The Use of Disease-Modifying Therapies in Multiple Sclerosis
Optimizing Outcomes: Balancing Disease-Modifying and Symptomatic Therapy in Multiple Sclerosis
description
Transcript of Optimizing Outcomes: Balancing Disease-Modifying and Symptomatic Therapy in Multiple Sclerosis
1
Optimizing Outcomes: Balancing Disease-Modifying and Symptomatic Therapy in
Multiple SclerosisJames D. Bowen, MD
Medical DirectorMultiple Sclerosis Center
Swedish Neuroscience Institute Seattle, Washington
2
Introduction and Case Presentation
3
Case—History 52-year-old male 1996 at age 36
– Right-hand numbness and weakness spreading to entire right body over 2 days
– Told it was a “demyelinating event” but no other diagnosis or treatment given
– Mild residual right tingling/heaviness Early 2000s
– Diplopia– Urinary urgency– Erectile dysfunction
4
Case—History 2007
– Pain/burning in arms/legs– Diplopia– Weakness– Diagnosis uncertain
MRI interpreted as possible strokes
5
Case—History December 2008
– Brain MRI Improvement in left cerebral peduncle lesion New right frontal lesion
– C-spine MRI normal– Visual evoked potential and lumbar puncture
normal December 2009
– Saw an MS specialist – Diagnosed with MS
April 2010 – Started treatment with glatiramer acetate
6
Case—Current Presentation Patient transfers to our clinic, February 2011 Reports tolerating treatment well Admits incomplete adherence Has had occasional MS attacks
7
Efficacy of First-Line Disease-Modifying Therapies
(DMTs) in Early MS
8Kappos L, et al. Neurology. 2006;67:1242-1249.
BENEFIT—IFN Beta-1b SC in Early MS IFN beta-1b 250 µg vs placebo for 2 years
– 468 patients with clinically isolated syndrome and abnormal MRI
Primary outcome: development of clinically definite MS (CDMS)
Outcome IFN Beta-1b(n = 292)
Placebo(n = 176) P-Value
CDMS at 2 years 28% 45% <.0001
Time to CDMS (25%) 618 days 255 days ––McDonald at 2 years 69% 85% <.00001
McDonald at 6 months 28% 51% ––
9
Outcome at 2 YearsIFN Beta-
1a TIW(n = 171)
IFN Beta-1a QW
(n = 175)Placebo(n = 171) P-Value
2-year probability of MS (McDonald) 62.5% 75.5% 85.8%
<.0001 TIW
.008 QW
2-year probability of CDMS 20.6% 21.6% 37.5% .004 TIW
.0023 QW
Combined unique active MRI lesions/person/scan, mean
0.6RR 0.19
1.23RR 0.37 2.70
<.0001 TIW
<.0001 QW
REFLEX—IFN Beta-1a SQ in Early MS IFN beta-1a SQ 44 µg TIW vs QW vs placebo for 2 years
– 517 patients with CIS and abnormal MRI Primary outcome: time to MS diagnosis by McDonald criteria
Abbreviations: CIS, clinically isolated syndrome; RR, rate ratio. Comi G, et al. Lancet Neurol. 2012;11:33-41.
10
PreCISe—Glatiramer Acetate in Early MS
GA 20 mg/day vs placebo for 3 years– 481 patients with CIS and abnormal MRI
Primary outcome: time to CDMS
Outcome at 3 Years GA(n = 243)
Placebo(n = 238) P-Value
Time to CDMS (25%) 722 days 336 days .0005
CDMS 25% 43% <.0001New T2 lesions, last observed value 0.7 1.8 <.0001
Abbreviations: CDMS, clinically definite MS, CIS, clinically isolated syndrome; GA, glatiramer acetate.Comi G, et al. Lancet. 2009;374:1503-1511.
11
PreCISe Open-Label Extension—Glatiramer Acetate in Early MS
2-year open-label phase following initial 3-year trial of GA vs placebo
Early vs delayed GA treatment Early cohort = patients initially randomized to GA Delayed cohort = patients initially randomized to placebo
Outcome at 5 Years Early GA(n = 243)
Delayed GA(n = 238) P-Value
CDMS 33% 49.5% .0005Annualized relapse rate 0.22 0.29 NABrain volume change -0.99% -1.27% .021
Abbreviations: CDMS, clinically definite MS; NA, not available.Martinelli V, et al. 63rd AAN; April 9-16, 2011; Honolulu, Hawaii. Abstract PD6.006.
12
FREEDOMS—Fingolimod in Relapsing-Remitting MS (RRMS)
Fingolimod 0.5 mg or 1.25 mg vs placebo for 2 years– N = 1272 with RRMS – Mean EDSS: 2.3, fingolimod 0.5 mg; 2.5, placebo
Primary outcome: annualized relapse rate
Outcome at 2 YearsFingolimod
0.5 mg(n = 425)
Placebo(n = 418) P-Value
Annualized relapse rate 0.18 0.40 <.001
Free of sustained progression 82.3% 75.9% .03
Mean new/enlarging T2 lesions 2.5 9.8 <.001
Kappos L, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:387-401.
13
TRANSFORMS—Fingolimod vs IFN Beta-1a in RRMS
Fingolimod 0.5 mg or 1.25 mg vs IFN beta-1a 30 µg IM for 1 year– N = 1292 with RRMS– Mean EDSS: 2.24, fingolimod 0.5 mg; 2.19, IFN
Primary outcome: annualized relapse rate
Outcome at 1 yearFingolimod
0.5 mg(n = 429)
IFN(n = 431) P-Value
Annualized relapse rate 0.16 0.33 <.001
Free of sustained progression 94.1% 92.1% .25Mean new/enlarging T2 lesions 1.7 2.6 .004
Cohen JA, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:402-415.
No trials under way for fingolimod in CIS
14
TEMSO—Teriflunomide in Relapsing MS
Teriflunomide (TFN) 7 mg and 14 mg vs placebo for 2 years– N = 1086 with relapsing MS, mean EDSS 2.68
Primary outcome: annualized relapse rate
Outcome at 2 YearsTFN 7 mg
(n = 365)
TFN 14 mg
(n = 358)Placebo(n =363)
P-Value7 mg/14 mg
Annualized relapse rate 0.37 0.37 0.54 <.001/<.001
Sustained progression 21.7% 20.2% 27.3% .08/.03Change in T2 lesion volume from baseline 1.31 mL 0.72 mL 2.21 mL .03/
<.001
O'Connor P, et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1293-1303.
15
TOWER—Teriflunomide Multiple Sclerosis Oral
Teriflunomide (TFN) 7 mg and 14 mg vs placebo for 48 wks + ≤18 months extension– N = 1165 with relapsing MS, mean EDSS 2.7
Primary outcome: annualized relapse rate
Outcome at 2 YearsTFN 7 mg
(n = 407)
TFN 14 mg
(n = 370)Placebo(n = 388)
P-Value7 mg/14 mg
Annualized relapse rate 0.389 0.319 0.50 .018/ .0001
Sustained progression 21.0% 22.2% 15.8% .76/.04
Kappos L, et al. Paper presented at: ECTRIMS 2012; October 10-13, 2012; Lyon, France. Abstract 153.
CIS trial under way—TOPIC (NCT00622700)
16
Importance of Early Treatment Studies of injectable first-line DMTs
(IFN betas and GA) approved for RRMS have shown benefit in clinically isolated syndrome (CIS)– These often have a greater magnitude of benefit
than the RRMS study Different populations studied, however
No data yet on newer oral first-line DMTs– No CIS trial under way for fingolimod– TOPIC trial under way for teriflunomide in CIS
17
Case Continues—Findings at Presentation
Occasional attacks, adherence poor Timed 25-Foot Walk – 14.2 sec Internuclear ophthalmoplegia (INO) on right gaze Motor: 4/5 throughout, spasticity right > left Decreased light touch/pin prick all 4 limbs, pain Gait: right >left hemiparetic Reflexes: 4+, right >left with clonus Urinary urgency/frequency, cognitive impairment,
fatigue
18
Case—MRI Findings
T2 FLAIR weighted MRI showing lesions typical for MS
Graphic courtesy of James D. Bowen, MD.
19
Case—Issues to Address Issues with greatest impact for this patient
– Nonadherence– Cognitive impairment– Mobility impairment
Additional issues– Urinary urgency– Fatigue
20
Nonadherence
21
Case Continues—Assessment of Poor Adherence
First priority = improve adherence Nurse discussed poor adherence with patient Identified reasons
– Insurance lapses– Pharmacy refill interruptions– Cognitive impairment
22
Barriers to Adherence Financial Insurance/pharmacy Perceived lack of benefit Intolerance of injections Intolerance of side effects Laboratory abnormalities Treatment failure
For more information on adherence, participate in a recent MS MedImage case by Dr. James D. Bowen:
“Switching Disease-Modifying Therapy Due to Adherence Issues.” Find it at: http://mic.projectsinknowledge.com/neurology/multiple-sclerosis/Switching-
Disease-Modifying-Therapy-Due-to-Adherence-Issues.cfm?jn=2022.29
23
Financial Support Manufacturer support programs
– Contact manufacturer for support for individual medication
National Multiple Sclerosis Society Financial Assistance Program– http://www.nationalmssociety.org/living-with-
multiple-sclerosis/society-programs-and-services/financial-assistance-program/index.aspx
24
Case Continues—Addressing Nonadherence
Nurse put into place a system to remind patient about GA injections– Smart phone alarm
Social worker stabilized insurance and worked with pharmacy to ensure refills
Patient has remained adherent since
25
Cognitive Impairment
26
Cognitive Impairment in MS About 60% of MS patients have cognitive
impairment– About 35% of those with low-disability
relapsing-remitting MS May be subtle and difficult to recognize in
clinic Most common − processing speed and
episodic memory
Benedict RH, et al. Nat Rev Neurol. 2011;7:332-342.
27
Cognitive Screening Tests Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT)1
– Takes 2 or 3 minutes1 5 3 7
6 8 10 Symbol Digit Modality Test (SDMT)2
– Takes about 90 seconds
1 2 3 X
1. National MS Society. Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) Administration and Scoring Manual. 2001. Accessed 10/1/12 at: http://www.nationalmssociety.org/for-professionals/researchers/clinical-study-measures/msfc/index.aspx. 2. Benedict RH, et al. Nat Rev Neurol. 2011;7:332-342. Graphics courtesy of Dr. James D. Bowen.
∧
28
Medications for Cognitive Impairment in MS
Disease-modifying therapies Other1
– Potassium-channel blockers 3,4-diaminopyridine, 4-aminopyridine
– Dopaminergic antiparkinsonism agents Amantadine
– Stimulants Modafinil, methylphenidate, L-amphetamine
– Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors Donepezil, rivastigmine
Benedict RH, et al. Nat Rev Neurol. 2011;7:332-342.
29
DMTs in MS-Related Cognitive Impairment—Rationale
MS lesions and attacks likely contribute to cognitive impairment1
Nonlesion damage may also contribute (atrophy, normal appearing white matter changes, gray matter changes)1,2
DMTs alter exacerbations, MRI lesion activity, atrophy, and noncognitive disability
1. Calabrese M, et al. Arch Neurol. 2009;66:1144-1450. 2. Calabrese M, et al. Expert Rev Neurother. 2011;11:425-432.
30
DMTs in MS-Related Cognitive Impairment—Interferon Betas
IFN beta-1a IM vs placebo for 2 years1
– N = 166 with relapsing MS– Significant benefit for information processing/memory; P
= .036– Trend to benefit for visuospacial/executive;
P = .005, corrected for baseline, P = .085– No effect on verbal ability/attention span; P = .60– Sustained PASAT deterioration: IFN 19.5%, placebo 36.6%; P
= .023 IFN beta-1a SQ 22 µg vs 44 µg TWI for 2 years, open
label2
– N = 356 with RRMS– Proportion with ≥3 impaired cognitive tests:
22 µg = 26.5%, 44 µg = 17.0%; P = .0341. Fischer JS, et al. Ann Neurol. 2000;48:885-892. 2. Patti F, et al. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2009;2:67-77.
31
DMTs in MS-Related Cognitive Impairment—Glatiramer Acetate
GA vs placebo, phase III1 – N = 248 with relapsing-remitting MS– 5 cognitive domains– No difference between GA and placebo groups
However, no measurable decline in cognition in placebo group
– Patients had little baseline impairment GA for 3 months2
– N = 30 with MS– PASAT improved from 42.16 to 47.76, P <.05, in
those with Gd+ MRI images1. Weinstein A, et al. Arch Neurol. 1999;56:319-324. 2. Mori F, et al. Neurology. 2012;78:P04.118.
32
DMTs in MS-Related Cognitive Impairment—Natalizumab, Fingolimod, and
Teriflunomide Natalizumab
– AFFIRM phase III trial – natalizumab vs placebo – 43% reduction in risk of PASAT-3 worsening, P = .013
Fingolimod– Little data
Teriflunomide– Little data
Weinstock-Guttman B, et al. J Neurol. 2012;259:898-905.
33
3,4-Diaminopyridine (DAP)
*Primary outcome – leg weakness in 34 patients, arm ataxia in 2.Bever CT, et al. Neurology. 1996;47:1457-1462.
Outcome 3,4-DAP NA P-Value
Improvement in defined deficit* 22 2 .0005
Selective Reminding Test, mean 37.5 36.9 NS10/36 Spatial Recall, mean 18.8 17.2 NS
Symbol Digit Modality Test, mean 34.2 34.5 NS
PASAT, mean 66.6 65.4 NS
Word List Generation, mean 28.6 27.7 NS
3,4-DAP up to 100 mg/day vs nicotinic acid (NA) 10 mg/day N = 36 with MS– Randomized, double-blind, crossover design
34
L-Amphetamine 4 doses: L-amphetamine 15, 30, and 45 mg or placebo
– N = 19 with MS, suspected cognitive deficit– Counterbalanced within-subjects design
Outcome: neuropsychological testing 2 h after dose
Abbreviations: BVMTR, Brief Visuospatial Memory Test – Revised; PASAT, Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test; RAVLT, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test; SDMT, Symbol Digit Modalities Test; TMT, Trail Making Test. Benedict RH, et al. J Neurol. 2008;255:848-852.
Test Outcome
PASAT Significant only for 45 mg
SDMT Significant only for 45 mg, trend 30 mg
TMT, Part A Significant only for 45 mg
TMT, Part B; RAVLT; BVMTR Not significant
35
L-AmphetamineL-amphetamine 30 mg vs placebo for 29 days
– N = 151 with MS, cognitive deficit– Randomized, double-blind, controlled trial
Abbreviations: Brief Visual Memory Test-Revised-Total Learning (BVMTR-TL); Brief Visual Memory Test-Revised-Delayed Recall (BVMTR-DR); California Verbal Learning Test, second edition-Delayed Recall (CVLT2-DR); California Verbal Learning Test, second edition-Total Learning (CVLT2-TL); Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT); Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT). Morrow SA, et al. J Neurol. 2009;256:1095-1102.
Test Outcome
SDMT (primary outcome) No significant difference
CVLT2-TL No significant differenceCVLT2-DR Significantly betterBVMTR-TL Significantly betterBVMTR-DR Significantly betterPASAT No significant difference
36
Donepezil
Abbreviations: COWA, Controlled Oral Word Association; D-KEFS Sort, Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System Sorting; JOLO, Judgment of Line Orientation; PASAT, Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test; SDMT, Symbol Digit Modalities Test; SRT, Selective Reminding Test. Krupp LB, et al. Neurology. 2011;76:1500-1507.
Outcome, Mean Donepezil(n = 61)
Placebo(n = 59) P-Value
SRT (primary outcome) 1.6 1.7 NS
10/36 Spatial Recall -0.4 1.6 NS
SDMT 0.6 2.0 NS
PASAT 2 + 3 3.8 3.5 NS
COWA 1.0 0.6 NS
D-KEFS Sort 0.6 0.5 NS
JOLO 0.6 0.6 NS
Donepezil 10 mg/day vs placebo for 24 weeks– N = 120 with MS, memory deficit– Multi-center, double-blind, randomized trial
37
Methylphenidate
*P = <.001; †P = NS.Harel Y, et al. J Neurol Sci. 2009;276:38-40.
Test
Methylphenidate(n = 14)
Placebo(n = 12)
Baseline 1 HourAfter Baseline 1 Hour
After
PASAT 3 33.3 40.9* 37.8 39.5†
PASAT 2 24.6 30.9* 28.0 28.3†
Single dose: methylphenidate 10 mg vs placebo– N = 26 with MS, attention deficit (PASAT score <25th
percentile)– Double-blind, placebo-controlled– All patients treated with IFN beta-1a ≥6 months
38
Modafinil IM IFN beta-1a vs IM IFN beta-1a + modafinil
– N = 60 with RRMS, attention deficit – 49 completed study
Improvement in multiple cognitive outcomes However:
– No placebo control– High dropout– Multiple comparisons
Wilken JA, et al. Int J MS Care. 2008;10:1-10.
39
Drugs with No Significant Cognitive Effects
4-aminopyridine (AP) vs placebo1
N = 20 with MS; randomized, double-blind, crossover 4-AP 32 mg/d vs placebo for 6 mo2
N = 54 with progressive MS; randomized, double-blind, crossover design
Amantadine vs pemoline vs placebo for 6 wk3
– N = 45 with MS and severe fatigue– Only written Symbol Digit Modalities Test showed
significance for amantadine Rivastigmine 3 mg BID vs placebo for 12 wk4
– N = 60 with MS and cognitive impairment; double-blind, randomized, controlled trial
1. Smits RC, et al. Neurology. 1994;44:1701-1705. 2. Rossini PM, et al. Mult Scler. 2001;7:354-358.3. Geisler MW, et al. Arch Neurol. 1996;53:185-188. 4. Shaygannejad V, et al. Can J Neurol Sci. 2008;35:476-481.
40
Medications for Cognition in MS None proven effective Stimulants may have some benefit
– Perhaps nonspecific due to increased alertness, decreased fatigue
41
Cognitive Rehabilitation Few studies Psychology for stress reduction Neuropsychology for identification of
specific areas of deficit Speech therapy for help with organizational
skills Occupational or physical therapy for energy
conservation Assistive technology
42
Case Continues—Addressing Cognitive Impairment
Neuropsychological testing offered to patient, but refused
Family recognized that cognitive loss was due to MS Reminders put in place
– Cell phone, memory book – With these, patient and family believe he is functioning
adequately If reminders fail, will consider further testing or
cognitive rehabilitation with speech/language pathology and neuropsychology
43
Mobility Impairment
44
Contributors to MS-Related Mobility Loss
Spasticity Proprioceptive deficits Balance deficit Psychological contributors
45
Spasticity Weakness Stiffness (clasp knife) Spastic leg jumps Hyperreflexia (clonus) Babinski response
46
Balance Deficit Loss of position sense Visual loss Vestibular loss Ataxia
47
Oral Medications for Spasticity Baclofen Tizanidine Benzodiazepines Dantrolene Cannabis
48
Physical Therapy for Mobility Stretching Strengthening Cardiovascular Balance
49
Botulinum Toxin Prevents acetylcholine release at
neuromuscular junction1
Typically lasts about 3 months1
Ideal for relatively localized muscle groups (eg, footdrop, hand flexors)
Hyman N, et al. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000;68:707-712.
50
Intrathecal Baclofen Ideal patient is one in whom oral baclofen
works but sedation is excessive1
– Also for patients with severe spasticity who require higher dose than can be delivered orally
Delivered directly into CSF by lumbar catheter1
Typically, a test dose is given first1
Complications/adverse effects2
– Mechanical pump/catheter failure, infection, sedation, dizziness, impaired vision, slurred speech
1. National MS Society. Intrathecal baclofen. Accessed 10/2/12 at: http://www.nationalmssociety.org/about-multiple-sclerosis/what-we-know-about-ms/treatments/medications/baclofen-intrahecal/index.aspx. 2. Beard S, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1-111.
51
Surgical Options Nerve blocks – phenol Neurectomy Rhizotomy Tenotomy
52
Dalfampridine—Mechanism of Action
Demyelinated axons have excessive potassium channels that lead to – Potassium leakage out of the cell – Signal failure
Dalfampridine blocks these channels – Improving signal conduction
Jeffery DR, et al. Core Evid. 2010;5:107-112.
53
Dalfampridine Phase III Trials—Responder Analysis
Responder analysis = percentage of patients in each group who respond– Not mean differences between groups
Best means of capturing response when some individuals have a high level of response, while others have little or no response
Facilitates assessing patient-perceived value of response
54
Dalfampridine-Extended Release (ER) Phase IIIb Trial
Oral dalfampridine 10 mg BID vs placebo for 9 weeks– N = 239, MS-related gait impairment– Relapsing-remitting MS, primary-progressive MS,
secondary-progressive MS, progressive-relapsing MS– Double-blind, randomized, controlled trial
Primary outcome = proportion of “timed walk responders”– Timed 25-Foot Walk
Timed walk responder = subject whose walking speed on at least 3 of the 4 “on-drug” visits is faster than the fastest speed during any of the 5 “off-drug” visits
Goodman AD, et al. Ann Neurol. 2010;68:494-502.
55
Dalfampridine-ER Phase IIIb Trial Outcomes
Proportion of Timed Walk Responder (TWR)– Dalfampridine 42.9% vs placebo 9.3%; P <.0001
Walking speed, change from baseline– Dalfampridine TWRs 24.7% vs placebo 7.7%
12-Item MS Walking Scale, change from baseline– TWRs -6.04 vs nonresponders 0.85; P <.001
Leg strength improvement– Dalfampridine TWRs 0.145 U vs placebo 0.042 U; P = .028
Goodman AD, et al. Ann Neurol. 2010;68:494-502.
56
Dalfampridine-ER in Clinical Practice
Approved to improve walking in MS patients1
– Only drug approved for this indication Benefit is seen in patients with progressive MS, as well
as RRMS2
Contraindication1
– Renal failure or seizure history Adverse effects3,4
– Urinary tract infection, insomnia, dizziness, headache, nausea, asthenia, fatigue, back pain
In those patients who respond, dalfampridine results in a significant improvement in walking and quality of life
1. Jeffery DR, et al. Core Evid. 2010;5:107-112. 2. Pozzilli C, et al. Neurology. 2011;76(suppl 4):A73.3. Goodman AD, et al. Lancet. 2009;373:732-738. 4. Goodman AD, et al. Ann Neurol. 2010;68:494-502.
57
Gait Aids Canes, staffs, trekking poles Forearm crutches Walkers Orthoses
– Ankle-foot orthoses, knee, Hip Flexion Assist Device
Functional electrical stimulation – Tibialis, quadricep
58
Dalfampridine ER + Walking Aids
Dalfampridine improved walking speeds in phase III trials in patients already requiring walking aids (EDSS 6.0+)1-3
Clinical experience suggests synergy between physical therapy, exercise, walking devices, and pharmacotherapy with dalfampridine
1. Goodman AD, et al. Lancet. 2009;373:732-738. 2. Goodman AD, et al. Ann Neurol. 2010;68:494-502. 3. Brown T, et al. 62nd AAN; April 10–17, 2010; Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Abstract P07.164.
59
Case Continues and Conclusion
60
Case Continues—Addressing Mobility Impairment
Spasticity identified as a major source of symptoms
Physical therapy– Patient started doing leg stretching at home with
therapist oversight Gait aids
– Single point cane recommended Pathogenesis of imbalance due to sensory loss
described Patient resistant in past, but now will consider
– Ankle-foot orthoses recommended but patient refused
61
Case Continues—Addressing Mobility Impairment
Botulinum toxin – Injected into gastrocnemius with excellent
results Baclofen
– Started baclofen 10 mg TID, but continued marked hyperreflexia
– Dose gradually increased to 20 mg TID with marked improvement in spasticity
62
Case—Mobility Issue Follow-Up Spasticity under much better control Still having falls due to decreased balance
– Most likely due to sensory loss in legs After other issues addressed, patient still had
gait dysfunction Dalfampridine Extended Release trial
– Improvement in Timed 25-Foot Walk from 14.2 seconds to 10.1 seconds
– Patient reports that this led to an improvement in his daily function with better gait
63
Case Continues—Other Issues Now that the issues with greatest impact on
patient have been addressed, focus can turn to other issues– Urinary urgency– Fatigue
Management strategies for each
64
Practical Considerations of Balancing DMTs and Symptomatic Therapies
Generally add 1 medication at a time Increase dose to effectiveness or tolerability
limit Discontinue medications that fail Try to dose as few times a day as possible Use PRN when possible (fatigue, bladder) Review medications at each visit Emphasize nonmedical therapy (exercise)
65
Conclusions Optimal patient care requires balance
between DMTs and symptomatic therapy– Patients often more concerned about symptoms
than disease modification– Must address both symptoms and DMT
Often intertwined: optimal DMT use requires that symptoms be addressed– Symptoms and DMT adherence often
interconnected– Prioritize those symptoms that interfere with
DMT adherence