Cargando…

No Evidence of Disease Activity: Indirect Comparisons of Oral Therapies for the Treatment of Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis

INTRODUCTION: No head-to-head trials have compared the efficacy of the oral therapies, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide, in multiple sclerosis. Statistical modeling approaches, which control for differences in patient characteristics, can improve indirect comparisons of the efficacy o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nixon, Richard, Bergvall, Niklas, Tomic, Davorka, Sfikas, Nikolaos, Cutter, Gary, Giovannoni, Gavin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Healthcare 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245493/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25414048
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-014-0167-z
_version_ 1782346360080564224
author Nixon, Richard
Bergvall, Niklas
Tomic, Davorka
Sfikas, Nikolaos
Cutter, Gary
Giovannoni, Gavin
author_facet Nixon, Richard
Bergvall, Niklas
Tomic, Davorka
Sfikas, Nikolaos
Cutter, Gary
Giovannoni, Gavin
author_sort Nixon, Richard
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: No head-to-head trials have compared the efficacy of the oral therapies, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide, in multiple sclerosis. Statistical modeling approaches, which control for differences in patient characteristics, can improve indirect comparisons of the efficacy of these therapies. METHODS: No evidence of disease activity (NEDA) was evaluated as the proportion of patients free from relapses and 3-month confirmed disability progression (clinical composite), free from gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions and new or newly enlarged T2 lesions (magnetic resonance imaging composite), or free from all disease measures (overall composite). For each measure, the efficacy of fingolimod was estimated by analyzing individual patient data from fingolimod phase 3 trials using methodologies from studies of other oral therapies. These data were then used to build binomial regression models, which adjusted for differences in baseline characteristics between the studies. Models predicted the indirect relative risk of achieving NEDA status for fingolimod versus dimethyl fumarate or teriflunomide in an average patient from their respective phase 3 trials. RESULTS: The estimated relative risks of achieving NEDA status for fingolimod versus placebo in a pooled fingolimod trial population were numerically greater (i.e., fingolimod more efficacious) than the estimated relative risks for dimethyl fumarate or teriflunomide versus placebo in each respective trial population. In indirect comparisons, the predicted relative risks for all composite measures were better for fingolimod than comparator when tested against the trial populations of those treated with dimethyl fumarate (relative risk, clinical: 1.21 [95% confidence interval 1.06–1.39]; overall: 1.67 [1.08–2.57]), teriflunomide 7 mg (clinical: 1.22 [1.02–1.46]; overall: 2.01 [1.38–2.93]) and teriflunomide 14 mg (clinical: 1.14 [0.96–1.36]; overall: 1.61 [1.12–2.31]). CONCLUSION: Our modeling approach suggests that fingolimod therapy results in a higher probability of NEDA than dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide therapy when phase 3 trial data are indirectly compared and differences between trials are adjusted for. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-014-0167-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4245493
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Springer Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42454932014-12-03 No Evidence of Disease Activity: Indirect Comparisons of Oral Therapies for the Treatment of Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Nixon, Richard Bergvall, Niklas Tomic, Davorka Sfikas, Nikolaos Cutter, Gary Giovannoni, Gavin Adv Ther Original Research INTRODUCTION: No head-to-head trials have compared the efficacy of the oral therapies, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide, in multiple sclerosis. Statistical modeling approaches, which control for differences in patient characteristics, can improve indirect comparisons of the efficacy of these therapies. METHODS: No evidence of disease activity (NEDA) was evaluated as the proportion of patients free from relapses and 3-month confirmed disability progression (clinical composite), free from gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions and new or newly enlarged T2 lesions (magnetic resonance imaging composite), or free from all disease measures (overall composite). For each measure, the efficacy of fingolimod was estimated by analyzing individual patient data from fingolimod phase 3 trials using methodologies from studies of other oral therapies. These data were then used to build binomial regression models, which adjusted for differences in baseline characteristics between the studies. Models predicted the indirect relative risk of achieving NEDA status for fingolimod versus dimethyl fumarate or teriflunomide in an average patient from their respective phase 3 trials. RESULTS: The estimated relative risks of achieving NEDA status for fingolimod versus placebo in a pooled fingolimod trial population were numerically greater (i.e., fingolimod more efficacious) than the estimated relative risks for dimethyl fumarate or teriflunomide versus placebo in each respective trial population. In indirect comparisons, the predicted relative risks for all composite measures were better for fingolimod than comparator when tested against the trial populations of those treated with dimethyl fumarate (relative risk, clinical: 1.21 [95% confidence interval 1.06–1.39]; overall: 1.67 [1.08–2.57]), teriflunomide 7 mg (clinical: 1.22 [1.02–1.46]; overall: 2.01 [1.38–2.93]) and teriflunomide 14 mg (clinical: 1.14 [0.96–1.36]; overall: 1.61 [1.12–2.31]). CONCLUSION: Our modeling approach suggests that fingolimod therapy results in a higher probability of NEDA than dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide therapy when phase 3 trial data are indirectly compared and differences between trials are adjusted for. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-014-0167-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Healthcare 2014-11-21 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC4245493/ /pubmed/25414048 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-014-0167-z Text en © The Author(s) 2014 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Nixon, Richard
Bergvall, Niklas
Tomic, Davorka
Sfikas, Nikolaos
Cutter, Gary
Giovannoni, Gavin
No Evidence of Disease Activity: Indirect Comparisons of Oral Therapies for the Treatment of Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis
title No Evidence of Disease Activity: Indirect Comparisons of Oral Therapies for the Treatment of Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis
title_full No Evidence of Disease Activity: Indirect Comparisons of Oral Therapies for the Treatment of Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis
title_fullStr No Evidence of Disease Activity: Indirect Comparisons of Oral Therapies for the Treatment of Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis
title_full_unstemmed No Evidence of Disease Activity: Indirect Comparisons of Oral Therapies for the Treatment of Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis
title_short No Evidence of Disease Activity: Indirect Comparisons of Oral Therapies for the Treatment of Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis
title_sort no evidence of disease activity: indirect comparisons of oral therapies for the treatment of relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245493/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25414048
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-014-0167-z
work_keys_str_mv AT nixonrichard noevidenceofdiseaseactivityindirectcomparisonsoforaltherapiesforthetreatmentofrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosis
AT bergvallniklas noevidenceofdiseaseactivityindirectcomparisonsoforaltherapiesforthetreatmentofrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosis
AT tomicdavorka noevidenceofdiseaseactivityindirectcomparisonsoforaltherapiesforthetreatmentofrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosis
AT sfikasnikolaos noevidenceofdiseaseactivityindirectcomparisonsoforaltherapiesforthetreatmentofrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosis
AT cuttergary noevidenceofdiseaseactivityindirectcomparisonsoforaltherapiesforthetreatmentofrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosis
AT giovannonigavin noevidenceofdiseaseactivityindirectcomparisonsoforaltherapiesforthetreatmentofrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosis