Tessa Eagle1, Fiona Stuart1, Alicia S Chua1, Allison LaRussa1, Kaitlynne Leclaire1, Sandra L Cook1, Tanuja Chitnis2, Howard L Weiner2, Bonnie I Glanz2, Brian C Healy3. 1. Partners Multiple Sclerosis Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Partners Multiple Sclerosis Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Partners Multiple Sclerosis Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: bchealy@partners.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recent approval of oral disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) has provided patients with a new route of therapy administration. Little research has compared patients' experiences with and perceptions of injectable, infusion and oral MS therapies. METHODS: Three hundred fifty-seven treated MS patients enrolled in the CLIMB study completed the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM). The TSQM provides information regarding perceived effectiveness, side effects, convenience and overall satisfaction. The patients were treated with either interferon beta-1a intramuscular (IFNβ-1a IM) (n = 40), interferon beta-1a subcutaneous (IFNβ-1a SC) (n = 45), glatiramer acetate (GA) (n = 118), natalizumab (NTZ) (n = 44), fingolimod (n = 66), or dimethyl fumarate (BG-12) (n = 44). Multivariable linear regression models were used to compare treatment satisfaction across all DMTs and between patients treated with injectable (n = 203), infusion (n = 44), and oral (n = 110) DMTs. All models were adjusted for sex, age, EDSS, and time on treatment. RESULTS: Patients taking oral DMTs reported significantly higher convenience scores compared to patients taking either injectable or infusion DMTs. The adjusted difference in the mean overall convenience score was 26.87 (95% CI: 21.4, 32.34) for the comparison of orals and injectables and 17.53 (95% CI: 11.15, 23.9) for the comparison of orals and infusion. In addition, the proportion of patients reporting a side effect was significantly lower for orals compared to injectables (adjusted OR= 0.35; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.68) and infusion compared to injectables (adjusted OR= 0.14; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.35). CONCLUSION: Patients reported treatment with the oral medications as more convenient than the injectable and infusion DMTs.
BACKGROUND: The recent approval of oral disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) has provided patients with a new route of therapy administration. Little research has compared patients' experiences with and perceptions of injectable, infusion and oral MS therapies. METHODS: Three hundred fifty-seven treated MS patients enrolled in the CLIMB study completed the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM). The TSQM provides information regarding perceived effectiveness, side effects, convenience and overall satisfaction. The patients were treated with either interferon beta-1a intramuscular (IFNβ-1a IM) (n = 40), interferon beta-1a subcutaneous (IFNβ-1a SC) (n = 45), glatiramer acetate (GA) (n = 118), natalizumab (NTZ) (n = 44), fingolimod (n = 66), or dimethyl fumarate (BG-12) (n = 44). Multivariable linear regression models were used to compare treatment satisfaction across all DMTs and between patients treated with injectable (n = 203), infusion (n = 44), and oral (n = 110) DMTs. All models were adjusted for sex, age, EDSS, and time on treatment. RESULTS:Patients taking oral DMTs reported significantly higher convenience scores compared to patients taking either injectable or infusion DMTs. The adjusted difference in the mean overall convenience score was 26.87 (95% CI: 21.4, 32.34) for the comparison of orals and injectables and 17.53 (95% CI: 11.15, 23.9) for the comparison of orals and infusion. In addition, the proportion of patients reporting a side effect was significantly lower for orals compared to injectables (adjusted OR= 0.35; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.68) and infusion compared to injectables (adjusted OR= 0.14; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.35). CONCLUSION:Patients reported treatment with the oral medications as more convenient than the injectable and infusion DMTs.
Authors: Brandi L Vollmer; Kavita V Nair; Stefan Sillau; John R Corboy; Timothy Vollmer; Enrique Alvarez Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2018-12-09 Impact factor: 4.511
Authors: Boris A Kallmann; Klaus Tiel-Wilck; Jennifer S Kullmann; Ulrich Engelmann; Andrew Chan Journal: Ther Adv Neurol Disord Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 6.570
Authors: Laura Rosa; Maria Petracca; Antonio Carotenuto; Pasquale Dolce; Kyrie Piscopo; Francesca Dicé; Francesca Lauro; Antonio Luca Spiezia; Marcello Moccia; Luigi Lavorgna; Carmine Iacovazzo; Giuseppe Servillo; Nelson Mauro Maldonato; Alessandro Chiodi; Vincenzo Brescia Morra; Roberta Lanzillo Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-09-04 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Kottil Rammohan; Patricia K Coyle; Elke Sylvester; Andrew Galazka; Fernando Dangond; Megan Grosso; Thomas P Leist Journal: Drugs Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 9.546
Authors: Boris A Kallmann; Stefan Ries; Jennifer S Kullmann; Laura M Quint; Ulrich Engelmann; Andrew Chan Journal: Ther Adv Neurol Disord Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 6.570