Diroximel Fumarate in Patients with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: NEDA-3 After Re-Baselining in the Phase 3 EVOLVE-MS-1 Study.

INTRODUCTION: Diroximel fumarate (DRF) and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) are orally administered fumarate disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS). The safety, tolerability, and exploratory efficacy of DRF were evaluated in the phase 3 EVOLVE-MS-1 study. No Evidence of Disease Activity (NEDA-3) is a composite efficacy endpoint used in clinical trials for MS defined as no relapse, no 24-week confirmed disability progression (CDP), no new/newly enlarging T2 lesions, and no new gadolinium-enhancing lesions. As NEDA outcomes in studies may be confounded by initial disease activity, the objective of this analysis was to evaluate NEDA-3 in EVOLVE-MS-1 for newly enrolled patients and patients who were re-baselined after approximately 7 weeks. METHODS: Patients entered EVOLVE-MS-1 as either newly enrolled or having completed the 5-week phase 3 EVOLVE-MS-2 study of DRF and DMF. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) was performed at baseline before each study (approx. 7 weeks apart) and at weeks 48 and 96 in EVOLVE-MS-1. Therefore, patients entering from EVOLVE-MS-2 were re-baselined after approximately 7 weeks. NEDA-3 outcomes on DRF are reported for prior DRF, prior DMF, and de novo patient groups. RESULTS: Of 1057 patients in EVOLVE-MS-1, 239 (22.6%) had rolled over from receiving DRF in EVOLVE-MS-2 ("prior DRF"), 225 (21.3%) had rolled over from receiving DMF in EVOLVE-MS-2 ("prior DMF"), and 593 (56.1%) were newly enrolled ("de novo"). At week 48, Kaplan-Meier estimates of NEDA-3 were 72.3% (prior DRF), 72.1% (prior DMF), and 62.1% (de novo); at week 96, estimates were 50.2% (prior DRF), 48.2% (prior DMF), and 36.5% (de novo). CONCLUSIONS: In EVOLVE-MS-1, after re-baselining at approximately 7 weeks, approximately half of DRF-treated patients achieved NEDA-3 at week 96, compared with 36.5% of patients who were not re-baselined. Re-baselining may be useful for assessing efficacy of DMTs by mitigating the influence of disease activity prior to the onset of efficacy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT03093324 (EVOLVE-MS-2); NCT02634307 (EVOLVE-MS-1).

De-escalation of Disease-Modifying Therapy for People with Multiple Sclerosis Due to Safety Considerations: Characterizing 1-Year Outcomes in 25 People Who Switched from Ocrelizumab to Diroximel Fumarate.

INTRODUCTION: Switching disease-modifying therapy (DMT) may be considered for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) if a patient's current therapy is no longer optimal. This was particularly important during the recent COVID-19 pandemic because of considerations around immune deficiency and impaired vaccine response associated with B cell-depleting DMTs. This real-world, single-center study aimed to evaluate change or decline in functional ability and overall disease stability in people with RRMS who were switched from B cell-depleting ocrelizumab (OCRE) to diroximel fumarate (DRF) because of safety concern related to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Adults with RRMS were included if they had been clinically stable for ≥ 1 year on OCRE. Data collected at baseline and 1 year post switch included relapse rate, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), blood work for assessment of peripheral immune parameters, the Cognitive Assessment Battery (CAB), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: Participants (N = 25) had a mean (SD) age of 52 (9) years, and a mean (SD) duration of 26 (8) months' treatment with OCRE before the switch to DRF. Median washout duration since the last OCRE infusion was 7 months (range 4-18 months). No participants relapsed on DRF during follow-up, and all remained persistent on DRF after 1 year. There were no significant changes in peripheral immune parameters, other than an increase in the percentage of CD19+ cells 1 year after switching (p < 0.05). Similarly, there were no significant changes in CAB, OCT, and PROs. CONCLUSION: These preliminary findings suggest that transition to DRF from OCRE may be an effective treatment option for people with RRMS who are clinically stable but may need to switch for reasons unrelated to effectiveness. Longer follow-up times on larger samples are needed to confirm these observations.

Participatory design of an infographic to help support the care of people living with complex regional pain syndrome.

Background: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) can be a debilitating pain condition with enduring physical, psychological and social impacts. CRPS is often poorly understood by healthcare professionals and management needs to be tailored to each individual's presentation. People with lived experience express difficulty in accessing reliable and meaningful information about the condition. This study aimed to co-create a trustworthy infographic to share information about the lived experience of CRPS. Methods: We adopted a seven-phase, iterative, participatory methodology to co-create the infographic. Potential infographic content was obtained from qualitative work investigating the lived experience of CRPS. Online consumer engagement (people with doctor diagnosed CRPS/their family, n=20) was used to prioritise content to be included in the infographic and then potential designs were sourced. The research team narrowed the selections down to two designs which were presented to consumers online for final selection (n=25) and refinement (n=34). Results: An infographic for understanding the lived experience of CRPS was completed using participatory design, providing a resource aligned to the needs of people with this condition. Using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool, the final infographic rated highly for understandability (92%) and participants indicated significant willingness to share this infographic with others (93%). Conclusion: A process of participatory design was an effective and efficient process for translation of evidence gathered from qualitative research into a trustworthy resource for people with CRPS and their support people.

Real-world treatment preferences among health care providers in the United States in selecting disease modifying therapies for patients with multiple sclerosis: a discrete choice experiment.

AIMS: Health care providers (HCPs) treating multiple sclerosis (MS) in clinical practice have numerous disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) to consider when evaluating treatment options. This study assessed the treatment preferences of HCPs in the United States, both direct (explicit) and derived (explicit and implicit), when selecting MS DMTs based on clinical and logistical treatment attributes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 45-minute web-enabled questionnaire was administered to HCPs who manage patients with MS to assess the importance of treatment attributes. HCPs were recruited through an online panel. This study examined treatment attributes relevant to treatment decisions in MS, with a focus on the burden to HCPs and their staff, as well as HCP attitudes toward various aspects of MS care such as diagnosis, treatment prioritization, and ease of initiating or switching DMTs. The study also employed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to assess direct and derived treatment preferences. RESULTS: The study recruited 145 HCPs. Direct assessments (a score of greater than 7.0 was considered important) suggested that safety (mean importance rating = 7.8/9) and relative risk reduction in relapses (7.6/9) and disability progression (7.5/9) were most important when selecting DMTs. In contrast, derived importance from the DCE (higher points corresponding to greater importance) suggested that logistical attributes such as dose frequency (mean relative attribute importance = 17.5%), dose titration (10.3%), formulation (9.4%), and volume of calls (9.1%) were important considerations, along with efficacy (16.5%), safety (9.8%), and gastrointestinal tolerability (9.4%). LIMITATIONS: This study may have been subject to selection bias due to the application of eligibility criteria, the convenient sampling recruitment methodology, and recruitment of HCPs with internet access. CONCLUSION: In the direct assessment, clinical attributes were chosen as the most important treatment attributes by HCPs. However, in the DCE, derived treatment decisions rated logistical attributes as also being as important in treatment choice.

In this study, researchers aimed to understand what multiple sclerosis (MS) neurologists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants think is most important when choosing medicines for their patients. They surveyed 145 health care providers (HCPs) in the United States for this study. The HCPs reported that safety and reducing the risk of relapses and disability were most important when selecting medicines. Additionally, the researchers used a method called a discrete choice experiment to determine the relative importance of medication characteristics to HCPs. They found that additional factors, such as how often the medicine needs to be taken, how it is given, and how easy it is to use, were also very important. The study may not represent the opinions of all HCPs due to the number of participants and participation criteria.

Real-World Safety and Effectiveness After 5 Years of Dimethyl Fumarate Treatment in Black and Hispanic Patients with Multiple Sclerosis in ESTEEM.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical trials have included low numbers of patients from racial and ethnic minority populations; therefore, it is uncertain whether differences exist in response to disease-modifying therapies. We evaluated the real-world safety and effectiveness of dimethyl fumarate (DMF) treatment over 5 years in four patient cohorts: Black, non-Black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic people with relapsing-remitting MS. METHODS: ESTEEM is an ongoing, 5-year, multinational, prospective study evaluating the long-term safety and effectiveness of DMF in people with MS. The analysis included patients newly prescribed DMF in routine practice at 393 sites globally. RESULTS: Overall, 5251 patients were analyzed (220 Black, 5031 non-Black; 105 Hispanic, 5146 non-Hispanic). Median (min-max) months of follow-up was 32 (0-72) for Black, 29 (1-77) for Hispanic, and 41 (0-85) for both the non-Black and non-Hispanic populations. In total, 39 (18%) Black and 29 (28%) Hispanic patients reported adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation versus 1126 (22%) non-Black and 1136 (22%) non-Hispanic patients; gastrointestinal disorders were the most common in all subgroups. Median lymphocyte counts decreased by 37% in Black, 40% in non-Black, 10% in Hispanic, and 39% in non-Hispanic patients in the first year, then remained stable and above the lower limit of normal in most patients. Annualized relapse rates (ARRs) (95% confidence intervals) up to 5 years were 0.054 (0.038-0.078) for Black, 0.077 (0.072-0.081) for non-Black, 0.069 (0.043-0.112) for Hispanic, and 0.076 (0.072-0.081) for non-Hispanic populations, representing reductions of 91-92% compared with ARR 12 months before study entry (all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The safety profile of DMF in these subgroups was consistent with the overall ESTEEM population. Relapse rates remained low in Black and Hispanic patients, and consistent with non-Black and non-Hispanic patients. These data demonstrate a comparable real-world treatment benefit of DMF in Black and Hispanic patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02047097.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons of Diroximel Fumarate, Ponesimod, and Teriflunomide for Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis.

INTRODUCTION: Diroximel fumarate (DRF), ponesimod (PON), and teriflunomide (TERI) are oral disease-modifying therapies approved for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. No randomized trials have compared DRF versus PON or TERI. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this analysis were to compare DRF versus PON and DRF versus TERI for clinical and radiological outcomes. METHODS: We used individual patient data from EVOLVE-MS-1, a 2-year, open-label, single-arm, phase III trial of DRF (n = 1057), and aggregated data from OPTIMUM, a 2-year, double-blind, phase III trial comparing PON (n = 567) and TERI (n = 566). To account for cross-trial differences, EVOLVE-MS-1 data were weighted to match OPTIMUM's average baseline characteristics using an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison. We examined the outcomes of annualized relapse rate (ARR), 12-week confirmed disability progression (CDP), 24-week CDP, absence of gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) T1 lesions, and absence of new/newly enlarging T2 lesions. RESULTS: After weighting, we did not observe strong evidence of differences between DRF and PON for ARR [DRF versus PON incidence rate difference (IRD) -0.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.08, 0.04; incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.92; 95% CI 0.61, 1.2], 12-week CDP [risk difference (RD) -2.5%; 95% CI -6.3, 1.2; risk ratio (RR) 0.76; 95% CI 0.38, 1.1], 24-week CDP (RD -2.7%; 95% CI -6.0, 0.63; RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.28, 1.0), and absence of new/newly enlarging T2 lesions (RD -2.5%; 95% CI -13, 7.4; RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.70, 1.2). However, a higher proportion of DRF-treated patients were free of Gd+ T1 lesions than PON-treated patients (RD 11%; 95% CI 6.0, 16; RR 1.1; 95% CI 1.06, 1.2). Compared with TERI, DRF showed improved ARR (IRD -0.08; 95% CI -0.15, -0.01; IRR 0.74; 95% CI 0.50, 0.94), 12-week CDP (RD -4.2%; 95% CI -7.9, -0.48; RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.38, 0.90), 24-week CDP (RD -4.3%; 95% CI -7.7, -1.1; RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.26, 0.81), and absence of Gd+ T1 lesions (RD 25%; 95% CI 19, 30; RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.3, 1.5). However, DRF and TERI did not appear to differ significantly with respect to absence of new/newly enlarging T2 lesions when based on comparisons using the overall EVOLVE-MS-1 sample (RD 8.5%; 95% CI -0.93, 18; RR 1.3; 95% CI 0.94, 1.6), or in a sensitivity analysis restricted to newly enrolled EVOLVE-MS-1 patients (RD 2.7%; 95% CI -9.1, 14; RR 1.1; 95% CI 0.68, 1.5). CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe differences between DRF and PON for ARR, CDP, and absence of new/newly enlarging T2 lesions, but there was a higher proportion of patients free of Gd+ T1 lesions among DRF-treated patients than PON-treated patients. DRF had improved efficacy versus TERI for all clinical and radiological outcomes, except for absence of new/newly enlarging T2 lesions. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: EVOLVE-MS-1 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02634307); OPTIMUM (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02425644).

Efficacy of Dimethyl Fumarate in Young Adults with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: Analysis of the DEFINE, CONFIRM, and ENDORSE Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) showed favorable benefit-risk in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) in phase 3 DEFINE and CONFIRM trials and in the ENDORSE extension study. Disease activity can differ in younger patients with MS compared with the overall population. METHODS: Randomized patients received DMF 240 mg twice daily or placebo (PBO; years 0-2 DEFINE/CONFIRM), then DMF (years 3-10; continuous DMF/DMF or PBO/DMF; ENDORSE); maximum follow-up (combined studies) was 13 years. This integrated post hoc analysis evaluated safety and efficacy of DMF in a subgroup of young adults aged 18-29 years. RESULTS: Of 1736 patients enrolled in ENDORSE, 125 were young adults, 86 treated continuously with DMF (DMF/DMF) and 39 received delayed DMF (PBO/DMF) in DEFINE/CONFIRM. Most (n = 116 [93%]) young adults completed DMF treatment in DEFINE/CONFIRM. Median (range) follow-up time in ENDORSE was 6.5 (2.0-10.0) years. Young adults entering ENDORSE who had been treated with DMF in DEFINE/CONFIRM had a model-based Annualized Relapse Rate (ARR; 95% CI) of 0.24 (0.16-0.35) vs. 0.56 (0.35-0.88) in PBO patients. ARR remained low in ENDORSE: 0.07 (0.01-0.47) at years 9-10 (DMF/DMF group). At year 10 of ENDORSE, EDSS scores were low in young adults: DMF/DMF, 1.9 (1.4); PBO/DMF, 2.4 (1.6). At ~ 7 years, the proportion of young adults with no confirmed disability progresion was 81% for DMF/DMF and 72% for PBO/DMF. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (SF-36 and EQ-5D) generally remained stable during ENDORSE. The most common adverse events (AEs) in young adults during ENDORSE were MS relapse (n = 53 [42%]). Most AEs were mild (n = 20 [23.3%], n = 7 [17.9%]) to moderate (n = 45 [52.3%], n = 23 [59.0%]) in the DMF/DMF and PBO/DMF groups, respectively. The most common serious AE (SAE) was MS relapse (n = 19 [15%]). CONCLUSION: The data support a favorable benefit-risk profile of DMF in young adults, as evidenced by well-characterized safety, sustained efficacy, and stable PROs. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: Clinical trials.gov, DEFINE (NCT00420212), CONFIRM (NCT00451451), and ENDORSE (NCT00835770).

Real-World Analysis Affirms the High Persistence and Adherence Observed with Diroximel Fumarate in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis.

INTRODUCTION: Adherence to disease-modifying therapies is key for achieving optimal outcomes in multiple sclerosis (MS). Diroximel fumarate (DRF) is an oral fumarate approved for treatment of relapsing forms of MS. It has the same pharmacologically active metabolite as dimethyl fumarate (DMF) and similar efficacy and safety profiles, but with demonstrated fewer gastrointestinal (GI) related adverse events (AEs). There are limited data characterizing persistence and adherence to DRF in the real world. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of the AcariaHealth Specialty Pharmacy Program included patients with MS initiating DRF from 1 December 2019 to 30 January 2021. This analysis evaluated persistence, measured as proportion of patients remaining on therapy; discontinuation rate due to GI AEs; and adherence measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). RESULTS: Overall, 1143 patients were included; 433 (37.9%) patients had been treated with prior DMF and switched to DRF. Persistence was high in both groups: the estimated proportion of patients remaining on DRF at 16 months was 82.3% [95% confidence internal (CI) 77.2-86.3%], and 90.1% (95% CI 82.2-94.6%) in the DMF to DRF group. Fifty-two (4.5%) patients overall and 15 (3.5%) in the DMF switch subgroup discontinued DRF due to GI AEs. Mean PDC was 90.8% (95% CI 89.2-92.5%), and 85.4% (95% CI 83.3-87.4%) of patients achieved PDC ≥ 80% in the overall population. In the DMF to DRF group, mean PDC was 90.7% (95% CI 88.0-93.5%), and 84.8% (95% CI 81.4-88.1%) of patients achieved PDC ≥ 80%. CONCLUSION: In this analysis of  > 1000 patients treated with DRF in real-world clinical practice, overall persistence at 16 months was high, treatment discontinuation due to GI AEs was low, and patients were highly adherent to therapy. Of 433 patients who switched from DMF to DRF, most (> 90%) were able to tolerate and persist on DRF after switching. Graphical abstract available for this article.

Dimethyl fumarate is associated with lower rates of infection and lower infection-related healthcare costs when compared with ocrelizumab.

BACKGROUND: Infections in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) may have a detrimental effect on disease progression, risk of hospitalization, and healthcare resource utilization (HRU). The infection risk and HRU costs may vary between disease-modifying therapies (DMTs); however, the individual risks and differences associated with DMTs are not well characterized. Some DMTs may increase the risk for infections in PwMS; however, previous studies have reported an intact humoral immune response in dimethyl fumarate (DMF)-treated patients. The objective was to compare infection-related HRU and healthcare costs (HCCs) between PwMS treated with DMF or ocrelizumab (OCR). METHODS: Eligible patients were identified from the Optum US claims database between April 2017 and September 2020 (DMF n = 1429; OCR n = 3170). Patients were followed from index date to first occurrence of: (1) end of study, (2) end of insurance eligibility, (3) discontinuation of index DMT, or (4) switch from index DMT to another DMT. Outcomes were annualized rate of infection encounters (defined as infection encounters [n] during follow-up window / days followed [n] × 365); annualized infection-related HCCs (defined as aggregated costs of infection encounters during follow-up window / days followed [n] × 365); location-specific infections, and overall infection-related events. Propensity score matching (PSM) 1:1 method was used; PS was calculated via logistic regression for probability of DMF treatment conditional on demographics and comorbidities. Mean differences (MD) were reported for infection encounter measures. RESULTS: After PSM, DMF and OCR cohorts (n = 1094 in each cohort) were balanced based on baseline characteristics (standardized MD of adjusted baseline characteristics <0.1). Mean (standard deviation) follow-up was 296 (244) days for DMF patients and 297 (243) for OCR patients. DMF patients experienced lower annualized rates of overall infection encounters vs OCR patients (MD -0.51 [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.92 to -0.11], p = 0.01). When stratified by type of infection encounter, DMF patients experienced significantly lower annualized rates of outpatient (MD [95% CI]: -0.44 [-0.80 to -0.08], p = 0.02) and inpatient/hospitalization infection encounters (-0.08 [-0.14 to -0.02], p<0.01) vs OCR patients. A trend towards a shorter duration of infection-related hospitalization in the DMF vs the OCR group was observed (MD [95% CI]: -2.20 [-4.73 to 0.26] days, p = 0.08). The most common infection types in both DMT groups were urinary tract infections, sepsis, and pneumonia. DMF patients experienced lower annualized infection-related HCCs (MD [95% CI]: -$3642 [-$6380 to -$904], p < 0.01) vs OCR patients, which were driven largely by infection-related hospitalization costs (-$3639 [-$6019 to -$1259], p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: DMF-treated patients PS-matched with OCR patients experienced lower annualized rates of infection encounters and lower infection-related HCCs.

A propensity-matched comparison of long-term disability worsening in patients with multiple sclerosis treated with dimethyl fumarate or fingolimod.

BACKGROUND: Although the aggregate of data among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have shown similar efficacy between dimethyl fumarate (DMF) and fingolimod (FTY), most studies have not assessed long-term worsening of disability. We compared long-term disability worsening over 5 years, as assessed by the Patient-Determined Disease Steps (PDDS), among participants with MS treated with DMF or FTY. METHODS: We identified individuals in the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis (NARCOMS) registry who had relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), residing in the United States (Spring 2011 to Spring 2018), who initiated treatment with DMF (n = 689) or FTY (n = 565) and had ⩾1 year follow-up on index treatment. Participants receiving DMF who were previously treated with FTY and those on FTY previously treated with DMF were excluded. Propensity score matching at baseline was used to match FTY-treated to DMF-treated participants. Time to 6-month confirmed disability worsening (⩾1-point increase on PDDS, sustained for ⩾6 months) was estimated using Cox regression. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to account for differences in the duration of index exposure between DMF and FTY groups. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 468 DMF-treated participants were matched with 468 FTY-treated participants. Median treatment duration was 3.0 years for DMF and 4.0 years for FTY. At 5 years, 68.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 62.4-73.5] of DMF-treated participants and 63.3% (95% CI: 59.6-70.1) treated with FTY were free from 6-month confirmed PDDS worsening [hazard ratio (HR) 1.01 (95% CI: 0.79-1.28); p = 0.95]. Results were similar in the sensitivity analysis: 70.5% (95% CI: 61.8-77.6) of DMF-treated participants and 72.7% (95% CI: 65.4-78.6) of FTY-treated participants were free from 6-month confirmed PDDS worsening [HR: 1.04 (95% CI: 0.71-1.51); p = 0.84]. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with MS from the NARCOMS registry, there was no significant difference in confirmed disability (PDDS) worsening over 5 years between those treated with DMF versus FTY.

Multiple Sclerosis Patients Treated With Diroximel Fumarate in the Real-World Setting Have High Rates of Persistence and Adherence.

INTRODUCTION: Persistence to multiple sclerosis (MS) disease-modifying therapy is fundamental for maximal treatment outcomes. Diroximel fumarate (DRF) is approved in the USA for relapsing MS. Following oral administration, DRF is metabolized to monomethyl fumarate, the active metabolite of dimethyl fumarate (DMF). DRF showed clinically significant improvements in gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability versus DMF in a head-to-head clinical trial; however, real-world persistence/adherence has not been assessed. We evaluated persistence/adherence in DRF-treated patients in a real-world clinical practice. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of the AcariaHealth Specialty Pharmacy Program included patients initiating DRF from 4 December 2019 through 3 April 2020 and followed until data extraction (31 August 2020). Exclusion criteria included undetermined treatment status (e.g., DRF prescription transfer to a different pharmacy). Endpoints included persistence (overall proportion of patients remaining on DRF), discontinuation rate due to GI adverse events (AEs), and adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC]). GI AEs included GI-related AEs occurring at any time, or any unknown AE without details about the nature of the event if the unknown AE occurred ≤ 90 days after DRF initiation. RESULTS: Overall, 160 patients with MS were included. Median (range) patient age was 51 (20-79) years, 80.6% (129/160) of patients were female, and 16.3% (26/160) had prior DMF treatment. Median (range) treatment duration was 7.6 (0.1-10.4) months. Estimated proportion of patients remaining persistent on DRF treatment at 8 months was 88.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82.5-2.7). Overall, 3.8% (6/160) of patients discontinued due to GI AEs. Mean PDC was 91.4% (95% CI 89.1-93.7). In a DMF-to-DRF switch subgroup, 92.3% (24/26) remained persistent on DRF, and 3.8% (1/26) discontinued DRF due to GI AEs. CONCLUSION: This real-world analysis of DRF-treated patients showed high overall persistence, low discontinuation rate due to GI AEs, and high adherence to therapy, aligning with expectations based on DRF clinical trials. Data were consistent in the DMF-to-DRF subgroup. INFOGRAPHIC.

Characterizing Long-term Disability Progression and Employment in NARCOMS Registry Participants with Multiple Sclerosis Taking Dimethyl Fumarate.

BACKGROUND: Delayed-release dimethyl fumarate (DMF) is effective in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), but long-term effects of DMF on disability and disease progression in clinical settings are unknown. We evaluated disability and employment outcomes in persons with RRMS treated with DMF for up to 5 years. METHODS: This longitudinal study included US North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis (NARCOMS) Registry participants with RRMS reporting DMF initiation in fall 2013 through spring 2018 with 1 year or more of follow-up. Time to 6-month confirmed disability progression (≥1-point increase in Patient-Determined Disease Steps [PDDS] score) and change in employment status were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Participants were censored at last follow-up or at DMF discontinuation, whichever came first. RESULTS: During the study, 725 US participants with RRMS had at least 1 year of DMF follow-up data, of whom most were female and White. At year 5, 69.9% (95% CI, 65.4%-73.9%) of these participants were free from 6-month confirmed disability progression, and 84.7% (95% CI, 78.6%-89.2%) were free from conversion to secondary progressive MS. Of 116 participants with data at baseline and year 5, most had stable or improved PDDS and Performance Scales scores over 5 years. Of 322 participants 62 years and younger and employed at the index survey, 66.0% (95% CI, 57.6%-73.1%) were free from a negative change in employment type over 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Most US NARCOMS Registry participants treated up to 5 years with DMF remained free from 6-month confirmed disability progression and conversion to secondary progressive MS and had stable disability and employment status. These results support the long-term stability of disability and work-related outcomes with disease-modifying therapy.

Real-World Safety and Effectiveness of Dimethyl Fumarate in Hispanic or Latino Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: 3-Year Results from ESTEEM.

INTRODUCTION: Compared with the non-Hispanic/non-Latino population, Hispanic/Latino patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are reported to exhibit greater disease severity. Geographical location and genetics play a role in differences observed across Hispanic/Latino subpopulations. We evaluated real-world safety and effectiveness of dimethyl fumarate (DMF) on MS disease activity in Hispanic/Latino patients. METHODS: ESTEEM is an ongoing, 5-year, multinational, prospective study evaluating long-term safety and effectiveness of DMF in patients with MS. This interim analysis included patients newly prescribed DMF in routine practice at 394 sites globally. RESULTS: Overall, 4986 non-Hispanic/non-Latino and 98 Hispanic/Latino patients were analyzed; median (range) follow-up was 18 (2-37) months. Unadjusted annualized relapse rates (ARRs) for 12 months before DMF initiation versus 36 months post DMF initiation, respectively, were: non-Hispanic/non-Latino patients, 0.82 (95% CI 0.80-0.84) versus 0.10 (95% CI 0.09-0.10), 88% lower ARR (P < 0.0001); Hispanic/Latino patients, 0.80 (95% CI 0.65-1.00) versus 0.09 (95% CI 0.06-0.14), 89% lower ARR (P < 0.0001). In total, 28 (29%) Hispanic/Latino patients reported adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation; gastrointestinal (GI) disorders (n = 10, 10%) were the most common, consistent with the non-Hispanic/non-Latino population (8%). Median lymphocyte counts decreased by approximately 24% in the first year (vs 36% decrease in non-Hispanic/non-Latino patients) then remained stable and above the lower limit of normal in most patients. CONCLUSIONS: Relapse rates remained low in Hispanic/Latino patients, consistent with non-Hispanic/non-Latino patients. The safety profile of DMF in Hispanic/Latino patients was consistent with safety findings from the non-Hispanic/non-Latino ESTEEM population, demonstrating the real-world treatment benefit of DMF in the Hispanic/Latino patient cohort.

Real-World Safety and Effectiveness of Dimethyl Fumarate in Black or African American Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: 3-Year Results from ESTEEM.

INTRODUCTION: Black or African American (black/AA) patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are reported to exhibit greater disease severity compared with non-black or non-AA patients. Whether differences exist in response to MS disease-modifying therapies remains uncertain, as MS clinical trials have included low numbers of non-white patients. We evaluated real-world safety and effectiveness of dimethyl fumarate (DMF) on MS disease activity in black/AA patients. METHODS: ESTEEM is an ongoing, 5-year, multinational, prospective study evaluating long-term safety and effectiveness of DMF in patients with MS. This interim analysis included patients newly prescribed DMF in routine practice at 394 sites globally. RESULTS: Overall, 4897 non-black/non-AA and 187 black/AA patients were analyzed; median (range) follow-up 18 (2-37) months. Unadjusted annualized relapse rates (ARRs) for 12 months before DMF initiation versus 36 months post DMF initiation, respectively, were: non-black/non-AA patients, 0.83 (95% CI 0.80-0.85) versus 0.10 (95% CI 0.09-0.10), 88% lower ARR (P < 0.0001); black/AA patients, 0.68 (95% CI 0.58-0.80) versus 0.07 (95% CI 0.05-0.10), 90% lower ARR (P < 0.0001). In total, 35 (19%) black/AA patients reported adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation; gastrointestinal disorders were most common (7%), consistent with non-black/non-AA patients (8%). Median lymphocyte counts decreased by 22% in the first year (vs 36% in non-black/non-AA patients), then remained stable and above lower limit of normal in most patients. CONCLUSIONS: Relapse rates remained low in black/AA patients, consistent with non-black/non-AA patients. The safety profile of DMF in black/AA patients was consistent with that in the non-black/non-AA ESTEEM population, although lymphocyte decrease was less pronounced in black/AA patients.

Comparative effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate versus glatiramer acetate in multiple sclerosis patients: results of a matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

AIM: Using matching-adjusted indirect comparison, we compared efficacy outcomes in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treated with delayed-release dimethyl fumarate (DMF) or glatiramer acetate (GA). MATERIALS & METHODS: An indirect comparison of DMF (patient-level data) and GA (aggregate data) was conducted, with average baseline characteristics of DMF patients weighted to match those for GA patients. Direct comparison of DMF and GA was conducted in CONFIRM. Final results pooled the indirect and direct comparisons using meta-analysis. RESULTS: After matching, baseline characteristics were balanced between DMF and GA patients. Compared with GA, efficacy was significantly in favor of DMF as measured by annualized relapse rate (rate ratio: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.57-1.00; p = 0.0474) and 12-week confirmed disability progression (risk ratio: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.46-0.76; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: DMF demonstrated superior clinical efficacy versus GA.

Comparative effectiveness using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison between delayed-release dimethyl fumarate and fingolimod for the treatment of multiple sclerosis.

OBJECTIVE: Delayed-release dimethyl fumarate (DMF; also known as gastro-resistant DMF) and fingolimod are approved oral disease-modifying treatments for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. In phase 3 trials, DMF (DEFINE/CONFIRM) and fingolimod (FREEDOMS/FREEDOMS II) resulted in significant reductions in clinical and magnetic resonance imaging activity, with acceptable safety profiles. Direct comparisons of these treatments are not possible due to a lack of head-to-head trials. We compared 2 year efficacy of DMF versus fingolimod at the approved dosage using a matching-adjusted indirect approach. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Individual patient data from DEFINE and CONFIRM, and aggregate data from FREEDOMS and FREEDOMS II, were pooled and compared using the matching-adjusted in-direct method. To account for cross-trial differences, data from trials with available individual patient data were adjusted to match aggregate data (i.e. average patient characteristics) from trials without patient-level data. Data from DMF-treated patients were weighted such that average baseline characteristics matched those of fingolimod-treated patients. After matching, weighted treatment outcomes for DMF-treated patients (240 mg twice daily) were compared with summary outcomes for fingolimod-treated patients (0.5 mg once daily). All comparison results of DMF versus fingolimod used fingolimod as the reference. RESULTS: After matching, baseline characteristics were balanced between DMF and fingolimod. At year 2, the efficacy of DMF was similar to that of fingolimod for annualized relapse rate (rate ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.11 [0.88, 1.40]), 12 week confirmed disability progression (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.90 [0.63, 1.29]), and Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (mean difference [95% CI]: 0.04 [-0.05, 0.13]). For patient-reported outcomes (EuroQoL 5-Dimensions questionnaire), the mean differences (95% CI) were 0.05 (0.01, 0.08) for utility score and 3.22 (0.58, 5.86) for visual analog scale score, significantly favoring DMF. There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) for DMF versus fingolimod among matching-adjusted patients with complete NEDA data: rate ratio (95% CI): 0.92 (0.51, 1.64). CONCLUSIONS: Using the matching-adjusted indirect comparison approach, the efficacy of DMF and fingolimod were similar on all clinical outcomes, while patient-reported outcomes showed greater benefit with DMF. Study limitations include possible confounding from unobserved/unknown differences between trials, and trial length may have been insufficient to detect significant differences on disability progression. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00420212 (DEFINE); NCT00451451 (CONFIRM); NCT00289978 (FREEDOMS); NCT00355134 (FREEDOMS II).