Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40783682›Full record

SynthesisBMC neurology2025

Comparative effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies for highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis despite previous treatment - a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Michael Köhler, Friedemann Paul, Kirsten Janke, Sibylle Sturtz, Daniela Preukschat, Sabine Ostlender, Michaela Florina Kerekes, Thomas Kaiser

Abstract readComparative StudyNetwork Meta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Modulating glutamate neurotransmission inFrontiers in immunology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
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

8 authors.

Michael KöhlerInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Cologne, Germany. michael.koehler@iqwig.de.
Friedemann PaulExperimental and Clinical Research Center (ECRC), Charité- Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Kirsten JankeInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Cologne, Germany.
Sibylle SturtzInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Cologne, Germany.
Daniela PreukschatInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Cologne, Germany.
Sabine OstlenderInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Cologne, Germany.
Michaela Florina KerekesInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Cologne, Germany.
Thomas KaiserInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComparative assessments of all available disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in patients with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) are lacking, even though some of these DMTs are restricted to this MS subpopulation. We therefore aimed to compare DMTs in patients with highly active RRMS using re-analyses of individual patient data (IPD) provided by study sponsors.

methodsWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included adult patients with RRMS and directly compared alemtuzumab, cladribine, dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab, ozanimod, ponesimod and teriflunomide, or compared these DMTs with other drugs or placebo. Re-analyses of IPD for subpopulations of patients with high disease activity despite previous DMT were included in network meta-analyses (NMAs). As there is no widely accepted definition of high disease activity in RRMS, criteria were chosen to cover as wide a range of definitions as possible, while being sufficiently similar across studies.

resultsWe identified 14 relevant RCTs, including only 3 head-to-head comparisons of DMTs, and no relevant studies on natalizumab. All studies were pivotal studies for approval. The available re-analyses of IPD did not allow comprehensive NMAs. The main reasons for this were the overall paucity of RCTs, especially head-to-head comparisons, and a high risk of bias. In addition, data on patient-relevant outcomes and long-term follow-up (> 2 years) were lacking.

conclusionBased on the largest possible evidence base, including previously unpublished data, our systematic review shows substantial evidence gaps for DMTs in highly active RRMS. This indicates a need for further research beyond regulatory requirements.

trial registrationClinical trial number: not applicable.

Indexed as

Immunologic FactorsImmunosuppressive AgentsMultiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-RemittingHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeImmunologic FactorsImmunosuppressive AgentsData availabilityHigh disease activityMultiple sclerosisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40783682
PMCPMC12335774

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.