Real-World Comparison of High-Efficacy Versus Non-High-Efficacy Therapies in Multiple Sclerosis.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Sarmad Al-Araji, Marcello Moccia, Alessia Bianchi, Charmaine Yam, Weaam Hamed, Suraya Mohamud, Alan J Thompson, Frederik Barkhof, Ahmed T Toosy, Olga Ciccarelli
{"title":"Real-World Comparison of High-Efficacy Versus Non-High-Efficacy Therapies in Multiple Sclerosis.","authors":"Sarmad Al-Araji, Marcello Moccia, Alessia Bianchi, Charmaine Yam, Weaam Hamed, Suraya Mohamud, Alan J Thompson, Frederik Barkhof, Ahmed T Toosy, Olga Ciccarelli","doi":"10.1002/acn3.70130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The choice of the first disease modifying treatment (DMT) in multiple sclerosis (MS) is a topic of great interest, and whether high-efficacy DMTs should be the first choice remains debated. We compared treatment outcomes (no evidence of disease activity [NEDA] and its components) between treatment-naïve relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) patients commencing high-efficacy therapies (HET) and non-high-efficacy therapies (non-HET), using propensity score matching.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is an observational prospective study of two real-world, single-centre, longitudinal cohorts: (1) Relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) patients initiated dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate and natalizumab between 2002 and 2020; (2) RRMS patients initiated ocrelizumab between 2019 and 2021. We selected treatment-naïve patients and had at least 2 years of follow-up. We compared the two groups at years 1 and 2 using Cox and Logistic regression models as appropriate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After propensity score matching, we included 448 patients: 110 HET and 338 non-HET. The probability of losing NEDA was 57% and 39% lower in the HET group at year 1 and 2 (HR = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.35, 0.52; p < 0.01 and HR = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.45, 0.84; p < 0.01, respectively). The probability of relapse in the HET group was 94% and 71% lower at year 1 and 2 (OR = 0.06; 95% CI = 0.01, 0.28; p < 0.01 and OR = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.10, 0.84; p < 0.02, respectively). The EDSS in the HET group was 30% and 18% lower at year 1 and 2 (Coeff = -0.30; 95% CI = -0.42, -0.18; p < 0.01 and Coeff = -0.16; 95% CI = -0.34, 0.02; p < 0.09, respectively). The probability of MRI activity in the HET group was 82% lower at year 1 (OR = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.04, 0.86; p < 0.03).</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>This study demonstrated that treatment-naïve RRMS patients should be considered for high-efficacy therapies based on a greater suppression of disease activity at 2 years.</p>","PeriodicalId":126,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.70130","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The choice of the first disease modifying treatment (DMT) in multiple sclerosis (MS) is a topic of great interest, and whether high-efficacy DMTs should be the first choice remains debated. We compared treatment outcomes (no evidence of disease activity [NEDA] and its components) between treatment-naïve relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) patients commencing high-efficacy therapies (HET) and non-high-efficacy therapies (non-HET), using propensity score matching.

Methods: This is an observational prospective study of two real-world, single-centre, longitudinal cohorts: (1) Relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) patients initiated dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate and natalizumab between 2002 and 2020; (2) RRMS patients initiated ocrelizumab between 2019 and 2021. We selected treatment-naïve patients and had at least 2 years of follow-up. We compared the two groups at years 1 and 2 using Cox and Logistic regression models as appropriate.

Results: After propensity score matching, we included 448 patients: 110 HET and 338 non-HET. The probability of losing NEDA was 57% and 39% lower in the HET group at year 1 and 2 (HR = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.35, 0.52; p < 0.01 and HR = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.45, 0.84; p < 0.01, respectively). The probability of relapse in the HET group was 94% and 71% lower at year 1 and 2 (OR = 0.06; 95% CI = 0.01, 0.28; p < 0.01 and OR = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.10, 0.84; p < 0.02, respectively). The EDSS in the HET group was 30% and 18% lower at year 1 and 2 (Coeff = -0.30; 95% CI = -0.42, -0.18; p < 0.01 and Coeff = -0.16; 95% CI = -0.34, 0.02; p < 0.09, respectively). The probability of MRI activity in the HET group was 82% lower at year 1 (OR = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.04, 0.86; p < 0.03).

Interpretation: This study demonstrated that treatment-naïve RRMS patients should be considered for high-efficacy therapies based on a greater suppression of disease activity at 2 years.

多发性硬化症的高效与非高效治疗的现实世界比较。
目的:多发性硬化症(MS)患者首选减病治疗(DMT)的选择是一个备受关注的话题,而高效DMT是否应作为首选仍存在争议。我们比较了treatment-naïve复发-缓解型MS (RRMS)患者开始高效治疗(HET)和非高效治疗(非HET)的治疗结果(无疾病活动证据[NEDA]及其组成部分),使用倾向评分匹配。方法:这是一项对两个真实世界的单中心纵向队列的观察性前瞻性研究:(1)2002年至2020年期间接受富马酸二甲酯、芬戈莫德、醋酸格拉替默和那他珠单抗治疗的复发缓解型MS (RRMS)患者;(2) RRMS患者在2019年至2021年期间开始使用ocrelizumab。我们选择treatment-naïve患者,并进行了至少2年的随访。我们在第1年和第2年使用Cox和Logistic回归模型对两组进行比较。结果:倾向评分匹配后,我们纳入了448例患者:110例HET和338例非HET。HET组在第1年和第2年NEDA丢失的概率分别比对照组低57%和39% (HR = 0.43;95% ci = 0.35, 0.52;p解释:本研究表明treatment-naïve RRMS患者应考虑在2年时更大程度抑制疾病活动的基础上进行高效治疗。
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
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
1.90%
发文量
218
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology is a peer-reviewed journal for rapid dissemination of high-quality research related to all areas of neurology. The journal publishes original research and scholarly reviews focused on the mechanisms and treatments of diseases of the nervous system; high-impact topics in neurologic education; and other topics of interest to the clinical neuroscience community.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信