Exit strategies for “needle fatigue” in multiple sclerosis: a propensity score-matched comparison study

Dimethyl Fumarate or Teriflunomide for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Meta-analysis of Post-marketing Studies

In the absence of head-to-head comparison trials, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of two largely prescribed oral platform disease-modifying treatments for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, namely, dimethyl fumarate (DMF) and teriflunomide (TRF). We searched scientific databases to identify real-world studies reporting a direct comparison of DMF versus TRF. We fitted inverse-variance weighted meta-analyses with random effects models to estimate the risk ratio (RR) of relapse, confirmed disability worsening (CDW), and treatment discontinuation. Quantitative synthesis was accomplished on 14 articles yielding 11,889 and 8133 patients treated with DMF and TRF, respectively, with a follow-up ranging from 1 to 2.8 years. DMF was slightly more effective than TRF in reducing the short-term relapse risk (RR = 0.92, p = 0.01). Meta-regression analyses showed that such between-arm difference tends to fade in studies including younger patients and a higher proportion of treatment-naïve subjects. There was no difference between DMF and TRF on the short-term risk of CDW (RR = 0.99, p = 0.69). The risk of treatment discontinuation was similar across the two oral drugs (RR = 1.02, p = 0.63), but it became slightly higher with DMF than with TRF (RR = 1.07, p = 0.007) after removing one study with a potential publication bias that altered the final pooled result, as also confirmed by a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis. Discontinuation due to side effects and adverse events was reported more frequently with DMF than with TRF. Our findings suggest that DMF is associated with a lower risk of relapses than TRF, with more nuanced differences in younger naïve patients. On the other hand, TRF is associated with a lower risk of treatment discontinuation for side effects and adverse events.

Effects of horizontal versus vertical switching of disease-modifying treatment after platform drugs on disease activity in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Austria

OBJECTIVES

To compare in a nationwide observational cohort the effectiveness, frequency and reasons for treatment interruption of dimethylfumarate (DMF) and teriflunomide (TERI) (horizontal switchers) versus alemtuzumab (AZM), cladribine (CLAD), fingolimod (FTY), natalizumab (NTZ), ocrelizumab (OCR) and ozanimod (OZA) (vertical switchers) in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (pwRRMS) and prior interferon beta (IFN-beta) or glatiramer-acetate (GLAT) treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The "horizontal switch cohort" included 669 and the "vertical switch cohort" 800 RRMS patients. We used propensity scores for inverse probability weighting in generalized linear (GLM) and Cox proportional hazards models to correct for bias in this non-randomized registry study.

RESULTS

Estimated mean annualized relapse rates (ARR) were 0.39 for horizontal and 0.17 for vertical switchers. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) in the GLM model showed an increased relapse probability of 86% for horizontal versus vertical switchers (IRR = 1.86; 95% CI 1.38-2.50; p < 0.001). Analyzing the time to the first relapse after treatment switch by Cox regression, a hazard ratio of 1.58 (95% CI 1.24-2.02; p < 0.001) indicated an increased risk of 58% for horizontal switchers. The hazard ratios for treatment interruption comparing horizontal versus vertical switchers were 1.78 (95% CI 1.46-2.18; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Horizontal switching after a platform therapy resulted in a higher relapse and interrupt probability and was associated with a trend towards less EDSS improvement comparing to vertical switching in Austrian RRMS patients.

Relationship between Patient Preferences, Attitudes to Treatment, Adherence, and Quality of Life in New Users of Teriflunomide

Background: A poor patient adherence often limits the real-world effectiveness of an oral disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for multiple sclerosis (MS). In the present study, we aimed to map patient preferences, attitudes toward treatment, and quality of life to identify the predictors of non-adherence to teriflunomide. Methods: This was a single-arm, non-interventional, multicenter study (Czech Act 378/2007 Coll.) consisting of three visits: the first at treatment initiation (teriflunomide 14 mg), and then after 3 and 9 months of therapy. We enrolled both DMT-naïve and patients who had undergone a DMT diagnosed with a clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) or relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). The functional status and MS activity were estimated using the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and annualized relapse rate (ARR); the quality of life via the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29); the medication adherence with the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8); the confidence in the ability to take medications by the Self-Efficacy for Appropriate Medication Score (SEAMS); and the attitude to the therapy via the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ). After nine months of therapy, we predicted the adherence to teriflunomide (MMAS-8) by fitting a multivariate ordinal logistic model with EDSS changes, gender, previous DMT, MSIS-29, BMQ, and SEAMS as the explanatory variables. Results: Between 2018 and 2019, 114 patients were enrolled at 10 sites in the Czech Republic. The mean age was 41.2 years, 64.8% were diagnosed with a CIS, 52.4% were DMT-naïve, and 98.1% of patients preferred an oral administration at the baseline. The mean EDSS baseline was 1.97 and remained constant during the 9 months of therapy. The ARR baseline was 0.72 and dropped to 0.19 and 0.15 after 3 and 9 months, respectively. Despite a more than 4-fold higher ARR baseline, the treatment-naïve patients achieved an ARR at 9 months comparable with those previously treated. There were ten non-serious adverse reactions. After nine months of teriflunomide therapy, 63.3%, 21.2%, and 15.4% of patients had a high, medium, and low adherence, respectively, as per the MMAS-8; 100% of patients preferred an oral administration. The SEAMS score (odds ratio (OR) = 0.91; p = 0.013) and previous DMT (OR = 4.28; p = 0.005) were the only significant predictors of non-adherence. The disability, the quality of life, and beliefs about medicines had no measurable effect on adherence. Conclusion: After nine months of teriflunomide therapy, both the disability and quality of life remained stable; the relapse rate significantly decreased, 63.3% of patients had a high adherence, and 100% of patients preferred an oral administration. A low adherence was associated with previous DMT experiences and a low self-efficacy for the appropriate medication (i.e., the confidence in one's ability to take medication correctly).

Objective medication adherence and persistence in people with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

BACKGROUND: Medication adherence is critical for the realization of pharmacotherapy benefits and reduced healthcare expenditure. Studies have shown up to 60% of people with Multiple sclerosis (MS) experience suboptimal medication adherence, which is associated with poorer health outcomes and subsequent discontinuation. The current systematic review reported on objectively measured adherence and discontinuation rates for self-administered oral and injectable disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). OBJECTIVES: To identify whether, in people with MS, the introduction of oral DMTs has improved medication adherence when compared with injectable DMTs. The secondary aim was to report synthesized objectively measured medication adherence and persistence rates for both oral and injectable DMTs in MS across varying study durations. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted through PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycINFO. Inclusion criteria were limited to English, peer-reviewed, objective, self-administered DMT articles, published between July 1993 to December 2019. Publications reporting combined intravenous and self-administered DMT data, or that did not account for DMT switching in discontinuation rates, were excluded. Data were synthesized into observation lengths ranging from less than 8 months to greater than 36 months. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were undertaken on both oral and injectable 12-month adherence and discontinuation data. RESULTS: In total, 61 articles were included; 46 articles examined adherence and 26 examined discontinuation. Twelve-month adherence ranged between 53.0% to 89.2% for oral (N = 7) and 47.0% to 77.4% for injectable DMTs (N = 7). Results from the meta-analysis and meta-regression show significantly higher pooled mean medication possession ratio (MPR) adherence for oral DMTs (91.0%) when compared to injectable DMTs (77.0%) over 12 months (β = -0.146; 95% CI: -0.263 to -0.029). Results indicate major asymmetry across studies (LFK index: -5.18), proposing the presence of significant publication bias. Mean discontinuation over 12 months was between 10.5% to 33.3% for oral (N = 7) and 15.2% to 50.8% for injectable DMTs (N = 10), with meta-analysis results indicating the presence of significant heterogeneity (I2 Injectable: 99.5%; I2 Oral: 93.1%) between studies included in each subgroup. However, no appreciable difference in mean discontinuation rates across groups (Injectable: 27%; 95% Cl: 19.0%-34.0%; Oral: 24%; 95% CI: 17.0%-31.0%) was found. CONCLUSIONS: Medication adherence for oral DMTs suggests a significant improvement compared to adherence for injectable DMTs. No significant difference in discontinuation rates between oral and injectable DMTs was found. Oral DMT adherence and persistence studies are limited, given their relatively recent introduction. Suboptimal medication adherence and discontinuation issues remain present for both oral and injectable DMTs. Future studies would benefit from improved consistency in methodology, such as comparable adherence and persistence definitions. DISCLOSURES: The authors did not receive any funding for this study. Mardan and Hussain have nothing to disclose. Grech reports grants from Merck Pharmaceutical, outside the submitted work. Allan reports grants received from Merck Pharmaceutical outside the submitted work. Allan holds advisory board and consulting positions with Merck and advisory board positions for Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis, for which Monash Institute of Neurological Diseases receives consulting fees.

Newly approved agents for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: how real-world evidence compares with randomized clinical trials?

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, many treatment options have become available for relapsing remitting MS. Randomized clinical trials and real-world studies are complementary sources of information, and together have the potential to offer a comprehensive understanding of the safety and efficacy profiles of each drug, a critical factor for a personalized management of the disease.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the authors provide an up-to-date review of both RCTs and real-world studies assessing the safety and efficacy profiles of recently developed disease-modifying drugs for relapsing remitting MS. These include fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab and ocrelizumab.

EXPERT OPINION

From the authors' review of the literature, the efficacy profiles resulted from RCTs were confirmed by observational studies with regard to the disease-modifying drugs considered. The magnitude of the effects on annualized relapse rates and MRI active lesions was generally even larger in the observational studies compared to RCTs. From the safety point of view, observational studies revealed new adverse events, mostly in the area of bacterial and opportunistic infections, not seen in the relative registration programme. This is a very important gain because it allows to elaborate appropriate strategies to prevent and handle the risks.