Observational studyFrontiers in immunology2026
Biological and clinical stability after switching from intravenous to subcutaneous natalizumab in RRMS under standard and extended dosing.
Observational study in Frontiers in immunology, 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Natalizumab (NTZ) is a high-efficacy therapy for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) that can be administered intravenously (IV) or subcutaneously (SC). While switching from IV to SC NTZ is increasingly common in clinical practice, evidence on pharmacodynamic stability, particularly under extended interval dosing (6 weeks), remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate CD49d receptor occupancy (RO), serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) levels, and clinical outcomes in RRMS patients switching from IV to SC NTZ while maintaining either 4- or 6-week dosing intervals. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, ambispective, observational study including RRMS patients who had received IV NTZ for at least 6 months on a 4w or 6w schedule and subsequently switched to SC NTZ while maintaining the same dosing interval. CD49d RO was assessed in CD4+, CD8+, and CD19+ lymphocyte subsets before the first, third, and seventh SC administrations. sNfL levels and clinical outcomes (relapses, MRI activity, EDSS score) were also evaluated. Mixed models for repeated measures were applied. Results: A total of 48 patients were included (4w: n=20; 6w: n=28). CD49d RO remained stable over time within both dosing schedules across all lymphocyte subsets. A significant difference between groups was observed only in CD19+ cells at the third administration (LS mean difference 13.08, SE = 4.10; p=0.028; 95% CI: 4.90-21.26) without clinical correlation. sNfL levels showed no significant differences at any timepoint within or between groups. Clinically, patients remained stable, with no new MRI activity or disability progression during the follow-up. Conclusion: Switching from IV to SC NTZ while maintaining either standard (4w) or extended (6w) dosing intervals preserves pharmacodynamic stability, as reflected by sustained CD49d RO, stable sNfL levels, and consistent clinical outcomes. These findings support SC administration as a reliable alternative to IV NTZ, including in extended interval dosing strategies.
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.