Cochrane · systematic review · CD009333
Interferons‐beta versus glatiramer acetate for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis
La Mantia, L, Di Pietrantonj, C, Rovaris, M, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
7
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 28.6%Moderate 5 · 71.4%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyInterferons compared with glatiramer acetate for participants with relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis
Population: people with relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of participants with relapse Risk ratio (M‐H, random, 95% CI) Interferons vs glatiramer acetate | RR 1.04 [0.87, 1.24] | 3 studies · 2184 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Number of participants with confirmed progression Risk ratio (M‐H, random, 95% CI) Interferons vs glatiramer acetate | RR 1.11 [0.91, 1.35] | 3 studies · 2169 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Number of participants who dropped out for AEs Risk ratio (M‐H, random, 95% CI) Interferons vs glatiramer acetate | RR 0.95 [0.64, 1.4] | 4 studies · 2685 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mean number of active T2 lesions Mean difference (IV, random, 95% CI) Interferons vs glatiramer acetate | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 1790 participants | Low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Mean number of new enhancing lesions Mean difference (IV, random, 95% CI) Interferons vs glatiramer acetate | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 1734 participants | Moderate |
Mean change in total T2‐hyperintense lesion load Mean difference (IV, random, 95% CI) Interferons vs glatiramer acetate | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 1608 participants | Moderate |
Mean change in total T1‐hypointense lesion load Interferons vs glatiramer acetate | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 1602 participants | Moderate |
Interferons compared with glatiramer acetate for participants with relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis
Population: patients with relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of participants with relapse Risk ratio (M‐H, random, 95% CI) Interferons vs glatiramer acetate | RR 1.04 [0.87, 1.24] | 3 studies · 2184 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Number of participants with confirmed progression Risk ratio (M‐H, random, 95% CI) Interferons vs glatiramer acetate | RR 1.11 [0.91, 1.35] | 3 studies · 2169 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Number of participants who dropped out for AEs Risk ratio (M‐H, random, 95% CI) Interferons vs glatiramer acetate | RR 0.95 [0.64, 1.4] | 4 studies · 2685 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mean number of active T2 lesions Mean difference (IV, random, 95% CI) Interferons vs glatiramer acetate | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 1790 participants | Low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Mean number of new enhancing lesions Mean difference (IV, random, 95% CI) Interferons vs glatiramer acetate | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 1734 participants | Moderate |
Mean change in total T2‐hyperintense lesion load Mean difference (IV, random, 95% CI) Interferons vs glatiramer acetate | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 1608 participants | Moderate |
Mean change in total T1‐hypointense lesion load Interferons vs glatiramer acetate | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 1602 participants | Moderate |