4.7 Article

Safety and efficacy of dimethyl fumarate in multiple sclerosis: a multi-center observational study

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 263, 期 8, 页码 1626-1632

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-016-8175-3

关键词

Dimethyl fumarate; Annualized relapse rate; EDSS progression; Safety; Lymphopenia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) was recently approved for treating patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) based on two phase III clinical trials demonstrating its efficacy. This prompts the need for demonstrating the clinical efficacy and safety of DMF in the real world. By retrospective analysis of medical records at two German MS centers, 644 MS patients treated with DMF were identified. All were included in a safety analysis, and a subgroup of patients with available efficacy data during previous MS therapies (n = 352) was further analyzed for annualized relapse rate and disability progression assessed by the EDSS. In the overall DMF population studied, the annualized relapse rate decreased from 0.52 at baseline to 0.35, and the annualized disability progression from 0.15 to 0.10. Patients who were switched from interferons or glatiramer acetate to DMF revealed a greater benefit, whereas patients pretreated with more potent immunotherapies did not respond that well. Interestingly, patients with a lymphocyte count a parts per thousand yen2000/A mu l after 0.52 years (mean, SD 0.2) of DMF treatment did not benefit compared to those with lower lymphocyte counts. In total, 22.2 % of the patients withdrew from DMF due to side effects, with gastrointestinal discomfort (12.7 %) and lymphopenia (5.3 %) as most frequently reported reasons. Our study corroborates that DMF is an overall safe and effective drug that reduces relapse rate as well as disability progression in MS patients. Further prospective studies are warranted to establish the additional parameters predicting DMF response, especially in patients switching from other first-line immunotherapies.

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

4.7
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