Neurology research international · 2021
Comparable Efficacy and Safety of Teriflunomide versus Dimethyl Fumarate for the Treatment of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nehzat Nasim, Mirmosayyeb Omid, Barzegar Mahdi, Vosoughi Reza, Fazeli Erfane, Shaygannejad Vahid
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this observational study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of two approved oral disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in patients with remitting-relapsing multiple sclerosis (RRMS): dimethyl fumarate (DMF) vs. teriflunomide (TRF).
METHODS: A total of 159 RRMS patients (82 on TRF and 77 on DMF) were included. The expanded disability status scale (EDSS), confirmed disability improvement (CDI), confirmed disability progression (CDP), and annualized relapse rate (ARR) were evaluated for the two-year period prior to enrollment in our study. The drug-associated adverse effects (AEs) were recorded. We conducted propensity matching score to compare the efficacy between TRF and DMF.
RESULTS: After matching for the confounders, TRF- and DMF-treated groups were not different in terms of EDSS (P value = 0.54), CDI (P value = 0.80), CDP (P value = 0.39), and ARR (P value >0.05). TRF discontinuation occurred in 2 patients (2.43%) due to mediastinitis and liver dysfunction, while a patient (1.29%) discontinued DMF due to depression. Incidence rate of AEs in the TRF-treated group was 81.4%: hair thinning (hair loss) (62.9%), nail loss (20.9%), and elevated aminotransferase (14.8%) were the most common AEs; in DMF-treated patients, AEs were 88.2% with predominance of flushing (73.2%), pruritus (16.9%), and abdominal pain (16.9%).
CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, DMF is as efficacious and safe as TRF for the treatment of RRMS in our Iranian study population. Multicentric studies need to corroborate these findings in other populations.
METHODS: A total of 159 RRMS patients (82 on TRF and 77 on DMF) were included. The expanded disability status scale (EDSS), confirmed disability improvement (CDI), confirmed disability progression (CDP), and annualized relapse rate (ARR) were evaluated for the two-year period prior to enrollment in our study. The drug-associated adverse effects (AEs) were recorded. We conducted propensity matching score to compare the efficacy between TRF and DMF.
RESULTS: After matching for the confounders, TRF- and DMF-treated groups were not different in terms of EDSS (P value = 0.54), CDI (P value = 0.80), CDP (P value = 0.39), and ARR (P value >0.05). TRF discontinuation occurred in 2 patients (2.43%) due to mediastinitis and liver dysfunction, while a patient (1.29%) discontinued DMF due to depression. Incidence rate of AEs in the TRF-treated group was 81.4%: hair thinning (hair loss) (62.9%), nail loss (20.9%), and elevated aminotransferase (14.8%) were the most common AEs; in DMF-treated patients, AEs were 88.2% with predominance of flushing (73.2%), pruritus (16.9%), and abdominal pain (16.9%).
CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, DMF is as efficacious and safe as TRF for the treatment of RRMS in our Iranian study population. Multicentric studies need to corroborate these findings in other populations.