ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2025
Early intensive therapy versus escalation strategy in French Caribbean multiple sclerosis cohort.
Article in European journal of neurology, 2025. 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.
- Early intensive therapy versus escalation strategy in French Caribbean multiple sclerosis cohort.European journal of neurology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData on Escalation Therapy versus Early Intensive Therapy (EIT) Strategy in multiple sclerosis (MS) are lacking, particularly in Afro-Caribbean cases, known for their severity.
objectivesTo assess efficacy and safety of these strategies in a predominantly Afro-Caribbean relapsing-remitting MS population.
methodsA multicenter retrospective study of 195 MS patients, including 66 on EIT, with ≥2 years follow-up. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test were used to assess irreversible progression to EDSS scores of 3, 6, and 8. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: change in EDSS score, risk factors for EDSS progression, and severe adverse effects.
resultsEIT showed slower EDSS 3 progression than Escalation (median survival 13.5 vs. 9.8 years, p = 0.024). After a median follow-up of 8 years, 89.5% on EIT remained free from EDSS 3 versus 63.8% on Escalation. Univariate analysis linked Escalation (hazard ratio (HR; 95% CI): 2.42 [1.09-5.34]), age at first relapse (HR: 1.04 [1.01-1.06]), incomplete symptom regression (HR: 1.69 [1.02-2.77]), and EDSS 3 progression. EDSS stabilized or decreased with EIT but worsened with Escalation (p < 0.001). Safety profiles were similar.
conclusionsEIT extends median time to irreversible EDSS 3 in Afro-Caribbean individuals compared to Escalation, supporting its preference as initial treatment.
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.