Efficacy and Safety Outcomes with Diroximel Fumarate After Switching from Prior Therapies or Continuing on DRF: Results from the Phase 3 EVOLVE-MS-1 Study

Comparative efficacy of diroximel fumarate, ozanimod and interferon beta-1a for relapsing multiple sclerosis using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons

Aim: Diroximel fumarate (DRF), ozanimod (OZA) and interferon beta-1a (IFN) are disease-modifying therapies approved for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. No randomized trials have compared DRF versus OZA and IFN. We compared DRF versus OZA and DRF versus IFN using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons for efficacy outcomes, including annualized relapse rate (ARR), 12- and 24-week confirmed disability progression (CDP) and absence of gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) T1 lesions and new/newly enlarging T2 lesions. Patients & methods: We used individual patient data from EVOLVE-MS-1 (NCT02634307), a 2-year, open-label, single-arm, phase III study of DRF (n = 1057) and aggregate data from RADIANCE (NCT02047734), a 2-year, double-blind, phase III study that compared OZA 1 mg once daily (n = 433) and intramuscular IFN 30 μg once weekly (n = 441). To account for cross-trial differences, the EVOLVE-MS-1 population was restricted to those who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for RADIANCE, then weighted to match the average baseline characteristics of RADIANCE. Results: After weighting, DRF and OZA had similar ARRs (0.18 and 0.17, respectively), with a rate difference (DRF vs OZA) of 0.01 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.04 to 0.06). DRF had a lower ARR than IFN (0.18 and 0.28, respectively), with a rate difference (DRF vs IFN) of -0.10 (95% CI: -0.16 to -0.04) after weighting. Outcomes for 12- and 24-week CDP favored DRF versus OZA; 12-week CDP favored DRF versus IFN, but there was not strong evidence favoring DRF over IFN for 24-week CDP. Compared with OZA and IFN, DRF had higher proportions of patients without Gd+ T1 lesions and patients without new/newly enlarging T2 lesions. Conclusion: Disability progression and radiological outcomes were favorable for DRF versus OZA, although no differences were observed in ARR. Clinical and radiological outcomes generally favored DRF versus IFN. These findings may be informative for patients and clinicians considering different treatment options for MS.

Metabolic Messengers: itaconate

The metabolite itaconate has emerged as an important immunoregulator with roles in antibacterial defence, inhibition of inflammation and, more recently, as an inhibitory factor in obesity. Itaconate is one of the most upregulated metabolites in inflammatory macrophages. It is produced owing to the disturbance of the tricarboxylic acid cycle and the diversion of aconitate to itaconate via the enzyme aconitate decarboxylase 1. In immunology, initial studies concentrated on the role of itaconate in inflammatory macrophages where it was shown to be inhibitory, but this has expanded as the impact of itaconate on other cell types is starting to emerge. This review focuses on itaconate as a key immunoregulatory metabolite and describes its diverse mechanisms of action and its many impacts on the immune and inflammatory responses and in cancer. We also examine the clinical relevance of this immunometabolite and its therapeutic potential for immune and inflammatory diseases.

New onset lymphopenia in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis switching from long-standing dimethyl fumarate treatment to diroximel fumarate: A case series

Lymphopenia is a known adverse effect in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) treated with fumaric acids. We present a case series of four patients diagnosed with RMS with prolonged lymphocyte stability on dimethyl fumarate for over 1 year who developed significant lymphopenia after transitioning to diroximel fumarate. This case series highlights the need for further research to elucidate the risk of lymphopenia in patients switching between fumaric acids.

Worsening of lymphopenia in patients with multiple sclerosis when switched from dimethyl fumarate to diroximel fumarate

BACKGROUND

Diroximel fumarate (DRF) and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) are similar disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) that reduce disease activity in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). We expect that patients on DRF would experience a similar incidence and severity of lymphopenia, given that it is a well-documented side effect of DMF treatment.

METHODS

We utilized linear mixed-effects models to test for differences in white blood cell count (WBC), absolute lymphocyte count (ALC), absolute CD3+ count, absolute CD4+ count, and absolute CD8+ count over time in clinically stable patients with MS on DMF who switched to DRF.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients with MS who were clinically stable on DMF switched to DRF. Linear mixed-effects models showed a decrease in ALC when switching medications (β = -225.70, p < 0.040). In addition, the models showed a decrease in absolute CD8+ counts after switches from DMF to DRF (β = -85.59, p = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

Patients with MS who are stable on DMF and switch to DRF may experience worsening of lymphopenia and lower absolute CD8+ counts, which may increase their risk of opportunistic infections. These findings indicate that close lymphocyte subset monitoring is clinically important when switching patients with MS from DMF to DRF.

Lymphopenia is Not the Primary Therapeutic Mechanism of Diroximel Fumarate in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: Subgroup Analyses of the EVOLVE-MS-1 Study

INTRODUCTION

In EVOLVE-MS-1 (NCT02634307), mean absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) on diroximel fumarate (DRF) declined from baseline by approximately 28% in year 1, then stabilized, similar to ALC decline observed with dimethyl fumarate (DMF). Prior studies reported that clinical efficacy of DMF was not substantially different in patients with and without lymphopenia.

METHODS

EVOLVE-MS-1-an open-label, 96-week, phase 3 study-assessed DRF safety and exploratory efficacy in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. This study analyzes efficacy-related outcomes comparing (1) patients with lymphopenia (≥ 1 ALC below lower limit of normal [LLN]) and without (all ALCs ≥ LLN); (2) across quartiles stratified by week 96 ALC decline from baseline: Q1 (≥ 47% decline); Q2 (30% to < 47% decline); Q3 (12% to < 30% decline); Q4 (< 12% decline).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between patients without (n = 593) and with lymphopenia (n = 452). At week 96, adjusted annualized relapse rate (ARR; 95% confidence interval) was 0.14 (0.11-0.17) without lymphopenia and 0.12 (0.09-0.15) with lymphopenia. Estimated proportions with 12-week confirmed disability progression (CDP12) at week 96 were 10.2% without and 9.3% with lymphopenia. When stratified by quartiles (Q1-Q4), ARR at week 96 was 0.11 (Q1), 0.09 (Q2), 0.13 (Q3), and 0.17 (Q4). Estimated proportions with CDP12 at week 96 were 9.6% (Q1), 10.2% (Q2), 5.7% (Q3), and 10.9% (Q4). At week 96, no evidence of disease activity was achieved by 47.2% (Q1), 47.8% (Q2), 45.4% (Q3), and 37.3% (Q4) of patients.

CONCLUSION

In DRF-treated patients in EVOLVE-MS-1, clinical and radiological measurements indicated reduced disease activity regardless of lymphopenia or magnitude of ALC decline from baseline; however, patients who had greater ALC declines appeared to have numerically lower ARR and higher proportions free from relapses and gadolinium-enhancing lesions compared with those with smallest decline. This supports prior evidence that, while lymphopenia may contribute to fumarate efficacy outcomes, it is not the primary mechanism of action.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02634307.

De-escalation of Disease-Modifying Therapy for People with Multiple Sclerosis Due to Safety Considerations: Characterizing 1-Year Outcomes in 25 People Who Switched from Ocrelizumab to Diroximel Fumarate

INTRODUCTION

Switching disease-modifying therapy (DMT) may be considered for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) if a patient's current therapy is no longer optimal. This was particularly important during the recent COVID-19 pandemic because of considerations around immune deficiency and impaired vaccine response associated with B cell-depleting DMTs. This real-world, single-center study aimed to evaluate change or decline in functional ability and overall disease stability in people with RRMS who were switched from B cell-depleting ocrelizumab (OCRE) to diroximel fumarate (DRF) because of safety concern related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Adults with RRMS were included if they had been clinically stable for ≥ 1 year on OCRE. Data collected at baseline and 1 year post switch included relapse rate, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), blood work for assessment of peripheral immune parameters, the Cognitive Assessment Battery (CAB), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

RESULTS

Participants (N = 25) had a mean (SD) age of 52 (9) years, and a mean (SD) duration of 26 (8) months' treatment with OCRE before the switch to DRF. Median washout duration since the last OCRE infusion was 7 months (range 4-18 months). No participants relapsed on DRF during follow-up, and all remained persistent on DRF after 1 year. There were no significant changes in peripheral immune parameters, other than an increase in the percentage of CD19+ cells 1 year after switching (p < 0.05). Similarly, there were no significant changes in CAB, OCT, and PROs.

CONCLUSION

These preliminary findings suggest that transition to DRF from OCRE may be an effective treatment option for people with RRMS who are clinically stable but may need to switch for reasons unrelated to effectiveness. Longer follow-up times on larger samples are needed to confirm these observations.

Managing multiple sclerosis in individuals aged 55 and above: a comprehensive review

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) management in individuals aged 55 and above presents unique challenges due to the complex interaction between aging, comorbidities, immunosenescence, and MS pathophysiology. This comprehensive review explores the evolving landscape of MS in older adults, including the increased incidence and prevalence of MS in this age group, the shift in disease phenotypes from relapsing-remitting to progressive forms, and the presence of multimorbidity and polypharmacy. We aim to provide an updated review of the available evidence of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) in older patients, including the efficacy and safety of existing therapies, emerging treatments such as Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTKs) inhibitors and those targeting remyelination and neuroprotection, and the critical decisions surrounding the initiation, de-escalation, and discontinuation of DMTs. Non-pharmacologic approaches, including physical therapy, neuromodulation therapies, cognitive rehabilitation, and psychotherapy, are also examined for their role in holistic care. The importance of MS Care Units and advance care planning are explored as a cornerstone in providing patient-centric care, ensuring alignment with patient preferences in the disease trajectory. Finally, the review emphasizes the need for personalized management and continuous monitoring of MS patients, alongside advocating for inclusive study designs in clinical research to improve the management of this growing patient demographic.

Advances in Multiple Sclerosis Neurotherapeutics, Neuroprotection, and Risk Mitigation Strategies

The treatment of patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) has advanced tremendously over the past few decades. More efficacious therapies have been approved, which can significantly reduce the inflammatory process of relapsing MS. Neuroprotection by controlling this pathophysiology is important given our current limitations to control progressive MS and induce neurorepair. Here, the authors discuss the current landscape of neurotherapeutics for relapsing MS focusing on newer disease-modifying treatments and their use. Risk mitigation of these medications can greatly improve their safety and improve their benefit-risk balance. The authors discuss treatment strategies for risk mitigation including treatment discontinuation and de-escalation.

Current knowledge on multiple sclerosis pathophysiology, disability progression assessment and treatment options, and the role of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune disease of the central nervous system (CNS) that affects nearly 2.8 million people each year. MS distinguishes three main types: relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), secondary progressive MS (SPMS) and primary progressive MS (PPMS). RRMS is the most common type, with the majority of patients eventually progressing to SPMS, in which neurological development is constant, whereas PPMS is characterized by a progressive course from disease onset. New or additional insights into the role of effector and regulatory cells of the immune and CNS systems, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection, and the microbiome in the pathophysiology of MS have emerged, which may lead to the development of more targeted therapies that can halt or reverse neurodegeneration. Depending on the type and severity of the disease, various disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are currently used for RRMS/SPMS and PPMS. As a last resort, and especially in highly active RRMS that does not respond to DMTs, autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) is performed and has shown good results in reducing neuroinflammation. Nevertheless, the question of its potential role in preventing disability progression remains open. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive update on MS pathophysiology, assessment of MS disability progression and current treatments, and to examine the potential role of AHSCT in preventing disability progression.

The evolution of multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies: An update for pharmacists

PURPOSE

Multiple sclerosis (MS) and the evolution of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) and their indications, mechanisms of action, efficacy, pregnancy class, and cost are discussed.

SUMMARY

MS is an immune-mediated, demyelinating, and progressive neurological disorder that can cause both motor and cognitive deficits. Onset of MS typically occurs between the ages of 20 and 40 years, and the disease can result in significant disability over time. Since the introduction of the first DMT for the treatment of MS in 1993, significant progress has been made in the development of new classes of DMTs with different mechanisms of action, higher efficacy, and simpler administration schedules, offering patients better alternatives. However, drawbacks with the use of DMTs include their increasing cost and formulary restrictions.

CONCLUSION

The treatment landscape of MS has significantly changed over the past 2 decades, and the introduction of newer classes of DMTs provides an opportunity for pharmacists to play an important role in the management of this patient population.

Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Different therapeutic strategies are available for the treatment of people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), including immunomodulators, immunosuppressants and biological agents. Although each one of these therapies reduces relapse frequency and slows disability accumulation compared to no treatment, their relative benefit remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety, through network meta-analysis, of interferon beta-1b, interferon beta-1a, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab, pegylated interferon beta-1a, daclizumab, laquinimod, azathioprine, immunoglobulins, cladribine, cyclophosphamide, diroximel fumarate, fludarabine, interferon beta 1-a and beta 1-b, leflunomide, methotrexate, minocycline, mycophenolate mofetil, ofatumumab, ozanimod, ponesimod, rituximab, siponimod and steroids for the treatment of people with RRMS.

SEARCH METHODS

CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers were searched on 21 September 2021 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. A top-up search was conducted on 8 August 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that studied one or more of the available immunomodulators and immunosuppressants as monotherapy in comparison to placebo or to another active agent, in adults with RRMS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We considered both direct and indirect evidence and performed data synthesis by pairwise and network meta-analysis. Certainty of the evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 50 studies involving 36,541 participants (68.6% female and 31.4% male). Median treatment duration was 24 months, and 25 (50%) studies were placebo-controlled. Considering the risk of bias, the most frequent concern was related to the role of the sponsor in the authorship of the study report or in data management and analysis, for which we judged 68% of the studies were at high risk of other bias. The other frequent concerns were performance bias (34% judged as having high risk) and attrition bias (32% judged as having high risk). Placebo was used as the common comparator for network analysis. Relapses over 12 months: data were provided in 18 studies (9310 participants). Natalizumab results in a large reduction of people with relapses at 12 months (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.63; high-certainty evidence). Fingolimod (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.57; moderate-certainty evidence), daclizumab (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73; moderate-certainty evidence), and immunoglobulins (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.79; moderate-certainty evidence) probably result in a large reduction of people with relapses at 12 months. Relapses over 24 months: data were reported in 28 studies (19,869 participants). Cladribine (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.64; high-certainty evidence), alemtuzumab (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.68; high-certainty evidence) and natalizumab (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65; high-certainty evidence) result in a large decrease of people with relapses at 24 months. Fingolimod (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.60; moderate-certainty evidence), dimethyl fumarate (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.70; moderate-certainty evidence), and ponesimod (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.70; moderate-certainty evidence) probably result in a large decrease of people with relapses at 24 months. Glatiramer acetate (RR 0.84, 95%, CI 0.76 to 0.93; moderate-certainty evidence) and interferon beta-1a (Avonex, Rebif) (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91; moderate-certainty evidence) probably moderately decrease people with relapses at 24 months. Relapses over 36 months findings were available from five studies (3087 participants). None of the treatments assessed showed moderate- or high-certainty evidence compared to placebo. Disability worsening over 24 months was assessed in 31 studies (24,303 participants). Natalizumab probably results in a large reduction of disability worsening (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.75; moderate-certainty evidence) at 24 months. Disability worsening over 36 months was assessed in three studies (2684 participants) but none of the studies used placebo as the comparator. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events data were available from 43 studies (35,410 participants). Alemtuzumab probably results in a slight reduction of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.79; moderate-certainty evidence). Daclizumab (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.40 to 4.63; moderate-certainty evidence), fingolimod (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.57; moderate-certainty evidence), teriflunomide (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.79; moderate-certainty evidence), interferon beta-1a (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.20; moderate-certainty evidence), laquinimod (OR 1.49, 95 % CI 1.00 to 2.15; moderate-certainty evidence), natalizumab (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.05), and glatiramer acetate (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.14; moderate-certainty evidence) probably result in a slight increase in the number of people who discontinue treatment due to adverse events. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in 35 studies (33,998 participants). There was probably a trivial reduction in SAEs amongst people with RRMS treated with interferon beta-1b as compared to placebo (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.54; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are highly confident that, compared to placebo, two-year treatment with natalizumab, cladribine, or alemtuzumab decreases relapses more than with other DMTs. We are moderately confident that a two-year treatment with natalizumab may slow disability progression. Compared to those on placebo, people with RRMS treated with most of the assessed DMTs showed a higher frequency of treatment discontinuation due to AEs: we are moderately confident that this could happen with fingolimod, teriflunomide, interferon beta-1a, laquinimod, natalizumab and daclizumab, while our certainty with other DMTs is lower. We are also moderately certain that treatment with alemtuzumab is associated with fewer discontinuations due to adverse events than placebo, and moderately certain that interferon beta-1b probably results in a slight reduction in people who experience serious adverse events, but our certainty with regard to other DMTs is lower. Insufficient evidence is available to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DMTs in a longer term than two years, and this is a relevant issue for a chronic condition like MS that develops over decades. More than half of the included studies were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and this may have influenced their results. Further studies should focus on direct comparison between active agents, with follow-up of at least three years, and assess other patient-relevant outcomes, such as quality of life and cognitive status, with particular focus on the impact of sex/gender on treatment effects.

[Current and innovative Approaches to Multiple Sclerosis Therapy]

The landscape of immunotherapies in the management of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is currently particularly dynamic. Over 21 immunotherapeutic options are approved by the European Meidcines Agency (EMA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and newer approaches are ongoing in clinical trials. With advancements in the understanding of MS pathophysiology and further development of diagnosis criteria, newer and more specific disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) have emerged in recent years. The selection and timing of proper therapeutic approaches is increasingly complex. We provide an overview of the available immunotherapies for a personalized MS treatment and discuss practical insights into their application. The importance of early intervention, distinction between escalation and induction approaches, and consideration of high-efficacy treatments for specific patient groups are in discussed. We emphasize the significance of a patient-centered approach, taking into account various factors such as comorbidities, family planning, administration preferences and potential side effects in treatment decision-making.

Adverse effects of immunotherapies for multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease of the central nervous system that affects mainly young adults (two to three times more frequently in women than in men) and causes significant disability after onset. Although it is accepted that immunotherapies for people with MS decrease disease activity, uncertainty regarding their relative safety remains.

OBJECTIVES

To compare adverse effects of immunotherapies for people with MS or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), and to rank these treatments according to their relative risks of adverse effects through network meta-analyses (NMAs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, two other databases and trials registers up to March 2022, together with reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included participants 18 years of age or older with a diagnosis of MS or CIS, according to any accepted diagnostic criteria, who were included in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined one or more of the agents used in MS or CIS, and compared them versus placebo or another active agent. We excluded RCTs in which a drug regimen was compared with a different regimen of the same drug without another active agent or placebo as a control arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods for data extraction and pairwise meta-analyses. For NMAs, we used the netmeta suite of commands in R to fit random-effects NMAs assuming a common between-study variance. We used the CINeMA platform to GRADE the certainty of the body of evidence in NMAs. We considered a relative risk (RR) of 1.5 as a non-inferiority safety threshold compared to placebo. We assessed the certainty of evidence for primary outcomes within the NMA according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate or high.

MAIN RESULTS

This NMA included 123 trials with 57,682 participants. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Reporting of SAEs was available from 84 studies including 5696 (11%) events in 51,833 (89.9%) participants out of 57,682 participants in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of SAEs, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 18 additional people would have a SAE compared to placebo. Low-certainty evidence suggested that three drugs may decrease SAEs compared to placebo (relative risk [RR], 95% confidence interval [CI]): interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (0.78, 0.66 to 0.94); dimethyl fumarate (0.79, 0.67 to 0.93), and glatiramer acetate (0.84, 0.72 to 0.98). Several drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo: moderate-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.08, 0.88 to 1.31); low-certainty evidence for ocrelizumab (0.85, 0.67 to 1.07), ozanimod (0.88, 0.59 to 1.33), interferon beta-1b (0.94, 0.78 to 1.12), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (0.96, 0.80 to 1.15), natalizumab (0.97, 0.79 to 1.19), fingolimod (1.05, 0.92 to 1.20) and laquinimod (1.06, 0.83 to 1.34); very low-certainty evidence for daclizumab (0.83, 0.68 to 1.02). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the other drugs: low-certainty evidence for cladribine (1.10, 0.79 to 1.52), siponimod (1.20, 0.95 to 1.51), ofatumumab (1.26, 0.88 to 1.79) and rituximab (1.01, 0.67 to 1.52); very low-certainty evidence for immunoglobulins (1.05, 0.33 to 3.32), diroximel fumarate (1.05, 0.23 to 4.69), peg-interferon beta-1a (1.07, 0.66 to 1.74), alemtuzumab (1.16, 0.85 to 1.60), interferons (1.62, 0.21 to 12.72) and azathioprine (3.62, 0.76 to 17.19). Withdrawals due to adverse events Reporting of withdrawals due to AEs was available from 105 studies (85.4%) including 3537 (6.39%) events in 55,320 (95.9%) patients out of 57,682 patients in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of withdrawals, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 31 additional people would withdraw compared to placebo. No drug reduced withdrawals due to adverse events when compared with placebo. There was very low-certainty evidence (meaning that estimates are not reliable) that two drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo, assuming an upper 95% CI RR limit of 1.5: diroximel fumarate (0.38, 0.11 to 1.27) and alemtuzumab (0.63, 0.33 to 1.19). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the following drugs: low-certainty evidence for ofatumumab (1.50, 0.87 to 2.59); very low-certainty evidence for methotrexate (0.94, 0.02 to 46.70), corticosteroids (1.05, 0.16 to 7.14), ozanimod (1.06, 0.58 to 1.93), natalizumab (1.20, 0.77 to 1.85), ocrelizumab (1.32, 0.81 to 2.14), dimethyl fumarate (1.34, 0.96 to 1.86), siponimod (1.63, 0.96 to 2.79), rituximab (1.63, 0.53 to 5.00), cladribine (1.80, 0.89 to 3.62), mitoxantrone (2.11, 0.50 to 8.87), interferons (3.47, 0.95 to 12.72), and cyclophosphamide (3.86, 0.45 to 33.50). Eleven drugs may have increased withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo: low-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.37, 1.01 to 1.85), glatiramer acetate (1.76, 1.36 to 2.26), fingolimod (1.79, 1.40 to 2.28), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (2.15, 1.58 to 2.93), daclizumab (2.19, 1.31 to 3.65) and interferon beta-1b (2.59, 1.87 to 3.77); very low-certainty evidence for laquinimod (1.42, 1.01 to 2.00), interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (1.54, 1.13 to 2.10), immunoglobulins (1.87, 1.01 to 3.45), peg-interferon beta-1a (3.46, 1.44 to 8.33) and azathioprine (6.95, 2.57 to 18.78); however, very low-certainty evidence is unreliable. Sensitivity analyses including only studies with low attrition bias, drug dose above the group median, or only patients with relapsing remitting MS or CIS, and subgroup analyses by prior disease-modifying treatments did not change these figures. Rankings No drug yielded consistent P scores in the upper quartile of the probability of being better than others for primary and secondary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found mostly low and very low-certainty evidence that drugs used to treat MS may not increase SAEs, but may increase withdrawals compared with placebo. The results suggest that there is no important difference in the occurrence of SAEs between first- and second-line drugs and between oral, injectable, or infused drugs, compared with placebo. Our review, along with other work in the literature, confirms poor-quality reporting of adverse events from RCTs of interventions. At the least, future studies should follow the CONSORT recommendations about reporting harm-related issues. To address adverse effects, future systematic reviews should also include non-randomized studies.

Medication persistence among people with multiple sclerosis in Slovenia treated with dimethyl fumarate

OBJECTIVE

Multiple sclerosis is a chronic, demyelinating inflammatory disease of the central nervous system. Medication persistence is defined as an interval between the initiation and last dose of the applied medication and presents a useful surrogate marker of a stable disease course. This observational study aimed to evaluate medication persistence and discontinuation reasons in Slovenian people with multiple sclerosis treated with dimethyl fumarate.

METHODS

Our retrospective cohort study evaluated people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treated with dimethyl fumarate as an initial monotherapy or switched from injectable disease-modifying therapy medication between 2014 and 2021. Medication dispenses were extracted from the Slovenian National Institute of Public Health Outpatient Medication Database. The medication persistence criterion was based on the treatment gap. Patients exceeding a 60-day gap were considered nonpersistent. The median time to discontinuation was assessed using survival analyses. Considering discontinuation reasons, patients were further divided into safety and inefficacy groups. Due to the high probability of adverse effects, patients exceeding a 60-day gap were included in the safety group, but definite discontinuation reason remains unknown. The impact of covariates was evaluated by Cox regression.

RESULTS

A total of 269 patients were included (183 women, mean age 37 years). During the 7-year follow-up period, 123 (45.7%) patients discontinued treatment. The median time to discontinuation was 5.6 years. After 1, 2, and 5 years of treatment, 84%, 77%, and 57% of patients were found to be persistent, respectively. All patients older than 30 years (p = 0.0013) and among them, those in the inefficacy group (p = 0.037) were more likely to be persistent.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study proved a high persistence rate among our patients. The most frequent discontinuation reason was gastrointestinal adverse effects. Medication persistence requires interventions in younger patients with an unstable disease course.

Do clinical trials prepare to fail by failing to prepare? An examination of MS trials and recommendations for patient-reported outcome measure selection

BACKGROUND

Many clinical trials use patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, which can influence treatment decision-making, drug approval and label claims. Given that many PRO measure options exist, and there are conceptual and contextual complexities with PRO measurement, we aimed to evaluate how and why specific PRO measures have been selected for pivotal multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical trials. Specifically, we aimed to identify the reasons documented for PRO measure selection in contemporary phase III MS disease-modifying treatment (DMT) clinical trials.

METHODS

We searched for phase III clinical trials of MS DMTs published between 2015 and 2021 and evaluated trial protocols, or primary publications where available, for PRO measure selection information. Specifically, we examined study documents for their clarification of clinical concepts measured, definitions of concepts measured, explanations of which PRO measures were considered, why specific PRO measures were chosen, and trade-offs in PRO measure selection.

RESULTS

We identified 1705 abstracts containing 61 unique phase III MS DMT clinical trials. We obtained and examined 27/61 trial protocols. Six protocols were excluded: four contained no mention of PRO measures and two contained redacted sections preventing adequate assessment, leaving 21 protocols for assessment. For the remaining 34 trials (61-27), we retrieved 31 primary publications; 15 primary publications mentioned the use of a PRO measure. None of the 36 clinical trials that mentioned the use of PRO measures (21 protocols and 15 primary publications) documented clear PRO or clinical outcome assessment (COA) measurement strategies, provided clear justifications for PRO selection, or reasons why specific PRO measures were selected when alternatives existed.

CONCLUSION

PRO measure selection for clinical trials is not evidence-based or underpinned by structured systematic approaches. This represents a critical area for study design improvement as PRO measure results directly affect patient care, PRO measurement has conceptual and contextual complexities, and there is a wide range of options when selecting a PRO measure. We recommend trial designers use formal approaches for PRO measure selection to ensure PRO measurement-based decisions are optimised. We provide a simple, logical, five-stage approach for PRO measure selection in clinical trials.

Vaginal Herpes Zoster While Under Treatment for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis With Diroximel Fumarate

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune demyelinating disorder that disproportionately affects middle-aged women, and is capable of resulting in severe disability. However, the use of disease-modifying therapies has profoundly contributed to the improvement in the morbidity of the disorder. Diroximel fumarate (DRF) is a second-generation drug that has seen success in the treatment of relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). While its relatively mild side effects of gastrointestinal discomfort are known, the less common complications are often missed in clinical settings. This includes a resulting susceptibility to opportunistic infections. In this case report, we describe a patient who experienced lymphopenia, recurrent yeast infections, and labial shingles while on the medication. This case highlights the side effects and the rare complications of the immunomodulator, DRF.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons of Diroximel Fumarate, Ponesimod, and Teriflunomide for Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis

INTRODUCTION

Diroximel fumarate (DRF), ponesimod (PON), and teriflunomide (TERI) are oral disease-modifying therapies approved for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. No randomized trials have compared DRF versus PON or TERI.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this analysis were to compare DRF versus PON and DRF versus TERI for clinical and radiological outcomes.

METHODS

We used individual patient data from EVOLVE-MS-1, a 2-year, open-label, single-arm, phase III trial of DRF (n = 1057), and aggregated data from OPTIMUM, a 2-year, double-blind, phase III trial comparing PON (n = 567) and TERI (n = 566). To account for cross-trial differences, EVOLVE-MS-1 data were weighted to match OPTIMUM's average baseline characteristics using an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison. We examined the outcomes of annualized relapse rate (ARR), 12-week confirmed disability progression (CDP), 24-week CDP, absence of gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) T1 lesions, and absence of new/newly enlarging T2 lesions.

RESULTS

After weighting, we did not observe strong evidence of differences between DRF and PON for ARR [DRF versus PON incidence rate difference (IRD) -0.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.08, 0.04; incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.92; 95% CI 0.61, 1.2], 12-week CDP [risk difference (RD) -2.5%; 95% CI -6.3, 1.2; risk ratio (RR) 0.76; 95% CI 0.38, 1.1], 24-week CDP (RD -2.7%; 95% CI -6.0, 0.63; RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.28, 1.0), and absence of new/newly enlarging T2 lesions (RD -2.5%; 95% CI -13, 7.4; RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.70, 1.2). However, a higher proportion of DRF-treated patients were free of Gd+ T1 lesions than PON-treated patients (RD 11%; 95% CI 6.0, 16; RR 1.1; 95% CI 1.06, 1.2). Compared with TERI, DRF showed improved ARR (IRD -0.08; 95% CI -0.15, -0.01; IRR 0.74; 95% CI 0.50, 0.94), 12-week CDP (RD -4.2%; 95% CI -7.9, -0.48; RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.38, 0.90), 24-week CDP (RD -4.3%; 95% CI -7.7, -1.1; RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.26, 0.81), and absence of Gd+ T1 lesions (RD 25%; 95% CI 19, 30; RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.3, 1.5). However, DRF and TERI did not appear to differ significantly with respect to absence of new/newly enlarging T2 lesions when based on comparisons using the overall EVOLVE-MS-1 sample (RD 8.5%; 95% CI -0.93, 18; RR 1.3; 95% CI 0.94, 1.6), or in a sensitivity analysis restricted to newly enrolled EVOLVE-MS-1 patients (RD 2.7%; 95% CI -9.1, 14; RR 1.1; 95% CI 0.68, 1.5).

CONCLUSIONS

We did not observe differences between DRF and PON for ARR, CDP, and absence of new/newly enlarging T2 lesions, but there was a higher proportion of patients free of Gd+ T1 lesions among DRF-treated patients than PON-treated patients. DRF had improved efficacy versus TERI for all clinical and radiological outcomes, except for absence of new/newly enlarging T2 lesions.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

EVOLVE-MS-1 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02634307); OPTIMUM (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02425644).

Real-World Analysis Affirms the High Persistence and Adherence Observed with Diroximel Fumarate in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis

INTRODUCTION

Adherence to disease-modifying therapies is key for achieving optimal outcomes in multiple sclerosis (MS). Diroximel fumarate (DRF) is an oral fumarate approved for treatment of relapsing forms of MS. It has the same pharmacologically active metabolite as dimethyl fumarate (DMF) and similar efficacy and safety profiles, but with demonstrated fewer gastrointestinal (GI) related adverse events (AEs). There are limited data characterizing persistence and adherence to DRF in the real world.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis of the AcariaHealth Specialty Pharmacy Program included patients with MS initiating DRF from 1 December 2019 to 30 January 2021. This analysis evaluated persistence, measured as proportion of patients remaining on therapy; discontinuation rate due to GI AEs; and adherence measured by proportion of days covered (PDC).

RESULTS

Overall, 1143 patients were included; 433 (37.9%) patients had been treated with prior DMF and switched to DRF. Persistence was high in both groups: the estimated proportion of patients remaining on DRF at 16 months was 82.3% [95% confidence internal (CI) 77.2-86.3%], and 90.1% (95% CI 82.2-94.6%) in the DMF to DRF group. Fifty-two (4.5%) patients overall and 15 (3.5%) in the DMF switch subgroup discontinued DRF due to GI AEs. Mean PDC was 90.8% (95% CI 89.2-92.5%), and 85.4% (95% CI 83.3-87.4%) of patients achieved PDC ≥ 80% in the overall population. In the DMF to DRF group, mean PDC was 90.7% (95% CI 88.0-93.5%), and 84.8% (95% CI 81.4-88.1%) of patients achieved PDC ≥ 80%.

CONCLUSION

In this analysis of  > 1000 patients treated with DRF in real-world clinical practice, overall persistence at 16 months was high, treatment discontinuation due to GI AEs was low, and patients were highly adherent to therapy. Of 433 patients who switched from DMF to DRF, most (> 90%) were able to tolerate and persist on DRF after switching. Graphical abstract available for this article.

Specific Aspects of Immunotherapy for Multiple Sclerosis in Switzerland—A Structured Commentary, Update 2022

Multiple sclerosis (MS), particularly relapsing MS (RMS), has become a treatable disease in recent decades, and immunotherapies are now able to influence long-term disease course. A wide range of disease-modifying drugs are available, which makes the choice of therapy in individual cases considerably more complex. Due to specific regulatory aspects (partly diverging approvals by Swissmedic compared to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and an independent evaluation process for the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) specialities list (SL)), we issued a consensus recommendation regarding specific aspects of immunotherapy for MS in Switzerland in 2019. Here, we present revised recommendations with an update on newly approved drugs and new safety aspects, also in reference to the risk of COVID-19 infection and vaccination.

Diroximel Fumarate as a Novel Oral Immunomodulating Therapy for Relapsing Forms of Multiple Sclerosis: A Review on the Emerging Data

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory, demyelinating and neurodegenerative disorder of the central nervous system. Disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) and subsequent adherence are crucial for preventing reversible episodes of neurological dysfunction and delayed onset of progressive accumulation of irreversible deficits. Yet, side effects may limit their usage in clinical practice. Gastrointestinal (GI) side effects are a significant limitation of the use of dimethyl fumarate (DMF), the most frequently prescribed oral DMD in MS worldwide. Diroximel fumarate (DRF) is a second-generation oral fumaric acid ester (FAE) that was developed as a formulation with better GI tolerability. The improved tolerability is assumed to be related to a lower synthesis of gut-irritating methanol. Other explanations for DRF’s lower extent of GI irritation include a more modest off-target activity due to its chemical structure. The superior GI tolerability of DRF compared to DMF could be proven in clinical trials and lead to approval of DRF for the treatment of relapsing forms of MS/relapsing-remitting MS (United States Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency, respectively). Here, we summarize the mode of action of oral FAE and compare the chemical and physiological characteristics of DMF and DRF. Moreover, we discuss the adverse effects of FAE and introduce the emerging preclinical and trial data leading to the approval of DRF in MS. This article additionally reviews our current understanding of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the efficacy of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination in people treated with FAE.

Impact of histone modifier-induced protection against autoimmune encephalomyelitis on multiple sclerosis treatment

Multiple sclerosis is a progressive demyelinating central nervous system disorder with unknown etiology. The condition has heterogeneous presentations, including relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and secondary and primary progressive multiple sclerosis. The genetic and epigenetic mechanisms underlying these various forms of multiple sclerosis remain elusive. Many disease-modifying therapies approved for multiple sclerosis are broad-spectrum immunomodulatory drugs that reduce relapses but do not halt the disease progression or neuroaxonal damage. Some are also associated with many severe side effects, including fatalities. Improvements in disease-modifying treatments especially for primary progressive multiple sclerosis remain an unmet need. Several experimental animal models are available to decipher the mechanisms involved in multiple sclerosis. These models help us decipher the advantages and limitations of novel disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis.

Efficacy and Safety of Multiple Sclerosis Drugs Approved Since 2018 and Future Developments

Multiple sclerosis treatment made substantial headway during the last two decades with the implementation of therapeutics with new modes of action and routes of application. We are now in the situation that second-generation molecules, approved since 2018, are on the market, characterized by reduced side effects using a more tailored therapeutic approach. Diroximel fumarate is a second-generation fumarate with reduced gastrointestinal side effects. Moreover, several novel, selective, sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators with reduced off-target effects have been developed; namely siponimod, ozanimod, and ponesimod; all oral formulations. B-cell-targeted therapies such as ocrelizumab, given intravenously, and since 2021 ofatumumab, applied subcutaneously, complement the spectrum of novel therapies. The glycoengineered antibody ublituximab is the next anti-CD20 therapy about to be approved. Within the next years, oral inhibitors of Bruton's tyrosine kinase, currently under investigation in several phase III trials, may be licensed for multiple sclerosis. Those developments currently offer an individualized multiple sclerosis therapy, targeting patient needs with substantial effects on relapses, disability progression, and implications for daily life. In this up-to-date review, we provide a holistic overview about novel developments of the therapeutic landscape and upcoming approaches for multiple sclerosis treatment.