SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Efficacy and safety of pharmacological and biological therapies for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder for which disease-modifying treatment options remain limited. This study aimed to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and biological therapies for ALS via a network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched until February 25, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating any pharmacological or biological intervention in ALS were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. A Bayesian NMA was performed in R (gemtc package). Effect estimates were expressed as mean differences (MDs) or risk ratios (RRs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Interventions were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Publication bias was explored with funnel plots (Stata 18.0). Subgroup analyses were conducted for drug classes demonstrating significant efficacy and including at least three RCTs. Results: 109 trials involving 16,353 participants were included. The primary outcome was the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R); secondary outcomes included forced vital capacity (FVC), mortality, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Compared with placebo, the combination of cell therapy and neuroprotective agents produced the greatest attenuation of ALSFRS-R decline (MD: 3.65, 95% CrI: 1.27-6.05) and was associated with the lowest SAE risk. Receptor agonists ranked highest for preservation of FVC, whereas alkaloids ranked first for mortality reduction; however, no intervention demonstrated a statistically significant survival benefit versus placebo. Within-class subgroup analyses further identified several specific agents, such as masitinib, talampanel, and EH301, as demonstrating relatively consistent efficacy, although substantial heterogeneity remained among enzyme inhibitors. Conclusion: Cell therapy combined with neuroprotective agents may slow functional decline in ALS. Receptor agonists may help preserve respiratory function. Survival benefits remain inconclusive, underscoring the continued importance of comprehensive supportive care. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251000672, identifier CRD420251000672.
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.