European journal of neurology · 2023
Comparative analysis of dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Müller Jannis, Schädelin Sabine, Lorscheider Johannes, Benkert Pascal, Hänni Peter, Schmid Jürg, Kuhle Jens, Derfuss Tobias, Granziera Cristina, Yaldizli Özgür
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), analyses from observational studies comparing dimethyl fumarate (DMF) and teriflunomide showed conflicting results. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of DMF and teriflunomide in a real-world setting, where both drugs are licensed as first-line therapies for RRMS.
METHODS: We included all patients who initiated DMF or teriflunomide between 2013 and 2022, listed in the Swiss National Treatment Registry. Coarsened exact matching was applied using age, gender, disease duration, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, time since last relapse, and relapse rate in the previous year as matching variables. Time to relapse and time to 12-month confirmed EDSS worsening were compared using Cox proportional hazard models.
RESULTS: In total, 2028 patients were included in this study, of whom 1498 were matched (DMF: n = 1090, 69.6% female, mean age 45.1 years, median EDSS score 2.0; teriflunomide: n = 408, 68.9% female, mean age 45.1 years, median EDSS score 2.0). Time to relapse and time to EDSS worsening was longer in the DMF than the teriflunomide group (hazard ratio 0.734, p = 0.026 and hazard ratio 0.576, p = 0.003, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Analysis of real-world data showed that DMF treatment was associated with more favorable outcomes than teriflunomide treatment.
METHODS: We included all patients who initiated DMF or teriflunomide between 2013 and 2022, listed in the Swiss National Treatment Registry. Coarsened exact matching was applied using age, gender, disease duration, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, time since last relapse, and relapse rate in the previous year as matching variables. Time to relapse and time to 12-month confirmed EDSS worsening were compared using Cox proportional hazard models.
RESULTS: In total, 2028 patients were included in this study, of whom 1498 were matched (DMF: n = 1090, 69.6% female, mean age 45.1 years, median EDSS score 2.0; teriflunomide: n = 408, 68.9% female, mean age 45.1 years, median EDSS score 2.0). Time to relapse and time to EDSS worsening was longer in the DMF than the teriflunomide group (hazard ratio 0.734, p = 0.026 and hazard ratio 0.576, p = 0.003, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Analysis of real-world data showed that DMF treatment was associated with more favorable outcomes than teriflunomide treatment.