Dataset Information

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Ozanimod and Dimethyl Fumarate for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Using Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) experience relapses and sustained disability progression. Since 2004, the number of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS has grown substantially. As a result, patients, healthcare providers, and insurers are increasingly interested in comparative efficacy and safety evaluations to distinguish between treatment options, but head-to-head studies between DMTs are limited.

Objective

The aim of the current study was to compare efficacy and safety outcomes with the DMTs ozanimod and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to adjust for cross-trial differences in study design and population.

Methods

A systematic literature review was performed to identify clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of ozanimod compared with DMF. Individual patient-level data (IPD) for ozanimod were obtained from the SUNBEAM and RADIANCE Part B trials, and aggregate-level patient data (APD) for DMF were obtained from CONFIRM and DEFINE. A MAIC is used to weight IPD to APD based on important baseline patient characteristics considered to be effect modifiers or prognostic factors in order to balance the covariate distribution to establish more homogenous trial populations. Once trial populations are determined to be sufficiently homogenous, outcomes of interest are estimated and used to generate treatment effects between the weighted IPD and APD. We used MAIC methodology to compare efficacy and safety outcomes of interest between ozanimod 1.0 mg once daily (OD) and DMF 240 mg twice daily (BID), including confirmed disability progression (CDP) at 3 and 6 months, annualized relapse rate (ARR), proportion of patients relapsed, overall adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and discontinuations due to AEs.

Results

After matching patient data, baseline patient characteristics were balanced between patients receiving ozanimod and those receiving DMF. Compared with DMF, ozanimod demonstrated significantly improved CDP at 3 months (hazard ratio 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.86), ARR (rate ratio [RR] 0.80; 95% CI 0.67-0.97), proportion of patients relapsed (odds ratio [OR] 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.83), overall AEs (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.08-0.16), SAEs (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.19-0.39), and discontinuations (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.07-0.17). CDP at 6 months did not differ significantly between the two agents (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.62-1.26).

Conclusions

After adjustment of baseline patient characteristics, the MAIC demonstrated that the efficacy and safety of ozanimod 1.0 mg OD was superior to that of DMF 240 mg BID. Although a MAIC is less likely to produce biased estimates than a naïve or a standard indirect treatment comparison via a common comparator, limitations include potential confounding due to unobserved and thus unaccounted for baseline differences.

SUBMITTER: Cohan S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8310468 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Multiple sclerosis (MS) shares an immune-mediated origin with psoriasis. Long-term safety and efficacy data generated in Europe from usage of fumaric acid formulations in the latter disease constituted grounds to investigate their effects in MS patients. Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) was found to be the active principle in those formulations and in vitro studies have demonstrated that DMF has immune-modulatory properties exerted through abilities to divert cytokine production toward a Th2 profile, both on lymphocytes and microglial cells. More importantly, DMF was discovered to impact the anti-oxidative stress cell machinery promoting the transcription of genes downstream to the activation of the nuclear factor (erythroid derived 2)-like2 (NRF2). DMF exposure increases the cytosol concentrations of NRF2, which besides immune regulatory effects, has the potential for cytoprotection on glial cells, oligodendrocytes and neurons. Extensive and rigorous clinical trials have assessed the efficacy and safety of DMF at the dose of 240 mg twice and three times a day in relapsing-remitting MS patients during one phase IIb and two phase III trials. Robust, positive results were obtained across a number of clinical and paraclinical parameters. In one study (DEFINE), the relative reductions of the adjusted annualized relapse rate of the low and high dose regimens in comparison with placebo were 53% and 48%, respectively (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). In the other trial (CONFIRM), DMF decreased the annualized relapse rate in comparison with placebo by 44% in the lower and by 51% in higher dosage group (also p < 0.001). The number and size of lesions as detected by magnetic resonance imaging were also significantly decreased in comparison with the patients receiving DMF at every dosage. Multiple post hoc and subgroup analyses corroborated the clinical data, rendering DMF an appealing medication whose potential for impacting the degenerative aspects of MS remains to be explored.

Project description:IntroductionWe report safety and efficacy in patients treated with dimethyl fumarate (DMF) for ~9 years in ENDORSE. Lymphocyte analysis data are also reported.MethodsIncidence of serious adverse events (SAEs), discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs), annualized relapse rate (ARR) and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score were assessed. Patients were treated with DMF 240 mg twice daily (BID): placebo (PBO)/DMF (PBO for years 0-2 /DMF for years 3-9) or continuous (DMF/DMF) treatment; newly diagnosed patients were included. Annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was evaluated in patients from the MRI cohort of DEFINE/CONFIRM. For the lymphocyte analysis, data from first DMF exposure were analyzed.ResultsOf 2079 DEFINE/CONFIRM completers, 1736 enrolled and received ⩾1 dose of DMF. The MRI cohort included 530 patients. In the overall population, 527 (30%) patients experienced SAEs; most were fall and urinary tract infection. Over 9 years on DMF treatment, adjusted ARR remained low (⩽0.20). In patients treated with PBO in years 0-2, decreased ARR was apparent as early as year 3. Of DMF/DMF and PBO/DMF patients, 73% and 74%, respectively, had no 24-week confirmed disability progression. Most patients (~70%) had no new T1 or new/newly enlarging T2 lesions compared with previous MRI scans after 7 years treatment with DMF; the annual number of new T1 hypointense lesions and new/newly enlarging T2 hyperintense lesions were 0.6-0.8 and 0.9-2.0, respectively. Mean percentage brain volume change from ENDORSE baseline (6 years treatment in ENDORSE) was -1.32% (range -1.60% to -1.05%). Of the 2513 patients with lymphocyte assessments, 2470 had ⩾1 post-baseline measurement, 53 developed severe prolonged lymphopenia and were followed for up to 11 years; incidence of serious infection was not higher than in patients with absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) always ⩾ lower limit of normal (LLN). In patients with lymphopenia while on DMF and ALC < 0.91 × 109/L at discontinuation (n = 138), median time to ALC ⩾ LLN was 7 weeks post-discontinuation.ConclusionsSustained safety and efficacy of DMF was observed in patients continuing on treatment for up to 11 years, supporting DMF as a long-term treatment option for patients with RRMS.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT00835770 (ENDORSE); NCT00420212 (DEFINE); NCT00451451 (CONFIRM).