120 UK multiple sclerosis registries project: disease modifying treatment durability
Rattachement africain : gb. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background Real-world, long-term adherence and effectiveness data is vital to complement our under- standing of therapies, which is often based on short-term clinical trials. Here we explored disease modifying therapy (DMT) durability in a UK-wide cohort of people with Multiple Sclerosis (pwMS). Methods In this cohort study, which included 4,415 pwMS from 10 UK MS centres, 6,960 DMT prescrip- tions were included in the analysis (mean 1.7, range 1-6 per patient). Prescriptions without accurate start dates were excluded (n=90). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to model DMT persistence (days from prescription start to stop), which was used to calculate 2, 5 and 10-year durability (% of prescrip- tions continuing). Results Two-year durability was highest for immune reconstitution therapies cladribine (98%), ocrelizumab (96%), and alemtuzumab (95%). Oral therapies fingolimod (74%) and dimethyl fumarate (73%), and intravenous natalizumab (78%) shared similar durability. Injectable therapies glatiramer acetate (51%) and interferon (55%), had lowest durability. Potential confounding factors include variable date of DMT licensing, change in DMT algorithms over time and increasing DMT options. Conclusion This multi-centre study has revealed highly variable durability between DMTs over time, which may impact real-world effectiveness. These results may inform DMT clinical decision-making and improve outcomes for pwMS.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- 120 UK multiple sclerosis registries project: disease modifying treatment durability
- Date Crossref
- 12/08/2022
- Éditeur
- BMJ
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.