Comparative effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate versus glatiramer acetate in multiple sclerosis patients: results of a matching-adjusted indirect comparison.
Options
BORIS DOI
Date of Publication
June 2017
Publication Type
Article
Division/Institute
Contributor
Cutter, Gary | |
Fox, Robert J | |
Xiao, James | |
Lewin, James B | |
Edwards, Michael R |
Subject(s)
Series
Journal of comparative effectiveness research
ISSN or ISBN (if monograph)
2042-6313
Publisher
Future Medicine
Language
English
Publisher DOI
PubMed ID
28350241
Uncontrolled Keywords
Description
AIM
Using matching-adjusted indirect comparison, we compared efficacy outcomes in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treated with delayed-release dimethyl fumarate (DMF) or glatiramer acetate (GA).
MATERIALS & METHODS
An indirect comparison of DMF (patient-level data) and GA (aggregate data) was conducted, with average baseline characteristics of DMF patients weighted to match those for GA patients. Direct comparison of DMF and GA was conducted in CONFIRM. Final results pooled the indirect and direct comparisons using meta-analysis.
RESULTS
After matching, baseline characteristics were balanced between DMF and GA patients. Compared with GA, efficacy was significantly in favor of DMF as measured by annualized relapse rate (rate ratio: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.57-1.00; p = 0.0474) and 12-week confirmed disability progression (risk ratio: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.46-0.76; p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION
DMF demonstrated superior clinical efficacy versus GA.
Using matching-adjusted indirect comparison, we compared efficacy outcomes in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treated with delayed-release dimethyl fumarate (DMF) or glatiramer acetate (GA).
MATERIALS & METHODS
An indirect comparison of DMF (patient-level data) and GA (aggregate data) was conducted, with average baseline characteristics of DMF patients weighted to match those for GA patients. Direct comparison of DMF and GA was conducted in CONFIRM. Final results pooled the indirect and direct comparisons using meta-analysis.
RESULTS
After matching, baseline characteristics were balanced between DMF and GA patients. Compared with GA, efficacy was significantly in favor of DMF as measured by annualized relapse rate (rate ratio: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.57-1.00; p = 0.0474) and 12-week confirmed disability progression (risk ratio: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.46-0.76; p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION
DMF demonstrated superior clinical efficacy versus GA.
File(s)
| File | File Type | Format | Size | License | Publisher/Copright statement | Content | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cer-2016-0085.pdf | text | Adobe PDF | 1.98 MB | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) | published |