Cargando…

Effects of horizontal versus vertical switching of disease-modifying treatment after platform drugs on disease activity in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in Austria

OBJECTIVES: To compare in a nationwide observational cohort the effectiveness, frequency and reasons for treatment interruption of dimethylfumarate (DMF) and teriflunomide (TERI) (horizontal switchers) versus alemtuzumab (AZM), cladribine (CLAD), fingolimod (FTY), natalizumab (NTZ), ocrelizumab (OCR...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guger, Michael, Enzinger, Christian, Leutmezer, Fritz, Di Pauli, Franziska, Kraus, Jörg, Kalcher, Stefan, Kvas, Erich, Berger, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10188397/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36862148
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00415-023-11644-y
_version_ 1785042904411013120
author Guger, Michael
Enzinger, Christian
Leutmezer, Fritz
Di Pauli, Franziska
Kraus, Jörg
Kalcher, Stefan
Kvas, Erich
Berger, Thomas
author_facet Guger, Michael
Enzinger, Christian
Leutmezer, Fritz
Di Pauli, Franziska
Kraus, Jörg
Kalcher, Stefan
Kvas, Erich
Berger, Thomas
author_sort Guger, Michael
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To compare in a nationwide observational cohort the effectiveness, frequency and reasons for treatment interruption of dimethylfumarate (DMF) and teriflunomide (TERI) (horizontal switchers) versus alemtuzumab (AZM), cladribine (CLAD), fingolimod (FTY), natalizumab (NTZ), ocrelizumab (OCR) and ozanimod (OZA) (vertical switchers) in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (pwRRMS) and prior interferon beta (IFN-beta) or glatiramer-acetate (GLAT) treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The “horizontal switch cohort” included 669 and the “vertical switch cohort” 800 RRMS patients. We used propensity scores for inverse probability weighting in generalized linear (GLM) and Cox proportional hazards models to correct for bias in this non-randomized registry study. RESULTS: Estimated mean annualized relapse rates (ARR) were 0.39 for horizontal and 0.17 for vertical switchers. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) in the GLM model showed an increased relapse probability of 86% for horizontal versus vertical switchers (IRR = 1.86; 95% CI 1.38–2.50; p < 0.001). Analyzing the time to the first relapse after treatment switch by Cox regression, a hazard ratio of 1.58 (95% CI 1.24–2.02; p < 0.001) indicated an increased risk of 58% for horizontal switchers. The hazard ratios for treatment interruption comparing horizontal versus vertical switchers were 1.78 (95% CI 1.46–2.18; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Horizontal switching after a platform therapy resulted in a higher relapse and interrupt probability and was associated with a trend towards less EDSS improvement comparing to vertical switching in Austrian RRMS patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10188397
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101883972023-05-18 Effects of horizontal versus vertical switching of disease-modifying treatment after platform drugs on disease activity in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in Austria Guger, Michael Enzinger, Christian Leutmezer, Fritz Di Pauli, Franziska Kraus, Jörg Kalcher, Stefan Kvas, Erich Berger, Thomas J Neurol Original Communication OBJECTIVES: To compare in a nationwide observational cohort the effectiveness, frequency and reasons for treatment interruption of dimethylfumarate (DMF) and teriflunomide (TERI) (horizontal switchers) versus alemtuzumab (AZM), cladribine (CLAD), fingolimod (FTY), natalizumab (NTZ), ocrelizumab (OCR) and ozanimod (OZA) (vertical switchers) in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (pwRRMS) and prior interferon beta (IFN-beta) or glatiramer-acetate (GLAT) treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The “horizontal switch cohort” included 669 and the “vertical switch cohort” 800 RRMS patients. We used propensity scores for inverse probability weighting in generalized linear (GLM) and Cox proportional hazards models to correct for bias in this non-randomized registry study. RESULTS: Estimated mean annualized relapse rates (ARR) were 0.39 for horizontal and 0.17 for vertical switchers. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) in the GLM model showed an increased relapse probability of 86% for horizontal versus vertical switchers (IRR = 1.86; 95% CI 1.38–2.50; p < 0.001). Analyzing the time to the first relapse after treatment switch by Cox regression, a hazard ratio of 1.58 (95% CI 1.24–2.02; p < 0.001) indicated an increased risk of 58% for horizontal switchers. The hazard ratios for treatment interruption comparing horizontal versus vertical switchers were 1.78 (95% CI 1.46–2.18; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Horizontal switching after a platform therapy resulted in a higher relapse and interrupt probability and was associated with a trend towards less EDSS improvement comparing to vertical switching in Austrian RRMS patients. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023-03-02 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10188397/ /pubmed/36862148 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00415-023-11644-y Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Communication
Guger, Michael
Enzinger, Christian
Leutmezer, Fritz
Di Pauli, Franziska
Kraus, Jörg
Kalcher, Stefan
Kvas, Erich
Berger, Thomas
Effects of horizontal versus vertical switching of disease-modifying treatment after platform drugs on disease activity in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in Austria
title Effects of horizontal versus vertical switching of disease-modifying treatment after platform drugs on disease activity in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in Austria
title_full Effects of horizontal versus vertical switching of disease-modifying treatment after platform drugs on disease activity in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in Austria
title_fullStr Effects of horizontal versus vertical switching of disease-modifying treatment after platform drugs on disease activity in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in Austria
title_full_unstemmed Effects of horizontal versus vertical switching of disease-modifying treatment after platform drugs on disease activity in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in Austria
title_short Effects of horizontal versus vertical switching of disease-modifying treatment after platform drugs on disease activity in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in Austria
title_sort effects of horizontal versus vertical switching of disease-modifying treatment after platform drugs on disease activity in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in austria
topic Original Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10188397/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36862148
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00415-023-11644-y
work_keys_str_mv AT gugermichael effectsofhorizontalversusverticalswitchingofdiseasemodifyingtreatmentafterplatformdrugsondiseaseactivityinpatientswithrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosisinaustria
AT enzingerchristian effectsofhorizontalversusverticalswitchingofdiseasemodifyingtreatmentafterplatformdrugsondiseaseactivityinpatientswithrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosisinaustria
AT leutmezerfritz effectsofhorizontalversusverticalswitchingofdiseasemodifyingtreatmentafterplatformdrugsondiseaseactivityinpatientswithrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosisinaustria
AT dipaulifranziska effectsofhorizontalversusverticalswitchingofdiseasemodifyingtreatmentafterplatformdrugsondiseaseactivityinpatientswithrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosisinaustria
AT krausjorg effectsofhorizontalversusverticalswitchingofdiseasemodifyingtreatmentafterplatformdrugsondiseaseactivityinpatientswithrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosisinaustria
AT kalcherstefan effectsofhorizontalversusverticalswitchingofdiseasemodifyingtreatmentafterplatformdrugsondiseaseactivityinpatientswithrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosisinaustria
AT kvaserich effectsofhorizontalversusverticalswitchingofdiseasemodifyingtreatmentafterplatformdrugsondiseaseactivityinpatientswithrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosisinaustria
AT bergerthomas effectsofhorizontalversusverticalswitchingofdiseasemodifyingtreatmentafterplatformdrugsondiseaseactivityinpatientswithrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosisinaustria
AT effectsofhorizontalversusverticalswitchingofdiseasemodifyingtreatmentafterplatformdrugsondiseaseactivityinpatientswithrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosisinaustria