Teriflunomide added to interferon-β in relapsing multiple sclerosis: a randomized phase II trial. Randomized trial of oral teriflunomide for relapsing multiple sclerosis. The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in solid organ transplantation. Multicentre, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, phase III study of weekly, low dose, subcutaneous interferon beta-1a in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Benefit of interferon beta-1a on MSFC progression in secondary progressive MS. Interferon-alpha2a reduces MRI disease activity in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Norwegian Study Group on Interferon-alpha in Multiple Sclerosis. Evaluation of a MS specialist nurse programme. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. The quality of randomized controlled trials in major anesthesiology journals. Effects of a short outpatient rehabilitation treatment on disability of multiple sclerosis patients--a randomised controlled trial.
To evaluate teriflunomide as add-on therapy to ongoing stable-dosed interferon-β (IFNβ) in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (RMS).
                A total of 118 patients with RMS were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive oral placebo or teriflunomide, 7 or 14 mg, once daily for 24 weeks; 86 patients entered the 24-week extension. The primary objective was to evaluate safety; secondary objectives were to evaluate the effects of treatment on disease activity assessed by MRI and relapse rate.
                Teriflunomide was well tolerated with a low and similar incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) across the 3 groups; TEAEs led to treatment discontinuation of 4.9%, 8.1%, and 7.9% of patients in the placebo, 7-mg, and 14-mg groups, respectively. The number of gadolinium-enhancing T1 (T1-Gd) lesions was reduced in both teriflunomide groups, with relative risk reductions (RRRs) of 84.6% (p = 0.0005) and 82.8% (p < 0.0001) for 7 and 14 mg, respectively, compared with IFNβ alone at 48 weeks. T1-Gd lesion volume was also reduced in the 7-mg group (RRR 72.1%, p = 0.1104) and 14-mg group (RRR 70.6%, p = 0.0154). A trend toward dose-dependent reduction in annualized relapse rate was also noted (RRRs 32.6% [p = 0.4355] and 57.9% [p = 0.1005] for 7 and 14 mg, respectively).
                Teriflunomide as add-on therapy to IFNβ had acceptable safety and tolerability and reduced MRI disease activity compared with IFNβ alone. Classification of evidence: This study provides Class II evidence that teriflunomide, 7 and 14 mg, added to IFNβ, is safe. The T1-Gd lesion burden was significantly reduced with both teriflunomide doses. Teriflunomide is a new oral disease-modifying therapy for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis.
                We concluded a randomized trial involving 1088 patients with multiple sclerosis, 18 to 55 years of age, with a score of 0 to 5.5 on the Expanded Disability Status Scale and at least one relapse in the previous year or at least two relapses in the previous 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) to placebo, 7 mg of teriflunomide, or 14 mg of teriflunomide once daily for 108 weeks. The primary end point was the annualized relapse rate, and the key secondary end point was confirmed progression of disability for at least 12 weeks.
                Teriflunomide reduced the annualized relapse rate (0.54 for placebo vs. 0.37 for teriflunomide at either 7 or 14 mg), with relative risk reductions of 31.2% and 31.5%, respectively (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). The proportion of patients with confirmed disability progression was 27.3% with placebo, 21.7% with teriflunomide at 7 mg (P=0.08), and 20.2% with teriflunomide at 14 mg (P=0.03). Both teriflunomide doses were superior to placebo on a range of end points measured by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Diarrhea, nausea, and hair thinning were more common with teriflunomide than with placebo. The incidence of elevated alanine aminotransferase levels (≥1 times the upper limit of the normal range) was higher with teriflunomide at 7 mg and 14 mg (54.0% and 57.3%, respectively) than with placebo (35.9%); the incidence of levels that were at least 3 times the upper limit of the normal range was similar in the lower- and higher-dose teriflunomide groups and the placebo group (6.3%, 6.7%, and 6.7%, respectively). Serious infections were reported in 1.6%, 2.5%, and 2.2% of patients in the three groups, respectively. No deaths occurred.
                Teriflunomide significantly reduced relapse rates, disability progression (at the higher dose), and MRI evidence of disease activity, as compared with placebo. (Funded by Sanofi-Aventis; TEMSO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00134563.). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions provide the highest level of evidence about efficacy but their value either alone or within a meta-analysis is dependent on its methodological quality. For this reason recent RCTs in organ transplantation were assessed for quality. RCTs published between 2004 and 2006 (n = 332) were assessed, after excluding duplicate and nonEnglish reports. Quality was evaluated using the Jadad score plus allocation concealment and intention to treat analysis. We noted journal type, journal author instructions, funding source, sample size and number and location of study centres. Around one-third of RCTs had a Jadad score of 3 or greater (indication of a methodologically good quality trial) and the other two parameters were satisfied in just over one third. Although the majority of trials were published in speciality journals the quality of those published in general journals was superior. Commercially sponsored trials were of better quality as were multicentre trials in contrast to single centre trials. Overall quality of reporting of RCTs in organ transplantation is poor and as RCTs provide the highest level of evidence in evaluations of interventions there needs to be a concerted effort within the transplant community to improve the standards of RCTs. Interferon (IFN) beta has repeatedly shown benefit in multiple sclerosis (MS) in reducing the rate of relapse, the disease activity as shown with magnetic resonance imaging and, to some degree, the progression of disability; however, it is unknown how much the therapeutic response depends on the dose, the subgroup involved, and the disease stage. This multicentre, double blind, placebo controlled study explored the dose-response curve by examining the clinical benefit of low dose IFN beta-1a (Rebif), 22 micro g subcutaneously once weekly, in patients with secondary progressive MS.
                A total of 371 patients with clinically definite SPMS were randomised to receive either placebo or subcutaneous IFN beta-1a, 22 micro g once weekly, for 3 years. Clinical assessments were performed every 6 months. The primary outcome was time to sustained disability, as defined by time to first confirmed 1.0 point increase on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Secondary outcomes included a sensitive disability measure and relapse rate.
                Treatment had no beneficial effect on time to confirmed progression on either the EDSS (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.57; p = 0.45 for 22 micro g v placebo) or the Regional Functional Status Scale (HR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.28; p = 0.67). Other disability measures were also not significantly affected by treatment. Annual relapse rate was 0.27 with placebo and 0.25 with IFN (rate ratio = 0.90; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.27; p = 0.55). The drug was well tolerated with no new safety concerns identified. No significant gender differences were noted.
                This patient population was less clinically active than SPMS populations studied in other trials. Treatment with low dose, IFN beta-1a (Rebif) once weekly did not show any benefit in this study for either disability or relapse outcomes, including a subgroup with preceding relapses. These results add a point at one extreme of the dose-response spectrum of IFN beta therapy in MS, indicating that relapses in this phase may need treatment with higher doses than in the initial phases. Interferon beta-1a (IFNbeta-1a, Avonex) is efficacious in relapsing forms of MS. Studies of other IFNbeta preparations in secondary progressive MS (SPMS) yielded conflicting results. This study was undertaken to determine whether IFNbeta-1a slowed disease progression in SP-MS.
                A total of 436 subjects with SPMS and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score 3.5 to 6.5 were randomized to receive IFNbeta-1a (60 micro g) or placebo by weekly intramuscular injection for 2 years. The primary outcome measure, used for the first time in a large-scale MS trial, was baseline to month 24 change in the MS Functional Composite (MSFC), comprising quantitative tests of ambulation (Timed 25-Foot Walk), arm function (Nine-Hole Peg Test [9HPT]), and cognition (Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test [PASAT]).
                Median MSFC Z-score change was reduced 40.4% in IFNbeta-1a subjects (-0.096 vs -0.161 in placebo subjects, p = 0.033), an effect driven mainly by the 9HPT and PASAT. There was no discernible benefit on the EDSS, which in this range principally reflects walking ability. IFNbeta-1a subjects had 33% fewer relapses (p = 0.008). There was significant benefit on eight of 11 MS Quality of Life Inventory subscales. New or enlarging T2-hyperintense brain MRI lesions and gadolinium-enhancing lesions were reduced at months 12 and 24 (both p < 0.001). IFNbeta-1a was well tolerated by the majority of subjects. Neutralizing antibodies developed in 3.3% of IFNbeta-1a-treated subjects.
                IFNbeta-1a demonstrated benefit on MSFC progression, relapses, quality of life, and MRI activity in SPMS. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of interferon-alpha2a (IFN-alpha2a) in relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS).
                Several immune-modulating therapy regimens of IFN-alpha have shown varying results in MS. A recent pilot study suggested benefits from IFN-alpha2a.
                Ninety-seven patients were randomized to receive subcutaneous injections of placebo (33 patients) or 4.5 million international units (mIU) (32 patients) or 9.0 mIU (32 patients) of IFN-alpha2a three times weekly for 6 months, with a further 6 months of follow-up. Monthly gadodiamide-enhanced MRI was the primary method of evaluating efficacy.
                IFN-alpha2a treatment resulted in fewer new MRI lesions during the treatment period (p < 0.003). The probability of no new lesions during treatment was >2.5 times higher with 9.0 mIU IFN-alpha2a than with placebo (p < 0.005). The median number of lesions at the end of treatment was lower with IFN-alpha2a treatment than with placebo (p = 0.0004), but the difference disappeared during follow-up. The total number of lesions (mean) increased by 4.78 with placebo, 0.86 with 4.5 mIU IFN-alpha2a, and 0.28 with 9.0 mIU IFN-alpha2a during treatment (p = 0.030). No treatment effect on exacerbation rate, progression of disability, or quality of life was detected. Nine patients discontinued treatment, five because of adverse events.
                IFN-alpha2a treatment significantly reduced disease activity as measured by MRI, but the efficacy disappeared within 6 months after discontinuation of treatment. A long-term study of more patients using disability as a primary outcome measure is needed to evaluate the clinical impact. Specialist nurses are being promoted as a means of improving the health care provided to people with multiple sclerosis (MS).
                To identify the impact of a programme of MS specialist nurses on MS health care provision and on the health and well-being of people with MS.
                A quasi-experimental design comparing an intervention group in which new MS nurse posts were installed with a control group that had no MS nurse posts.
                Six neurological services in four English regions.
                Seven hundred and fifty-three of the 1510 people invited to participate returned completed questionnaires at baseline. Follow-up of participants was 82% with 616 patients participating in the main outcome analysis.
                Data were collected prospectively before the appointment of the MS nurses and then at 12 and 24 months. Data were collected via a postal questionnaire comprising questions related to care processes (information provision and care quality) and health outcome measures, hospital admissions, MS complications, health-related quality of life (SF36) and disease impact (MS Impact Scale-29). Analysis repeated measures in CAT MOD for process variables and ANCOVA to longest follow-up for outcome measures.
                Information provision was higher in the intervention group (68% (n=153) compared to 53% (n=98) at 24 months) but no significant improvement was observed in information provision through time compared to the control group. There was an increase in the availability of a contact person in the intervention group, at 24 months 83% (n=42) had a contact person compared to 44% in the control (p=0.01). The only significant finding in relation to MS complications was a reduction of 17% in the incidence of pressure ulcers in the intervention sites compared to a 3% reduction in the control (p<0.001). In relation to the disease and health-related quality of life measures, the intervention group showed a small but significant (p<0.05) worsening in the physical and symptom scales of the SF36 compared to the control (mean differences: physical function -2.81, CI -5.45 to -0.1; bodily pain -4.09, CI -7.2 to -0.9; general health -5.35, CI -8.1 to -2.5; and energy and vitality -2.82, CI -5.5 to -0.1). No differences were observed in relation to disease impact or psychosocial well-being, although a relative benefit in mental health (with a 7.8 point advantage on the SF36 mental health scale, p=0.04) was observed in some of the intervention sites for people with relapsing/remitting MS.
                The specialist nurse programme was found to impact positively on the provision of MS-related health care. However, there was very limited evidence that the programme led to any improvements in disease-related problems, impact or health-related quality of life, These findings were in part explained by the inherent difficulties of measuring effects in evaluations of complex phenomena such as a nursing role. The deterioration observed in the intervention group on the physical outcome measures was explained by a selection bias in which people with worsening health were more likely to seek contact with a specialist nurse. It is contended that future research in this area may be better directed toward identifying specific interventions that nurses and other health professionals might employ in addressing the many problems confronting people with MS. Few meta-analyses of randomised trials assess the quality of the studies included. Yet there is increasing evidence that trial quality can affect estimates of intervention efficacy. We investigated whether different methods of quality assessment provide different estimates of intervention efficacy evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
                We randomly selected 11 meta-analyses that involved 127 RCTs on the efficacy of interventions used for circulatory and digestive diseases, mental health, and pregnancy and childbirth. We replicated all the meta-analyses using published data from the primary studies. The quality of reporting of all 127 clinical trials was assessed by means of component and scale approaches. To explore the effects of quality on the quantitative results, we examined the effects of different methods of incorporating quality scores (sensitivity analysis and quality weights) on the results of the meta-analyses.
                The quality of trials was low. Masked assessments provided significantly higher scores than unmasked assessments (mean 2.74 [SD 1.10] vs 2.55 [1.20]). Low-quality trials (score < or = 2), compared with high-quality trials (score > 2), were associated with an increased estimate of benefit of 34% (ratio of odds ratios [ROR] 0.66 [95% CI 0.52-0.83]). Trials that used inadequate allocation concealment, compared with those that used adequate methods, were also associated with an increased estimate of benefit (37%; ROR=0.63 [0.45-0.88]). The average treatment benefit was 39% (odds ratio [OR] 0.61 [0.57-0.65]) for all trials, 52% (OR 0.48 [0.43-0.54]) for low-quality trials, and 29% (OR 0.71 [0.65-0.77]) for high-quality trials. Use of all the trial scores as quality weights reduced the effects to 35% (OR 0.65 [0.59-0.71]) and resulted in the least statistical heterogeneity.
                Studies of low methodological quality in which the estimate of quality is incorporated into the meta-analyses can alter the interpretation of the benefit of intervention, whether a scale or component approach is used in the assessment of trial quality. Specific features of trial quality may be associated with exaggeration or shrinking of the observed treatment effect in randomized studies. Therefore, assessment of trial quality is often used in meta-analysis. However, the degree to which specific quality measures are associated with treatment effects has not been well established across a broad range of clinical areas.
                To determine if quality measures are associated with treatment effect size in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
                Quality measures from published quality assessment scales were evaluated in RCTs included in meta-analyses from 4 medical areas (cardiovascular disease, infectious disease, pediatrics, and surgery). Included meta-analyses incorporated at least 6 RCTs, examined dichotomous outcomes, and demonstrated significant between-study heterogeneity in the odds ratio (OR) scale.
                Relative ORs comparing overall treatment effect (summary OR) of high vs low-quality studies, as determined by each quality measure, with relative ORs less than 1 indicating larger treatment effect in low-quality studies.
                Twenty-four quality measures were analyzed for 276 RCTs from 26 meta-analyses. Relative ORs of high vs low-quality studies for these quality measures ranged from 0.83 to 1.26; none was statistically significantly associated with treatment effect. The proportion of studies fulfilling specific quality measures varied widely in the 4 medical areas. In analyses limited to specific medical areas, placebo control, multicenter studies, study country, caregiver blinding, and statistical methods were significantly associated with treatment effect on 7 occasions. These relative ORs ranged from 0.40 to 1.74. However, the directions of these associations were not consistent.
                Individual quality measures are not reliably associated with the strength of treatment effect across studies and medical areas. Although use of specific quality measures may be appropriate in specific well-defined areas in which there is pertinent evidence, findings of associations with treatment effect cannot be generalized to all clinical areas or meta-analyses. Increased attention has been directed at the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and how they are being reported. We examined leading anesthesiology journals to identify if there were specific areas for improvement in the design and analysis of published clinical studies. All RCTs that appeared between January 2000 and December 2000 in leading anesthesiology journals (Anesthesiology,Anesthesia & Analgesia,Anaesthesia, and Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia) were retrieved by a MEDLINE search. We used a previously validated assessment tool, including 14 items associated with study quality, to determine a quality score for each article. The overall mean weighted quality score was 44% +/- 16%. Overall average scores were relatively high for appropriate controls (77% +/- 7%) and discussions of side effects (67% +/- 6%). Scores were very low for randomization blinding (5% +/- 2%), blinding observers to results (1% +/- 1%), and post-beta estimates (16% +/- 13%). Important pretreatment clinical predictors were absent in 32% of all studies. Significant improvement in the reporting and conduct of RCTs is required and should focus on randomization methodology, the blinding of investigators, and sample size estimates. Repeat assessments of the literature may improve the adoption of guidelines for the improvement of the quality of randomized controlled trials. It is well known that neurorehabilitation can reduce disability or improve handicap of people with multiple sclerosis (MS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a short period (6 weeks) of a tailored, individualised outpatient rehabilitation program in people with progressive MS. A randomised-controlled trial was undertaken in patients with primary and secondary progressive MS referred to the Centro Sclerosi Multipla of Catania. One hundred and eleven patients were assessed at baseline and at 12 weeks with validated measures of disability (Functional Independence Measure (FIM)) and impairment (Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and Functional Systems Scale). Of the 111, 58 were randomly assigned to the treatment group and 53 to the control group. All patients had been previously trained in a home exercise program. Both groups were well matched for age, sex, disease duration and severity, disability and quality of life (Short Form-36). At the end of 6 weeks patients allocated to the rehabilitation treatment group showed significant improvement in their level of disability compared with the control group,while the level of impairment did not change. Thirty-two patients of the treatment group and four of the control group improved on the FIM by two or more steps at 12 weeks (p<0.0001). An improvement by 1 EDSS step occurred in only two patients of the treatment group and in one patient of the control group. Benefits were maintained for a further six weeks. This study demonstrates that a short outpatient rehabilitation treatment improves disability of MS patients, without changing their impairment and confirms the effectiveness of rehabilitation in people with MS.
We found low-level evidence for the use of teriflunomide as a disease-modifying therapy for MS, due to the limited quality of the available RCTs. We did not conduct meta-analysis because of the clinical and methodological diversity of the included studies. Short-term teriflunomide, 7 or 14 mg alone or with add-on IFN-β, was safe for patients with relapsing MS. Both teriflunomide 7 and 14 mg alone had potential benefits for patients with relapsing forms of MS. We are waiting for the publication of ongoing trials. RCTs with high methodological quality and longer periods of observation are needed to assess safety, disability progression, neuroprotection and quality of life.