Comparable Efficacy and Safety of Teriflunomide versus Dimethyl Fumarate for the Treatment of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis

Table 2

Comparison of outcomes between groups before and after propensity score matching.

Outcomes	All patients				Matched group
	DMF (N = 70)	TRF (N = 79)	OR (95% CI)	value	DMF (N = 38)	TRF (N = 38)	value	value
EDSS at the last visit, median (IQR)	0.0 (0.0–1.25)	1.0 (0.0–2.0)	0.692 (0.519, 0.922)	0.012	0.0 (0.0–1.5)	0.0 (0.0–2.0)	0.867 (0.546, 1.664)	0.867
Patients with 12-week CDP, n (%)	3 (4.3%)	15 (19.0%)	0.191 (0.053, 0.691)	0.012	2 (5.3%)	4 (10.5%)	0.479 (0.058, 3.969)	0.495
Patients with 12-week CDI, n (%)	24 (34.3%)	26 (32.9%)	1.064 (0.538, 2.101)	0.859	11 (28.9%)	12 (31.6)	0.805 (0.293, 2.213)	0.675
Patients with relapse during follow-up, n (%)	3 (4.3%)	3 (3.8%)	1.134 (0.221, 5.811)	0.880	2 (5.3%)	2 (5.3%)	1.146 (0.129, 10.202)	0.903

DMF: dimethyl fumarate; TRF: teriflunomide; EDSS: expanded disability status scale; CDP: confirmed disability progression; CDI: confirmed disability improvement.