Dataset Information

Double-Blind Controlled Randomized Trial of Cyclophosphamide versus Methylprednisolone in Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Therapeutic options are limited in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS). Open-label studies suggested efficacy of monthly IV cyclophosphamide (CPM) without induction for delaying progression but no randomized trial was conducted so far.

Objective

To compare CPM to methylprednisolone (MP) in SPMS.

Methods

Randomized, double-blind clinical trial on two parallel groups. Patient with SPMS, with a documented worsening of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score during the last year and an EDSS score between 4·0 and 6·5 were recruited and received one intravenous infusion of treatment (CPM: 750 mg /m2 body surface area-MP: 1g) every four weeks for one year, and every eight weeks for the second year. The primary endpoint was the time to EDSS deterioration, when confirmed sixteen weeks later, analyzed using a Cox model.

Results

Due to recruitment difficulties, the study was terminated prematurely after 138 patients were included (CPM, n = 72; MP, n = 66). In the CPM group, 33 patients stopped treatment prematurely, mainly due to tolerability, compared with 22 in the MP group. Primary endpoint: the hazard ratio for EDSS deterioration in the CPM in comparison with the MP group was 0.61 [95% CI: 0·31-1·22](p = 0·16). According to the secondary multistate model analysis, patients in the CPM group were 2.2 times more likely ([1·14-4.29]; p = 0.02) to discontinue treatment than those in the MP group and 2.7 times less likely (HR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.17-0.84; p = 0.02) to experience disability progression when they did not stop treatment prematurely. Safety profile was as expected.

Conclusion

Although the primary end-point was negative, secondary analysis suggested that CPM decreases the risk of progression in SPMS, but its use may be limited by low tolerability.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00241254.

SUBMITTER: Brochet B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5207788 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Double-Blind Controlled Randomized Trial of Cyclophosphamide versus Methylprednisolone in Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis.

Brochet Bruno B Deloire Mathilde S A MS Perez Paul P Loock Timothé T Baschet Louise L Debouverie Marc M Pittion Sophie S Ouallet Jean-Christophe JC Clavelou Pierre P de Sèze Jérôme J Collongues Nicolas N Vermersch Patrick P Zéphir Hélène H Castelnovo Giovanni G Labauge Pierre P Lebrun Christine C Cohen Mikael M Ruet Aurélie A

PloS one 20170103 1

<h4>Background</h4>Therapeutic options are limited in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS). Open-label studies suggested efficacy of monthly IV cyclophosphamide (CPM) without induction for delaying progression but no randomized trial was conducted so far.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare CPM to methylprednisolone (MP) in SPMS.<h4>Methods</h4>Randomized, double-blind clinical trial on two parallel groups. Patient with SPMS, with a documented worsening of the Expanded Disability Status Scale ...[more]

PMID: 28045953

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveIntravenous methylprednisolone is the standard treatment for a multiple sclerosis relapse; however, this fails to improve symptoms in up to one quarter of patients. Immunoadsorption is an accepted treatment for refractory relapses, but prospective comparator-controlled studies are missing.MethodsIn this observational study, patients with steroid-refractory acute multiple sclerosis relapses receiving either six courses of tryptophan-immunoadsorption or double-dose methylprednisolone therapy were analysed. Outcomes were evaluated at discharge and three months later. Immune profiling of blood lymphocytes and proteomic analysis were performed by multi-parameter flow cytometry and Olink analysis, respectively (NCT04450030).Results42 patients were enrolled (methylprednisolone: 26 patients; immunoadsorption: 16 patients). For determination of the primary outcome, treatment response was stratified according to relative function system score changes ("full/best" vs. "average" vs. "worse/none"). Upon discharge, the adjusted odds ratio for any treatment response ("full/best" + "average" vs. "worse/none") was 10.697 favouring immunoadsorption (p = 0.005 compared to methylprednisolone). At follow-up, the adjusted odds ratio for the best treatment response ("full/best" vs. "average" + "worse/none") was 103.236 favouring IA patients (p = 0.001 compared to methylprednisolone). Similar results were observed regarding evoked potentials and quality of life outcomes, as well as serum neurofilament light-chain levels. Flow cytometry revealed a profound reduction of B cell subsets following immunoadsorption, which was closely correlated to clinical outcomes, whereas methylprednisolone had a minimal effect on B cell populations. Immunoadsorption treatment skewed the blood cytokine network, reduced levels of B cell-related cytokines and reduced immunoglobulin levels as well as levels of certain coagulation factors.InterpretationImmunoadsorption demonstrated favourable outcomes compared to double-dose methylprednisolone. Outcome differences were significant at discharge and follow-up. Further analyses identified modulation of B cell function as a potential mechanism of action for immunoadsorption, as reduction of B cell subsets correlated with clinical improvement.

Project description:IntroductionThe major unmet need in multiple sclerosis (MS) is for neuroprotective therapies that can slow (or ideally stop) the rate of disease progression. The UK MS Society Clinical Trials Network (CTN) was initiated in 2007 with the purpose of developing a national, efficient, multiarm trial of repurposed drugs. Key underpinning work was commissioned by the CTN to inform the design, outcome selection and drug choice including animal models and a systematic review. This identified seven leading oral agents for repurposing as neuroprotective therapies in secondary progressive MS (SPMS). The purpose of the Multiple Sclerosis-Secondary Progressive Multi-Arm Randomisation Trial (MS-SMART) will be to evaluate the neuroprotective efficacy of three of these drugs, selected with distinct mechanistic actions and previous evidence of likely efficacy, against a common placebo arm. The interventions chosen were: amiloride (acid-sensing ion channel antagonist); fluoxetine (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) and riluzole (glutamate antagonist).Methods and analysisPatients with progressing SPMS will be randomised 1:1:1:1 to amiloride, fluoxetine, riluzole or matched placebo and followed for 96 weeks. The primary outcome will be the percentage brain volume change (PBVC) between baseline and 96 weeks, derived from structural MR brain imaging data using the Structural Image Evaluation, using Normalisation, of Atrophy method. With a sample size of 90 per arm, this will give 90% power to detect a 40% reduction in PBVC in any active arm compared with placebo and 80% power to detect a 35% reduction (analysing by analysis of covariance and with adjustment for multiple comparisons of three 1.67% two-sided tests), giving a 5% overall two-sided significance level. MS-SMART is not powered to detect differences between the three active treatment arms. Allowing for a 20% dropout rate, 110 patients per arm will be randomised. The study will take place at Neuroscience centres in England and Scotland.Ethics and disseminationMS-SMART was approved by the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee on 13 January 2013 (REC reference: 13/SS/0007). Results of the study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numbersNCT01910259; 2012-005394-31; ISRCTN28440672.

Project description:BackgroundNeurodegeneration is the pathological substrate that causes major disability in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. A synthesis of preclinical and clinical research identified three neuroprotective drugs acting on different axonal pathobiologies. We aimed to test the efficacy of these drugs in an efficient manner with respect to time, cost, and patient resource.MethodsWe did a phase 2b, multiarm, parallel group, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial at 13 clinical neuroscience centres in the UK. We recruited patients (aged 25-65 years) with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis who were not on disease-modifying treatment and who had an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 4·0-6·5. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) at baseline, by a research nurse using a centralised web-based service, to receive twice-daily oral treatment of either amiloride 5 mg, fluoxetine 20 mg, riluzole 50 mg, or placebo for 96 weeks. The randomisation procedure included minimisation based on sex, age, EDSS score at randomisation, and trial site. Capsules were identical in appearance to achieve masking. Patients, investigators, and MRI readers were unaware of treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was volumetric MRI percentage brain volume change (PBVC) from baseline to 96 weeks, analysed using multiple regression, adjusting for baseline normalised brain volume and minimisation criteria. The primary analysis was a complete-case analysis based on the intention-to-treat population (all patients with data at week 96). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01910259.FindingsBetween Jan 29, 2015, and June 22, 2016, 445 patients were randomly allocated amiloride (n=111), fluoxetine (n=111), riluzole (n=111), or placebo (n=112). The primary analysis included 393 patients who were allocated amiloride (n=99), fluoxetine (n=96), riluzole (n=99), and placebo (n=99). No difference was noted between any active treatment and placebo in PBVC (amiloride vs placebo, 0·0% [95% CI -0·4 to 0·5; p=0·99]; fluoxetine vs placebo -0·1% [-0·5 to 0·3; p=0·86]; riluzole vs placebo -0·1% [-0·6 to 0·3; p=0·77]). No emergent safety issues were reported. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and similar across study groups (ten [9%] patients in the amiloride group, seven [6%] in the fluoxetine group, 12 [11%] in the riluzole group, and 13 [12%] in the placebo group). The most common serious adverse events were infections and infestations. Three patients died during the study, from causes judged unrelated to active treatment; one patient assigned amiloride died from metastatic lung cancer, one patient assigned riluzole died from ischaemic heart disease and coronary artery thrombosis, and one patient assigned fluoxetine had a sudden death (primary cause) with multiple sclerosis and obesity listed as secondary causes.InterpretationThe absence of evidence for neuroprotection in this adequately powered trial indicates that exclusively targeting these aspects of axonal pathobiology in patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis is insufficient to mitigate neuroaxonal loss. These findings argue for investigation of different mechanistic targets and future consideration of combination treatment trials. This trial provides a template for future simultaneous testing of multiple disease-modifying medicines in neurological medicine.FundingEfficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, an MRC and NIHR partnership, UK Multiple Sclerosis Society, and US National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic immune mediated disease and the progressive phase appears to have significant neurodegenerative mechanisms. The classification of the course of progressive MS (PMS) has been re-organized into categories of active vs. not active inflammatory disease and the presence vs. absence of gradual disease progression. Clinical trial experience to date in PMS with anti-inflammatory medications has shown limited effect. Andrographolide is a new class of anti-inflammatory agent, that has been proposed as a potential drug for autoimmune disorders, including MS. In the present trial, we perform an exploratory pilot study on the efficacy and safety of andrographolide (AP) compared to placebo in not active PMS. METHODS:A pilot clinical trial using 140?mg oral AP or placebo twice daily for 24?months in patients with not active primary or secondary progressive MS was conducted. The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean percentage brain volume change (mPBVC). Secondary efficacy endpoints included 3-month confirmed disability progression (3-CDP) and mean EDSS change. RESULTS:Forty-four patients were randomized: 23 were assigned to the AP group, and 21 were assigned to the placebo group. The median baseline EDSS of both groups was 6.0. Annualized mPBVC was -?0.679% for the AP group and?-?1.069% for the placebo group (mean difference: -0.39; 95% CI [-?0.836-0.055], p?=?0.08, relative reduction: 36.5%). In the AP group, 30% had 3-CDP compared to 41% in the placebo group (HR: 0.596; 95% CI [0.200-1.777], p?=?0.06). The mean EDSS change was -?0.025 in the AP group and?+?0.352 in the placebo group (mean difference: 0.63, p?=?0.042). Adverse events related to AP were mild rash and dysgeusia. CONCLUSIONS:AP was well tolerated and showed a potential effect in reducing brain atrophy and disability progression, that need to be further evaluated in a larger clinical trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02273635 retrospectively registered on October 24th, 2014.

Dataset Information

Double-Blind Controlled Randomized Trial of Cyclophosphamide versus Methylprednisolone in Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Double-Blind Controlled Randomized Trial of Cyclophosphamide versus Methylprednisolone in Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets