A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Effectiveness and Safety of Early High-Efficacy Versus Escalation Therapy in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis in Argentina. | LitMetric

Objective: Escalation (ES) and early high-efficacy (EHE) therapies have been the main treatment strategies adopted in multiple sclerosis (MS) in recent years. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of EHE versus ES strategies in MS patients from Argentina.

Methods: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort study in Argentina. Eligible patients were categorized into 2 groups as follows: EHE if received natalizumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, alemtuzumab, mitoxantrone, or cladribine; and ES if received interferon β, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, or fingolimod as initial therapy. The primary outcome was confirmed disability progression (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] increase). Additional outcomes included the proportion of patients and time to: EDSS 6; new relapses; new T2-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions; no evidence of disease activity; and specific adverse events. Propensity score-based nearest-neighbor matching (without replacement) was applied to homogenize the sample, and Cox regression model stratified by matched pairs was used for the analysis.

Results: After propensity score matching, 193 and 112 patients were retained in the ES and EHE groups, respectively. The EHE significantly decreased the risk of EDSS progression (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.40-0.98; P = 0.04), relapses (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.89; P = 0.006), and new MRI activity during follow-up (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.40-0.75; P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in specific adverse events between groups.

Conclusions: Our study shows that EHE therapies prevent disease progression, relapses, and new MRI lesions and demonstrated no increased risk of specific adverse events when compared with ES therapy. These data should be considered when selecting a specific treatment for MS patients.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/WNF.0000000000000503DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

specific adverse
12
adverse events
12
effectiveness safety
8
early high-efficacy
8
multiple sclerosis
8
ehe therapies
8
groups ehe
8
mri lesions
8
ehe
6
patients
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!