ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2015
Prescriber utilization of dalfampridine extended release tablets in multiple sclerosis: a retrospective pharmacy and medical claims analysis.
Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Healthcare resource use and costs of multiple sclerosis patients in Germany before and during fampridine treatment.BMC neurology · 2017Article
- Safety profile of dalfampridine extended release in multiple sclerosis: 5-year postmarketing experience in the United States.Drug, healthcare and patient safety · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to characterize the prescribing of dalfampridine extended release (D-ER) 10 mg tablet treatment in people with multiple sclerosis (MS).
methodsA retrospective cohort study was performed using Medco pharmacy and medical claims. Medical claims were used to identify MS patients with more than one prescription for D-ER with 1 year of prior continuous enrollment (n=704). These patients were matched 2:1 on age, sex, and health insurance source with a comparison group of MS patients who were treatment naïve for D-ER (n=1,403). Categorical data were analyzed by χ (2) test; ordinal data by Wilcoxon rank sum test; and continuous data by Student's t-test.
resultsMost patients were women aged 45-64 years. In the year preceding D-ER initiation, the prevalence of seizure and renal impairment was numerically lower in the D-ER cohort relative to those who were D-ER naïve (seizure: 3.1% versus 4.7%, respectively; renal impairment: 4.3% versus 5.1%, respectively); however, prescriptions for antiepileptic drugs in the two cohorts were comparable. In the year preceding treatment initiation, 62% of the D-ER cohort was prescribed MS-specific disease-modifying therapies relative to 45% who were D-ER naïve.
conclusionSeizure and renal impairment rates among D-ER-naïve patients were consistent with published literature, yet rates among those prescribed D-ER during the year preceding treatment initiation were slightly lower than rates among D-ER-naïve patients. Given that D-ER is contraindicated in patients with history of seizure or moderate or severe renal impairment, lower rates may indicate that risk-minimization strategies contributed to the lower prevalence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.