Comparative efficacy of ofatumumab versus oral therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis patients using propensity score analyses and simulated treatment comparisons.

Background: Evidence from network meta-analyses (NMAs) and real-world propensity score (PS) analyses suggest monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) offer a therapeutic advantage over currently available oral therapies and, therefore, warrant consideration as a distinct group of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). This is counter to the current perception of these therapies by some stakeholders, including payers. Objectives: A multifaceted indirect treatment comparison (ITC) approach was undertaken to clarify the relative efficacy of mAbs and oral therapies. Design: Two ITC methods that use individual patient data (IPD) to adjust for between-trial differences, PS analyses and simulated treatment comparisons (STCs), were used to compare the mAb ofatumumab versus the oral therapies cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod. Data sources and methods: As IPD were available for trials of ofatumumab and fingolimod, PS analyses were conducted. Given summary-level data were available for cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod trials, STCs were conducted between ofatumumab and each of these oral therapies. Three efficacy outcomes were compared: annualized relapse rate (ARR), 3-month confirmed disability progression (3mCDP), and 6-month CDP (6mCDP). Results: The PS analyses demonstrated ofatumumab was statistically superior to fingolimod for ARR and time to 3mCDP but not time to 6mCDP. In STCs, ofatumumab was statistically superior in reducing ARR and decreasing the proportion of patients with 3mCDP compared with cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod and in decreasing the proportion with 6mCP compared with fingolimod and ozanimod. These findings were largely consistent with recently published NMAs that identified mAb therapies as the most efficacious DMTs for RMS. Conclusion: Complementary ITC methods showed ofatumumab was superior to cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod in lowering relapse rates and delaying disability progression among patients with RMS. Our study supports the therapeutic superiority of mAbs over currently available oral DMTs for RMS and the delineation of mAbs as high-efficacy therapies.

Ocrelizumab Extended Interval Dosing in Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: An Italian Experience.

BACKGROUND: The intervals between two courses of anti CD20 therapies in the COVID19 pandemic era provided the opportunity to individually delay therapy, known as extended interval dosing (EID). METHODS: We collect real-world data on patients with primary progressive MS (PPMS) treated with Ocrelizumab (OCR) during the COVID'19 pandemic. The observation period in which the standard interval dosing (SID) or EID occurred (always a maintenance cycle, 600 mg) was from January 2020 to June 2021. All patients had two infusions during the observation period. Our first aim was to compare confirmed disability progression (CDP) between SID and EID patients. RESULTS: From a total cohort of 410 patients treated with OCR, 96 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All patients received two infusions during the index window, 71 received only SID infusions whilst 25 received at least one EID infusion throughout the entire follow-up. During the entire available follow-up (median 10 months, IQR 7-11), CDP was recorded in 5 patients (3/71, 4.2% SID and 2/25, 8% EID, V-Cramer = 0.141, p-value = 0.167). EID regimen did not influence the risk of CDP during the investigated follow up. CONCLUSION: In our multicentre real-world cohort, the EID regimen in PPMS patients did not result in increased CDP during the available follow-up.

Methods for comparative effectiveness based on time to confirmed disability progression with irregular observations in multiple sclerosis.

Real-world data sources offer opportunities to compare the effectiveness of treatments in practical clinical settings. However, relevant outcomes are often recorded selectively and collected at irregular measurement times. It is therefore common to convert the available visits to a standardized schedule with equally spaced visits. Although more advanced imputation methods exist, they are not designed to recover longitudinal outcome trajectories and typically assume that missingness is non-informative. We, therefore, propose an extension of multilevel multiple imputation methods to facilitate the analysis of real-world outcome data that is collected at irregular observation times. We illustrate multilevel multiple imputation in a case study evaluating two disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis in terms of time to confirmed disability progression. This survival outcome is derived from repeated measurements of the Expanded Disability Status Scale, which is collected when patients come to the healthcare center for a clinical visit and for which longitudinal trajectories can be estimated. Subsequently, we perform a simulation study to compare the performance of multilevel multiple imputation to commonly used single imputation methods. Results indicate that multilevel multiple imputation leads to less biased treatment effect estimates and improves the coverage of confidence intervals, even when outcomes are missing not at random.

Long-term efficacy and safety of siponimod in patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: Analysis of EXPAND core and extension data up to >5 years.

BACKGROUND: Siponimod significantly reduced the risk of confirmed disability progression (CDP), worsening in cognitive processing speed (CPS), relapses, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures of brain atrophy and inflammation versus placebo in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) patients in the Phase 3 EXPAND study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess long-term efficacy and safety of siponimod 2 mg/day from the EXPAND study including the extension part, up to > 5 years. METHODS: In the open-label extension part, participants receiving placebo during the core part were switched to siponimod (placebo-siponimod group) and those on siponimod continued the same treatment (continuous siponimod group). RESULTS: Continuous siponimod reduced the risk of 6-month CDP by 22% (hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval (CI)): 0.78 (0.66-0.92) p = 0.0026) and 6-month confirmed worsening in CPS by 23% (HR (95% CI): 0.77 (0.65-0.92) p = 0.0047) versus the placebo-siponimod group. Sustained efficacy on annualized relapse rate, total and regional brain atrophy, and inflammatory disease activity was also observed. No new, unexpected safety signals for siponimod were identified over the long term. CONCLUSION: The sustained efficacy and consistent long-term safety profile of siponimod up to > 5 years support its clinical utility for long-term treatment of SPMS. Benefits in the continuous siponimod versus placebo-siponimod group highlight the significance of earlier treatment initiation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01665144.

Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of ozanimod versus teriflunomide for relapsing multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: A growing number of immunomodulating disease-modifying therapies are available for treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). In the absence of randomized head-to-head trials, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) can be used to adjust for cross-trial differences and evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of these agents. We used MAIC methodology to indirectly compare key outcomes with ozanimod (OZM) and teriflunomide (TERI) in the treatment of RMS. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of OZM vs TERI. Given the absence of head-to-head trials of OZM vs TERI, we used a matching-adjusted indirect comparison to adjust for potential treatment effect modifiers and prognostic factors while assessing confirmed disability progression (CDP), relapse, and safety outcomes. Individual patient data for OZM (SUNBEAM and RADIANCE Part B trials) and aggregate level data for TERI (ASCLEPIOS I/II, TOWER, OPTIMUM, and TEMSO trials) were used to evaluate the following outcomes: annualized relapse rate (ARR), proportion of patients relapsed, CDP at 3 and 6 months, overall adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and discontinuations due to AEs. RESULTS: After matching, baseline patient characteristics were balanced between OZM and TERI. Compared with TERI, OZM demonstrated significant improvements in ARR (rate ratio: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.62-0.84), proportion of patients relapsed (odds ratio [OR]: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.44-0.70), overall AEs (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.29-0.43), SAEs (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.37-0.77), and discontinuations due to AEs (OR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.09-0.21). OZM demonstrated statistically significant improvements in CDP at 3 months (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.66-0.92) but nonsignificant differences at 6 months (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.60-1.01) compared with TERI. CONCLUSION: In this indirect treatment comparison of patients with RMS, OZM appeared to have an improved benefit-risk profile over TERI.

[The efficacy and safety of siponimod in the Russian population of patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis]. / Éffektivnost' i bezopasnost' siponimoda u patsientov s vtorichno-progressiruiushchim rasseiannym sklerozom v rossiiskoi populiatsii.

AIM: To study the efficacy and safety of siponimod in patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) in the Russian population of the EXPAND study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety-four patients with SPMS from Russia were included in the analysis. Sixty-three patients received siponimod and 31 patients received placebo. The primary endpoint of the study was time to 3-month confirmed disability progression (3m-CDP) events, other clinical and radiological endpoints were also evaluated. RESULTS: The siponimod group showed a 54% reduction in the risk of 3m-CDP compared with the placebo group (p=0.0334). Secondary endpoints also showed the advantage of the drug over placebo. In the siponimod group, mild adverse events associated with impaired liver function, as well as arterial hypertension, were more common. No patient left the study due to an adverse event. CONCLUSION: The use of siponimod in patients with SPMS in the Russian population reduced the risk of disability progression. Siponimod showed a favorable safety profile.

Baseline EDSS proportions in MS clinical trials affect the overall outcome and power: A cautionary note.

BACKGROUND: In randomized clinical trials, when treatments do not work equally effectively across stratifications of participants, observed event rates may differ from those hypothesized leading to deviations in estimated power. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of distributions of baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) proportions in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) on the trial outcome, confirmed disability progression rate (CDPR), and power. METHODS: We reported CDPRs in the CombiRx trial by baseline EDSS and by groups (1st (0, 1), 2nd (1.5, 2), 3rd (2.5, 3), and 4th (⩾3.5)) and investigated the effect of different combinations of baseline EDSS proportions on the trial outcome and power. RESULTS: There were 244 (25.4%) participants in the 1st group, 368 (38.4%) in the 2nd group, 223 (23.3%) in the 3rd group, and 124 (12.9%) in the 4th group with CDPRs of 40.1%, 13.9%, 11.2%, and 16.9%, respectively. Both CDPR and power increased when the proportion of the 1st group increased in hypothetical trials with equal sample sizes in each arm, and a 10% increase in the 1st group led to a 5% increase in power. CONCLUSION: Various baseline EDSS proportions yielded different CDPRs and power, suggesting caution in interpretation of treatment effects across trials that enrolled participants with different proportions of baseline EDSS.