Spasticity improvement in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis switching from interferon-β to glatiramer acetate: the Escala Study

Special Considerations and Assessment in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis is a progressive autoimmune neurologic disorder that may affect any region of the central nervous system. Spasticity in patients with multiple sclerosis can be debilitating and detrimental to the function and quality of life of patients. Treatment options include oral medications, chemodenervation, physical therapy, and modalities. Cannabinoids in the form of a delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol oro-mucosal spray has been shown to be effective in addressing spasticity in multiple sclerosis. Successful treatment of spasticity will be integrated, multimodal, and individualized.

Spasticity in multiple sclerosis: Contribution of inflammation, autoimmune mediated neuronal damage and therapeutic interventions

In contrast to other diseases that go along with spasticity (e.g. spinal cord injury), spasticity in chronic autoimmune diseases involving the CNS is complicated by the ongoing damage of neuronal networks that leads to permanent changes in the clinical picture of spasticity. Multiple sclerosis (MS) is the most frequent autoimmune disease of the central nervous system (CNS) and spasticity is one of the most disabling symptoms. It occurs in more than 80% MS patients at some point of the disease and is associated with impaired ambulation, pain and the development of contractures. Besides causing cumulative structural damage, neuroinflammation occurring in MS leads to dynamic changes in motor circuit function and muscle tone that are caused by cytokines, prostaglandins, reactive oxygen species and stress hormones that affect neuronal circuits and thereby spasticity. The situation is complicated further by the fact that therapeutics used for the immunotherapy of MS may worsen spasticity and drugs used for the symptomatic treatment of spasticity have been shown to have the potential to alter immune cell function and CNS autoimmunity itself. This review summarizes the current knowledge on the immunologic pathways that are involved in the development, maintenance, dynamic changes and pharmacological modulation of spasticity in MS.

Cost analysis of glatiramer acetate versus interferon-β for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in patients with spasticity: the Escala study

OBJECTIVE

The Escala Study evidenced that the administration of glatiramer acetate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis improved the spasticity of patients previously treated with interferon-β. However, whether such an improvement was translated into cost savings remained unclear. We therefore conducted a cost analysis of glatiramer acetate versus interferon-β in these patients with multiple sclerosis and spasticity.

METHODS

This cost analysis encompassed data from the observational Escala Study, which included patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and spasticity whose treatment had been switched from interferon-β to glatiramer acetate. Costs prior to starting glatiramer acetate (interferon-β period) were compared to the subsequent six months on glatiramer acetate (glatiramer acetate period). The analysis was carried out following the recommendations for conducting pharmacoeconomic studies and from the Spanish National Health System perspective. Costs associated with multiple sclerosis treatment, spasticity treatment and relapse management were expressed in 2014 euros (€); a 7.5 % discount was applied-when needed-as stipulated in Spanish law.

RESULTS

The management of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, spasticity and relapses accounted for a 6-month cost per patient of 7,078.02€ when using interferon-β and 4,671.31€ when using glatiramer acetate. Switching from interferon-β to glatiramer acetate therefore represented a cost saving of 2,406.72€ per patient in favour of glatiramer acetate, which resulted from savings in treatment costs, relapse management and spasticity treatment of 1,890.02€, 430.48€ and 86.21€, respectively. The ratio of the costs during interferon-β was 1.5 times the costs during glatiramer acetate; thus, a fixed budget of 5,000,000€ would enable 1,070 patients to be treated with glatiramer acetate and only 706 patients with interferon-β.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with glatiramer acetate entailed cost savings when compared to interferon-β in patients with spasticity, which not only resulted from its lower costs of therapy and relapse management but also from its favourable effect on reducing spasticity. Thus, glatiramer acetate may be regarded as a more efficient alternative than interferon-β from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System.

Spasticity in multiple sclerosis and role of glatiramer acetate treatment

INTRODUCTION

Spasticity is one of the most disabling and difficult-to-treat symptoms shown by patients with multiple sclerosis, who often show a suboptimal and unsatisfactory response to classic treatment and new available nonpharmacological alternatives. Due to the progressive nature of this condition, the early management should be essential to improve long-term outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a narrative literature review of the contribution of spasticity to the burden of multiple sclerosis and the potential role of classic disease-modifying drugs.

RESULTS

Added to the underlying pathophysiology of spasticity, certain external factors and drugs such as interferon may exacerbate the existing condition, hence their awareness is crucial as part of an effective management of spasticity. Furthermore, the evidence for the effectiveness of glatiramer acetate in preventing spasticity in naïve patients and in those switching from interferon should not be ignored.

CONCLUSIONS

This literature review proposes the examination of spasticity and the influence of classic disease-modifying agents on the level of existing condition among the variables to be considered when deciding on therapy for multiple sclerosis in clinical practice.

Therapeutic approaches to disease modifying therapy for multiple sclerosis in adults: an Australian and New Zealand perspective: part 3 treatment practicalities and recommendations. MS Neurology Group of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists

In this third and final part of our review of multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment we look at the practical day-to-day management issues that are likely to influence individual treatment decisions. Whilst efficacy is clearly of considerable importance, tolerability and the potential for adverse effects often play a significant role in informing individual patient decisions. Here we review the issues surrounding switching between therapies, and the evidence to assist guiding the choice of therapy to change to and when to change. We review the current level of evidence with regards to the management of women in their child-bearing years with regards to recommendations about treatment during pregnancy and whilst breast feeding. We provide a summary of recommended pre- and post-treatment monitoring for the available therapies and review the evidence with regards to the value of testing for antibodies which are known to be neutralising for some therapies. We review the occurrence of adverse events, both the more common and troublesome effects and those that are less common but have potentially much more serious outcomes. Ways of mitigating these risks and managing the more troublesome adverse effects are also reviewed. Finally, we make specific recommendations with regards to the treatment of MS. It is an exciting time in the world of MS neurology and the prospects for further advances in coming years are high.

Clinical utility of glatiramer acetate in the management of relapse frequency in multiple sclerosis

Glatiramer acetate (GA) represents one of the most common disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis. GA is currently approved for patients at high risk of developing clinically definite multiple sclerosis (CDMS) after having experienced a well-defined first clinical episode (clinically isolated syndrome or CIS) and for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). GA’s efficacy and effectiveness to reduce relapse frequency have been proved in placebo-controlled and observational studies. Comparative trials have also confirmed the lack of significant differences over other choices of treatment in the management of relapse frequency, and long-term studies have supported its effect at extended periods of time. Additionally, RRMS patients with suboptimal response to interferon β may benefit from reduced relapse rate after switching to GA, and those with clinically isolated syndrome may benefit from delayed conversion to CDMS. All these results, together with its proven long-term safety and positive effect on patients’ daily living, support the favorable risk-benefit of GA for multiple sclerosis treatment.