PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 7729328

Multiple sclerosis therapy. A practical guide.

Abstract

A growing amount of evidence suggests that a disturbance of immunological function is of importance in the pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis. This is reflected in the drugs used to slow progression and to treat relapses. Immunosuppressive drugs such as azathioprine, cyclophosphamide and cyclosporin might have some potential to slow down progression of multiple sclerosis, but their use is limited by potentially serious adverse effects. Recently, it was shown that interferon-beta-1b can diminish the exacerbation rate in multiple sclerosis without leading to unacceptable adverse effects. Nevertheless, symptomatic treatment remains of crucial importance in the management of multiple sclerosis patients. Spasticity, depression, fatigue and urinary, paroxysmal and sensory symptoms can all be alleviated to some extent with pharmacological interventions, although rehabilitation procedures and psychosocial consultations are no less important. Further therapeutic approaches to multiple sclerosis will be directed at either the specificity of the immune response or the grade of activation of the immune response. Magnetic resonance imaging techniques will play an important role in the evaluation of efficacy of new therapeutic agents.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B W van Oosten, L Truyen, F Barkhof, C H Polman. 1995. Multiple sclerosis therapy. A practical guide.. https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-199549020-00005

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessing whether to perform a confirmatory randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: A confirmatory randomized clinical trial is a trial that is aimed at assessing whether a treatment effect observed in a previous randomized trial (or trials) is real and important. There is often considerable disagreement about the need for such confirmatory trials. PURPOSE: Our aim is to provide a general statistical framework for evaluating whether a confirmatory trial is warranted in a particular situation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The results of two clinical trials are considered: 1) a Cancer and Leukemia Group B trial comparing induction chemotherapy plus radiotherapy with radiotherapy alone in the treatment of patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and 2) a North Central Cancer Treatment Group trial comparing surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy with surgery alone in the treatment of patients with advanced colon cancer. In our analysis, we argue that differences in the interpretation of results from a randomized trial are based on differences in prior beliefs about the efficacy of the treatment(s) under study. We believe that a major factor in the decision to perform a confirmatory trial is prior skepticism about the clinical worth of the treatment in question. Both the level of prior skepticism and the minimum treatment effect deemed clinically worthwhile require subjective judgment. We develop a Bayesian framework to allow differences in interpretation to be examined systematically and the need for a confirmatory trial to be assessed. Our model allows the addition of prior belief (specified in the form of a prior distribution of treatment effect) to the results of a trial to yield a posterior distribution. The interpretation of trial results is based on the posterior distribution and will vary as the prior distribution (i.e., the prior belief) varies. To aid in the interpretation of trial results, we also advocate the specification of a minimum clinically worthwhile treatment effect at the start of a trial. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our approach acknowledges that a number of different prior beliefs are possible, giving rise to a range of interpretations of results from a clinical trial. This approach provides a formal and systematic basis for considering both the range of likely opinions and the subsequent decision to be made with regard to the need for a confirmatory trial. We recommend that this approach be considered in the discussion of future confirmatory randomized clinical trials.

Adjuvants, Immunologic