4.2 Article

The Toronto Observational Study of Natalizumab in Multiple Sclerosis

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 38, 期 3, 页码 422-428

出版社

CANADIAN JOURNAL NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES INC
DOI: 10.1017/S0317167100011811

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Toronto
  2. Biogen Idec
  3. BioMS
  4. Sanofi Aventis
  5. Novartis
  6. Bayer
  7. Genentech

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Natalizumab is indicated for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) with insufficient response to first-line disease-modifying therapy (DMT). We studied the efficacy of natalizumab for treatment of MS in a single centre observational design. Methods: A retrospective observational study of 146 patients [66% female; mean age 37.4; 72% relapsing remitting MS (RRMS), 28% secondary progressive MS (SPMS)] referred for natalizumab treatment at St. Michael's Hospital MS Clinic between 2007 and August 2009. Data included demographic, clinical (Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and annualized relapse rate (ARR)) and patient self-report measures. Results: The mean duration of treatment was 20 months in those treated with natalizumab and 97% had received prior DMTs. Eighty-three patients (57%) received at least 12 months of natalizumab treatment. In those who received at least 12 months of treatment, baseline ARR and EDSS were 1.6 and 2.7 in RRMS patients versus 1.0 and 5.4 in SPMS with relapses. The ARR decreased with natalizumab treatment to 0.38 (76% reduction, p<0.001) in RRMS versus 0.32 in SPMS patients (68% reduction, p=0.01). There was a treatment associated 11% reduction in EDSS to 2.4 (p=0.04) in RRMS, but no significant change in SPMS. Eighty-five percent of patients reported improved overall quality of life (QOL) and 62% indicated improved energy. Conclusions: There was a major reduction in relapse rate, stabilization in EDSS and improvement in QOL and energy in some patients on natalizumab, all similar to treatment effects in the pivotal trial.

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

4.2
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