Zbyšek Pavelek1, Lukáš Sobíšek1, Jana Šarláková1, Pavel Potužník2, Marek Peterka2, Ivana Štětkárová3, Pavel Štourač4, Jan Mareš5, Pavel Hradílek6, Radek Ampapa7, Markéta Grünermelová8, Marta Vachová9, Eva Recmanová10, Francesco Angelucci1,11, Simona Halúsková1, Martin Vališ1. 1. Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Hradec Králové, Charles University in Prague, Hradec Králové, Czechia. 2. Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Plzen, Charles University in Prague, Plzeň, Czechia. 3. Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Hospital Kralovské Vinohrady, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czechia. 4. Department of Neurology, University Hospital and Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia. 5. Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Palacky University and University Hospital Olomouc, Olomouc, Czechia. 6. Clinic of Neurology, University Hospital Ostrava, Ostrava, Czechia. 7. Department of Neurology, Hospital of Jihlava, Jihlava, Czechia. 8. Department of Neurology, Thomayer Hospital, Prague, Czechia. 9. Department of Neurology, KZ a.s., Hospital Teplice, Teplice, Czechia. 10. Department of Neurology, Tomas Bata Regional Hospital, Zlín, Czechia. 11. Memory Clinic, Department of Neurology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czechia.
Abstract
Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory and neurodegenerative disease of the central nervous system. Well-established drugs used for MS patients after the first demyelinating event in the Czech Republic include glatiramer acetate (GA), interferon beta-1a (IFNβ-1a), IFN beta-1b (IFNβ-1b), peginterferon beta-1a (peg-IFNβ-1a), and teriflunomide. Objective: The objective of this observational study was to compare the effectiveness of the abovementioned drugs in patients with MS who initiated their therapy after the first demyelinating event. Patients were followed for up to 2 years in real clinical practice in the Czech Republic. Methods: A total of 1,654 MS patients treated after the first demyelinating event and followed up for 2 years were enrolled. Evaluation parameters (endpoints) included the annualized relapse rate (ARR), time to next relapse, change in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, and time of confirmed disease progression (CDP). When patients ended the therapy before the observational period, the reason for ending the therapy among different treatments was compared. Results: No significant difference was found among the groups of patients treated with IFNβ-1a/1b, GA, or teriflunomide for the following parameters: time to the first relapse, change in the EDSS score, and the proportion of patients with CDP. Compared to IFNβ-1a (44 mcg), a significant increase in the percentage of relapse-free patients was found for GA, but this treatment effect was not confirmed by the validation analysis. Compared to the other drugs, there was a significant difference in the reasons for terminating GA therapy. Conclusion: Small differences were found among GA, IFNβ and teriflunomide therapies, with no significant impact on the final outcome after 2 years. Therefore, in clinical practice, we recommend choosing the drug based on individual potential risk from long-term therapy and on patient preferences and clinical characteristics.
Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory and neurodegenerative disease of the central nervous system. Well-established drugs used for MS patients after the first demyelinating event in the Czech Republic include glatiramer acetate (GA), interferon beta-1a (IFNβ-1a), IFN beta-1b (IFNβ-1b), peginterferon beta-1a (peg-IFNβ-1a), and teriflunomide. Objective: The objective of this observational study was to compare the effectiveness of the abovementioned drugs in patients with MS who initiated their therapy after the first demyelinating event. Patients were followed for up to 2 years in real clinical practice in the Czech Republic. Methods: A total of 1,654 MS patients treated after the first demyelinating event and followed up for 2 years were enrolled. Evaluation parameters (endpoints) included the annualized relapse rate (ARR), time to next relapse, change in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, and time of confirmed disease progression (CDP). When patients ended the therapy before the observational period, the reason for ending the therapy among different treatments was compared. Results: No significant difference was found among the groups of patients treated with IFNβ-1a/1b, GA, or teriflunomide for the following parameters: time to the first relapse, change in the EDSS score, and the proportion of patients with CDP. Compared to IFNβ-1a (44 mcg), a significant increase in the percentage of relapse-free patients was found for GA, but this treatment effect was not confirmed by the validation analysis. Compared to the other drugs, there was a significant difference in the reasons for terminating GA therapy. Conclusion: Small differences were found among GA, IFNβ and teriflunomide therapies, with no significant impact on the final outcome after 2 years. Therefore, in clinical practice, we recommend choosing the drug based on individual potential risk from long-term therapy and on patient preferences and clinical characteristics.
Authors: Steven R Schwid; John Thorpe; Mohammad Sharief; Magnhild Sandberg-Wollheim; Kottil Rammohan; Jeanette Wendt; Hillel Panitch; Douglas Goodin; David Li; Peter Chang; Gordon Francis Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2005-05
Authors: Peter A Calabresi; Bernd C Kieseier; Douglas L Arnold; Laura J Balcer; Alexey Boyko; Jean Pelletier; Shifang Liu; Ying Zhu; Ali Seddighzadeh; Serena Hung; Aaron Deykin Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Tomas Kalincik; Vilija Jokubaitis; Guillermo Izquierdo; Pierre Duquette; Marc Girard; Pierre Grammond; Alessandra Lugaresi; Celia Oreja-Guevara; Roberto Bergamaschi; Raymond Hupperts; Francois Grand'Maison; Eugenio Pucci; Vincent Van Pesch; Cavit Boz; Gerardo Iuliano; Ricardo Fernandez-Bolanos; Shlomo Flechter; Daniele Spitaleri; Edgardo Cristiano; Freek Verheul; Jeannette Lechner-Scott; Maria Pia Amato; Jose Antonio Cabrera-Gomez; Maria Laura Saladino; Mark Slee; Fraser Moore; Orla Gray; Mark Paine; Michael Barnett; Eva Havrdova; Dana Horakova; Timothy Spelman; Maria Trojano; Helmut Butzkueven Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2014-12-05 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: G Comi; V Martinelli; M Rodegher; L Moiola; O Bajenaru; A Carra; I Elovaara; F Fazekas; H P Hartung; J Hillert; J King; S Komoly; C Lubetzki; X Montalban; K M Myhr; M Ravnborg; P Rieckmann; D Wynn; C Young; M Filippi Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-10-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: N Koch-Henriksen; P S Sørensen; T Christensen; J Frederiksen; M Ravnborg; K Jensen; A Heltberg; O Kristensen; E Stenager; T Petersen; T Hansen Journal: Neurology Date: 2006-03-01 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Ludwig Kappos; Mark S Freedman; Chris H Polman; Gilles Edan; Hans-Peter Hartung; David H Miller; Xavier Montalbán; Frederik Barkhof; Ernst-Wilhelm Radü; Lars Bauer; Susanne Dahms; Vivian Lanius; Christoph Pohl; Rupert Sandbrink Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-08-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Martin Vališ; Zbyšek Pavelek; Michal Novotný; Blanka Klímová; Jana Šarláková; Simona Halúsková; Marek Peterka; Ivana Štětkárová; Pavel Štourač; Jan Mareš; Pavel Hradílek; Radek Ampapa; Marta Vachová; Eva Recmanová; Eva Meluzínová Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-04-18 Impact factor: 4.086