ArticleTherapeutic advances in neurological disorders2024
Identification of alemtuzumab-suitable multiple sclerosis patients in Slovakia and sequencing of post-alemtuzumab immunomodulatory treatment.
Article in Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders, 2024. 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Alemtuzumab (ALEM) is a humanised monoclonal antibody that depletes circulating lymphocytes by selectively targeting CD52, which is expressed in high levels on T- and B-lymphocytes. This depletion is followed by lymphocyte repopulation and a cytokine expression shift towards a lesser inflammatory profile, both of which may contribute to prolonged efficacy. National recommendations for enrolling and treating multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with ALEM have been established. However, there are no recommendations in place for the treatment of MS reactivation after the ALEM treatment. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the use of ALEM and to analyse subsequent disease-modifying treatments (DMTs). A multidimensional prediction model was developed to make a patient-specific prognosis regarding the response to ALEM. Design: A multicentre, prospective, non-controlled, non-interventional, observational cohort study. Methods: Relapsing multiple sclerosis patients (RMSp) who received ⩾1 dose of ALEM were enrolled. In each treatment year, the following baseline and prospective data were collected: age, MS history, number, type and duration of previous disease-modifying treatment (PDMT), relapse rate (REL), expanded disability status scale (EDSS), magnetic resonance imaging and serious adverse events (AE). In cases of reactivation of MS, all data about the subsequent DMT were collected. Results: A total of 142 RMSp from 10 MS Slovak Centres fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The average age was 35 years (standard error 8.56). The overall average EDSS was 3.87 (1.46) when ALEM was started. The average duration of PDMT was 6.0 (4.04) years, and the median number of PDMTs was 3 (0-5), while the patients were mostly treated with 2 or 3 DMTs (>65.00%). Post-ALEM treatment was needed in 39 cases (27.46%). The most frequent post-ALEM treatment indicated was ocrelizumab, followed by natalizumab (NAT), siponimod and cladribine. The ocrelizumab and NAT treatment bring little benefit to patients. Siponimod showed less EDSS increase in contrast to ocrelizumab and NAT. Another repopulation therapy, cladribine, may also be an effective option. Statistically significant predictors for the expected EDSS are age ( Conclusion: The study confirms the positive effect of ALEM on clinical and radiological outcomes. We need more data from long-term sequencing studies.
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.