We thank Dr. Tsigvoulis and his colleagues (
Tsivgoulis et al., 2018
) both for their interest in, and for their comments about, our recent paper (
Mitsikostas and Goodin, 2017
). The main scientific question we raised in our paper was whether, when making indirect
comparisons between DMTs in MS, the combined use of both the number needed to treat
(NNT) and the relative risk reduction (RR), provided a more accurate guide to relative
efficacy than the use of either method alone. We appreciate the opportunity to further
discuss these important issues.To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Multiple Sclerosis and Related DisordersAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- European/Canadian multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled study of the effects of glatiramer acetate on magnetic resonance imagi- ng–measured disease activity and burden in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis.Ann. Neurol. 2001; 49: 290-297
- Comparing the efficacy of disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis.Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 2017; 18: 109-116
- Natalizumab plus interferon beta-1a for relapsing multiple sclerosis.N. Engl. J. Med. 2006; 354: 911-923
- Commentary on: comparing the efficacy of disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis.Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 2018;
Article info
Publication history
Published online: March 26, 2018
Accepted:
March 14,
2018
Received:
March 7,
2018
Identification
Copyright
© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
