Real life in Poland

R

When you select a DMT it is clearly not based on efficacy. Why not?

I guess it is safety.

If it were efficacy GA would not be doing so well in the sales. This study says what you all know, that GA is bottom of the pile. The label says it works by “mechanisms thought to be responsible for MS” and so we get a new mechanism with every new idea of how MS occurs. Therefore, it says to me what ever GA does, it must do it relativelybadly. If it didn’t it would be more effective in the real world.

It was reasssuring to see at ECTRIMS2019 that GA was not that great in depleting memory B cells, interefon beta was better and fingolimod was much better. Natalizumab increases the memory B cells in the blood because it traps them there. So this idea fits with the real world data

You say but MD…GA works so well in EAE.

However, that is not exactly true. It works well when used in one way and that is when you mix it with the mush that you use to make EAE. Inject it under the skin after you have done the sensitization and you see why I am not a big fan.

The effectiveness of interferon beta versus glatiramer acetate and natalizumab versus fingolimod in a Polish real-world population. Kapica-Topczewska K, Tarasiuk J, Collin F, Brola W, Chorąży M, Czarnowska A, Kwaśniewski M, Bartosik-Psujek H, Adamczyk-Sowa M, Kochanowicz J, Kułakowska A. PLoS One. 2019;14(10):e0223863.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients treated in MS centres in Poland.

METHODS:Demographic and clinical data of all Polish RRMS patients receiving DMTs were prospectively collected from 2014 to 2018 in electronic files using the Therapeutic Program Monitoring System (SMPT).

RESULTS: The study included 10,764 RRMS patients treated with DMTs in first-line and 1,042 in second-line programmes. IFNβ more effectively lengthened the times to the first relapse, disability progression, and brain MRI activity than GA. After 2 and 4 years of follow-up, more patients on IFNβ showed no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) in comparison to GA (66.3% and 44.3% vs 55.2% and 33.2%, respectively; p<0.001). NAT more effectively reduced brain MRI activity than FTY (p = 0.001). More patients under NAT had NEDA-3 after 2 and 4 years of follow-up compared to FTY (66.2% and 42.1% vs 52.1% and 29.5%, respectively; p = 0.03). In adjusted analysis, a higher baseline Expanded Disability Status Score (EDSS) was a predictor of relapse (p<0.001) and NEDA-3 failure (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION: IFNβ compared to GA and NAT compared to FTY more effectively reduced disease activity in a Polish population of RRMS patients

About the author

MouseDoctor

8 comments

Leave a Reply to ali Cancel reply

  • So a better conclusion for yet another irrelevant sudy can be:
    “Polish MSers are like all others in the world. To our biggest surprise, they respond exactly to every other populace on the planet we call earth.”

  • Great news for me then, the injection I do 3 times a week is bottom of the pile in regards to effiacy.
    So why are people newly diagnosed being told to go to a website and told to CHOOSE which they want to take?

    GA= least side effects, so with head reeling after an MS diagnosis, how many choose the hard hitting, side-effect laden choice then?

    Surely neuros should be steering patients away from GA then? But they don’t do they, so why not?

    • Beyond me Ali. There’s a guest post on this a few days ago. Guess you didn’t jump through enough hoops to qualify for the most effective treatments 🙁

      • yep, that is the whole point though.
        If GA is so rubbish compared to stuff they have now, why is it still even on the table with regards to being used?

        How can a neuro tell someone to look at the MS Decisions website and PICK which one they want to take?
        Surely they KNOW that GA is inferior now to others that have been developed?

        How many patients choose one of the hard hitters straight off the bat? When their heads are rolling after the diagnosis and they see the list of sometimes life-changing side effects these hard hitters have?

        Neuros are doing a diservice to people because they don’t want to make the decision, But THEY are supposed to be the experts on MS, not us.

        Is it all about how much these things cost?

        • I honestly don’t think cost has anything to do with it Ali.

          As you’ll know from MS Decisions it’s usually considered that GA and interferons pretty similar. Having said that, of the interferons, Rebif 44 is high dose high frequency so you get much more drug than with Avonex (lower dose and only once a week). So figures that Rebif might score higher in this real world Polish study (if that’s what was used). But then perhaps you don’t want flu symptoms 3 x a week 😉

          You don’t sound too happy 🙁 discuss with your team when you get chance. All the best with everything 🙂

By MouseDoctor

Translate

Categories

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives