4.7 Article

Glatiramer acetate (Copaxone) treatment in relapsing-remitting MS - Quantitative MR assessment

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 54, Issue 4, Pages 813-817

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.54.4.813

Keywords

glatiramer acetate; relapsing-remitting MS; expanded disability status scale score; MR; volume measurement

Funding

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS 29029, NS 37172] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of glatiramer acetate (GA, Copaxone; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Petah Tiqva, Israel) by MRI-based measures in patients with relapsing-remitting (RR) MS. Methods: Twenty-seven patients with clinically definite PR-MS were treated with either 20 mg of GA by daily subcutaneous self-injection (n = 14) or placebo (n = 13) for approximately 24 months. Axial dual-echo fast-spin-echo T2-weighted images and T1-weighted images before and after gadolinium (Gd) were acquired at 1.5 tesla and transferred into an image processing computer system. The main outcome measures were the number of Gd-enhanced T1 and T2 lesions and their volume as well as brain parenchyma volume. Results: The values of age, disease duration, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, the number of T1- and T2-weighted lesions, and their volume were similar between GA- and placebo-receiving groups at the entry of this study. There was a decrease in the number of T1-enhanced lesions (p = 0.03) and a significant percent annual decrease of their volume in GA recipients compared with those of placebo recipients. There were no significant differences between changes in the two groups in the number of T2 lesions and their volume. The loss of brain tissue was significantly smaller in the GA group compared with that of the placebo group. Conclusions: These results show that GA treatment may decrease both lesion inflammation and the rate of brain atrophy in PR-MS.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available