一项最新的系统综述和荟萃分析探讨了富马酸二甲酯(DMF)治疗多发性硬化症(MS)患者的疗效和安全性。

IF 2.1 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY BMJ Neurology Open Pub Date : 2024-12-18 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjno-2024-000872
Hossam Tharwat Ali, Amr Mahmoud Yousef, Sara Hosny El-Farargy, Ahmed Mohamed Abdelmonhem, Dalia Atef Abouda, Ahmed Mamdoh Mahmoud, Ammar Arafat Elsayed, Hazem Khaled Hassaan, Ahmed M Afifi
{"title":"一项最新的系统综述和荟萃分析探讨了富马酸二甲酯(DMF)治疗多发性硬化症(MS)患者的疗效和安全性。","authors":"Hossam Tharwat Ali, Amr Mahmoud Yousef, Sara Hosny El-Farargy, Ahmed Mohamed Abdelmonhem, Dalia Atef Abouda, Ahmed Mamdoh Mahmoud, Ammar Arafat Elsayed, Hazem Khaled Hassaan, Ahmed M Afifi","doi":"10.1136/bmjno-2024-000872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) is increasingly used in treating multiple sclerosis (MS) with controversial results of the safety and efficacy of different DMF doses. We aimed to systematically review the literature to examine the safety and efficacy of DMF for MS patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed Medline, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus databases and clinicaltrials.gov up to June 2023 for the published trials evaluating the use of DMF for MS in adults. All included studies were screened and abstracted independently by two authors. Efficacy and safety outcome measures were extracted. The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>10 studies including eight randomised controlled trials, one open-label and one single-arm before-after study with a total population size of 4278 patients were included. DMF group showed a statistically significant reduction in the proportion of relapses compared with the control group, (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: [0.41, 0.55], p<0.00001) with no statistical differences between 240 mg two times per day and three times a day doses. Furthermore, the DMF group had a significant reduction in Gd-enhanced lesions compared with control (MD=-1.53, 95% CI: [-1.91 to -1.41], p<0.00001). Our results showed a non-significant difference in adverse events that led to discontinuation of the study with an OR of 1.29 (95% CI: [0.98, 1.71], p value=0.07).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>DMF had significant efficacy and safety compared with the control, with no difference between the DMF doses. More studies with large sample sizes and longer follow-ups are needed to detect long-term safety and efficacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":52754,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Neurology Open","volume":"6 2","pages":"e000872"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11667417/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An updated systematic review and meta-analysis exploring the efficacy and safety of dimethyl fumarate (DMF) for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).\",\"authors\":\"Hossam Tharwat Ali, Amr Mahmoud Yousef, Sara Hosny El-Farargy, Ahmed Mohamed Abdelmonhem, Dalia Atef Abouda, Ahmed Mamdoh Mahmoud, Ammar Arafat Elsayed, Hazem Khaled Hassaan, Ahmed M Afifi\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjno-2024-000872\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) is increasingly used in treating multiple sclerosis (MS) with controversial results of the safety and efficacy of different DMF doses. We aimed to systematically review the literature to examine the safety and efficacy of DMF for MS patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed Medline, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus databases and clinicaltrials.gov up to June 2023 for the published trials evaluating the use of DMF for MS in adults. All included studies were screened and abstracted independently by two authors. Efficacy and safety outcome measures were extracted. The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>10 studies including eight randomised controlled trials, one open-label and one single-arm before-after study with a total population size of 4278 patients were included. DMF group showed a statistically significant reduction in the proportion of relapses compared with the control group, (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: [0.41, 0.55], p<0.00001) with no statistical differences between 240 mg two times per day and three times a day doses. Furthermore, the DMF group had a significant reduction in Gd-enhanced lesions compared with control (MD=-1.53, 95% CI: [-1.91 to -1.41], p<0.00001). Our results showed a non-significant difference in adverse events that led to discontinuation of the study with an OR of 1.29 (95% CI: [0.98, 1.71], p value=0.07).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>DMF had significant efficacy and safety compared with the control, with no difference between the DMF doses. More studies with large sample sizes and longer follow-ups are needed to detect long-term safety and efficacy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52754,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Neurology Open\",\"volume\":\"6 2\",\"pages\":\"e000872\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11667417/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Neurology Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjno-2024-000872\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Neurology Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjno-2024-000872","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:富马酸二甲酯(DMF)越来越多地用于治疗多发性硬化症(MS),但不同剂量DMF的安全性和有效性结果存在争议。我们的目的是系统地回顾文献,以检查DMF对MS患者的安全性和有效性。方法:我们检索PubMed Medline、Cochrane、Web of Science、Scopus数据库和clinicaltrials.gov,检索截至2023年6月已发表的评估成人MS使用DMF的试验。所有纳入的研究均由两位作者独立筛选和摘要。提取疗效和安全性指标。meta分析使用Review Manager 5.4进行。结果:纳入10项研究,包括8项随机对照试验,1项开放标签研究和1项单臂前后对照研究,总人群规模为4278例患者。DMF组与对照组相比,复发比例有统计学意义的降低,(OR: 0.47, 95% CI: [0.41, 0.55], p讨论:DMF与对照组相比,疗效和安全性均显著,剂量间无差异。需要更多的大样本量的研究和更长的随访来检测长期的安全性和有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
An updated systematic review and meta-analysis exploring the efficacy and safety of dimethyl fumarate (DMF) for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Background: Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) is increasingly used in treating multiple sclerosis (MS) with controversial results of the safety and efficacy of different DMF doses. We aimed to systematically review the literature to examine the safety and efficacy of DMF for MS patients.

Methods: We searched PubMed Medline, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus databases and clinicaltrials.gov up to June 2023 for the published trials evaluating the use of DMF for MS in adults. All included studies were screened and abstracted independently by two authors. Efficacy and safety outcome measures were extracted. The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4.

Results: 10 studies including eight randomised controlled trials, one open-label and one single-arm before-after study with a total population size of 4278 patients were included. DMF group showed a statistically significant reduction in the proportion of relapses compared with the control group, (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: [0.41, 0.55], p<0.00001) with no statistical differences between 240 mg two times per day and three times a day doses. Furthermore, the DMF group had a significant reduction in Gd-enhanced lesions compared with control (MD=-1.53, 95% CI: [-1.91 to -1.41], p<0.00001). Our results showed a non-significant difference in adverse events that led to discontinuation of the study with an OR of 1.29 (95% CI: [0.98, 1.71], p value=0.07).

Discussion: DMF had significant efficacy and safety compared with the control, with no difference between the DMF doses. More studies with large sample sizes and longer follow-ups are needed to detect long-term safety and efficacy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Neurology Open
BMJ Neurology Open Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
46
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
First validation of the novel Freiburg Neurointerventional Score purposely designed for use by emergency medical dispatchers for detecting anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion in patients with suspected stroke. Volume contracted state, mortality and functional outcomes in patients with acute ischaemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion. Spinal cord demyelination predicts neurological deterioration in patients with mild degenerative cervical myelopathy. Qualitative systematic review on the lived experience of functional neurological disorder. Acute therapeutic effects and pathophysiology of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis neuropathy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1