I'm of the school of thought . . . "whatever works".

It is hard to filter to the various pieces of information we have access to, and to then to validate them in any useful way. The way I understood this particular article though was that it was just an analysis of existing information/studies, validated by a specific protocol. The information they relied upon was only:

- phase III pivotal trials
- patients with RRMS
- existing randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies

The clinical efficacy endpoints compared were:

- proportion of relapse-free patients at 1 and 2 years
- annualized relapse rate at 2 years
- proportion of progression-free patients at 2 years
- proportion of patients free of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at 1 year or 9 months.

I'm not sure why they picked gad-enhancing lesions at 1 yr and 9 mo, but perhaps that information wasn't comparable or available for the entire two years in all the trials (or ?). It would be good to read the copy of the full text, if you happen across it. (Personally, I don't give much merit to the evaluation of gad-enhancing lesions anyway )

I remember reading about the analysis tool; "evidence-based medicine principles", but I didn't happen to retain this information. Hopefully it's a good tool for making a comparison, but I don't know that either.

I think it is really quite common that many of us turn a corner at 20 yrs actually. They say that 50% of those with RRMS will be SPMS at the 10 yr mark, and 90% of us at the 20 yr mark. Mind you, this is old statistics (pre-DMT's), so perhaps things will shift in the coming years.


Ms Trial Lady . . . always looking for her next fix. Thanks for keeping on top of that information. I'm always looking for something that might be more agreeable too, then what we currently have available. I'm glad so many of us can take the drugs we have though, in the meantime.

Cherie