SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2026
Efficacy and safety of disease-modifying oral drugs in treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 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
Background: Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS) is a chronic inflammatory demyelinating disease affecting the central nervous system, characterized by complex pathogenesis and increasing annual incidence rates. Although current clinical interventions for RRMS are diverse, there remains a relative scarcity of direct comparative studies on the efficacy and safety profiles among different oral disease-modifying drugs, resulting in insufficient comprehensive evidence. Objective: This study aims to apply network meta-analysis techniques to systematically evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of different disease-modifying oral drugs in the treatment of RRMS, clarify their differences, and provide high-quality evidence-based medical support for optimal clinical treatment decision-making. Methods: The systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials databases, covering the period from database inception to July 31, 2025. Randomized controlled trials were included, with study populations consisting of adult patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, interventions involving disease-modifying oral medications, and comparators being placebo or other treatments. The primary data sources were phase II/III clinical trials, with non-standard treatment regimens serving as crucial observational approaches and thus analyzed as independent nodes for comparison. Primary outcome measures included Annualized relapse rate and Adverse events leading to discontinuation, while secondary outcomes comprised Adverse events, Serious adverse events, active T1 lesions, and active T2 lesions. A random-effects model was employed for network meta-analysis, with dichotomous and continuous variables analyzed using odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) along with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) as effect measures to compare various interventions. Treatment rankings were performed using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability method. Results: A total of 15 RCTs involving 14,869 participants were included. The NMA results demonstrated that Siponimod, Ponesimod, Laquinimod, Fingolimod, Cladribine, and Dimethyl Fumarate were all superior to placebo in reducing annualized relapse rates in patients with multiple sclerosis, with Siponimod (2 mg; SUCRA = 86.9%) and Laquinimod 0.3 mg (SUCRA = 10.1%) being the best and worst treatments, respectively. Regarding adverse events leading to study discontinuation, the optimal and least favorable interventions were Fingolimod (0.25 mg; SUCRA = 83.1%) and Siponimod (10 mg; SUCRA = 3.1%), respectively. Conclusions: This NMA demonstrated that Siponimod (2mg) is the most efficacious therapeutic intervention; FIN (0.25 mg) exhibited relative safety advantages in terms of DAE, though this dosage constitutes an exploratory regimen and should not serve as the basis for routine clinical medication. However, these findings still require further validation in subsequent studies. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420250654500.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.