ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2024
Descriptive Analysis of Patients Treated with Diroximel Fumarate and Dimethyl Fumarate-A Real-Life Experience.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- GASDERMIN D-mediated pyroptosis as a therapeutic target in TAU-dependent frontotemporal dementia mouse model.Journal of biomedical science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDimethyl fumarate (DMF) and diroximel fumarate (DRF) are two treatments used for multiple sclerosis (MS) that have been shown to be effective in controlling MS patients. DRF was introduced in 2019 with the aim of decreasing the gastrointestinal side effects caused by DMF. Few real-life studies verify the data provided in the clinical trials.
methodsA retrospective descriptive study was conducted on MS patients at the Hospital Universitario Torrecárdenas under treatment with DRF and DMF. Demographic, clinical, and analytical variables were studied and compared between groups.
resultsA total of 60 patients were recruited, 30 with each treatment, observing similar baseline characteristics. Fewer gastrointestinal (GI) effects were observed in the DRF group, while more infections were detected in the DMF group. We recorded lower levels in the DRF group, with four cases of moderate-severe lymphopenia in the DRF group vs. none in the DMF group. In addition, we observed a decrease in lymphocytes after the change from DMF to DRF in patients with a change.
conclusionsOur real-life analysis of patients treated with DMF or DRF supports several studies' findings regarding decreased GI side effects with DRF vs. DMF without decreasing efficacy. However, our data show a greater reduction in lymphocytes in patients with DRF compared to DMF, so more studies are necessary.
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.