Adverse effects of immunotherapies for multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease of the central nervous system that affects mainly young adults (two to three times more frequently in women than in men) and causes significant disability after onset. Although it is accepted that immunotherapies for people with MS decrease disease activity, uncertainty regarding their relative safety remains. OBJECTIVES: To compare adverse effects of immunotherapies for people with MS or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), and to rank these treatments according to their relative risks of adverse effects through network meta-analyses (NMAs). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, two other databases and trials registers up to March 2022, together with reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included participants 18 years of age or older with a diagnosis of MS or CIS, according to any accepted diagnostic criteria, who were included in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined one or more of the agents used in MS or CIS, and compared them versus placebo or another active agent. We excluded RCTs in which a drug regimen was compared with a different regimen of the same drug without another active agent or placebo as a control arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods for data extraction and pairwise meta-analyses. For NMAs, we used the netmeta suite of commands in R to fit random-effects NMAs assuming a common between-study variance. We used the CINeMA platform to GRADE the certainty of the body of evidence in NMAs. We considered a relative risk (RR) of 1.5 as a non-inferiority safety threshold compared to placebo. We assessed the certainty of evidence for primary outcomes within the NMA according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate or high. MAIN RESULTS: This NMA included 123 trials with 57,682 participants. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Reporting of SAEs was available from 84 studies including 5696 (11%) events in 51,833 (89.9%) participants out of 57,682 participants in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of SAEs, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 18 additional people would have a SAE compared to placebo. Low-certainty evidence suggested that three drugs may decrease SAEs compared to placebo (relative risk [RR], 95% confidence interval [CI]): interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (0.78, 0.66 to 0.94); dimethyl fumarate (0.79, 0.67 to 0.93), and glatiramer acetate (0.84, 0.72 to 0.98). Several drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo: moderate-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.08, 0.88 to 1.31); low-certainty evidence for ocrelizumab (0.85, 0.67 to 1.07), ozanimod (0.88, 0.59 to 1.33), interferon beta-1b (0.94, 0.78 to 1.12), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (0.96, 0.80 to 1.15), natalizumab (0.97, 0.79 to 1.19), fingolimod (1.05, 0.92 to 1.20) and laquinimod (1.06, 0.83 to 1.34); very low-certainty evidence for daclizumab (0.83, 0.68 to 1.02). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the other drugs: low-certainty evidence for cladribine (1.10, 0.79 to 1.52), siponimod (1.20, 0.95 to 1.51), ofatumumab (1.26, 0.88 to 1.79) and rituximab (1.01, 0.67 to 1.52); very low-certainty evidence for immunoglobulins (1.05, 0.33 to 3.32), diroximel fumarate (1.05, 0.23 to 4.69), peg-interferon beta-1a (1.07, 0.66 to 1.74), alemtuzumab (1.16, 0.85 to 1.60), interferons (1.62, 0.21 to 12.72) and azathioprine (3.62, 0.76 to 17.19). Withdrawals due to adverse events Reporting of withdrawals due to AEs was available from 105 studies (85.4%) including 3537 (6.39%) events in 55,320 (95.9%) patients out of 57,682 patients in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of withdrawals, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 31 additional people would withdraw compared to placebo. No drug reduced withdrawals due to adverse events when compared with placebo. There was very low-certainty evidence (meaning that estimates are not reliable) that two drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo, assuming an upper 95% CI RR limit of 1.5: diroximel fumarate (0.38, 0.11 to 1.27) and alemtuzumab (0.63, 0.33 to 1.19). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the following drugs: low-certainty evidence for ofatumumab (1.50, 0.87 to 2.59); very low-certainty evidence for methotrexate (0.94, 0.02 to 46.70), corticosteroids (1.05, 0.16 to 7.14), ozanimod (1.06, 0.58 to 1.93), natalizumab (1.20, 0.77 to 1.85), ocrelizumab (1.32, 0.81 to 2.14), dimethyl fumarate (1.34, 0.96 to 1.86), siponimod (1.63, 0.96 to 2.79), rituximab (1.63, 0.53 to 5.00), cladribine (1.80, 0.89 to 3.62), mitoxantrone (2.11, 0.50 to 8.87), interferons (3.47, 0.95 to 12.72), and cyclophosphamide (3.86, 0.45 to 33.50). Eleven drugs may have increased withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo: low-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.37, 1.01 to 1.85), glatiramer acetate (1.76, 1.36 to 2.26), fingolimod (1.79, 1.40 to 2.28), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (2.15, 1.58 to 2.93), daclizumab (2.19, 1.31 to 3.65) and interferon beta-1b (2.59, 1.87 to 3.77); very low-certainty evidence for laquinimod (1.42, 1.01 to 2.00), interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (1.54, 1.13 to 2.10), immunoglobulins (1.87, 1.01 to 3.45), peg-interferon beta-1a (3.46, 1.44 to 8.33) and azathioprine (6.95, 2.57 to 18.78); however, very low-certainty evidence is unreliable. Sensitivity analyses including only studies with low attrition bias, drug dose above the group median, or only patients with relapsing remitting MS or CIS, and subgroup analyses by prior disease-modifying treatments did not change these figures. Rankings No drug yielded consistent P scores in the upper quartile of the probability of being better than others for primary and secondary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found mostly low and very low-certainty evidence that drugs used to treat MS may not increase SAEs, but may increase withdrawals compared with placebo. The results suggest that there is no important difference in the occurrence of SAEs between first- and second-line drugs and between oral, injectable, or infused drugs, compared with placebo. Our review, along with other work in the literature, confirms poor-quality reporting of adverse events from RCTs of interventions. At the least, future studies should follow the CONSORT recommendations about reporting harm-related issues. To address adverse effects, future systematic reviews should also include non-randomized studies.

Training on adequate use of opioid analgesics in West and Central Africa: a neglected step on the way to access to essential medicines?

Alleviating acute and chronic pain is a moral imperative for health professionals and health systems, and it requires adequate access to and use of essential opioid analgesics. However, this is still a neglected issue in global health, with striking inequalities in opioids availability between high and low- and middle-income countries. Countries most affected by lack of access are those with a fragile political situation and weak regulatory and healthcare systems. The main threats to accessibility, availability and affordability are situated at different levels: legislation and policy, financing, knowledge and cultural behavior, erroneous beliefs, and training and education. Among these threats, the lack of (adequate) training and education seems to be a cross-cutting issue. Exploring the current body of knowledge about training and educational activities related to use of opioid analgesics and palliative care, is helpful to understand gaps and to delineate priorities for setting up adequate interventions. When applied to West and Central Africa, this exercise reveals that there is little information (easily) available in the public domain. The African Palliative Care Association (APCA) appears to be the leading provider of capacity building activities in this region for key stakeholders, including national authorities, healthcare professionals and the general population; it is also very active in publishing and communicating about these issues. However, apart from APCA, there is little information on training programs' contents and long-term outcomes. Furthermore, trainings rarely target important stakeholders such as lawmakers, regulators, supply officers and the lay public (i.e., patients, caregivers, community leaders and members of the society as a whole). Hence, it is urgent to fill the existing gaps in training and educational activities to improve access to essential opioid analgesics in West and Central Africa, involving different stakeholders at the national and regional level. Furthermore, such experiences should be published and made publicly available to allow for mutual learning and further upscale.

The influence of fish farm activity on the social structure of the common bottlenose dolphin in Sardinia (Italy).

In a wide variety of habitats, including some heavily urbanised areas, the adaptability of populations of common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) may depend on the social structure dynamics. Nonetheless, the way in which these adaptations take place is still poorly understood. In the present study we applied photo-identification techniques to investigate the social structure of the common bottlenose dolphin population inhabiting the Gulf of Alghero (Sardinia, Italy), analysing data recorded from 2008 to 2019. The social structure analysis showed a division of the entire population into five different communities and the presence of non-random associations, while there was no evidence of segregation between sexes. Furthermore, results highlighted an important change in social structure through time, likely due to a reduction in fish farm activity since 2015. The division of the population into different communities, the presence of segregation based on the foraging strategy (inside or outside the fish farm area) and the social network measures were evaluated by analysing independently the two datasets: the intense and low farm activity periods: 2008-2014 and 2015-2020, respectively. Segregation among individuals belonging to the same foraging strategy class was found only in the earlier period, and the composition of the four communities was consistent with this result. Our study improves the knowledge about bottlenose dolphin adaptation, as a lower complexity in social structure was linked to a reduction in anthropogenic food availability.

Interferons-beta versus glatiramer acetate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Interferons-beta (IFNs-beta) and glatiramer acetate (GA) were the first two disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) approved 20 years ago for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). DMTs' prescription rates as first or switching therapies and their costs have both increased substantially over the past decade. As more DMTs become available, the choice of a specific DMT should reflect the risk/benefit profile, as well as the impact on quality of life. As MS cohorts enrolled in different studies can vary significantly, head-to-head trials are considered the best approach for gaining objective reliable data when two different drugs are compared. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarise available evidence on the comparative effectiveness of IFNs-beta and GA on disease course through the analysis of head-to-head trials.This is an update of the Cochrane review 'Interferons-beta versus glatiramer acetate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis' (first published in the Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 7). OBJECTIVES: To assess whether IFNs-beta and GA differ in terms of safety and efficacy in the treatment of people with relapsing-remitting (RR) MS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Trials Register of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group (08 August 2016) and the reference lists of retrieved articles. We contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing directly IFNs-beta versus GA in study participants affected by RRMS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials were included and five trials contributed to this review with data. A total of 2904 participants were randomly assigned to IFNs (1704) and GA (1200). The treatment duration was three years for one study, two years for the other four RCTs while one study was stopped early (after one year). The IFNs analysed in comparison with GA were IFN-beta 1b 250 mcg (two trials, 933 participants), IFN-beta 1a 44 mcg (three trials, 466 participants) and IFN-beta 1a 30 mcg (two trials, 305 participants). Enrolled participants were affected by active RRMS. All studies were at high risk for attrition bias. Three trials are still ongoing, one of them completed.Both therapies showed similar clinical efficacy at 24 months, given the primary outcome variables (number of participants with relapse (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.24) or progression (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.35). However at 36 months, evidence from a single study suggests that relapse rates were higher in the group given IFNs than in the GA group (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.74, P value 0.002).Secondary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes analysis showed that effects on new or enlarging T2- or new contrast-enhancing T1 lesions at 24 months were similar (mean difference (MD) -0.15, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.39, and MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.02, respectively). However, the reduction in T2- and T1-weighted lesion volume was significantly greater in the groups given IFNs than in the GA groups (MD -0.58, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.18, P value 0.004, and MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.07, P value 0.003, respectively).The number of participants who dropped out of the study because of adverse events was similar in the two groups (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.40).The quality of evidence for primary outcomes was judged as moderate for clinical end points, but for safety and some MRI outcomes (number of active T2 lesions), quality was judged as low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of IFNs-beta and GA in the treatment of people with RRMS, including clinical (e.g. people with relapse, risk to progression) and MRI (Gd-enhancing lesions) measures, seem to be similar or to show only small differences. When MRI lesion load accrual is considered, the effect of the two treatments differs, in that IFNs-beta were found to limit the increase in lesion burden as compared with GA. Evidence was insufficient for a comparison of the effects of the two treatments on patient-reported outcomes, such as quality-of-life measures.

Comparative efficacy of interferon ß versus glatiramer acetate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

Interferon ß (INFß) and glatiramer acetate (GA) are widely used in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). However, it is still unclear whether they have different efficacy. We performed a systematic search of head-to-head trials for gaining objective reliable data to compare the two drugs, using the Cochrane Collaboration methodology. We identified five randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) (2858 participants) comparing directly INFß versus GA in RRMS. All studies were at high risk for attrition bias. Both therapies showed similar efficacy at 24 months, considering clinical (patients with relapse or progression) and one MRI activity (enhancing lesions) measure. At 3 years, evidence from a single study showed that the relapse rate was higher in the INFß group than in the GA group (risk ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.74, p 0.002). However, the average reduction in T2-weighted and T1-weighted lesion volume was significantly greater in the INFß group than in the GA group (mean difference (MD) -0.58, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.18, p 0.004, and MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.07, p 0.003, respectively). The number of participants who dropped out of the studies because of adverse events was similar in the two groups. These data support clinicians in the use of these therapies, based on their similar safety and efficacy in the prevention of disease activity, although the different effect on MRI measures and the different tolerability might have a role in the therapeutic choice at the individual level.

Interferons-beta versus glatiramer acetate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Interferons (IFNs)-beta and glatiramer acetate (GA) were the first two disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) approved 15 years ago for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). DMTs prescription rates as first or switching therapies and their costs have increased substantially over the past decade. As more DMTs become available, the choice of a specific DMT should reflect the risk/benefit profile, as well as the impact on quality profile. As MS cohorts enrolled in different studies can vary significantly, head-to-head trials are considered the best approach for gaining objective reliable data when two different drugs are compared. The purpose of this study is to summarise available evidence on the comparative effectiveness of IFNs-beta and GA on disease course through a systematic review of head-to-head trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether IFNs-beta and GA differ in terms of safety and efficacy in the treatment of patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Trials Specialised Register of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group (29 October 2013) and the reference lists of retrieved articles. We contacted trialists and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing directly IFNs-beta versus GA in study participants affected by RRMS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials contributed to this review. A total of 2858 participants were randomly assigned to IFNs (1679) and GA (1179). The treatment duration was three years for one study and two years for the other four RCTs. The IFNs analysed in comparison with GA were IFN-beta 1b 250 mcg (two trials, 933 participants), IFN-beta 1a 44 mcg (two trials, 441 participants) and IFN-beta 1a 30 mcg (two trials, 305 participants). Enrolled participants were affected by active RRMS. All studies were at high risk for attrition bias.Both therapies showed similar clinical efficacy at 24 months, given the primary outcome variables (number of participants with relapse (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.24) or progression (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.35)). However at 36 months, evidence from a single study suggests that relapse rates were higher in the group given IFNs than in the GA group (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.7, P value 0.002).Secondary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes analysis showed that effects on new or enlarging T2- or gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing lesions at 24 months were similar (mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26, and MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.02, respectively). However, the reduction in T2- and T1-weighted lesion volume was significantly greater in the groups given IFNs than in the GA groups (MD -0.58, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.18, P value 0.004, and MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.07, P value 0.003, respectively).The number of participants who dropped out of the study because of adverse events was similar in the two groups (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.40).The quality of evidence for primary outcomes was judged as moderate for clinical end points, but for safety and some MRI outcomes (number of active T2 lesions), quality was judged as low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of IFNs-beta and GA in the treatment of patients with RRMS, including clinical (e.g. patients with relapse, risk to progression) and MRI (Gd-enhancing lesions) activity measures, seem to be similar or to show only small differences. When MRI lesion load accrual is considered, the effect of the two treatments differs, in that IFNs-beta were found to limit the increase in lesion burden as compared with GA. Evidence was insufficient for a comparison of the effects of the two treatments on patient-reported outcomes, such as quality of life measures.

Quality assessment of information about medications in primary care electronic patient record (EPR) systems.

BACKGROUND: Many different brands of primary care electronic patient record (EPR) software are available to general practitioners (GPs). Their ability to support GPs in improving prescribing varies greatly. OBJECTIVE: To assess, using a ten-item tool, the quality of drug information provided by EPR software to support the appropriateness of prescriptions and to propose a list of quality standards for this type of application. METHODS: The eight EPR programmes most used in general practice in Italy were assessed by a multidisciplinary team using the ten-item tool. The tool evaluated information on single drugs and drug safety and information on prescription rules in force. RESULTS: Out of eight EPR programmes assessed, none scored more than 55% of the maximum possible score. Two achieved scores higher than 50%, one scored 48%, four ranged from 32% to 39% and one obtained 22%. Information on drug safety, such as the ability to detect interactions, to monitor laboratory parameters or to get updated information on drug safety was particularly limited. None of the eight EPR programmes contained drug information for patients, but two of them contained drug advertising. CONCLUSIONS: This project highlighted the poor quality of drug information provided by these EPR programmes. The ten-item tool seems suitable for assessing their quality. Based on this analysis, we have proposed a set of ten quality standards for prescribing software.

Risk Management Plans: are they a tool for improving drug safety?

PURPOSE: In 2005, new European legislation authorised Regulatory Agencies to require drug companies to submit a risk management plan (RMP) comprising detailed commitments for post-marketing pharmacovigilance. The aim of the study is to describe the characteristics of RMP for 15 drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and their impact on post-marketing safety issues. METHODS: Of the 90 new Chemical Entities approved through a centralised procedure by the EMA during 2006 and 2007, 15 of them were selected and their safety aspects and relative RMPs analysed. All post-marketing communications released for safety reasons related to these drugs were also considered. RESULTS: A total of 157 safety specifications were established for the drugs assessed. Risk minimisation activities were foreseen for 5 drugs as training activities. Post-marketing safety issues emerged for 12 of them, leading to 39 type II variations in Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC). Nearly half of such variations, 19 (49%), concerned safety aspects not envisaged by the RMPs. Besides this, 9 Safety Communications were published for 6 out of 15 drugs assessed. CONCLUSION: The present study reveals several critical points on the way RMPs have been implemented. Several activities proposed by the RMPs do not appear to be adequate in dealing with the potential risks of drugs. Poor communication of risk to practitioners and to the public, and above all limited transparency for the total assessment of risk, seem to transform RMPs into a tool to reassure the public when inadequately evaluated drugs are granted premature marketing authorisation.