Comparative efficacy of diroximel fumarate, ozanimod and interferon beta-1a for relapsing multiple sclerosis using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Tammy Jiang, Mathura Shanmugasundaram, Ivan Božin, Mark S Freedman, James B Lewin, Changyu Shen, Tjalf Ziemssen, Douglas L Arnold
{"title":"Comparative efficacy of diroximel fumarate, ozanimod and interferon beta-1a for relapsing multiple sclerosis using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons.","authors":"Tammy Jiang, Mathura Shanmugasundaram, Ivan Božin, Mark S Freedman, James B Lewin, Changyu Shen, Tjalf Ziemssen, Douglas L Arnold","doi":"10.57264/cer-2023-0161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Diroximel fumarate (DRF), ozanimod (OZA) and interferon beta-1a (IFN) are disease-modifying therapies approved for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. No randomized trials have compared DRF versus OZA and IFN. We compared DRF versus OZA and DRF versus IFN using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons for efficacy outcomes, including annualized relapse rate (ARR), 12- and 24-week confirmed disability progression (CDP) and absence of gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) T1 lesions and new/newly enlarging T2 lesions. <b>Patients & methods:</b> We used individual patient data from EVOLVE-MS-1 (NCT02634307), a 2-year, open-label, single-arm, phase III study of DRF (n = 1057) and aggregate data from RADIANCE (NCT02047734), a 2-year, double-blind, phase III study that compared OZA 1 mg once daily (n = 433) and intramuscular IFN 30 μg once weekly (n = 441). To account for cross-trial differences, the EVOLVE-MS-1 population was restricted to those who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for RADIANCE, then weighted to match the average baseline characteristics of RADIANCE. <b>Results:</b> After weighting, DRF and OZA had similar ARRs (0.18 and 0.17, respectively), with a rate difference (DRF vs OZA) of 0.01 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.04 to 0.06). DRF had a lower ARR than IFN (0.18 and 0.28, respectively), with a rate difference (DRF vs IFN) of -0.10 (95% CI: -0.16 to -0.04) after weighting. Outcomes for 12- and 24-week CDP favored DRF versus OZA; 12-week CDP favored DRF versus IFN, but there was not strong evidence favoring DRF over IFN for 24-week CDP. Compared with OZA and IFN, DRF had higher proportions of patients without Gd+ T1 lesions and patients without new/newly enlarging T2 lesions. <b>Conclusion:</b> Disability progression and radiological outcomes were favorable for DRF versus OZA, although no differences were observed in ARR. Clinical and radiological outcomes generally favored DRF versus IFN. These findings may be informative for patients and clinicians considering different treatment options for MS.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":" ","pages":"e230161"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11428343/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2023-0161","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Diroximel fumarate (DRF), ozanimod (OZA) and interferon beta-1a (IFN) are disease-modifying therapies approved for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. No randomized trials have compared DRF versus OZA and IFN. We compared DRF versus OZA and DRF versus IFN using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons for efficacy outcomes, including annualized relapse rate (ARR), 12- and 24-week confirmed disability progression (CDP) and absence of gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) T1 lesions and new/newly enlarging T2 lesions. Patients & methods: We used individual patient data from EVOLVE-MS-1 (NCT02634307), a 2-year, open-label, single-arm, phase III study of DRF (n = 1057) and aggregate data from RADIANCE (NCT02047734), a 2-year, double-blind, phase III study that compared OZA 1 mg once daily (n = 433) and intramuscular IFN 30 μg once weekly (n = 441). To account for cross-trial differences, the EVOLVE-MS-1 population was restricted to those who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for RADIANCE, then weighted to match the average baseline characteristics of RADIANCE. Results: After weighting, DRF and OZA had similar ARRs (0.18 and 0.17, respectively), with a rate difference (DRF vs OZA) of 0.01 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.04 to 0.06). DRF had a lower ARR than IFN (0.18 and 0.28, respectively), with a rate difference (DRF vs IFN) of -0.10 (95% CI: -0.16 to -0.04) after weighting. Outcomes for 12- and 24-week CDP favored DRF versus OZA; 12-week CDP favored DRF versus IFN, but there was not strong evidence favoring DRF over IFN for 24-week CDP. Compared with OZA and IFN, DRF had higher proportions of patients without Gd+ T1 lesions and patients without new/newly enlarging T2 lesions. Conclusion: Disability progression and radiological outcomes were favorable for DRF versus OZA, although no differences were observed in ARR. Clinical and radiological outcomes generally favored DRF versus IFN. These findings may be informative for patients and clinicians considering different treatment options for MS.

使用匹配调整间接比较法比较富马酸地罗昔麦、奥扎尼莫德和干扰素 beta-1a 对复发性多发性硬化症的疗效。
目的:富马酸双嘧达莫 (DRF)、奥扎尼莫德 (OZA) 和干扰素 beta-1a (IFN) 是获准用于治疗复发性多发性硬化症的疾病改变疗法。目前还没有随机试验对 DRF 与 OZA 和 IFN 进行比较。我们采用匹配调整间接比较法比较了 DRF 与 OZA 和 DRF 与 IFN 的疗效结果,包括年复发率 (ARR)、12 周和 24 周确诊残疾进展 (CDP)、无钆增强 (Gd+) T1 病变和新发/新增大 T2 病变。患者和方法我们使用了EVOLVE-MS-1(NCT02634307)的单个患者数据(n = 1057)和RADIANCE(NCT02047734)的综合数据,前者是一项为期2年的开放标签单臂III期DRF研究(n = 1057),后者是一项为期2年的双盲III期研究,比较了OZA 1 mg每日1次(n = 433)和肌肉注射IFN 30 μg每周1次(n = 441)。为了考虑交叉试验的差异,EVOLVE-MS-1 的研究对象仅限于符合 RADIANCE 纳入/排除标准的患者,然后根据 RADIANCE 的平均基线特征进行加权。结果加权后,DRF和OZA的ARR相似(分别为0.18和0.17),比率差异(DRF vs OZA)为0.01(95%置信区间[CI]:-0.04至0.06)。DRF的ARR低于IFN(分别为0.18和0.28),加权后的比率差异(DRF vs IFN)为-0.10(95% 置信区间[CI]:-0.16至-0.04)。12周和24周CDP的结果显示,DRF优于OZA;12周CDP的结果显示,DRF优于IFN,但24周CDP的结果显示,DRF优于IFN的证据并不充分。与 OZA 和 IFN 相比,DRF 在无 Gd+ T1 病变和无新的/新扩大的 T2 病变的患者中所占比例更高。结论是与 OZA 相比,DRF 有利于残疾进展和放射学结果,但在 ARR 方面未观察到差异。DRF 与 IFN 相比,临床和放射学结果普遍更有利。这些研究结果可能对考虑采用不同治疗方案治疗多发性硬化症的患者和临床医生有所启发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of comparative effectiveness research
Journal of comparative effectiveness research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides a rapid-publication platform for debate, and for the presentation of new findings and research methodologies. Through rigorous evaluation and comprehensive coverage, the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides stakeholders (including patients, clinicians, healthcare purchasers, and health policy makers) with the key data and opinions to make informed and specific decisions on clinical practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信