-
S Cotte,
N von Ahsen,
N Kruse,
B Huber,
A Winkelmann,
U K Zettl,
M Starck, N König,
N Tellez,
J Dörr,
F Paul,
F Zipp,
F Lühder,
H Koepsell,
H Pannek,
X Montalban,
R Gold,
A Chan
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Escalation therapy with mitoxantrone (MX) in highly active multiple sclerosis is limited by partially dose-dependent side-effects. Predictors of therapeutic response may result in individualized risk stratification and MX dosing. ATP-binding cassette-transporters ABCB1 and ABCG2 represent multi-drug resistance mechanisms involved in active cellular MX efflux. Here, we investigated the role of ABC-gene single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for clinical MX response, corroborated by experimental in vitro and in vivo data. Frequencies of ABCB1 2677G>T, 3435C>T and five ABCG2-SNPs were analysed in 832 multiple sclerosis patients (Germany, Spain) and 264 healthy donors. Using a flow-cytometry-based in vitro assay, MX efflux in leukocytes from individuals with variant alleles in both ABC-genes (designated genotype ABCB1/ABCG2-L(ow), 22.2% of patients) was 37.7% lower than from individuals homozygous for common alleles (ABCB1/ABCG2-H(igh), P < 0.05, 14.8% of patients), resulting in genotype-dependent MX accumulation and cell death. Addition of glucocorticosteroids (GCs) inhibited MX efflux in vitro. ABC-transporters were highly expressed in leukocyte subsets, glial and neuronal cells as well as myocardium, i.e. cells/tissues potentially affected by MX therapy. In vivo significance was further corroborated in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis in Abcg2(-/-) animals. Using a MX dose titrated to be ineffective in wild-type animals, disease course and histopathology in Abcg2(-/-) mice were strongly ameliorated. Retrospective clinical analysis in MX monotherapy patients (n = 155) used expanded disability status scale, relapse rate and multiple sclerosis functional composite as major outcome parameters. The clinical response rate [overall 121 of 155 patients (78.1%)] increased significantly with genotypes associated with decreasing ABCB1/ABCG2-function [ABCB1/ABCG2-H 15/24 (62.5%) responders, ABCB1/ABCG2-I(ntermediate) 78/98 (79.6%), ABCB1/ABCG2-L 28/33 (84.8%), exact Cochran-Armitage test P = 0.039]. The odds ratio for response was 1.9 (95% CI 1.0-3.5) with each increase in ABCB1/ABCG2 score (from ABCB1/ABCG2-H to -I-, and -I to -L). In 36 patients with severe cardiac or haematological side effects no statistically relevant difference in genotype frequency was observed. However, one patient with biopsy proven cardiomyopathy only after 24 mg/m2 MX exhibited a rare genotype with variant, partly homozygous alleles in 3 ABC-transporter genes. In conclusion, SNPs in ABC-transporter genes may serve as pharmacogenetic markers associated with clinical response to MX therapy in multiple sclerosis. Combined MX/GC-treatment warrants further investigation.
Brain 07/2009; 132(Pt 9):2517-30. · 9.46 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), IVIG was shown to reduce the relapse rate and progression of disability. In patients with chronic progressive MS, a beneficial effect of IVIG was not documented in placebo controlled studies. This trial investigated the influence of IVIG in primary (PPMS) and secondary (SPMS) chronic progressive MS. Two-hundred and thirty-one patients stratified for PPMS (n=34) and SPMS (n=197) were randomly assigned to IVIG 0.4 g/kg per month or to placebo for 24 months. Primary endpoints were 1) the time to sustained progression of disease identified as worsening of the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) sustained for 3 months, and 2) the improvement of neurological functions defined by a patient's best EDSS score. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with sustained progression, the relapse rate, the assessment of fine motor skills, visual evoked potentials, contrast sensitivity, depression and quality of life. Analysis of the intention-to-treat (ITT) population of combined PPMS and SPMS patients showed that the mean time to sustained progression was 74 weeks in the IVIG compared with 62 weeks in the placebo group (P=0.0406). When PPMS and SPMS patients were analysed separately, the time to sustained progression was also longer in the IVIG group, but the difference was not significant. There was no IVIG-mediated improvement in neurological functions. In the combined per protocol (PP) treated patients, IVIG treatment prolonged time to sustained progression by 13 weeks (P=0.0396). PPMS patients, but not SPMS patients showed a slight favourable IVIG effect on the best EDSS score. In the combined ITT population there were less patients with sustained progression in the IVIG than in the placebo group (P=0.028). The difference was significant in PPMS (P=0.016), but not in SPMS patients. In the combined PP population, there was a trend for a favorable IVIG effect on the rates of patients with sustained progression. In patients with PPMS, this IVIG effect reached significance (P=0.036). Other secondary endpoints did not show significant differences between treatment groups. Eighteen patients with PPMS and 102 patients with SPMS withdrew from the study for various reasons. Treatment was generally well tolerated. It was concluded that monthly IVIG infusion could delay progression of disease in patients with PPMS, and that there was a trend in favour of IVIG treatment in patients with SPMS.
Multiple Sclerosis 12/2007; 13(9):1107-17. · 4.26 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This cost-of-illness analysis based on information from 2973 patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) in Germany is part of a Europe-wide study on the costs of MS. The objective was to analyze the costs and quality of life (QOL) related to the level of disease severity. Patients from six centres (office- and hospital-based physicians) and patients enrolled in a database were asked to participate in the survey; 38% answered a mail questionnaire. In addition to details on the disease (type of disease, relapses, level of functional disability), the questionnaire asked for information on all resource consumption, medical, non-medical, work absence, informal care, as well as QOL (measured as utility). The mean age of the cohort was 45 years, and 18% of patients were 65 years of age or older. Forty-seven percent of patients had mild disease (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] score 0-3), 36% had moderate disease (EDSS score 4-6.5) and 12% had severe disease (EDSS score > or =7). The mean EDSS score in the sample was 3.8 (median 4.0), with a mean utility of 0.62. Costs and utility are highly correlated with disease severity. Workforce participation decreases from 73% in very early disease to less than 10% in the very late stages, leading to a tenfold rise in productivity losses in the late stages of disease. Hospitalisation and ambulatory visits rise by a factor of 5-6 between early and late disease; investments and services increase from basically no cost to euro 2700; and informal care increases by a factor of 27 for patients with an EDSS score of 7 and by a factor of 50 for patients at the very severe end of the EDSS scale (8-9). Hence, total mean costs per patient are determined essentially by the distribution of the severity levels in the sample, increasing from approximately euro 18 500 at an EDSS score of 0-1 to euro 70 500 at an EDSS score of 8-9. The same is true for utility, which decreases from 0.86 to 0.10 as the disease becomes severe. However, the utility loss compared to the general population is high at all levels of the disease, leading to an estimated loss of 0.2 quality-adjusted life-years per patient. Relapses are associated with a cost of approximately euro 3 000 and a utility loss of 0.1 during the quarter in which they occur. Compared with a similar study performed in 1999, resource consumption, with the exception of drugs, is somewhat lower. This is most likely due to a difference in the severity distribution of the two samples and to changes in health-care consumption overall in the country, such as the introduction of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs, Fallpauschalen).
The European Journal of Health Economics 09/2006; 7 Suppl 2:S34-44. · 1.50 Impact Factor
-
The European Journal of Health Economics 02/2006; 7(02):34-44. · 1.50 Impact Factor
-
P Rieckmann,
K V Toyka,
C Bassetti,
K Beer,
S Beer,
U Buettner,
M Chofflon,
M Götschi-Fuchs,
K Hess,
L Kappos, [......],
A Bayas,
A Chan,
P Flachenecker,
R Gold,
B Kallmann,
V Leussink,
M Mäurer,
K Ruprecht,
G Stoll,
F X Weilbach
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Recent clinical studies in multiple sclerosis (MS) provide new data on the treatment of clinically isolated syndromes, on secondary progression, on direct comparison of immunomodulatory treatments and on dosing issues. All these studies have important implications for the optimized care of MS patients. The multiple sclerosis therapy consensus group (MSTCG) critically evaluated the available data and provides recommendations for the application of immunoprophylactic therapies. Initiation of treatment after the first relapse may be indicated if there is clear evidence on MRI for subclinical dissemination of disease. Recent trials show that the efficacy of interferon beta treatment is more likely if patients in the secondary progressive phase of the disease still have superimposed bouts or other indicators of inflammatory disease activity than without having them. There are now data available, which suggest a possible dose-effect relation for recombinant beta-interferons. These studies have to be interpreted with caution, as some potentially important issues in the design of these studies (e. g. maintenance of blinding in the clinical part of the study) were not adequately addressed. A meta-analysis of selected interferon trials has been published challenging the value of recombinant IFN beta in MS. The pitfalls of that report are discussed in the present review as are other issues relevant to treatment including the new definition of MS, the problem of treatment failure and the impact of cost-effectiveness analyses. The MSTCG panel recommends that the new diagnostic criteria proposed by McDonald et al. should be applied if immunoprophylactic treatment is being considered. The use of standardized clinical documentation is now generally proposed to facilitate the systematic evaluation of individual patients over time and to allow retrospective evaluations in different patient cohorts. This in turn may help in formulating recommendations for the application of innovative products to patients and to health care providers. Moreover, in long-term treated patients, secondary treatment failure should be identified by pre-planned follow-up examinations, and other treatment options should then be considered.
Journal of Neurology 12/2004; 251(11):1329-39. · 3.47 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To assess the quality of life (QoL) of patients with multiple sclerosis in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom with a cross sectional study.
Patients were classified into three severity groups according to the expanded disability severity scale (EDSS); stage I, II, and III, corresponding to mild (EDSS 1.0-3.5), moderate (EDSS 4.0-6.0), or severe (EDSS 6.5-8.0) multiple sclerosis respectively. Ninety patients with multiple sclerosis and 30 control patients without multiple sclerosis were recruited in each country. Control patients were matched to the patients with multiple sclerosis according to age and sex. Quality of life was assessed using the functional status questionnaire (FSQ).
The aspects of QoL that were mostly affected in the three countries under study were physical function and general wellbeing. Social role function decreased with increased severity of disease in France and in particular in Germany. Multiple sclerosis did not seem to have an impact on psychological function. The QoL of control patients was systematically higher than that of patients with multiple sclerosis.
Use of such a generic scale showed that progression of multiple sclerosis is accompanied by a decrease in QoL and suggested that this could be a relevant measurement in assessing the effect of treatment and progression of disease. Variation between countries, however, may be important.
Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 11/1998; 65(4):460-6. · 4.76 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A cross-sectional cost-of-care study was performed to assess the economic burden of multiple sclerosis (MS) in France, Germany and the UK. Patients were stratified into 3 groups according to the Expanded Disability Severity Scale (EDSS): stages I, II and III, corresponding to mild (EDSS 1.0 to 3.5), moderate (EDSS 4.0 to 6.0) and severe (EDSS 6.5 to 8.0) MS, respectively. 90 patients with MS and 30 non-MS control patients were recruited in each country. Control patients were matched to the patients with MS on the basis of age and gender. Demographic, clinical and economic data during the 3-month period prior to entry were collected in patient interviews. Total costs included actual expenditures, such as direct medical and non-medical costs, as well as indirect costs. From the societal perspective, the total cost of MS for 3 months was estimated at 1,928 US dollars, 3,941 US dollars and 5,678 US dollars in France, 2,772 US dollars, 2,056 dollars and 5701dollars in Germany, and 5,125 US dollars, 6,751 US dollars and 14, 622 US dollars in the UK, for stage I, II and III patients, respectively. The major medical cost driver in the UK was outpatient consultations, whereas hospitalisations were the major component in Germany and France. The major cost in the UK arose from the dependence of patients with MS on caregivers, which caused high non-medical, societal costs compared with France and Germany. From both the societal and health insurance perspectives in each country, costs for control patients were lower than those for stage I MS patients. MS represents a major financial burden on the individual, the family, health services and society, and these costs increase with MS progression.
PharmacoEconomics 06/1998; 13(5 Pt 2):607-22. · 2.66 Impact Factor
-
The European Journal of Health Economics 7(2):34-44. · 1.50 Impact Factor
