ArticleBMJ neurology open2026
Effectiveness of escalation versus early high-efficacy therapies on progression independent of relapse activity in multiple sclerosis: a Danish nationwide study.
Article in BMJ neurology open, 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
Background: The effect of early high-efficacy therapy initiation versus escalation from moderate-efficacy therapy on progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA) in multiple sclerosis remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the treatment strategies on effectiveness against PIRA. Methods: From the Danish MS Registry, treatment-naïve adult patients with multiple sclerosis started on high-efficacy therapies or moderate-efficacy therapies between 2012 and 2022 were included in this nationwide cohort study. Stabilised inverse probability of treatment weights, derived from propensity scores, were applied to balance confounders and to perform weighted Cox and negative binomial regression models. Patients were followed under an intention-to-treat framework until the latest clinical visit before the data extraction date (2 June 2025). The primary outcome was time to first PIRA; the secondary outcome was annualised relapse rate (ARR). Results: Among 3316 patients (594 high-efficacy, 2722 moderate-efficacy) with a median follow-up time of 7.4 years (min-max: 1.5-13.4), we found no statistical difference in time to first progression independent of relapse activity with a HR of 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36, p=0.60. Early high-efficacy therapy initiation was associated with a 40% reduction in ARR (incidence rate ratio of 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.77, p<0.001). Conclusions: In this nationwide cohort study, we found a reduction in relapse activity associated with early initiation of high-efficacy therapies but no statistically significant difference when investigating time to first PIRA. Our findings indicate a therapeutic gap in the current treatment landscape with respect to mitigating PIRA.
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.