Effectiveness of XXXX compared to other @entity15 therapies.

@entity1 @entity15 @entity1638
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of @entity1638 (GA) compared to other @entity15 ( @entity15 ) therapies in routine clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational cohort study carried out in @entity15 @entity1 treated with GA (GA cohort) or other @entity15 therapies -switched from GA- (non-GA cohort). Study data were obtained through review of our @entity15 @entity1 database. The primary endpoint was the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores reached at the end of treatment/last check-up. RESULTS: A total of 180 @entity1 were included: GA cohort n  =  120, non-GA cohort n  =  60. @entity1 in the GA cohort showed better EDSS scores at the end of treatment/last check-up (mean      SD, 2.8      1.8 vs. 3.9      2.2; P  =  0.001) and were 1.65 times more likely to show better EDSS scores compared to the non-GA cohort (odds ratio, 0.606; 95%CI, 0.436-0.843; P  =  0.003). @entity1 in the GA cohort showed longer mean time to reach EDSS scores of 6 (209.1 [95%CI, 187.6-230.6] vs. 164.3 [95%CI, 137.0-191.6] months; P  =  0.004) and slower disability progression (hazard ratio, 0.415 [95%CI, 0.286-0.603]; P  <  0.001). The annualized relapse rate was lower in the GA cohort (mean      SD, 0.5      0.5 vs. 0.8      0.5; P  =  0.001) and @entity1 ' quality of life was improved in this study cohort compared to the non-GA cohort (mean      SD, 0.7      0.1 vs. 0.6      0.2; P  =  0.01). CONCLUSIONS: GA may slow down the progression of EDSS scores to a greater extent than other @entity15 therapies, as well as achieving a greater reduction in relapses and a greater improvement in @entity1 ' quality of life. Switching from GA to other @entity15 therapies has not proved to entail a better response to treatment.
