IMPORTANCE: Doses of fingolimod lower than 0.5 mg per day were not investigated during the fingolimod clinical development program. Whether lower doses of fingolimod might retain efficacy with fewer safety risks remains unknown.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fingolimod, 0.5 mg, and fingolimod, 0.25 mg, compared with glatiramer acetate and to assess whether these doses of fingolimod show superior efficacy to glatiramer acetate in adult patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.
INTERVENTIONS: Fingolimod, 0.5 mg, or fingolimod, 0.25 mg, orally once per day or glatiramer acetate, 20 mg, subcutaneously once per day.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Multiple Sclerosis Study Evaluating Safety and Efficacy of Two Doses of Fingolimod Versus Copaxone (ASSESS) was a phase 3b multicenter randomized rater-blinded and dose-blinded 12-month clinical trial conducted between August 9, 2012, and April 30, 2018 (including the time required to recruit participants). A total of 1461 patients aged 18 to 65 years with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis were screened, and 1064 participants were randomized. These participants had at least 1 documented relapse during the previous year or 2 documented relapses during the previous 2 years and an Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 0 to 6 at screening. Data were analyzed between September and November 2018.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The superiority of the fingolimod doses was tested hierarchically, with fingolimod, 0.5 mg, vs glatiramer acetate, 20 mg, tested first, followed by fingolimod, 0.25 mg, vs glatiramer acetate, 20 mg. The primary end point was the reduction in annualized relapse rate (ARR). Magnetic resonance imaging parameters, safety, and tolerability were also assessed.
RESULTS: Of 1461 adult patients screened, 1064 participants (72.8%) were randomized (mean [SD] age, 39.6 [11.0] years; 792 women [74.4%]) to 3 treatment groups: 352 participants received fingolimod, 0.5 mg, 370 participants received fingolimod, 0.25 mg, and 342 participants received glatiramer acetate, 20 mg. In total, 859 participants (80.7%) completed the study. Treatment with fingolimod, 0.5 mg, was superior to treatment with glatiramer acetate, 20 mg, in reducing ARR (40.7% relative reduction); the relative reduction with fingolimod, 0.25 mg, was 14.6%, which was not statistically significant (for fingolimod, 0.5 mg, ARR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.11-0.21; for fingolimod, 0.25 mg, ARR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.17-0.29; for glatiramer acetate, 20 mg, ARR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.20-0.34). Treatment with both fingolimod doses (0.5 mg and 0.25 mg) significantly reduced new or newly enlarging T2 and gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions compared with treatment with glatiramer acetate. Adverse events were reported in similar proportions across treatment groups (312 participants [90.4%] in the fingolimod, 0.5 mg, group, 323 participants [88.3%] in the fingolimod, 0.25 mg, group, and 283 participants [87.3%] in the glatiramer acetate group).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Fingolimod, 0.5 mg, demonstrated superior clinical efficacy compared with glatiramer acetate, 20 mg, and had a superior benefit-risk profile compared with fingolimod, 0.25 mg, in adult participants with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01633112.
Abstract Background Ofatumumab, a subcutaneous anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, selectively depletes B cells. Teriflunomide, an oral inhibitor of pyrimidine synthesis, reduces T-cell and B-cell activation. The relative effects of these two drugs in patients with multiple sclerosis are not known. Methods In two double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3 trials, we randomly assigned patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis to receive subcutaneous ofatumumab (20 mg every 4 weeks after 20-mg loading doses at days 1, 7, and 14) or oral teriflunomide (14 mg daily) for up to 30 months. The primary end point was the annualized relapse rate. Secondary end points included disability worsening confirmed at 3 months or 6 months, disability improvement confirmed at 6 months, the number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions per T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, the annualized rate of new or enlarging lesions on T2-weighted MRI, serum neurofilament light chain levels at month 3, and change in brain volume. Results Overall, 946 patients were assigned to receive ofatumumab and 936 to receive teriflunomide; the median follow-up was 1.6 years. The annualized relapse rates in the ofatumumab and teriflunomide groups were 0.11 and 0.22, respectively, in trial 1 (difference, -0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.16 to -0.06; P<0.001) and 0.10 and 0.25 in trial 2 (difference, -0.15; 95% CI, -0.20 to -0.09; P<0.001). In the pooled trials, the percentage of patients with disability worsening confirmed at 3 months was 10.9% with ofatumumab and 15.0% with teriflunomide (hazard ratio, 0.66; P=0.002); the percentage with disability worsening confirmed at 6 months was 8.1% and 12.0%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.68; P=0.01); and the percentage with disability improvement confirmed at 6 months was 11.0% and 8.1% (hazard ratio, 1.35; P=0.09). The number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions per T1-weighted MRI scan, the annualized rate of lesions on T2-weighted MRI, and serum neurofilament light chain levels, but not the change in brain volume, were in the same direction as the primary end point. Injection-related reactions occurred in 20.2% in the ofatumumab group and in 15.0% in the teriflunomide group (placebo injections). Serious infections occurred in 2.5% and 1.8% of the patients in the respective groups. Conclusions Among patients with multiple sclerosis, ofatumumab was associated with lower annualized relapse rates than teriflunomide. (Funded by Novartis; ASCLEPIOS I and II ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02792218 and NCT02792231.)
BACKGROUND: Ozanimod is a sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulator, which selectively binds to sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor subtypes 1 and 5 with high affinity. In the RADIANCE phase 2 study in participants with relapsing multiple sclerosis, ozanimod was associated with better efficacy than placebo on MRI measures and was well tolerated. The RADIANCE phase 3 study aimed to confirm the safety and efficacy of ozanimod versus interferon beta-1a in individuals with relapsing multiple sclerosis.
METHODS: We did a 24-month, multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy phase 3 trial in participants with relapsing multiple sclerosis at 147 medical centres and clinical practices in 21 countries. Participants were aged 18-55 years, had multiple sclerosis according to 2010 McDonald criteria, a relapsing clinical course, brain MRI lesions consistent with multiple sclerosis, an expanded disability status scale score of 0·0-5·0, and either at least one relapse within 12 months before screening or at least one relapse within 24 months before screening plus at least one gadolinium-enhancing lesion within the 12 months before randomisation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via an interactive voice response system to daily oral ozanimod 1·0 mg or 0·5 mg or weekly intramuscular interferon beta-1a 30 μg. Participants, investigators, and study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was annualised relapse rate (ARR) over 24 months. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population of all participants who received study drug and safety was assessed in all randomly assigned participants who received study drug, grouped by highest dose of ozanimod received. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02047734, and EudraCT, 2012-002714-40.
FINDINGS: Between Dec 27, 2013, and March 31, 2015, we screened 1695 participants, of which 375 did not meet inclusion criteria. 1320 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to a group, of whom 1313 received study drug (433 assigned to ozanimod 1·0 mg, 439 assigned to ozanimod 0·5 mg, and 441 assigned to interferon beta-1a) and 1138 (86·7%) completed 24 months of treatment. Adjusted ARRs were 0·17 (95% CI 0·14-0·21) with ozanimod 1·0 mg, 0·22 (0·18-0·26) with ozanimod 0·5 mg, and 0·28 (0·23-0·32) with interferon beta-1a, with rate ratios versus interferon beta-1a of 0·62 (95% CI 0·51-0·77; p<0·0001) for ozanimod 1·0 mg and 0·79 (0·65 to 0·96; p=0·0167) for ozanimod 0·5 mg. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was higher in the interferon beta-1a group (365 [83·0%] of 440 participants) than in the ozanimod 1·0 mg group (324 [74·7%] of 434) or the ozanimod 0·5 mg group (326 [74·3%] of 439). More participants in the interferon beta-1a group had treatment-emergent adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation than in the ozanimod groups. Incidences of infections and serious treatment-emergent adverse events were similar across treatment groups. No cases of ozanimod-related symptomatic reduction in heart rate and no second-degree or third-degree cases of atrioventricular block were reported.
INTERPRETATION: In this 24-month phase 3 study in participants with relapsing multiple sclerosis, ozanimod was well tolerated and associated with a significantly lower rate of clinical relapses than intramuscular interferon beta-1a. These findings show the potential of ozanimod as an effective oral therapy for individuals with relapsing multiple sclerosis.
FUNDING: Celgene International II.
Objective: In relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), suboptimal adherence to injectable disease-modifying therapies (iDMTs; interferon β-1a/b, glatiramer acetate) is common, reducing their effectiveness. Patient retention on oral fingolimod and iDMTs was evaluated in PREFERMS, a randomized, parallel-group, active-controlled, open-label, 48-week study. Methods: Patients were included if they had RRMS, were aged 18–65 years and had Expanded Disability Status Scale score up to 6, enrolled at 117 US study sites, were treatment naïve or had received only one iDMT class. Patients were randomized 1:1 (fingolimod 0.5 mg/day; preselected iDMT) by interactive voice-and-web-response system without blinding, followed up quarterly, and allowed one study-approved treatment switch after 12 weeks, or earlier for efficacy or safety reasons. The primary outcome was patient retention on randomized treatment over 48 weeks. Secondary endpoints included patient-reported outcomes, brain volume loss (BVL), and cognitive function. Results: Analysis of 433/436 patients receiving fingolimod and 428/439 receiving iDMTs showed that patient retention rate was significantly higher with fingolimod than with iDMTs [352 (81.3%) versus 125 (29.2%); 95% confidence interval 46.4–57.8%; p < 0.0001]. The most common treatment switch was from iDMT to fingolimod for injection-related reasons. Patient satisfaction was greater and BVL less with fingolimod than with iDMTs, with no difference in cognitive function. Adverse events were consistent with established tolerability profiles for each treatment. Conclusions: In RRMS, fingolimod was associated with better treatment retention, patient satisfaction and BVL outcomes than iDMTs. Patients may persist with iDMTs, but many may switch treatment if permitted. Treatment satisfaction fosters adherence, a prerequisite for optimal outcomes.
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.
BACKGROUND: Following approval of dimethyl fumarate (DMF), we established a registry of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) patients taking DMF at our community MS center.
OBJECTIVE: To track DMF patients' tolerability, disease progression, and lymphopenia.
METHODS: Patients prescribed DMF for RMS from March 2013 to March 2016 were prospectively enrolled ( N = 412). Baseline data, clinical relapses, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity, discontinuation, and lymphocyte counts were captured through chart review.
RESULTS: The mean age of patients starting DMF was 49.4 ± 12.0 years and 70% transitioned from a previous disease-modifying therapy (DMT). Of the patients, 38% discontinued DMF, 76% of whom discontinued due to side effects. Clinical relapse and MRI activity were low. Comparing patients who transitioned from interferon-β (IFN), glatiramer acetate (GA), or natalizumab (NTZ), patients previously on NTZ had higher rates of relapse than those previously on GA (annualized relapse rate p = 0.039, percent relapse p = 0.021). Grade III lymphopenia developed in 11% of patients. Lymphopenia was associated with older age ( p < 0.001) and longer disease duration ( p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Given the high rates of lymphopenia and discontinuation, it has become our clinical practice to more closely scrutinize older patients and those with a longer disease duration who are potential candidates for initiating DMF therapy.
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.
Doses of fingolimod lower than 0.5 mg per day were not investigated during the fingolimod clinical development program. Whether lower doses of fingolimod might retain efficacy with fewer safety risks remains unknown.
OBJECTIVE:
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fingolimod, 0.5 mg, and fingolimod, 0.25 mg, compared with glatiramer acetate and to assess whether these doses of fingolimod show superior efficacy to glatiramer acetate in adult patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.
INTERVENTIONS:
Fingolimod, 0.5 mg, or fingolimod, 0.25 mg, orally once per day or glatiramer acetate, 20 mg, subcutaneously once per day.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:
The Multiple Sclerosis Study Evaluating Safety and Efficacy of Two Doses of Fingolimod Versus Copaxone (ASSESS) was a phase 3b multicenter randomized rater-blinded and dose-blinded 12-month clinical trial conducted between August 9, 2012, and April 30, 2018 (including the time required to recruit participants). A total of 1461 patients aged 18 to 65 years with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis were screened, and 1064 participants were randomized. These participants had at least 1 documented relapse during the previous year or 2 documented relapses during the previous 2 years and an Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 0 to 6 at screening. Data were analyzed between September and November 2018.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:
The superiority of the fingolimod doses was tested hierarchically, with fingolimod, 0.5 mg, vs glatiramer acetate, 20 mg, tested first, followed by fingolimod, 0.25 mg, vs glatiramer acetate, 20 mg. The primary end point was the reduction in annualized relapse rate (ARR). Magnetic resonance imaging parameters, safety, and tolerability were also assessed.
RESULTS:
Of 1461 adult patients screened, 1064 participants (72.8%) were randomized (mean [SD] age, 39.6 [11.0] years; 792 women [74.4%]) to 3 treatment groups: 352 participants received fingolimod, 0.5 mg, 370 participants received fingolimod, 0.25 mg, and 342 participants received glatiramer acetate, 20 mg. In total, 859 participants (80.7%) completed the study. Treatment with fingolimod, 0.5 mg, was superior to treatment with glatiramer acetate, 20 mg, in reducing ARR (40.7% relative reduction); the relative reduction with fingolimod, 0.25 mg, was 14.6%, which was not statistically significant (for fingolimod, 0.5 mg, ARR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.11-0.21; for fingolimod, 0.25 mg, ARR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.17-0.29; for glatiramer acetate, 20 mg, ARR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.20-0.34). Treatment with both fingolimod doses (0.5 mg and 0.25 mg) significantly reduced new or newly enlarging T2 and gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions compared with treatment with glatiramer acetate. Adverse events were reported in similar proportions across treatment groups (312 participants [90.4%] in the fingolimod, 0.5 mg, group, 323 participants [88.3%] in the fingolimod, 0.25 mg, group, and 283 participants [87.3%] in the glatiramer acetate group).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:
Fingolimod, 0.5 mg, demonstrated superior clinical efficacy compared with glatiramer acetate, 20 mg, and had a superior benefit-risk profile compared with fingolimod, 0.25 mg, in adult participants with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.
