Our review should provide some guidance to clinicians and patients. On the basis of high quality evidence, natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) are superior to all other treatments for preventing clinical relapses in RRMS in the short-term (24 months) compared to placebo. Moderate quality evidence supports a protective effect of natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) against disability progression in RRMS in the short-term compared to placebo. These treatments are associated with long-term serious adverse events and their benefit-risk balance might be unfavourable. IFNß-1b (Betaseron) and mitoxantrone probably decreased the odds of the participants with RRMS having relapses, compared with placebo (moderate quality of evidence). The benefit-risk balance with azathioprine is uncertain, however this agent might be effective in decreasing the odds of the participants with RRMS having relapses and disability progression over 24 to 36 months, compared with placebo. The lack of convincing efficacy data shows that IFNß-1a (Avonex), intravenous immunoglobulins, cyclophosphamide and long-term steroids have an unfavourable benefit-risk balance in RRMS. None of the included treatments are effective in decreasing disability progression in patients with progressive MS. It is important to consider that the clinical effects of all these treatments beyond two years are uncertain, a relevant point for a disease of 30 to 40 years duration. Direct head-to-head comparison(s) between natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) or between azathioprine and IFNß-1a (Rebif) should be top priority on the research agenda and follow-up of the trial cohorts should be mandatory.
A placebo-controlled, randomized, double-masked, variable dosage, clinical trial of azathioprine with and without methylprednisolone in multiple sclerosis.
Ninety-eight patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) in the chronic progression phase entered a 3-year clinical trial to determine if azathioprine (AZ) alone or with adrenal cortical steroids stabilizes the course of MS. In group AM, the patients took AZ throughout and methylprednisolone (MP) for the first 36 weeks. Group AP received AZ and placebo instead of MP. Group PP took placebos for both drugs. We adjusted the AZ to maintain the total white blood cell count within 3,000 to 4,000/mm3; we gave the MP in a fixed dose "pulse" and alternate-day regimen. The "intent-to-treat" groups had no statistically significant differences in the rates of progression among the 3 treatments. Subgroup analysis suggests that patients in the AM group who completed treatment exactly according to protocol did statistically significantly better than the placebo recipients using the sum of Standard Neurological Examination scores, slightly better using the quantitative neuro-performance tests, but no better using Mickey's Illness Severity Scores or Kurtzke's Disability Status Scale. Also, the AZ-treated groups had half the relapse rate of the placebo-treated group. Adverse reactions to AZ accounted for most withdrawals. Hematologic and hepatic abnormalities were significantly associated with AZ, but serious non-MS abnormalities were uncommon and were equally distributed among the 3 groups. Addition of MP to the AZ slightly improved the efficacy of the treatment, but also increased the adverse effects. The benefits of AZ with or without steroids did not outweigh the risks, and therefore we do not recommend this treatment for patients with chronic progressive MS.