2026-06-01T17:16:02Zhttps://riuma.uma.es/rest/oai/request

oai:riuma.uma.es:10630/338292026-02-03T11:19:10Zcom_10630_2254col_10630_37953

Efficacy of the Treatments Used in Multiple Sclerosis: From Meta-analysis to Number Needed to Treat García-Ruiz, Antonio J. Izquierdo-Ayuso, Guillermo Navarro-Mascarell, Guillermo Montesinos-Gálvez, Ana Carmen Martos-Crespo, Francisco Jódar-Sánchez, Francisco Correa, manuel García-Agua-Soler, Nuria Esclerosis múltiple The aim of this study was to analyze the efficacy of drugs used in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, first- and second-line drugs, using the number needed to treat (NNT) as a measure of efficacy. Methods: Data from randomized clinical trials were analyzed for 3 categories of clinical efficacy outcomes: relapse, change in Expanded Disability Status Scale, and number of new lesions in magnetic resonance imaging. Meta-analysis results are expressed as odds ratios. Results: The global odds ratio was 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.49). For analyzed clinical outcomes, the odds ratio was less for second-line drugs (odds ratio, 2.0). For all studied clinical conditions, in the control group, 47 of 100 patients do not get benefits, compared with 25 (95% CI, 18-32 patients) of 100 for the active treatment group. The NNT was 5 patients (95% CI, 4-7 patients). For the proportion of patients free of relapses, in the control group, 56 of 100 patients had a relapse at 2 years, compared with 37 of 100 patients in the treatment group, with an NNT of 6 patients (95% CI, 5-8 patients). Conclusions: Active treatments produced statistically significant improvements compared with placebo. 2024-09-28T11:43:44Z 2024-09-28T11:43:44Z 2024-09-28T11:43:44Z 2017-01 journal article García-Ruiz, A. J., Izquierdo-Ayuso, G., Navarro-Mascarell, G., Montesinos-Gálvez, A. C., Martos-Crespo, F., Jódar-Sánchez, F., Correa, M., & García-Agua Soler, N. (2017). Efficacy of the Treatments Used in Multiple Sclerosis: From Meta-analysis to Number Needed to Treat. Clinical neuropharmacology, 40(1), 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNF.0000000000000201 https://hdl.handle.net/10630/33829 10.1097/WNF.0000000000000201 eng open access Lippincott Williams & Wilkins