The Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) contains 14 items assessing the following 4 domains: effectiveness (items 1 - 3), side effects (items 4 - 8), convenience (items 9 - 11) and global satisfaction (items 12 - 14). The primary outcome was measured on the global satisfaction domain. Item 12 scored as 1 (not at all confident) to 5 (extremely confident); item 13 scored as 1 (not at all certain) to 5 (extremely certain); and item 14 scored as 1 (extremely dissatisfied) to 7 (extremely satisfied). Responses to items were summed and transformed: specifically, TSQM v 1.4 domain scale scores were computed by adding the items loading on each domain. The lowest possible score was subtracted from the composite score and divided by the greatest possible score range. This provided a transformed score between 0 and 1 that was then multiplied by 100. The final transformed score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better treatment satisfaction.

Full Analysis Set (FAS): This set included all randomized participants who had taken at least one dose of study medication and had at least one post-baseline assessment of the TSQM. The last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was applied.

Participants were monitored for adverse events, serious adverse events and death throughout the study.

Safety Set: This set included all randomized participants who received at least one dose of study medication.

TSQM v 1.4 domains for effectiveness, side effects and convenience were used to evaluate this outcome. The effectiveness domain for items 1 - 3 was scored as: 1 (extremely dissatisfied) to 7 (extremely satisfied). For the side effects domain, item 4 scored as 0(no) or 1(yes); item 5 scored as 1 (extremely bothersome) to 5 (not at all bothersome); and items 6 - 8 scored as 1 (a great deal) to 5 (not at all). For the convenience domain, items 9 and 10 scored as 1(extremely difficult) to 7 (extremely easy), and item 11 scored as 1 (extremely inconvenient) to 7 (extremely convenient). For each domain, scale scores were computed by adding the items loading on each domain. The lowest possible score was subtracted from the composite score and divided by the greatest possible score range. This provided a transformed score between 0 and 1 that was then multiplied by 100. The final transformed score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better treatment satisfaction.

FAS: The LOCF method was applied.

The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-I) scale was used to measure this outcome. The scale consists of 21 items to assess the intensity of depression in clinical and normal patients. Each item is a list of four statements arranged in increasing severity about a particular symptom of depression. Each item was scored from 0 - 3. If more than one score was provided for an item, the maximum score was considered the item score. The total score was calculated as the sum of all individual items and then compared to a key to determine the depression's severity. The standard key ranges were: 0 - 9 indicated minimal depression; 10 - 18 indicated mild depression; 19 - 29 indicated moderate depression and 30 - 63 indicated severe depression. Higher total scores indicate more severe depressive symptoms.

FAS: The LOCF method was applied.

The SF-36 is a health-related quality of life instrument used in numerous disease states, including MS (Brazier et al 1992). It is a self-administered survey that measures 8 domains of health including: physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health, bodily pain, general health perceptions, vitality, social functioning, role limitations due to emotional problems and general mental health. Two summary scale scores can be calculated: the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and the Mental Component Summary (MCS). Each domain was scored by adding the individual items from the domain and transforming the resulting scores into a 0 to 100 scale with higher scores indicating better health status or functioning.

Participants from the full analysis set were considered for this analysis. However, for a given time frame, participants analyzed had both baseline and 6 month asssessment values.