-
Therapeutic Advances in Neurological... 2021Pregnancy is widely accepted as a period when relapses of multiple sclerosis (MS) are decreased, with an increased risk of relapse in the first months postpartum. This... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Pregnancy is widely accepted as a period when relapses of multiple sclerosis (MS) are decreased, with an increased risk of relapse in the first months postpartum. This systematic review evaluated relapses during pregnancy and postpartum, according to disease-modifying therapy (DMT) exposure before, during, and after pregnancy, and the influence of DMT on these outcomes.
METHODS
We searched Medline and EMBASE to identify relevant publications from November 2009 to 2019 along with references lists of selected articles. Publications were filtered and assessed by two independent reviewers to ensure appropriate data extraction.
RESULTS
Of 469 articles identified, 28 were included for analysis including 4739 pregnancies in 5324 patients. All five studies comparing natalizumab or fingolimod (high-efficacy DMTs) use preconception versus interferon beta, glatiramer acetate, or dimethyl fumarate, or no DMT suggested that there was a greater risk of relapse during pregnancy following withdrawal of the high-efficacy DMTs. Of 10 studies evaluating relapses during pregnancy, five studies found that continuing DMTs into early pregnancy reduced relapses compared to discontinuing treatment. DMT exposure preconception generally had no effect on postpartum relapses versus no DMT; however, natalizumab or fingolimod use preconception was associated with postpartum relapse versus no high-efficacy DMT in one study. DMT exposure during pregnancy was associated with fewer postpartum relapses versus no DMT exposure in four of seven studies, while three found no difference between groups.
CONCLUSION
Results of this systematic review concerning women with relapsing MS show a complex and often conflicting picture regarding DMT exposure and relapses during and after pregnancy. Although our data are limited by variability between studies, there is some evidence suggesting the use of natalizumab or fingolimod preconception is associated with increased risk of relapses during pregnancy, highlighting the need for effective disease-management strategies in these especially high-risk patients.
PubMed: 34876925
DOI: 10.1177/17562864211051012 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Multiple sclerosis (MS) is the most common neurological cause of disability in young adults. Off-label rituximab for MS is used in most countries surveyed by the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is the most common neurological cause of disability in young adults. Off-label rituximab for MS is used in most countries surveyed by the International Federation of MS, including high-income countries where on-label disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) are available. OBJECTIVES: To assess beneficial and adverse effects of rituximab as 'first choice' and as 'switching' for adults with MS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and trial registers for completed and ongoing studies on 31 January 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) comparing rituximab with placebo or another DMT for adults with MS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We used the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE for: disability worsening, relapse, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), common infections, cancer, and mortality. We conducted separate analyses for rituximab as 'first choice' or as 'switching', relapsing or progressive MS, comparison versus placebo or another DMT, and RCTs or NRSIs.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 studies (5 RCTs, 10 NRSIs) with 16,429 participants of whom 13,143 were relapsing MS and 3286 progressive MS. The studies were one to two years long and compared rituximab as 'first choice' with placebo (1 RCT) or other DMTs (1 NRSI), rituximab as 'switching' against placebo (2 RCTs) or other DMTs (2 RCTs, 9 NRSIs). The studies were conducted worldwide; most originated from high-income countries, six from the Swedish MS register. Pharmaceutical companies funded two studies. We identified 14 ongoing studies. Rituximab as 'first choice' for relapsing MS Rituximab versus placebo: no studies met eligibility criteria for this comparison. Rituximab versus other DMTs: one NRSI compared rituximab with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, natalizumab, or fingolimod in active relapsing MS at 24 months' follow-up. Rituximab likely results in a large reduction in relapses compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate (hazard ratio (HR) 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.39; 335 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Rituximab may reduce relapses compared with dimethyl fumarate (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.00; 206 participants; low-certainty evidence) and natalizumab (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.00; 170 participants; low-certainty evidence). It may make little or no difference on relapse compared with fingolimod (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.69; 137 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported no deaths over 24 months. The study did not measure disability worsening, SAEs, HRQoL, and common infections. Rituximab as 'first choice' for progressive MS One RCT compared rituximab with placebo in primary progressive MS at 24 months' follow-up. Rituximab likely results in little to no difference in the number of participants who have disability worsening compared with placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.11; 439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Rituximab may result in little to no difference in recurrence of relapses (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.99; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence), SAEs (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.20; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence), common infections (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.73; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence), cancer (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.59; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence), and mortality (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.77; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure HRQoL. Rituximab versus other DMTs: no studies met eligibility criteria for this comparison. Rituximab as 'switching' for relapsing MS One RCT compared rituximab with placebo in relapsing MS at 12 months' follow-up. Rituximab may decrease recurrence of relapses compared with placebo (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.93; 104 participants; low-certainty evidence). The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of rituximab relative to placebo on SAEs (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.92; 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence), common infections (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.24; 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence), cancer (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.06 to 39.15; 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and mortality (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.06 to 39.15; 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure disability worsening and HRQoL. Five NRSIs compared rituximab with other DMTs in relapsing MS at 24 months' follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of rituximab relative to interferon beta or glatiramer acetate on disability worsening (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.42; 1 NRSI, 853 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Rituximab likely results in a large reduction in relapses compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate (HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 NRSI, 1383 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and fingolimod (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.32; 1 NRSI, 256 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of rituximab relative to natalizumab on relapses (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.2 to 5.0; 1 NRSI, 153 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Rituximab likely increases slightly common infections compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.62; 1 NRSI, 5477 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and compared with natalizumab (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.32; 2 NRSIs, 5001 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Rituximab may increase slightly common infections compared with fingolimod (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.77; 3 NRSIs, 5187 participants; low-certainty evidence). It may make little or no difference compared with ocrelizumab (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.40; 1 NRSI, 472 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of rituximab on mortality compared with fingolimod (OR 5.59, 95% CI 0.22 to 139.89; 1 NRSI, 136 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and natalizumab (OR 6.66, 95% CI 0.27 to 166.58; 1 NRSI, 153 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The included studies did not measure SAEs, HRQoL, and cancer.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For preventing relapses in relapsing MS, rituximab as 'first choice' and as 'switching' may compare favourably with a wide range of approved DMTs. A protective effect of rituximab against disability worsening is uncertain. There is limited information to determine the effect of rituximab for progressive MS. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of rituximab on SAEs. They are relatively rare in people with MS, thus difficult to study, and they were not well reported in studies. There is an increased risk of common infections with rituximab, but absolute risk is small. Rituximab is widely used as off-label treatment in people with MS; however, randomised evidence is weak. In the absence of randomised evidence, remaining uncertainties on beneficial and adverse effects of rituximab for MS might be clarified by making real-world data available.
Topics: Fingolimod Hydrochloride; Glatiramer Acetate; Humans; Multiple Sclerosis; Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic Progressive; Rituximab; Young Adult
PubMed: 34748215
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013874.pub2 -
Journal of Neuroimmunology Nov 2021Background High efficacy disease modifying therapies (DMT) in the management of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) have a favorable effect on relapse rate and disability... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Background High efficacy disease modifying therapies (DMT) in the management of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) have a favorable effect on relapse rate and disability progression; however, they can expose patients to significant risks, such as progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Objective The study aims to investigate prognostic factors that can determine outcome in MS-related PML patients. Methods We conducted a literature review and meta-analysis of 194 patients from 62 articles in PubMed, SCOPUS and EMBASE. Results Out of 194 patients (66.5% women, 33.5% men), 81% had progression in their EDSS score by at least 1 point from the time of PML diagnosis (EDSS-P group). The remaining patients had either stable or improved EDSS (EDSS-S group). In univariate analysis, older age at the time of PML diagnosis was associated with higher probability of disability accumulation and worsening of EDSS by at least 1 point (mean age = 44.8, p = 0.046). After adjusting for other variables, age at time of PML diagnosis remained a significant predictive variable in the multivariable logistic model (OR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.88-0.99, p = 0.037). Natalizumab is the most commonly associated DMT linked to PML, followed by fingolimod and others including dimethyl fumarate, ocrelizumab, alemtuzumab. Among the different treatments used, no therapeutic agent was found to be superior in improving post-PML EDSS. Conclusions Younger age and lower JCV viral load at the time of PML diagnosis were associated with better outcome in MS-associate PML, while none of the PML therapies was superior over the others or associated with favorable outcome.
Topics: Age Factors; Antirheumatic Agents; Cerebrospinal Fluid; Disability Evaluation; Disease Progression; Endemic Diseases; Female; Humans; Immunocompromised Host; JC Virus; Leukoencephalopathy, Progressive Multifocal; Male; Multiple Sclerosis; Natalizumab; Prognosis; Severity of Illness Index; Viral Load
PubMed: 34547511
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2021.577721 -
Autoimmunity Reviews Jun 2021To compare the efficacy and compliance of up-to-date disease modifying therapies (DMTs) in patients with remitting-relapsing MS (RRMS). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and compliance of up-to-date disease modifying therapies (DMTs) in patients with remitting-relapsing MS (RRMS).
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for eligible studies. Annualized relapse rate, discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) were assessed as primary outcomes. Sensitivity analysis and inconsistency detection were performed to evaluated whether exclusion of high-risk studies affected the validity. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Risk-of-Bias Tool 2. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to estimate the rankings among different DMTs.
RESULTS
21 studies were included for main report. Seven studies were evaluated as "high risk" and were therefore excluded. Exclusion of high-risk studies did not affect the validity of evidence. The risk of relapses for most DMTs except Betaseron 50 μg was significantly lower comparing to placebo. Incompliance in patients treated with DMTs was not significantly increased comparing to placebo. Dimethyl fumarate and ocrelizumab had superiority in improving MRI outcomes. Ocrelizumab and ofatumumab had the largest reduction of risk in disability progression at 3 months. Referring to SUCRA, ofatumumab, alemtuzumab and natalizumab showed the best efficacy and compliance.
CONCLUSION
The present study demonstrated the hierarchy of DMTs treating RRMS. Ofatumumab, alemtuzumab and natalizumab have superiority with respect to effectiveness and compliance. More studies are required to explore the long-term effect of DMTs. Our findings could provide helpful information and contribute to clinical treatment decision-making.
Topics: Humans; Immunologic Factors; Immunosuppressive Agents; Multiple Sclerosis; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting; Natalizumab; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 33878488
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2021.102826 -
CNS Drugs Jul 2021Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) experience relapses and sustained disability progression. Since 2004, the number of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS has...
BACKGROUND
Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) experience relapses and sustained disability progression. Since 2004, the number of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS has grown substantially. As a result, patients, healthcare providers, and insurers are increasingly interested in comparative efficacy and safety evaluations to distinguish between treatment options, but head-to-head studies between DMTs are limited.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the current study was to compare efficacy and safety outcomes with the DMTs ozanimod and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to adjust for cross-trial differences in study design and population.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed to identify clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of ozanimod compared with DMF. Individual patient-level data (IPD) for ozanimod were obtained from the SUNBEAM and RADIANCE Part B trials, and aggregate-level patient data (APD) for DMF were obtained from CONFIRM and DEFINE. A MAIC is used to weight IPD to APD based on important baseline patient characteristics considered to be effect modifiers or prognostic factors in order to balance the covariate distribution to establish more homogenous trial populations. Once trial populations are determined to be sufficiently homogenous, outcomes of interest are estimated and used to generate treatment effects between the weighted IPD and APD. We used MAIC methodology to compare efficacy and safety outcomes of interest between ozanimod 1.0 mg once daily (OD) and DMF 240 mg twice daily (BID), including confirmed disability progression (CDP) at 3 and 6 months, annualized relapse rate (ARR), proportion of patients relapsed, overall adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and discontinuations due to AEs.
RESULTS
After matching patient data, baseline patient characteristics were balanced between patients receiving ozanimod and those receiving DMF. Compared with DMF, ozanimod demonstrated significantly improved CDP at 3 months (hazard ratio 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.86), ARR (rate ratio [RR] 0.80; 95% CI 0.67-0.97), proportion of patients relapsed (odds ratio [OR] 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.83), overall AEs (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.08-0.16), SAEs (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.19-0.39), and discontinuations (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.07-0.17). CDP at 6 months did not differ significantly between the two agents (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.62-1.26).
CONCLUSIONS
After adjustment of baseline patient characteristics, the MAIC demonstrated that the efficacy and safety of ozanimod 1.0 mg OD was superior to that of DMF 240 mg BID. Although a MAIC is less likely to produce biased estimates than a naïve or a standard indirect treatment comparison via a common comparator, limitations include potential confounding due to unobserved and thus unaccounted for baseline differences.
Topics: Comparative Effectiveness Research; Dimethyl Fumarate; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Indans; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting; Oxadiazoles; Sphingosine 1 Phosphate Receptor Modulators; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33847901
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-021-00805-0 -
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Apr 2021Assuming full control of the relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) is the main target for practitioners. Disease control could be defined as no clinical relapse,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Cladribine tablets versus other disease-modifying oral drugs in achieving no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) in multiple sclerosis-A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Assuming full control of the relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) is the main target for practitioners. Disease control could be defined as no clinical relapse, absence of 3-month confirmed disability progression expressed on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), as well as no disease activity on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). NEDA-3 (no evidence of disease activity) is a composite endpoint used primarily in clinical trials, comprising these 3 measurements of disease activity. The aim of this study is to compare cladribine tablets (CT) with oral disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) - fingolimod (FTY), dimethyl fumarate (DMF), and teriflunomide (TERI) - with regard to NEDA-3 and its clinical (relapse and disability progression) and MRI (no new T1 Gd+ lesions or no new T2 lesions or no enlargement of existing lesions) components occurrence during a 24-month follow-up.
METHODS
In June 2018, a systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane database was performed. Due to the lack of head-to-head trials directly comparing cladribine tablets to oral drugs of interest, an indirect network meta-analysis (NMA) was applied, with placebo as a common comparator. NMA was performed with Bayesian approach and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method for estimating posterior distributions. Additional data used in the analysis were taken from conference abstracts or post hoc analyses of pooled data from the clinical studies.
RESULTS
Six randomised clinical trials (RCTs) presenting NEDA, with active treatment compared to placebo, were included in the NMA: CLARITY (CT), FREEDOMS and FREEDOMS II (FTY), CONFIRM and DEFINE (DMF) and TEMSO (TERI). The rate of NEDA-3 was significantly higher in cladribine tablets vs DMF: OR (odds ratio)=1.76 (95% CrI [credible intervals]: 1.02-3.03) and TERI: OR=2.78 (95% CrI: 1.60-4.83), but not vs FTY. For the MRI NEDA results were as follows - cladribine tablets vs DMF: OR=1.87 (95% CrI: 1.18-2.97); cladribine tablets vs TERI: OR=6.59 (95% CrI: 4.32-10.09); cladribine tablets vs FTY: OR=1.58 (95% CrI: 1.10-2.29). The comparison of clinical NEDA did not reach significance vs either DMF or TERI and evaluation vs FTY was not possible because of lack of data.
CONCLUSIONS
Cladribine in the form of tablets was significantly more effective in achieving NEDA-3 than DMF and TERI, but there was no significant difference vs FTY. Cladribine tablets was more effective than all oral comparators considering the MRI NEDA. For clinical NEDA, the superiority vs DMF and vs TERI was not confirmed, and vs FTY evaluation was not possible.
Topics: Cladribine; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Multiple Sclerosis; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting; Network Meta-Analysis; Tablets
PubMed: 33516133
DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2021.102769 -
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Nov 2020The safety profile of dimethyl fumarate (DMF) for multiple sclerosis (MS) is not fully understood. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The safety profile of dimethyl fumarate (DMF) for multiple sclerosis (MS) is not fully understood.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the literature for adverse events (AE) associated with DMF for MS.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov for articles published from database inception to May/2019. Studies (observational and randomized controlled trials (RCTs)) reporting AEs, serious AEs (SAE), or discontinuation due to AEs were included. We summarized the proportion of DMF-exposed patients affected and calculated the risk ratios (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the DMF relative to placebo-exposed participants. RCT findings were pooled via meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Twenty-one observational studies, 4 RCTs, 1 RCT extension study, and 2 open-label studies were included, totalling 12,380 MS patients on DMF followed for an average of 19.8 months. Compared to placebo, DMF-exposed patients had a higher risk of grade III/IV lymphopenia (NNTH = 28.8;95%CI:20.2-50.5), pruritus (NNTH = 22.1;95%CI:14.0-52.3), flushing (NNTH = 3.7;95%CI:3.3-4.1), gastrointestinal related events (NNTH = 5.7;95%CI:3.5-15.7), nausea (NNTH = 23.4;95%CI:14.9-54.7), diarrhea (NNTH = 21.2;95%CI:13.6-47.6), and abdominal pain (NNTH = 19.2;95%CI:12.9-37.9). Patients discontinued DMF because of GI symptoms (498/5619;8.9%), lymphopenia (163/4003;4.1%), and flushing (173/4779;3.6%). From pooled analyses of 4 RCTs, AE risks were higher in the DMF versus placebo groups (RR = 1.37;95%CI:1.27-1.48), but SAEs were similar (RR = 1.01;95%CI:0.77-1.33).
CONCLUSION
Over the short-term, DMF was associated with a higher risk of AEs. The NNTH included 4 for flushing, 6 for gastrointestinal complaints, and 29 for severe or life-threatening (grade III/IV) lymphopenia. The longer-term safety of DMF, including consequences of lymphopenia remain unknown.
Topics: Dimethyl Fumarate; Humans; Multiple Sclerosis
PubMed: 33296968
DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2020.102566 -
BMC Neurology Jul 2020Nonadherence to disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) is associated with poorer clinical outcomes, including higher rates of relapse and disease... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Real-world adherence to, and persistence with, once- and twice-daily oral disease-modifying drugs in patients with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Nonadherence to disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) is associated with poorer clinical outcomes, including higher rates of relapse and disease progression, and higher medical resource use. A systematic review and quantification of adherence and persistence with oral DMDs would help clarify the extent of nonadherence and nonpersistence in patients with MS to help prescribers make informed treatment plans and optimize patient care. The objectives were to: 1) conduct a systematic literature review to assess the availability and variability of oral DMD adherence and/or persistence rates across 'real-world' data sources; and 2) conduct meta-analyses of the rates of adherence and persistence for once- and twice-daily oral DMDs in patients with MS using real-world data.
METHODS
A systematic review of studies published between January 2010 and April 2018 in the PubMed database was performed. Only studies assessing once- and twice-daily oral DMDs were available for inclusion in the analysis. Study quality was evaluated using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, a tool for assessing quality of observational studies. The random effects model evaluated pooled summary estimates of nonadherence.
RESULTS
From 510 abstracts, 31 studies comprising 16,398 patients with MS treated with daily oral DMDs were included. Overall 1-year mean medication possession ratio (MPR; n = 4 studies) was 83.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 74.5-92.1%) and proportion of days covered (PDC; n = 4 studies) was 76.5% (95% CI 72.0-81.1%). Pooled 1-year MPR ≥80% adherence (n = 6) was 78.5% (95% CI 63.5-88.5%) and PDC ≥80% (n = 5 studies) was 71.8% (95% CI 59.1-81.9%). Pooled 1-year discontinuation (n = 20) was 25.4% (95% CI 21.6-29.7%).
CONCLUSIONS
Approximately one in five patients with MS do not adhere to, and one in four discontinue, daily oral DMDs before 1 year. Opportunities to improve adherence and ultimately patient outcomes, such as patient education, medication support/reminders, simplified dosing regimens, and reducing administration or monitoring requirements, remain. Implementation of efforts to improve adherence are essential to improving care of patients with MS.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Humans; Medication Adherence; Multiple Sclerosis
PubMed: 32664928
DOI: 10.1186/s12883-020-01830-0 -
Current Journal of Neurology Jul 2020Although widely used, first-line injectable medicines for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) remain an issue of efficacy and adherence. Recently, new oral...
Although widely used, first-line injectable medicines for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) remain an issue of efficacy and adherence. Recently, new oral medications for MS have contributed to dramatic improvements in MS treatment. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) used in relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). A systematic review was conducted on related databases including PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science up to April 2020. The screening of the studies and their quality assessment was carried out independently by the two authors. Three studies fulfilled the predefined criteria of inclusion. One of them compared teriflonomide with subcutaneous interferon beta-1a (IFN β-1a), another compared oral fingolimod with intramuscular (IM) IFN β-1b, and the third article compared oral fingolimod with IM IFN β-1a. No eligible study was found for dimethyl fumarate (DMF). The results indicated that while the efficacy of fingolimod was more than IFN β (IM β-1a and β-1b), teriflunomide 7 mg had less efficacy than subcutaneous IFN β-1a. Regarding safety, the results indicated that the proportion of diabetic patients with adverse events (AEs) in the fingolimod group was higher than in the IFN β-1b group and the overall occurrence of AEs was similar between teriflunomide and IFN β-1a groups. There is evidence for the effectiveness of fingolimod in reducing annualized relapse rates (ARRs) and improving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings, but the evidence does not support the effectiveness of teriflunomide and further studies are required to determine its efficacy. Also, fingolimod is associated with more side effects than IFN β-1b, but there is no evidence to suggest any difference in side effects between teriflunomide and IFN β-1a.
PubMed: 38011404
DOI: 10.18502/cjn.v19i3.5427 -
Farmacia Hospitalaria : Organo Oficial... Mar 2020To identify and describe cost-effectiveness studies that evaluate disease modifying therapies in the context of relapsing- remitting multiple sclerosis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To identify and describe cost-effectiveness studies that evaluate disease modifying therapies in the context of relapsing- remitting multiple sclerosis.
METHOD
A systematic review of the literature was carried out by searching MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, LILACS, the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and Open Grey. The search was performed in January 2018 and covered articles published between January 2010 and December 2017. The studies reviewed were payer- perspective cost-effectiveness analyses for interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, natalizumab, alemtuzumab and rituximab. The Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument was used to determine the quality of the studies reviewed. Risk of bias was assessed without a standardized tool. An analysis was made of direct costs, quality- adjusted life-years and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Data extraction and evaluation of information were conducted separately by each author.
RESULTS
Four hundred one references were found; nine studies were included. A great degree of variability was identified for several methodological aspects. Two studies that applied the incremental cost- effectiveness ratio (cost) showed no first-line therapy to be cost- effective. A third study demonstrated dominance of interferon beta-1b over placebo (USD -315,109.45) and a fourth paper showed dominance of teriflunomide over interferons and glatiramer acetate (USD - 121,840.37). As regards second-line therapies, dimethyl fumarate was cost-effective in a study that compared it to glatiramer acetate and interferon beta-1a and it was dominant in another study that compared it with glatiramer acetate (USD -158,897.93) and fingolimod (USD - 92,988.97). In the third line of treatment, one study showed natalizumab to be cost-effective as compared with fingolimod, and another study showed alemtuzumab to be dominant over fingolimod (USD -49,221). A third trial demonstrated alemtuzumab to be dominant over natalizumab (USD -1,656,266.07). Many of the trials have sponsorship bias. Eight of the trials received a high QHES score.
CONCLUSIONS
The present paper shows that cost-effectiveness studies have high levels of methodological variability, some of them reaching contradictory results. As a result, it is not possible to determine which disease- modifying therapy is really cost-effective in the context of relapsingremitting multiple sclerosis.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antirheumatic Agents; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic Progressive; Quality-Adjusted Life Years
PubMed: 32452318
DOI: 10.7399/fh.11385