Teriflunomide added to interferon- in relapsing multiple sclerosis: A randomized phase II trial

Treatment algorithms of relapsing multiple sclerosis: an exploration based on the available disease-modifying therapies in China

Multiple sclerosis (MS) was defined as a rare disease in China due to its low prevalence. For a long time, interferon β was the only approved disease-modifying therapy (DMT). Since the first oral DMT was approved in 2018, DMT approval accelerated, and seven DMTs were approved within 5 years. With an increasing number of DMTs being prescribed in clinical practice, it is necessary to discuss the standardized MS treatment algorithms depending on the disease activity and DMT availability. In this review paper, more than 20 Chinese experts in MS have reviewed the therapeutic progress of MS in China and worldwide and discussed algorithms for treating relapsing MS (RMS) based on the available DMTs in China, providing insights for establishing the standardized RMS treatment algorithms in this country.

Twenty Years of Subcutaneous Interferon-Beta-1a for Multiple Sclerosis: Contemporary Perspectives

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, progressive, inflammatory disorder of the central nervous system. Relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), the most common form of the disease, is characterized by transient neurological dysfunction with concurrent accumulation of disability. Over the past three decades, disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) capable of reducing the frequency of relapses and slowing disability worsening have been studied and approved for use in patients with RRMS. The first DMTs were interferon-betas (IFN-βs), which were approved in the 1990s. Among them was IFN-β-1a for subcutaneous (sc) injection (Rebif®), which was approved for the treatment of MS in Europe and Canada in 1998 and in the USA in 2002. Twenty years of clinical data and experience have supported the efficacy and safety of IFN-β-1a sc in the treatment of RRMS, including pivotal trials, real-world data, and extension studies lasting up to 15 years past initial treatment. Today, IFN-β-1a sc remains an important therapeutic option in clinical use, especially around pregnancy planning and lactation, and may also be considered for aging patients, in which MS activity declines and long-term immunosuppression associated with some alternative therapies is a concern. In addition, IFN-β-1a sc is used as a comparator in many clinical studies and provides a framework for research into the mechanisms by which MS begins and progresses.

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.

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.

An update on combination therapies for multiple sclerosis: where are we now?

INTRODUCTION

In theory, combination of two agents, which are suboptimal when given individually, may result in a significant increase in therapeutic effect. Combination therapies have proven particularly effective against infections such as HIV, cancer, and also chronic autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis.

AREAS COVERED

The authors review the literature, searching for randomized placebo-controlled or comparative, double-blind or investigator-blinded clinical trials, not including open label clinical trials, of treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) with combination therapy or add-on therapy, including trials of induction therapy, trials for prevention of disease activity or worsening, amelioration of adverse effects, and treatment of relapses, and trials to increase remyelination.

EXPERT OPINION

Combination of two platform therapies (Interferon-beta or glatiramer acetate) was without additional effect. Clinical trials with add-on, often applying repurposed drugs (e.g. simvastatin, atorvastatin, minocycline, estriol, cyclophosphamide, azathioprine, albuterol, vitamin D), have been negative, apart from monthly methylprednisolone that, however, had low tolerability. Combination therapy for neuroprotection/remyelination showed some interesting results, though we are still awaiting results of phase III trials. The results of combination of anti-inflammatory therapies have in general been disappointing. In the future, combination of new effective neuroprotective/remyelinating drugs and highly effective anti-inflammatory treatments may benefit people with MS.

Long-term drug treatment in multiple sclerosis: safety success and concerns

INTRODUCTION

The portfolio of multiple sclerosis (MS) disease modifying treatments (DMTs) has significantly expanded over the past two decades. Given the lifelong use of MS pharmacotherapy, understanding their long-term safety profiles is essential in determining suitable and personalized treatment.

AREAS COVERED

In this narrative review, we summarize the short-, mid-, and long-term safety profile of currently available MS DMTs categories. In addition to the initial trial findings, safety outcomes derived from long-term extension studies (≥5-20 years) and safety-based prescription programs have been reviewed. In order to better understand the risk-benefit ratio for each particular DMT group, a short description of the DMT-based efficacy outcomes has been included.

EXPERT OPINION

Long-term extension trials, large observational studies and real-world databases allow detection of rare and potentially serious adverse events. Two-year-long trials are unable to fully capture the positive and negative effects of immune system modulation and reconstitution. DMT-based monitoring programs can provide greater insights regarding safe use of MS medications in different patient populations and clinical settings. During the process of shared DMT decision, both MS care providers and their patients should be aware of an ever-expanding number of drug-based adverse events and their influence on the risk-benefit analysis.

Drug Holiday of Interferon Beta 1b in Multiple Sclerosis: A Pilot, Randomized, Single Blind Study of Non-inferiority

Introduction: To compare a schedule with cyclic withdrawal (CW) of interferon beta (IFN-b) 1b, respect to the full regimen (FR), in relapsing-remitting MS (RR-MS).

Methods: Participants were randomly assigned to CW or FR schedule and monthly monitored with brain MRI scans for 12 months (three of run-in and 9 of treatment). CW schedule included drug withdrawal for 1 month after two of treatment for a total of three quarters over the 9-month treatment period. The assessing neurologist and the expert neuroradiologists were blind. After the blind phase of the study all participants took their indicated disease modifying therapies in a prospectively planned, open-label extension phase (up to 120 months).

Results: Of 60 randomized subjects 56 (29 in FR and 27 in CW group) completed the single-blind phase: the two groups were comparable, except for a non-significant difference in the number of contrast-enhanced lesions (CEL) at the end of run-in. The two-sided 90% CI for the ratio between median number of cumulative CEL was 0.29–1.07, allowing to significantly reject the null hypothesis of a ratio ≥1.2 and to meet the primary end-point of non-inferiority (the threshold and the ratio between median were chosen according to the non-normal distribution of the data). The differences (CW vs. FR) were also non-significant for secondary end points: mean cumulative number of T2-weighted new and enlarging lesions (3.48 ± 5.34 vs. 3.86 ± 6.76); mean number and volume (cm³) of black holes (1.24 ± 1.61 vs. 2.71 ± 4.56; 489.11 ± 1488.12 vs. 204.48 ± 396.98); number of patients with at least an active scan (21 vs. 22); mean relapse rate (0.52 ± 0.89 vs. 0.34 ± 0.66), relapse risk ratio adjusted for baseline variables (2.15 [0.64–7.18]), EDSS score (1.0 [1–1.56] vs. 1.5 [1–1.78]), proportion of patients with antibodies anti-IFN (5 [21%] vs. 8 [36%]). Fifty-four patients (27 for each study arm) completed the open-label phase. The annualized RR, EDSS, proportion of patients shifting to progressive disease and hazard ratio of shifting, adjusting for baseline covariates, were comparable between the two study groups.

Conclusions: A calendar with CW was non-inferior than FR at the beginning of IFN-b therapy, and may not affect the long-term outcome.

Clinical Trial Registration:www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00270816

Pregnancy outcomes in patients with multiple sclerosis treated with teriflunomide: Clinical study data and 5 years of post-marketing experience

BACKGROUND

Teriflunomide is contraindicated in pregnancy. Some pregnancies have occurred despite guidance to use effective contraception.

OBJECTIVES

To report outcomes of pregnancies occurring in teriflunomide clinical trials and the post-marketing setting.

METHODS

Outcomes are summarized for pregnancies in teriflunomide monotherapy clinical trials and the post-marketing setting (data cutoff: December 2017).

RESULTS

Of 437 confirmed teriflunomide-exposed pregnancies, 222 had known outcomes (70 from clinical trials; 152 from the post-marketing setting); 161 were reported prospectively and 61 retrospectively. There were 107 (48.2%) live births, 63 (28.4%) elective abortions, 47 (21.2%) spontaneous abortions, 3 (1.4%) ectopic pregnancies, 1 (0.5%) stillbirth, and 1 (0.5%) maternal death leading to fetal death. Four birth defects were reported among cases with known pregnancy outcome: ureteropyeloectasia (only defect considered major); congenital hydrocephalus; ventricular septal defect; and malformation of right foot valgus. A case of cystic hygroma was identified on antenatal ultrasound (pregnancy outcome unknown). One elective abortion followed prenatal diagnosis of fetal anomaly (blighted ovum). The risk of major birth defects in prospectively reported live birth/stillbirth outcomes was 3.6% (1/28) in clinical trials and 0.0% (0/51) in post-marketing reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes were consistent with the general population. Current human data do not indicate a teratogenic signal in teriflunomide-exposed pregnancies.

Cladribine tablets added to IFN-β in active relapsing MS: The ONWARD study

Objective

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of cladribine tablets in patients still experiencing active relapsing MS despite interferon (IFN)-β treatment.

Methods

A 96-week phase II study, randomizing patients treated with IFN-β to cladribine tablets 3.5 mg/kg/IFN-β or placebo/IFN-β. Patients were to receive cladribine tablets 3.5 mg/kg/IFN-β or placebo/IFN-β in a 2:1 ratio (n = 172) with safety and exploratory efficacy outcomes being assessed.

Results

Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were similar across treatment groups, except lymphopenia. Fifty of 124 (40.3%) cladribine/IFN-β recipients vs 0% of placebo/IFN-β recipients reported lymphopenia as an AE, with grade 3/4 lymphopenia (laboratory lymphocyte count < 500 cells/mm³) experienced by 79/124 (63.7%) vs 1 (2.1%), respectively. Patients treated with cladribine tablets 3.5 mg/kg/IFN-β were 63% less likely to have a qualifying relapse than placebo/IFN-β recipients, and cladribine tablets 3.5 mg/kg/IFN-β reduced most MRI measures of disease activity.

Conclusions

In patients with active relapsing MS despite IFN-β treatment, cladribine tablets 3.5 mg/kg/IFN-β reduced relapses and MRI lesion activity over 96 weeks compared with placebo/IFN-β but led to an increased incidence of lymphopenia.

Classification of evidence

This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with active relapsing MS despite IFN-β treatment, cladribine tablets added to IFN-β reduced relapses and MRI lesion activity over 96 weeks and increased the incidence of lymphopenia.

Clinical trial registration

NCT00436826.

Managing Multiple Sclerosis: Treatment Initiation, Modification, and Sequencing

Recent therapeutic advances in the management of multiple sclerosis (MS) have raised questions about the selection of appropriate patient candidates for various treatments and, if the plan is to move from one treatment to another, the appropriate sequencing of these therapies. The selected approach should provide optimal disease management without limiting future therapeutic options based on safety concerns, and recognize potential future treatments and the possibility of combination therapies. Additional challenges include incorporation of patient needs and preferences into the overall therapeutic approach, in order to ensure optimal outcomes in the short and long term. The objective of this manuscript is to provide an overview of what is currently known regarding the impact of various therapies for MS on future therapeutic choices (sequencing). In this context, we reviewed the available evidence in support of various treatments and, based on the presence of disease activity, suggested a scheme for switching or escalating therapy with the main focus on sequencing of therapeutic approaches.

Efficacy and Safety of the Newer Multiple Sclerosis Drugs Approved Since 2010

Multiple sclerosis treatment faces tremendous changes as a result of the approval of new medications. The new medications have differing safety considerations and risks after long-term treatment, which are important for treating physicians to optimize and individualize multiple sclerosis care. Since the approval of the first multiple sclerosis capsule, fingolimod, the armamentarium of multiple sclerosis therapy has grown with the orally available medications dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide. Fingolimod is mainly associated with cardiac side effects, dimethyl fumarate with bowel symptoms. Several reports about progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy as a result of dimethyl fumarate or fingolimod therapy raised the awareness of fatal opportunistic infections. Alemtuzumab, a CD52-depleting antibody, is highly effective in reducing relapses but leads to secondary immunity with mainly thyroid disorders in about 30% of patients. Development of secondary B-cell-mediated disease might also be a risk of this antibody. The follow-up drug of the B-cell-depleting antibody rituximab, ocrelizumab, is mainly associated with infusion-related reactions; long-term data are scarce. The medication daclizumab high yield process, acting via the activation of CD56^bright natural killer cells, can induce the elevation of liver function enzymes, but also fulminant liver failure has been reported. Therefore, daclizumab has been retracted from the market. Long-term data on the purine nucleoside cladribine in MS therapy, recently authorized in the European Union, have been acquired during the long-term follow-up of the cladribine studies. The small molecule laquinimod is currently under development. We review data of clinical trials and their extensions regarding long-term efficacy and side effects, which might be associated with long-term treatment.

Switching or Discontinuing Disease-Modifying Therapies for Multiple Sclerosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the reasons for discontinuation or switching of multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapy as well as procedures that might mitigate risk to the patient under such circumstances.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent review of the literature, as well as the author's extensive clinical experience, indicate that the discontinuation of multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies occurs for many reasons. Often one medication is stopped at the recommendation of the physician in order to switch to another medication. However, often the decision to discontinue medication is made by the patient. Unfortunately, in still other situations, treatment is stopped because of circumstances beyond the control of either patient or physician (eg, a loss of insurance coverage). Currently available data do not permit a conclusion about whether it is ever safe to discontinue disease-modifying therapy in a stable patient without the expectation of return of disease activity.

SUMMARY

Clinicians must help patients avoid unnecessary and undesirable cessation of disease-modifying therapy. While switches of therapy are often necessary, steps to minimize both adverse events and the risk of recurrent disease should be undertaken. Whether disease-modifying therapy can ever be purposely discontinued without incurring a significant risk of disease recurrence remains to be determined.

The Ocular Manifestations of Drugs Used to Treat Multiple Sclerosis

Recent times have seen an increase in the number of options to treat multiple sclerosis. Ocular manifestations of multiple sclerosis are well known to treating physicians; however, the medications used to treat multiple sclerosis can also have ocular side effects. This review article focuses on the ocular manifestations of corticosteroids and disease-modifying agents such as interferon, fingolomod, natalizumab, alemtuzumab and mitoxantron used to treat the disease. The ocular manifestations of multiple sclerosis treatments can be varied depending on the drug used, and include retinopathy, chronic central serous chorioretinopathy, macular oedema, Graves' ophthalmopathy and cortical blindness. These effects may be specific to the drug or secondary to their immunosuppressive effect. The association of macular oedema with fingolomod is clear and merits ocular screening for toxicity. The immunosuppressive nature of the treatments makes patients prone to acquired infections. Hence, if a patient with multiple sclerosis presents with vision loss, infectious and drug-induced aetiology should be considered alongside relapses of multiple sclerosis itself as a cause.

The Use of Oral Disease-Modifying Therapies in Multiple Sclerosis

Three oral disease-modifying drugs-fingolimod, teriflunomide, and dimethyl fumarate (DMF)-are available for treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS). All three agents were approved in the last decade, primarily on the basis of a moderate to substantial reduction in the occurrence of MS relapses and central nervous system lesion formation detected by MRI. In the trials leading to approval, the first oral disease-modifying drug, fingolimod, reduced the annualized relapse rate (ARR) from 0.40 in placebo-treated patients to 0.18 (FREEDOMS) and from 0.33 in patients treated with interferon β1a intramuscularly to 0.16 (TRANSFORMS). Teriflunomide, approved on the basis of the two placebo-controlled trials TEMSO and TOWER, demonstrated a reduction in the ARR from 0.54 to 0.37 and from 0.50 to 0.32 respectively. The latest oral MS medication, approved in 2014, is DMF, which had been used in a different formulation for treatment of psoriasis for decades. In the 2-year DEFINE study, the proportion of patients with a relapse was reduced to 27 %, compared with 46 % in placebo arm, whereas in the CONFIRM trial, the ARR was reduced from 0.40 (placebo) to 0.22 in the DMF-treated group of patients. In this review, we will elucidate the mechanisms of action of these three medications and compare their efficacy, safety, and tolerability as a practical guideline for their use. We will further discuss effects other than relapse reduction these small molecules may exert, including potential activities within the central nervous system, and briefly summarize emerging data on new oral MS drugs in clinical development.

Safety and Tolerability of Delayed-Release Dimethyl Fumarate Administered with Interferon Beta or Glatiramer Acetate in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Delayed-release dimethyl fumarate (DMF; also known as gastroresistant DMF) is indicated for relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS). The objective of this study was to explore the safety and tolerability of DMF when administered with interferon beta (IFNβ) or glatiramer acetate (GA).

METHODS

Patients with relapsing-remitting MS receiving established therapy with the same dose of IFNβ or GA for at least 12 months continued their prescribed therapy for 2 months (monotherapy period) and then received DMF 240 mg three times daily in addition to their prescribed MS therapy for 6 months (add-on therapy period). Safety and magnetic resonance imaging outcomes were monitored monthly.

RESULTS

During the add-on therapy period, in the DMF+IFNβ (n = 57) and DMF+GA (n = 47) groups, the overall incidence of adverse events was 95% and 100%, respectively; the most common adverse events were flushing, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. In both groups, mean lymphocyte counts decreased but remained within normal limits, and hepatic transaminase levels increased transiently; no case met Hy's law criteria. There was no overall increased risk of infection. In both groups, gadolinium-enhancing lesion activity and new/enlarging T2 lesions decreased compared with the monotherapy period (exploratory endpoints).

CONCLUSIONS

The safety profile of DMF taken with IFNβ or GA was acceptable and consistent with the known safety profile of DMF monotherapy.

Pharmacological Approaches to Delaying Disability Progression in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis

In individuals with multiple sclerosis, physical and cognitive disability progression are clinical and pathophysiological hallmarks of the disease. Despite shortcomings, particularly in capturing cognitive deficits, the Expanded Disability Status Scale is the assessment of disability progression most widely used in clinical trials. Here, we review treatment effects on disability that have been reported in large clinical trials of disease-modifying treatment, both among patients with relapsing-remitting disease and among those with progressive disease. However, direct comparisons are confounded to some degree by the lack of consistency in assessment of disability progression across trials. Confirmed disability progression (CDP) is a more robust measure when performed over a 6-month than a 3-month interval, and reduction in the risk of 6-month CDP in phase III trials provides good evidence for the beneficial effects on disability of several high-efficacy treatments for relapsing-remitting disease. It is also becoming increasingly clear that therapies effective in relapsing-remitting disease have little impact on the course of progressive disease. Given that the pathophysiological mechanisms, which lead to the long-term accrual of physical and cognitive deficits, are evident at the earliest stages of disease, it remains a matter of debate whether the most effective therapies are administered early enough to afford patients the best long-term outcomes.

Teriflunomide for multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the Cochrane review "Teriflunomide for multiple sclerosis" (first published in The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12).Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic immune-mediated disease of the central nervous system. It is clinically characterized by recurrent relapses or progression, or both, often leading to severe neurological disability and a serious decline in quality of life. Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS aim to prevent occurrence of relapses and disability progression. Teriflunomide is a pyrimidine synthesis inhibitor approved by both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as a DMT for adults with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the absolute and comparative effectiveness and safety of teriflunomide as monotherapy or combination therapy versus placebo or other disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) (interferon beta (IFNβ), glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab) for modifying the disease course in people with MS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group Specialised Trials Register (30 September 2015). We checked reference lists of published reviews and retrieved articles and searched reports (2004 to September 2015) from the MS societies in Europe and America. We also communicated with investigators participating in trials of teriflunomide and the pharmaceutical company, Sanofi-Aventis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized, controlled, parallel-group clinical trials with a length of follow-up of one year or greater evaluating teriflunomide, as monotherapy or combination therapy, versus placebo or other approved DMDs for people with MS without restrictions regarding dose, administration frequency and duration of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures of Cochrane. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus among the review authors. We contacted the principal investigators of included studies for additional data or confirmation of data.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies involving 3231 people evaluated the efficacy and safety of teriflunomide 7 mg and 14 mg, alone or with add-on IFNβ, versus placebo or IFNβ-1a for adults with relapsing forms of MS and an entry Expanded Disability Status Scale score of less than 5.5.Overall, there were obvious clinical heterogeneities due to diversities in study designs or interventions and methodological heterogeneities across studies. All studies had a high risk of detection bias for relapse assessment and a high risk of bias due to conflicts of interest. Among them, three studies additionally had a high risk of attrition bias due to a high dropout rate and two studies had an unclear risk of attrition bias. The studies of combination therapy with IFNβ (650 participants) and the study with IFNβ-1a as controls (324 participants) also had a high risk for performance bias and a lack of power due to the limited sample.Two studies evaluated the benefit and the safety of teriflunomide as monotherapy versus placebo over a period of one year (1169 participants) or two years (1088 participants). A meta-analysis was not conducted. Compared to placebo, administration of teriflunomide at a dose of 7 mg/day or 14 mg/day as monotherapy reduced the number of participants with at least one relapse over one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.87, P value = 0.001 with 7 mg/day and RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.75, P value < 0.00001 with 14 mg/day) or two years (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98, P value = 0.03 with 7 mg/day and RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.93, P value = 0.004 with 14 days). Only teriflunomide at a dose of 14 mg/day reduced the number of participants with disability progression over one year (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84, P value = 0.006) or two years (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96, P value = 0.02). When taking the effect of drop-outs into consideration, the likely-case scenario analyses still showed a benefit in reducing the number of participants with at least one relapse, but not for the number of participants with disability progression. Both doses also reduced the annualized relapse rate and the number of gadolinium-enhancing T1-weighted lesions over two years. Quality of evidence for relapse outcomes at one year or at two years was low, while for disability progression at one year or at two years was very low.When compared to IFNβ-1a, teriflunomide at a dose of 14 mg/day had a similar efficacy to IFNβ-1a in reducing the proportion of participants with at least one relapse over one year, while teriflunomide at a dose of 7 mg/day was inferior to IFNβ-1a (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.67, P value = 0.14; 215 participants with 14 mg/day and RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.66 to 4.53, P value < 0.0001; 213 participants with 7 mg/day). However, the quality of evidence was very low.In terms of safety profile, the most common adverse events associated with teriflunomide were diarrhoea, nausea, hair thinning, elevated alanine aminotransferase, neutropenia and lymphopenia. These adverse events had a dose-related effects and rarely led to treatment discontinuation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was low-quality evidence to support that teriflunomide at a dose of 7 mg/day or 14 mg/day as monotherapy reduces both the number of participants with at least one relapse and the annualized relapse rate over one year or two years of treatment in comparison with placebo. Only teriflunomide at a dose of 14 mg/day reduced the number of participants with disability progression and delayed the progression of disability over one year or two years, but the quality of the evidence was very low. The quality of available data was too low to evaluate the benefit teriflunomide as monotherapy versus IFNβ-1a or as combination therapy with IFNβ. The common adverse effects were diarrhoea, nausea, hair thinning, elevated alanine aminotransferase, neutropenia and lymphopenia. These adverse effects were mostly mild-to-moderate in severity, but had a dose-related effect. New studies of high quality and longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the comparative benefit of teriflunomide on these outcomes and the safety in comparison with other DMTs.

A randomized trial of teriflunomide added to glatiramer acetate in relapsing multiple sclerosis

Background

Teriflunomide is a once-daily oral immunomodulator for the treatment of relapsing−remitting MS.

Objective

To evaluate the safety and tolerability of teriflunomide as add-on therapy to a stable dose of glatiramer acetate (GA) in patients with relapsing forms of MS (RMS).

Methods

Phase II, randomized, double-blind, add-on, placebo-controlled study. The primary objective was to assess safety and tolerability; secondary objectives were to evaluate effects of treatment on disease activity assessed by MRI and relapse.

Results

Patients with RMS on GA (N = 123) were randomized 1:1:1 to receive teriflunomide 14 mg (n = 40), 7 mg (n = 42), or placebo (n = 41) for 24 weeks; 96 patients entered the 24-week extension, remaining on original treatment allocation. Teriflunomide was well tolerated over 48 weeks. The frequency of adverse events (AEs) was low across all groups; 5 (12.2%), 3 (7.1%), and 2 (5.0%) patients in the 14 mg, 7 mg, and placebo groups, respectively, discontinued treatment due to AEs. Teriflunomide reduced the number of T1-Gd lesions vs placebo (14 mg: 46.6% relative reduction, p = 0.1931; 7 mg: 64.0%: relative reduction, p = 0.0306).

Conclusions

Teriflunomide added to stable-dose GA had acceptable safety and tolerability, and reduced some MRI markers of disease activity compared with GA alone.

NCT00475865 (core study); NCT00811395 (extension).

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 biologics. Although there is consensus that these therapies reduce the frequency of relapses, their relative benefit in delaying new relapses or disability worsening remains unclear due to the limited number of direct comparison trials.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefit and acceptability of interferon beta-1b, interferon beta-1a (Avonex, Rebif), glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab, pegylated interferon beta-1a, daclizumab, laquinimod, azathioprine and immunoglobulins for the treatment of people with RRMS and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their benefit and acceptability, defined as the proportion of participants who withdrew due to any adverse event.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group Trials Register, which contains trials from CENTRAL (2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1966 to 2014), EMBASE (1974 to 2014), CINAHL (1981 to 2014), LILACS (1982 to 2014), clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO trials registry, and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports. We ran the most recent search in September 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that studied one or more of the 15 treatments as monotherapy, compared to placebo or to another active agent, for use in adults with RRMS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently identified studies from the search results and performed data extraction. We performed data synthesis by pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence for outcomes within the network meta-analysis according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate or high.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 studies in this review, in which 25,113 participants were randomised. The majority of the included trials were short-term studies, with a median duration of 24 months. Twenty-four (60%) were placebo-controlled and 15 (40%) were head-to-head studies.Network meta-analysis showed that, in terms of a protective effect against the recurrence of relapses in RRMS during the first 24 months of treatment, alemtuzumab, mitoxantrone, natalizumab, and fingolimod outperformed other drugs. The most effective drug was alemtuzumab (risk ratio (RR) versus placebo 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 0.55; surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) 96%; moderate quality evidence), followed by mitoxantrone (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.81; SUCRA 92%; very low quality evidence), natalizumab (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.66; SUCRA 88%; high quality evidence), and fingolimod (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.81; SUCRA 71%; moderate quality evidence).Disability worsening was based on a surrogate marker, defined as irreversible worsening confirmed at three-month follow-up, measured during the first 24 months in the majority of included studies. Both direct and indirect comparisons revealed that the most effective treatments were mitoxantrone (RR versus placebo 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.84; SUCRA 96%; low quality evidence), alemtuzumab (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.48; SUCRA 94%; low quality evidence), and natalizumab (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.85; SUCRA 74%; moderate quality evidence).Almost all of the agents included in this review were associated with a higher proportion of participants who withdrew due to any adverse event compared to placebo. Based on the network meta-analysis methodology, the corresponding RR estimates versus placebo over the first 24 months of follow-up were: mitoxantrone 9.92 (95% CI 0.54 to 168.84), fingolimod 1.69 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.17), natalizumab 1.53 (95% CI 0.93 to 2.53), and alemtuzumab 0.72 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.61).Information on serious adverse events (SAEs) was scanty, characterised by heterogeneous results and based on a very low number of events observed during the short-term duration of the trials included in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Conservative interpretation of these results is warranted, since most of the included treatments have been evaluated in few trials. The GRADE approach recommends providing implications for practice based on moderate to high quality evidence. Our review shows that alemtuzumab, natalizumab, and fingolimod are the best choices for preventing clinical relapses in people with RRMS, but this evidence is limited to the first 24 months of follow-up. For the prevention of disability worsening in the short term (24 months), only natalizumab shows a beneficial effect on the basis of moderate quality evidence (all of the other estimates were based on low to very low quality evidence). Currently, therefore, insufficient evidence is available to evaluate treatments for the prevention of irreversible disability worsening.There are two additional major concerns that have to be considered. First, the benefit of all of these treatments beyond two years is uncertain and this is a relevant issue for a disease with a duration of 30 to 40 years. Second, short-term trials provide scanty and poorly reported safety data and do not provide useful evidence in order to obtain a reliable risk profile of treatments. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will be necessary also to evaluate non-randomised studies and post-marketing reports released from the regulatory agencies. Finally, more than 70% of the studies included in this review were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and this may have influenced the results.There are three needs that the research agenda should address. First, randomised trials of direct comparisons between active agents would be useful, avoiding further placebo-controlled studies. Second, follow-up of the original trial cohorts should be mandatory. Third, more studies are needed to assess the medium and long-term benefit and safety of immunotherapies and the comparative safety of different agents.

Teriflunomide: a once-daily oral medication for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis

PURPOSE

The purpose was to summarize US prescribing information for teriflunomide in the treatment of patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (RMS), with reference to clinical efficacy and safety outcomes.

METHODS

In September 2012, the US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for the use of teriflunomide, 14 mg and 7 mg once daily, to treat RMS on the basis of the results of a Phase II study and the Phase III TEMSO (Teriflunomide Multiple Sclerosis Oral) trial. After recent updates to the prescribing information (October 2014), key findings from these and 2 other Phase III clinical trials, TOWER (Teriflunomide Oral in People With Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis) and TOPIC (Oral Teriflunomide for Patients with a First Clinical Episode Suggestive of Multiple Sclerosis), and practical considerations for physicians are summarized.

FINDINGS

Teriflunomide, 14 mg and 7 mg, significantly reduced mean number of unique active lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; P < 0.05 for both doses) in the Phase II study. In the TEMSO and TOWER studies, the 14-mg dose of teriflunomide significantly reduced annualized relapse rate (31% and 36% relative risk reduction compared with placebo, respectively; both P < 0.001) and risk of disability progression sustained for 12 weeks (hazard ratio vs placebo 0.70 and 0.69, respectively; both P < 0.05). The 7-mg dose significantly (P < 0.02) reduced annualized relapse rate in both studies, although the reduction in risk of disability progression was not statistically significant. Teriflunomide treatment was also associated with significant efficacy on MRI measures of disease activity in TEMSO; both doses significantly reduced total lesion volume and number of gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions. TOPIC evaluated patients with a first clinical event consistent with acute demyelination and brain MRI lesions characteristic of multiple sclerosis. More patients were free of relapse in the teriflunomide 14-mg and 7-mg groups than in the placebo group (P < 0.05 for both comparisons). In safety data pooled from the 4 studies, adverse events occurring in ≥2% of patients and ≥2% higher than in the placebo group were headache, alanine aminotransferase increase, diarrhea, alopecia (hair thinning), nausea, paresthesia, arthralgia, neutropenia, and hypertension. Routine monitoring procedures before and on treatment are recommended to assess potential safety issues. Women of childbearing potential must use effective contraception and, in the event of pregnancy, undergo an accelerated elimination procedure to reduce plasma concentrations of teriflunomide.

IMPLICATIONS

Clinical evidence suggests that teriflunomide is an effective therapeutic choice for patients with RMS, both as an initial treatment and as an alternative for patients who may have experienced intolerance or inadequate response to a previous or current disease-modifying therapy.

[Widening of possibilities of treatment of multiple sclerosis with the novel oral drug teriflunomide (aubagio)]

Teriflunomide is a novel oral medication for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), which has demonstrated it's efficacy in relapse rate reduction. It's efficacy has been confirmed by MRI results as well. It is safe and well-tolerated, with mild and transitory side effects. Nevertheless, risk management plan should be applied to minimize and monitor possible adverse events.

Leflunomide and teriflunomide: altering the metabolism of pyrimidines for the treatment of autoimmune diseases

Leflunomide modulates T-cell responses and induces a shift from the Th1 to Th2 subpopulation. This process results in a beneficial effect in diseases in which there is good evidence that T cells play a major role in both initiation and perpetuation of the inflammatory condition. Leflunomide has been successfully used for treating rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis for many years. The active metabolite of leflunomide is teriflunomide, which has been approved for treating multiple sclerosis. Teriflunomide, just like the mother drug, inhibits dihydro-orotate dehydrogenase and synthesis of pyrimidine. The present review presents and discusses the safety profiles of leflunomide and teriflunomide, two drugs that are indeed the same, considering that much can be learned from the reported side effects of both.

New management algorithms in multiple sclerosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Our current treatment algorithms include only IFN-β and glatiramer as available first-line disease-modifying drugs and natalizumab and fingolimod as second-line therapies. Today, 10 drugs have been approved in Europe and nine in the United States making the choice of therapy more complex. The purpose of the review has been to work out new management algorithms for treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis including new oral therapies and therapeutic monoclonal antibodies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent large placebo-controlled trials in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis have shown efficacy of new oral disease-modifying drugs, teriflunomide and dimethyl fumarate, with similar or better efficacy than the injectable disease-modifying drugs, IFN-β and glatiramer acetate. In addition, the new oral drugs seem to have a favorable safety profile. Further, the monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab, which in clinical trials has shown superiority to subcutaneous IFN-β 1a, has been approved in Europe, but not yet in the United States.

SUMMARY

In de novo-treated patients, the injectables, IFN-β and glatiramer acetate, will to a great extent be replaced by the new orals, dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide. However, patients who are stable on an injectable with no or minor side-effects could continue their current therapy. Alemtuzumab should be used as a second-line therapy.

Multiple sclerosis: overview of disease-modifying agents

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic autoimmune disease that usually affects young adults, causing progressive physical and cognitive disability. Since the 1990s, its treatment has been based on parenteral medications known collectively as immunomodulators. This drug class is considered safe and usually prevents 30% of MS relapses. Drugs in this class exert almost the same efficacy and require an inconvenient administration route. New medications have recently been launched worldwide. Thus, new oral drugs are increasingly being administered to MS patients and contributing to a better quality of life, since these have better efficacy than the old immunomodulators. Today, 10 different drugs for MS are marketed worldwide, which requires deep knowledge among neurologists and other healthcare professionals. This paper summarizes all the drugs approved for MS in the US and Europe, emphasizing their mechanism of action, the results from phase II and III studies, and the product safety.

Treatment Optimization in MS: Canadian MS Working Group Updated Recommendations

The Canadian Multiple Sclerosis Working Group (CMSWG) developed practical recommendations in 2004 to assist clinicians in optimizing the use of disease-modifying therapies (DMT) in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. The CMSWG convened to review how disease activity is assessed, propose a more current approach for assessing suboptimal response, and to suggest a scheme for switching or escalating treatment. Practical criteria for relapses, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) progression and MRI were developed to classify the clinical level of concern as Low, Medium and High. The group concluded that a change in treatment may be considered in any RRMS patient if there is a high level of concern in any one domain (relapses, progression or MRI), a medium level of concern in any two domains, or a low level of concern in all three domains. These recommendations for assessing treatment response should assist clinicians in making more rational choices in their management of relapsing MS patients.

Teriflunomide in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: current evidence and future prospects

A number of novel oral agents are now approved for use in relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS). Among these agents, teriflunomide has shown promise with respect to clinical efficacy and safety in relapsing MS patients. In this review we aim to clarify the role of teriflunomide in the context of current and emerging MS treatment options by summarizing relevant points on the use of teriflunomide in MS, with a discussion of teriflunomide's pharmacologic properties, pivotal clinical trials, and safety and tolerability.

Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous interferon-β-1a in patients with a first demyelinating event and early multiple sclerosis

Introduction: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory demyelinating disease of the CNS. Evidence suggests that MS should be treated as early as possible in order to maximize the benefit of treatment.

Areas covered: This review details current understanding about the treatment of relapsing–remitting MS (RRMS). The pharmacological and clinical data on the use of subcutaneous (s.c.) interferon β-1a (IFN-β-1a) as a therapeutic option for RRMS are covered, with a focus on the importance of treating patients with MS as early as possible in the course of the disease, in order to delay permanent axonal damage that is responsible for the signs and symptoms of disease progression.

Expert opinion: There is a wealth of data on the treatment of RRMS with s.c. IFN-β-1a indicating that patients treated during the early inflammatory stages of the disease have significantly improved short-term outcomes compared with patients who commence treatment late. It remains to be determined whether the short-term effects of early treatment will translate into long-lasting benefits, although it is hoped that ongoing research will help to answer this question.

Management of disease-modifying treatments in neurological autoimmune diseases of the central nervous system

The therapeutic armamentarium for autoimmune diseases of the central nervous system, specifically multiple sclerosis and neuromyelitis optica, is steadily increasing, with a large spectrum of immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive agents targeting different mechanisms of the immune system. However, increasingly efficacious treatment options also entail higher potential for severe adverse drug reactions. Especially in cases failing first-line treatment, thorough evaluation of the risk-benefit profile of treatment alternatives is necessary. This argues for the need of algorithms to identify patients more likely to benefit from a specific treatment. Moreover, paradigms to stratify the risk for severe adverse drug reactions need to be established. In addition to clinical/paraclinical measures, biomarkers may aid in individualized risk-benefit assessment. A recent example is the routine testing for anti-John Cunningham virus antibodies in natalizumab-treated multiple sclerosis patients to assess the risk for the development of progressive multi-focal leucoencephalopathy. Refined algorithms for individualized risk assessment may also facilitate early initiation of induction treatment schemes in patient groups with high disease activity rather than classical escalation concepts. In this review, we will discuss approaches for individiualized risk-benefit assessment both for newly introduced agents as well as medications with established side-effect profiles. In addition to clinical parameters, we will also focus on biomarkers that may assist in patient selection.

Teriflunomide: a novel oral treatment for relapsing multiple sclerosis

INTRODUCTION

Multiple sclerosis is a disabling chronic inflammatory disease of the CNS. New emerging oral treatments can offer efficacy with higher levels of therapeutic adherence. Teriflunomide is one such oral agent that has recently been approved for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS).

AREAS COVERED

The aim of this review is to describe the pharmacological profile of teriflunomide and review the vast clinical development program that paved the way for its approval, with emphasis on its safety and tolerability.

EXPERT OPINION

Teriflunomide is a safe new oral medication for treating RMS. It is effective at reducing relapses, MRI activity and slowing disability progression. It is well tolerated, with mild and transitory side effects. Although teriflunomide is given a pregnancy category 'X' by the FDA and an effective contraception is needed, to date, there has been no evidence of teratogenicity in humans and a rapid washout procedure can lead to a virtually complete elimination. Its effectiveness appeared to be at least comparable to that of high-dose IFN-β-1a, and although direct comparisons with other orals are still lacking, its tolerability and encouraging safety data suggest that teriflunomide could be considered an ideal first-line medication for RMS.

Requirement for safety monitoring for approved multiple sclerosis therapies: an overview

During the last two decades, treatment options for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have broadened tremendously. All agents that are currently approved for clinical use have potential side effects, and a careful risk-benefit evaluation is part of a decision algorithm to identify the optimal treatment choice for an individual patient. Whereas glatiramer acetate and interferon beta preparations have been used in MS for decades and have a proven safety record, more recently approved drugs appear to be more effective, but potential risks might be more severe. The potential complications of some novel therapies might not even have been identified to their full extent. This review is aimed at the clinical neurologist in that it offers insights into potential adverse events of each of the approved MS therapeutics: interferon beta, glatiramer acetate, mitoxantrone, natalizumab, fingolimod and teriflunomide, as well as recently approved therapeutics such as dimethyl fumarate and alemtuzumab. It also provides recommendations for monitoring the different drugs during therapy in order to avoid common side effects.

Teriflunomide

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are sent in print and are also available on-line. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. Subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service also receive access to a pharmacy bulletin board, The Formulary Information Exchange (The F.I.X.). All topics pertinent to clinical and hospital pharmacy are discussed on The F.I.X. A drug class review is now published monthly with The Formulary Monograph Service. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service or The F.I.X., call The Formulary at 800-322-4349. The March 2013 monograph topics are apixaban, bedaquiline, raxibacumab, teduglutide, and loxapine inhalation. The DUE/MUE is on apixaban.

Teriflunomide: a review of its use in relapsing multiple sclerosis

Teriflunomide (Aubagio™) is the main active metabolite of leflunomide, an established disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug. Teriflunomide is an inhibitor of de novo pyrimidine synthesis, reducing lymphocyte proliferation, amongst other immunomodulatory effects; autoimmunity is believed to be one of the potential mechanisms of disease for multiple sclerosis. Teriflunomide is considered cytostatic but not cytotoxic: it does not affect resting or slowly dividing lymphocytes. This article reviews the available pharmacological properties of oral teriflunomide and its clinical efficacy and tolerability in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. While both the 7 and the 14 mg/day dosages are discussed, the 7 mg/day dosage is not approved in the EU. Both dosages are approved in the USA. In phase III trials, teriflunomide 7 or 14 mg/day was consistently demonstrated to be more effective than placebo and as effective as interferon beta-1a in the prevention of relapses in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis; moreover, teriflunomide 14 mg/day was also consistently shown to be more effective than placebo in prevention of disability progression. Teriflunomide was generally well tolerated in these patients. Long-term, extension data were generally similar to those observed in the shorter-term trials. Teriflunomide is associated with increased liver enzyme levels, and is contraindicated in pregnant patients because of a potential risk of teratogenicity. As an oral treatment, it offers an alternative to the traditional, parenteral, disease-modifying therapies; however, further investigation into the efficacy and/or tolerability differences between teriflunomide and other available oral drugs would be of great use in the placement of this drug. At present, given the relatively limited long-term data, it is difficult to draw definite conclusions with regard to safety; however, as teriflunomide is the main active metabolite of leflunomide, long-term safety data can be extrapolated from the large amount of post-approval data available regarding its parent drug. Oral teriflunomide is a valuable addition to available treatment options for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis, in particular those patients who prefer an oral drug.

Disease modification in multiple sclerosis: an update

Although there has been unequivocal progress in the development of treatments for multiple sclerosis over the last 20&emsp14;years, currently licensed treatments have demonstrated convincing effects on disease course only with reference to relapse frequency. This review summarises the progress made, highlights the indications for, and limitations of, current disease-modifying therapies and discusses some interventions currently in development.

Teriflunomide efficacy, safety and tolerability in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis

SUMMARY Teriflunomide is a once-daily, orally administered, disease-modifying therapy for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. The clinical development program for teriflunomide is extensive, including four Phase III studies. Pivotal trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of teriflunomide 7- and 14-mg doses on relapse, disability progression and MRI activity, and long-term follow-up has revealed no new or unexpected safety signals. The multiple sclerosis treatment landscape is shifting; oral medications offer improved convenience and tolerability over disease-modifying therapy injections, and patients are being treated earlier in the disease course to prevent progression. Clinical knowledge to date indicates that teriflunomide is a viable treatment option to meet individual patient needs. Additional insight is expected in the postmarket setting.

Teriflunomide in relapsing multiple sclerosis: therapeutic utility

Teriflunomide is an oral, once-daily disease-modifying therapy (DMT) approved in the USA, Australia, and Argentina for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (RMS). Teriflunomide reversibly limits the expansion of activated T and B cells associated with the inflammatory process purportedly involved in multiple sclerosis pathogenesis, while preserving lymphocytes for routine immune surveillance. In an extensive clinical development program, teriflunomide demonstrated consistent benefits on both clinical and magnetic resonance imaging outcomes. In long-term studies, teriflunomide treatment was associated with low rates of relapse and disability progression for up to 8 years. The safety profile of teriflunomide has been well characterized, with adverse events generally mild to moderate in nature and infrequently leading to permanent treatment discontinuation. The evidence reviewed here indicates that teriflunomide is an effective addition to the current DMTs used to treat RMS.

Teriflunomide for the Treatment of Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis

Objective: To review the pharmacology and clinical data for teriflunomide in relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS). Data Sources: A literature search from 1966 to May 2013 using PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Academic Search Premiere, Science Citation Index, and the national clinical trials registry was performed using the terms teriflunomide, HMR1726, and A771726. All articles containing human clinical trial data and relevant pharmacologic information were reviewed. Study Selection/Data Extraction: Phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials for teriflunomide were evaluated. All peer-reviewed articles with clinically relevant information were reviewed. Priority for inclusion was placed on randomized controlled trials. Data Synthesis: Three phase 2 and three phase 3 clinical trials have evaluated teriflunomide as monotherapy or as adjunctive therapy in approximately 3000 patients with relapsing forms of MS. The phase 3 studies used annualized relapse rate, magnetic resonance imaging changes, and Expanded Disability Status Scale scores as outcome measures. One additional Phase 3 clinical study is ongoing. The annualized relapse rates and magnetic resonance imaging findings were improved compared to those with placebo and similar to or improved compared with those with subcutaneously administered interferon-β-1a 44 µg thrice weekly. Durability of response is supported by open-label extension studies. Common adverse events include increased liver function enzymes, alopecia, diarrhea, influenza, nausea, and paresthesias. Treatment discontinuation was not common and occurred in approximately 10% of patients in phase 3 studies. Conclusions: Teriflunomide is an effective and safe oral treatment option for relapsing MS. It can be used as monotherapy or added to an interferon or glatiramer acetate. It reduces the rate of relapse and may slow disease progression. The advantages of this drug are the convenience of oral administration and good tolerability. The disadvantage is the lack of long-term safety data and data about the benefit of combination therapy.

Teriflunomide

Teriflunomide is a novel disease-modifying agent that was recently approved for use in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). Teriflunomide has demonstrated clinical efficacy and safety in a number of large, multicenter, phase III clinical trials and is an attractive agent to add to the growing repertoire of available treatments for MS, as it has the benefit of oral administration. Furthermore, existing clinical experience with its parent drug, leflunomide, provides indirect long-term safety data. This review summarizes teriflunomide's pharmacologic properties, pivotal clinical trials, and safety profile, and ends with a discussion of the role of teriflunomide in the context of current and emerging MS treatment options.