ArticleMultiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical
Predictors of high- versus low-intensity first-line multiple sclerosis treatments.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) can be either high- or low-intensity. This study aims to examine predictors associated with high-intensity MS treatment strategies using commercial claims data. Methods: We used Merative MarketScan commercial and Medicare supplemental databases to examine patients with: outpatient MS diagnosis (ICD-9/-10: 340.xx, G35.xx); DMT fill; no DMTs 1 year prior to MS diagnosis through DMT fill; and 6 months continuous database enrollment. The first DMT filled was classified as either high- (natalizumab, alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, ofatumumab, cladribine) or low-intensity (interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, ponesimod, siponimod, ozanimod). We used logistic regression to examine factors associated with high-intensity first-line MS treatments, and multilevel modelling to characterize provider-level variance. Results: A total of 16,405 patients met the study criteria, and they were 48 years old on average (SD = 12), and 75% female. High-intensity first-line DMT was used in 3%, increasing from <1% in 2012 to 13% in 2021. Provider type was most commonly neurologist (49%) or MS specialist (36%). Provider-level effect accounted for 17% of variance. Discussion: The minority of MS patients initiated high-intensity treatment although this proportion increased over time, and later years were predictive of high-intensity treatment. Providers had a significant role in the approach selected.
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.