-
Farmacia Hospitalaria : Organo Oficial... Mar 2020To identify and describe cost-effectiveness studies that evaluate disease modifying therapies in the context of relapsing- remitting multiple sclerosis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To identify and describe cost-effectiveness studies that evaluate disease modifying therapies in the context of relapsing- remitting multiple sclerosis.
METHOD
A systematic review of the literature was carried out by searching MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, LILACS, the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and Open Grey. The search was performed in January 2018 and covered articles published between January 2010 and December 2017. The studies reviewed were payer- perspective cost-effectiveness analyses for interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, natalizumab, alemtuzumab and rituximab. The Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument was used to determine the quality of the studies reviewed. Risk of bias was assessed without a standardized tool. An analysis was made of direct costs, quality- adjusted life-years and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Data extraction and evaluation of information were conducted separately by each author.
RESULTS
Four hundred one references were found; nine studies were included. A great degree of variability was identified for several methodological aspects. Two studies that applied the incremental cost- effectiveness ratio (cost) showed no first-line therapy to be cost- effective. A third study demonstrated dominance of interferon beta-1b over placebo (USD -315,109.45) and a fourth paper showed dominance of teriflunomide over interferons and glatiramer acetate (USD - 121,840.37). As regards second-line therapies, dimethyl fumarate was cost-effective in a study that compared it to glatiramer acetate and interferon beta-1a and it was dominant in another study that compared it with glatiramer acetate (USD -158,897.93) and fingolimod (USD - 92,988.97). In the third line of treatment, one study showed natalizumab to be cost-effective as compared with fingolimod, and another study showed alemtuzumab to be dominant over fingolimod (USD -49,221). A third trial demonstrated alemtuzumab to be dominant over natalizumab (USD -1,656,266.07). Many of the trials have sponsorship bias. Eight of the trials received a high QHES score.
CONCLUSIONS
The present paper shows that cost-effectiveness studies have high levels of methodological variability, some of them reaching contradictory results. As a result, it is not possible to determine which disease- modifying therapy is really cost-effective in the context of relapsingremitting multiple sclerosis.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antirheumatic Agents; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic Progressive; Quality-Adjusted Life Years
PubMed: 32452318
DOI: 10.7399/fh.11385 -
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Apr 2021Assuming full control of the relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) is the main target for practitioners. Disease control could be defined as no clinical relapse,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Cladribine tablets versus other disease-modifying oral drugs in achieving no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) in multiple sclerosis-A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Assuming full control of the relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) is the main target for practitioners. Disease control could be defined as no clinical relapse, absence of 3-month confirmed disability progression expressed on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), as well as no disease activity on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). NEDA-3 (no evidence of disease activity) is a composite endpoint used primarily in clinical trials, comprising these 3 measurements of disease activity. The aim of this study is to compare cladribine tablets (CT) with oral disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) - fingolimod (FTY), dimethyl fumarate (DMF), and teriflunomide (TERI) - with regard to NEDA-3 and its clinical (relapse and disability progression) and MRI (no new T1 Gd+ lesions or no new T2 lesions or no enlargement of existing lesions) components occurrence during a 24-month follow-up.
METHODS
In June 2018, a systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane database was performed. Due to the lack of head-to-head trials directly comparing cladribine tablets to oral drugs of interest, an indirect network meta-analysis (NMA) was applied, with placebo as a common comparator. NMA was performed with Bayesian approach and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method for estimating posterior distributions. Additional data used in the analysis were taken from conference abstracts or post hoc analyses of pooled data from the clinical studies.
RESULTS
Six randomised clinical trials (RCTs) presenting NEDA, with active treatment compared to placebo, were included in the NMA: CLARITY (CT), FREEDOMS and FREEDOMS II (FTY), CONFIRM and DEFINE (DMF) and TEMSO (TERI). The rate of NEDA-3 was significantly higher in cladribine tablets vs DMF: OR (odds ratio)=1.76 (95% CrI [credible intervals]: 1.02-3.03) and TERI: OR=2.78 (95% CrI: 1.60-4.83), but not vs FTY. For the MRI NEDA results were as follows - cladribine tablets vs DMF: OR=1.87 (95% CrI: 1.18-2.97); cladribine tablets vs TERI: OR=6.59 (95% CrI: 4.32-10.09); cladribine tablets vs FTY: OR=1.58 (95% CrI: 1.10-2.29). The comparison of clinical NEDA did not reach significance vs either DMF or TERI and evaluation vs FTY was not possible because of lack of data.
CONCLUSIONS
Cladribine in the form of tablets was significantly more effective in achieving NEDA-3 than DMF and TERI, but there was no significant difference vs FTY. Cladribine tablets was more effective than all oral comparators considering the MRI NEDA. For clinical NEDA, the superiority vs DMF and vs TERI was not confirmed, and vs FTY evaluation was not possible.
Topics: Cladribine; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Multiple Sclerosis; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting; Network Meta-Analysis; Tablets
PubMed: 33516133
DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2021.102769 -
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Nov 2018Psychiatric comorbidity is prevalent in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS). Few studies have assessed whether second-generation disease-modifying therapies (DMT) are...
BACKGROUND
Psychiatric comorbidity is prevalent in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS). Few studies have assessed whether second-generation disease-modifying therapies (DMT) are associated with adverse psychiatric effects.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to systematically review the literature regarding the APEs associated with natalizumab, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide and alemtuzumab in MS. As a secondary objective, we evaluated changes in anxiety or depression scores following treatment with the aforementioned DMTs.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, PsychINFO, Central Register of Controlled Trials & Cochrane database of systematic reviews for published studies, and clinicaltrials.gov and regulatory documents from the US and Canada for unpublished studies. Data sources were searched from inception to September 2017. Studies reporting adverse psychiatric effects involving any DMT of interest were included. We report the incidence proportions of the adverse psychiatric effects and, where applicable, risk differences between DMT-exposed and unexposed individuals along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. We calculated the standardized mean differences (SMD) of changes in anxiety and depression scores if reported as study outcomes, and pooled the data using random effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Of 4389 abstracts screened, 78 met the inclusion criteria, including 48 clinical trials, 28 observational studies and 2 case reports. Depression was the most commonly reported adverse psychiatric effect. Incidence proportions for all adverse psychiatric effects ranged from 0 to 24.7%. None of the DMT studied were associated with a statistically significant increased risk of any adverse psychiatric effect (range of risk difference: -7.69% [95%CI: -16.06%, 5.56%] to 6.67 [-8.56, 15.59]). Eighteen studies examined changes in depression or anxiety following fingolimod, natalizumab or dimethyl fumarate treatment; depression symptoms improved in fingolimod-treated groups (SMD [95%CI]: 1.18 [0.17, 2.19]). We did not identify studies examining changes in these outcomes following treatment with any of the other DMTs.
CONCLUSION
The DMTs reviewed were not associated with an increased risk of adverse psychiatric effect in MS, and some may reduce the incidence of depressive symptoms. This may reflect either a positive direct effect (e.g. immune modulation) or an indirect effect arising due to a positive impact on disease activity or course.
Topics: Anxiety; Depression; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Multiple Sclerosis
PubMed: 30248593
DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2018.09.008 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Different therapeutic strategies are available for the treatment of people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), including immunomodulators,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Different therapeutic strategies are available for the treatment of people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), including immunomodulators, immunosuppressants and biologics. Although there is consensus that these therapies reduce the frequency of relapses, their relative benefit in delaying new relapses or disability worsening remains unclear due to the limited number of direct comparison trials.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the benefit and acceptability of interferon beta-1b, interferon beta-1a (Avonex, Rebif), glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab, pegylated interferon beta-1a, daclizumab, laquinimod, azathioprine and immunoglobulins for the treatment of people with RRMS and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their benefit and acceptability, defined as the proportion of participants who withdrew due to any adverse event.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group Trials Register, which contains trials from CENTRAL (2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1966 to 2014), EMBASE (1974 to 2014), CINAHL (1981 to 2014), LILACS (1982 to 2014), clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO trials registry, and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports. We ran the most recent search in September 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that studied one or more of the 15 treatments as monotherapy, compared to placebo or to another active agent, for use in adults with RRMS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently identified studies from the search results and performed data extraction. We performed data synthesis by pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence for outcomes within the network meta-analysis according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate or high.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 39 studies in this review, in which 25,113 participants were randomised. The majority of the included trials were short-term studies, with a median duration of 24 months. Twenty-four (60%) were placebo-controlled and 15 (40%) were head-to-head studies.Network meta-analysis showed that, in terms of a protective effect against the recurrence of relapses in RRMS during the first 24 months of treatment, alemtuzumab, mitoxantrone, natalizumab, and fingolimod outperformed other drugs. The most effective drug was alemtuzumab (risk ratio (RR) versus placebo 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 0.55; surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) 96%; moderate quality evidence), followed by mitoxantrone (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.81; SUCRA 92%; very low quality evidence), natalizumab (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.66; SUCRA 88%; high quality evidence), and fingolimod (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.81; SUCRA 71%; moderate quality evidence).Disability worsening was based on a surrogate marker, defined as irreversible worsening confirmed at three-month follow-up, measured during the first 24 months in the majority of included studies. Both direct and indirect comparisons revealed that the most effective treatments were mitoxantrone (RR versus placebo 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.84; SUCRA 96%; low quality evidence), alemtuzumab (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.48; SUCRA 94%; low quality evidence), and natalizumab (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.85; SUCRA 74%; moderate quality evidence).Almost all of the agents included in this review were associated with a higher proportion of participants who withdrew due to any adverse event compared to placebo. Based on the network meta-analysis methodology, the corresponding RR estimates versus placebo over the first 24 months of follow-up were: mitoxantrone 9.92 (95% CI 0.54 to 168.84), fingolimod 1.69 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.17), natalizumab 1.53 (95% CI 0.93 to 2.53), and alemtuzumab 0.72 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.61).Information on serious adverse events (SAEs) was scanty, characterised by heterogeneous results and based on a very low number of events observed during the short-term duration of the trials included in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Conservative interpretation of these results is warranted, since most of the included treatments have been evaluated in few trials. The GRADE approach recommends providing implications for practice based on moderate to high quality evidence. Our review shows that alemtuzumab, natalizumab, and fingolimod are the best choices for preventing clinical relapses in people with RRMS, but this evidence is limited to the first 24 months of follow-up. For the prevention of disability worsening in the short term (24 months), only natalizumab shows a beneficial effect on the basis of moderate quality evidence (all of the other estimates were based on low to very low quality evidence). Currently, therefore, insufficient evidence is available to evaluate treatments for the prevention of irreversible disability worsening.There are two additional major concerns that have to be considered. First, the benefit of all of these treatments beyond two years is uncertain and this is a relevant issue for a disease with a duration of 30 to 40 years. Second, short-term trials provide scanty and poorly reported safety data and do not provide useful evidence in order to obtain a reliable risk profile of treatments. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will be necessary also to evaluate non-randomised studies and post-marketing reports released from the regulatory agencies. Finally, more than 70% of the studies included in this review were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and this may have influenced the results.There are three needs that the research agenda should address. First, randomised trials of direct comparisons between active agents would be useful, avoiding further placebo-controlled studies. Second, follow-up of the original trial cohorts should be mandatory. Third, more studies are needed to assess the medium and long-term benefit and safety of immunotherapies and the comparative safety of different agents.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Immunosuppressive Agents; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26384035
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011381.pub2 -
Current Journal of Neurology Jul 2020Although widely used, first-line injectable medicines for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) remain an issue of efficacy and adherence. Recently, new oral...
Although widely used, first-line injectable medicines for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) remain an issue of efficacy and adherence. Recently, new oral medications for MS have contributed to dramatic improvements in MS treatment. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) used in relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). A systematic review was conducted on related databases including PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science up to April 2020. The screening of the studies and their quality assessment was carried out independently by the two authors. Three studies fulfilled the predefined criteria of inclusion. One of them compared teriflonomide with subcutaneous interferon beta-1a (IFN β-1a), another compared oral fingolimod with intramuscular (IM) IFN β-1b, and the third article compared oral fingolimod with IM IFN β-1a. No eligible study was found for dimethyl fumarate (DMF). The results indicated that while the efficacy of fingolimod was more than IFN β (IM β-1a and β-1b), teriflunomide 7 mg had less efficacy than subcutaneous IFN β-1a. Regarding safety, the results indicated that the proportion of diabetic patients with adverse events (AEs) in the fingolimod group was higher than in the IFN β-1b group and the overall occurrence of AEs was similar between teriflunomide and IFN β-1a groups. There is evidence for the effectiveness of fingolimod in reducing annualized relapse rates (ARRs) and improving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings, but the evidence does not support the effectiveness of teriflunomide and further studies are required to determine its efficacy. Also, fingolimod is associated with more side effects than IFN β-1b, but there is no evidence to suggest any difference in side effects between teriflunomide and IFN β-1a.
PubMed: 38011404
DOI: 10.18502/cjn.v19i3.5427 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017The treatment of multiple sclerosis has changed over the last 20 years. The advent of disease-modifying drugs in the mid-1990s heralded a period of rapid progress in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The treatment of multiple sclerosis has changed over the last 20 years. The advent of disease-modifying drugs in the mid-1990s heralded a period of rapid progress in the understanding and management of multiple sclerosis. With the support of magnetic resonance imaging early diagnosis is possible, enabling treatment initiation at the time of the first clinical attack. As most of the disease-modifying drugs are associated with adverse events, patients and clinicians need to weigh the benefit and safety of the various early treatment options before taking informed decisions.
OBJECTIVES
1. to estimate the benefit and safety of disease-modifying drugs that have been evaluated in all studies (randomised or non-randomised) for the treatment of a first clinical attack suggestive of MS compared either with placebo or no treatment;2. to assess the relative efficacy and safety of disease-modifying drugs according to their benefit and safety;3. to estimate the benefit and safety of disease-modifying drugs that have been evaluated in all studies (randomised or non-randomised) for treatment started after a first attack ('early treatment') compared with treatment started after a second attack or at another later time point ('delayed treatment').
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group Trials Register, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, clinicaltrials.gov, the WHO trials registry, and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports, and searched for unpublished studies (until December 2016).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and observational studies that evaluated one or more drugs as monotherapy in adult participants with a first clinical attack suggestive of MS. We considered evidence on alemtuzumab, azathioprine, cladribine, daclizumab, dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, immunoglobulins, interferon beta-1b, interferon beta-1a (Rebif®, Avonex®), laquinimod, mitoxantrone, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, pegylated interferon beta-1a, rituximab and teriflunomide.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two teams of three authors each independently selected studies and extracted data. The primary outcomes were disability-worsening, relapses, occurrence of at least one serious adverse event (AE) and withdrawing from the study or discontinuing the drug because of AEs. Time to conversion to clinically definite MS (CDMS) defined by Poser diagnostic criteria, and probability to discontinue the treatment or dropout for any reason were recorded as secondary outcomes. We synthesized study data using random-effects meta-analyses and performed indirect comparisons between drugs. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR) along with relative 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all outcomes. We estimated the absolute effects only for primary outcomes. We evaluated the credibility of the evidence using the GRADE system.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 randomised trials, eight open-label extension studies (OLEs) and four cohort studies published between 2010 and 2016. The overall risk of bias was high and the reporting of AEs was scarce. The quality of the evidence associated with the results ranges from low to very low. Early treatment versus placebo during the first 24 months' follow-upThere was a small, non-significant advantage of early treatment compared with placebo in disability-worsening (6.4% fewer (13.9 fewer to 3 more) participants with disability-worsening with interferon beta-1a (Rebif®) or teriflunomide) and in relapses (10% fewer (20.3 fewer to 2.8 more) participants with relapses with teriflunomide). Early treatment was associated with 1.6% fewer participants with at least one serious AE (3 fewer to 0.2 more). Participants on early treatment were on average 4.6% times (0.3 fewer to 15.4 more) more likely to withdraw from the study due to AEs. This result was mostly driven by studies on interferon beta 1-b, glatiramer acetate and cladribine that were associated with significantly more withdrawals for AEs. Early treatment decreased the hazard of conversion to CDMS (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.60). Comparing active interventions during the first 24 months' follow-upIndirect comparison of interferon beta-1a (Rebif®) with teriflunomide did not show any difference on reducing disability-worsening (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.66). We found no differences between the included drugs with respect to the hazard of conversion to CDMS. Interferon beta-1a (Rebif®) and teriflunomide were associated with fewer dropouts because of AEs compared with interferon beta-1b, cladribine and glatiramer acetate (ORs range between 0.03 and 0.29, with substantial uncertainty). Early versus delayed treatmentWe did not find evidence of differences between early and delayed treatments for disability-worsening at a maximum of five years' follow-up (3% fewer participants with early treatment (15 fewer to 11.1 more)). There was important variability across interventions; early treatment with interferon beta-1b considerably reduced the odds of participants with disability-worsening during three and five years' follow-up (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.84 and OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.89). The early treatment group had 19.6% fewer participants with relapses (26.7 fewer to 12.7 fewer) compared to late treatment at a maximum of five years' follow-up and early treatment decreased the hazard of conversion to CDMS at any follow-up up to 10 years (i.e. over five years' follow-up HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.73). We did not draw any conclusions on long-term serious AEs or discontinuation due to AEs because of inadequacies in the available data both in the included OLEs and cohort studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Very low-quality evidence suggests a small and uncertain benefit with early treatment compared with placebo in reducing disability-worsening and relapses. The advantage of early treatment compared with delayed on disability-worsening was heterogeneous depending on the actual drug used and based on very low-quality evidence. Low-quality evidence suggests that the chances of relapse are less with early treatment compared with delayed. Early treatment reduced the hazard of conversion to CDMS compared either with placebo, no treatment or delayed treatment, both in short- and long-term follow-up. Low-quality evidence suggests that early treatment is associated with fewer participants with at least one serious AE compared with placebo. Very low-quality evidence suggests that, compared with placebo, early treatment leads to more withdrawals or treatment discontinuation due to AEs. Difference between drugs on short-term benefit and safety was uncertain because few studies and only indirect comparisons were available. Long-term safety of early treatment is uncertain because of inadequately reported or unavailable data.
Topics: Adjuvants, Immunologic; Cladribine; Cohort Studies; Crotonates; Disease Progression; Glatiramer Acetate; Humans; Hydroxybutyrates; Immunosuppressive Agents; Interferon beta-1a; Multiple Sclerosis; Nitriles; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Time Factors; Toluidines
PubMed: 28440858
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012200.pub2 -
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Dec 2022There is a lack of safety information about the post-marketing adverse effects of several disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) used to control multiple sclerosis (MS).... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is a lack of safety information about the post-marketing adverse effects of several disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) used to control multiple sclerosis (MS). Investigating the post-marketing side effects is required to manifest the safety of the appropriate therapy. Therefore, the present systematic review aimed to identify disease-modifying drugs used to control multiple sclerosis attacks and progress.
METHODS
The Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases were searched for studies published until November 2020 based on the research strategy terms. Inclusion criteria involved all full texts exploring disease-modifying drugs used to control multiple sclerosis based on case reports and case series studies. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist was used to assess the quality of case report studies.
RESULTS
In total, 25 articles that met the criteria for inclusion were retrieved in the present systematic review. The most side effects were observed with fingolimod and teriflunomide, respectively, while dimethyl fumarate had minor side effects.
CONCLUSION
The oral therapies have some significant post-marketing adverse effects that have been diagnosed in numerous case reports. Some of them are serious and must be noticed by neurologists. Accordingly, in this review, we assessed the post-marketing adverse effects of oral therapies for multiple sclerosis.
Topics: Humans; Multiple Sclerosis; Immunosuppressive Agents; Dimethyl Fumarate; Fingolimod Hydrochloride; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting
PubMed: 36122472
DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2022.104157 -
Current Medical Research and Opinion Feb 2019The introduction of new disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for remitting-relapsing multiple sclerosis (RRMS) has considerably transformed the landscape of therapeutic...
BACKGROUND
The introduction of new disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for remitting-relapsing multiple sclerosis (RRMS) has considerably transformed the landscape of therapeutic opportunities for this chronic disabling disease. Unlike injectable drugs, oral DMTs promote patient satisfaction and increase therapeutic adherence.
REVIEW
This article reviews the salient features about the mode of action, efficacy, safety, and tolerability profile of approved oral DMTs in RRMS, and reviews their place in clinical algorithms in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. A systematic review was conducted using a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (period January 1, 1995-January 31, 2018). Additional searches of the American Academy of Neurology and European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis abstracts from 2012-2017 were performed, in addition to searches of the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency websites, to obtain relevant safety information on these DMTs.
CONCLUSIONS
Four oral DMTs: fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, and cladribine have been approved by the regulatory agencies. Based on the number needed to treat (NNT), the potential role of these DMTs in the management of active and highly active or rapidly evolving RRMS is assessed. Finally, the place of the oral DMTs in clinical algorithms in the MENA region is reviewed.
Topics: Africa, Northern; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Middle East; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting
PubMed: 29764226
DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2018.1476334 -
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Feb 2019
Topics: Crotonates; Dimethyl Fumarate; Fingolimod Hydrochloride; Humans; Hydroxybutyrates; Immunosuppressive Agents; Medication Adherence; Multiple Sclerosis; Nitriles; Toluidines
PubMed: 30590239
DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2018.12.025