SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2024
Comparative efficacy and tolerability of ublituximab vs. other monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Review
- Treadmill Exercise Impact on Brain Electrophysiological and Glial Immunoreactivity in Cuprizone-Treated Rats.Brain sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) is a chronic, inflammatory disease of the central nervous system. Ublituximab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (mAb), is indicated for the treatment of RMS. We performed a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify randomized trials reporting the clinical efficacy and tolerability of ublituximab or comparator disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for treatment of RMS, and assessed their comparative effects using network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: The SLR involved a comprehensive search across various medical databases to identify relevant studies. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of an adult RMS population, focusing on treatment with at least one of ublituximab, alemtuzumab, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, or ofatumumab. For outcomes included in the NMA (annualized relapse rate (ARR), confirmed disability progression (CDP), and treatment discontinuation rate), rate ratios (RR) or hazard ratios (HR), along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated. We performed NMA using a contrast-based random-effects model within a frequentist framework for all outcomes. Ranking probabilities among comparators, and intervention rankings for the NMA, were estimated using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: We included 15 RCTs in the review. For the ARR outcome, there was no statistically significant difference between ublituximab and the other included mAbs [ofatumumab (RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.64-1.62)), natalizumab (RR 0.99 (0.59-1.65)), alemtuzumab (RR 0.86 (0.51-1.46)), and ocrelizumab (RR 0.75 (0.44-1.28))]. For CDP at 6 months, our results showed no statistically significant difference between ublituximab and the comparator mAbs [ofatumumab (HR 0.97 (0.49-1.92)), natalizumab (HR 1.13 (0.53-2.40)), alemtuzumab (HR 1.25 (0.56-2.81)), and ocrelizumab (HR 1.29 (0.57-2.90))]. For CDP at 3 and 6 months, there was no statistically significant difference between ublituximab and placebo. The all-cause treatment discontinuation rate analysis showed no significant difference between ublituximab and other mAbs, except for alemtuzumab. Conclusions: Results of this SLR-informed NMA showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ublituximab and the other mAbs in terms of clinical efficacy. Additionally, the findings show that there is no statistically significant difference in discontinuation rates with the exception of the comparison with alemtuzumab, which may be attributed to its unique dosing schedule.
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.