Analysis of NAMCS data for multiple sclerosis, 1998–2004

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, no study to date has investigated the prescribing patterns of immunomodulatory agents (IMAs) in an outpatient setting in the United States. To address this issue, we performed retrospective data analyses on National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) data for MS patient visits between 1998 and 2004. METHODS: NAMCS data are a weighted estimate of the nationwide frequency of patients' outpatient clinic visits. We analyzed NAMCS data in the following categories: (1) the proportion of MS patient visits to neurologists, family practitioners or internists, (2) age/gender/race/geographical distribution patterns in patient visits, and (3) the proportion of patients on IMA treatment among established MS patients. RESULTS: There were an estimated 6.7 million multiple sclerosis (MS) patient visits to the clinics between 1998–2004. Neurologists recorded the most patient visits, 50.7%. Patient visits were mostly in the fourth and fifth decade age group (57.9%). The male to female ratio was 1:4. No statistical evidence was observed for a decline or increase in IMA usage. About 62% patients visiting neurologists and 92% seen by family practitioners/internists were not using IMAs. Our results suggest that between the years 1998–2003, the use of interferon-1a tended to decline while the use of interferon-1b and glatiramer acetate, increased. CONCLUSION: Strategies that lead to improved use of IMAs in the management of MS in the outpatient setting are needed

Current trends in the cardiovascular clinical trial arena (I)

The existence of effective therapies for most cardiovascular disease states, coupled with increased requirements that potential benefits of new drugs be evaluated on clinical rather than surrogate endpoints, makes it increasingly difficult to substantiate any incremental improvements in efficacy that these new drugs might offer. Compounding the problem is the highly controversial issue of comparing new agents with placebos rather than active pharmaceuticals in drug efficacy trials. Despite the recent consensus that placebos may be used ethically in well-defined, justifiable circumstances, the problem persists, in part because of increased scrutiny by ethics committees but also because of considerable lingering disagreement regarding the propriety and scientific value of placebo-controlled trials (and trials of antihypertensive drugs in particular). The disagreement also substantially affects the most viable alternative to placebo-controlled trials: actively controlled equivalence/noninferiority trials. To a great extent, this situation was prompted by numerous previous trials of this type that were marked by fundamental methodological flaws and consequent false claims, inconsistencies, and potential harm to patients. As the development and use of generic drugs continue to escalate, along with concurrent pressure to control medical costs by substituting less-expensive therapies for established ones, any claim that a new drug, intervention, or therapy is "equivalent" to another should not be accepted without close scrutiny. Adherence to proper methods in conducting studies of equivalence will help investigators to avoid false claims and inconsistencies. These matters will be addressed in the third article of this three-part series

Recent developments in multiple sclerosis therapeutics

Multiple sclerosis, the most common neurologic disorder of young adults, is traditionally considered to be an inflammatory, autoimmune, demyelinating disease of the central nervous system. Based on this understanding, the initial therapeutic strategies were directed at immune modulation and inflammation control. These approaches, including high-dose corticosteroids for acute relapses and long-term use of parenteral interferon-β, glatiramer acetate or natalizumab for disease modification, are at best moderately effective. Growing evidence supports that, while an inflammatory pathology characterizes the early relapsing stage of multiple sclerosis, neurodegenerative pathology dominates the later progressive stage of the disease. Multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies currently in development attempt to specifically target the underlying pathology at each stage of the disease, while avoiding frequent self-injection. These include a variety of oral medications and monoclonal antibodies to reduce inflammation in relapsing multiple sclerosis and agents intended to promote neuroprotection and neurorepair in progressive multiple sclerosis. Although newer therapies for relapsing MS have the potential to be more effective and easier to administer than current therapies, they also carry greater risks. Effective treatments for progressive multiple sclerosis are still being sought

Neutralizing antibodies explain the poor clinical response to Interferon beta in a small proportion of patients with Multiple Sclerosis: a retrospective study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against Interferon beta (IFNβ) are reported to be associated with poor clinical response to therapy in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. We aimed to quantify the contribution of NAbs to the sub-optimal response of IFNβ treatment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We studied the prevalence of NAbs in MS patients grouped according to their clinical response to IFNβ during the treatment period. Patients were classified as: group A, developing ≥ 1 relapse after the first 6 months of therapy; group B, exhibiting confirmed disability progression after the first 6 months of therapy, with or without superimposed relapses; group C, presenting a stable disease course during therapy. A cytopathic effect assay tested the presence of NAbs in a cohort of ambulatory MS patients treated with one of the available IFNβ formulations for at least one year. NAbs positivity was defined as NAbs titre ≥ 20 TRU.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seventeen patients (12.1%) were NAbs positive. NAbs positivity correlated with poorer clinical response (<it>p </it>< 0.04). As expected, the prevalence of NAbs was significantly lower in Group C (2.1%) than in Group A (17.0%) and Group B (17.0%). However, in the groups of patients with a poor clinical response (A, B), NAbs positivity was found only in a small proportion of patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The majority of patients with poor clinical response are NAbs negative suggesting that NAbs explains only partially the sub-optimal response to IFNβ.</p