Open access

Research Article

2 June 2023

Comparative efficacy of therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Authors: Imtiaz A Samjoo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1415-8055 [email protected], Christopher Drudge https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9721-3069, Sarah Walsh, Santosh Tiwari, Róisín Brennan, Ibolya Boer, Dieter A Häring, Luisa Klotz, Nicholas Adlard https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6912-1685, and Judit BanhaziAuthor Info & Affiliations

Publication: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Volume 12, Number 7

https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2023-0016

PDF OtherFormats

Abstract

Aim: To assess the relative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) including newer therapies (ozanimod, ponesimod, ublituximab) using network meta-analysis (NMA). Materials & methods: Bayesian NMAs for annualised relapse rate (ARR) and time to 3-month and 6-month confirmed disability progression (3mCDP and 6mCDP) were conducted. Results: For each outcome, the three most efficacious treatments versus placebo were monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies: alemtuzumab, ofatumumab, and ublituximab for ARR; alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, and ofatumumab for 3mCDP; and alemtuzumab, natalizumab, and either ocrelizumab or ofatumumab (depending on the CDP definition used for included ofatumumab trials) for 6mCDP. Conclusion: The most efficacious DMTs for RMS were mAb therapies. Of the newer therapies, only ublituximab ranked among the three most efficacious treatments (for ARR).

Supplementary Material

File (supplementary materials.pdf)

Download
3.40 MB

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

1.

Compston A, Coles A. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet 372(9648), 1502–1517 (2008).

2.

Filippi M, Bar-Or A, Piehl F et al. Multiple sclerosis. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 4(1), 43 (2018).

3.

Kobelt G, Thompson A, Berg J, Gannedahl M, Eriksson J. New insights into the burden and costs of multiple sclerosis in Europe. Mult. Scler. 23(8), 1123–1136 (2017).

4.

Lublin FD, Reingold SC, Cohen JA et al. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: the 2013 revisions. Neurology 83(3), 278–286 (2014).

5.

National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) (2022). https://www.nationalmssociety.org/What-is-MS/Types-of-MS/Relapsing-remitting-MS

6.

European Medicines Agency. Clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (2015).

• This publication provides a definition for relapsing multiple sclerosis.

7.

Hauser SL, Cree BaC. Treatment of multiple sclerosis: a review. Am. J. Med. 133(12), 1380–1390.e1382 (2020).

• This paper provides an overview of treatment approaches for multiple sclerosis.

8.

Samjoo IA, Worthington E, Drudge C et al. Comparison of ofatumumab and other disease-modifying therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 9(18), 1255–1274 (2020).

9.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Single technology appraisal: user guide for company evidence submission template (2017).

10.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Prisma Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151(4), 264–269 (2009).

• This paper presents a commonly used protocol for conducting systematic literature reviews.

11.

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. University of York, York, UK (2009).

12.

Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res. Synth. Methods 3(2), 80–97 (2012).

• This paper provides guidance for conducting network meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.

13.

Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health 14(4), 429–437 (2011).

14.

Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health 14(4), 417–428 (2011).

15.

Jansen JP, Naci H. Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers. BMC Med 11(1), 159 (2013).

16.

Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades A, Welton NJ. Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med. Decis. Making 33(5), 607–617 (2013).

•• This paper provides guidance for conducting network meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.

17.

Dias S, Sutton AJ, Welton NJ, Ades A. Evidence synthesis for decision making 3: heterogeneity—subgroups, meta-regression, bias, and bias-adjustment. Med. Decis. Making 33(5), 618–640 (2013).

18.

Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Caldwell DM, Lu G, Ades A. Evidence synthesis for decision making 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making 33(5), 641–656 (2013).

19.

R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2019).

20.

Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N. WinBUGS user manual. MRC Biostat Unit (2004).

21.

Salanti G, Ades A, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64(2), 163–171 (2011).

22.

Boiko AN, Lashch NY, Sharanova SN et al. A comparative placebo-controlled clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of glatiramer acetate 20 mg in patients with remitting multiple sclerosis: first-year study results. Neurosci. Behav. Physiol. 48(3), 351–357 (2018).

23.

Turner RM, Jackson D, Wei Y, Thompson SG, Higgins JPT. Predictive distributions for between-study heterogeneity and simple methods for their application in Bayesian meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 34(6), 984–998 (2015).

24.

Ren S, Oakley JE, Stevens JW. Incorporating genuine prior information about between-study heterogeneity in random effects pairwise and network meta-analyses. Med. Decis. Making 38(4), 531–542 (2018).

25.

McCool R, Wilson K, Arber M et al. Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing ocrelizumab with other treatments for relapsing multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 29, 55–61 (2019).

26.

Watkins C, Bennett I. A simple method for combining binomial counts or proportions with hazard ratios for evidence synthesis of time-to-event data. Res. Synth. Methods 9(3), 352–360 (2018).

27.

Haute Autorité De Santé. Commission de la Transparence: alemtuzumab (2016).

28.

Hauser SL, Bar-Or A, Cohen JA et al. Ofatumumab versus teriflunomide in multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 383(6), 546–557 (2020).

29.

Dias S, Ades AE, Welton NJ, Jansen JP, Sutton AJ. Network Meta-Analyses for Decision-Making. John Wiley & Sons, NJ, USA (2018).

•• This book provides guidance for conducting network meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.

30.

Calabresi PA, Kieseier BC, Arnold DL et al. Pegylated interferon beta-1a for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (ADVANCE): a randomised, phase 3, double-blind study. Lancet Neurol. 13(7), 657–665 (2014).

31.

Durelli L, Verdun E, Barbero P et al. Every-other-day interferon beta-1b versus once-weekly interferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis: results of a 2-year prospective randomised multicentre study (INCOMIN). Lancet 359(9316), 1453–1460 (2002).

32.

Steinman L, Fox E, Hartung H-P et al. Efficacy and safety of ublituximab vs teriflunomide in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis: results from two phase 3 studies ULTIMATE I & ULTIMATE II. Presented at: 2021 American Academy of Neurology Virtual Annual Meeting. (17–22 April 2021).

33.

Steinman L, Fox E, Hartung H-P et al. Ublituximab versus teriflunomide in relapsing multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 387(8), 704–714 (2022).

34.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Technology appraisal guidance TA533: ocrelizumab for treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (2018).

35.

Vartanian T. An examination of the results of the EVIDENCE, INCOMIN, and phase III studies of interferon beta products in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Clin. Ther. 25(1), 105–118 (2003).

36.

Bornstein MB, Miller A, Slagle S et al. A pilot trial of Cop 1 in exacerbating-remitting multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 317(7), 408–414 (1987).

37.

Comi G, Patti F, Rocca MA et al. Efficacy of fingolimod and interferon beta-1b on cognitive, MRI, and clinical outcomes in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: an 18-month, open-label, rater-blinded, randomised, multicentre study (the GOLDEN study). J. Neurol. 264(12), 2436–2449 (2017).

38.

Vermersch P, Czlonkowska A, Grimaldi LM et al. Teriflunomide versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis: a randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. Mult. Scler. 20(6), 705–716 (2014).

39.

Chen C, Zhang E, Zhu C et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of disease-modifying therapies in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. (2022) (Online ahead of print).

40.

Fogarty E, Schmitz S, Tubridy N, Walsh C, Barry M. Comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies for patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 9, 23–30 (2016).

41.

Giovannoni G, Lang S, Wolff R et al. A systematic review and mixed treatment comparison of pharmaceutical interventions for multiple sclerosis. Neurol. Ther. 9(2), 359–374 (2020).

42.

Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting and primary-progressive multiple sclerosis: effectiveness and value (2017).

43.

Li H, Hu F, Zhang Y, Li K. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of disease-modifying therapies in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J. Neurol. 267, 3489–3498 (2020).

44.

Liu Z, Liao Q, Wen H, Zhang Y. Disease modifying therapies in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Autoimmun. Rev. 20(6), 102826 (2021).

45.

Lucchetta RC, Tonin FS, Borba HHL et al. Disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis. CNS Drugs 32(9), 813–826 (2018).

46.

Siddiqui MK, Khurana IS, Budhia S, Hettle R, Harty G, Wong SL. Systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of cladribine tablets versus alternative disease-modifying treatments for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 34(8), 1361–1371 (2018).

47.

Cohen JA, Comi G, Selmaj KW et al. Safety and efficacy of ozanimod versus interferon beta-1a in relapsing multiple sclerosis (RADIANCE): a multicentre, randomised, 24-month, phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol. 18(11), 1021–1033 (2019).

48.

Comi G, Kappos L, Selmaj KW et al. Safety and efficacy of ozanimod versus interferon beta-1a in relapsing multiple sclerosis (SUNBEAM): a multicentre, randomised, minimum 12-month, phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol. 18(11), 1009–1020 (2019).

49.

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Reimbursement reviews: ozanimod (2021).

50.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Technology appraisal guidance TA706: ozanimod for treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (2021).

51.

Kappos L, Fox RJ, Burcklen M et al. Ponesimod compared with teriflunomide in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis in the active-comparator phase 3 OPTIMUM study: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol. 78(5), 558–567 (2021).

|