Summary of findings for the main comparison. Statins plus beta interferon versus beta interferon for multiple sclerosis.
| Statins plus beta interferon versus beta interferon for multiple sclerosis | ||||||
| Patient or population: multiple sclerosis Settings: Intervention: Statins plus beta interferon versus beta interferon | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Statins plus beta interferon versus beta interferon | |||||
| Number of participants with relapses at 12 months Number of participants with relapses at 12 months Follow‐up: 12 months | Study population | RR 1 (0.45 to 2.23) | 34 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | No relevant data | |
| 412 per 1000 | 412 per 1000 (185 to 918) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 412 per 1000 | 412 per 1000 (185 to 919) | |||||
| Number of participants with relapses at 24 months Number of participants with relapses at 24 months Follow‐up: mean 24 months | Study population | RR 0.7 (0.36 to 1.36) | 45 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | ||
| 542 per 1000 | 379 per 1000 (195 to 737) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 542 per 1000 | 379 per 1000 (195 to 737) | |||||
| Number of participants with progression at 12 months3 ‐ not reported | See comment | See comment | Not estimable3 | ‐ | See comment | No relevant data |
| Number of participants with progression at 24 months Number of participants with progression at 24 months Follow‐up: mean 24 months | Study population | RR 0.13 (0.01 to 2.22) | 45 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | ||
| 167 per 1000 | 22 per 1000 (2 to 370) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 167 per 1000 | 22 per 1000 (2 to 371) | |||||
| Number of participants with new T2 or GELs at 12 months Number of participants with new T2 or GELs at 12 months Follow‐up: mean 12 months | Study population | RR 1 (0.3 to 3.36) | 34 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | ||
| 235 per 1000 | 235 per 1000 (71 to 791) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 235 per 1000 | 235 per 1000 (71 to 790) | |||||
| Number of participants with new T2 or GELs at 24 months3 ‐ not reported | See comment | See comment | Not estimable3 | No relevant data | See comment | No relevant data |
| Changes of EDSS at 12 months Changes of EDSS at 12 months Follow‐up: mean 12 months | The mean changes of EDSS at 12 months in the intervention groups was 0.33 lower (0.92 lower to 0.27 higher) | WMD ‐0.33 (‐0.92 to 0.27) | 387 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate4,5 | ||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 The only one study included was an open‐label controlled randomized trial, did not describe the method used to generate allocation sequence and did not mention allocation concealment. Besides, the drop‐out rate was unbalanced between treatment groups. 2 Only one low quality study contributed to this outcome analysis. The remaining three studies did not report this time point outcome. 3 No studies reported this time point outcome. 4 Two included studies were assessed of good methodological quality. 5 Only two high quality study contributed to this outcome analysis. The remaining two studies did not report this time point outcome.