Cargando…

Laquinimod efficacy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: how to understand why and if studies disagree

BACKGROUND: The results of two randomized phase 3 trials that investigated the use of laquinimod in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis were analyzed using a propensity score model. METHODS: The propensity score in each study was defined as the probability of an individual patient b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cutter, Gary R., Knappertz, Volker, Sasson, Nissim, Ladkani, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5027083/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27639853
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12883-016-0702-4
_version_ 1782454181542494208
author Cutter, Gary R.
Knappertz, Volker
Sasson, Nissim
Ladkani, David
author_facet Cutter, Gary R.
Knappertz, Volker
Sasson, Nissim
Ladkani, David
author_sort Cutter, Gary R.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The results of two randomized phase 3 trials that investigated the use of laquinimod in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis were analyzed using a propensity score model. METHODS: The propensity score in each study was defined as the probability of an individual patient being assigned to either the laquinimod or placebo study arm. The analysis included two main stages: (1) calculation of a propensity score for each patient, given a broad set of baseline covariates that included second-degree interactions, and (2) incorporation of the propensity score as another covariate into the predefined primary analysis model to test the treatment effect of laquinimod (0.6 mg/d) vs placebo on the annualized relapse rate (ARR). RESULTS: The BRAVO study showed baseline imbalances for T2 volume and the proportion of patients with gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing lesions, both parameters known to correlate with risk of relapse. Adjustment using the propensity score as a categorical variable showed that the estimated difference in ARR between laquinimod and placebo was 0.078, in favor of laquinimod. In ALLEGRO, the baseline Gd-enhancing lesion mean score was higher for placebo vs laquinimod. When the primary analysis model was adjusted for the propensity score as a categorical variable, the covariate adjusted difference in mean ARR between laquinimod and placebo was 0.084, in favor of laquinimod. CONCLUSIONS: Propensity scores addressing differences in baseline characteristics may be helpful to better understand whether observed treatment effect differences in randomized controlled trials are accurate results or result from inherent differences between patients with multiple sclerosis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5027083
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50270832016-09-22 Laquinimod efficacy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: how to understand why and if studies disagree Cutter, Gary R. Knappertz, Volker Sasson, Nissim Ladkani, David BMC Neurol Research Article BACKGROUND: The results of two randomized phase 3 trials that investigated the use of laquinimod in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis were analyzed using a propensity score model. METHODS: The propensity score in each study was defined as the probability of an individual patient being assigned to either the laquinimod or placebo study arm. The analysis included two main stages: (1) calculation of a propensity score for each patient, given a broad set of baseline covariates that included second-degree interactions, and (2) incorporation of the propensity score as another covariate into the predefined primary analysis model to test the treatment effect of laquinimod (0.6 mg/d) vs placebo on the annualized relapse rate (ARR). RESULTS: The BRAVO study showed baseline imbalances for T2 volume and the proportion of patients with gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing lesions, both parameters known to correlate with risk of relapse. Adjustment using the propensity score as a categorical variable showed that the estimated difference in ARR between laquinimod and placebo was 0.078, in favor of laquinimod. In ALLEGRO, the baseline Gd-enhancing lesion mean score was higher for placebo vs laquinimod. When the primary analysis model was adjusted for the propensity score as a categorical variable, the covariate adjusted difference in mean ARR between laquinimod and placebo was 0.084, in favor of laquinimod. CONCLUSIONS: Propensity scores addressing differences in baseline characteristics may be helpful to better understand whether observed treatment effect differences in randomized controlled trials are accurate results or result from inherent differences between patients with multiple sclerosis. BioMed Central 2016-09-17 /pmc/articles/PMC5027083/ /pubmed/27639853 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12883-016-0702-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Cutter, Gary R.
Knappertz, Volker
Sasson, Nissim
Ladkani, David
Laquinimod efficacy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: how to understand why and if studies disagree
title Laquinimod efficacy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: how to understand why and if studies disagree
title_full Laquinimod efficacy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: how to understand why and if studies disagree
title_fullStr Laquinimod efficacy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: how to understand why and if studies disagree
title_full_unstemmed Laquinimod efficacy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: how to understand why and if studies disagree
title_short Laquinimod efficacy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: how to understand why and if studies disagree
title_sort laquinimod efficacy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: how to understand why and if studies disagree
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5027083/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27639853
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12883-016-0702-4
work_keys_str_mv AT cuttergaryr laquinimodefficacyinrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosishowtounderstandwhyandifstudiesdisagree
AT knappertzvolker laquinimodefficacyinrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosishowtounderstandwhyandifstudiesdisagree
AT sassonnissim laquinimodefficacyinrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosishowtounderstandwhyandifstudiesdisagree
AT ladkanidavid laquinimodefficacyinrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosishowtounderstandwhyandifstudiesdisagree