ArticleNeurodegenerative disease management2025
Patient and healthcare provider experience of diroximel fumarate: considerations for selecting disease-modifying therapy.
Article in Neurodegenerative disease management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
purposeTo evaluate treatment perceptions of diroximel fumarate (DRF) for relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS), with contextual data from dimethyl fumarate (DMF) users, based on patient and healthcare provider (HCP) surveys.
methodsA prospective web-based survey was conducted among MyMSTeam users aged ≥ 21 years in the United States, who provided information about their MS disease and treatment history. The Spherix HCP survey collected retrospective chart data from HCPs for patients who switched disease-modifying therapies (DMTs).
resultsOf 535 MyMSTeam respondents, 77 (14%) received DMF and 46 (9%) received DRF. DRF users reported physical and emotional benefits such as slowed disease progression, decreased relapses, and new symptom prevention, with 70% noting at least one physical benefit and 46% reporting emotional/quality of life benefits. Additionally, 83% found DRF tolerable. HCPs reported prescribing DRF due to good tolerability (58%) and a preference for oral administration (50%). The most common reasons for switching to DRF were lack of efficacy (52%) or poor tolerability (49%) of previous DMTs.
conclusionA real-world, patient-focused survey on MS treatment suggested DRF was well tolerated and associated with patient-reported physical benefits. HCP-reported reasons for selecting DRF included efficacy and tolerability issues with prior DMT.
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.