14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Association of Initial Disease-Modifying Therapy With Later Conversion to Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis

      1 , 2 , 3 , 1 , 4 , 5 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 7 , 8 , 7 , 8 , 9 ,   10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 30 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 1 , 33 , 27 , 28 , 35 , 3 , 27 , 28 , 34 , for the MSBase Study Group
      JAMA
      American Medical Association (AMA)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180152-1"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9311144e1115">Question</h5> <p id="d9311144e1117">Among patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), what is the association between disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) and the risk of conversion to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS)? </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180152-2"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9311144e1120">Findings</h5> <p id="d9311144e1122">In this cohort study involving 1555 patients with relapsing-remitting MS, initial treatment with fingolimod, natalizumab, or alemtuzumab was associated with a lower risk of conversion to secondary progressive MS compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate (hazard ratio, 0.66). </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180152-3"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9311144e1125">Meaning</h5> <p id="d9311144e1127">These findings, considered along with the risks associated with these therapies, may help inform decisions regarding disease-modifying treatment selection for patients with relapsing-remitting MS. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180152-4"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9311144e1131">Importance</h5> <p id="d9311144e1133">Within 2 decades of onset, 80% of untreated patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) convert to a phase of irreversible disability accrual termed secondary progressive MS. The association between disease-modifying treatments (DMTs), and this conversion has rarely been studied and never using a validated definition. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180152-5"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9311144e1136">Objective</h5> <p id="d9311144e1138">To determine the association between the use, the type of, and the timing of DMTs with the risk of conversion to secondary progressive MS diagnosed with a validated definition. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180152-6"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9311144e1141">Design, Setting, and Participants</h5> <p id="d9311144e1143">Cohort study with prospective data from 68 neurology centers in 21 countries examining patients with relapsing-remitting MS commencing DMTs (or clinical monitoring) between 1988-2012 with minimum 4 years’ follow-up. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180152-7"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9311144e1146">Exposures</h5> <p id="d9311144e1148">The use, type, and timing of the following DMTs: interferon beta, glatiramer acetate, fingolimod, natalizumab, or alemtuzumab. After propensity-score matching, 1555 patients were included (last follow-up, February 14, 2017). </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180152-8"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9311144e1151">Main Outcome and Measure</h5> <p id="d9311144e1153">Conversion to objectively defined secondary progressive MS.</p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180152-9"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9311144e1156">Results</h5> <p id="d9311144e1158">Of the 1555 patients, 1123 were female (mean baseline age, 35 years [SD, 10]). Patients initially treated with glatiramer acetate or interferon beta had a lower hazard of conversion to secondary progressive MS than matched untreated patients (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.81; <i>P</i> &lt; .001; 5-year absolute risk, 12% [49 of 407] vs 27% [58 of 213]; median follow-up, 7.6 years [IQR, 5.8-9.6]), as did fingolimod (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.62; <i>P</i> &lt; .001; 5-year absolute risk, 7% [6 of 85] vs 32% [56 of 174]; median follow-up, 4.5 years [IQR, 4.3-5.1]); natalizumab (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.86; <i>P</i> = .005; 5-year absolute risk, 19% [16 of 82] vs 38% [62 of 164]; median follow-up, 4.9 years [IQR, 4.4-5.8]); and alemtuzumab (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.85; <i>P</i> = .009; 5-year absolute risk, 10% [4 of 44] vs 25% [23 of 92]; median follow-up, 7.4 years [IQR, 6.0-8.6]). Initial treatment with fingolimod, alemtuzumab, or natalizumab was associated with a lower risk of conversion than initial treatment with glatiramer acetate or interferon beta (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44-0.99; <i>P</i> = .046); 5-year absolute risk, 7% [16 of 235] vs 12% [46 of 380]; median follow-up, 5.8 years [IQR, 4.7-8.0]). The probability of conversion was lower when glatiramer acetate or interferon beta was started within 5 years of disease onset vs later (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.98; <i>P</i> = .03; 5-year absolute risk, 3% [4 of 120] vs 6% [2 of 38]; median follow-up, 13.4 years [IQR, 11-18.1]). When glatiramer acetate or interferon beta were escalated to fingolimod, alemtuzumab, or natalizumab within 5 years vs later, the HR was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.66-0.88; <i>P</i> &lt; .001; 5-year absolute risk, 8% [25 of 307] vs 14% [46 of 331], median follow-up, 5.3 years [IQR], 4.6-6.1). </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180152-10"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9311144e1183">Conclusions and Relevance</h5> <p id="d9311144e1185">Among patients with relapsing-remitting MS, initial treatment with fingolimod, alemtuzumab, or natalizumab was associated with a lower risk of conversion to secondary progressive MS vs initial treatment with glatiramer acetate or interferon beta. These findings, considered along with these therapies’ risks, may help inform decisions about DMT selection. </p> </div><p class="first" id="d9311144e1188">In this cohort study, initial treatment of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) with disease-modifying therapies (fingolimod, natalizumab, or alemtuzumab) was associated with a lower risk of conversion to secondary progressive MS compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate therapy. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Causal Effects in Nonexperimental Studies: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Training Programs

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Alemtuzumab vs. interferon beta-1a in early multiple sclerosis.

            Alemtuzumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets CD52 on lymphocytes and monocytes, may be an effective treatment for early multiple sclerosis. In this phase 2, randomized, blinded trial involving previously untreated, early, relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, we assigned 334 patients with scores of 3.0 or less on the Expanded Disability Status Scale and a disease duration of 3 years or less to receive either subcutaneous interferon beta-1a (at a dose of 44 microg) three times per week or annual intravenous cycles of alemtuzumab (at a dose of either 12 mg or 24 mg per day) for 36 months. In September 2005, alemtuzumab therapy was suspended after immune thrombocytopenic purpura developed in three patients, one of whom died. Treatment with interferon beta-1a continued throughout the study. Alemtuzumab significantly reduced the rate of sustained accumulation of disability, as compared with interferon beta-1a (9.0% vs. 26.2%; hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.54; P<0.001) and the annualized rate of relapse (0.10 vs. 0.36; hazard ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.41; P<0.001). The mean disability score on a 10-point scale improved by 0.39 point in the alemtuzumab group and worsened by 0.38 point in the interferon beta-1a group (P<0.001). In the alemtuzumab group, the lesion burden (as seen on T(2)-weighted magnetic resonance imaging) was reduced, as compared with that in the interferon beta-1a group (P=0.005). From month 12 to month 36, brain volume (as seen on T(1)-weighted magnetic resonance imaging) increased in the alemtuzumab group but decreased in the interferon beta-1a group (P=0.02). Adverse events in the alemtuzumab group, as compared with the interferon beta-1a group, included autoimmunity (thyroid disorders [23% vs. 3%] and immune thrombocytopenic purpura [3% vs. 1%]) and infections (66% vs. 47%). There were no significant differences in outcomes between the 12-mg dose and the 24-mg dose of alemtuzumab. In patients with early, relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, alemtuzumab was more effective than interferon beta-1a but was associated with autoimmunity, most seriously manifesting as immune thrombocytopenic purpura. The study was not powered to identify uncommon adverse events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00050778.) 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Systematic literature review and validity evaluation of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) in patients with multiple sclerosis

              Background There are a number of instruments that describe severity and progression of multiple sclerosis and they are increasingly used as endpoints to assess the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions. We examined to what extent the psychometric properties of two accepted instruments – EDSS and MSFC – meet methodological standards and the value they have in clinical trials. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search in relevant databases [MEDLINE (PubMed), ISI Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO & PSYNDEX, CINAHL] yielding 3,860 results. Relevant full-text publications were identified using abstract and then full-text reviews, and the literature was reviewed. Results For evaluation of psychometric properties (validity, reliability, sensitivity of change) of EDSS and MSFC, 120 relevant full-text publications were identified, 54 of them assessed the EDSS, 26 the MSFC and 40 included both instruments. The EDSS has some documented weaknesses in reliability and sensitivity to change. The main limitations of the MSFC are learning effects and the z-scores method used to calculate the total score. However, the methodological criterion of validity applies sufficiently for both instruments. For use in clinical studies, we found the EDSS to be preferred as a primary and secondary outcome measure in recent studies (50 EDSS, 9 MSFC). Conclusions Recognizing their strengths and weaknesses, both EDSS and MSFC are suitable to detect the effectiveness of clinical interventions and to monitor disease progression. Almost all publications identify the EDSS as the most widely used tool to measure disease outcomes in clinical trials. Despite some limitations, both instruments are accepted as endpoints and neither are discussed as surrogate parameters in identified publications. A great advantage of the EDSS is its international acceptance (e.g. by EMA) as a primary endpoint in clinical trials and its broad use in trials, enabling cross-study comparisons.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA
                JAMA
                American Medical Association (AMA)
                0098-7484
                January 15 2019
                January 15 2019
                : 321
                : 2
                : 175
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
                [2 ]NMR Research Unit, Queen Square Multiple Sclerosis Centre, University College London, Institute of Neurology, London, United Kingdom
                [3 ]Clinical Outcomes Research Unit, Melbourne Brain Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
                [4 ]Department of Neurology and Center of Clinical Neuroscience, General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
                [5 ]Charles University in Prague, Katerinska, Czech Republic
                [6 ]Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Sevilla, Spain
                [7 ]Hopital Notre Dame, Montreal, Canada
                [8 ]CHUM and Universite de Montreal, Montreal, Canada
                [9 ]Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Neuroscience and Sense Organs, University of Bari, Bari, Italy
                [10 ]Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna and IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
                [11 ]IRCCS Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy
                [12 ]CISSS Chaudi’re-Appalache, Centre-Hospitalier, Levis, Canada
                [13 ]Amiri Hospital, Qurtoba, Kuwait City, Kuwait
                [14 ]Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands
                [15 ]University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital
                [16 ]Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium
                [17 ]Department of Neuroscience, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria, Modena, Italy
                [18 ]Neuro Rive-Sud, Greenfield Park, Quebec, Canada
                [19 ]Medical Faculty, Ondokuz Mayis University, Kurupelit, Turkey
                [20 ]School of Medicine and Public Health, University Newcastle, Australia
                [21 ]Department of Neurology, John Hunter Hospital, Hunter New England Health, Newcastle, Australia
                [22 ]Asaf Harofen Medical Center, Beer-Yaakov, Zerifin, Israel
                [23 ]Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
                [24 ]Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
                [25 ]UOC Neurologia, Azienda Sanitaria Unica Regionale Marche, Macerata, Italy
                [26 ]University of Parma, Parma, Italy
                [27 ]Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
                [28 ]Department of Neurology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
                [29 ]Department of Neurology, Institute of Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neuroscience, Cardiff University, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, United Kingdom
                [30 ]Department of Neurology, Southmead Hospital, and Clinical Neurosciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
                [31 ]Abertawe Bro, Morgannwg University Local Health Board, Swansea, United Kingdom
                [32 ]Center of Clinical Neuroscience, Department of Neurology, MS Center Dresden, Dresden, Germany
                [33 ]School of Medicine and Medical Sciences, University College Dublin, St Vincent’s University, Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
                [34 ]Institute for Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences, Cardiff University, Wales
                [35 ]Department of Neurology, Box Hill Hospital, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
                Article
                10.1001/jama.2018.20588
                6439772
                30644981
                5293d804-baba-4839-bfcc-fc30da9bcf76
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article