ArticleBrain and behavior2025
Personalized Treatment Response in Progressive MS: Can the Patient's Profile Influence the Outcome?
Article in Brain and behavior, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEvidence from clinical trials providing average effects in populations is often used to forecast individualized patient outcomes similar to the trial patients. Multiple sclerosis (MS), known for notable heterogeneity in outcomes, makes the evaluation of potential heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) significant. Identifying factors that predict individual treatment response is crucial for optimizing patient care, and this study aimed to demonstrate the feasibility (proof of concept) of applying a statistical method to predict individual treatment response in MS trials.
methodsWe developed an individualized response score (RS) to predict treatment response in patients with active secondary progressive MS (SPMS). The RS was a continuous combination of baseline clinical characteristics, including age, sex, previous relapses, EDSS, and disease duration. We used data from the EXPAND trial to train and validate the RS. A training dataset (70% of the data) was used to identify optimal response thresholds for four key outcomes: Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), Timed 25 Foot Walk (T25FW), 9-Hole Peg Test (9HP), and the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT). The remaining 30% of the data served as a validation set to assess the RS's predictive performance. The continuous RS was binarized (into responder and non-responder) based on the threshold representing the top 25% versus the bottom 75% of the continuous score distribution.
resultsUsing baseline profiles, SPMS patients exhibiting varying benefits from Siponimod across different outcomes were successfully categorized as responders or non-responders. The overall effect of Siponimod on the EDSS was HR = 0.79 (95% CI: 0.65-0.95), while responders' demonstrated a HR = 0.64 (95% CI: 0.49-0.84) versus a HR = 0.97 (95% CI: 0.74-1.27) for non-responders', interaction p = 0.027. Siponimod's overall effect on SDMT progression was HR = 0.75 (95% CI: 0.63-0.88). Responders' demonstrated a HR = 0.59 (95% CI: 0.43-0.80) vs a HR = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.69-1.44) for non-responders, interaction p = 0.031. On the entire dataset, Siponimod exhibited a non-significant effect on 9HPT (HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.66-1.10) and on T25FW (HR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.81-1.12), whereas responders' demonstrated a HR = 0.68 (95% CI: 0.47-0.97) on 9HPT and a HR = 0.77 (95% CI: 0.60-0.98) for T25FW.
conclusionsThis analysis demonstrated the ability to define responders to a therapy based on their baseline profile and evaluate the treatment effect on multiple endpoints, showing that the benefit on different outcomes can vary across patients.
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.