Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26286576›Full record

Observational studyBMC neurology2015

Differential glatiramer acetate treatment persistence in treatment-naive patients compared to patients previously treated with interferon.

Mireya Fernández-Fournier, Antonio Tallón-Barranco, Beatriz Chamorro, Patricia Martínez-Sánchez, Inmaculada Puertas

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC neurology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mireya Fernández-FournierClinical Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis Unit, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. fernandezfournier@hotmail.com.
Antonio Tallón-BarrancoClinical Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis Unit, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. atb1958@gmail.com.
Beatriz ChamorroClinical Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis Unit, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. beatrizlapaz2@gmail.com.
Patricia Martínez-SánchezDepartment of Neurology, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. patrindalo@hotmail.com.
Inmaculada PuertasClinical Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis Unit, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. inmapuertas@hotmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the treatment of multiple sclerosis, a change of therapy is considered after treatment failure or adverse events. Although disease modifying drugs' (DMD) efficacy and side effects have been fully analysed in clinical trials, the effects of previous therapy use are less well studied. We aimed to study medication persistence with glatiramer acetate in treatment-naive patients and in patients previously treated with interferon.

methodsA retrospective study of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients treated with glatiramer acetate in an MS Unit of a Spanish University Hospital (January 2004--September 2013). Treatment time on glatiramer acetate was studied. Reasons for treatment discontinuation were considered as follows: lack of efficacy, serious adverse event, injection-related side effect, pregnancy and lost to follow-up. Use of prior DMD was registered and analysed. Homogeneity of groups was analysed using Fisher's and Mann-Whitney's tests. The Kaplan Meier method and Cox regression model were used to estimate time to and risk of treatment discontinuation.

resultsIn total, 155 relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients were treated with glatiramer acetate: 100 treatment-naive patients and 55 treated previously with interferon. At the end of the study, 76 patients (49.0%) continued on glatiramer acetate (with an average treatment time (ATT) of 50.4 months, s.d.32.8) and 50 patients (32.3%) had switched therapy: 27 patients (17.4%) for inefficacy (ATT 29.2 months, s.d.17.5), 20 patients (12.9%) for injection site reactions (ATT 16.5 months, s.d.20.3) and 3 patients (1.9%) after serious adverse events (ATT 15.7 months, s.d.15.1). ATT in our cohort was 39 months (s.d.30.0), median follow-up 34 months. Six months after glatiramer acetate initiation, probability of persisting on GA was 91.4%, 82.5% after 12 months and 72.5% after 2 years. The risk of glatiramer acetate treatment discontinuation was 2.8 [1.7 - 4.8] times greater for treatment-naive patients than for patients treated previously with interferon and this was hardly modified after adjusting for sex and age.

conclusionsGlatiramer acetate was safe and useful with low rates of serious adverse events and low rates of break-through disease. Injection intolerance proved a major limitation to glatiramer acetate use. Patients who had been previously treated with interferons presented a lower probability of glatiramer acetate discontinuation than treatment-naive patients.

Indexed as

Medication AdherenceAcetatesAdolescentAdultFemaleGlatiramer AcetateHumansImmunosuppressive AgentsInterferonsKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedMultiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-RemittingPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsProportional Hazards ModelsAcetatesGlatiramer AcetateImmunosuppressive AgentsInterferons

Identifiers

PMID26286576
PMCPMC4545781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.