Table 2.

Analysis of BL characteristics and outcome following ALEM treatment.

Baseline variables	p‐value	Correlation
EDSS increase at last follow‐up
MS duration at ALEM initiation	<0.001	r = 0.35
BL EDSS	<0.001	r = 0.76
Treatment naïve	0.017 a	Median EDSS difference = 1.0 (95% CI 0.0–2.20) b
No. DMTs prior ALEM	0.014 a	r = 0.26
High‐efficacy pretreatment	0.004 a	Median EDSS differences = 1.0 (95% CI 0.0–2.0)
Switch from NAT	0.004 a	Median EDSS differences = 1.0 (95% CI 0.5–2.20) b
PIRA “yes/no”
No. DMTs prior to ALEM	0.04 c	HR 3.06 (95% CI 1.05–8.89)
Achievement of CDI “yes/no”
Age at MS diagnosis	0.04 c	HR 1.96 (1.03–3.74)
MS duration at ALEM initiation	0.00009 c	HR 0.86 (0.80–0.93)
High‐efficacy DMTs prior to ALEM	<0.001 c	HR 5.16 (95% CI 2.66–10.0)
Switch from NAT	0.025 c	HR 3.9 (95% CI: 1.18–12.9)
Switch from FTY	0.016 c	HR 2.3 (95% CI: 1.16–4.58)

ALEM, alemtuzumab; BL, baseline; CDI, confirmed disability improvement; CI, confidence interval; DMT, disease‐modifying therapy; EDSS, Expanded Disability Status Scale; FTY, fingolimod; HR, hazard ratio (Cox‐regression model); MS, multiple sclerosis; NAT, natalizumab; No., number of; OR, odds ratio (logistic regression); PIRA, progression independent of relapse activity; r, Spearman correlation coefficient.

^a Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney based on 10,000 Monte‐Carlo simulations.

^b Hodges‐Lehmann 95% CI.

^c Cox‐regression model.