis Patients After Cessation of Natalizumab (Tysabri).Brain and behavior · 2025Article
- Impact of Age on Switching or Stopping Disease Modifying Therapies in Multiple Sclerosis.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025Review
- The temporal dynamics and clinical relevance of choroid plexus measures in multiple sclerosis.Brain communications · 2025Article
- Cladribine tablets after treatment with natalizumab (CLADRINA) - rationale and design.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2024Article
- Treatment Satisfaction with Teriflunomide in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2024Review
- Updates and advances in multiple sclerosis neurotherapeutics.Neurodegenerative disease management · 2023Review
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the real-world comparative effectiveness of switching from natalizumab (NTZ) to a moderate-efficacy (Mod) disease-modifying therapy (DMT) vs high-efficacy therapy (HET) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).
methodsPatients discontinuing NTZ at two MS centers (n = 556) who switched to Mod DMT (n = 270) vs HET (n = 130) were assessed using propensity score (PS) weighting. PS model covariates included demographics and baseline clinical and MRI characteristics. All outcomes were reported as Mod DMT vs HET.
resultsOf the patients included in the study, 48.6% switched to Mod DMT (dimethyl fumarate, n = 130; fingolimod, n = 140) vs 23.4% who switched to HET (ocrelizumab, n = 106; rituximab, n = 17; alemtuzumab, n = 7). Within the first 6 months post-NTZ, switchers to Mod DMT experienced comparable relapses (odds ratio [OR] = 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.72-1.66],
conclusionPatients switching from NTZ to Mod DMT vs HET were at relatively increased risk of disease activity within the first 6 months of NTZ withdrawal that was sustained at 24 months, yielding greater disability progression.
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.