RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Treatment with cladribine tablets is indicated in highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Cladribine tablets proved safe and effective in the pivotal CLARITY trial, but that trial included primarily treatment-naïve patients. In clinical practice however, cladribine tablets are often given to patients who have failed other treatments. Therefore, this study investigated the real-world safety and efficacy of cladribine tablets. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We gathered data from nine MS clinical centres across Poland for patients with RRMS who started treatment with cladribine tablets from December 2019 to June 2022. RESULTS: We enrolled 140 patients, with follow-up data available for 136 in year 1 and for 66 in year 2. At baseline, the mean age was 35.6 years, mean disease duration was 7.3 years, median EDSS score was 2.5, and 94% of patients were treatment- -experienced. Thirty-nine patients (27.9%) had undergone COVID-19, and 94 (67.1%) were vaccinated against COVID-19. The annualised relapse rate (ARR) decreased from 1.49 at baseline to 0.33 in year 1 (p < 0.001) and to 0.25 in year 2 (p < 0.001). The percentage of relapse-free patients increased from 11.5% at baseline to 70.2% in year 1 and 82.1% in year 2. The percentage of patients with active lesions decreased from 91.4% at baseline to 36.2% in year 1 and 18.2% in year 2. EDSS score remained stable or improved in 83.7% of patients in year 1 and 89.6% in year 2. No evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) was achieved in 42.7% of patients in year 1 and 66.7% in year 2. Only one patient (0.72%) had grade 4 lymphopenia and 21 (15.1%) had grade 3 lymphopenia. Varicella zoster virus infections occurred in three patients. Eight patients discontinued treatment with cladribine: five due to inefficacy, one due to lymphopenia, and two due to a personal decision. CONCLUSIONS: Cladribine tablets proved safe and effective in a real-world cohort of treatment-experienced patients. However, the efficacy measures improved to a lesser extent in our cohort than in the pivotal clinical trial, which is probably due to a higher proportion of treatment-experienced patients in our cohort.