ArticleMultiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical
Safety and efficacy of extended versus standard interval dosing of anti-CD20 therapy in multiple sclerosis - A meta-analysis.
Article in Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anti-CD20 therapy is a highly effective multiple sclerosis (MS) disease-modifying therapy, but may be complicated by infections, which has led to the utilization of different extended interval dosing (EID) regimens. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of standard interval dosing (SID) and EID of anti-CD20 therapy in MS. Methods: We searched PubMed and MS conference abstracts and included all studies comparing distinct cohorts of people with MS (PwMS) treated with SID and EID of anti-CD20 therapy that reported ≥1 efficacy or safety outcome measure. A meta-analysis was performed with effect size calculation (log odds ratio [logOR]) of efficacy and safety outcome measures. Results: Seventeen studies comparing SID to EID were identified, with 1739 (SID) and 1856 (EID) participants. There was no significant difference in frequencies of PwMS with relapses (logOR = 0.15; Conclusions: Data from observational studies suggests that EID of anti-CD20 therapy may have a comparable efficacy and safety profile compared to SID.
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.