Choosing drug therapy for multiple sclerosis. An update

Assessing cost-effectiveness in the management of multiple sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is one of the most common causes of neurological disability in young and middle-aged adults, with current prevalence rates estimated to be 30 per 100,000 populations. Women are approximately twice as susceptible as males, but males are more likely to have progressive disease. The onset of the disease normally occurs between 20 and 40 years of age, with a peak incidence during the late twenties and early thirties, resulting in many years of disability for a large proportion of patients, many of whom require wheelchairs and some nursing home or hospital care. The aim of this study is to update a previous review which considered the cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying drugs (DMDs), such as interferons and glatiramer acetate, with more up to date therapies, such as mitaxantrone hydrochloride and natalizumab in the treatment of MS. The development and availability of new agents has been accompanied by an increased optimism that treatment regimens for MS would be more effective; that the number, severity and duration of relapses would diminish; that disease progression would be delayed; and that disability accumulation would be reduced. However, doubts have been expressed about the effectiveness of these treatments, which has only served to compound the problems associated with endeavors to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of such interventions.

Fatigue in multiple sclerosis

In summary, MS-related fatigue can be a severe problem causing interference with home and vocational activities. There are multiple factors that can contribute to fatigue in MS, and it is important for the patient, family, and clinician to be aware of potential confounders that may worsen fatigue. Clearer understanding about the etiology of fatigue is necessary. Additional larger, randomized, clinical trials are needed to evaluate etiology, pathophysiology, and both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions. Given the varying nature of fatigue and the limited evidence that fatigue in MS patients is highly dependent on self-perceived scores, additional research into the effect of psychosocial and psychological interventions is recommended. A multidisciplinary approach to fatigue is encouraged when treatments are considered for maximum benefit.

Disease-modifying agents for multiple sclerosis: recent advances and future prospects

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic autoimmune disease of the CNS. Currently, six medications are approved for immunmodulatory and immunosuppressive treatment of the relapsing disease course and secondary-progressive MS. In the first part of this review, the pathogenesis of MS and its current treatment options are discussed. During the last decade, our understanding of autoimmunity and the pathogenesis of MS has advanced substantially. This has led to the development of a number of compounds, several of which are currently undergoing clinical testing in phase II and III studies. While current treatment options are only available for parenteral administration, several oral compounds are now in clinical trials, including the immunosuppressive agents cladribine and laquinimod. A novel mode of action has been described for fingolimod, another orally available agent, which inhibits egress of activated lymphocytes from draining lymph nodes. Dimethylfumarate exhibits immunomodulatory as well as immunosuppressive activity when given orally. All of these compounds have successfully shown efficacy, at least in regards to the surrogate marker contrast-enhancing lesions on magnetic resonance imaging. Another class of agents that is highlighted in this review are biological agents, namely monoclonal antibodies (mAb) and recombinant fusion proteins. The humanized mAb daclizumab inhibits T-lymphocyte activation via blockade of the interleukin-2 receptor. Alemtuzumab and rituximab deplete leukocytes and B cells, respectively; the fusion protein atacicept inhibits specific B-cell growth factors resulting in reductions in B-cells and plasma cells. These compounds are currently being tested in phase II and III studies in patients with relapsing MS. The concept of neuro-protection and -regeneration has not advanced to a level where specific compounds have entered clinical testing. However, several agents approved for conditions other than MS are highlighted. Finally, with the advent of these highly potent novel therapies, rare, but potentially serious adverse effects have been noted, namely infections and malignancies. These are critically reviewed and put into perspective.

The cost of multiple sclerosis and the cost effectiveness of disease-modifying agents in its treatment

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is one of the most common causes of neurological disability in young and middle-aged adults. The full economic cost of MS is substantial given that MS patients experience a major perturbation in their daily activities and the disease affects mainly young people who are obliged to restrict their levels of economic activity, either temporarily or permanently. A positive relationship exists between the direct and indirect costs of MS and its severity. Cost variations between countries exist because of differences in the costs of inpatient care, the number of ambulatory visits, drug usage and the extent and type of informal care. The development and availability of new agents has been accompanied by an increased optimism that treatment regimens for MS would be more effective. However, doubts have been expressed about the effectiveness of these treatments, which have compounded the problems associated with estimating the relative cost effectiveness of such interventions. In addition, variations in the utility scores associated with disease categories, the impact of relapses and the resulting utility losses, plus the speed of disease progression have all contributed to the difficulty of estimating the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) losses for a patient experiencing MS. Differences between studies with respect to the costs associated with each disability level, the timescale of the disease and the period over which costs and QALYs are to be measured, and the perspective employed in relation to costing have also resulted in a wide range of estimates being produced for the cost effectiveness of interferons and glatiramer acetate in the management of MS. These range from situations of cost savings, to over $US1.6 million (euro1.85 million) per QALY gained. Recent cost-effectiveness studies have benefited from more relevant and up-to-date data relating to disease progression and have generally produced more favourable cost-effectiveness ratios. However, the lack of homogeneity in the design of the studies partly accounts for the extent of variation in the estimates of cost effectiveness, and the difficulty of arriving at a consensus. The UK Department of Health has introduced a scheme that provides disease-modifying agents in the National Health Service for those patients with clinically active relapsing disease. Patients are monitored annually and payments to manufacturers are dependent on outcomes achieved. This initiative, although not without its detractors, will hopefully enhance the quantity and quality of evidence on the impact of drugs on disease progression and address some of the current difficulties with estimating the relative cost effectiveness of disease-modifying drugs in the treatment of patients with MS.

Mitoxantrone: a review of its use in multiple sclerosis

Mitoxantrone (Novantrone), a synthetic anthracenedione derivative, is an antineoplastic, immunomodulatory agent. Its presumed mechanism of action in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is via immunomodulatory mechanisms, although these remain to be fully elucidated. Intravenous mitoxantrone treatment improved neurological disability and delayed progression of MS in patients with worsening relapsing-remitting (RR) [also termed progressive-relapsing (PR) MS] or secondary-progressive (SP) disease. In a pivotal randomised, double-blind, multicentre trial, mitoxantrone 12 mg/m(2) administered once every 3 months for 2 years provided significant improvements in neurological disability ratings, including Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), Ambulatory Index (AI) and Standardised Neurological Status (SNS) scores, compared with placebo. The drug also significantly reduced the mean number of corticosteroid-treated relapses and prolonged the time to the first treated relapse, with the beneficial effects on disease progression supported by magnetic resonance imaging. Post hoc analyses suggest that the benefits associated with mitoxantrone treatment may be sustained for at least 12 months after cessation of treatment, mean changes from baseline at 36 months in EDSS, AI and SNS scores of 0.10, 0.61 and 0.19, respectively, in the mitoxantrone group versus 0.46, 1.13 and 3.38 with placebo. Concomitant intravenous mitoxantrone 20mg plus intravenous methylprednisolone 1g once every month for 6 months was more effective than intravenous methylprednisolone monotherapy in preventing the development of new gadolinium-enhanced lesions in patients with very active RRMS or SPMS. The drug was generally well tolerated in patients with MS. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate in severity and usually resolved upon discontinuation of treatment or with appropriate pharmacotherapy. At the recommended dosage, mitoxantrone appears to have a low potential to cause cardiotoxicity. In conclusion, intravenous mitoxantrone reduces the relapse rate and slows progression of the disease in patients with worsening RRMS, PRMS or SPMS; thus providing a new option for the management of these patients. The drug was generally well tolerated at the recommended dosage, although potential cardiotoxicity limits the total cumulative dose to 140 mg/m(2). Further studies are warranted to determine which patients with worsening RRMS, PRMS or SPMS are most likely to benefit from mitoxantrone treatment and to more fully define the long-term safety and tolerability of mitoxantrone, including the use of concomitant cardioprotectants to extend the therapeutic lifespan of the drug. Pharmacodynamic Profile. Mitoxantrone, a synthetic anthracenedione derivative, is an established cytotoxic, antineoplastic agent. Its presumed mechanism of action in multiple sclerosis (MS) is immunosuppression. In antineoplastic studies, the drug showed several immunomodulatory effects, inducing macrophage-mediated suppression of B-cell, T-helper and T-cytotoxic lymphocyte function. Currently, the pharmacodynamic properties of mitoxantrone have not been investigated to any extent in patients with MS. In one study, 6 months' treatment with intravenous mitoxantrone generally had no effect on the distribution of cytokine-positive peripheral blood monocyte cells in patients with MS. In an animal model of the disease, mitoxantrone suppressed the development and progression of both actively and passively induced acute experimental allergic encephalomyelitis (EAE). It appeared to be 10-20 times more effective than cyclophosphamide in the suppression of EAE. Moreover, mitoxantrone approximately doubled the mean time to onset of EAE versus control animals (279 vs 148 days after immunisation; p < 0.00005). In vitro, mitoxantrone 10 and 100 micro g/L inhibited myelin degradation by leucocytes and peritoneal macrophages derived from mice with acute EAE by approximately 60% and 100%. Pharmacokinetic Profile. Currently, there are no published pharmacokinetic data for intravenous mitoxantrone in pitoxantrone in patients with MS, paediatric patients or in those with renal impairment. All studies, to date, have been in patients with cancer receiving a single, approximately 30-minute intravenous infusion of mitoxantrone 5-14 mg/m(2). The drug exhibits triexponential pharmacokinetics, with a rapid initial distribution (alpha) phase, an intermediate distribution (beta) phase and a much slower elimination (gamma) phase. The mean half-life of the alpha phase appears to be 6-12 minutes and that of the beta phase 1.1-3.1 hours. Mitoxantrone has a high affinity for tissue, with a volume of distribution of up to 2248 L/m(2). Mitoxantrone persists for prolonged periods in tissues and was detectable in autopsy tissue from patients who last received the drug up to 272 days before death. At concentrations of 10-10000 ng/mL, the drug was 70-80 % bound to plasma proteins in dogs. Elimination of mitoxantrone occurs predominantly through biliary excretion and may be impaired in patients with hepatic dysfunction or third space abnormalities (e.g. ascites). The mean terminal elimination half-life of mitoxantrone ranged from 23 hours to 215 hours. Renal clearance accounts for 10 % of the total clearance of the drug. Total clearance of mitoxantrone ranged from 13 to 34.2 L/h/m(2) and renal clearance from 0.9 to 2.7 L/h/m(2). The drug appears to have a low potential for interaction with other concomitantly administered agents. Therapeutic Efficacy. Intravenous mitoxantrone (infusion of > or = 5 minutes), either as monotherapy or in combination with intravenous methylprednisolone, delayed the progression of the disease in patients with secondary-progressive (SP) or worsening relapsing-remitting (RR) MS (the latter is also termed progressive-relapsing MS) in comparative, randomised, multicentre trials. In a double-blind, monotherapy trial (Mitoxantrone In Multiple Sclerosis [MIMS] trial), mitoxantrone 12 mg/m(2) (n = 60) once every 3 months for 2 years significantly improved neurological disability relative to placebo (n = 64), as assessed by changes in mean Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, mean Ambulatory Index (AI) score and mean Standardised Neurological Status (SNS) score. The drug also significantly reduced the mean number of corticosteroid-treated relapses per patient and prolonged the time to the first treated relapse. A Wei-Lachin multivariate analysis of these five efficacy variables indicated that the global difference between the two treatment groups was 0.30 (p < 0.0001). Mitroxantrone was also more effective than placebo according to secondary endpoints in this study, with fewer mitoxantrone recipients experiencing a relapse, a deterioration of > or =1 EDSS point or a confirmed deterioration in EDSS score over a 3-month period. Mitoxantrone recipients also showed less deterioration in quality-of-life ratings and had fewer hospital admissions, whereas more placebo recipients had new gadolinium-enhanced lesions at study end (the latter parameter was assessed using magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] in a subgroup of 110 patients, including 40 patients who received an exploratory 5 mg/m(2) dose). Furthermore, post hoc analyses indicated that the beneficial effects of mitoxantrone treatment on EDSS, SNS and AI scores were sustained for at least 12 months after cessation of treatment, with mean changes from baseline at 36 months in EDSS, AI and SNS scores of 0.10, 0.61 and 0.19, respectively, in the mitoxantrone group versus 0.46, 1.13 and 3.38 with placebo. Preliminary data from a cost-minimisation analysis based on results from the MIMS trial indicated that approximately half of the cost of mitoxantrone was offset by cost savings in other areas associated with the treatment of MS (direct and indirect major costs), with a total annual incremental cost for mitoxantrone of dollar 1661 per patient. Combination therapy once-monthly with intravenous mitoxantrone 20mg plus intravenous methylprednisolone 1g was more effective than intravenous methylprednisolone 1g once every month in preventing the development of gadolinium-enhanced lesions in patients with very active RRMS or SPMS (double-blind assessment using MRI scans). After 6 months, significantly more combination therapy recipients had no new gadolinium-enhanced lesions (90.5% vs 31.3% with monotherapy; p < 0.001) [primary endpoint]. There were also significant reductions in both the mean number of new enhancing lesions and the total number of gadolinium-enhanced lesions in patients receiving combination therapy versus methylprednisolone monotherapy.Tolerability. Mitoxantrone was generally well tolerated in patients with MS. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurring significantly more frequently with mitoxantrone (12 mg/m(2) once every 3 months for 2 years) than placebo were nausea, alopecia, menstrual disorders, urinary tract infection, amenorrhoea, leucopenia and elevated gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase levels. Adverse events were usually mild to moderate in severity and generally resolved with discontinuation of treatment or when treated with appropriate pharmacotherapy. Eight percent of patients discontinued treatment in the mitoxantrone 12 mg/m(2) group due to an adverse event versus 3% of placebo recipients. The incidence of drug-related acute myelogenous leukaemia was very low (0.12%) in a cohort of 802 patients with MS receiving mitoxantrone. Evidence suggests that the risk of cardiotoxicity is low in patients with MS. After 1 year of monotherapy, 3.4% of mitoxantrone recipients had a reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) to < or =50% compared with 0% of placebo recipients; at the end of the second year, respective incidences were 1.9% and 2.9% (total cumulative dose of mitoxantrone per patient was 96 mg/m(2) after 2 years' treatment). (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

A small inhibitor of the interaction between Bax and Bcl-X(L) can synergize with methylprednisolone to induce apoptosis in Bcl-X(L)-overexpressing breast-cancer cells

PURPOSE

To identify inhibitors of the interaction between Bax and Bcl-X(L).

METHODS

Using an assay based on biosensor technology, we screened a chemical library of 10,000 compounds for inhibitors of the interaction between Bax and Bcl-X(L). Using cell-culture systems we tested active compounds for their ability to induce apoptosis in Bcl-X(L)-overexpressing MCF7 cells and increase the sensitivities of the cells to apoptosis-inducing drugs [vincristine sulphate, dexamethasone, cycloheximide and 6alpha-methylprednisolone (MP)].

RESULTS

A single compound, 2',4',5',7'-tetrabromofluorescein (A5), from the library was found to inhibit this interaction efficiently. Several structural analogues of A5 were tested and two of these [4',5'-dibromofluorescein (A9) and 3,4,5,6-tetrabromofluorescein (A11)] were found to be active, and their activities were confirmed by an independent in vitro pull-down assay. These active compounds were observed to induce apoptosis in Bcl-X(L)-overexpressing MCF7 cells. Moreover, two of the compounds (A5 and A11) appeared to increase the sensitivities of the cells to MP. A more rigorous test using the isobologram technique showed that there is a synergistic cytotoxic effect between A11 and MP.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified a small inhibitor of the interaction between Bax and Bcl-X(L) that can synergize with methylprednisolone to induce apoptosis in Bcl-X(L)-overexpressing breast-cancer cells.

Glatiramer acetate: a review of its use in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

Glatiramer acetate is a synthetic copolymer composed of a random mixture of four amino acids that modifies the immune response that results in the CNS inflammation, demyelination and axonal loss characteristic of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). In three randomised, double-blind trials in patients with RRMS, subcutaneous glatiramer acetate 20 mg/day was significantly more effective than placebo for the primary outcome measure of each trial (mean relapse rate, proportion of relapse-free patients and number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions on magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] scans). The mean relapse rate was significantly reduced at endpoint (approximately one-third less) in the two larger trials (the US pivotal trial [primary endpoint] and the European/Canadian study [tertiary endpoint]) in patients receiving glatiramer acetate compared with those receiving placebo. The rate was 78% less for glatiramer acetate than placebo patients in the pilot trial that investigated a slightly different patient population. Glatiramer acetate significantly decreased disease activity and burden of disease, as assessed in the European/Canadian study using a range of MRI measures. Patients with RRMS treated with glatiramer acetate in the US trial were significantly more likely to experience improved disability (whereas placebo recipients were more likely to experience worsening disability) and their overall disability status was significantly improved compared with placebo recipients. Data from the active-treatment extension of the US trial suggest that glatiramer acetate has sustained clinical benefits up to 8 years. Glatiramer acetate was generally well tolerated; the most commonly reported treatment-related adverse events were localised injection-site reactions and transient post-injection systemic reactions. Both reactions were generally mild and self limiting but were responsible for the majority of withdrawals from treatment (up to 6.5 and 3.5%, respectively). Glatiramer acetate is not associated with the influenza-like syndrome or neutralising antibodies that are reported in patients treated with interferon-beta for RRMS. The cost effectiveness of glatiramer acetate has yet to be definitively determined as assessment of available data is confounded by very different models, data sources and assumptions.

CONCLUSION

Glatiramer acetate has shown efficacy in well controlled clinical trials in patients with RRMS; it reduces relapse rate and decreases MRI-assessed disease activity and burden. It is generally well tolerated and is not associated with the influenza-like symptoms and formation of neutralising antibodies seen with the interferons-beta. Based on available data and current management guidelines, glatiramer acetate is a valuable first-line treatment option for patients with RRMS.