4.5 Article

Early MRI results and odds of attaining 'no evidence of disease activity' status in MS patients treated with interferon β-la in the EVIDENCE study

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 379, Issue -, Pages 151-156

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2017.05.052

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis; Interferon beta; NEDA; CAF; MRI; Disease activity

Funding

  1. EMD Serono, Inc.
  2. Rockland, MA, USA
  3. Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: 'No evidence of disease activity' (NEDA) is increasingly used as a treatment target with disease modifying drugs for relapsing multiple sclerosis. Methods: This post-hoc analysis of the randomised EVIDENCE trial compared interferon beta-1a injected subcutaneously three times weekly (IFN beta-1a SC tiw) with interferon beta-1 a injected intramuscularly once weekly (IFN beta-1a IM qw) on NEDA and clinical activity-free (CAF) status. The influence of the frequency of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning on NEDA and the effect of baseline Tl gadolinium-enhancing (Gd +) lesions on NEDA and CAF were also investigated. Results: More patients in the IFN beta-1a SC tiw group achieved NEDA compared with the IFN beta-1a IM qw group, although rates were lower when monthly MRI scans through 24 weeks were included (35.0% vs. 21.6%, respectively; p < 0.001) versus the 24-week scan alone (59.5% vs. 41.2%; p < 0.001). Absence of baseline Gd + lesions predicted NEDA through Week 72 in the IFN beta-1a IM qw group (p = 0.022), and CAF through Week 48 in patients receiving IFN beta-1 a SC tiw (p = 0.024). Conclusions: IFN beta-1 a SC tiw was associated with significantly higher rate of NEDA status compared with IFN beta-1a IM qw. Baseline Gd + lesions augured less frequent CAF or NEDA status. Inclusion of more MRI scans in the analysis reduced rates of NEDA status. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available