Department of Neurology, San Camillo-Forlanini Hospital, C.ne Gianicolense 87, 00152, Rome, Italy.
Department of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University, Viale dell'Università 30, 00185, Rome, Italy.
Neurotherapeutics. 2023 Sep;20(5):1275-1283. doi: 10.1007/s13311-023-01416-x. Epub 2023 Aug 1.
In the absence of head-to-head comparison trials, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of two largely prescribed oral platform disease-modifying treatments for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, namely, dimethyl fumarate (DMF) and teriflunomide (TRF). We searched scientific databases to identify real-world studies reporting a direct comparison of DMF versus TRF. We fitted inverse-variance weighted meta-analyses with random effects models to estimate the risk ratio (RR) of relapse, confirmed disability worsening (CDW), and treatment discontinuation. Quantitative synthesis was accomplished on 14 articles yielding 11,889 and 8133 patients treated with DMF and TRF, respectively, with a follow-up ranging from 1 to 2.8 years. DMF was slightly more effective than TRF in reducing the short-term relapse risk (RR = 0.92, p = 0.01). Meta-regression analyses showed that such between-arm difference tends to fade in studies including younger patients and a higher proportion of treatment-naïve subjects. There was no difference between DMF and TRF on the short-term risk of CDW (RR = 0.99, p = 0.69). The risk of treatment discontinuation was similar across the two oral drugs (RR = 1.02, p = 0.63), but it became slightly higher with DMF than with TRF (RR = 1.07, p = 0.007) after removing one study with a potential publication bias that altered the final pooled result, as also confirmed by a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis. Discontinuation due to side effects and adverse events was reported more frequently with DMF than with TRF. Our findings suggest that DMF is associated with a lower risk of relapses than TRF, with more nuanced differences in younger naïve patients. On the other hand, TRF is associated with a lower risk of treatment discontinuation for side effects and adverse events.
在缺乏头对头比较试验的情况下,我们旨在比较两种广泛应用于治疗复发缓解型多发性硬化症的口服药物平台的疗效,即富马酸二甲酯(DMF)和特立氟胺(TRF)。我们检索了科学数据库,以确定报告 DMF 与 TRF 直接比较的真实世界研究。我们采用逆方差加权荟萃分析和随机效应模型来估计复发、确认残疾加重(CDW)和停药的风险比(RR)。对 14 篇文章进行了定量综合分析,这些文章分别纳入了 11889 例和 8133 例接受 DMF 和 TRF 治疗的患者,随访时间为 1 至 2.8 年。DMF 在降低短期复发风险方面略优于 TRF(RR=0.92,p=0.01)。Meta 回归分析表明,在纳入年轻患者和更多初治患者的研究中,这种组间差异趋于减弱。DMF 和 TRF 在短期 CDW 风险方面无差异(RR=0.99,p=0.69)。两种口服药物的停药风险相似(RR=1.02,p=0.63),但在去除一项存在潜在发表偏倚的研究后,DMF 的停药风险略高于 TRF(RR=1.07,p=0.007),这一结果也通过逐一剔除敏感性分析得到了证实。因副作用和不良事件而停药的报告在 DMF 组更为常见。我们的研究结果表明,与 TRF 相比,DMF 与较低的复发风险相关,而在年轻的初治患者中存在更细微的差异。另一方面,TRF 与因副作用和不良事件停药的风险较低相关。