ArticlePloS one2021
Interferon beta for the treatment of multiple sclerosis in the Campania Region of Italy: Merging the real-life to routinely collected healthcare data.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Persistence, adherence, healthcare resource utilization and costs for ocrelizumab in the real-world of the Campania Region of Italy.Journal of neurology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aim to overcome limitations of previous clinical and population-based studies by merging a clinical registry to routinely-collected healthcare data, and to specifically describe differences in clinical outcomes, healthcare resource utilization and costs between interferon beta formulations for multiple sclerosis (MS).
methodsWe included 850 patients with MS treated with interferon beta formulations, from 2015 to 2019, seen at the MS Clinical Care and Research Centre (Federico II University of Naples, Italy) and with linkage to routinely-collected healthcare data (prescription data, hospital admissions, outpatient services). We extracted and computed clinical outcomes (relapses, 6-month EDSS progression using a roving EDSS as reference), persistence (time spent on a specific interferon beta formulation), adherence (medication possession ratio (MPR)), healthcare resource utilization and costs (annualized hospitalization rate (AHR), costs for hospital admissions and DMTs). To evaluate differences between interferon beta formulations, we used linear regression (adherence), Poisson regression (AHR), mixed-effect regression (costs), and Cox-regression models (time varying variables); covariates were age, sex, treatment duration, baseline EDSS and adherence.
resultsLooking at clinical outcomes, rates of relapses and EDSS progression were lower than studies run on previous cohorts; there was no differences in relapse risk between interferon beta formulations. Risk of discontinuation was higher for Betaferon®/Extavia® (HR = 3.28; 95%CI = 2.11, 5.12; p<0.01). Adherence was lower for Betaferon®/Extavia® (Coeff = -0.05; 95%CI = -0.10, -0.01; p = 0.02), and Avonex® (Coeff = -0.06; 95%CI = -0.11, -0.02; p<0.01), when compared with Rebif® and Plegridy® (Coeff = 0.08; 95%CI = 0.01, 0.16; p = 0.02). AHR and costs for MS hospital admissions were higher for Betaferon®/Extavia® (IRR = 2.38; 95%CI = 1.01, 5.55; p = 0.04; Coeff = 14.95; 95%CI = 1.39, 28.51; p = 0.03).
conclusionsWe have showed the feasibility of merging routinely-collected healthcare data to a clinical registry for future MS research, and have confirmed interferon beta formulations play an important role in the management of MS, with positive clinical outcomes. Differences between interferon beta formulations are mostly driven by adherence and healthcare resource utilization.
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.