Escalating to medium- versus high-efficacy disease modifying therapy after low-efficacy treatment in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: In patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) on low-efficacy disease modifying therapies (DMT), the optimal strategy on how to escalate treatment once needed, remains unknown. METHODS: We studied RRMS patients on low-efficacy DMTs listed in the Swiss National Treatment Registry, who underwent escalation to either medium- or high-efficacy DMTs. Propensity score-based matching was applied using 12 clinically relevant variables. Both groups were also separately matched with control subjects who did not escalate therapy. Time to relapse and to disability worsening were evaluated using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Of 1037 eligible patients, we 1:1 matched 450 MS patients who switched from low-efficacy to medium-efficacy (n = 225; 76.0% females, aged 42.4 ± 9.9 years [mean ± SD], median EDSS 3.0 [IQR 2-4]) or high-efficacy DMTs (n = 225; 72.4% females, aged 42.2 ± 10.6 years, median EDSS 3.0 [IQR 2-4]). Escalation to high-efficacy DMTs was associated with lower hazards of relapses than medium-efficacy DMTs (HR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.47-0.95, p = .027) or control subjects (HR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.84, p = .003). By contrast, escalation from low to medium-efficacy DMTs did not alter the hazard for relapses when compared to controls (i.e. patients on low-efficacy DMT who did not escalate DMT during follow-up) CONCLUSION: Our nationwide registry analysis suggests that, once escalation from a low-efficacy DMT is indicated, switching directly to a high-efficacy treatment is superior to a stepwise escalation starting with a moderate-efficacy treatment.

Comparative analysis of dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), analyses from observational studies comparing dimethyl fumarate (DMF) and teriflunomide showed conflicting results. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of DMF and teriflunomide in a real-world setting, where both drugs are licensed as first-line therapies for RRMS. METHODS: We included all patients who initiated DMF or teriflunomide between 2013 and 2022, listed in the Swiss National Treatment Registry. Coarsened exact matching was applied using age, gender, disease duration, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, time since last relapse, and relapse rate in the previous year as matching variables. Time to relapse and time to 12-month confirmed EDSS worsening were compared using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: In total, 2028 patients were included in this study, of whom 1498 were matched (DMF: n = 1090, 69.6% female, mean age 45.1 years, median EDSS score 2.0; teriflunomide: n = 408, 68.9% female, mean age 45.1 years, median EDSS score 2.0). Time to relapse and time to EDSS worsening was longer in the DMF than the teriflunomide group (hazard ratio 0.734, p = 0.026 and hazard ratio 0.576, p = 0.003, respectively). CONCLUSION: Analysis of real-world data showed that DMF treatment was associated with more favorable outcomes than teriflunomide treatment.

Disability progression in relapse-free multiple sclerosis patients on fingolimod versus interferon-beta/glatiramer acetate.

BACKGROUND: Disability progression independent of relapses (PIRA) has been described as a frequent phenomenon in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). OBJECTIVE: To compare the occurrence of disability progression in relapse-free RRMS patients on interferon-beta/glatiramer acetate (IFN/GA) versus fingolimod. METHODS: This study is based on data from the Swiss association for joint tasks of health insurers. Time to relapse and 12-month confirmed disability progression were compared between treatment groups using multivariable Cox regression analysis with confounder adjustment. Inverse-probability weighting was applied to correct for the bias that patients on fingolimod have a higher chance to remain relapse-free than patients on IFN/GA. RESULTS: We included 1640 patients (64% IFN/GA, 36% fingolimod, median total follow-up time = 4-5 years). Disease-modifying treatment (DMT) groups were well balanced with regard to potential confounders. Disability progression was observed in 155 patients (8.8%) on IFN/GA and 51 (7.6%) on fingolimod, of which 44 and 23 were relapse-free during the initial DMT, respectively. Adjusted standard regression analysis on all patients indicated that those on fingolimod experience less frequently disability progression compared with IFN/GA (hazard ratio = 0.53 (95% confidence interval = 0.37-0.76)). After bias correction, this was also true for patients without relapses (hazard ratio=0.56 (95% confidence interval = 0.32-0.98). CONCLUSION: Our analysis indicates that fingolimod is superior to IFN/GA in preventing disability progression in both relapsing and relapse-free, young, newly diagnosed RRMS patients.

Comparative analysis of dimethyl fumarate and fingolimod in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Dimethyl fumarate and fingolimod are oral disease modifying treatments (DMTs) that reduce relapse activity and slow disability worsening in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of dimethyl fumarate and fingolimod in a real-world setting, where both agents are licensed as a first-line DMT for the treatment of RRMS. METHODS: We identified patients with RRMS commencing dimethyl fumarate or fingolimod in the Swiss Federation for Common Tasks of Health Insurances (SVK) Registry between August 2014 and July 2019. Propensity score-matching was applied to select subpopulations with comparable baseline characteristics. Relapses and disability outcomes were compared in paired, pairwise-censored analyses. RESULTS: Of the 2113 included patients, 1922 were matched (dimethyl fumarate, n = 961; fingolimod, n = 961). Relapse rates did not differ between the groups (incident rate ratio 1.0, 95%CI 0.8-1.2, p = 0.86). Moreover, no difference in the hazard of 1-year confirmed disability worsening (hazard ratio [HR] 0.9; 95%CI 0.6-1.6; p = 0.80) or disability improvement (HR 0.9; 95%CI 0.6-1.2; p = 0.40) was detected. These findings were consistent both for treatment-naïve patients and patients switching from another DMT. CONCLUSION: Dimethyl fumarate and fingolimod have comparable effectiveness regarding reduction of relapses and disability worsening in RRMS.

Comparative analysis of natalizumab versus fingolimod as second-line treatment in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: No randomized controlled trials have compared the efficacy of fingolimod or natalizumab as second-line treatment in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcomes after escalation to fingolimod versus natalizumab in patients with clinically active RRMS. METHODS: Using the registry of the Swiss Federation for Common Tasks of Health Insurances, we identified patients with RRMS and ≥1 relapse in the year before switching from interferon beta or glatiramer acetate to fingolimod or natalizumab. Propensity score matching was used to select patients with comparable baseline characteristics. Relapse and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) outcomes were compared in paired, pairwise-censored analyses. RESULTS: Of the 547 included patients, 358 were matched (fingolimod, n = 179; natalizumab, n = 179). Median follow-up time was 1.8 years (interquartile range 0.9-2.9). Patients switching to natalizumab had a lower risk of relapses (incidence rate ratio 0.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3-0.8, p = 0.001) and were more likely to experience EDSS improvement (hazard ratio (HR) 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-2.7, p = 0.01) compared to fingolimod. We found no differences in the proportion of patients free from EDSS progression (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.5, p = 0.62). CONCLUSION: Natalizumab seems to be more effective in reducing relapse rate and improving disability compared with fingolimod.