Cargando…

Effectiveness of glatiramer acetate compared to other multiple sclerosis therapies

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of glatiramer acetate (GA) compared to other multiple sclerosis (MS) therapies in routine clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational cohort study carried out in MS patients treated with GA (GA cohort) or other MS therapies –switched from GA– (non-G...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Izquierdo, Guillermo, García-Agua Soler, Nuria, Rus, Macarena, García-Ruiz, Antonio José
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BlackWell Publishing Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4467772/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26085963
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/brb3.337
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of glatiramer acetate (GA) compared to other multiple sclerosis (MS) therapies in routine clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational cohort study carried out in MS patients treated with GA (GA cohort) or other MS therapies –switched from GA– (non-GA cohort). Study data were obtained through review of our MS patient database. The primary endpoint was the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores reached at the end of treatment/last check-up. RESULTS: A total of 180 patients were included: GA cohort n = 120, non-GA cohort n = 60. Patients in the GA cohort showed better EDSS scores at the end of treatment/last check-up (mean ± SD, 2.8 ± 1.8 vs. 3.9 ± 2.2; P = 0.001) and were 1.65 times more likely to show better EDSS scores compared to the non-GA cohort (odds ratio, 0.606; 95%CI, 0.436–0.843; P = 0.003). Patients in the GA cohort showed longer mean time to reach EDSS scores of 6 (209.1 [95%CI, 187.6–230.6] vs. 164.3 [95%CI, 137.0–191.6] months; P = 0.004) and slower disability progression (hazard ratio, 0.415 [95%CI, 0.286–0.603]; P < 0.001). The annualized relapse rate was lower in the GA cohort (mean ± SD, 0.5 ± 0.5 vs. 0.8 ± 0.5; P = 0.001) and patients’ quality of life was improved in this study cohort compared to the non-GA cohort (mean ± SD, 0.7 ± 0.1 vs. 0.6 ± 0.2; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: GA may slow down the progression of EDSS scores to a greater extent than other MS therapies, as well as achieving a greater reduction in relapses and a greater improvement in patients’ quality of life. Switching from GA to other MS therapies has not proved to entail a better response to treatment.