↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
177 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interferons-beta versus glatiramer acetate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009333.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Loredana La Mantia, Carlo Di Pietrantonj, Marco Rovaris, Giulio Rigon, Serena Frau, Francesco Berardo, Anna Gandini, Anna Longobardi, Bianca Weinstock-Guttman, Alberto Vaona

Abstract

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). To assess whether IFNs-beta and GA differ in terms of safety and efficacy in the treatment of people with relapsing-remitting (RR) MS. 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. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing directly IFNs-beta versus GA in study participants affected by RRMS. We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. 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. 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Unknown 171 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 18%
Researcher 28 16%
Student > Master 25 14%
Unspecified 22 12%
Student > Bachelor 19 11%
Other 52 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 45%
Unspecified 30 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 6%
Psychology 8 5%
Other 32 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 December 2018.
All research outputs
#717,358
of 13,073,562 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,355
of 10,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,772
of 373,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#48
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,073,562 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,457 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 373,735 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.