These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Relapse outcomes, safety, and treatment patterns in patients diagnosed with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and initiated on subcutaneous interferon β-1a or dimethyl fumarate: a real-world study.
    Author: Ernst FR, Barr P, Elmor R, Wong SL.
    Journal: Curr Med Res Opin; 2017 Dec; 33(12):2099-2106. PubMed ID: 28906152.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To estimate real-world treatment patterns, safety, and relapse outcomes of subcutaneous (sc) interferon (IFN) β-1a (Rebif) vs dimethyl fumarate (DMF; Tecfidera), to treat relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). METHODS: A US retrospective chart review of 450 randomly selected adults newly diagnosed with RRMS who received sc IFN β-1a (n = 143) or DMF (n = 307) was conducted. Patients were either (a) treatment-naïve, initiating first-line treatment with sc IFN β-1a or DMF, or (b) previously treated, switching to sc IFN β-1a or DMF. Two years' follow-up data were captured. Patient characteristics, persistence, and adverse events between treatment groups were compared using t-tests or Chi-square tests. Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare time to, and risk of non-persistence. Annualized Relapse Rates (ARR) were calculated using a robust variance Poisson model adjusting for covariates. Propensity scores were used to address possible selection bias. RESULTS: One hundred and twelve patients became non-persistent, most commonly due to an adverse event (n = 37). No difference was observed in time to overall non-persistence between sc IFN β-1a and DMF patients. Among treatment-naïve patients, those receiving DMF had 2.4-times the risk (HR = 2.439, 95% CI = 1.007-5.917, p = .0483) of experiencing a discontinuation than patients receiving sc IFN β-1a. Non-persistent patients receiving DMF had 2.3-times the risk (HR = 2.311, 95% CI = 1.350-3.958, p = .0023) of experiencing an adverse event at a given time point than patients prescribed sc IFN β-1a. No differences in relapse risk or ARR between sc IFN β-1a- and DMF-treated patients were observed. CONCLUSIONS: sc IFN β-1a-treated patients had comparable persistence and relapse outcomes, and better safety outcomes vs DMF-treated patients across 2 years.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]