4.3 Article

Sustained clinical benefits of glatiramer acetate in relapsing multiple sclerosis patients observed for 6 years

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 6, 期 4, 页码 255-266

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/135245850000600407

关键词

relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis; glatiramer acetate; copolymer I

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study, glatiramer acetate (Copaxone(R)) reduced the relapse rate and slowed accumulation of disability for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Of the original 251 patients randomized to receive glatiramer acetate or placebo, 208 chose to continue in on open-label study with all patients receiving active drug. The majority of the original double-blind cohort continues to receive glatiramer acetate by daily subcutaneous injection and ore evaluated at 6-month intervals and during suspected relapse. The data reported here ore from approximately 6 years of organized evaluation, including the double-blind phase of up to 35 months and the open-label phase of over 36 months. Daily subcutaneous injections of 20 mg glatiramer acetate were well tolerated The mean annual relapse rate of the patients who received glatiramer acetate since randomization and continued into the open-label study was 0.42 (95% confidence interval (CI), CI=0.34-0.51). The rate per year has continued to drop and for the sixth year is 0.23. Of the group who have received glatiramer acetate without interruption for 5 or more years, 69.3% were neurologically unchanged or have improved from baseline by at least one step on the Expended Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Patients who left the open-label phase were surveyed by questionnaire. The majority responded providing information about their current status and reasons for dropping out This study demonstrates the sustained efficacy of glatiramer acetate in reducing the relapse rate and in slowing the accumulation of disability in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis.

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