Durelli Luca
Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
J Neurol. 2003 Dec;250 Suppl 4:IV9-IV14. doi: 10.1007/s00415-003-1403-7.
Three different interferon beta (IFN beta) products are currently approved for the treatment of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). However, the recommended method of administration, the dosage and the frequency of administration differ widely between each of the three products. Although controlled clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of both alternate-day IFN beta-1b (Betaferon/Betaseron) and once-weekly IFN beta-1a (Avonex) compared with placebo, it is likely that patient compliance, efficacy and tolerability are affected by the dosage regimen used. There are several issues to consider. Once-weekly administration may be associated with fewer adverse events and greater convenience, and it has been suggested that this may increase compliance. Conversely, frequent administration may be associated with increased overall efficacy. There is a convincing pharmacological rationale indicating that frequent dosing, with an interval of less than 72 h, is necessary to sustain the activity of intracellular molecular signalling pathways responsible for regulating IFN beta-induced gene expression. However, there was a need to explore the overall effectiveness of the two administration protocols in a comparative trial. The INCOMIN (Independent Comparison of Interferon) study compared clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) efficacy of IFN beta-1b 250 microg (8 MIU) subcutaneously (s.c.) on alternate days and IFN beta-1a 30 microg (6 MIU) intramuscularly (i.m.) once weekly in patients with RRMS. INCOMIN demonstrated convincingly that clinical and MRI outcome measures were significantly better in the IFN beta-1b-treated group. Blinded MRI evaluation confirmed the clinical results. Despite some limitations of the study design, imposed by the ethical and practical challenges of conducting comparative trials of injectable therapies, the concordance of the clinical and MRI findings indicate that frequently administered IFN beta-1b reduced evidence of disease activity more effectively than once-weekly administered IFN beta-1a, with the clinical benefits for patients becoming more pronounced over time. Given that the response to IFN beta appears to be dose dependent, the question that might be asked is whether greater efficacy can be obtained by increasing doses beyond those currently approved. OPTIMS (Optimization of Interferon dose for MS) is currently examining the safety and efficacy of a dose of IFN beta-1b that is higher than any currently marketed IFN beta. While OPTIMS is still underway, preliminary safety analyses indicate that higher doses are well tolerated.
目前有三种不同的β-干扰素(IFNβ)产品被批准用于治疗复发缓解型多发性硬化症(RRMS)患者。然而,这三种产品在推荐给药方法、剂量和给药频率上差异很大。尽管对照临床试验已证明隔日皮下注射250μg(8MIU)的IFNβ-1b(倍泰龙)和每周一次肌肉注射30μg(6MIU)的IFNβ-1a(阿沃尼)与安慰剂相比均有效,但所用给药方案可能会影响患者的依从性、疗效和耐受性。有几个问题需要考虑。每周一次给药可能与较少的不良事件和更大的便利性相关,有人认为这可能会提高依从性。相反,频繁给药可能与总体疗效增加相关。有令人信服的药理学依据表明,间隔小于72小时的频繁给药对于维持负责调节IFNβ诱导基因表达的细胞内分子信号通路的活性是必要的。然而,有必要在一项对比试验中探讨这两种给药方案的总体有效性。INCOMIN(干扰素独立对比)研究比较了RRMS患者隔日皮下注射250μg(8MIU)的IFNβ-1b和每周一次肌肉注射30μg(6MIU)的IFNβ-1a的临床和磁共振成像(MRI)疗效。INCOMIN令人信服地证明,IFNβ-1b治疗组的临床和MRI结果指标明显更好。盲法MRI评估证实了临床结果。尽管研究设计存在一些局限性,这些局限性是由进行注射疗法对比试验的伦理和实际挑战所导致的,但临床和MRI结果的一致性表明,频繁给药的IFNβ-1b比每周一次给药的IFNβ-1a更有效地降低了疾病活动的证据,随着时间的推移,对患者的临床益处变得更加明显。鉴于对IFNβ的反应似乎呈剂量依赖性,可能会问的问题是,超过目前批准的剂量增加剂量是否能获得更高的疗效。OPTIMS(MS干扰素剂量优化)目前正在研究高于任何目前上市的IFNβ剂量的IFNβ-1b的安全性和疗效。虽然OPTIMS仍在进行中,但初步安全性分析表明高剂量耐受性良好。