<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>8(10)</volume><submitter>Giovannelli J</submitter><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Objective&lt;/h4>As phase III trials have shown interest in innovative but expensive drugs in the treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), data are needed to clarify strategies in the treatment of neuromyelitis optica (NMO). This meta-analysis compares the efficacy of first-line strategies using rituximab (RTX), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), or azathioprine (AZA), which are still widely used.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Studies identified by the systematic review of Huang et al. (2019) were selected if they considered at least two first-line immunosuppressants among RTX, MMF, and AZA. We updated this review. The Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and ClinicalTrials databases were queried between November 2018 and April 2020. To be included, the hazard r</pubmed_abstract><journal>Annals of clinical and translational neurology</journal><pagination>2025-2037</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC8528466</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>A meta-analysis comparing first-line immunosuppressants in neuromyelitis optica.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC8528466</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Collongues N</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ayrignac X</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Papeix C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Cohen M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kim HJ</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Dauchet L</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Maillart E</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Stellmann JP</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>NEMOS (Neuromyelitis Optica Study Group in Germany), NOMADMUS (Neuromyelitis Optica study Group in France), OFSEP (Observatoire Français de la Sclérose en Plaques) investigators</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Audoin B</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kim SH</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Durand-Dubief F</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Giovannelli J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Deschamps R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Laplaud D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Marignier R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Greenberg BM</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Vukusic S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kleiter I</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bourre B</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>McCreary M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Zephir H</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ciron J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ruet A</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>A meta-analysis comparing first-line immunosuppressants in neuromyelitis optica.</name><description>&lt;h4>Objective&lt;/h4>As phase III trials have shown interest in innovative but expensive drugs in the treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), data are needed to clarify strategies in the treatment of neuromyelitis optica (NMO). This meta-analysis compares the efficacy of first-line strategies using rituximab (RTX), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), or azathioprine (AZA), which are still widely used.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Studies identified by the systematic review of Huang et al. (2019) were selected if they considered at least two first-line immunosuppressants among RTX, MMF, and AZA. We updated this review. The Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and ClinicalTrials databases were queried between November 2018 and April 2020. To be included, the hazard r</description><dates><release>2021-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2021 Oct</publication><modification>2025-06-01T02:50:31.03Z</modification><creation>2025-06-01T02:50:31.03Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC8528466</accession><cross_references><pubmed>34505407</pubmed><doi>10.1002/acn3.51451</doi></cross_references></HashMap>