Objective: Achieving therapeutic goals in multiple sclerosis (MS) requires strict adherence to treatment schedules. This retrospective study analyzed persistence with, and adherence to, fingolimod compared with injectable/ infusible disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in patients with MS. Methods:Patients in the PharMetrics Plus TM US administrative claims database with at least one prescription for, or administration of, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate (GA), interferon (IFN), or natalizumab (index DMT) between October 1, 2010 and September 30, 2011 were included. Patients were naïve to index DMT (no claim in the previous 360 days) and had an MS diagnosis code within 360 days of the first index DMT prescription. Outcomes were persistence, risk of discontinuing index DMT (evaluated by a Cox proportional hazards model), adherence (measured using the medication possession ratio [MPR] and proportion of days covered [PDC] in patients with at least two index DMT prescriptions), and the risk of being non-adherent (MPR580% and PDC 580%, assessed using a logistic regression model). Results:The study included 3750 patients (fingolimod, n ¼ 889; GA, n ¼ 1233; any IFN, n ¼ 1341; natalizumab, n ¼ 287). Discontinuation rates (fingolimod, 27.9%; GA, 39.5%; IFN, 43.7%; natalizumab, 39.5%; all p50.001) and risk of discontinuation were significantly higher (hazard ratios vs fingolimod [95% confidence interval]: GA, 1.75 [1.49-2.07]; IFN, 2.01 [1.71-2.37]; natalizumab, 1.53 [1.22-1.91]) for patients receiving other DMTs compared with fingolimod. The risk of being non-adherent was also lower for patients in the fingolimod cohort than the other treatment cohorts, irrespective of whether nonadherence was defined as MPR580% (p50.05 for all) or PDC580% (p50.05 for GA and IFN). Limitations:As with all studies assessing real-world treatment patterns it is unclear if medications were used as prescribed. Conclusions:In a real-world setting, persistence with, and adherence to, oral fingolimod was higher than for injectable and infusible DMTs.

Rates of mortality and several comorbidities are higher in the MS versus non-MS cohort. Early recognition and management of comorbidities may reduce premature mortality and improve quality of life in patients with MS.

BackgroundApproximately one-third of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are unresponsive to, or intolerant of, interferon (IFN) therapy, prompting a switch to other disease-modifying therapies. Clinical outcomes of switching therapy are unknown. This retrospective study assessed differences in relapse rates among patients with MS switching from IFN to fingolimod or glatiramer acetate (GA) in a real-world setting.MethodsUS administrative claims data from the PharMetrics Plus™ database were used to identify patients with MS who switched from IFN to fingolimod or GA between October 1, 2010 and March 31, 2012. Patients were matched 1∶1 using propensity scores within strata (number of pre-index relapses) on demographic (e.g. age and gender) and disease (e.g. timing of pre-index relapse, comorbidities and symptoms) characteristics. A claims-based algorithm was used to identify relapses while patients were persistent with therapy over 360 days post-switch. Differences in both the probability of experiencing a relapse and the annualized relapse rate (ARR) while persistent with therapy were assessed.ResultsThe matched sample population contained 264 patients (n = 132 in each cohort). Before switching, 33.3% of patients in both cohorts had experienced at least one relapse. During the post-index persistence period, the proportion of patients with at least one relapse was lower in the fingolimod cohort (12.9%) than in the GA cohort (25.0%), and ARRs were lower with fingolimod (0.19) than with GA (0.51). Patients treated with fingolimod had a 59% lower probability of relapse (odds ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21–0.80; p = 0.0091) and 62% fewer relapses per year (rate ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.21–0.68; p = 0.0013) compared with those treated with GA.ConclusionsIn a real-world setting, patients with MS who switched from IFNs to fingolimod were significantly less likely to experience relapses than those who switched to GA.

BackgroundNetwork meta-analysis (NMA) is a methodology for indirectly comparing, and strengthening direct comparisons of two or more treatments for the management of disease by combining evidence from multiple studies. It is sometimes not possible to perform treatment comparisons as evidence networks restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may be disconnected. We propose a Bayesian NMA model that allows to include single-arm, before-and-after, observational studies to complete these disconnected networks. We illustrate the method with an indirect comparison of treatments for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH).MethodsOur method uses a random effects model for placebo improvements to include single-arm observational studies into a general NMA. Building on recent research for binary outcomes, we develop a covariate-adjusted continuous-outcome NMA model that combines individual patient data (IPD) and aggregate data from two-arm RCTs with the single-arm observational studies. We apply this model to a complex comparison of therapies for PAH combining IPD from a phase-III RCT of imatinib as add-on therapy for PAH and aggregate data from RCTs and single-arm observational studies, both identified by a systematic review.ResultsThrough the inclusion of observational studies, our method allowed the comparison of imatinib as add-on therapy for PAH with other treatments. This comparison had not been previously possible due to the limited RCT evidence available. However, the credible intervals of our posterior estimates were wide so the overall results were inconclusive. The comparison should be treated as exploratory and should not be used to guide clinical practice.ConclusionsOur method for the inclusion of single-arm observational studies allows the performance of indirect comparisons that had previously not been possible due to incomplete networks composed solely of available RCTs. We also built on many recent innovations to enable researchers to use both aggregate data and IPD. This method could be used in similar situations where treatment comparisons have not been possible due to restrictions to RCT evidence and where a mixture of aggregate data and IPD are available.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0007-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

There was high variability in reported sIBM prevalence estimates and the quality of the studies conducted. Existing evidence suggests an increase of prevalence estimates over time, which may be explained by growing disease awareness, improvements in diagnostic criteria and study methodologies. Further high quality studies are needed to understand if prevalence varies across geographies or ethnicities.