ArticleNeurology and therapy2026
A Randomised, Double-Blind Study Comparing the Gastrointestinal Tolerability of Tegomil Fumarate Versus Dimethyl Fumarate in Healthy Volunteers.
Article in Neurology and therapy, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWidely used to treat multiple sclerosis, dimethyl fumarate (DMF) is a prodrug metabolized in vivo to monomethyl fumarate (MMF) and methanol; the latter is a gastrointestinal (GI) irritant. GI adverse events (AEs) commonly cause DMF discontinuation. Tegomil fumarate (TMF) comprises two MMF moieties joined by tetraethylene glycol, a low molecular polyethylene glycol (PEG). TMF is cleaved in vivo to MMF and the pharmacologically inactive PEG.
methodsThis randomised, double-blind study compared the GI tolerability of TMF 348 mg and DMF 240 mg, administered twice daily, in healthy adults (3:1 female:male ratio) aged 18-55 years. Participants completed daily questionnaires in an electronic diary, including the Modified Overall Gastrointestinal Symptom Scale (MOGISS), Modified Acute Gastrointestinal Symptom Scale, Flushing Symptom Questionnaire and an ad hoc quality of life assessment. The primary endpoint was the area under the curve (AUC) for each individual MOGISS symptom over 5 weeks of treatment. Between-group treatment differences for each MOGISS symptom AUC were analysed using hierarchical testing in a predefined sequence starting with abdominal pain.
resultsThe study enrolled 210 participants; the full analysis set comprised 208 (155 females, 53 males). While AUC values were lower for TMF than DMF for most MOGISS symptoms, the between-group difference for abdominal pain was not statistically different (p = 0.0513) so all subsequent statistical analyses were considered exploratory. MOGISS total and composite score, the number of days with symptoms and number of symptoms were lower with TMF than DMF. Fewer participants receiving TMF (57.7%) versus DMF (73.6%) reported GI AEs or discontinued because of GI AEs (TMF n = 0, DMF n = 2).
conclusionsThe between-group difference for the AUC of MOGISS abdominal pain score was not statistically different. However, compared with DMF, TMF showed improved GI tolerability profile in terms of self-assessed GI events and GI AEs leading to discontinuation.
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.