Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36564664›Full record

ReviewNeurology and therapy2023

The Place of Immune Reconstitution Therapy in the Management of Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis in France: An Expert Consensus.

Jerome De Sèze, Laurent Suchet, Claude Mekies, Eric Manchon, Pierre Labauge, Anne-Marie Guennoc, Gilles Defer, Pierre Clavelou, Giovanni Castelnovo, Bertrand Bourre and 7 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neurology and therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Immune reconstitution and tolerance-inducing therapies as promising therapeutic approaches in multiple sclerosis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Jerome De SèzeDepartment of Neurology, Strasbourg University Hospital, Strasbourg, France. Jerome.deseze@chru-strasbourg.fr.
Laurent SuchetDepartment of Neurology, Hôpital Européen, Marseille, France.
Claude MekiesClinique des Cèdres, Toulouse/Department of Neurology, CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Eric ManchonDepartment of Neurology, Gonesse Hospital, Gonesse, France.
Pierre LabaugeDepartment of Neurology, Montpellier University Hospital, Montpellier, France.
Anne-Marie GuennocDepartment of Neurology, Tours University Hospital, Hôpital Bretonneau, Tours, France.
Gilles DeferDepartment of Neurology, Caen University Hospital, Caen, France.
Pierre ClavelouDepartment of Neurology, Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Giovanni CastelnovoDepartment of Neurology, Nîmes University Hospital, Hopital Caremeau, Nîmes, France.
Bertrand BourreDepartment of Neurology, CHU Rouen, 7600, Rouen, France.
Caroline Bensa-KoscherDepartment of Neurology, Fondation Rothschild Hospital, Paris, France.
Abdullatif Al KhedrDepartment of Neurology, Amiens University Hospital, Amiens, France.
Julie Le MaoCEMKA, Bourg-La-Reine, France.
Lauriane VillemurCEMKA, Bourg-La-Reine, France.
Stephane BouéeCEMKA, Bourg-La-Reine, France.
Laura LucianiReal-World Evidence, Merck Santé (an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), Lyon, France.
Patrick VermerschUniversity of Lille, INSERM UMR1172 LilNCog, CHU Lille, FHU Precise, Lille, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0997-8817

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The treatment strategy in relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) is a complex decision requiring individualization of treatment sequences to maximize clinical outcomes. Current local and international guidelines do not provide specific recommendation on the use of immune reconstitution therapy (IRT) as alternative to continuous immunosuppression in the management of RMS. The objective of the program was to provide consensus-based expert opinion on the optimal use of IRT in the management of RMS. A Delphi method was performed from May 2022 to July 2022. Nineteen clinical assertions were developed by a scientific committee and sent to 14 French clinical experts in MS alongside published literature. Two consecutive reproducible anonymous votes were conducted. Consensus on recommendations was achieved when more than 75% of the respondents agreed or disagreed with the clinical assertions. After the second round, consensus was achieved amongst 16 out of 19 propositions: 13 clinical assertions had a 100% consensus, 3 clinical assertions a consensus above 75% and 3 without consensus. Expert-agreed consensus is provided on topics related to the benefit of the early use of IRT from immunological and clinical perspectives, profiles of patients who may benefit most from the IRT strategy (e.g. patients with family planning, patient preference and lifestyle requirements). These French expert consensuses provide up-to-date relevant guidance on the use of IRT in clinical practice. The current program reflects status of knowledge in 2022 and should be updated in timely manner when further clinical data in IRT become available.

Indexed as

Disease-modifying therapyImmune reconstitution therapyMultiple sclerosis

Identifiers

PMID36564664
PMCPMC10043116

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.