IMPORTANCE: Comparative real-world effectiveness studies of initial disease-modifying treatment (DMT) choices for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) that include rituximab are lacking.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and drug discontinuation rates of rituximab among patients with newly diagnosed RRMS compared with injectable DMTs, dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, or natalizumab.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: This retrospective cohort study used prospectively collected data to examine specialized care of 2 Swedish county-based community samples of patients with RRMS. Patients with RRMS who received diagnoses from January 1, 2012, to October 31, 2015, who resided in Stockholm or Västerbotten Counties were identified from a Swedish multiple sclerosis registry.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: All reasons for drug discontinuation of initial treatment choice (main outcome) and specific reasons for switching (secondary outcomes) were analyzed with multivariable Cox regression, including propensity scores.
RESULTS: Among 494 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 34.4 [27.4-43.4] years; 158 men [32.0%]), 215 received an injectable DMT (43.5%); 86 (17.4%), dimethyl fumarate; 17 (3.4%), fingolimod; 50 (10.1%), natalizumab; 120 (24.3%), rituximab; and 6 (1.2%), other DMT. Regional preferences were pronounced, with 42 of 52 (81%) and 78 of 442 (18%) receiving rituximab in Västerbotten and Stockholm, respectively. The annual discontinuation rate for rituximab, injectable DMTs, dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, and natalizumab were 0.03, 0.53, 0.32, 0.38, and 0.29, respectively. Continued disease activity was the main reason for discontinuation of injectable DMTs, dimethyl fumarate, and fingolimod; positive John Cunningham virus serology results were the main reason for discontinuation of natalizumab. Rate of clinical relapses and/or neuroradiologic disease activity were significantly lower for rituximab compared with injectable DMTs and dimethyl fumarate, with a tendency for lower relapse rates also compared with natalizumab and fingolimod. The annual discontinuation rate of initial treatment choice was significantly lower in Västerbotten compared with Stockholm (0.09 and 0.37, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Rituximab was superior to all other DMT in terms of drug discontinuation and displayed better clinical efficacy compared with injectable DMTs and dimethyl fumarate with borderline significance compared with natalizumab and fingolimod. The county where rituximab constituted the main initial treatment choice displayed better outcomes in most measured variables. Collectively, our findings suggest that rituximab performs better than other commonly used DMTs in patients with newly diagnosed RRMS.
OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment effectiveness and persistence in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients who initiated rituximab versus glatiramer acetate (GA) or interferon-beta (IFN-β).
METHODS: A total of 461 patients from the Swedish MS registry in the rituximab arm were propensity score matched on a 1:2 basis with 922 patients from the IFN-β/GA comparator, between April 2005 and November 2015. Annualised relapse rate (ARR) was compared using the Poisson method. A marginal Cox model was used to analyse time to first relapse, 3-month confirmed disability progression and treatment discontinuation in the matched sample. A signed-rank test was used to compare Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) change from baseline.
RESULTS: Rituximab was associated with a reduction in ARR (0.003; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.001, 0.009) relative to IFN-β/GA (0.026; 95% CI = 0.020, 0.033) ( p < 0.001). Rituximab was associated with an 87% reduction in the relapse rate (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.13; 95% CI = 0.04, 0.41) and an 85% reduction in the discontinuation rate (HR = 0.15; 95% CI = 0.11, 0.20) relative to IFN-β/GA. EDSS regression from baseline was greater in the rituximab group at 12 and 24 months.
CONCLUSION: Rituximab appears to be superior to first-generation disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) with respect to relapse control and tolerability, whereas superiority on disability outcomes is less clear.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of natalizumab or fingolimod in a nationwide observational cohort using prospectively collected data.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included all patients starting treatment with natalizumab or fingolimod documented in the Austrian MS Treatment Registry (AMSTR) from 2011 and staying on therapy for at least 24 months. We used propensity scores for several matching methods and as a covariate in multivariate models to correct for the bias of this non-randomized registry study.
RESULTS: The study cohort includes 588 patients with RRMS. Ten patients did not produce a propensity score in the common support region, thus leaving 578 cases for final analyses, 332 in the fingolimod and 246 in the natalizumab group. Mean annualized relapse rates (ARR) during the 24 months observation period were 0.19 under fingolimod and 0.12 under natalizumab treatment (P = .005). No statistical significant differences were found analysing the log-transformed ARR, probability for experiencing a relapse, EDSS progression and EDSS regression. The hazard ratio for switching treatment from fingolimod comparing with natalizumab was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.247-0.523), P < .001.
CONCLUSIONS: The generalized linear model (GLM) for relapse count as Poisson distributed dependent variable and propensity score as covariate showed a statistically significant reduction for the mean relapse count in the natalizumab group compared with fingolimod. This effect was smaller in the analyses of log-transformed ARR with propensity score matching, loosing statistical significance although showing the same direction for the effect. We assume that the GLM was the more sensitive model analysing this question.
BACKGROUND: Natalizumab and fingolimod were approved for treatment of active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in Denmark in 2006 and 2011, respectively. There have been no randomized head-to-head studies comparing the two drugs.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy of natalizumab and fingolimod.
METHODS: Data on all Danish RRMS patients who started their first second-line treatment with natalizumab or fingolimod from July 2011 to March 2015 were prospectively recorded in the Danish Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Treatment Register. The two treatment arms were 1:1 propensity score matched by baseline covariates using 'nearest neighbour' method.
RESULTS: Propensity score matching left 928 of 1309 RRMS cases, 464 in each treatment group. The on-treatment annualized relapse rate was 0.296 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.26-0.34) for natalizumab and 0.307 (95% CI: 0.27-0.35) for fingolimod. The adjusted relapse rate ratio was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.74-1.17; p = 0.53). Mean time to first relapse was 2.55 and 2.56 years, respectively ( p = 0.76). There was no difference in change of Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS).
CONCLUSION: We found no differences in clinical disease activity between natalizumab- and fingolimod-treated RRMS patients in this real-life observational study. However, the lack of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data for the propensity score matching may conceal a higher efficacy of natalizumab.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate real-world treatment patterns, safety, and relapse outcomes of subcutaneous (sc) interferon (IFN) β-1a (Rebif) vs dimethyl fumarate (DMF; Tecfidera), to treat relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS).
METHODS: A US retrospective chart review of 450 randomly selected adults newly diagnosed with RRMS who received sc IFN β-1a (n = 143) or DMF (n = 307) was conducted. Patients were either (a) treatment-naïve, initiating first-line treatment with sc IFN β-1a or DMF, or (b) previously treated, switching to sc IFN β-1a or DMF. Two years' follow-up data were captured. Patient characteristics, persistence, and adverse events between treatment groups were compared using t-tests or Chi-square tests. Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare time to, and risk of non-persistence. Annualized Relapse Rates (ARR) were calculated using a robust variance Poisson model adjusting for covariates. Propensity scores were used to address possible selection bias.
RESULTS: One hundred and twelve patients became non-persistent, most commonly due to an adverse event (n = 37). No difference was observed in time to overall non-persistence between sc IFN β-1a and DMF patients. Among treatment-naïve patients, those receiving DMF had 2.4-times the risk (HR = 2.439, 95% CI = 1.007-5.917, p = .0483) of experiencing a discontinuation than patients receiving sc IFN β-1a. Non-persistent patients receiving DMF had 2.3-times the risk (HR = 2.311, 95% CI = 1.350-3.958, p = .0023) of experiencing an adverse event at a given time point than patients prescribed sc IFN β-1a. No differences in relapse risk or ARR between sc IFN β-1a- and DMF-treated patients were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: sc IFN β-1a-treated patients had comparable persistence and relapse outcomes, and better safety outcomes vs DMF-treated patients across 2 years.
BACKGROUND: Different retrospective studies compared natalizumab and fingolimod in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), with conflicting results. We aimed to explore the prescriptive attitude and the clinical outcome of the two therapies.
METHODS: We retrospectively included all RRMS patients treated with natalizumab (n=101) or fingolimod (n=78) as their first second-line therapy with at least 24-month follow-up. Demographic and clinical features were recorded to calculate the propensity score (PS). Outcomes of interest were annualized relapse rate (ARR), risk of relapse, and change in the EDSS RESULTS: At baseline, natalizumab patients were younger and had a shorter disease duration, a higher number of relapse in 1 year (1yR) and 2 years (2yR) and overall (ARR-PT) pretherapy, compared to fingolimod patients. On therapy, the proportion of relapsing patients and the mean RR were similar in the two groups. However, the change in the ARR was higher in natalizumab than in fingolimod group (P<.002), but, using PS as a covariate, it was comparable (P=.960). Similarly, the change in EDSS was significantly different for the two groups (P<.004), but not after adjusting for the PS (P=.321).
CONCLUSION: We observed a comparable efficacy on ARR reduction and on EDSS progression with natalizumab and fingolimod correcting through PS, suggesting that the efficacy difference observed before correction might derive from the clinical attitude in prescribing natalizumab in more active MS patients in real life.
