Observational studyAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2025
Real-World Comparison of High-Efficacy Versus Non-High-Efficacy Therapies in Multiple Sclerosis.
Observational study in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal Changes in Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte and Monocyte-to-Lymphocyte Ratios During Multiple Sclerosis Relapse.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Long-term outcomes of autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in multiple sclerosis: A retrospective single-centre experience.Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinicalArticle
- Predictors of initiating high-efficacy vs. platform therapies as first-line disease-modifying treatment in multiple sclerosis.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe choice of the first disease modifying treatment (DMT) in multiple sclerosis (MS) is a topic of great interest, and whether high-efficacy DMTs should be the first choice remains debated. We compared treatment outcomes (no evidence of disease activity [NEDA] and its components) between treatment-naïve relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) patients commencing high-efficacy therapies (HET) and non-high-efficacy therapies (non-HET), using propensity score matching.
methodsThis is an observational prospective study of two real-world, single-centre, longitudinal cohorts: (1) Relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) patients initiated dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate and natalizumab between 2002 and 2020; (2) RRMS patients initiated ocrelizumab between 2019 and 2021. We selected treatment-naïve patients and had at least 2 years of follow-up. We compared the two groups at years 1 and 2 using Cox and Logistic regression models as appropriate.
resultsAfter propensity score matching, we included 448 patients: 110 HET and 338 non-HET. The probability of losing NEDA was 57% and 39% lower in the HET group at year 1 and 2 (HR = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.35, 0.52; p < 0.01 and HR = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.45, 0.84; p < 0.01, respectively). The probability of relapse in the HET group was 94% and 71% lower at year 1 and 2 (OR = 0.06; 95% CI = 0.01, 0.28; p < 0.01 and OR = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.10, 0.84; p < 0.02, respectively). The EDSS in the HET group was 30% and 18% lower at year 1 and 2 (Coeff = -0.30; 95% CI = -0.42, -0.18; p < 0.01 and Coeff = -0.16; 95% CI = -0.34, 0.02; p < 0.09, respectively). The probability of MRI activity in the HET group was 82% lower at year 1 (OR = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.04, 0.86; p < 0.03).
interpretationThis study demonstrated that treatment-naïve RRMS patients should be considered for high-efficacy therapies based on a greater suppression of disease activity at 2 years.
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.