Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreJournal ClubResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeJournal ClubExplore
May 18, 2026Neurology PerspectivesOpen Access

Clinical efficacy and safety profile of biological therapies versus standard interventions in MS and NMOSD relapses: A systematic review

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Authors

PWPaula Valentina Suárez WilchesFBFrancisco Javier Gómez Ballesta

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

Systematic review identifies biologics as superior for relapse prevention in MS and NMOSD, suggesting enhanced efficacy.

Key Points

  • To compare the efficacy and safety of biological therapies versus standard interventions in treating relapses in MS and NMOSD.
  • Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines, including 22 randomized clinical trials
  • Selected studies evaluated biologics like anti-CD20/19 and anti-IL-6R against standard treatments
  • Assessments of risk of bias conducted using RoB 2 framework
  • Anti-CD20 agents reduced the annualized relapse rate (ARR) significantly compared to teriflunomide or placebo (relative risks 0.41-0.51)
  • Eculizumab showed the most significant impact in AQP4-positive NMOSD with an ARR of 0.02 vs 0.35 and a relapse hazard ratio of ~0.05-0.06
  • Caution required due to 68.2% of trials having 'some concerns' and 18.2% rated as 'high' risk of bias.

Cite This Study

Wilches et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0aac955ba8ef6d83b6fe67https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurop.2026.100230
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share