A longitudinal real-life comparison study of natalizumab and fingolimod.

R Lanzillo, A Carotenuto, M Moccia, F Saccà, C V Russo, M Massarelli, A De Rosa, V Brescia Morra

Journal: Acta neurologica Scandinavica 2018;136(3):217-222

PMID: 27976804

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Different retrospective studies compared natalizumab and fingolimod in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), with conflicting results. We aimed to explore the prescriptive attitude and the clinical outcome of the two therapies.

METHODS

We retrospectively included all RRMS patients treated with natalizumab (n=101) or fingolimod (n=78) as their first second-line therapy with at least 24-month follow-up. Demographic and clinical features were recorded to calculate the propensity score (PS). Outcomes of interest were annualized relapse rate (ARR), risk of relapse, and change in the EDSS RESULTS: At baseline, natalizumab patients were younger and had a shorter disease duration, a higher number of relapse in 1 year (1yR) and 2 years (2yR) and overall (ARR-PT) pretherapy, compared to fingolimod patients. On therapy, the proportion of relapsing patients and the mean RR were similar in the two groups. However, the change in the ARR was higher in natalizumab than in fingolimod group (P<.002), but, using PS as a covariate, it was comparable (P=.960). Similarly, the change in EDSS was significantly different for the two groups (P<.004), but not after adjusting for the PS (P=.321).

CONCLUSION

We observed a comparable efficacy on ARR reduction and on EDSS progression with natalizumab and fingolimod correcting through PS, suggesting that the efficacy difference observed before correction might derive from the clinical attitude in prescribing natalizumab in more active MS patients in real life.

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Address: Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, Multiple Sclerosis Clinical Care and Research Centre, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.

Link outs

Free resources

Other Literature Sources:

Subscription / membership required

Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.