Sphingosine 1‐phosphate receptor modulators in multiple sclerosis treatment: A practical review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulators (fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, and siponimod) are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. This review summarizes efficacy and safety data on these S1P receptor modulators, with an emphasis on similarities and differences. Efficacy data from the pivotal clinical trials are generally similar for the four agents. However, because no head-to-head clinical studies were conducted, direct efficacy comparisons cannot be made. Based on the adverse event profile of S1P receptor modulators, continued and regular monitoring of patients during treatment will be instructive. Notably, the authors recommend paying attention to the cardiac monitoring guidelines for these drugs, and when indicated screening for macular edema and cutaneous malignancies before starting treatment. To obtain the best outcome, clinicians should choose the drug based on disease type, history, and concomitant medications for each patient. Real-world data should help to determine whether there are meaningful differences in efficacy or side effects between these agents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".