Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38430270›Full record

Observational studyJournal of neurology2024

Early intensive versus escalation treatment in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Austria.

Michael Guger, Christian Enzinger, Fritz Leutmezer, Franziska Di Pauli, Jörg Kraus, Stefan Kalcher, Erich Kvas, Thomas Berger, Austrian MS Treatment Registry (AMSTR)

Open access · hybridAbstract readObservational StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael GugerDepartment of Neurology, Pyhrn-Eisenwurzen Hospital Steyr, Sierninger Straße 170, 4400, Steyr, Austria. Michael.Guger@ooeg.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8219-781X
Christian EnzingerDepartment of Neurology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Fritz LeutmezerDepartment of Neurology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Franziska Di PauliClinical Department of Neurology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Jörg KrausDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Paracelsus Medical University and Salzburger Landeskliniken, Salzburg, Austria.
Stefan KalcherData Management, Hermesoft, Graz, Austria.
Erich KvasStatistics, Hermesoft, Graz, Austria.
Thomas BergerDepartment of Neurology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Austrian MS Treatment Registry (AMSTR)
Medical University of Vienna · ATInnsbruck Medical University · ATJohannes Kepler University of Linz · ATMedical University of Graz · ATParacelsus Medical University · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare the effectiveness of early intensive treatment (EIT) versus escalation treatment (ESC) in a nationwide observational cohort of almost 1000 people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). MATERIALS AND

methodsThe EIT cohort started with alemtuzumab (AZM), cladribine (CLAD), fingolimod (FTY), natalizumab (NTZ), ocrelizumab (OCR), or ozanimod (OZA); whereas, the ESC cohort was escalated from dimethylfumarate (DMF) or teriflunomide (TERI) to AZM, CLAD, FTY, NTZ, OCR, or OZA within the Austrian MS Treatment Registry. Patients had to stay on therapy for at least 3 months and up to 16 years. The EIT cohort included 743 and the ESC cohort 227 RRMS patients. We used multinomial propensity scores for inverse probability weighting in generalized linear (GLM) and Cox proportional hazards models to correct for the bias of this non-randomized registry study.

resultsEstimated mean annualized relapse rates (ARR) were 0.09 for EIT and 0.4 for ESC patients. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) in the GLM model for relapses showed a decreased relapse probability of 78% for the EIT versus ESC cohort [IRR = 0.22, 95% CI (0.16-0.30), p < 0.001]. Analyzing the time to the first relapse by Cox regression, a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.17 [95% CI (0.13-0.22), p < 0.001] revealed a decreased risk of 83% for the EIT group. Regarding sustained Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) progression for 12 weeks, a HR of 0.55 [95% CI (0.40-0.76), p < 0.001] showed a decreased probability of 45% for the EIT cohort.

conclusionsESC treatment after DMF and TERI revealed a higher relapse and EDSS progression probability compared to EIT in Austrian RRMS patients. Therefore, an early intensive treatment should be started in patients with an active or highly active disease course.

Indexed as

Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-RemittingAdultAustriaCohort StudiesDimethyl FumarateFemaleHumansImmunologic FactorsImmunosuppressive AgentsMaleMiddle AgedRegistriesToluidinesDimethyl FumarateImmunologic FactorsImmunosuppressive AgentsToluidinesComparisonEarly intensive treatmentEscalation treatmentMultiple sclerosis

Identifiers

PMID38430270
PMCPMC11136709
OpenAlexW4392345803

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.