Dataset Information

Quantitative benefit-risk assessment of methylprednisolone in multiple sclerosis relapses.

ABSTRACT: High-dose short-term methylprednisolone is the recommended treatment in the management of multiple sclerosis relapses, although it has been suggested that lower doses may be equally effective. Also, glucocorticoids are associated with multiple and often dose-dependent adverse effects. This quantitative benefit-risk assessment compares high- and low-dose methylprednisolone (at least 2000 mg and less than 1000 mg, respectively, during at most 31 days) and a no treatment alternative, with the aim of determining which regimen, if any, is preferable in multiple sclerosis relapses.An overall framework of probabilistic decision analysis was applied, combining data from different sources. Effectiveness as well as risk of non-serious adverse effects were estimated from published clinical trials. However, as these trials recorded very few serious adverse effects, risk intervals for the latter were derived from individual case reports together with a range of plausible distributions. Probabilistic modelling driven by logically implied or clinically well motivated qualitative relations was used to derive utility distributions.Low-dose methylprednisolone was not a supported option in this assessment; there was, however, only limited data available for this treatment alternative. High-dose methylprednisolone and the no treatment alternative interchanged as most preferred, contingent on the risk distributions applied for serious adverse effects, the assumed level of risk aversiveness in the patient population, and the relapse severity.The data presently available do not support a change of current treatment recommendations. There are strong incentives for further clinical research to reduce the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness and the risks associated with methylprednisolone in multiple sclerosis relapses; this would enable better informed and more precise treatment recommendations in the future.

SUBMITTER: Caster O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4609048 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quantitative benefit-risk assessment of methylprednisolone in multiple sclerosis relapses.

Caster Ola O Edwards I Ralph IR

BMC neurology 20151016

<h4>Background</h4>High-dose short-term methylprednisolone is the recommended treatment in the management of multiple sclerosis relapses, although it has been suggested that lower doses may be equally effective. Also, glucocorticoids are associated with multiple and often dose-dependent adverse effects. This quantitative benefit-risk assessment compares high- and low-dose methylprednisolone (at least 2000 mg and less than 1000 mg, respectively, during at most 31 days) and a no treatment alternat ...[more]

PMID: 26475456

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveIntravenous methylprednisolone is the standard treatment for a multiple sclerosis relapse; however, this fails to improve symptoms in up to one quarter of patients. Immunoadsorption is an accepted treatment for refractory relapses, but prospective comparator-controlled studies are missing.MethodsIn this observational study, patients with steroid-refractory acute multiple sclerosis relapses receiving either six courses of tryptophan-immunoadsorption or double-dose methylprednisolone therapy were analysed. Outcomes were evaluated at discharge and three months later. Immune profiling of blood lymphocytes and proteomic analysis were performed by multi-parameter flow cytometry and Olink analysis, respectively (NCT04450030).Results42 patients were enrolled (methylprednisolone: 26 patients; immunoadsorption: 16 patients). For determination of the primary outcome, treatment response was stratified according to relative function system score changes ("full/best" vs. "average" vs. "worse/none"). Upon discharge, the adjusted odds ratio for any treatment response ("full/best" + "average" vs. "worse/none") was 10.697 favouring immunoadsorption (p = 0.005 compared to methylprednisolone). At follow-up, the adjusted odds ratio for the best treatment response ("full/best" vs. "average" + "worse/none") was 103.236 favouring IA patients (p = 0.001 compared to methylprednisolone). Similar results were observed regarding evoked potentials and quality of life outcomes, as well as serum neurofilament light-chain levels. Flow cytometry revealed a profound reduction of B cell subsets following immunoadsorption, which was closely correlated to clinical outcomes, whereas methylprednisolone had a minimal effect on B cell populations. Immunoadsorption treatment skewed the blood cytokine network, reduced levels of B cell-related cytokines and reduced immunoglobulin levels as well as levels of certain coagulation factors.InterpretationImmunoadsorption demonstrated favourable outcomes compared to double-dose methylprednisolone. Outcome differences were significant at discharge and follow-up. Further analyses identified modulation of B cell function as a potential mechanism of action for immunoadsorption, as reduction of B cell subsets correlated with clinical improvement.

Project description:BackgroundIntravenous glucocorticoids are recommended for multiple sclerosis (MS). However, they can be inconvenient and expensive. Due to their convenience and low cost, oral glucocorticoids may be an alternative treatment. Recently, several studies have shown that there is no difference in efficacy and safety between oral methylprednisolone (oMP) and intravenous methylprednisolone (ivMP).ObjectivesWe sought to assess the clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral methylprednisolone versus intravenous methylprednisolone for MS relapses in this meta-analysis.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral methylprednisolone versus intravenous methylprednisolone for MS relapses were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, EMBASE and China Biology Medicine until October 25, 2016, without language restrictions. The proportion of patients who had improved by day 28 was chosen as the efficacy outcome. We chose the risk ratio (RR) to analyze each trial with the 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We also used the fixed-effects model (Mantel-Haenszel approach) to calculate the pooled relative effect estimates.ResultsA total of 5 trials were identified, which included 369 patients. The results of our meta-analysis revealed that no significant difference existed in relapse improvement at day 28 between oMP and ivMP (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.10). No evidence of heterogeneity existed among the trials (P = 0.45, I2 = 0%). Both treatments were equally safe and well tolerated except that insomnia was more likely to occur in the oMP group compared to the ivMP group.ConclusionOur meta-analysis reveals strong evidence that oMP is not inferior to ivMP in increasing the proportion of patients experiencing clinical improvement at day 28. In addition, both routes of administration are equally well tolerated and safe. These findings suggest that we may be able to replace ivMP with oMP to treat MS relapses.

Project description:Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic demyelinating disease of the central nervous system and mainly affects young adults. Its natural history has changed in recent years with the advent of disease-modifying drugs, which have been available since the early 1990s. The increasing number of first-line and second-line treatment options, together with the variable course of the disease and patient lifestyles and expectations, makes the therapeutic decision a real challenge. The aim of this review is to give a comprehensive overview of the main present and some future drugs for relapsing-remitting MS, including risk-benefit considerations, to enable readers to draw their own conclusions regarding the risk-benefit assessment of personalized treatment strategies, taking into account not only treatment-related but also disease-related risks. We performed a Medline literature search to identify studies on the treatment of MS with risk stratification and risk-benefit considerations. We focused our attention on studies of disease-modifying, immunomodulating, and immunosuppressive drugs, including monoclonal antibodies. Here we offer personal considerations, stemming from long-term experience in the treatment of MS and thorough discussions with other neurologists closely involved in the care of patients with the disease. MS specialists need to know not only the specific risks and benefits of single drugs, but also about drug interactions, either in simultaneous or serial combination therapy, and patient comorbidities, preferences, and fears. This has to be put into perspective, considering also the risks of untreated disease in patients with different clinical and radiological characteristics. There is no single best treatment strategy, but therapy has to be tailored to the patient. This is a time-consuming task, rich in complexity, and influenced by the attitude towards risk on the parts of both the patient and the clinical team. The broader the MS drug market becomes, the harder it will be for the clinician to help the patient decide which therapeutic strategy to opt for.

Dataset Information

Quantitative benefit-risk assessment of methylprednisolone in multiple sclerosis relapses.

Publications

Quantitative benefit-risk assessment of methylprednisolone in multiple sclerosis relapses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets