But no difference in disability progression seen for high-efficacy versus low-efficacy therapy for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n
<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/b><\/p>\n
TUESDAY, July 13, 2021 (HealthDay News) — High-efficacy disease-modifying therapies may reduce flare-ups in recently active secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS), but they do not appear to offer any advantage over low-efficacy therapies for slowing disability progression, according to a study published online June 30 in Neurology<\/em>.<\/p>\n Izanne Roos, M.B.Ch.B., from the University of Melbourne in Australia, and colleagues compared the clinical effectiveness of high-efficacy treatments (natalizumab, alemtuzumab, mitoxantrone, ocrelizumab, rituximab, cladribine, and fingolimod) and low-efficacy treatments (interferon \u00ce\u00b2, glatiramer acetate, and teriflunomide) in 1,000 patients with recently active and inactive SPMS followed for 10 years.<\/p>\n The researchers found that patients with active SPMS treated with high-efficacy therapy experienced less frequent relapses than those on low-efficacy therapy (hazard ratio, 0.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.5 to 0.9; P = 0.006). However, the investigators found no evidence for a difference in relapse frequency between groups (hazard ratio, 0.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.6 to 1.2; P = 0.39) among patients with inactive SPMS. There was also no evidence found for a difference in the risk for disability progression for both active and inactive SPMS (hazard ratios [95 percent confidence intervals], 1.1 [0.8 to 1.5] and 1.3 [0.9 to 1.8], respectively).<\/p>\n “When the goal is to alleviate ongoing relapse activity, more potent therapy is justified,” a coauthor said in a statement. “But when the goal is to limit disability progression in secondary progressive MS, both types of drugs show comparable effectiveness.”<\/p>\n Several authors disclosed financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. <\/p>\n Abstract\/Full Text (subscription or payment may be required)<\/a><\/p>\n Editorial (subscription or payment may be required)<\/a><\/p>\n <\/i><\/p>\n