Early intensive treatment of MS may benefit patients

First-line treatment of multiple sclerosis with a high-efficacy therapy may produce better long-term outcomes than does an escalation treatment approach, data from a real-world cohort study suggest.

In a population-based cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) in southeast Wales, those who initiated treatment with a high-efficacy therapy had a smaller average increase in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score after 5 years, compared with patients who started on moderate-efficacy therapy, researchers reported Feb. 18 in JAMA Neurology. These outcomes occurred “despite clinical surveillance and targeted escalation” in the group of patients who started on moderate-efficacy drugs, said first author Katharine Harding, PhD, of Cardiff University and the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff and the Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, Wales, and her colleagues. “These findings suggest that real-world escalation approaches may be inadequate to prevent unfavorable long-term outcomes and support the need for a prospective clinical trial to compare disease-modifying therapy algorithms.”

The investigators analyzed data collected between January 1998 and December 2016 from 592 patients with MS. Of the 592 patients, 104 initiated treatment with alemtuzumab (Lemtrada) or natalizumab (Tysabri), which the researchers classified as high-efficacy therapies (i.e., early intensive treatment), and 488 initiated treatment with interferons, glatiramer acetate (Copaxone), dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), fingolimod (Gilenya), or teriflunomide (Aubagio), which were considered moderate-efficacy therapies (i.e., escalation approach).

 

At baseline, patients who received early intensive treatment had higher average EDSS scores, compared with patients treated with an escalation approach (4.2 vs. 3.5). After 5 years, the average increase in EDSS score was lower among patients who received early intensive treatment, compared with patients treated with an escalation approach (0.3 vs. 1.2). The researchers adjusted for patients’ sex, age at treatment, year of starting treatment, and escalation to high-efficacy treatment in the escalation treatment approach group.

Median time to sustained accumulation of disability was 6.0 years for the early intensive therapy group and 3.1 years for the escalation therapy group, but the risk of sustained accumulation of disability did not differ between the groups after adjustment for covariates.

“Although patients were selected to receive early intensive treatment on the basis of poor prognostic factors, including more active disease, it was this patient group that had better long-term outcomes,” Dr. Harding and her colleagues wrote.

There were no treatment-related deaths in the study. Among patients who received alemtuzumab, 87% developed infusion-related adverse events, and 47% developed autoimmunity. Among patients receiving natalizumab, there were no serious adverse events and no cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. In patients receiving moderate-efficacy disease-modifying therapies, there were seven serious adverse events (1.4%).

Dr. Harding disclosed grants from Novartis UK outside the present study. Coauthors reported honoraria, support to attend educational meetings, and travel expenses, as well as grants and salary outside the present study, from various pharmaceutical companies, including Biogen, Teva, Roche, MedDay Pharma, Merck, Genzyme, and Novartis.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Harding K et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.4905

First-line treatment of multiple sclerosis with a high-efficacy therapy may produce better long-term outcomes than does an escalation treatment approach, data from a real-world cohort study suggest.

In a population-based cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) in southeast Wales, those who initiated treatment with a high-efficacy therapy had a smaller average increase in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score after 5 years, compared with patients who started on moderate-efficacy therapy, researchers reported Feb. 18 in JAMA Neurology. These outcomes occurred “despite clinical surveillance and targeted escalation” in the group of patients who started on moderate-efficacy drugs, said first author Katharine Harding, PhD, of Cardiff University and the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff and the Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, Wales, and her colleagues. “These findings suggest that real-world escalation approaches may be inadequate to prevent unfavorable long-term outcomes and support the need for a prospective clinical trial to compare disease-modifying therapy algorithms.”

The investigators analyzed data collected between January 1998 and December 2016 from 592 patients with MS. Of the 592 patients, 104 initiated treatment with alemtuzumab (Lemtrada) or natalizumab (Tysabri), which the researchers classified as high-efficacy therapies (i.e., early intensive treatment), and 488 initiated treatment with interferons, glatiramer acetate (Copaxone), dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), fingolimod (Gilenya), or teriflunomide (Aubagio), which were considered moderate-efficacy therapies (i.e., escalation approach).

 

At baseline, patients who received early intensive treatment had higher average EDSS scores, compared with patients treated with an escalation approach (4.2 vs. 3.5). After 5 years, the average increase in EDSS score was lower among patients who received early intensive treatment, compared with patients treated with an escalation approach (0.3 vs. 1.2). The researchers adjusted for patients’ sex, age at treatment, year of starting treatment, and escalation to high-efficacy treatment in the escalation treatment approach group.

Median time to sustained accumulation of disability was 6.0 years for the early intensive therapy group and 3.1 years for the escalation therapy group, but the risk of sustained accumulation of disability did not differ between the groups after adjustment for covariates.

“Although patients were selected to receive early intensive treatment on the basis of poor prognostic factors, including more active disease, it was this patient group that had better long-term outcomes,” Dr. Harding and her colleagues wrote.

There were no treatment-related deaths in the study. Among patients who received alemtuzumab, 87% developed infusion-related adverse events, and 47% developed autoimmunity. Among patients receiving natalizumab, there were no serious adverse events and no cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. In patients receiving moderate-efficacy disease-modifying therapies, there were seven serious adverse events (1.4%).

Dr. Harding disclosed grants from Novartis UK outside the present study. Coauthors reported honoraria, support to attend educational meetings, and travel expenses, as well as grants and salary outside the present study, from various pharmaceutical companies, including Biogen, Teva, Roche, MedDay Pharma, Merck, Genzyme, and Novartis.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Harding K et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.4905

First-line treatment of multiple sclerosis with a high-efficacy therapy may produce better long-term outcomes than does an escalation treatment approach, data from a real-world cohort study suggest.

In a population-based cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) in southeast Wales, those who initiated treatment with a high-efficacy therapy had a smaller average increase in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score after 5 years, compared with patients who started on moderate-efficacy therapy, researchers reported Feb. 18 in JAMA Neurology. These outcomes occurred “despite clinical surveillance and targeted escalation” in the group of patients who started on moderate-efficacy drugs, said first author Katharine Harding, PhD, of Cardiff University and the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff and the Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, Wales, and her colleagues. “These findings suggest that real-world escalation approaches may be inadequate to prevent unfavorable long-term outcomes and support the need for a prospective clinical trial to compare disease-modifying therapy algorithms.”

The investigators analyzed data collected between January 1998 and December 2016 from 592 patients with MS. Of the 592 patients, 104 initiated treatment with alemtuzumab (Lemtrada) or natalizumab (Tysabri), which the researchers classified as high-efficacy therapies (i.e., early intensive treatment), and 488 initiated treatment with interferons, glatiramer acetate (Copaxone), dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), fingolimod (Gilenya), or teriflunomide (Aubagio), which were considered moderate-efficacy therapies (i.e., escalation approach).

 

At baseline, patients who received early intensive treatment had higher average EDSS scores, compared with patients treated with an escalation approach (4.2 vs. 3.5). After 5 years, the average increase in EDSS score was lower among patients who received early intensive treatment, compared with patients treated with an escalation approach (0.3 vs. 1.2). The researchers adjusted for patients’ sex, age at treatment, year of starting treatment, and escalation to high-efficacy treatment in the escalation treatment approach group.

Median time to sustained accumulation of disability was 6.0 years for the early intensive therapy group and 3.1 years for the escalation therapy group, but the risk of sustained accumulation of disability did not differ between the groups after adjustment for covariates.

“Although patients were selected to receive early intensive treatment on the basis of poor prognostic factors, including more active disease, it was this patient group that had better long-term outcomes,” Dr. Harding and her colleagues wrote.

There were no treatment-related deaths in the study. Among patients who received alemtuzumab, 87% developed infusion-related adverse events, and 47% developed autoimmunity. Among patients receiving natalizumab, there were no serious adverse events and no cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. In patients receiving moderate-efficacy disease-modifying therapies, there were seven serious adverse events (1.4%).

Dr. Harding disclosed grants from Novartis UK outside the present study. Coauthors reported honoraria, support to attend educational meetings, and travel expenses, as well as grants and salary outside the present study, from various pharmaceutical companies, including Biogen, Teva, Roche, MedDay Pharma, Merck, Genzyme, and Novartis.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Harding K et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.4905