Disease-Modifying Therapies for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Network Meta-Analysis

Early use of high-efficacy therapies in multiple sclerosis in the United States: benefits, barriers, and strategies for encouraging adoption

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is characterized by progressive neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration from disease onset that, if left untreated, can result in the accumulation of irreversible neurological disability. Early intervention with high-efficacy therapies (HETs) is increasingly recognized as the best strategy to delay or mitigate disease progression from the earliest stages of the disease and to prevent long-term neurodegeneration. Although there is growing clinical and real-world evidence supporting early HET intervention, foregoing this strategy in favor of a traditional escalation approach prioritizing lower-efficacy disease-modifying therapies remains a common approach in clinical practice. This review explores potential health care professional- and patient-related barriers to the early use of HETs in patients with MS in the United States. Barriers can include regulatory and reimbursement restrictions; knowledge gaps and long-term safety concerns among health care professionals; and various individual, cultural, and societal factors affecting patients. Potential strategies for overcoming these barriers and encouraging early HET use are proposed.

Treatment modifiers across different regimens of natalizumab treatment in MS: An Italian real-world experience

Despite its widespread use in clinical practice, the effectiveness of natalizumab extended interval dosing (EID) adopted from treatment start across different treatment intervals and individual modifiers (body mass index - BMI) is still under-investigated. Here, seven-hundred and forty-five multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, exposed to natalizumab for 3.30 ​± ​1.34 years, were retrospectively enrolled in an observational multicenter study. After stratifying patients in EID or standard interval dosing (SID), we assessed differences in time to relapse, MRI activity and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) progression. The primary analysis was conducted on patients exposed to EID interval from 5 weeks and 1 day to 7 weeks, while a secondary analysis included also EID periods up to 8 weeks. An additional analysis explored the impact of BMI. No differences in time to first relapse, time to radiological activity, time to EDSS progression or time to EDA (evidence of disease activity) were detected between SID and EID group (EID interval from 5 weeks to 1 day to 7 weeks). When including EID periods from 7 weeks and 1 day to 8 weeks, the EID group showed a trend towards higher risk of experience clinical relapses than the SID group. A higher EDA risk was also identified in EID patients with BMI above median. In conclusion, a higher risk of relapses seems to occur for EID above 7 weeks. Independently from the EID scheme adopted, higher BMI increases the risk of EDA in these patients.

Severity of white matter microstructural damage in a Brazilian relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis cohort: A possible window to optimize treatment

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an important cause of acquired neurological disability in young adults, characterized by multicentric inflammation, demyelination, and axonal damage.

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to investigate white matter (WM) damage progression in a Brazilian MS patient cohort, using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) post-processed by tract-based spatial statistics (TBSS).

METHODS

DTI scans were acquired from 76 MS patients and 37 sex-and-age matched controls. Patients were divided into three groups based on disease duration. DTI was performed along 30 non-collinear directions by using a 1.5T imager. For TBSS analysis, the WM skeleton was created, and a 5000 permutation-based inference with a threshold of p < .05 was used, to enable the identification of abnormalities in fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), radial diffusivity (RD), and axial diffusivity (AD).

RESULTS

Decreased FA and increased RD, MD, and AD were seen in patients compared to controls and a decreased FA and increased MD and RD were seen, predominantly after the first 5 years of disease, when compared between groups.

CONCLUSION

Progressive WM deterioration is seen over time with a more prominent pattern after 5 years of disease onset, providing evidence that the early years might be a window to optimize treatment and prevent disability.

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.

Treatment Patterns by Race and Ethnicity in Newly Diagnosed Persons with Multiple Sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic persons with MS (pwMS) are more likely to experience rapid disease progression and severe disability than non-Hispanic White pwMS; however, it is unknown how the initiation of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) differs by race/ethnicity. This real-world study describes DMT treatment patterns in newly diagnosed pwMS in the United States (US) overall and by race/ethnicity.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis used the US Optum Market Clarity claims/electronic health records database (January 2015-September 2020). pwMS who were first diagnosed in 2016 or later and initiated any DMT in the two years following diagnosis were included. Continuous enrollment in the claims data for ≥ 12 months before and ≥ 24 months after diagnosis was required. Treatment patterns 2 years after diagnosis were analyzed descriptively overall and by race/ethnicity.

RESULTS

The sample included 682 newly diagnosed and treated pwMS (non-Hispanic Black, n = 99; non-Hispanic White, n = 479; Hispanic, n = 35; other/unknown race/ethnicity, n = 69). The mean time from diagnosis to DMT initiation was 4.9 months in all pwMS. Glatiramer acetate and dimethyl fumarate were the most common first-line DMTs in non-Hispanic Black (28% and 20% respectively) and Hispanic pwMS (31%, 29%); however, glatiramer acetate and ocrelizumab were the most common in non-Hispanic White pwMS (33%, 18%). Use of first-line high-efficacy DMTs was limited across all race/ethnicity subgroups (11-29%), but uptake increased in non-Hispanic Black and White pwMS over the study period.

CONCLUSION

Use of high-efficacy DMTs was low across all race/ethnicity subgroups of newly diagnosed pwMS in the US, including populations at a greater risk of experiencing rapid disease progression and severe disability.

Real-World Clinical and Economic Outcomes Among Persons With Multiple Sclerosis Initiating First- Versus Second- or Later-Line Treatment With Ocrelizumab

INTRODUCTION

Prior research has demonstrated that early treatment with high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), including ocrelizumab (OCR), can reduce relapses and delay disease progression among persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) compared with escalation from low-/moderate-efficacy DMTs. However, there is a lack of research examining the impact of early use of OCR on real-world clinical and economic outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate differences in events often associated with a relapse (EOAR) as well as non-DMT healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs among pwMS who received OCR as a first-line treatment compared with later-line treatment after diagnosis.

METHODS

Newly diagnosed adult pwMS were selected from deidentified Optum Market Clarity claims data (study period: January 1, 2015-June 30, 2021). All pwMS were required to have initiated OCR after diagnosis and have 12 months of continuous eligibility prior to diagnosis. The index date was the date of initiation of the first-line DMT after diagnosis. pwMS who initiated OCR as first-line (1L OCR cohort) or a second- or later-line treatment (2L + OCR cohort) were matched 1:1 based on length of continuous eligibility after the first-line DMT and weighted using stabilized inverse probability of treatment. In the follow-up period, differences in outcomes, including annualized EOAR, non-DMT HCRU and costs, were evaluated for pwMS in the 1L vs. 2L + OCR cohorts.

RESULTS

The sample included 748 pwMS. During the follow-up period, pwMS in the 1L OCR cohort had a significantly lower annual rate of EOAR compared with pwMS in the 2L + OCR cohort (0.37 vs. 0.56; difference: 0.20 [95% CI 0.08, 0.32]). pwMS in the 1L OCR cohort had a significantly lower probability of any hospitalization within 1 year, fewer non-DMT outpatient visits and lower all-cause and MS-related, non-DMT costs compared with pwMS in the 2L + OCR cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

First-line initiation OCR was associated with improvements in clinical and non-DMT economic outcomes compared with later-line initiation of OCR, suggesting that early initiation may benefit both patients and the healthcare system.

Decision Making About Disease-Modifying Treatments for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: Stated Preferences and Real-World Choices

BACKGROUND

People with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis can benefit from disease-modifying treatments (DMTs). Several DMTs are available that vary in their efficacy, side-effect profile and mode of administration.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to measure the preferences of people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis for DMTs using a discrete choice experiment and to assess which stated preference attributes correlate with the attributes of the DMTs they take in the real world.

METHODS

Discrete choice experiment attributes were developed from literature reviews, interviews and focus groups. In a discrete choice experiment, participants were shown two hypothetical DMTs, then chose whether they preferred one of the DMTs or no treatment. A mixed logit model was estimated from responses and individual-level estimates of participants' preferences conditional on their discrete choice experiment choices calculated. Logit models were estimated with stated preferences predicting current real-world on-treatment status, DMT mode of administration and current DMT.

RESULTS

A stated intrinsic preference for taking a DMT was correlated with currently taking a DMT, and stated preferences for mode of administration were correlated with the modes of administration of the DMTs participants were currently taking. Stated preferences for treatment effectiveness and adverse effects were not correlated with real-world behaviour.

CONCLUSIONS

There was variation in which discrete choice experiment attributes correlated with participants' real-world DMT choices. This may indicate patient preferences for treatment efficacy/risk are not adequately taken account of in prescribing. Treatment guidelines must ensure they take into consideration patients' preferences and improve communication around treatment efficacy/risk.

Comparative efficacy of therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Aim: To assess the relative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) including newer therapies (ozanimod, ponesimod, ublituximab) using network meta-analysis (NMA). Materials & methods: Bayesian NMAs for annualised relapse rate (ARR) and time to 3-month and 6-month confirmed disability progression (3mCDP and 6mCDP) were conducted. Results: For each outcome, the three most efficacious treatments versus placebo were monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies: alemtuzumab, ofatumumab, and ublituximab for ARR; alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, and ofatumumab for 3mCDP; and alemtuzumab, natalizumab, and either ocrelizumab or ofatumumab (depending on the CDP definition used for included ofatumumab trials) for 6mCDP. Conclusion: The most efficacious DMTs for RMS were mAb therapies. Of the newer therapies, only ublituximab ranked among the three most efficacious treatments (for ARR).

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).

Decision Curve Analysis for Personalized Treatment Choice between Multiple Options

BACKGROUND

Decision curve analysis can be used to determine whether a personalized model for treatment benefit would lead to better clinical decisions. Decision curve analysis methods have been described to estimate treatment benefit using data from a single randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES

Our main objective is to extend the decision curve analysis methodology to the scenario in which several treatment options exist and evidence about their effects comes from a set of trials, synthesized using network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

We describe the steps needed to estimate the net benefit of a prediction model using evidence from studies synthesized in an NMA. We show how to compare personalized versus one-size-fit-all treatment decision-making strategies, such as "treat none" or "treat all patients with a specific treatment" strategies. First, threshold values for each included treatment need to be defined (i.e., the minimum risk difference compared with control that renders a treatment worth taking). The net benefit per strategy can then be plotted for a plausible range of threshold values to reveal the most clinically useful strategy. We applied our methodology to an NMA prediction model for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, which can be used to choose between natalizumab, dimethyl fumarate, glatiramer acetate, and placebo.

RESULTS

We illustrated the extended decision curve analysis methodology using several threshold value combinations for each available treatment. For the examined threshold values, the "treat patients according to the prediction model" strategy performs either better than or close to the one-size-fit-all treatment strategies. However, even small differences may be important in clinical decision making. As the advantage of the personalized model was not consistent across all thresholds, improving the existing model (by including, for example, predictors that will increase discrimination) is needed before advocating its clinical usefulness.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel extension of decision curve analysis can be applied to NMA-based prediction models to evaluate their use to aid treatment decision making.

HIGHLIGHTS

Decision curve analysis is extended into a (network) meta-analysis framework.Personalized models predicting treatment benefit are evaluated when several treatment options are available and evidence about their effects comes from a set of trials.Detailed steps to compare personalized versus one-size-fit-all treatment decision-making strategies are outlined.This extension of decision curve analysis can be applied to (network) meta-analysis-based prediction models to evaluate their use to aid treatment decision making.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Ocrelizumab for the Treatment of Relapsing and Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis in Portugal

OBJECTIVES

Ocrelizumab demonstrated significant clinical benefit for the treatment of relapsing (RMS) and primary progressive (PPMS) multiple sclerosis (MS), an incurable disease characterized by disability progression. This study evaluated the clinical and economic impact of ocrelizumab relative to current clinical practice, including other disease-modifying therapies (DMT), available in Portugal.

METHODS

Markov models for MS were adapted to estimate the impact of ocrelizumab across three patient populations: treatment-naïve RMS, previously treated RMS, and PPMS. Health states were defined according to the Expanded Disability Status Scale. For RMS, the model further captured the occurrence of relapses and progression to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS). A lifetime time-horizon and Portuguese societal perspective were adopted.

RESULTS

For RMS patients, ocrelizumab was estimated to maximize the expected time (years) without progression to SPMS (10.50) relative to natalizumab (10.10), dimethyl fumarate (8.64), teriflunomide (8.39), fingolimod (8.38), interferon β-1a (8.33) and glatiramer acetate (8.18). As the most effective option, with quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains between 0.3 and 1.2, ocrelizumab was found to be cost-saving relative to natalizumab and fingolimod, and presented incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) below €16,720/QALY relative to the remaining DMT. For PPMS patients, the ICER of ocrelizumab versus best supportive care was estimated at €78,858/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Ocrelizumab provides important health benefits for RMS and PPMS patients, comparing favourably with other widely used therapies. In RMS, ocrelizumab was revealed to be either cost-saving or have costs-per-QALY likely below commonly accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds. In PPMS, ocrelizumab fills a clear clinical gap in the current clinical practice. Overall, ocrelizumab is expected to provide good value for money in addressing the need of MS patients.

Comparative efficacy and safety of disease-modifying therapies in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, 19 disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) have been approved for the treatment of patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (RMS).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DMTs in adults with RMS.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Food and Drug Administration, and European Medicines Agency websites for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (from inception to July 2021). Eligible RCTs evaluated approved treatments for RMS as monotherapy and reported at least one of the primary outcome measures of interest. The primary outcome was efficacy (annualized relapse rate and 12-week confirmed disability progression) and safety (serious adverse events [AEs] and discontinuation due to AEs). We assessed the risk of bias (RoB) of included studies using the Cochrane RoB tool version 2.0 (https://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5928) for RCTs. Surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was used to rank therapies and to assess quality of general evidence, respectively. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to rank therapies and to assess quality of general evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 43 records represent 45 RCTs selected for network meta-analysis. In total, 30,720 participants (median of 732; interquartile range: 248-931) were included, of which 67% were female. By SUCRA analysis, alemtuzumab (94.3%) presented the highest probability of being the best alternative for annualized relapse rate, whereas ofatumumab (93.5%) presented the highest probability of being the best alternative for 12-week confirmed disability progression. Interferon beta-1b subcutaneous (87.0%) presented the highest probability of the best safety among all DMTs for serious AEs, whereas alemtuzumab (92.4%) presented the highest probability of the best safety among all DMTs for discontinuation due to AEs.

CONCLUSION

Network meta-analysis shows that alemtuzumab and ofatumumab present the highest efficacy among DMTs. Because there is little difference between these probabilities for many treatments, health professionals should use clinical shared decision making when formulating treatment plans with patients.

Shared decision-making in patients with multiple sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic and progressive neurological disorder impacting physical, cognitive, and psychosocial health. The disease course, severity, and presence of symptoms differ within and between persons over time and are unpredictable. Given the preference-sensitive nature of many key decisions to be made, and the increasing numbers of disease-modifying therapies, shared decision-making (SDM) with patients seems to be key in offering optimum care and outcomes for people suffering from MS. In this paper, we describe our perspective on how to achieve SDM in patients with MS, following key SDM-elements from established SDM-frameworks. As for deliberation in the clinical encounter, SDM communication training of professionals and feedback on their current performance are key aspects, as well as encouraging patients to participate. Concerning information for patients, it is important to provide balanced, evidence-based information about the benefits and the harms of different treatment options, including the option of surveillance only. At the same time, attention is needed for the optimal dosage of that information, given the symptoms of cognitive dysfunction and fatigue among MS-patients, and the uncertainties they have to cope with. Finally, for broader communication, a system is required that assures patient preferences are actually implemented by multidisciplinary MS-teams. As SDM is also being implemented in many countries within the context of value-based health care, we consider the systematic use of outcome information, such as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and Patient Decision Aids, as an opportunity to achieve SDM.

Disease modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis: benefit and acceptability

Disease modifying therapies are available for the treatment of relapse remitting multiple sclerosis, making relapses less common and severe. A Cochrane systematic review was undertaken to compare their benefit and acceptability. This article summarises and appraises the review evidence.

What Have Failed, Interrupted, and Withdrawn Antibody Therapies in Multiple Sclerosis Taught Us?

In the past two decades, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have revolutionized the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). However, a remarkable number of mAbs failed due to negative study results were withdrawn because of unexpected serious adverse events (SAEs) or due to studies being halted for other reasons. While trials with positive outcomes are usually published in prestigious journals, negative trials are merely published as abstracts or not at all. This review summarizes MS mAbs that have either failed in phase II-III trials, have been interrupted for various reasons, or withdrawn from the market since 2015. The main conclusions that can be drawn from these 'negative' experiences are as follows. mAbs that have been proven to be safe in other autoimmune conditions, will not have the same safety profile in MS due to immunopathogenetic differences in these diseases (e.g., daclizumab). Identification of SAEs in clinical trials is difficult highlighting the importance of phase IV studies. Memory B cells are central players in MS immunopathogenesis (e.g., tabalumab). The pathophysiological mechanisms of disease progression are independent of leukocyte 'outside-in' traffic which drives relapses in MS. Therefore, therapies for progressive MS must be able to sufficiently cross the blood-brain barrier. Sufficiently long trial duration and multicomponent outcome measures are important for clinical studies in progressive MS. The success of trials on remyelination-promoting therapies mainly depends on the sufficient high dose of mAb, the optimal readout for 'proof of concept', time of treatment initiation, and appropriate selection of patients. Failed strategies are highly important to better understand assumed immunopathophysiological mechanisms and optimizing future trial designs.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing the Safety of Natalizumab, Ocrelizumab, and Alemtuzumab in Treating Relapsing–Remitting, Primary Progressive, and Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis

Three monoclonal antibodies—natalizumab (NTZ), ocrelizumab (OCR), and alemtuzumab (ALM)—are the mainstays for the treatment of both relapsing and progressive forms of multiple sclerosis (MS). Here, their safety in patients with MS is analyzed and compared for rational use, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. All clinical studies published between 2016 and 2020 with the primary outcome of the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) with the use of NTZ, OCR, and ALM in the treatment of MS were systematically searched in the PubMed database. In this review, the percentage of patients reporting AEs was calculated and compared. The most common AEs associated with the use of NTZ, OCR, and ALM were infection and infestation. The percentage of patients reporting urinary tract infection, upper respiratory tract infection, and herpes was 16% using natalizumab, 7% using natalizumab and ocrelizumab, and 2% with ocrelizumab, respectively. The most common AEs, such as rashes, pyrexia, and influenza, were reported with ocrelizumab and alemtuzumab. Additionally, alemtuzumab was associated with immune thrombocytopenia (2%), respiratory infections (7%), and thyroid dysfunction (43%). All these data outcomes show that of the three monoclonal antibodies, natalizumab and ocrelizumab were associated with a reduced incidence of adverse events, making them a safer choice for MS.

Ocrelizumab: A Review in Multiple Sclerosis

Ocrelizumab (Ocrevus®) is an intravenously administered, humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of adults with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (RMS) or primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS). The efficacy of ocrelizumab in reducing relapse rates and disease activity in patients with RMS was demonstrated in pivotal trials (versus interferon β-1a) and supporting single-arm studies in specific subpopulations. In patients with PPMS, ocrelizumab reduced measures of clinical and MRI progression relative to placebo. Clinical benefits were maintained over ≥ 7.5 study years of treatment. Ocrelizumab was generally well tolerated and no new safety signals have emerged with long-term use. Extensive (albeit short-term) real-world data pertaining to ocrelizumab is consistent with that from clinical trials. Ocrelizumab provides the convenience of short, half-yearly infusions. Ocrelizumab continues to represent a generally well-tolerated, high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for RMS and is a valuable treatment for delaying disease progression in patients with PPMS (for whom there are currently no other approved DMTs).

The comparative efficacy and safety of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: A network meta-analysis

With the recent successful targeting of B lymphocytes in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), treatment with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) may represent a promising managemental approach, particularly for those with relapsing/remitting MS (RRMS). A network meta-analysis was conducted based on a comprehensive search in Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of currently available anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), including rituximab, ocrelizumab, and ofatumumab, versus a common comparator (interferon beta-1a [INFβ-1a]) in RRMS patients recruited in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). In a frequentist network meta-analytical model, annualized relapse rates (ARRs) and safety outcomes were expressed as risk ratios (RRs), whereas relapse-free events were expressed as odds ratios (ORs). Treatment ranking was performed using P-scores. The certainty of evidence was appraised using the GRADE approach. Five publications reported the outcomes of seven RCTs (3938 patients, 67.09% females). Compared to INFβ-1a, ocrelizumab reduced the risk of ARR (RR = 0.56, 95% CI, 0.50-0.64), serious adverse events (RR = 0.17, 95% CI, 0.09-0.30), and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (SAEs, RR = 0.60, 95% CI, 0.39-0.93), and it was associated with higher odds of no relapses (OR = 2.47, 95% CI, 2.00-3.05). Ocrelizumab ranked best among all other treatments in terms of reducing ARR and SAEs. The quality of evidence was low for ocrelizumab, low to moderate for rituximab, and high for ofatumumab. Further large-sized, well-designed RCTs are needed to corroborate the efficacy and safety of ocrelizumab and other anti-CD20 mAbs in RRMS.

Clinical Pathway for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A First Proposal for the Peruvian Population

Background: Relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) is a subtype of degenerative inflammatory demyelinating disease of multifactorial origin that affects the central nervous system and leads to multifocal neurological impairment.

Objectives: To develop a clinical pathway (CP) for the management of Peruvian patients with RRMS.

Methods: First, we performed a literature review using Medline, Embase, Cochrane, ProQuest, and Science direct. Then, we structured the information as an ordered and logical series of five topics in a defined timeline: (1) How should MS be diagnosed? (2) How should a relapse be treated? (3) How should a DMT be initiated? (4) How should each DMT be used? and (5) How should the patients be followed?

Results: The personnel involved in the care of patients with RRMS can use a series of flowcharts and diagrams that summarize the topics in paper or electronic format.

Conclusions: We propose the first CP for RRMS in Peru that shows the essential steps for diagnosing, treating, and monitoring RRMS patients based on an evidence-based medicine method and local expert opinions. This CP will allow directing relevant clinical actions to strengthen the multidisciplinary management of RRMS in Peru.

Impact of disease-modifying therapies on MRI and neurocognitive outcomes in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are the mainstay of treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). There is established evidence that DMTs are effective at reducing relapse rate and disease progression in RRMS, but there has been less consideration to the synthesis of MRI and neurocognitive outcomes, which play an increasingly important role in treatment decisions. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis is to examine the relative efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of DMTs for RRMS, using MRI and neurocognitive outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search electronic databases, including MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, with no date restrictions. We will also search the websites of international regulatory bodies for pharmaceuticals and international trial registries. We will include parallel group randomised controlled trials of DMTs including interferon beta-1a intramuscular, interferon beta-1a subcutaneous, interferon beta-1b, peginterferon beta-1a, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, alemtuzumab, dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide, fingolimod, cladribine, ozanimod, mitoxantrone and rituximab, either head-to-head or against placebo in adults with RRMS. Primary outcomes include efficacy (MRI outcomes including new T1/hypointense lesions and T2/hyperintense lesions) and acceptability (all-cause dropouts). Secondary outcomes include gadolinium-enhancing lesions, cerebral atrophy and tolerability (dropouts due to adverse events). Neurocognitive measures across three domains including processing speed, working memory and verbal learning will be included as exploratory outcomes. Data will be analysed using a random-effects pairwise meta-analysis and a Bayesian hierarchical random effects network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of the included DMTs. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings. The review will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews incorporating Network Meta-Analyses statement.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol does not require ethics approval. Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed academic journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021239630.

Indirect comparisons of siponimod with fingolimod and ofatumumab in multiple sclerosis: assessing the feasibility of propensity score matching analyses

OBJECTIVE

Head-to-head trials comparing siponimod with fingolimod or ofatumumab in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are lacking. Instead, the comparative efficacy of siponimod can be derived from indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs). We assessed the suitability of ITCs leveraging individual patient data from relevant phase III trials across different MS phenotypes.

METHODS

One siponimod trial in patients with secondary progressive MS (SPMS), four fingolimod trials (three in relapsing-remitting MS [RRMS], and one in primary progressive MS [PPMS]), and two ofatumumab trials in relapsing MS (RMS) were considered. The suitability of ITCs was evaluated based on trial design, patient eligibility criteria, baseline patient characteristics, placebo response, and outcome definitions for each trial. Analyses deemed feasible were conducted using one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

An ITC between siponimod in SPMS and either fingolimod in RRMS or ofatumumab in RMS was not feasible because of insufficient overlap in key patient characteristics (e.g. disability level and relapse history) and differences in placebo response. However, a comparison between siponimod in SPMS and fingolimod in PPMS was feasible because of sufficient overlap in eligibility criteria and baseline characteristics. One-to-one PSM demonstrated siponimod was favored relative to fingolimod for time to 6- and 3-month confirmed disability progression though not significantly different (hazard ratio 0.76 [95% confidence interval 0.48-1.20; p-value = .240] and hazard ratio 0.80 [95% confidence interval 0.52-1.22; p-value = .300], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

For trials in MS, clinical phenotype is an important determinant of ITC feasibility. An ITC between siponimod in SPMS and either fingolimod in RRMS or ofatumumab in RMS was not feasible. The only feasible comparison was between siponimod in SPMS and fingolimod in PPMS.

MiR-142-3p regulates synaptopathy-driven disease progression in multiple sclerosis

Aim

We recently proposed miR‐142‐3p as a molecular player in inflammatory synaptopathy, a new pathogenic hallmark of multiple sclerosis (MS) and of its mouse model experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), that leads to neuronal loss independently of demyelination. MiR‐142‐3p seems to be unique among potential biomarker candidates in MS, since it is an inflammatory miRNA playing a dual role in the immune and central nervous systems. Here, we aimed to verify the impact of miR‐142‐3p circulating in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of MS patients on clinical parameters, neuronal excitability and its potential interaction with disease modifying therapies (DMTs).

Methods and Results

In a cohort of 151 MS patients, we found positive correlations between CSF miR‐142‐3p levels and clinical progression, IL‐1β signalling as well as synaptic excitability measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Furthermore, therapy response of patients with ‘low miR‐142‐3p’ to dimethyl fumarate (DMF), an established disease‐modifying treatment (DMT), was superior to that of patients with ‘high miR‐142‐3p’ levels. Accordingly, the EAE clinical course of heterozygous miR‐142 mice was ameliorated by peripheral DMF treatment with a greater impact relative to their wild type littermates. In addition, a central protective effect of this drug was observed following intracerebroventricular and ex vivo acute treatments of EAE wild type mice, showing a rescue of miR‐142‐3p‐dependent glutamatergic alterations. By means of electrophysiology, molecular and biochemical analysis, we suggest miR‐142‐3p as a molecular target of DMF.

Conclusion

MiR‐142‐3p is a novel and potential negative prognostic CSF marker of MS and a promising tool for identifying personalised therapies.

Dimethyl fumarate treatment for psoriasis in a real-life setting: A multicentric retrospective study

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) is a fumaric acid esters derivate approved for plaque psoriasis as first‐line systemic therapy. It has been available in Italy since 2017 and an increasing number of patients are treated with this drug. To evaluate DMF effectiveness, side effects and drug survival in a dermatological real‐life setting. We performed a retrospective multi‐center study in five dermatologic clinics in Emilia‐Romagna, Northern Italy, which included all consecutive patients affected by moderate–severe psoriasis treated with DMF. We assessed effectiveness (in terms of PASI50 and PASI75 in an intention to treat observation) and safety (occurrence of side effects) of DMF and their association with demographic and disease characteristics, mean daily dose taken and treatment discontinuation. We included 103 patients, 78 (75.72%) had at least one comorbidity including 19 (18.44%) with a history of cancer; the mean treatment duration was 23.61 ± 17.99 weeks (min 4, max 130) and the mean daily dose was 262.13 ± 190.94 mg. Twenty‐four patients (23.30%) reached PASI75 at week 12, while a further 18 patients (17.47%) reached it at week 26. Side effects occurred in 63 patients (61.16%), the most frequent were diarrhea, epigastric discomfort, nausea, and flushing. Sixteen patients (15.53%) showed an alteration of laboratory tests. In some cases side effects were transitory, while in 53 patients (51.45%) they led to cessation of therapy. The median daily dose showed a direct association with PASI50 achievement and an indirect association with treatment discontinuation. Our study shows the peculiarities of DMF in a real‐world setting: effectiveness is often reached after 12 weeks of treatment and side effects could limit the continuation of the therapy but, at the same time, DMF has no major contraindications and, due to the wide range of dosage, it can allow both to manage side effects and to personalize the prescription for each patient.

Does Extended Interval Dosing Natalizumab Preserve Effectiveness in Multiple Sclerosis? A 7 Year-Retrospective Observational Study

The extended interval dosing (EID) of natalizumab has been suggested to be associated with a reduced risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) and short-term preservation of efficacy but its long-term effectiveness remain unknown. We aimed to determine the long-term effectiveness and safety of natalizumab in an EID setting in a cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated for more than 7 years. We conducted an observational retrospective cohort study, including 39 (34 female, 5 male) patients with clinically definite relapsing-MS, initially treated with standard interval dosing (SID) of natalizumab (mean time 54 months [SD29]) who were then switched to EID, every 8 weeks (mean time 76 months [SD13]). The main outcome measures included the following: i) annualized relapse rate (ARR), ii) radiological activity, iii) disability progression, and iv) NEDA-3 no evidence of disease activity index. EID preserved ARR, radiological activity, and prevented disability worsening during follow-up. The proportion of patients maintaining their NEDA-3 status after 24, 48, and 72 months of natalizumab administration in EID was 94%, 73%, and 70%, respectively. Stratified analysis according to history of drug therapy showed that the EID of natalizumab was slightly more effective in naïve patients than in those previously treated with other immunosuppressive drugs. No cases of PML or other severe adverse reactions were reported. In conclusion, long-term therapy with natalizumab in an EID setting following an SID regimen maintained its disease-modifying activity, and was safe and well tolerated for over 7 years. These encouraging observational results need to be confirmed in controlled clinical trials.

Efficacy classification of modern therapies in multiple sclerosis

Background: The Association of British Neurologists (ABN) 2015 guidelines suggested classifying multiple sclerosis therapies according to their average relapse reduction. We sought to classify newer therapies (cladribine, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab, ozanimod) based on these guidelines. Materials & methods: Therapies were classified by using direct comparative trial results as per ABN guidelines and generating classification probabilities for each therapy based on comparisons versus placebo in a network meta-analysis for annualized relapse rate. Results: For both approaches, cladribine and ofatumumab were classified as high efficacy. Ocrelizumab and ozanimod (1.0 mg) were classified as moderate or high efficacy depending on the approach used. Conclusion: Cladribine and ofatumumab have an efficacy comparable with therapies classified in the ABN guidelines as high efficacy.

Disease modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: Use and costs in Australia (1996-2019)

BACKGROUND

New disease modifying therapies (DMT) to control relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) have been introduced to the market in the past few years and are now widely used in Australia.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the dispensed use of government subsidised RRMS DMTs in Australia from 1996 to 2019.

METHODS

We obtained data of dispensed use of DMTs from the Australian Government's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) administered by Medicare Australia. We measured use as defined daily dose (DDD) per 100,000 population per day. We obtained jurisdictional population data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

RESULTS

Total DMT use increased by an average of 18% annually, from 2.4 (in 1996) to 69.9 DDD/100,000/day in 2019. Interferon β1B was the most commonly used medicine between 1996 and 2000, Interferon β1A between 2001 and 2014, and fingolimod subsequently. Among Australian states, Tasmania (the southernmost state) had the highest dispensed DMT use of 94.6 DDD/100,000/day in 2019. Concession beneficiaries under the Government's PBS had both lower use and cost per patient than general beneficiaries did. Fingolimod and ocrelizumab accounted for 55% of total expenditure on MS drug therapy in 2019.

CONCLUSION

The use of oral DMTs might increasingly replace parenteral treatments in the near future. Given the current substantial government expenditure on oral DMTs, it will be imperative to examine the real world effectiveness of DMTs.

Matching comparisons of therapeutic efficacy suggest better clinical outcomes for patients treated with peginterferon beta-1a than with glatiramer acetate

Background:

Peginterferon beta-1a and glatiramer acetate (GA) are approved first-line therapies for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis, but their therapeutic efficacy has not been compared directly.

Methods:

Clinical outcomes at 2 years, including no evidence of disease activity (NEDA), for patients receiving peginterferon beta-1a 125 mcg every 2 weeks (Q2W) or GA 20 mg/ml once daily (QD) were compared by propensity score matching analysis using individual patient data from ADVANCE and CONFIRM phase III clinical trials. In addition, clinical outcomes at 1–3 years for patients receiving peginterferon beta-1a Q2W or GA 40 mg/ml three times a week (TIW) were evaluated using a matching-adjusted comparison analysis of individual patient data from ADVANCE and the ADVANCE extension study, ATTAIN, and aggregate patient data from the phase III GALA and the GALA extension studies.

Results:

Propensity-score-matched peginterferon beta-1a patients (n = 336) had a significantly lower annualized relapse rate [ARR (0.204 versus 0.282); rate ratio = 0.724; p = 0.045], a significantly lower probability of 12-week confirmed disability worsening (10.0% versus 14.6%; hazard ratio = 0.625; p = 0.048), and a significantly higher rate of NEDA (20.3% versus 11.5%; p = 0.047) compared with GA 20 mg/ml QD patients after 2 years of treatment. Matching-adjusted peginterferon beta-1a patients (effective n = 276) demonstrated a similar ARR at 1 year (0.278 versus 0.318; p = 0.375) and significantly lower ARR at 2 years (0.0901 versus 0.203; p = 0.032) and 3 years (0.109 versus 0.209; p = 0.047) compared with GA 40 mg/ml TIW patients (n = 834).

Conclusion:

Results from separate matching comparisons of phase III clinical trials and extension studies suggest that peginterferon beta-1a 125 mcg Q2W may provide better clinical outcomes than GA (20 mg/ml QD or 40 mg/ml TIW).

The implications of suboptimal year-1 outcomes with disease-modifying therapy in employees with multiple sclerosis

AIM

Multiple sclerosis (MS) poses a substantial employer burden in medically related absenteeism and disability costs due to the chronic and debilitating nature of the disease. Although previous studies have evaluated relapse, nonadherence, discontinuation, and switching individually, little is known about their overall collective prevalence and implications in employees with MS treated with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). This study evaluated the proportion of employees with MS with suboptimal DMT year-1 outcomes and to quantify the clinical and economic burden of suboptimal year-1 outcomes from a US employer perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Employees with MS were selected from the Workpartners database. Eligibility criteria were: ≥2 MS diagnosis claims (ICD-9-CM 340.xx/ICD-10-CM G35) from January 1, 2010-March 31, 2019, ≥1 once-/twice-daily oral or self-injectable DMT claim (first claim = index), continuous eligibility 6-months pre-/1-year post-index, no baseline DMT, and age 18-64 years. Suboptimal year-1 outcomes included: non-adherence (proportion of days covered <80%), discontinuation (gap >60 days), switch, or relapse (MS-related hospitalization, emergency room visit, or outpatient visit with corticosteroid). A two-part logistic-generalized linear model evaluated costs.

RESULTS

Of 488 eligible patients, half (n = 247; 50.6%) had suboptimal year-1 outcomes (39.5% non-adherence, 9.8% discontinuation, 10.9% switching, 20.7% relapse; not mutually exclusive). Employees with suboptimal year-1 outcomes had higher all-cause medical ($12,730 vs. $6,428; p < 0.0001), MS-related medical ($5,444 vs. $2,652; p < 0.0001), non-DMT pharmacy ($2,920 vs. $2,169; p = 0.0199), sick leave ($1247 vs. $908; p = 0.0274), and short-term disability ($934 vs. $146; p = 0.0001) costs. Long-term disability ($751 vs. $0; p = 0.1250) and Workers' Compensation ($56 vs. $24; p = 0.1276) did not significantly differ.

LIMITATIONS

Administrative claims lack clinical information. Results may not be generalizable to other patients or care settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Half of the employees with MS in this sample had suboptimal year-1 outcomes (i.e. non-adherence, discontinuation, switching, or relapse). These suboptimal year-1 outcomes were associated with greater medical, sick leave, and short-term disability costs.

Rehabilitation Before and After Autologous Haematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (AHSCT) for Patients With Multiple Sclerosis (MS): Consensus Guidelines and Recommendations for Best Clinical Practice on Behalf of the Autoimmune Diseases Working Party, Nurses Group, and Patient Advocacy Committee of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT)

Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) is increasingly used to treat people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Supported by an evolving evidence base, AHSCT can suppress active inflammation in the central nervous system and induce long-term changes in immune cell populations, thereby stabilizing, and, in some cases, reversing disability in carefully selected MS patients. However, AHSCT is an intensive chemotherapy-based procedure associated with intrinsic risks, including profound cytopenia, infection, and organ toxicity, accompanied by an on-going degree of immuno-compromise and general deconditioning, which can be associated with a transient increase in functional impairment in the early stages after transplantation. Although international guidelines and recommendations have been published for clinical and technical aspects of AHSCT in MS, there has been no detailed appraisal of the rehabilitation needed following treatment nor any specific guidelines as to how this is best delivered by hospital and community-based therapists and wider multidisciplinary teams in order to maximize functional recovery and quality of life. These expert consensus guidelines aim to address this unmet need by summarizing the evidence-base for AHSCT in MS and providing recommendations for current rehabilitation practice along with identifying areas for future research and development.

Comparison of ofatumumab and other disease-modifying therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis

Aim: To compare the efficacy of ofatumumab to other disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). Materials & methods: A network meta-analysis was conducted to determine the relative effect of ofatumumab on annualized relapse rate and confirmed disability progression at 3 months and 6 months. Results: For each outcome, ofatumumab was as effective as other highly efficacious monoclonal antibody DMTs (i.e., alemtuzumab, natalizumab and ocrelizumab). Conclusion: Ofatumumab offers beneficial outcomes for RMS by reducing relapse and disability progression risk.

Nursing Management of Gastrointestinal Adverse Events Associated With Delayed-Release Dimethyl Fumarate: A Global Delphi Approach

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) are commonly encountered with delayed-release dimethyl fumarate (DMF), an approved treatment for relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: Two hundred thirty-nine MS nurses from 7 countries were asked to complete a 2-round Delphi survey developed by a 7-member steering committee. Questions pertained to approaches for mitigating DMF-associated GI AEs. RESULTS: Ninety-six percent of nurses followed the label recommendation for DMF dose titration in round 1, but 77% titrated the DMF dose more slowly than recommended in round 2. Although 86% of nurses advised persons with relapsing forms of MS (PWMS) to take DMF with food, patients were not routinely informed of appropriate types of food to take with DMF. Most nurses recommended both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic symptomatic therapies for PWMS who experienced GI AEs on DMF. Pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic symptomatic therapies were regarded as equally effective at keeping PWMS on DMF. In round 2, 58% of nurses stated that less than 10% of PWMS who temporarily discontinued DMF went on to permanently discontinue treatment. Sixty-six percent of nurses stated that less than 10% of PWMS permanently discontinued DMF because of GI AEs in the first 6 months of treatment in round 1. Most nurses agreed that patient education on potential DMF-associated GI AEs contributes to adherence. CONCLUSION: This first real-world nurse-focused assessment of approaches to caring for PWMS with DMF-associated GI AEs suggests that, with implementation of slow dose titration, symptomatic therapies, and educational consultations, most PWMS can remain on DMF and, when necessary after temporary discontinuation, successfully restart DMF.

Overview of Differences and Similarities of Published Mixed Treatment Comparisons on Pharmaceutical Interventions for Multiple Sclerosis

Introduction

Mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs) are increasingly important in the assessment of the benefit–risk profile of pharmaceutical treatments for relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Interpretation of MTCs requires a clear understanding of the methods of analysis and population studied. The objectives of this work were to compare MTCs of pharmaceutical treatments for RRMS, including a detailed description of differences in populations, treatments assessed, methods used and findings; and to discuss key considerations when conducting an MTC.

Methods

Fourteen databases were searched until July 2019 to identify MTCs (published during or after 2010) in adults (at least 18 years of age) with RRMS or rapidly evolving severe RRMS treated with any form of pharmaceutical treatment. No language restriction was imposed.

Results

Twenty-seven MTCs assessing 21 treatments were identified. Comparison highlighted many differences in conduct and reporting between MTCs relating to the patient populations or treatments included, duration of follow-up and outcomes of interest measured. The lack of similarity between the MTCs leads to questions about variability in the robustness of analyses and makes comparisons between studies challenging.

Conclusion

Given the importance of MTCs for healthcare decision-making, it is imperative that reporting of methods, results and assumptions is clear and transparent to allow accurate interpretation of findings. For MTCs to be relevant, the choice of outcome measures should reflect clinical practice. Combination of treatments or of outcomes measured at different points of time should be avoided, as should imputation without justification. Furthermore, all approved treatment options should be included and updates of MTCs should be conducted when data for new treatments are published.

Electronic Supplementary Material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40120-020-00213-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effectiveness of first-line treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Brazil: A 16-year non-concurrent cohort study

BACKGROUND

Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMM) is a chronic, progressive, inflammatory and immune-mediated disease that affects the central nervous system and is characterized by episodes of neurological dysfunction followed by a period of remission. The pharmacological strategy aims to delay the progression of the disease and prevent relapse. Interferon beta and glatiramer are commonly used in the Brazilian public health system and are available to patients who meet the guideline criteria. The scenario of multiple treatments available and in development brings the need for discussion and evaluation of the technologies already available before the incorporation of new drugs. This study analyses the effectiveness of first-line treatment of RRMS measured by real-world evidence data, from the Brazilian National Health System (SUS).

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a non-concurrent national cohort between 2000 and 2015. The study population consisted of 22,722 patients with RRMS using one of the following first-line drugs of interest: glatiramer or one of three presentations of interferon beta. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the time to treatment failure. A univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard model was used to evaluate factors associated with treatment failure. In addition, patients were propensity score-matched (1:1) in six groups of comparative first-line treatments to evaluate the effectiveness among them. The analysis indicated a higher risk of treatment failure in female patients (HR = 1.08; P = 0,01), those with comorbidities at baseline (HR = 1.20; P<0,0001), in patients who developed comorbidities after starting treatment (i.e., rheumatoid arthritis-HR = 1.65; P<0,0001), those exclusive SUS patients (HR = 1.31; P<0,0001) and among patients using intramuscular interferon beta (IM βINF-1a) (28% to 60% compared to the other three treatments; P<0,0001). Lower risk of treatment failure was found among patients treated with glatiramer.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective cohort suggests that glatiramer is associated with greater effectiveness compared to the three presentations of interferon beta. When evaluating beta interferons, the results suggest that the intramuscular presentation is not effective in the treatment of multiple sclerosis.

Qualitative factors shaping MS patients' experiences of infusible disease-modifying drugs: a critical incident technique analysis

OBJECTIVE

To explore factors shaping the experiences of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with infusible disease-modifying drugs in a hospital setting.

DESIGN AND SETTINGS

The critical incident technique served as a framework for collecting and analysing patients' qualitative account practices involving infusible disease-modifying drugs. Data were collected through semistructured interviews and one single-case study. Participants were recruited from all five regions in Denmark. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify and interpret factors shaping patients' infusion journey over time.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-two patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis receiving infusion with disease-modifying drugs (natalizumab, alemtuzumab and ocrelizumab).

RESULTS

Four time scenarios-preinfusion, day of infusion, long-term infusion and switch of infusion-associated with the infusion of disease-modifying drugs were analysed to reveal how different factors could both positively and negatively affect patient experience. Time taken to make the treatment decision was affected by participants' subjective perceptions of their disease activity; this may have set off a treatment dilemma in the event of a pressing need for treatment. Planning and routine made infusion practices manageable, but external and internal surroundings, including infusion room ambience and the quality of relationships with healthcare professionals and fellow patients, affected patients' cognitive state and well-being irrespective of the infusion regimen. Switching the infusion regimen can reactivate worries akin to the preinfusion scenario.

CONCLUSION

This study provides novel insight into the positive and negative factors that shape patients' experience of infusion care practices. From a patient's perspective, an infusion practice is not a solitary event in time but includes planning and routine which become an integral part of their multiple sclerosis management. The quality of space and the ambience of the infusion room, combined with the relationship with healthcare professionals and fellow patients, can be a significant source of knowledge and support people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in their experience of agency in life.

Cladribine vs other drugs in MS: Merging randomized trial with real-life data

Objective

Cladribine tablets were tested against placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In this study, the effectiveness of cladribine vs other approved drugs in patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) was compared by matching RCT to observational data.

Methods

Data from the pivotal trial assessing cladribine tablets vs placebo (CLARITY) were propensity score matched to data from the Italian multicenter database i-MuST. This database included 3,150 patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2018 at 24 Italian MS centers who started a disease-modifying drug. The annualized relapse rate (ARR) over 2 years from treatment start and the 24-week confirmed disability progression were compared between patients treated with cladribine and other approved drugs (interferon, glatiramer acetate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and dimethyl fumarate), with comparisons with placebo as a reference. Treatment effects were estimated by the inverse probability weighting negative binomial regression model for ARR and Cox model for disability progression. The treatment effect has also been evaluated according to baseline disease activity.

Results

All weighted baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. All drugs tested had an effect vs placebo close to that detected in the RCT. Patients treated with cladribine had a significantly lower ARR compared with interferon (relapse ratio [RR] = 0.48; p < 0.001), glatiramer acetate (RR = 0.49; p < 0.001), and dimethyl fumarate (RR = 0.6; p = 0.001); a similar ARR to that with fingolimod (RR = 0.74; p = 0.24); and a significantly higher ARR than natalizumab (RR = 2.13; p = 0.014), confirming results obtained by indirect treatment comparisons from RCTs (network meta-analyses). The relative effect of cladribine tablets 10 mg (cumulative dose 3.5 mg/kg over 2 years) was higher in patients with high disease activity vs all treatments except fingolimod and natalizumab. Effects on disability progression were largely nonsignificant, probably due to lack of power for such analysis.

Conclusion

In patients with RRMS, cladribine tablets showed lower ARR compared with matched patients who started interferon, glatiramer acetate, or dimethyl fumarate; was similar to fingolimod; and was higher than natalizumab. The beneficial effect of cladribine tablets was generally amplified in the subgroup of patients with high disease activity.

Classification of evidence

This study provides Class III evidence that for patients with RRMS, cladribine-treated patients had lower ARR compared with interferon, glatiramer acetate, or dimethyl fumarate; similar ARR compared with fingolimod; and higher ARR compared with natalizumab.

Reliability in long-term clinical studies of disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: A systematic review

Background

Although relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) has a chronic course, little information is known about the comparison between the disease-modifying therapies (DMT) for long-term outcomes. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of randomized clinical trial (RCT) extension and observational studies to examine the efficacy and safety of all available DMT for RRMS, compare the evidence with that derived from mid-term studies, and investigate whether the published long-term data are robust and reliable enough to inform clinical decision-making concerning RRMS treatment.

Method

PubMed, Scopus, and manual searches were performed until October 2019. The clinical outcomes of long- and mid-term studies were compared. ROBINS-I was used to assess the methodological qualities of the long-term studies. PROSPERO number CRD42019123361.

Results

Nineteen long-term studies (9,018 participants) were included in the systematic review. All studies presented serious or critical risks of bias that were mainly due to confounding, selection, and missing data biases. The annualised relapse rates (ARR) observed in the long-term studies are lower (better) than those from the mid-term studies for most treatments. The main reason for this ARR decrease could be a selection bias for good responders in the long-term studies, since many studies show a loss of patients between the mid- and long-term phases. The safety profiles depend on the study, follow-up, report, and outcome (i.e., discontinuation or number of patients with at least one serious adverse event).

Conclusion

The currently available long-term data for patients with RRMS exhibit serious or critical risks of bias that preclude robust comparisons between long-term studies. High quality comparative observational studies with long-term follow-ups or RCT extensions with intention-to-treat analyses are needed to support clinical and regulatory practice. Until reliable long-term evidence is available, neurologists should continue to base their conduct on mid-term studies, patient`s experience and, most importantly, patient`s needs and predictor factors, according to personalized medicine.

An evaluation of dimethyl fumarate for the treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis

INTRODUCTION

In recent years there has been a dramatic rise in available disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS). Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) is an oral drug approved by the FDA for relapsing MS with unique immunomodulatory and cytoprotective effects.

AREAS COVERED

Herein, the authors provide the reader with a review of the literature obtained via a PubMed database search and provide their expert opinion on the use of DMF in clinical practice. The article details DMF's mechanism of action, long-term data on efficacy, tolerability and safety.

EXPERT OPINION

Since approval, growing experience with DMF in clinical practice demonstrates a combination of efficacy, ease of administration along with an acceptable safety profile. The authors believe that DMF is a valuable long-term treatment option in patients with relapsing MS. However, long-term follow up studies are needed to provide further data on progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) risk stratification for MS patients on treatment with DMF. Indeed, despite the strong association with lymphopenia, not all patients with DMF associated PML experienced prolonged overall lymphopenia, suggesting that additional predictive metrics are still needed.

Matching-adjusted comparisons demonstrate better clinical outcomes in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis treated with peginterferon beta-1a than with teriflunomide

BACKGROUND

Peginterferon beta-1a and teriflunomide are both first-line disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) approved for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS); however, no head-to-head trials have directly compared their clinical efficacy. We performed a matching-adjusted comparison of individual patient data from the peginterferon beta-1a pivotal phase 3 study, ADVANCE, and its extension study, ATTAIN, with pooled aggregated data from the teriflunomide pivotal phase 3 studies, TEMSO and TOWER.

METHODS

A total of 512 patients randomized to subcutaneous (SC) peginterferon beta-1a 125 mcg every 2 weeks in ADVANCE and 731 patients randomized to teriflunomide 14 mg daily (359 from TEMSO and 372 from TOWER) were matched on key baseline characteristics. After matching, weighted annualized relapse rate (ARR) and 24-week confirmed disability worsening (CDW) were calculated and compared for peginterferon beta-1a- and teriflunomide-treated patients. A subset analysis comparing weighted ARR in patients who were newly diagnosed with RMS (diagnosis ≤1 year before study enrollment and disease-modifying therapy naïve) was also performed.

RESULTS

After matching, the peginterferon beta-1a and teriflunomide treatment groups were identically matched across baseline characteristics. The proportion of patients in the overall study populations with 24-week CDW at 108 weeks was significantly lower in the peginterferon beta-1a group than the teriflunomide group both before matching (8.5% vs 12.6%; P = 0.0249) and after matching (8.4% vs 12.6%; P = 0.0323). ARR at 108 weeks was numerically lower with peginterferon beta-1a than with teriflunomide both before matching (0.278 vs 0.354; P = 0.1326) and after matching (0.257 vs 0.354; P = 0.0510). Newly diagnosed patients treated with peginterferon beta-1a had numerically lower ARR than patients treated with teriflunomide both at 108 weeks (before matching: 0.225 vs 0.270; P = 0.587; after matching: 0.201 vs 0.270; P = 0.384) and at 5 years (before matching: 0.150 vs 0.196; after matching: 0.142 vs 0.196).

CONCLUSIONS

In this matching-adjusted comparison of patients with RMS from three phase 3 trials, a significantly lower proportion of patients treated with SC peginterferon beta-1a 125 mcg every 2 weeks than with oral teriflunomide 14 mg once daily had 24-week CDW at 108 weeks. In addition, in both the overall population and newly diagnosed patient subgroups, ARR at 108 weeks was numerically lower with peginterferon beta-1a than with teriflunomide. The numerically lower ARR in newly diagnosed patients treated with peginterferon beta-1a compared with those treated with teriflunomide was sustained through up to 5 years of treatment.

Extending the Interval of Natalizumab Dosing: Is Efficacy Preserved?

Extending the natalizumab interval after the 24th administration could reduce the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). The objective is to evaluate the noninferiority of the efficacy of an extended interval dosing (EID) compared with the standard interval dosing (SID) of natalizumab. It is an observational, multicenter (14 Italian centers), retrospective cohort study, starting from the 24th natalizumab infusion to the loss of follow-up or 2 years after baseline. Patients were grouped in 2 categories according to the mean number of weeks between doses: < 5 weeks, SID; ≥ 5 weeks, EID. Three hundred and sixty patients were enrolled. Median dose interval (MDI) following 24th infusion was 4.7 weeks, with a bimodal distribution (modes at 4 and 6 weeks). Two hundred and sixteen patients were in the SID group (MDI = 4.3 weeks) and 144 in the EID group (MDI 6.2 weeks). Annualized relapse rate was 0.060 (95% CI = 0.033-0.087) in the SID group and 0.039 (95% CI = 0.017-0.063) in the EID group. The non-inferiority of EID versus SID was satisfied. In conclusion, there is no evidence of a reduced efficacy of natalizumab in an EID setting. This observation confirms previous results and together with the emerging evidence of a reduced risk of PML associated to an EID, supports the need of a randomized study to assess the need to change the standard of the natalizumab dosing schedule.

Autologous haematopoietic stem cell therapy for multiple sclerosis: a review for supportive care clinicians on behalf of the Autoimmune Diseases Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review, we summarize the recently published literature that demonstrates the efficacy and safety of autologous haematopoietic stem cell therapy (AHSCT) in multiple sclerosis (MS) and highlight the importance of supportive care required for the safe and well-tolerated delivery of AHSCT.

RECENT FINDINGS

MS is an autoimmune inflammatory and degenerative disorder of the central nervous system (CNS). In the majority of patients, the illness runs a relapsing remitting course (RRMS), culminating in a secondary progressive phase with gradual accumulation of fixed disabilities. Currently available disease-modifying therapies suppress CNS inflammation but have a limited effect on preventing disease progression for which there remains no effective therapy. Over the last two decades, there has been increasing evidence that AHSCT is a highly effective therapeutic strategy for treatment-resistant inflammatory types of MS, especially RRMS. Concerns about the safety of AHSCT in MS, usually a nonlife-threatening disease, have previously limited its use. However, AHSCT can now be delivered safely with major long-term benefits because of increasing transplant centre experience, judicious patient selection and good supportive care.

SUMMARY

MS is currently the fastest growing indication for AHSCT in Europe. Supportive care before, during and after the transplant period is key to the successful delivery of AHSCT.

Safety outcomes of disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies have reported adverse events that preclude the use of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in the long term or in specific populations, however, little is known about the relationship between the use of DMTs and frequency of undesirable events. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analyses (NMAs) of RCTs and observational studies to synthesise the evidence on the safety of all available DMTs for patients with RRMS.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus and a manual search were performed. Bayesian NMAs of safety outcomes reported in RCTs and observational studies assessing DMTs as monotherapies were conducted.

RESULTS

Forty-seven studies were included in the systematic review. Considering all studies, 368 and 149 different safety outcomes were reported for at least one study and two studies, respectively. Considering clinical trials, 22 NMAs were conducted for 16 outcomes. Regarding geometry metrics, the median number of studies, DMTs, common comparator, strong edge, and patients were 5 (IQR 5-9), 5 (IQR 4-8), 44%, 33%, and 3998 (IQR 3380-6761). In summary, most comparisons showed similar risk of safety events for DMTs and placebo for all outcomes. Considering cohort studies, only three meta-analyses were conducted.

CONCLUSION

Safety outcomes are poorly reported in primary studies of DMTs in RRMS, precluding the conduction of robust meta-analyses. Therefore, the current available data on safety of these drugs is not contributing to regulatory and clinical decision making, with adverse event reports underbalanced compared to efficacy outcomes.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of disease-modifying therapies in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune, demyelinating disease of the central nervous system. The treatment of MS has always been a focus of neurological research. To date, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved 15 medications for modifying the course of multiple sclerosis. In this study, we examined the effects of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DMTs in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for RCTs published up to Oct 31, 2018. The primary outcome was efficacy (relapse rate over 24 months) and acceptability (treatment discontinuation due to adverse events over 24 months).

FINDINGS

We identified 23 suitable trials encompassing 14,096 participants. During the 2 years of follow-up, all drugs were significantly more effective than were placebos. The risk ratios with 95% credible intervals were as follows: alemtuzumab, 0.49 (0.40, 0.59); ocrelizumab, 0.49 (0.40, 0.61); mitoxantrone, 0.47 (0.27, 0.80); natalizumab, 0.51 (0.43, 0.61); fingolimod, 0.57 (0.50, 0.65); peginterferon beta-1a, 0.63 (0.52, 0.77); dimethyl fumarate, 0.65 (0.56, 0.74); teriflunomide 14 mg, 0.78 (0.66, 0.92); glatiramer acetate, 0.80 (0.72, 0.89); IFN β-1a (Rebif), 0.81 (0.72, 0.90); IFN β-1b (Betaseron), 0.81 (0.72, 0.91); teriflunomide 7 mg, 0.83 (0.71, 0.98); and IFN β-1a (Avonex). 0.87 (0.77, 0.99). Risk ratios compared with placebo for discontinuation due to adverse events ranged from 1.12 for the best drug (fingolimod) to 0.10 for the worst drug (mitoxantrone); from 0.24 (alemtuzumab) to 0.89 (IFNβ-1b [Betaseron]) for sustained (3-month) disability progression; and from 0.85 (natalizumab) to 1.25 (teriflunomide 14 mg) for the number of participants with serious adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

All DMTs were superior to placebo in reducing the relapse rate during the 2 years of follow-up. As to the comparison between drugs, alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, natalizumab and fingolimod had a relatively higher response and lower dropout rates than did the other DMTs.

Advances in preventing adverse events during monoclonal antibody management of multiple sclerosis

INTRODUCTION

Decades of pharmacological research in Multiple Sclerosis (MS) led to the development of therapeutic Monoclonal Antibodies (MAbs) with many different mechanisms of action (MoA), potentially able to improve disability outcome but also determining a more complex management of patients. Areas covered: When clinicians select MS treatments, they should consider adverse events (AEs) on individual basis to minimize patients' risks. Some AEs are common and can be easily handled, but rare complications should also be taken into account. The aim of this review is to summarize existing evidence and provide practical recommendations for the management of therapeutic MAbs in MS. Expert opinion: The introduction of MAbs revolutionized MS treatment with an improvement in effectiveness. Unfortunately, this has been coupled with a more complex array of AEs needing a tighter surveillance strategy. A close interaction between general practitioners, neurologists, and other specialists is the key for a safer use of such effective drugs.