4.3 Article

Disease-modifying agents in the Sonya Slifka Longitudinal Multiple Sclerosis Study

Journal

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
Volume 14, Issue 5, Pages 640-655

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458507086463

Keywords

disease-modifying therapies; multiple sclerosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Although experts recommend that people with multiple sclerosis ( MS) should begin treatment with disease-modifying agents (DMAs) as soon as possible after diagnosis and continue indefinitely, many do not use these agents or discontinue them prematurely. Since DMAs reduce relapse rates and slow disease progression, and since even benign relapses and course can lead to axonal damage and permanent neurologic impairment, it is important that all appropriate candidates have access to treatment. We used a population-based sample of people with MS to determine rates, predictors, and reasons for use, non-use, and discontinuation of DMAs. Methods We collected data from 2156 people with MS on their use of and experience with DMAs. We used chi-squared tests to compare current, past, and never users of any DMA and ever users of individual DMAs, and logistic regression to identify predictors of use. Results One-half of the participants were using a DMA at the time of the interview; 12.2% had used previously, but stopped. Reasons for never using and reasons for stopping were at odds with expert recommendations. Characterization of users, and of their experiences by type of DMA, was consistent with current knowledge of these agents. Seeing a neurologist for usual MS care was an important factor in starting and persisting with DMA therapy. Conclusions Dissemination of expert opinion about, and management strategies for, use of DMAs to non-neurologic professionals and patients and their families might help more people who are appropriate candidates for DMA therapy to start and continue treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available