ArticleJournal of neurology2026
Incidence of Progression Independent of Relapse Activity (PIRA) under platform disease-modifying treatment in multiple sclerosis.
Article in Journal of neurology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComparative data on the impact of platform disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) on Progression Independent of Relapse Activity (PIRA) in patients with remitting-relapsing MS (RRMS) are limited. We compared the risk of PIRA among RRMS patients treated with oral (dimethyl fumarate [DMF] versus teriflunomide [TER]) and injectable (interferon beta [IFN] versus glatiramer acetate [GA]) therapies in a real-world setting.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study including RRMS patients from the Italian MS Registry treated for ≥ 5 years with DMF, TER, IFN, or GA. PIRA was defined as confirmed disability worsening sustained for ≥ 12 months in the absence of relapses. Propensity score 1:1 matching was applied separately for each comparison. Negative binomial regression and Cox models assessed cumulative PIRA events and time to first PIRA event, respectively.
resultsAmong 1910 eligible patients, 174 matched pairs were obtained for DMF vs TER and 404 matched pairs for IFN vs GA. No significant differences emerged in the cumulative incidence of PIRA (RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.47-1.40), or time to first PIRA (HR:0.81; 95% CI: 0.47-1.37) in TER- versus DMF-treated patients, as well as in GA- versus IFN-treated patients (RR:1.04; 95% CI:0.74-1.45; HR:0.86; 95% CI:0.63-1.17). In pooled comparison between injectable and oral DMTs, no significant differences emerged (RR:0.79; 95% CI:0.52-1.19; HR:1.06; 95% CI:0.71-1.58).
conclusionsPlatform DMTs showed no statistically significant differences on PIRA. Treatment selection within platform DMTs should therefore rely primarily on safety and tolerability considerations rather than expectations of differential protection against relapse-independent progression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42831942What 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.