Vanessa F Moreira Ferreira1, Danielle Caefer2, Natalie Erlich-Malona3, Brian C Healy1, Tanuja Chitnis1, James M Stankiewicz1. 1. Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Partners MS Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 2. University of Connecticut, Department of Physiology and Neurobiology, Storrs, CT, USA. 3. Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Department of Neurology, Providence, RI, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore the safety and efficacy profile of teriflunomide in progressive multiple sclerosis. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective observational analysis of a progressive multiple sclerosis population, assessing safety and efficacy in patients treated at least one year with teriflunomide or glatiramer acetate. Sustained progression of expanded disability status scale and sustained worsening of timed 25-foot walk were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Teriflunomide group (n = 29) mean characteristics: age = 58 years (SD ± 7.6), disease duration = 16.7 years (SD ± 9.5), expanded disability status score = 5.9 (SD ± 1.3), and follow - up = 32.4 months (SD ± 13.6). Glatiramer acetate group (n = 30) mean characteristics: age = 52.4 years (SD ± 11.3), disease duration = 15.1 years (SD ± 10.4), expanded disability status score = 5.7 (SD ± 1.6), and follow - up = 46.9 months (SD ± 43.9). Both treatments were well tolerated without serious side effects. After adjustment for age, sex, and baseline expanded disability status score, sustained expanded disability status score progression did not differ between groups (hazard ratio = 1.17; 95% confidence interval: 0.45, 3.08; p = 0.75). Sustained timed 25-foot walk worsening after adjustment also did not differ (hazard ratio = 0.56; 95% confidence interval: 0.2, 1.53; p = 0.26). CONCLUSION: In an advanced progressive multiple sclerosis population, no substantial differences in tolerability, safety, sustained EDSS progression, or sustained T25FW worsening over time were observed between glatiramer acetate and teriflunomide-treated groups. The small sample precluded definitive determination.
OBJECTIVES: To explore the safety and efficacy profile of teriflunomide in progressive multiple sclerosis. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective observational analysis of a progressive multiple sclerosis population, assessing safety and efficacy in patients treated at least one year with teriflunomide or glatiramer acetate. Sustained progression of expanded disability status scale and sustained worsening of timed 25-foot walk were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Teriflunomide group (n = 29) mean characteristics: age = 58 years (SD ± 7.6), disease duration = 16.7 years (SD ± 9.5), expanded disability status score = 5.9 (SD ± 1.3), and follow - up = 32.4 months (SD ± 13.6). Glatiramer acetate group (n = 30) mean characteristics: age = 52.4 years (SD ± 11.3), disease duration = 15.1 years (SD ± 10.4), expanded disability status score = 5.7 (SD ± 1.6), and follow - up = 46.9 months (SD ± 43.9). Both treatments were well tolerated without serious side effects. After adjustment for age, sex, and baseline expanded disability status score, sustained expanded disability status score progression did not differ between groups (hazard ratio = 1.17; 95% confidence interval: 0.45, 3.08; p = 0.75). Sustained timed 25-foot walk worsening after adjustment also did not differ (hazard ratio = 0.56; 95% confidence interval: 0.2, 1.53; p = 0.26). CONCLUSION: In an advanced progressive multiple sclerosis population, no substantial differences in tolerability, safety, sustained EDSS progression, or sustained T25FW worsening over time were observed between glatiramer acetate and teriflunomide-treated groups. The small sample precluded definitive determination.
Authors: J Lorscheider; J Kuhle; G Izquierdo; A Lugaresi; E Havrdova; D Horakova; R Hupperts; P Duquette; M Girard; A Prat; F Grand'Maison; P Grammond; P Sola; D Ferraro; M Trojano; C Ramo-Tello; J Lechner-Scott; E Pucci; C Solaro; M Slee; V Van Pesch; J L Sanchez Menoyo; A van der Walt; H Butzkueven; L Kappos; T Kalincik Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2018-11-02 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: Ludwig Kappos; Amit Bar-Or; Bruce A C Cree; Robert J Fox; Gavin Giovannoni; Ralf Gold; Patrick Vermersch; Douglas L Arnold; Sophie Arnould; Tatiana Scherz; Christian Wolf; Erik Wallström; Frank Dahlke Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Raju Kapoor; Pei-Ran Ho; Nolan Campbell; Ih Chang; Aaron Deykin; Fiona Forrestal; Nisha Lucas; Bei Yu; Douglas L Arnold; Mark S Freedman; Myla D Goldman; Hans-Peter Hartung; Eva Kubala Havrdová; Douglas Jeffery; Aaron Miller; Finn Sellebjerg; Diego Cadavid; Dan Mikol; Deborah Steiner Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 44.182
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
Authors: Kathleen Hawker; Paul O'Connor; Mark S Freedman; Peter A Calabresi; Jack Antel; Jack Simon; Stephen Hauser; Emmanuelle Waubant; Timothy Vollmer; Hillel Panitch; Jiameng Zhang; Peter Chin; Craig H Smith Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 10.422