Observational studyFrontiers in immunology2023
Natalizumab-immunogenicity evaluation in patients with infusion related events or disease exacerbations.
Observational study in Frontiers in immunology, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Model-Based Approach to Evaluate Anti-Drug Antibody Impact on Drug Exposure With Biologics: A Case Example With the CD3 T-Cell Bispecific Cibisatamab.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025Article
- Twenty years of natalizumab in multiple sclerosis: lessons learned and future outlook.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2025Review
- Introducing the Biosimilar Paradigm to Neurology: The Totality of Evidence for the First Biosimilar Natalizumab.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2024Review
- Clinical relevance and predictors of anti-natalizumab antibodies in multiple sclerosis: A real-world retrospective cohort study.Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinicalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Natalizumab is a biologic drug for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis that may induce the generation of anti-drug antibodies in some patients. Anti-natalizumab antibodies (ANA) increase the risk of adverse events and reduce efficacy, being useful biomarkers for monitoring treatment response. Methods: Retrospective observational study including MS patients treated with natalizumab that experienced infusion-related events (IRE) or disease exacerbations (DE). ANA were tested by Elisa including a screening and a confirmation assay. Patients were further classified as transient (one positive result) or persistent (two or more positive results) ANA. Results: A total of 1251 MS patients were included and 153 (12.3%) had ANA with at least one single point determination, which were more frequent among patients with IRE compared to those with DE (21,6% vs.10.8%) during the first six infusions. Two or more determinations ANA were performed in 184 patients, being 31.5% permanently positive and 7.1% transiently positive. Interestingly, 26.1% of patients that experienced DE had persistent ANA, while 2.6% were transient. In contrast, 43% of patients with IRE had persistent ANA, and 9.3% had transient antibodies. Patients with persistent antibodies had more frequently high levels at the first sampling compared to patients with transient ANA. Conclusion: Real-world evidence shows that the presence of ANA is behind an important percentage of patients treated with natalizumab that experience IRE, as well as DE but in a lower degree. These findings support the need to systematically evaluate ANA towards a personalized management of these patients to avoid undesired complications.
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.