4.6 Article

Natalizumab versus fingolimod and dimethyl fumarate in multiple sclerosis treatment

Journal

ANNALS OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL NEUROLOGY
Volume 6, Issue 2, Pages 252-262

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/acn3.700

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To compare 2-year effectiveness and discontinuation of natalizumab (NTZ) versus fingolimod (FTY) and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods Patients prescribed NTZ, FTY, or DMF at the Rocky Mountain MS Center at University of Colorado were identified. Clinician-reported data were retrospectively collected. Outcomes include a composite effectiveness measure consisting of new T2 lesion, gadolinium-enhancing lesion, and/or clinical relapse, individual effectiveness outcomes and discontinuation over 2 years. Logistic regression was used for data analysis on patients matched by propensity scores and using ATT doubly robust weighting estimator. Results A total of 451, 271, and 342 patients were evaluated on NTZ, FTY, and DMF over 2 years, respectively. Patients had a mean age of 39.8 (NTZ), 42.5(FTY), and 45.8 (DMF) years; were predominantly female (76.7% NTZ; 72.0% FTY; 69.6% DMF); and had a mean MS disease duration of 11-12 years for all groups. At <= 24 months, 22.2%, 34.7%, and 33.6% experienced a new T2 lesion, gadolinium-enhancing lesion, and/or clinical relapse on NTZ, FTY, and DMF, respectively. Using ATT doubly robust weighting estimator, FTY versus NTZ and DMF versus NTZ had an odds ratio of 2.00 (95%CI:[1.41-2.85], P < 0.001) and 2.38 [95% CI: 1.68-3.37], P < 0.001) respectively, for experiencing a new T2 lesion, gadolinium enhancing lesion, and/or clinical relapse. At <= 24 months, 32.6%, 34.3%, and 47.1% discontinued NTZ, FTY, and DMF, respectively. The majority of discontinuations were due to becoming JCV positive(12.6%) for NTZ and due to adverse events for both FTY(17%) and DMF(24.0%). Interpretation NTZ appears to be more effective and tolerable than FTY and DMF.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available