ArticleJournal of neuromuscular diseases2024
Comparative efficacy of risdiplam and nusinersen in Type 2 and 3 spinal muscular atrophy patients: A cohort study using real-world data.
Article in Journal of neuromuscular diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Defining When Nusinersen Starts to Work: Time to Clinical Benefit in Patients with SMA Types 1-3 from a Real-World Cohort in China.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Patient-reported clinical characteristics and healthcare utilization in Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA): a cross-sectional study from Iran.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Article
- Matched-pair analysis of motor outcomes in adults with spinal muscular atrophy on nusinersen vs. risdiplam.Journal of neurology · 2026Article
- From Genes to Function: Clinical Experience with the Effectiveness and Safety of Risdiplam and Nusinersen in Spinal Muscular Atrophy.Iranian journal of child neurology · 2026Article
- Respiratory effects of nusinersen treatment in pediatric patients with spinal muscular atrophy types 2 and 3.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Transforming Spinal Muscular Atrophy: From Pivotal Trials to Real-World Evidence and Future Therapeutic Frontiers in Types 1 and 2.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Longitudinal efficacy of risdiplam treatment in Chinese children with spinal muscular atrophy.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 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
34 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThree medications have been approved for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) treatment. No head-to-head clinical trials have directly compared the efficacy of nusinersen and risdiplam. We compare the efficacy of them in Type 2 and 3 SMA patients, with 6 months of follow-up.
methodsA multicenter cohort study was conducted. Demographic, genetic and clinical findings containing Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded (HFMSE) and revised upper limb module (RULM) scales were gathered. An increase of at least 3 points in HFMSE and RULM scores was considered a positive response.
results73 (58.4%) children received risdiplam, and 52 (41.6%) received nusinersen non-randomly, based on clinical decision. The difference in HFMSE and RULM scores compared to the baseline was significant in both groups (P-value <0.001). However, there was no significant difference between mean difference changes in HFMSE and RULM scores between the two groups. 80.4% of patients in the risdiplam group and 72% in the nusinersen group achieved the 3-point cutoff after 6 months, and there is no significant difference between the two groups (P-Value:0.33).
conclusionsThis study showed that both medications significantly changed the HFSME and RULM after 3 and 6 months of follow-up. However, there was no significant difference between the two drugs according to the HFSME.
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.