RESUMO
Aim: Diroximel fumarate (DRF), ozanimod (OZA) and interferon beta-1a (IFN) are disease-modifying therapies approved for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. No randomized trials have compared DRF versus OZA and IFN. We compared DRF versus OZA and DRF versus IFN using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons for efficacy outcomes, including annualized relapse rate (ARR), 12- and 24-week confirmed disability progression (CDP) and absence of gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) T1 lesions and new/newly enlarging T2 lesions. Patients & methods: We used individual patient data from EVOLVE-MS-1 (NCT02634307), a 2-year, open-label, single-arm, phase III study of DRF (n = 1057) and aggregate data from RADIANCE (NCT02047734), a 2-year, double-blind, phase III study that compared OZA 1 mg once daily (n = 433) and intramuscular IFN 30 µg once weekly (n = 441). To account for cross-trial differences, the EVOLVE-MS-1 population was restricted to those who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for RADIANCE, then weighted to match the average baseline characteristics of RADIANCE. Results: After weighting, DRF and OZA had similar ARRs (0.18 and 0.17, respectively), with a rate difference (DRF vs OZA) of 0.01 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.04 to 0.06). DRF had a lower ARR than IFN (0.18 and 0.28, respectively), with a rate difference (DRF vs IFN) of -0.10 (95% CI: -0.16 to -0.04) after weighting. Outcomes for 12- and 24-week CDP favored DRF versus OZA; 12-week CDP favored DRF versus IFN, but there was not strong evidence favoring DRF over IFN for 24-week CDP. Compared with OZA and IFN, DRF had higher proportions of patients without Gd+ T1 lesions and patients without new/newly enlarging T2 lesions. Conclusion: Disability progression and radiological outcomes were favorable for DRF versus OZA, although no differences were observed in ARR. Clinical and radiological outcomes generally favored DRF versus IFN. These findings may be informative for patients and clinicians considering different treatment options for MS.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: In EVOLVE-MS-1 (NCT02634307), mean absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) on diroximel fumarate (DRF) declined from baseline by approximately 28% in year 1, then stabilized, similar to ALC decline observed with dimethyl fumarate (DMF). Prior studies reported that clinical efficacy of DMF was not substantially different in patients with and without lymphopenia. METHODS: EVOLVE-MS-1-an open-label, 96-week, phase 3 study-assessed DRF safety and exploratory efficacy in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. This study analyzes efficacy-related outcomes comparing (1) patients with lymphopenia (≥ 1 ALC below lower limit of normal [LLN]) and without (all ALCs ≥ LLN); (2) across quartiles stratified by week 96 ALC decline from baseline: Q1 (≥ 47% decline); Q2 (30% to < 47% decline); Q3 (12% to < 30% decline); Q4 (< 12% decline). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between patients without (n = 593) and with lymphopenia (n = 452). At week 96, adjusted annualized relapse rate (ARR; 95% confidence interval) was 0.14 (0.11-0.17) without lymphopenia and 0.12 (0.09-0.15) with lymphopenia. Estimated proportions with 12-week confirmed disability progression (CDP12) at week 96 were 10.2% without and 9.3% with lymphopenia. When stratified by quartiles (Q1-Q4), ARR at week 96 was 0.11 (Q1), 0.09 (Q2), 0.13 (Q3), and 0.17 (Q4). Estimated proportions with CDP12 at week 96 were 9.6% (Q1), 10.2% (Q2), 5.7% (Q3), and 10.9% (Q4). At week 96, no evidence of disease activity was achieved by 47.2% (Q1), 47.8% (Q2), 45.4% (Q3), and 37.3% (Q4) of patients. CONCLUSION: In DRF-treated patients in EVOLVE-MS-1, clinical and radiological measurements indicated reduced disease activity regardless of lymphopenia or magnitude of ALC decline from baseline; however, patients who had greater ALC declines appeared to have numerically lower ARR and higher proportions free from relapses and gadolinium-enhancing lesions compared with those with smallest decline. This supports prior evidence that, while lymphopenia may contribute to fumarate efficacy outcomes, it is not the primary mechanism of action. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02634307.
RESUMO
People with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) have an increased risk of infection. As disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) and other treatments may interact with the immune system, there may be concerns about vaccine efficacy and safety. Therefore, it is important to evaluate possible interactions between DMTs and vaccines. The fumarates, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, and monomethyl fumarate, are approved for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. This review assesses the evidence on vaccine response in pwMS treated with fumarates, with a particular focus on COVID-19 vaccines. Treatment with fumarates does not appear to result in blunting of humoral responses to vaccination; for COVID-19 vaccines, particularly RNA-based vaccines, evidence indicates antibody responses similar to those of healthy recipients. While data on the effect of fumarates on T-cell responses are limited, they do not indicate any significant blunting. COVID-19 vaccines impart a similar degree of protection against severe COVID-19 infection for pwMS on fumarates as in the general population. Adverse reactions following vaccination are generally consistent with those observed in the wider population; no additional safety signals have emerged in those on fumarates. Additionally, no increase in relapse has been observed in pwMS following vaccination. In pwMS receiving fumarates, vaccination is generally safe and elicits protective immune responses.