Literature DB >> 30069684

Oral Disease-Modifying Treatments for Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis: A Likelihood to Achieve No Evidence of Disease Activity or Harm Analysis.

Dimitrios Papadopoulos1, Dimos-Dimitrios D Mitsikostas2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The likelihood to help or harm (LHH) is an absolute measure of the benefit versus risk profile of a medication, which can be used to assess the potential for benefit versus harm of different disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for relapsing multiple sclerosis (R-MS) and facilitate clinical decision-making.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess absolute differences in benefit:risk ratios of oral DMTs for R-MS, using LHH analysis with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) as beneficial outcome. DESIGN/
METHODS: The number needed to treat for a paient to achieve NEDA (NNTBNEDA) was used as an effect size metric of efficacy and the number needed to treat for a patient  to experience  an adverse event (NNTHAE), a serious adverse event (NNTHSAE), or treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event (NNTHAE-D) were used as measures of risk. The LHH-which is the ratio of NNTH:NNTB-values were calculated from published phase III trial data for oral DMTs.
RESULTS: The values for likelihood to achieve NEDA than experience any AE ratio (LHH(AE/NEDA)) were 3.5, 6.8, 12.5 and 2.6, the likelihood to achieve NEDA than experience a SAE ratio (LHH(SAE/NEDA)) values were 13.0, 3.5, 23.5 and 2.7, and the likelihood to achieve NEDA versus discontinue treatment (LHH(AE-D/NEDA)) values were 17.7, 6.5, 4.6 and 3.0 for cladribine, dimethyl-fumarate, fingolimod, and teriflunomide, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: With all of the oral DMTs examined, R-MS patients are more likely to achieve NEDA than experience any adverse event.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30069684     DOI: 10.1007/s40263-018-0547-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CNS Drugs        ISSN: 1172-7047            Impact factor:   5.749


  29 in total

Review 1.  Confidence intervals for the number needed to treat.

Authors:  D G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-11-07

2.  We can compare the relative efficacy of multiple sclerosis medications by examining the results of independent clinical trials: no.

Authors:  Olga Ciccarelli; Jeremy Chataway
Journal:  Mult Scler       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 6.312

3.  Safety and efficacy of fingolimod in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (FREEDOMS II): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

Authors:  Peter A Calabresi; Ernst-Wilhelm Radue; Douglas Goodin; Douglas Jeffery; Kottil W Rammohan; Anthony T Reder; Timothy Vollmer; Mark A Agius; Ludwig Kappos; Tracy Stites; Bingbing Li; Linda Cappiello; Philipp von Rosenstiel; Fred D Lublin
Journal:  Lancet Neurol       Date:  2014-03-28       Impact factor: 44.182

Review 4.  Comparing the efficacy of disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Dimos D Mitsikostas; Douglas S Goodin
Journal:  Mult Scler Relat Disord       Date:  2017-08-18       Impact factor: 4.339

5.  Reply to Tsivgoulis and colleagues comments.

Authors:  Douglas S Goodin; Dimos D Mitsikostas
Journal:  Mult Scler Relat Disord       Date:  2018-03-24       Impact factor: 4.339

6.  Comparing outcomes from clinical studies of oral disease-modifying therapies (dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, and teriflunomide) in relapsing MS: Assessing absolute differences using a number needed to treat analysis.

Authors:  Mark S Freedman; Xavier Montalban; Aaron E Miller; Catherine Dive-Pouletty; Steven Hass; Karthinathan Thangavelu; Thomas P Leist
Journal:  Mult Scler Relat Disord       Date:  2016-11-03       Impact factor: 4.339

7.  Oral teriflunomide for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (TOWER): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

Authors:  Christian Confavreux; Paul O'Connor; Giancarlo Comi; Mark S Freedman; Aaron E Miller; Tomas P Olsson; Jerry S Wolinsky; Teresa Bagulho; Jean-Luc Delhay; Deborah Dukovic; Philippe Truffinet; Ludwig Kappos
Journal:  Lancet Neurol       Date:  2014-01-23       Impact factor: 44.182

Review 8.  NEDA treatment target? No evident disease activity as an actionable outcome in practice.

Authors:  Natalie E Parks; Eoin P Flanagan; Claudia F Lucchinetti; Dean M Wingerchuk
Journal:  J Neurol Sci       Date:  2017-10-13       Impact factor: 3.181

9.  Adherence to Disease-Modifying Therapies for Multiple Sclerosis.

Authors:  Lucas Higuera; Caroline S Carlin; Sarah Anderson
Journal:  J Manag Care Spec Pharm       Date:  2016-12

10.  No evidence of disease activity: indirect comparisons of oral therapies for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Richard Nixon; Niklas Bergvall; Davorka Tomic; Nikolaos Sfikas; Gary Cutter; Gavin Giovannoni
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2014-11-21       Impact factor: 3.845

View more
  1 in total

1.  Authors' Reply to Tsivgoulis et al.: "Oral Disease-Modifying Treatments for Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis: A likelihood to Achieve No Evidence of Disease Activity or Harm Analysis".

Authors:  Dimitrios Papadopoulos; Dimos-Dimitrios D Mitsikostas
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 5.749

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.