Comparative analysis of dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis.
Saved in:
| Title: | Comparative analysis of dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Müller, Jannis (AUTHOR), Schädelin, Sabine (AUTHOR), Lorscheider, Johannes (AUTHOR), Benkert, Pascal (AUTHOR), Hänni, Peter (AUTHOR), Schmid, Jürg (AUTHOR), Kuhle, Jens (AUTHOR), Derfuss, Tobias (AUTHOR), Granziera, Cristina (AUTHOR), Yaldizli, Özgür (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | European Journal of Neurology. Dec2023, Vol. 30 Issue 12, p3809-3818. 10p. |
| Subjects: | Dimethyl fumarate, Multiple sclerosis, Proportional hazards models, Disease relapse, Comparative studies |
| Abstract: | Background and purpose: In relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), analyses from observational studies comparing dimethyl fumarate (DMF) and teriflunomide showed conflicting results. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of DMF and teriflunomide in a real‐world setting, where both drugs are licensed as first‐line therapies for RRMS. Methods: We included all patients who initiated DMF or teriflunomide between 2013 and 2022, listed in the Swiss National Treatment Registry. Coarsened exact matching was applied using age, gender, disease duration, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, time since last relapse, and relapse rate in the previous year as matching variables. Time to relapse and time to 12‐month confirmed EDSS worsening were compared using Cox proportional hazard models. Results: In total, 2028 patients were included in this study, of whom 1498 were matched (DMF: n = 1090, 69.6% female, mean age 45.1 years, median EDSS score 2.0; teriflunomide: n = 408, 68.9% female, mean age 45.1 years, median EDSS score 2.0). Time to relapse and time to EDSS worsening was longer in the DMF than the teriflunomide group (hazard ratio 0.734, p = 0.026 and hazard ratio 0.576, p = 0.003, respectively). Conclusion: Analysis of real‐world data showed that DMF treatment was associated with more favorable outcomes than teriflunomide treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of European Journal of Neurology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Background and purpose: In relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), analyses from observational studies comparing dimethyl fumarate (DMF) and teriflunomide showed conflicting results. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of DMF and teriflunomide in a real‐world setting, where both drugs are licensed as first‐line therapies for RRMS. Methods: We included all patients who initiated DMF or teriflunomide between 2013 and 2022, listed in the Swiss National Treatment Registry. Coarsened exact matching was applied using age, gender, disease duration, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, time since last relapse, and relapse rate in the previous year as matching variables. Time to relapse and time to 12‐month confirmed EDSS worsening were compared using Cox proportional hazard models. Results: In total, 2028 patients were included in this study, of whom 1498 were matched (DMF: n = 1090, 69.6% female, mean age 45.1 years, median EDSS score 2.0; teriflunomide: n = 408, 68.9% female, mean age 45.1 years, median EDSS score 2.0). Time to relapse and time to EDSS worsening was longer in the DMF than the teriflunomide group (hazard ratio 0.734, p = 0.026 and hazard ratio 0.576, p = 0.003, respectively). Conclusion: Analysis of real‐world data showed that DMF treatment was associated with more favorable outcomes than teriflunomide treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 13515101 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/ene.16044 |
