4.3 Article

Long term benefit of multiple sclerosis treatment: an investigation using a novel data collection technique

Journal

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
Volume 18, Issue 11, Pages 1617-1624

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458512449681

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis; interferons; glatiramer acetate; database; propensity score; outcome assessment

Funding

  1. National Multiple Sclerosis Society [FP-1766-A-1]
  2. CME Outfitters
  3. Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers
  4. Teva Neuroscience

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The Knowledge Program (KP) is an initiative to collect self-reported patient data and objective clinician assessments electronically at each outpatient clinical encounter. Available outcomes include the EuroQoL-5D (EQ5D), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ9), Multiple Sclerosis Performance Scales (MSPS), and the timed 25-foot walk (T25FW). Objective: This study was designed to use the KP to investigate the long-term benefits of early treatment (ET) in multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods: The KP was queried for patients with relapsing-remitting MS or secondary progressive MS who were >= 5 years from symptom onset. ET was defined as treatment with an approved agent for >= 3 of the first five years after symptom onset. Propensity scores for ET were calculated based on early clinical characteristics. Patients were divided into propensity score quintiles and linear regression models were constructed to determine the treatment effect sizes and confidence intervals. Results: From the 1082 patients that met entry criteria, 453 patients (41.9%) received ET. Those patients receiving ET showed significantly better scores on the EQ5D index, PHQ9, and MSPS, but only in the upper three propensity quintiles. For the T25FW, ET did not result in significantly better times in any quintile. Conclusions: These results suggest that ET of MS is beneficial but the effect appears modest.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available