Long-Term Safety and Effectiveness of Dimethyl Fumarate in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis Treated in Routine Medical Practice: Final Analysis of the ESTEEM Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) has demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in clinical and real-world studies. The ESTEEM study (NCT02047097) was conducted to assess the long-term safety and effectiveness of delayed-release DMF in patients with relapsing forms of MS in routine clinical practice. We report final outcomes from ESTEEM with up to 6.5 years of follow-up. METHODS: Patients newly prescribed DMF were recruited from 393 sites globally. The primary objective was to assess the incidence and type of serious adverse events (SAEs) and adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation of DMF. Secondary objectives included assessment of DMF effectiveness on annualized relapse rate (ARR) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: Overall, 5124 patients received ≥ 1 dose of DMF. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) age at enrollment was 40.0 (11.2) years; 74% of patients were female. Patients received DMF for a mean (SD) duration of 31.0 (22.7) months. Primary reasons for discontinuation were AEs (n = 1237; 24%); the most common were gastrointestinal AEs (n = 469; 9%), blood and lymphatic disorders (n = 218; 4%), and vascular disorders (n = 200; 4%). SAEs occurred in 391 (8%) patients, most commonly infections and infestations (n = 102; 2%). Adjusted ARR declined by 90% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 90-91%; p < 0.0001), from 0.81 (95% CI 0.79-0.84) 12 months before enrollment to 0.08 (95% CI 0.08-0.09) 6 years after enrollment. The estimated proportion of patients free from confirmed disability progression sustained over 48 weeks was 87.0% at month 60. Mean scores for physical and psychological impact, fatigue, health, and productivity remained stable over 5 years. CONCLUSION: DMF demonstrated a safety profile in real-world clinical practice consistent with the known profile of DMF. Relapse rates were low and both ARR and PROs remained stable over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02047097.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".