ArticleActa neurologica Belgica2026
Safety and efficacy of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies versus teriflunomide in relapsing multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Acta neurologica Belgica, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies are highly effective disease-modifying therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS), but their comparative efficacy and safety versus teriflunomide, a dihydroorotate dehydrogenase inhibitor, remain clinically important. Teriflunomide is an oral platform treatment with moderate efficacy and a favorable administration profile, making it a relevant comparator for evaluating the benefit-risk profile of anti-CD20 therapies.
objectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies compared with teriflunomide in adults with RMS.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ScienceDirect, and Scopus was conducted from inception to April 30, 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing anti-CD20 therapies with teriflunomide were eligible. Outcomes included annualized relapse rate, gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions, new or enlarging T2 lesions, brain volume change, adverse events, serious adverse events, and infections. Pooled mean differences, rate ratios or risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4. Sensitivity analysis on the basis of leave-one-out principle was performed. Risk of bias of RCTs was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (ROB 2.0).
resultsSix trials, reported in four studies, were included in the systematic review, and five trials were included in the quantitative synthesis. Anti-CD20 therapies significantly reduced annualized relapse rate compared with teriflunomide (rate ratio [RR] = 0.45, 95% CI [0.38, 0.53]; p < 0.00001), gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions (MD = - 0.41, 95% CI - 0.52 to - 0.30), and new or enlarging T2 lesions (MD = - 3.05, 95% CI - 3.52 to - 2.58). However, no significant difference was observed in brain volume change. Overall adverse events and infections were comparable between groups, but serious adverse events were increased with anti-CD20 therapies (RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.61).
conclusionAnti-CD20 therapies provide effective control of relapse and MRI disease activity compared with teriflunomide in RMS. However, no clear advantage over teriflunomide was observed in reducing brain volume loss, and findings regarding disability progression were inconsistent. The modestly increased risk of serious adverse events highlight the need of large scale RCTs, individualized treatment decisions, and long-term safety monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42704608What 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.