Long-term follow-up of patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis from the CLARITY/CLARITY Extension cohort of CLASSIC-MS: An ambispective study

1Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: CLASSIC-MS evaluated the long-term efficacy of cladribine tablets in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Objective: Report long-term mobility and disability beyond treatment courses received in CLARITY/CLARITY Extension. Methods: This analysis represents CLASSIC-MS patients who participated in CLARITY with/without participation in CLARITY Extension, and received ⩾1 course of cladribine tablets or placebo (N = 435). Primary objective includes evaluation of long-term mobility (no wheelchair use in the 3 months prior to first visit in CLASSIC-MS and not bedridden at any time since last parent study dose (LPSD), i.e. Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score <7). Secondary objective includes long-term disability status (no use of an ambulatory device (EDSS < 6) at any time since LPSD). Results: At CLASSIC-MS baseline, mean ± standard deviation EDSS score was 3.9 ± 2.1 and the median time since LPSD was 10.9 (range = 9.3–14.9) years. Cladribine tablets–exposed population: 90.6% (N = 394), including 160 patients who received a cumulative dose of 3.5 mg/kg over 2 years. Patients not using a wheelchair and not bedridden: exposed, 90.0%; unexposed, 77.8%. Patients with no use of an ambulatory device: exposed, 81.2%; unexposed, 75.6%. Conclusion: With a median 10.9 years’ follow-up after CLARITY/CLARITY Extension, findings suggest the sustained long-term mobility and disability benefits of cladribine tablets.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Giovannoni, G., Boyko, A., Correale, J., Edan, G., Freedman, M. S., Montalban, X., … Verdun di Cantogno, E. (2023). Long-term follow-up of patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis from the CLARITY/CLARITY Extension cohort of CLASSIC-MS: An ambispective study. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 29(6), 719–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/13524585231161494

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free