ArticleNeurology and therapy2025
Comparative Efficacy of Double-Filtration Plasmapheresis Versus Intravenous Methylprednisolone in Acute Attacks of Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder: A Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in Neurology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Subsequent treatment strategies following rituximab-resistance in AQP4-IgG+ neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: a case series.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Combined Double-Filtration Plasmapheresis and Corticosteroids are Associated with Improved Outcomes in Acute Myelin Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein Antibody-Associated Disease: An Ambispective Multicenter Cohort Study.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWhile double-filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) and intravenously administered methylprednisolone (IVMP) are both established treatments for acute attacks of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), their comparative efficacy and safety profiles remain a critical area of investigation. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and adverse events of DFPP versus IVMP in patients with NMOSD, with a focus on disability improvement and treatment tolerability.
methodsA prospective single-center cohort study was performed with 146 patients with NMOSD, who were treated with DFPP, IVMP, and combination therapy (DFPP + IVMP). Primary efficacy was measured by changes in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores (ΔEDSS). Secondary outcomes included Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores. Safety profiles, including liver enzyme elevation and infection rates, were monitored.
resultsThe DFPP group (n = 81) demonstrated a significant clinical response, with a median EDSS improvement of 0.5 (IQR 0.0-1.0) points. The response rate (defined as ΔEDSS > 0) was 66.7%, with 33.3% (27/81), 18.5% (15/81), and 14.8% (12/81) of patients achieving improvements of 0.5, 1.0, and ≥ 1.5 points, respectively. This was accompanied by a marked reduction in serum immunoglobulins (IgG: 11.87 ± 4.39 to 3.13 ± 1.76 g/L, p < 0.001). The DFPP group and IVMP monotherapy group showed comparable efficacy, with 66.7% (54/81) and 69.2% (45/65) of patients achieving EDSS improvement, respectively (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.45-1.77, p = 0.742). The magnitude of EDSS improvement was identical between groups (median ΔEDSS 0.5 points). Combination therapy demonstrated particular utility in severe cases (median baseline EDSS 5.0 [IQR 3.5-6.5]). Adverse events were fewer with DFPP than with IVMP (19.8% vs. 33.8%, p = 0.059).
conclusionDFPP exhibited comparable effectiveness to IVMP in improving disability during NMOSD acute attacks, with a trend towards a more favorable safety profile. The combination of DFPP and IVMP may benefit severe cases. These findings support DFPP as a viable therapeutic option, particularly for patients with high baseline disability or steroid-refractory disease.
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.