Cited by 31Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsDrug-Induced Ocular Toxicity

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Adverse Events Associated With Disease-Modifying Drugs for Multiple Sclerosis: A Multiregional Population-Based Study

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: It is not possible to fully establish the safety of a disease-modifying drug (DMD) for multiple sclerosis (MS) from randomized controlled trials as only very common adverse events occurring over the short-term can be captured, and the quality of reporting has been variable. We examined the relationship between the DMDs for MS and potential adverse events in a multiregion population-based study. METHODS: We identified people with MS using linked administrative health data from 4 Canadian provinces. MS cases were followed from the most recent of first MS or related demyelinating disease event on January 1, 1996, until the earliest of emigration, death, or December 31, 2017. DMD exposure primarily comprised β-interferon, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide, and alemtuzumab. We examined associations between DMD exposure and infection-related hospitalizations and physician visits using recurrent events proportional means models and between DMD exposure and 15 broad categories of incident adverse events using stratified multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: We identified 35,894 people with MS. While virtually all DMDs were associated with a 42%-61% lower risk of infection-related hospitalizations, there was a modest increase in infection-related physician visits by 10%-33% for select DMDs. For incident adverse events, most elevated risks involved a second-generation DMD, with alemtuzumab's hazard of thyroid disorders being 19.42 (95% CI 9.29-36.51), hypertension 4.96 (95% CI 1.78-13.84), and cardiovascular disease 3.72 (95% CI 2.12-6.53). Natalizumab's highest risk was for cardiovascular disease (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.61; 95% CI 1.24-2.10). For the oral DMDs, fingolimod was associated with higher hazards of cerebrovascular (aHR 2.04; 95% CI 1.27-3.30) and ischemic heart diseases (aHR 1.64; 95% CI 1.10-2.44) and hypertension (aHR 1.73; 95% CI 1.30-2.31); teriflunomide with higher hazards of thyroid disorders (aHR 2.30; 95% CI 1.11-4.74), chronic liver disease (aHR 1.94; 95% CI 1.19-3.18), hypertension (aHR 1.76; 95% CI 1.32-2.37), and hyperlipidemia (aHR 1.61; 95% CI 1.07-2.44); and from complementary analyses (in 1 province), dimethyl fumarate with acute liver injury (aHR 6.55; 95% CI 1.96-21.87). DISCUSSION: Our study provides an extensive safety profile of several different DMDs used to treat MS in the real-world setting. Our findings not only complement those observed in short-term clinical trials but also provide new insights that help inform the risk-benefit profile of the DMDs used to treat MS in clinical practice. The results of this study highlight the continued need for long-term, independent safety studies of the DMDs used to treat MS. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that for patients with MS, while DMD exposure reduces the risk of infection-related hospitalizations, there are increased risks of infection-related physician visits and incident adverse events for select DMDs.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1212/wnl.0000000000208006

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure Risk Hazarda of Potential Adverse Events Associated With Disease-Modifying Drugs Used to Treat Multiple Sclerosis in Canada (1996–2017/18) DMD = disease-modifying drug. Bold indicates p < 0.05. Except for infections, all potential adverse events were identified as presence in either in-patient or out-patient information (hospitalizations or physician visits). aFindings from 4 Canadian provinces combined (British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia). The results were adjusted for sex, socioeconomic status (quintiles), and age (continuous) at the index date and Charlson comorbidity score (categorized as 0, 1, 2, or ≥3 and updated overtime). bRecurrent events using the “current” DMD exposure approach. cIncident adverse events using the “minimum” cumulative DMD approach. See Table 2 for full results, including the hazard ratios with 95% CI and the crude rate for each event.
Figure Risk Hazarda of Potential Adverse Events Associated With Disease-Modifying Drugs Used to Treat Multiple Sclerosis in Canada (1996–2017/18) DMD = disease-modifying drug. Bold indicates p < 0.05. Except for infections, all potential adverse events were identified as presence in either in-patient or out-patient information (hospitalizations or physician visits). aFindings from 4 Canadian provinces combined (British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia). The results were adjusted for sex, socioeconomic status (quintiles), and age (continuous) at the index date and Charlson comorbidity score (categorized as 0, 1, 2, or ≥3 and updated overtime). bRecurrent events using the “current” DMD exposure approach. cIncident adverse events using the “minimum” cumulative DMD approach. See Table 2 for full results, including the hazard ratios with 95% CI and the crude rate for each event.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. 10.1016/j.msard.2019.06.036 · DOI
  2. 10.1080/14740338.2020.1807002 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.msard.2020.102566 · DOI
  4. 10.1002/14651858.CD011381.pub2 · DOI
  5. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002471 · DOI
  6. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004037 · DOI
  7. 10.1136/jnnp-2019-322326 · DOI
  8. 10.1007/s00415-019-09211-5 · DOI
  9. 10.1371/journal.pone.0267346 · DOI
  10. 10.1177/1756286419835077 · DOI
  11. 10.1007/s40263-018-0564-y · DOI
  12. 10.1136/jnnp-2013-307238 · DOI
  13. 10.1007/s00415-011-5929-9 · DOI
  14. 10.1002/ana.25701 · DOI
  15. 10.1212/NXI.0000000000200005 · DOI
  16. 10.1080/14737175.2021.1847085 · DOI
  17. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181cf6ec0 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000495 · DOI
  19. 10.1177/13524585211063403 · DOI
  20. 10.1177/1352458520910500 · DOI
  21. 10.3390/jcm11216248 · DOI
  22. 10.2147/CIA.S99097 · DOI
  23. 10.1136/jnnp-2017-317493 · DOI
  24. 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001032 · DOI
  25. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE real-world evidence framework: methods for real-world studies of comparative studies. 2022. Accessed July 6 2023. nice.org.uk/corporate/ecd9/chapter/methods-for-real-world-studies-of-comparative-effects.
  26. 10.1093/ofid/ofy174 · DOI
  27. 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.3365 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.3389/fphar.2022.808370 · DOI
  29. 10.2165/00002018-200629050-00003 · DOI
  30. 10.1177/1352458518799598 · DOI
  31. 10.1177/1352458518761185 · DOI
  32. 10.1177/1352458516688351 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.ahj.2014.06.028 · DOI
  34. 10.3389/fimmu.2021.795574 · DOI
  35. 10.1177/1756286420982134 · DOI
  36. 10.1111/ene.14633 · DOI
  37. 10.1177/1352458519851219 · DOI
  38. 10.1016/j.msard.2018.09.008 · DOI
  39. 10.1177/1756285614563522 · DOI
  40. 10.1016/j.clinthera.2010.10.006 · DOI
  41. 10.1136/bmj.m160 · DOI
  42. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004208 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ng, H. S., Zhu, F., Zhao, Y., Yao, S., Lu, X., Ekuma, O., Evans, C., Fisk, J. D., Marrie, R. A., & Tremlett, H.
Affiliations
Dalhousie University (CA)
Corresponding author
Tremlett, Helen
Venue
Neurology
Published
2024-02-13
Volume
102
Issue
3
Pages
e208006-e208006
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W4390629241
Cited by
31
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 7
FWCI
9.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Neurology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Nova Scotia Department of Health and Wellness
  • Dalhousie University
  • Department of Health, Western Cape Government
  • Ministry of Health, Saskatchewan
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (156363_1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Drug-Induced Ocular Toxicity
Keywords
multiple sclerosis, disease-modifying drugs, adverse events, drug safety, infection-related hospitalization, natalizumab, fingolimod, alemtuzumab, glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide, interferon-beta, cardiovascular disease
MeSH terms
Fingolimod Hydrochloride, Natalizumab, Dimethyl Fumarate, Alemtuzumab, Canada, Cardiovascular Diseases, Crotonates, Humans, Hydroxybutyrates, Hypertension, Multiple Sclerosis, Nitriles, Toluidines

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review