4.5 Article

Prospective assessment of changing from placebo to IFN beta-1a in relapsing MS: The PRISMS study

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 237, Issue 1-2, Pages 45-52

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2005.05.014

Keywords

interferon beta; multiple sclerosis; PRISMS; placebo-switch; crossover study

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The efficacy of interferon (IFN) beta has been shown in several placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). PRISMS, the largest such study to date, clearly demonstrated the efficacy of IFN beta-1a on all outcome measures over 2 years during the placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase. However, this study's placebo-crossover design also provided us with a unique opportunity to conduct a prospective within-group assessment, eliminating the impact of inter-patient variability. At the start of year 3, patients receiving placebo during years 1-2 were re-randomized in a dose-blinded fashion to receive IFN beta-1a, 22 or 44 mcg subcutaneously three times weekly, during years 3 and 4. Clinic visits occurred 3-6 monthly and T2 MRI scans were obtained after 1 and 2 years on therapy. Comparison of the mean relapse count per patient over 2 years (the primary outcome measure) during time on placebo (years 1 and 2) with that during active treatment (years 3 and 4) revealed a decrease from 2.6 to 1.2 in both dose groups (54% relative reduction; p < 0.001). Disability progression, T2 MRI lesion activity and accumulation of T2 lesion burden were also significantly improved with therapy (p < 0.01). No new safety issues were noted. These data provide further support for IFN beta-la's efficacy in RRMS. The ability to detect significant treatment effects with reduced patient numbers in this type of before/after analysis, may be due to the reduction in inter-patient variability. (c) 2005 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