Dataset Information

The effect of disease modifying therapies on brain atrophy in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The aim of the present meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of disease-modifying drugs (DMD) on brain atrophy in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) using available randomized-controlled trial (RCT) data.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines of all available RCTs of patients with RRMS that reported data on brain volume measurements during the study period.

Results

We identified 4 eligible studies, including a total of 1819 RRMS patients (71% women, mean age 36.5 years, mean baseline EDSS-score: 2.4). The mean percentage change in brain volume was found to be significantly lower in DMD versus placebo subgroup (standardized mean difference: -0.19; 95%CI: -0.27--0.11; p<0.001). We detected no evidence of heterogeneity between estimates (I2 = 30%, p = 0.19) nor publication bias in the Funnel plots. Sensitivity analyses stratifying studies according to brain atrophy neuroimaging protocol disclosed no evidence of heterogeneity (p = 0.16). In meta-regression analyses, the percentage change in brain volume was found to be inversely related with duration of observation period in both DMD (meta-regression slope = -0.03; 95% CI: -0.04--0.02; p<0.001) and placebo subgroups (meta-regression slope = -0.05; 95% CI: -0.06--0.04; p<0.001). However, the rate of percentage brain volume loss over time was greater in placebo than in DMD subgroup (p = 0.017, ANCOVA).

Conclusions

DMD appear to be effective in attenuating brain atrophy in comparison to placebo and their benefit in delaying the rate of brain volume loss increases linearly with longer treatment duration.

SUBMITTER: Tsivgoulis G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4355592 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceA number of officially approved disease-modifying drugs (DMD) are currently available for the early intervention in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). The aim of the present study was to systematically evaluate the effect of DMDs on disability progression in RRMS.MethodsWe performed a systematic review on MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases to include all available placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of RRMS patients that reported absolute numbers or percentages of disability progression during each study period. Observational studies, case series, case reports, RCTs without placebo subgroups and studies reporting the use of RRMS therapies that are not still officially approved were excluded. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated in each study protocol to express the comparison of disability progression in RRMS patients treated with a DMD and those RRMS patients receiving placebo. The mixed-effects model was used to calculate both the pooled point estimate in each subgroup and the overall estimates.ResultsDMDs for RRMS were found to have a significantly lower risk of disability progression compared to placebo (RR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.66-0.79; p<0.001), with no evidence of heterogeneity or publication bias. In subsequent subgroup analyses, neither dichotomization of DMDs as "first" and "second" line RRMS therapies [(RR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.65-0.80) vs. (RR = 0.72, 95% = 0.57-0.91); p = 0.96] nor the route of administration (injectable or oral) [RR = 0.75 (95% CI = 0.64-0.87) vs. RR = 0.74 (95% CI = 0.66-0.83); p = 0.92] had a differential effect on the risk of disability progression. Either considerable (5-20%) or significant (>20%) rates of loss to follow-up were reported in many study protocols, while financial and/or other support from pharmaceutical industries with a clear conflict of interest on the study outcomes was documented in all included studies.ConclusionsAvailable DMD are effective in reducing disability progression in patients with RRMS, independently of the route of administration and their classification as "first" or "second" line therapies. Attrition bias needs to be taken into account in the interpretation of these findings.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment satisfaction in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) may impact adherence and thus clinical outcomes. The objective of this study was to measure the satisfaction of patients with RRMS with injectable disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) and to evaluate the factors associated with treatment satisfaction.Material and methodsIn this observational retrospective study conducted in the neurology departments of 35 hospitals throughout Spain, demographic data, disease characteristics, and information on treatment with injectable DMTs were collected at a single scheduled visit. Treatment satisfaction was assessed using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), version 1.4. Patients also answered complementary questions about the factors that might affect treatment satisfaction. The data collected were analyzed descriptively. A regression model was used to explore the factors associated with treatment satisfaction.ResultsThe study included 445 patients (mean±SD age, 41±10.2 years; two-thirds women). The percentages treated with each DMT were Avonex 28.5%, Rebif 44 μg 24.5%, Copaxone 22.5%, Betaferon 13.0%, Rebif22 μg 8.3% and Extavia 3.1%. The mean±SD overall satisfaction according to the TSQM was 68.8±18.6 and the highest overall satisfaction was reported for Rebif 22 μg (72.4±20.3) and the lowest for Extavia (61.7±23.7). In the regression analysis, rehabilitation, interference with social life, pain on injection and number of MS treatments received were significantly associated with a decrease in overall TSMQ score. A small but significant negative correlation was found between EDSS scores and TSMQ scores (rho = -0.11, p = 0.02) and effectiveness (rho = -0.17, p<0.001). A perceived inconvenience of injections was reflected by the stated preference of 83% for once-daily oral treatment over other administration routes.ConclusionsPatients on stable injectable DMT therapy were reasonably satisfied with their treatment. Our results suggest that the main source of dissatisfaction with the current treatment is the inconvenience of the administration regimen.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) has a chronic course, little information is known about the comparison between the disease-modifying therapies (DMT) for long-term outcomes. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of randomized clinical trial (RCT) extension and observational studies to examine the efficacy and safety of all available DMT for RRMS, compare the evidence with that derived from mid-term studies, and investigate whether the published long-term data are robust and reliable enough to inform clinical decision-making concerning RRMS treatment.MethodPubMed, Scopus, and manual searches were performed until October 2019. The clinical outcomes of long- and mid-term studies were compared. ROBINS-I was used to assess the methodological qualities of the long-term studies. PROSPERO number CRD42019123361.ResultsNineteen long-term studies (9,018 participants) were included in the systematic review. All studies presented serious or critical risks of bias that were mainly due to confounding, selection, and missing data biases. The annualised relapse rates (ARR) observed in the long-term studies are lower (better) than those from the mid-term studies for most treatments. The main reason for this ARR decrease could be a selection bias for good responders in the long-term studies, since many studies show a loss of patients between the mid- and long-term phases. The safety profiles depend on the study, follow-up, report, and outcome (i.e., discontinuation or number of patients with at least one serious adverse event).ConclusionThe currently available long-term data for patients with RRMS exhibit serious or critical risks of bias that preclude robust comparisons between long-term studies. High quality comparative observational studies with long-term follow-ups or RCT extensions with intention-to-treat analyses are needed to support clinical and regulatory practice. Until reliable long-term evidence is available, neurologists should continue to base their conduct on mid-term studies, patient`s experience and, most importantly, patient`s needs and predictor factors, according to personalized medicine.