These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparative efficacy and safety of ozanimod and ponesimod for relapsing multiple sclerosis: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison.
    Author: Swallow E, Pham T, Patterson-Lomba O, Yin L, Gomez-Lievano A, Liu J, Tencer T, Gupte-Singh K.
    Journal: Mult Scler Relat Disord; 2023 Mar; 71():104551. PubMed ID: 36791623.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Ozanimod and ponesimod are sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS). Given that no head-to-head trials have assessed these two treatments, we performed a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to compare efficacy and safety outcomes between ozanimod and ponesimod for MS. METHODS: A MAIC compared efficacy and safety of ozanimod and ponesimod at 2 years. Outcomes included annualized relapse rate (ARR) and percentage change from baseline in brain volume loss (BVL) as well as rates of any treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious adverse events (AEs), AEs leading to discontinuation, and other safety outcomes. Individual patient-level data were obtained for ozanimod from the RADIANCE-B trial, while aggregate-level patient data were obtained for ponesimod from the OPTIMUM trial. The MAIC was not anchored owing to lack of a common comparator across the two trials. The following characteristics were matched between the trials' populations: age, sex, time since MS symptom onset, relapses in prior year, Expanded Disability Status Scale score, disease-modifying therapies received in the prior 2 years, absence of gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions, and percentage of patients from Eastern Europe. RESULTS: After matching, key baseline characteristics were balanced between patients receiving ozanimod and ponesimod. Compared with ponesimod, ozanimod had a numerically lower ARR (rate ratio: 0.80 [95% CI: 0.57, 1.10]) and was associated with a significant reduction in BVL (% change difference: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.05, 0.36]). Additionally, ozanimod was associated with a significantly lower risk of TEAEs (risk difference: -11.9% [95% CI: -16.8%, -7.0%]), AEs leading to discontinuation (-6.1% [95% CI: -8.9%, -3.4%]), and lymphocyte count <0.2 K/μL (-2.3% [95% CI: -4.2%, -0.5%]). There were no statistically significant differences in the other safety outcomes. CONCLUSION: The MAIC results suggest that, compared with ponesimod, ozanimod is more effective in preserving brain volume, is comparable in terms of reducing relapse rates, and has a favorable safety profile.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]