No evidence of disease activity: indirect comparisons of oral therapies for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

Richard Nixon, Niklas Bergvall, Davorka Tomic, Nikolaos Sfikas, Gary Cutter, Gavin Giovannoni, Richard Nixon, Niklas Bergvall, Davorka Tomic, Nikolaos Sfikas, Gary Cutter, Gavin Giovannoni

Abstract

Introduction: No head-to-head trials have compared the efficacy of the oral therapies, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide, in multiple sclerosis. Statistical modeling approaches, which control for differences in patient characteristics, can improve indirect comparisons of the efficacy of these therapies.

Methods: No evidence of disease activity (NEDA) was evaluated as the proportion of patients free from relapses and 3-month confirmed disability progression (clinical composite), free from gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions and new or newly enlarged T2 lesions (magnetic resonance imaging composite), or free from all disease measures (overall composite). For each measure, the efficacy of fingolimod was estimated by analyzing individual patient data from fingolimod phase 3 trials using methodologies from studies of other oral therapies. These data were then used to build binomial regression models, which adjusted for differences in baseline characteristics between the studies. Models predicted the indirect relative risk of achieving NEDA status for fingolimod versus dimethyl fumarate or teriflunomide in an average patient from their respective phase 3 trials.

Results: The estimated relative risks of achieving NEDA status for fingolimod versus placebo in a pooled fingolimod trial population were numerically greater (i.e., fingolimod more efficacious) than the estimated relative risks for dimethyl fumarate or teriflunomide versus placebo in each respective trial population. In indirect comparisons, the predicted relative risks for all composite measures were better for fingolimod than comparator when tested against the trial populations of those treated with dimethyl fumarate (relative risk, clinical: 1.21 [95% confidence interval 1.06-1.39]; overall: 1.67 [1.08-2.57]), teriflunomide 7 mg (clinical: 1.22 [1.02-1.46]; overall: 2.01 [1.38-2.93]) and teriflunomide 14 mg (clinical: 1.14 [0.96-1.36]; overall: 1.61 [1.12-2.31]).

Conclusion: Our modeling approach suggests that fingolimod therapy results in a higher probability of NEDA than dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide therapy when phase 3 trial data are indirectly compared and differences between trials are adjusted for.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Schematic of the modeling approach. aFinal models selected baseline characteristics that were most predictive of the outcome using a stepwise algorithm that used the Akaike information criterion as the metric to retain the best model. FREEDOMS FTY720 research evaluating effects of daily oral therapy in multiple sclerosis, RR relative risk
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
RRs of achieving NEDA status for fingolimod, DMF and teriflunomide versus placebo. Estimated RRs for the pooled FREEDOMS population, pooled DEFINE and CONFIRM population, and TEMSO populations are shown as solid lines as indicated (estimated). Dashed lines represent the predicted RRs for fingolimod versus placebo in alternative trial populations using the final models (predicted). An RR above 1.0 indicates an improved outcome for treatment relative to placebo. CONFIRM comparator and an oral fumarate in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis, DEFINE determination of the efficacy and safety of oral fumarate in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis, DMF dimethyl fumarate, FREEDOMS FTY720 research evaluating effects of daily oral therapy in multiple sclerosis, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, NEDA no evidence of disease activity, RR relative risk, TEMSO teriflunomide multiple sclerosis oral
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Impact of baseline characteristics on predicted RRs for fingolimod versus placeboa (final model). An RR above 1.0 indicates an improved outcome for treatment relative to placebo. aFor non-categorical covariates, the model predicts the treatment effect for setting that variable at the 1st and 3rd quartile of the distribution while holding all other covariates constant. bVolume of T2 lesions at baseline was not included in the initial model for the teriflunomide analysis, and EDSS-defined progression was reported differently (0–3.5 instead of 0–1.5 in the DMF analysis). BL baseline, DMF dimethyl fumarate, EDSS expanded disability status scale, Gd gadolinium, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, MS multiple sclerosis, NEDA no evidence of disease activity, RR relative risk
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Indirect comparison of RRs of achieving NEDA status for fingolimod versus DMF or teriflunomide. An RR above 1.0 indicates an improved outcome for fingolimod relative to comparator. Indirect comparisons were performed using estimated RR for fingolimod in a pooled FREEDOMS and FREEDOMS II population (solid lines, estimated) or using predicted RRs for fingolimod in a pooled DEFINE and CONFIRM or TEMSO population (dashed line, predicted). CONFIRM comparator and an oral fumarate in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis, DEFINE determination of the efficacy and safety of oral fumarate in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis, DMF dimethyl fumarate, FREEDOMS FTY720 research evaluating effects of daily oral therapy in multiple sclerosis, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, NEDA no evidence of disease activity, RR relative risk, TEMSO teriflunomide multiple sclerosis oral

References

    1. World Health Organization. Atlas: multiple sclerosis resources in the world. 2008. Available from: . Accessed November 13, 2014
    1. Derwenskus J. Current disease-modifying treatment of multiple sclerosis. Mt Sinai J Med. 2011;78:161–175. doi: 10.1002/msj.20239.
    1. Reynolds MW, Stephen R, Seaman C, Rajagopalan K. Healthcare resource utilization following switch or discontinuation in multiple sclerosis patients on disease modifying drugs. J Med Econ. 2010;13:90–98. doi: 10.3111/13696990903579501.
    1. European Medicines Agency. European public assessment report: Gilenya. 2014. Available from: . Accessed October 16, 2014.
    1. US Food and Drug Administration. Teriflunomide (marketed as Aubagio) prescribing and labeling information. Latest label approved on September 12, 2012. Available from: . Accessed September 9, 2013.
    1. European Medicines Agency. Aubagio summary of product characteristics. Available from: . Accessed September 9, 2013.
    1. US Food and Drug Administration. Dimethyl fumarate (marketed as Tecfidera) prescribing and labeling information. Latest label approved on March 27, 2013. Available from: . Accessed September 9, 2013.
    1. European Medicines Agency. European public assessment report: Tecfidera. 2014. Available from: . Accessed March 7, 2014.
    1. Calabresi PA, Goodin D, Jeffery D, et al. Efficacy and safety of fingolimod versus placebo: primary outcomes from the phase 3 FREEDOMS II study in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2012;18(4 Suppl):P491.
    1. Kappos L, Radue EW, O’Connor P, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of oral fingolimod in relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:387–401. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0909494.
    1. Fox RJ, Miller DH, Phillips JT, et al. Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 or glatiramer in multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1087–1097. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1206328.
    1. Gold R, Kappos L, Arnold DL, et al. Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1098–1107. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1114287.
    1. O’Connor P, Wolinsky JS, Confavreux C, et al. Randomized trial of oral teriflunomide for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1293–1303. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1014656.
    1. Cohen JA, Barkhof F, Comi G, et al. Oral fingolimod or intramuscular interferon for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:402–415. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907839.
    1. Vermersch P, Czlonkowska A, Grimaldi LM, et al. Teriflunomide versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis: a randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. Mult Scler. 2013;14:14.
    1. Havrdova E, Galetta S, Stefoski D, Comi G. Freedom from disease activity in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2010;74:S3–S7.
    1. Giovannoni G, Arnold DL, Cohen JA, et al. Disease activity free status in CARE-MS I phase 3 study. 2012. Available from: . Accessed August 13, 2012.
    1. Giovannoni G, Cook S, Rammohan K, et al. Sustained disease-activity-free status in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis treated with cladribine tablets in the CLARITY study: a post hoc and subgroup analysis. Lancet Neurol. 2011;10:329–337. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(11)70023-0.
    1. Havrdova E, Galetta S, Hutchinson M, et al. Effect of natalizumab on clinical and radiological disease activity in multiple sclerosis: a retrospective analysis of the natalizumab safety and efficacy in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (AFFIRM) study. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8:254–260. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70021-3.
    1. Havrdova E, Gold R, Fox RJ, et al. BG-12 (dimethyl fumarate) treatment for relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) increases the proportion of patients free of measured clinical and neuroradiologic disease activity in the phase 3 studies. Neurology. 2013;80(Meeting Abstracts 1):P07.106.
    1. Kappos L, Radue E, O’Connor P, et al. Fingolimod treatment increases the proportion of patients who are free from disease activity in multiple sclerosis: results from a phase 3, placebo-controlled study (FREEDOMS) Neurology. 2011;76(Suppl 4):A563.
    1. Khatri B, Barkhof F, Comi G, Jin J, Francis G, Cohen J. Fingolimod treatment increases the proportion of patients who are free from disease activity in multiple sclerosis compared to IFN-b1a: results from a phase 3, active-controlled study (TRANSFORMS). Neurology. 2012;78(Meeting Abstracts 1):PD5.006.
    1. Freedman M, O’Connor P, Wolinsky J, et al. Teriflunomide increases the proportion of patients free from disease activity in the TEMSO phase III study. Neurology. 2012;78(Meeting Abstracts 1):PD5.007.
    1. Cutter G, Fahrbach K, Huelin R, et al. Relative efficacy of teriflunomide 14 mg among the approved disease-modifying therapies in relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis: a mixed treatment comparison. 2013. Available from: . Accessed March 5, 2014.
    1. Hadjigeorgiou GM, Doxani C, Miligkos M, et al. A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for comparing the effectiveness and safety profile of treatments with marketing authorization for relapsing multiple sclerosis. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2013;38:433–439. doi: 10.1111/jcpt.12090.
    1. Hutchinson M, Fox RJ, Havrdova E, et al. Efficacy and safety of BG-12 (dimethyl fumarate) and other disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014;30:613–627. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2013.863755.
    1. Giovannoni G, Comi G, Cook S, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of oral cladribine for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:416–426. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0902533.
    1. Bergvall N, Sfikas N, Alsop J, Chin P, von Rosensteil P, Kappos L. Consequences of different definitions of confirmed disability progression across randomised trials of MS therapies. 2012. Available from: . Accessed March 5, 2014.
    1. Nixon R, Eckert B, Cutter G, Mercier F, Francis G, Kappos L. Indirect comparisons of oral fingolimod vs natalizumab and cladribine for the treatment of relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis based on data from FREEDOMS, AFFIRM and CLARITY. J Neurol. 2012;259:P344.
    1. Caro JJ, Ishak KJ. No head-to-head trial? Simulate the missing arms. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:957–967. doi: 10.2165/11537420-000000000-00000.
    1. Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Yu AP, et al. Comparative effectiveness without head-to-head trials: a method for matching-adjusted indirect comparisons applied to psoriasis treatment with adalimumab or etanercept. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:935–945. doi: 10.2165/11538370-000000000-00000.
    1. Nixon R, Bergvall N, Sfikas N, et al. Indirect comparisons of oral fingolimod versus natalizumab on measures of disease freedom in patients with multiple sclerosis, based on results from FREEDOMS and AFFIRM. Neurology. 2013;80(Meeting Abstracts 1):P01.209.
    1. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:683–691. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00049-8.
    1. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21:2313–2324. doi: 10.1002/sim.1201.
    1. Devonshire V, Havrdova E, Radue EW, et al. Relapse and disability outcomes in patients with multiple sclerosis treated with fingolimod: subgroup analyses of the double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled FREEDOMS study. Lancet Neurol. 2012;11:420–428. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(12)70056-X.
    1. Hutchinson M, Fox RJ, Miller DH, et al. Clinical efficacy of BG-12 (dimethyl fumarate) in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: subgroup analyses of the CONFIRM study. J Neurol. 2013;260:2286–2296. doi: 10.1007/s00415-013-6968-1.
    1. Riley RD, Steyerberg EW. Meta-analysis of a binary outcome using individual participant data and aggregate data. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1:2–19. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.4.
    1. Cofield SS, Cutter GR, Lublin FD, Wolinsky JS, Conwit R. Variability in the EDSS: what does it mean for progression? 2008. Available from: . Accessed March 5, 2014.
    1. Calabresi PA, Radue EW, Goodin D, et al. Safety and efficacy of fingolimod in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (FREEDOMS II): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13:545–556. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70049-3.
    1. Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3:80–97. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1037.
    1. Kappos L, Weinshenker B, Pozzilli C, et al. Interferon beta-1b in secondary progressive MS: a combined analysis of the two trials. Neurology. 2004;63:1779–1787. doi: 10.1212/01.WNL.0000145561.08973.4F.
    1. Havrdova E, Gold R, Fox RJ, et al. Relapses requiring intravenous steroid use and MS-related hospitalizations: findings from the phase 3 DEFINE and CONFIRM studies. 2012. Available from: . Accessed March 5, 2014.
    1. Miller AE, O’Connor P, Wolinsky JS, et al. Pre-specified subgroup analyses of a placebo-controlled phase III trial (TEMSO) of oral teriflunomide in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2012;18:1625–1632. doi: 10.1177/1352458512450354.
    1. Miller DH, Gold R, Fox RJ, et al. Effects of BG-12 on magnetic resonance imaging outcomes in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: an integrated analysis of the phase 3 DEFINE and CONFIRM studies. 2012. Available from: . Accessed March 5, 2014.
    1. Nixon RM, Bansback N, Brennan A. Using mixed treatment comparisons and meta-regression to perform indirect comparisons to estimate the efficacy of biologic treatments in rheumatoid arthritis. Stat Med. 2007;26:1237–1254. doi: 10.1002/sim.2624.
    1. Thompson SG, Higgins JP. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med. 2002;21:1559–1573. doi: 10.1002/sim.1187.
    1. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Staessen JA, et al. Meta-analysis of continuous outcomes combining individual patient data and aggregate data. Stat Med. 2008;27:1870–1893. doi: 10.1002/sim.3165.

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner