Open access

Short Report

19 August 2024

Comparative efficacy of diroximel fumarate, ozanimod and interferon beta-1a for relapsing multiple sclerosis using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons

Authors: Tammy Jiang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6887-5706, Mathura Shanmugasundaram, Ivan Božin https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2205-4233 [email protected], Mark S Freedman https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1255-9701, James B Lewin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2352-9113, Changyu Shen, Tjalf Ziemssen https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8799-8202, and Douglas L ArnoldAuthor Info & Affiliations

Publication: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Volume 13, Number 10

https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2023-0161

PDF OtherFormats

Abstract

Aim: Diroximel fumarate (DRF), ozanimod (OZA) and interferon beta-1a (IFN) are disease-modifying therapies approved for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. No randomized trials have compared DRF versus OZA and IFN. We compared DRF versus OZA and DRF versus IFN using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons for efficacy outcomes, including annualized relapse rate (ARR), 12- and 24-week confirmed disability progression (CDP) and absence of gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) T1 lesions and new/newly enlarging T2 lesions. Patients & methods: We used individual patient data from EVOLVE-MS-1 (NCT02634307), a 2-year, open-label, single-arm, phase III study of DRF (n = 1057) and aggregate data from RADIANCE (NCT02047734), a 2-year, double-blind, phase III study that compared OZA 1 mg once daily (n = 433) and intramuscular IFN 30 μg once weekly (n = 441). To account for cross-trial differences, the EVOLVE-MS-1 population was restricted to those who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for RADIANCE, then weighted to match the average baseline characteristics of RADIANCE. Results: After weighting, DRF and OZA had similar ARRs (0.18 and 0.17, respectively), with a rate difference (DRF vs OZA) of 0.01 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.04 to 0.06). DRF had a lower ARR than IFN (0.18 and 0.28, respectively), with a rate difference (DRF vs IFN) of -0.10 (95% CI: -0.16 to -0.04) after weighting. Outcomes for 12- and 24-week CDP favored DRF versus OZA; 12-week CDP favored DRF versus IFN, but there was not strong evidence favoring DRF over IFN for 24-week CDP. Compared with OZA and IFN, DRF had higher proportions of patients without Gd+ T1 lesions and patients without new/newly enlarging T2 lesions. Conclusion: Disability progression and radiological outcomes were favorable for DRF versus OZA, although no differences were observed in ARR. Clinical and radiological outcomes generally favored DRF versus IFN. These findings may be informative for patients and clinicians considering different treatment options for MS.

Supplementary Material

File (supplementary materials.docx)

Download
53.94 KB

References

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

1.

Noseworthy JH, Lucchinetti C, Rodriguez M, Weinshenker BG. Multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 343(13), 938–952 (2000).

2.

Tullman MJ. Overview of the epidemiology, diagnosis, and disease progression associated with multiple sclerosis. Am. J. Manag. Care. 19(Suppl. 2), S15–S20 (2013).

3.

MS International Federation. Atlas of MS factsheet: United States of America. https://www.atlasofms.org/fact-sheet/united-states-of-america (2023).

4.

Popescu BF, Pirko I, Lucchinetti CF. Pathology of multiple sclerosis: where do we stand? Continuum (Minneap Minn). 19(4 Multiple Sclerosis), 901–921 (2013).

5.

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

6.

Giovannoni G, Butzkueven H, Dhib-Jalbut S et al. Brain health: time matters in multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 9(Suppl. 1), S5–S48 (2016).

7.

Turpin RS, Blumberg PB, Sharda CE, Salvucci LA, Haggert B, Simmons JB. Patient adherence: present state and future directions. Dis. Manag. 10(6), 305–310 (2007).

8.

VUMERITY^® (diroximel fumarate) prescribing information. Biogen, MA, USA (2023).

9.

ZEPOSIA^® (ozanimod) prescribing information. Celgene Corporation, NJ, USA (2022).

10.

AVONEX^® (interferon beta-1a) injection prescribing information. Biogen, MA, USA (2021).

11.

European Medicines Agency. Vumerity summary of product characteristics. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/vumerity-epar-product-information_en.pdf (2022).

12.

European Medicines Agency. Zeposia summary of product characteristics. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/zeposia-epar-product-information_en.pdf (2023).

13.

European Medicines Agency. Avonex summary of product characteristics. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/avonex-epar-product-information_en.pdf (2023).

14.

Naismith RT, Wundes A, Ziemssen T et al. Diroximel fumarate demonstrates an improved gastrointestinal tolerability profile compared with dimethyl fumarate in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: results from the randomized, double-blind, phase III EVOLVE-MS-2 study. CNS Drugs. 34(2), 185–196 (2020).

15.

Scott FL, Clemons B, Brooks J et al. Ozanimod (RPC1063) is a potent sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor-1 (S1P1) and receptor-5 (S1P5) agonist with autoimmune disease-modifying activity. Br. J. Pharmacol. 173(11), 1778–1792 (2016).

16.

Filipi M, Jack S. Interferons in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: a clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability update. Int. J. MS Care. 22(4), 165–172 (2020).

17.

Haji Abdolvahab M, Mofrad MR, Schellekens H. Interferon beta: from molecular level to therapeutic effects. Int. Rev. Cell. Mol. Biol. 326, 343–372 (2016).

18.

Braune S, Grimm S, van Hovell P et al. Comparative effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate versus interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, or fingolimod: results from the German NeuroTransData registry. J. Neurol. 265(12), 2980–2992 (2018).

19.

Ontaneda D, Nicholas J, Carraro M et al. Comparative effectiveness of dimethyl fumarate versus fingolimod and teriflunomide among MS patients switching from first-generation platform therapies in the US. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 27, 101–111 (2019).

20.

Vollmer B, Nair KV, Sillau SH, Corboy J, Vollmer T, Alvarez E. Comparison of fingolimod and dimethyl fumarate in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: two-year experience. Mult. Scler. J. Exp. Transl. Clin. 3(3), 2055217317725102 (2017).

21.

Boster A, Nicholas J, Wu N et al. Comparative effectiveness research of disease-modifying therapies for the management of multiple sclerosis: analysis of a large health insurance claims database. Neurol. Ther. 6(1), 91–102 (2017).

22.

Jiang T, Ziemssen T, Wray S et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of diroximel fumarate, ponesimod, and teriflunomide for relapsing multiple sclerosis. CNS Drugs. 37(5), 441–452 (2023).

• Earlier matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) comparing efficacy of diroximel fumarate (DRF) vs ponesimod and teriflunomide, which indicated similar outcomes between DRF and ponesimod, but improved clinical and radiological outcomes for DRF vs teriflunomide.

23.

Naismith RT, Wolinsky JS, Wundes A et al. Diroximel fumarate (DRF) in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: interim safety and efficacy results from the phase III EVOLVE-MS-1 study. Mult. Scler. 26(13), 1729–1739 (2020).

24.

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 III trial. Lancet Neurol. 18(11), 1021–1033 (2019).

• Randomized, phase III RADIANCE study (NCT02047734) of ozanimod (OZA) and interferon beta-1a (IFN), from which aggregate data were obtained for the current analyses.

25.

Singer BA, Arnold DL, Drulovic J et al. Diroximel fumarate in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: final safety and efficacy results from the phase III EVOLVE-MS-1 study. Mult. Scler. 29(14), 1795–1807 (2023).

• Final outcomes reported for the open-label, phase III EVOLVE-MS-1 study (NCT03093324) of DRF; individual patient data from EVOLVE-MS-1 were used in the current analyses.

26.

Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S, Palmer S, Abrams KR, Welton NJ. Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in health technology appraisal. Med. Decis. Making. 38(2), 200–211 (2018).

27.

Wray S, Then Bergh F, Wundes A et al. Efficacy and safety outcomes with diroximel fumarate after switching from prior therapies or continuing on DRF: results from the phase III EVOLVE-MS-1 study. Adv. Ther. 39(4), 1810–1831 (2022).

28.

Briggs FBS, Thompson NR, Conway DS. Prognostic factors of disability in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 30, 9–16 (2019).

29.

Scalfari A, Neuhaus A, Degenhardt A et al. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study 10: relapses and long-term disability. Brain 133(Pt 7), 1914–1929 (2010).

30.

Lanzillo R, Moccia M, Palladino R et al. Clinical predictors of dimethyl fumarate response in multiple sclerosis: a real life multicentre study. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 38, 101871 (2020).

31.

Rothman K. Epidemiology: An Introduction. Oxford University Press, Inc, NY, USA (2012).

32.

Sattarnezhad N, Healy BC, Baharnoori M et al. Comparison of dimethyl fumarate and interferon outcomes in an MS cohort. BMC Neurol. 22(1), 252 (2022).

33.

Fox RJ, Chan A, Zhang A et al. Comparative effectiveness using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison between delayed-release dimethyl fumarate and fingolimod for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 33(2), 175–183 (2017).

34.

Cohan S, Kumar J, Arndorfer S, Zhu X, Zivkovic M, Tencer T. Comparative efficacy and safety of ozanimod and dimethyl fumarate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis using matching-adjusted indirect comparison. CNS Drugs. 35(7), 795–804 (2021).

• MAIC of OZA vs DMF that indicated favorable relapse outcomes for OZA.

35.

Polman CH, Reingold SC, Edan G et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald Criteria”. Ann. Neurol. 58(6), 840–846 (2005).

36.

Polman CH, Reingold SC, Banwell B et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann. Neurol. 69(2), 292–302 (2011).

|