4.3 Article

A comparative study of teriflunomide and dimethyl fumarate within the Swedish MS Registry

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 28, 期 2, 页码 237-246

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/13524585211019649

关键词

Dimethyl fumarate; teriflunomide; treatment response; multiple sclerosis

资金

  1. Sanofi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found similarities in treatment persistence, clinical effectiveness, and quality of life outcomes between teriflunomide and dimethyl fumarate in a Swedish real-world setting.
Background: Teriflunomide and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) are first-line disease-modifying treatments for multiple sclerosis with similar labels that are used in comparable populations. Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and persistence of teriflunomide and DMF in a Swedish real-world setting. Methods: All relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients in the Swedish MS registry initiating teriflunomide or DMF were included in the analysis. The primary endpoint was treatment persistence. Propensity score matching was used to adjust comparisons for baseline confounders. Results: A total of 353 teriflunomide patients were successfully matched to 353 DMF. There was no difference in the rate of overall treatment discontinuation by treatment group across the entire observation period (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.12; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.91-1.39; p = 0.277; reference = teriflunomide). Annualised relapse rate (ARR) was comparable (p = 0.237) between DMF (0.07; 95% CI = 0.05-0.10) and teriflunomide (0.09; 95% CI = 0.07-0.12). There was no difference in time to first on-treatment relapse (HR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.50-1.21), disability progression (HR = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.27-1.12) or confirmed improvement (HR = 1.17; 95% CI = 0.57-2.36). Conclusion: This population-based real-world study reports similarities in treatment persistence, clinical effectiveness and quality of life outcomes between teriflunomide and dimethyl fumarate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据