ArticleMultiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical
A comparative study of fatigue and processing speed in patients with multiple sclerosis treated with natalizumab or rituximab.
Article in Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Fatigue is the most debilitating symptom in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Natalizumab and rituximab are the most used MS disease modifying therapies in Sweden, but comparative data on the effect on fatigue is sparse. Objective: Primary objective was to compare fatigue levels between patients on natalizumab and rituximab. As secondary objective, we assessed processing speed, an attention domain quality, between treatment groups. Method: In this Swedish multicentre cross-sectional study, patients with relapsing-remitting MS and >24 months treatment duration were identified in the Swedish MS-registry. Fatigue was assessed using the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive functions (FSMC) and processing speed using Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT). Results: 128 patients were enrolled (natalizumab: 56, rituximab: 72). No significant differences in FSMC were found when adjusting for potential confounders (p = 0.936), with age having the biggest impact, correlating with increased fatigue. Individuals on natalizumab performed significantly better on SDMT at cross-section (natalizumab 64.7, rituximab 56.2; p = 0.003), with an improvement from treatment initiation, compared to rituximab (change: natalizumab 8.9, rituximab -1.0; p = 0.002). Conclusion: We found no difference in fatigue levels between natalizumab and rituximab cohorts. Patients treated with natalizumab showed significantly better results on SDMT than patients on rituximab.
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.