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

BACKGROUND

Different therapeutic strategies are available for treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) including immunosuppressants, immunomodulators, and monoclonal antibodies. Their relative effectiveness in the prevention of relapse or disability progression is unclear due to the limited number of direct comparison trials. A summary of the results, including both direct and indirect comparisons of treatment effects, may help to clarify the above uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the relative efficacy and acceptability of interferon ß-1b (IFNß-1b) (Betaseron), interferon ß-1a (IFNß-1a) (Rebif and Avonex), glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, azathioprine, intravenous immunoglobulins, and long-term corticosteroids versus placebo or another active agent in participants with MS and to provide a ranking of the treatments according to their effectiveness and risk-benefit balance.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane MS Group Trials Register, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports. The most recent search was run in February 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that studied one of the 11 treatments for use in adults with MS and that reported our pre-specified efficacy outcomes were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Identifying search results and data extraction were performed independently by two authors. Data synthesis was performed by pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis that was performed within a Bayesian framework. The body of evidence for outcomes within the pairwise meta-analysis was assessed according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate, or high quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-four trials were included in this review, in which 17,401 participants had been randomised. Twenty-three trials included relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) (9096 participants, 52%), 18 trials included progressive MS (7726, 44%), and three trials included both RRMS and progressive MS (579, 3%). The majority of the included trials were short-term studies, with the median duration being 24 months. The results originated mostly from 33 trials on IFNß, glatiramer acetate, and natalizumab that overall contributed outcome data for 9881 participants (66%).From the pairwise meta-analysis, there was high quality evidence that natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) were effective against recurrence of relapses in RRMS during the first 24 months of treatment compared to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.43; OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.71, respectively); they were more effective than IFNß-1a (Avonex) (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.36; OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.60, respectively). IFNß-1b (Betaseron) and mitoxantrone probably decreased the odds of the participants with RRMS having clinical relapses compared to placebo (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99; OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.54, respectively) but the quality of evidence for these treatments was graded as moderate. From the network meta-analysis, the most effective drug appeared to be natalizumab (median OR versus placebo 0.29, 95% credible intervals (CrI) 0.17 to 0.51), followed by IFNß-1a (Rebif) (median OR versus placebo 0.44, 95% CrI 0.24 to 0.70), mitoxantrone (median OR versus placebo 0.43, 95% CrI 0.20 to 0.87), glatiramer acetate (median OR versus placebo 0.48, 95% CrI 0.38 to 0.75), IFNß-1b (Betaseron) (median OR versus placebo 0.48, 95% CrI 0.29 to 0.78). However, our confidence was moderate for direct comparison of mitoxantrone and IFNB-1b vs placebo and very low for direct comparison of glatiramer vs placebo. The relapse outcome for RRMS at three years' follow-up was not reported by any of the included trials.Disability progression was based on surrogate markers in the majority of included studies and was unavailable for RRMS beyond two to three years. The pairwise meta-analysis suggested, with moderate quality evidence, that natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) probably decreased the odds of the participants with RRMS having disability progression at two years' follow-up, with an absolute reduction of 14% and 10%, respectively, compared to placebo. Natalizumab and IFNß-1b (Betaseron) were significantly more effective (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.78; OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.70, respectively) than IFNß-1a (Avonex) in reducing the number of the participants with RRMS who had progression at two years' follow-up, and confidence in this result was graded as moderate. From the network meta-analyses, mitoxantrone appeared to be the most effective agent in decreasing the odds of the participants with RRMS having progression at two years' follow-up, but our confidence was very low for direct comparison of mitoxantrone vs placebo. Both pairwise and network meta-analysis revealed that none of the individual agents included in this review were effective in preventing disability progression over two or three years in patients with progressive MS.There was not a dose-effect relationship for any of the included treatments with the exception of mitoxantrone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review should provide some guidance to clinicians and patients. On the basis of high quality evidence, natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) are superior to all other treatments for preventing clinical relapses in RRMS in the short-term (24 months) compared to placebo. Moderate quality evidence supports a protective effect of natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) against disability progression in RRMS in the short-term compared to placebo. These treatments are associated with long-term serious adverse events and their benefit-risk balance might be unfavourable. IFNß-1b (Betaseron) and mitoxantrone probably decreased the odds of the participants with RRMS having relapses, compared with placebo (moderate quality of evidence). The benefit-risk balance with azathioprine is uncertain, however this agent might be effective in decreasing the odds of the participants with RRMS having relapses and disability progression over 24 to 36 months, compared with placebo. The lack of convincing efficacy data shows that IFNß-1a (Avonex), intravenous immunoglobulins, cyclophosphamide and long-term steroids have an unfavourable benefit-risk balance in RRMS. None of the included treatments are effective in decreasing disability progression in patients with progressive MS. It is important to consider that the clinical effects of all these treatments beyond two years are uncertain, a relevant point for a disease of 30 to 40 years duration. Direct head-to-head comparison(s) between natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) or between azathioprine and IFNß-1a (Rebif) should be top priority on the research agenda and follow-up of the trial cohorts should be mandatory.

Mitoxantrone for multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

This is an updated Cochrane review of the previous published version.Mitoxantrone (MX) has been shown to be moderately effective in reducing the clinical outcome measures of disease activity in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of MX compared to a control group in relapsing-remitting (RRMS), progressive relapsing (PRMS) and secondary progressive (SPMS) MS participants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Specialised Register (June 2012) and reference lists of articles. We also undertook handsearching and contacted trialists and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blinded, controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the administration of MX versus placebo or MX plus steroids treatment versus placebo plus steroids treatment were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors independently selected articles for inclusion. They independently extracted clinical, safety and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data, resolving disagreements by discussion. Risk of bias was evaluated to assess the quality of the studies. Treatment effect was measured using odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the binary outcomes and mean differences (MD) with 95% CI for the continuous outcomes. If heterogeneity was absent, a fixed-effect model was used.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials were selected and 221 participants were included in the analyses. MX reduced the progression of disability at two years follow-up (proportion of participants with six months confirmed progression of disability (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.99 and MD -0.36, 95% CI- 0.70 to -0.02; P = 0.04)). Significant results were found regarding the reduction in annualised relapse rate (MD -0.85, 95% CI -1.47 to -0.23; P = 0.007), the proportion of patients free from relapses at one year (OR 7.13, 95% CI 2.06 to 24.61; P = 0.002) and two years (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.19; P = 0.0008), and the number of patients with active MRI lesions at six months or one year only (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.57; P = 0.001). Side effects reported in the trials (amenorrhoea, nausea and vomiting, alopecia and urinary tract infections) were more frequent in treated patients than in controls, while no major adverse events have been reported. These results should be considered with caution because of the heterogeneous characteristics of included trials in term of drug dosage, inclusion criteria and quality of included trials. Moreover, it was not possible to estimate the long-term efficacy and safety of MX.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

MX shows a significant but partial efficacy in reducing the risk of MS progression and the frequency of relapses in patients affected by worsening RRMS, PRMS and SPMS in the short-term follow-up (two years). No major neoplastic events or symptomatic cardiotoxicity related to MX have been reported; however studies with longer follow-up (not included in this review) have raised concerns about the risk of systolic disfunction (˜12%) and therapy-related acute leukaemias (0.8%), which are increasingly reported in the literature.MX should be limited to treating patients with worsening RRMS and SPMS and with evidence of persistent inflammatory activity after a careful assessment of the individual patients' risk and benefit profiles. Assessment should also consider the present availability of alternative therapies with less severe adverse events.

Oral versus intravenous steroids for treatment of relapses in multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

This is an updated Cochrane review of the previous version published (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD006921. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006921.pub2).Multiple sclerosis (MS), a chronic inflammatory and neurodegenerative disease of the central nervous system (CNS), is characterized by recurrent relapses of CNS inflammation ranging from mild to severely disabling.  Relapses have long been treated with steroids to reduce inflammation and hasten recovery.  However, the commonly used intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) requires repeated infusions with the added costs of homecare or hospitalization, and may interfere with daily responsibilities. Oral steroids have been used in place of intravenous steroids, with lower direct and indirect costs.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to compare efficacy of oral versus intravenous steroids in promoting disability recovery in MS relapses <= six weeks.  Secondary objectives included subsequent relapse rate, disability, ambulation, hospitalization, immunological markers, radiological markers, and quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

A literature search was performed using Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group's Trials Register (January 2012), abstracts from meetings of the American Academy of Neurology (2008-2012), the European Federation of Neurological Sciences (2008-2012), the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and American Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (2008-2012) handsearching. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized trials comparing oral versus intravenous steroids for acute relapses (<= six weeks) in patients with clinically definite MSover age 16 were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (JB, PO and MH) participated in the independent assessment of all published articles as potentially relevant to the review. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion among review authors.We contacted study authors for additional information.Methodological quality was assessed by the same three review authors. Relevant data were extracted, and effect size was reported as mean difference (MD), mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR) and absolute risk difference (ARD).

MAIN RESULTS

With this current update, a total of five eligible studies (215 patients) were identified. Only one outcome, the proportion of patients with Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) improvement at four weeks, was common to three trials, while two trials examined magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes. The results of this review shows there is no significant difference in relapse recovery at week four (MD -0.22, 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.71 to 0.26, P = 0.20) nor differences in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) gadolinium enhancement activity based on oral versus intravenous steroid treatment. However, only two of the five studies employed more current and rigorous methodological techniques, so these results must be taken with some caution. The Oral Megadose Corticosteroid Therapy of Acute Exacerbations of Multiple Sclerosis (OMEGA) trial and the "Efficacy and Safety of Methylprednisolone Per os Versus IV for the Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Relapses" (COPOUSEP) trial, designed to address such limitations, are currently underway.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of the five included trials comparing intravenous versus oral steroid therapy for MS relapses do not demonstrate any significant differences in clinical (benefits and adverse events), radiological or pharmacological outcomes. Based on the evidence, oral steroid therapy may be a practical and effective alternative to intravenous steroid therapy in the treatment of MS relapses.

Information provision for people with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

People with multiple sclerosis (MS) are confronted with a number of important uncertainties concerning many aspects of the disease. These include diagnosis, prognosis, disease course, disease-modifying therapies, symptomatic therapies, and non-pharmacological interventions, among others. While people with MS demand adequate information to be able to actively participate in medical decision making and to self manage their disease, it has been shown that patients' disease-related knowledge is poor, therefore guidelines recommend clear and concise high-quality information at all stages of the disease. Several studies have outlined communication and information deficits in the care of people with MS. However, only a few information and decision support programmes have been published.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives of this updated review was to evaluate the effectiveness of information provision interventions for people with MS that aim to promote informed choice and improve patient-relevant outcomes, Further objectives were to evaluate the components and the developmental processes of the complex interventions used, to highlight the quantity and the certainty of the research evidence available, and to set an agenda for future research.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Specialised Register, which contains trials from CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 11), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, PEDro, and clinical trials registries (29 November 2017) as well as other sources. We also searched reference lists of identified articles and contacted trialists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised controlled trials, and quasi-randomised trials comparing information provision for people with MS or suspected MS (intervention groups) with usual care or other types of information provision (control groups) were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the retrieved articles for relevance and methodological quality and extracted data. Critical appraisal of studies addressed the risk of selection bias, performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias. We contacted authors of relevant studies for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one new RCT (73 participants), which when added to the 10 previously included RCTs resulted in a total of 11 RCTs that met the inclusion criteria and were analysed (1387 participants overall; mean age, range: 31 to 51; percentage women, range: 63% to 100%; percentage relapsing-remitting MS course, range: 45% to 100%). The interventions addressed a variety of topics using different approaches for information provision in different settings. Topics included disease-modifying therapy, relapse management, self care strategies, fatigue management, family planning, and general health promotion. The active intervention components included decision aids, decision coaching, educational programmes, self care programmes, and personal interviews with physicians. All studies used one or more components, but the number and extent differed markedly between studies. The studies had a variable risk of bias. We did not perform meta-analyses due to marked clinical heterogeneity. All five studies assessing MS-related knowledge (505 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) detected significant differences between groups as a result of the interventions, indicating that information provision may successfully increase participants' knowledge. There were mixed results on decision making (five studies, 793 participants; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (six studies, 671 participants; low-certainty evidence). No adverse events were detected in the seven studies reporting this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Information provision for people with MS seems to increase disease-related knowledge, with less clear results on decision making and quality of life. The included studies in this review reported no negative side effects of providing disease-related information to people with MS. Interpretation of study results remains challenging due to the marked heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures.

Rituximab for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the Cochrane review "Rituximab for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis" (first published in The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 12).More than 80% of individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) experience a relapsing-remitting disease course. Approximately 10 years after disease onset, an estimated 50% of individuals with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) convert to secondary progressive MS. MS causes a major socioeconomic burden for the individual patient and for society. Effective treatment that reduces relapse frequency and prevents progression could impact both costs and quality of life and help to reduce the socioeconomic burden of MS. Alternative and more effective MS treatments with new modes of action and good safety are needed to expand the current treatment repertoire. It has been shown that B lymphocytes are involved in the pathophysiology of MS and rituximab lyses B-cells via complement-dependent cytotoxicity and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. Current clinical trials are evaluating the role of rituximab as a B-cell depletion therapy in the treatment of RRMS.

OBJECTIVES

The safety and effectiveness of rituximab, as monotherapy or combination therapy, versus placebo or approved disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) (interferon-β (IFN-β), glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab) to reduce disease activity for people with RRMS were assessed.

SEARCH METHODS

The Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Specialised Register (9 August 2013). We checked the references in identified trials and manually searched the reports (2004 to August 2013) from neurological associations and MS societies in Europe and America. We also communicated with researchers who were participating in trials on rituximab and contacted Genentech, BiogenIdec and Roche.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised, double-blind, controlled parallel group clinical trials with a length of follow-up equal to or greater than one year evaluating rituximab, as monotherapy or combination therapy, versus placebo or approved DMDs for patients with RRMS without restrictions regarding dosage, administration frequency and duration of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

One trial involving 104 adult RRMS patients with an entry score ≤ 5.0 on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and at least one relapse during the preceding year was included. This trial evaluated rituximab as monotherapy versus placebo, with a single course of 1000 mg intravenous rituximab (on day 1 and day 15). A significant attrition bias was found at week 48 (24.0%). Patients receiving rituximab had a significant reduction in total number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at week 24 (mean number 0.5 versus 5.5; relative reduction 91%) and in annualised rate of relapse at week 24 (0.37 versus 0.84) but not at week 48 (0.37 versus 0.72). Disability progression was not included as an outcome in this trial. More patients in the rituximab group had adverse events within the 24 hours after the first infusion (78.3% versus 40.0%), such as chills, headache, nausea, pyrexia, pruritus, fatigue, throat irritation, pharyngolaryngeal pain, and most were mild-to-moderate events (92.6%). The most common infection-associated adverse events (> 10% in the rituximab group) were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections and sinusitis. Among them, only urinary tract infections (14.5% versus 8.6%) and sinusitis (13.0% versus 8.6%) were more common in the rituximab group. One ongoing trial was identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is not sufficient evidence to support the use of rituximab as a disease-modifying therapy for RRMS because only one RCT was included. The quality of the study was limited due to high attrition bias, the small number of participants, and short follow-up. The beneficial effects of rituximab for RRMS remain inconclusive. However, short-term treatment with a single course of rituximab was safe for most patients with RRMS. Mild-to-moderate infusion-associated adverse events were common, as well as nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections and sinusitis. The potential benefits of rituximab for treating RRMS need to be evaluated in large-scale studies that are of high quality along with long-term safety.

Mycophenolate mofetil for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune-mediated disease of the central nervous system and a leading cause of disability in young and middle-aged adults. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is an immunosuppressive agent that has been used for the prevention of allograft rejection after renal, cardiac, or liver transplant and in patients with autoimmune diseases such as active relapsing-remitting (RRMS) and progressive MS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of MMF for preventing disease activity in patients with RRMS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Specialised Register (January 14, 2013). We searched three Chinese databases (January 2013) and checked reference lists of identified trials. We contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies to ask for additional information. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials with a follow-up of at least 12 months that compared MMF as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments versus placebo, another drug, or the same cointervention as the treated group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality, and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

One included study involving 26 participants with new-onset RRMS investigated the efficacy and safety of MMF (13 participants) versus placebo in interferon β-1a-treated participants. It was assessed to be at high risk of bias, and had a small numbers of participants receiving treatment with short-term duration. There was inadequate information provided by the study to determine the effect of MMF in reducing relapses, preventing disability progression, or developing new T2- or new gadolinium (Gd)-enhanced lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after a 12-month follow-up period. No data were available at 24 months. No serious adverse effects were reported. All participants in the MMF-treated group suffered from gastrointestinal upset, but none of them discontinued therapy as a result.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence we found from one small study was insufficient to determine the effects of MMF as an add-on therapy for interferon β-1a in new-onset RRMS participants.

Daclizumab for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies such as daclizumab could be a possible alternative immunotherapy to interferon beta treatment in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). It blocks the interleukin-2 receptor alpha subunit (CD25), and seems to be beneficial to patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures of outcomes.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2010, and previously updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety of daclizumab and its efficacy to prevent clinical worsening in patients with RRMS.

SEARCH METHODS

The Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Specialised Register (17 May 2013). We handsearched the references quoted in the identified trials and reports (May 2013) from the most important neurological associations and MS societies. We contacted researchers participating in trials on daclizumab.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating daclizumab, alone or combined with other treatments versus placebo, or any other treatment for patients with RRMS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed references retrieved for possible inclusion, extracted eligible data, cross-checked the data for accuracy and assessed the methodological quality. We resolved any disagreements by consensus among review authors.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two trials with 851 patients that evaluated the efficacy and safety of daclizumab versus placebo for RRMS. We judged them to be at low risk of bias. Due to different time point evaluations and available data on primary studies, we were unable to undertake a meta-analysis. At 24 weeks, the median change was 0 (range -2 to 3) in the interferon beta and placebo group, 0 (-2 to 4) in the interferon beta and low-dose daclizumab group and 0 (-2 to 2) in the interferon beta and high-dose daclizumab group in 230 participants. The proportion of patients who had new clinical relapses were the following: 16 patients (21%) in the interferon beta and high-dose daclizumab group, 19 (24%) in the interferon beta and low-dose daclizumab group and 19 (25%) in the interferon beta and placebo group had relapses (P value = 0.87). At 52 weeks, the changes in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) from baseline was 0.09 ± 0.71 in placebo group, -0.08 ± 0.52 in low-dose daclizumab group and 0.05 ± 0.61 in high-dose daclizumab group in 621 participants. There was a significant difference between placebo and low-dose daclizumab groups (P value = 0.01), but no significant difference between placebo and high-dose daclizumab groups (P value = 0.49). The proportion of patients with new relapsing MS was significantly reduced in both daclizumab groups (19% in low-dose daclizumab group, 20% in high-dose daclizumab group) compared with placebo group (36%) (P value < 0.0001 and P value = 0.00032, respectively). There was no increased number of patients in any adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.07) or serious adverse events in daclizumab groups compared with placebo (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.29 to 4.54). Infections were the most frequent adverse events in treated participants and were resolved with standard therapies. One trial was still ongoing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to determine whether daclizumab was more effective than placebo in patients affected by RRMS in terms of clinical and MRI measures of outcomes. Daclizumab appeared to be relatively well tolerated. Infections were the most frequent adverse events, and were resolved with standard therapies.

Laquinimod for multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic immune-mediated, inflammatory, demyelinating, neurodegenerative disorder of the central nervous system, and it causes major socioeconomic burden for the individual patient and for society. An inflammatory pathology occurs during the early relapsing stage of MS and a neurodegenerative pathology dominates the later progressive stage of the disease. Not all MS patients respond adequately to currently available disease-modifying drugs (DMDs). Alternative MS treatments with new modes of action are required to expand the current options for disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) and to aim for freedom from relapses, inflammatory lesions, disability progression and neurodegeneration. Laquinimod has dual properties of immunomodulation and neuroprotection and is a potentially promising new oral DMD in the treatment of relapsing MS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety profile of laquinimod as monotherapy or combination therapy versus placebo or approved DMDs (interferon-β, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate) for modifying the disease course in patients with MS.

SEARCH METHODS

The Review Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Specialised Register which, among other sources, contains trials from CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, PEDro and Clinical trials registries (29 April 2013). We checked references in identified trials and manually searched the reports (2004 to March 2013) from neurological associations and MS societies. We also communicated with researchers participating in trials on laquinimod and contacted Teva Pharmaceutical Industries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised, double-blind, controlled, parallel group clinical trials (RCTs) with a length of follow-up of at least one year evaluating laquinimod, as monotherapy or combination therapy, versus placebo or approved DMDs for patients with MS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus among review authors. Principal investigators of included studies were contacted for additional data or confirmation of information.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one study met our inclusion criteria, involving 1106 adult patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) and an entry Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of ≤ 5.5 and an entry disease duration of ≥ 6 months. Five hundred and fifty patients treated with laquinimod at a dose of 0.6 mg orally administered once daily in a capsule were compared with 556 patients treated with a matching placebo capsule. The study had a high risk for attrition bias (21.9%). Laquinimod had potential benefits in reducing relapse rates and was safe for most patients with RRMS in the short term. The most common adverse events included headache, back pain, arthralgia, diarrhoea, cough, urinary tract infection, elevated alanine aminotransferase, insomnia, nausea, abdominal pain and sinusitis. One ongoing trial was identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-level evidence for the use of laquinimod as a disease-modifying therapy for MS because only one study with limited quality (high risk of attrition bias) was included. The published study suggests that laquinimod at a dose of 0.6 mg orally administered once daily may be safe and have potential benefits for most patients with RRMS in the short term. We are waiting for the publication of ongoing trials.