Brain volume loss in relapsing multiple sclerosis: indirect treatment comparisons of available disease-modifying therapies.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Robert Zivadinov, Alexander J Keenan, Hoa H Le, Maria Ait-Tihyaty, Kavita Gandhi, Matthew L Zierhut, Elizabeth M Salvo-Halloran, Abril Oliva Ramirez, Vivian Vuong, Sumeet Singh, Brian Hutton
{"title":"Brain volume loss in relapsing multiple sclerosis: indirect treatment comparisons of available disease-modifying therapies.","authors":"Robert Zivadinov, Alexander J Keenan, Hoa H Le, Maria Ait-Tihyaty, Kavita Gandhi, Matthew L Zierhut, Elizabeth M Salvo-Halloran, Abril Oliva Ramirez, Vivian Vuong, Sumeet Singh, Brian Hutton","doi":"10.1186/s12883-024-03888-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Brain volume loss (BVL) has been identified as a predictor of disability progression in relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). As many available disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) have shown an effect on slowing BVL, this is becoming an emerging clinical endpoint in RMS clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this study, a systematic literature review was conducted to identify BVL results from randomized controlled trials of DMTs in RMS. Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) were conducted to estimate the relative efficacy of DMTs on BVL using two approaches: a model-based meta-analysis (MBMA) with adjustment for measurement timepoint and DMT dosage, and a network meta-analysis (NMA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the MBMA, DMTs associated with significantly reduced BVL versus placebo at two years included fingolimod (mean difference [MD] = 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.15 - 0.36), ozanimod (MD = 0.26; 95% CI = 0.12 - 0.41), teriflunomide (MD = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.20 - 0.55), alemtuzumab (MD = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.10 - 0.67) and ponesimod (MD = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.48 - 0.95), whereas interferons and natalizumab performed the most poorly. The results of NMA analysis were generally comparable with those of the MBMA.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Limitations of these analyses included the potential for confounding due to pseudoatrophy, and a lack of long-term clinical data for BVL. Our findings suggest that important differences in BVL may exist between DMTs. Continued investigation of BVL in studies of RMS is important to complement traditional disability endpoints, and to foster a better understanding of the mechanisms by which DMTs can slow BVL.</p>","PeriodicalId":9170,"journal":{"name":"BMC Neurology","volume":"24 1","pages":"378"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11460132/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-024-03888-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Brain volume loss (BVL) has been identified as a predictor of disability progression in relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). As many available disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) have shown an effect on slowing BVL, this is becoming an emerging clinical endpoint in RMS clinical trials.

Methods: In this study, a systematic literature review was conducted to identify BVL results from randomized controlled trials of DMTs in RMS. Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) were conducted to estimate the relative efficacy of DMTs on BVL using two approaches: a model-based meta-analysis (MBMA) with adjustment for measurement timepoint and DMT dosage, and a network meta-analysis (NMA).

Results: In the MBMA, DMTs associated with significantly reduced BVL versus placebo at two years included fingolimod (mean difference [MD] = 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.15 - 0.36), ozanimod (MD = 0.26; 95% CI = 0.12 - 0.41), teriflunomide (MD = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.20 - 0.55), alemtuzumab (MD = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.10 - 0.67) and ponesimod (MD = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.48 - 0.95), whereas interferons and natalizumab performed the most poorly. The results of NMA analysis were generally comparable with those of the MBMA.

Conclusions: Limitations of these analyses included the potential for confounding due to pseudoatrophy, and a lack of long-term clinical data for BVL. Our findings suggest that important differences in BVL may exist between DMTs. Continued investigation of BVL in studies of RMS is important to complement traditional disability endpoints, and to foster a better understanding of the mechanisms by which DMTs can slow BVL.

复发性多发性硬化症的脑容量损失:现有疾病改变疗法的间接治疗比较。
背景:脑容量损失(BVL)已被确定为复发性多发性硬化症(RMS)残疾进展的预测指标。由于许多现有的改变病情疗法(DMTs)都显示出了减缓脑容量损失的效果,因此脑容量损失正成为RMS临床试验中一个新兴的临床终点:本研究对文献进行了系统性回顾,以确定DMTs治疗RMS随机对照试验的BVL结果。采用两种方法进行了间接治疗比较(ITC),以估计DMTs对BVL的相对疗效:一种是基于模型的荟萃分析(MBMA),对测量时间点和DMT剂量进行了调整;另一种是网络荟萃分析(NMA):结果:在MBMA中,与安慰剂相比,两年后BVL明显减少的DMT包括芬戈莫德(平均差[MD] = 0.25; 95%置信区间[CI] = 0.15 - 0.36)、奥扎尼莫德(MD = 0.26; 95% CI = 0.12 - 0.41)、特利氟莫德(MD = 0.26; 95% CI = 0.12 - 0.4141), teriflunomide (MD = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.20 - 0.55), alemtuzumab (MD = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.10 - 0.67) and ponesimod (MD = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.48 - 0.95), 而干扰素和纳他珠单抗表现最差。NMA分析结果与MBMA分析结果基本相当:这些分析的局限性包括假性萎缩可能造成的混淆,以及缺乏BVL的长期临床数据。我们的研究结果表明,DMTs之间的BVL可能存在重要差异。在RMS研究中继续调查BVL对于补充传统的残疾终点以及促进更好地了解DMT减缓BVL的机制非常重要。
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
BMC Neurology
BMC Neurology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
428
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Neurology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of neurological disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
×
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