ArticleCNS neuroscience & therapeutics2025
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Extended Versus Standard Interval Dosing of Natalizumab in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Patients: A Multicenter Analysis.
Article in CNS neuroscience & therapeutics, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtended interval dosing (EID) of natalizumab (NTZ) every 6 weeks may reduce adverse events while maintaining efficacy. This study compared the effectiveness and safety of EID versus standard interval dosing (SID) in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients, focusing on treatment adherence and its impact on clinical and radiological outcomes.
methodsThis retrospective study involved 80 patients with RRMS from seven clinics: 52 received SID (300 mg every 4 weeks), and 28 received EID (300 mg every 6 weeks). Clinical and radiological disease activity, treatment adherence, and adverse events were assessed.
resultsThe SID and EID groups differed significantly in sex distribution (78.8% female in SID vs. 46.4% in EID, p = 0.007), but median age was similar (32 vs. 36 years, p = 0.209). Clinical and radiological worsening rates were similar between the groups, with no significant differences (combined worsening: 9.6% in the SID group vs. 17.9% in the EID group, p = 0.308; radiological worsening: 5.8% in the SID group vs. 7.1% in the EID group, p = 1.00; clinical worsening: 9.6% in the SID group vs. 10.7% in the EID group, p = 1.00). Adherence rates were comparable across both dosing regimens, and no significant differences were observed in terms of treatment discontinuation. No progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy cases were reported.
conclusionBoth SID and EID provide comparable efficacy and safety profiles, with similar adherence rates. Despite the observed sex distribution imbalance, additional analyses confirmed no significant sex- or group-related differences in baseline disability or clinical worsening, strengthening the interpretation that EID preserves efficacy. Findings should still be interpreted with caution due to the study's retrospective nature and limited sample size.
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.