AIM: To report experience with fingolimod in clinical practice. DESIGN/ METHODS: Patients in an academic medical center who were prescribed fingolimod from October 2010 to August 2011 were identified through the electronic medical record and followed for 12 months after fingolimod initiation. Adverse effects (AEs), clinical measures, MRI data, and quality of life measures were assessed. RESULTS: Three hundred seventeen patients started fingolimod. Eleven patients were treatment naïve (3.5%) and 76 (24.0%) had remote disease modifying therapy (DMT) use prior to fingolimod. One hundred fifty-one (47.6%) switched because of patient preference and 79 (24.9%) switched because of breakthrough disease. About 11.6% transitioned from natalizumab. Follow-up data were available for 306 patients (96.5%) with mean follow-up time 332 days. Fingolimod was discontinued in 76 of 306 patients (24.8%) at mean 248 days after fingolimod start. Discontinuation most often was due to AEs (n = 40) or breakthrough disease (n = 22). Among patients who started fingolimod with available 12 month follow-up data, 267 (87.3%) remained relapse free and 256 (83.7%) had no relapses or gadolinium enhancement. Time to first relapse occurred at mean 282 days after fingolimod initiation. Quality of life measures remained stable at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Fingolimod was discontinued at a higher rate in clinical practice than in clinical trials. Discontinuation was primarily due to AEs or breakthrough disease. Disease activity was adequately controlled in most patients who started fingolimod. This clinical practice cohort is consistent with efficacy data from phase 3 trials and describes the most common tolerability issues in clinical practice.
AIM: To report experience with fingolimod in clinical practice. DESIGN/ METHODS:Patients in an academic medical center who were prescribed fingolimod from October 2010 to August 2011 were identified through the electronic medical record and followed for 12 months after fingolimod initiation. Adverse effects (AEs), clinical measures, MRI data, and quality of life measures were assessed. RESULTS: Three hundred seventeen patients started fingolimod. Eleven patients were treatment naïve (3.5%) and 76 (24.0%) had remote disease modifying therapy (DMT) use prior to fingolimod. One hundred fifty-one (47.6%) switched because of patient preference and 79 (24.9%) switched because of breakthrough disease. About 11.6% transitioned from natalizumab. Follow-up data were available for 306 patients (96.5%) with mean follow-up time 332 days. Fingolimod was discontinued in 76 of 306 patients (24.8%) at mean 248 days after fingolimod start. Discontinuation most often was due to AEs (n = 40) or breakthrough disease (n = 22). Among patients who started fingolimod with available 12 month follow-up data, 267 (87.3%) remained relapse free and 256 (83.7%) had no relapses or gadolinium enhancement. Time to first relapse occurred at mean 282 days after fingolimod initiation. Quality of life measures remained stable at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:Fingolimod was discontinued at a higher rate in clinical practice than in clinical trials. Discontinuation was primarily due to AEs or breakthrough disease. Disease activity was adequately controlled in most patients who started fingolimod. This clinical practice cohort is consistent with efficacy data from phase 3 trials and describes the most common tolerability issues in clinical practice.
Authors: David B Clifford; Andrea De Luca; Andrea DeLuca; David M Simpson; Gabriele Arendt; Gavin Giovannoni; Avindra Nath Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Ludwig Kappos; Ernst-Wilhelm Radue; Paul O'Connor; Chris Polman; Reinhard Hohlfeld; Peter Calabresi; Krzysztof Selmaj; Catherine Agoropoulou; Malgorzata Leyk; Lixin Zhang-Auberson; Pascale Burtin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-01-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeffrey A Cohen; Frederik Barkhof; Giancarlo Comi; Hans-Peter Hartung; Bhupendra O Khatri; Xavier Montalban; Jean Pelletier; Ruggero Capra; Paolo Gallo; Guillermo Izquierdo; Klaus Tiel-Wilck; Ana de Vera; James Jin; Tracy Stites; Stacy Wu; Shreeram Aradhye; Ludwig Kappos Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-01-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thomas Roux; Elisabeth Maillart; Jean-Sébastien Vidal; Sophie Tezenas du Montcel; Catherine Lubetzki; Caroline Papeix Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Rafael Arroyo; Denise P Bury; Jennifer D Guo; David H Margolin; Maria Melanson; Nadia Daizadeh; David Cella Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Carmen Alcalá; F Gascón; Francisco Pérez-Miralles; J A Domínguez; S Gil-Perotín; B Casanova Journal: J Neurol Date: 2019-01-19 Impact factor: 6.682
Authors: Francisco Barrero; Javier Mallada-Frechin; María Luisa Martínez-Ginés; María Eugenia Marzo; Virginia Meca-Lallana; Guillermo Izquierdo; José Ramón Ara; Celia Oreja-Guevara; José Meca-Lallana; Lucía Forero; Irene Sánchez-Vera; María José Moreno Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-04-02 Impact factor: 3.240