ArticleNeurology and therapy2026
Time and Motion Study to Quantify Time for Tysabri (Natalizumab) Intravenous Versus Subcutaneous to Treat Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis in France, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTysabri (natalizumab) is a recombinant humanized IgG4 monoclonal antibody for the treatment of adults with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). A subcutaneous (SC) formulation administered by healthcare professionals (HCPs) is expected to save time for patients and healthcare staff compared with intravenous (IV) delivery. This observational study quantifies HCP and patient time with natalizumab IV vs natalizumab SC in patients with RRMS.
methodsSeven sites across France (n = 3), Spain (n = 3), and the United Kingdom (UK) (n = 1) participated in this study. Primary endpoints were active HCP time for tasks related to preparation and administration processes of natalizumab, all tasks combined, and time in the infusion chair. The target sample was 15 observations each of natalizumab IV and SC per site. Results were extrapolated per patient per year. HCP satisfaction and preference were assessed via a one-time survey.
resultsA total of 213 observations were collected (102 IV and 111 SC). Mean total active HCP time (min) per visit (and annually) was 15.8 (205.8) for IV and 9.1 (118.4) for SC (- 42.5% [pooled], - 29.3% [Spain], - 48.1% [France], and - 56.5% [UK]). Mean time in the infusion chair (min) was 95.2 for IV and 33.5 for SC (- 64.9% [pooled], - 60.4% [Spain], - 67.3% [France], and - 69.2% [UK]). Mean HCP satisfaction score for administration was higher for SC than for IV (9.2 vs 8.2; p = 0.026). Seventy percent of HCPs stated a preference for SC, of which 56.3% stated a very strong and 18.8% a fairly strong preference.
conclusionsNatalizumab SC offers substantial savings in active HCP time and patient chair time compared with natalizumab IV. HCPs reported higher satisfaction and a preference for natalizumab SC. The HCP time and infusion chair capacity made available with natalizumab SC could be reallocated to other patient-care activities or used to treat additional patients, thereby improving overall healthcare efficiency.
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.