Safety, Patient-Reported Well-Being, and Physician-Reported Assessment of Walking Ability in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis for Prolonged-Release Fampridine Treatment in Routine Clinical Practice: Results of the LIBERATE Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Prolonged-release fampridine (PR-FAM) 10-mg tablet twice daily is the only approved pharmacological treatment for improvement of walking ability in adults with multiple sclerosis (MS). LIBERATE assessed the safety/effectiveness of PR-FAM in the real-world. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to collect additional safety data, including the incidence rate of seizures and other adverse events (AEs) of interest, from patients with MS taking PR-FAM in routine clinical practice (including patients aged ≥ 65 years and those with pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors). Other objectives included change over time in patient-reported evaluation of physical and psychological impact of MS while taking PR-FAM, and change over time in physician-reported assessment of walking ability in MS patients taking PR-FAM. METHODS: Patients with MS newly prescribed PR-FAM were recruited (201 sites, 13 countries). Demographic/safety data were collected at enrolment through 12 months. Physician-rated Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) scores for walking ability, and Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29) were assessed. RESULTS: Safety analysis included 4646 patients with 3534.8 patient-years of exposure; median (range) age, 52.6 (21-85) years, 87.3% < 65 years, and 65.7% women. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were reported in 2448 (52.7%) patients, and serious TEAEs were reported in 279 (6.0%) patients, of whom 37 (< 1%) experienced treatment-emergent serious AEs (TESAEs) considered related to PR-FAM. AEs of special interest (AESI) occurred in 1799 (38.7%) patients, and serious AESI in 128 (2.8%) patients. Seventeen (< 1%) patients experienced actual events of seizure. Overall, 1158 (24.9%) patients discontinued treatment due to lack of efficacy. At 12 months, a greater proportion of patients on-treatment had improvement from baseline in CGI-I for walking ability versus those who discontinued (61% vs. 11%; p < 0.001). MSIS-29 physical impact score improved significantly for patients on-treatment for 12 months versus those who discontinued (mean change, baseline to 12 months: - 9.99 vs. - 0.34 points; p < 0.001). Results were similar for MSIS-29 psychological impact. CONCLUSION: No new safety concerns were identified in this real-world study, suggesting that routine risk-minimization measures are effective. CGI-I and MSIS-29 scores after 12 months treatment with PR-FAM treatment show clinical benefits consistent with those previously reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01480063.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».