↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Dimethyl fumarate for multiple sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
3 tweeters
1 Facebook page
4 Wikipedia pages


57 Dimensions

Readers on

197 Mendeley
Dimethyl fumarate for multiple sclerosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011076.pub2
Pubmed ID

Zhu Xu, Feng Zhang, FangLi Sun, KeFeng Gu, Shuai Dong, Dian He


Multiple sclerosis (MS) often leads to severe neurological disability and a serious decline in quality of life. The ideal target of disease-modifying therapy for MS is to prevent disability worsening and improve quality of life. Dimethyl fumarate is considered to have an immunomodulatory activity and neuroprotective effect. It has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency as a first-line therapy for adult patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RMSS). To assess the benefit and safety of dimethyl fumarate as monotherapy or combination therapy versus placebo or other approved disease-modifying drugs (interferon beta, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, teriflunomide, alemtuzumab) for patients with MS.  SEARCH METHODS: The Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Trials Specialised Register of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group (4 June 2014). We checked reference lists of published reviews and retrieved articles and searched reports (2004 to June 2014) from the MS societies in Europe and America. We also communicated with investigators participating in trials of dimethyl fumarate and the Biogen Idec Medical Information. We included randomised, controlled, parallel-group clinical trials (RCTs) with a length of follow-up equal to or greater than one year evaluating dimethyl fumarate, as monotherapy or combination therapy, versus placebo or other approved disease-modifying drugs for patients with MS without restrictions regarding dosage, administration frequency and duration of treatment. We used the standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus among the review authors. We contacted the principal investigators of included studies for additional data or confirmation of data. Two RCTs were included, involving 2667 adult patients with RRMS to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two dosages of dimethyl fumarate (240 mg orally three times daily or twice daily) by direct comparison with placebo for two years. Among them, a subsample of 1221 (45.8%) patients were selected to participate in MRI evaluations by each study site with MRI capabilities itself. No powered head-to-head study with an active treatment comparator has been found. Meta-analyses showed that dimethyl fumarate both three times daily and twice daily reduced the number of patients with a relapse (risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.66, P < 0.00001 and 0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.77, P < 0.00001, respectively) or disability worsening (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.87, P = 0.0009 and 0.65, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81, P = 0.0001, respectively) over two years, compared to placebo. The treatment effects were decreased in the likely-case scenario analyses taking the effect of dropouts into consideration. Both dosages also reduced the annualised relapse rate. Data of active lesions on MRI scans were not combined because there was a high risk of selection bias for MRI outcomes and imprecision of MRI data in both studies, as well as an obvious heterogeneity between the studies. In terms of safety profile, both dosages increased the risk for adverse events and the risk for drug discontinuation due to adverse events. The most common adverse events included flushing and gastrointestinal events (upper abdominal pain, nausea and diarrhoea). Uncommon adverse events included lymphopenia and leukopenia, but they were more likely to happen with dimethyl fumarate than with placebo (high dosage: RR 5.25, 95% CI 2.20 to 12.51, P = 0.0002 and 5.23, 95% CI 2.47 to 11.07, P < 0.0001, respectively; low dosage: RR 5.69, 95% CI 2.40 to 13.46, P < 0.0001 and 6.53, 95% CI 3.13 to 13.64, P < 0.00001, respectively). Both studies had a high attrition bias resulting from the unbalanced reasons for dropouts among groups. Quality of evidence for relapse outcome was moderate, but for disability worsening was low. There is moderate-quality evidence to support that dimethyl fumarate at a dose of 240 mg orally three times daily or twice daily reduces both the number of patients with a relapse and the annualised relapse rate over two years of treatment in comparison with placebo. However, the quality of the evidence to support the benefit in reducing the number of patients with disability worsening is low. There is no high-quality data available to evaluate the benefit on MRI outcomes. The common adverse effects such as flushing and gastrointestinal events are mild-to-moderate for most patients. Lymphopenia and leukopenia are uncommon adverse events but significantly associated with dimethyl fumarate. Both dosages of dimethyl fumarate have similar benefit and safety profile, which supports the option of low-dose administration. New studies of high quality and long-term follow-up are needed to evaluate the benefit of dimethyl fumarate on prevention of disability worsening and to observe the long-term adverse effects including progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 193 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 14%
Researcher 26 13%
Student > Bachelor 24 12%
Student > Postgraduate 12 6%
Other 29 15%
Unknown 36 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 9%
Neuroscience 15 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 5%
Other 36 18%
Unknown 45 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2020.
All research outputs
of 16,898,023 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 234,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,898,023 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,586 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 234,252 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.