MEDLINE/PubMed Journal Browser Search

Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

Title: Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons of Diroximel Fumarate, Ponesimod, and Teriflunomide for Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis.
Author: Jiang T, Ziemssen T, Wray S, Shen C, Söderbärg K, Lewin JB, Božin I, Freedman MS.
Journal: CNS Drugs; 2023 May; 37(5):441-452. PubMed ID: 37155132.
Abstract:
INTRODUCTION: Diroximel fumarate (DRF), ponesimod (PON), and teriflunomide (TERI) are oral disease-modifying therapies approved for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. No randomized trials have compared DRF versus PON or TERI. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this analysis were to compare DRF versus PON and DRF versus TERI for clinical and radiological outcomes. METHODS: We used individual patient data from EVOLVE-MS-1, a 2-year, open-label, single-arm, phase III trial of DRF (n = 1057), and aggregated data from OPTIMUM, a 2-year, double-blind, phase III trial comparing PON (n = 567) and TERI (n = 566). To account for cross-trial differences, EVOLVE-MS-1 data were weighted to match OPTIMUM's average baseline characteristics using an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison. We examined the outcomes of annualized relapse rate (ARR), 12-week confirmed disability progression (CDP), 24-week CDP, absence of gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) T1 lesions, and absence of new/newly enlarging T2 lesions. RESULTS: After weighting, we did not observe strong evidence of differences between DRF and PON for ARR [DRF versus PON incidence rate difference (IRD) -0.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.08, 0.04; incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.92; 95% CI 0.61, 1.2], 12-week CDP [risk difference (RD) -2.5%; 95% CI -6.3, 1.2; risk ratio (RR) 0.76; 95% CI 0.38, 1.1], 24-week CDP (RD -2.7%; 95% CI -6.0, 0.63; RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.28, 1.0), and absence of new/newly enlarging T2 lesions (RD -2.5%; 95% CI -13, 7.4; RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.70, 1.2). However, a higher proportion of DRF-treated patients were free of Gd+ T1 lesions than PON-treated patients (RD 11%; 95% CI 6.0, 16; RR 1.1; 95% CI 1.06, 1.2). Compared with TERI, DRF showed improved ARR (IRD -0.08; 95% CI -0.15, -0.01; IRR 0.74; 95% CI 0.50, 0.94), 12-week CDP (RD -4.2%; 95% CI -7.9, -0.48; RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.38, 0.90), 24-week CDP (RD -4.3%; 95% CI -7.7, -1.1; RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.26, 0.81), and absence of Gd+ T1 lesions (RD 25%; 95% CI 19, 30; RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.3, 1.5). However, DRF and TERI did not appear to differ significantly with respect to absence of new/newly enlarging T2 lesions when based on comparisons using the overall EVOLVE-MS-1 sample (RD 8.5%; 95% CI -0.93, 18; RR 1.3; 95% CI 0.94, 1.6), or in a sensitivity analysis restricted to newly enrolled EVOLVE-MS-1 patients (RD 2.7%; 95% CI -9.1, 14; RR 1.1; 95% CI 0.68, 1.5). CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe differences between DRF and PON for ARR, CDP, and absence of new/newly enlarging T2 lesions, but there was a higher proportion of patients free of Gd+ T1 lesions among DRF-treated patients than PON-treated patients. DRF had improved efficacy versus TERI for all clinical and radiological outcomes, except for absence of new/newly enlarging T2 lesions. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: EVOLVE-MS-1 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02634307); OPTIMUM (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02425644).

[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]