English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

A challenge for the clinician treating patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is to determine the most effective treatment while weighing the benefits and risks. Results of the phase 2 and phase 3 studies on natalizumab were received with great interest, in part due to the "improved" risk reduction for relapse rate, disease progression, and MRI metrics observed in comparison to results in trials of beta-interferon and glatiramer acetate. However, comparison across trials is invalid, in large part due to differences in the study populations. The increased efficacy observed in more recent trials has also been attributed to a fundamental change in subjects with MS enrolled in recent trials compared with the prior decade. In this article, we debate the relative efficacy of natalizumab vs the older injectable therapies.

The present efficacy of multiple sclerosis therapeutics: Is the new 66% just the old 33%?