Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorReyes, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorSuarez, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorAllen-Philbey, Ken_US
dc.contributor.authorYildiz, Öen_US
dc.contributor.authorMathews, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorAnjorin, Gen_US
dc.contributor.authorEdwards, Fen_US
dc.contributor.authorJain, Cen_US
dc.contributor.authorTurner, Ben_US
dc.contributor.authorMarta, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorGnanapavan, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorSchmierer, Ken_US
dc.contributor.authorGiovannoni, Gen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-16T17:44:19Z
dc.date.available2020-02-23en_US
dc.date.issued2020-02-24en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/63180
dc.description.abstractAIMS: To examine the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and disease-modifying therapy (DMT) prescribing patterns in people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (pwRRMS). METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted among pwRRMS treated with a DMT in the neuroinflammation service at The Royal London Hospital (Barts Health NHS Trust). Study data were collected between July and September 2017. SES was determined by patient income and education extracted from the English Index of Multiple Deprivation. Based on their efficacy, DMTs were categorized as moderate efficacy (Glatiramer Acetate and Beta-Interferons), high efficacy (Cladribine, Fingolimod and Dimethyl Fumarate) and very-high efficacy therapies (Natalizumab and Alemtuzumab). Multinomial logistic regressions were performed for univariate and multivariate models to assess differences between SES and DMT prescribing patterns. RESULTS: Treatment consisted of moderate efficacy (n = 76, 12%), high efficacy (n = 325, 51.3%) and very-high efficacy therapies (n = 232, 36.7%). Medians for income and education deciles were 4 (IQR 3-7) and 6 (IQR 4-8), respectively. After multinomial logistic regression analysis, patient income was not associated with increased odds of being treated with high efficacy (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.82-1.04; p = 0.177) or very-high efficacy DMTs (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85-1.06; p = 0.371). Similarly, patient education was not associated with being treated with high efficacy (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.80-1.03; p = 0.139) or very-high efficacy therapies (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81-1.04; p = 0.188). CONCLUSIONS: SES was not predictive of DMT prescribing patterns in pwRRMS. Whilst this appears reassuring within this universal health care setting, the same methodology needs to be applied to other MS services for comparison. Data could then be further interrogated to explore potential socioeconomic inequities in DMT prescribing patterns across the UK.en_US
dc.format.extent102024 - ?en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofMult Scler Relat Disorden_US
dc.subjectDisease-modifying treatments, Socioeconomic statusen_US
dc.subjectEducationen_US
dc.subjectIncomeen_US
dc.subjectMultiple sclerosisen_US
dc.titleSocioeconomic status and disease-modifying therapy prescribing patterns in people with multiple sclerosis.en_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.msard.2020.102024en_US
pubs.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32143179en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublished onlineen_US
pubs.volume41en_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2020-02-23en_US
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record