Karthik Govindappa1,2, Jean Sathish3, Kevin Park3, Jamie Kirkham4, Munir Pirmohamed3,5. 1. Clinical Research and Healthcare Innovations, Mazumdar Shaw Medical Centre, Narayana Health, 258/A Bommasandra Industrial Area Hosur Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, 560099, India. karthik.govindappa.dr@nhhospitals.org. 2. MRC Centre for Drug Safety Science, Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England, UK. karthik.govindappa.dr@nhhospitals.org. 3. MRC Centre for Drug Safety Science, Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England, UK. 4. Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England, UK. 5. The Wolfson Centre for Personalised Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Interferon beta (IFN-β) is the drug of choice for treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis and is known to reduce the frequency and severity of relapses. This systematic review determines the occurrence of neutralising antibodies (NAbs) against different formulations of IFN-β: IFN-β-1a Avonex™, IFN-β-1a Rebif™ and IFN-β-1b Betaferon/Betaseron™. METHODS: The databases used in the review included MEDLINE Ovid (from 1950 to March 2015), Embase Ovid (from 1980 to March 2015), CENTRAL on The Cochrane Library (2011, Issue 4) and ClinicalTrials.gov (from 1997 to March 2015). All studies that compared the efficacy of the different formulations of IFN-β in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis including IFN-β-1a Avonex™, IFN-β-1a Rebif™, IFN-β-1b Betaferon/Betaseron™ and IFN-β-1b Extavia™ were included. RESULTS: Assessment of randomised controlled trials demonstrated that Avonex™ was 76% less likely than Rebif™ to lead to the formation of NAbs. Avonex™ was 88% less likely than Betaferon/Betaseron™ to lead to the formation of NAbs. Similar findings were also observed in the non-randomised controlled studies, with Avonex™ having the lowest risk. The formation of NAbs was dose dependent: Avonex™ at 30 μg was 64% less risky than Avonex™ at 60 μg. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that 2.0-18.9% of patients developed NAbs to Avonex™, 16.5-35.4% of patients developed NAbs to Rebif™ and 27.3-53.3% of patients developed NAbs to Betaferon/Betaseron™.
PURPOSE: Interferon beta (IFN-β) is the drug of choice for treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis and is known to reduce the frequency and severity of relapses. This systematic review determines the occurrence of neutralising antibodies (NAbs) against different formulations of IFN-β: IFN-β-1a Avonex™, IFN-β-1a Rebif™ and IFN-β-1b Betaferon/Betaseron™. METHODS: The databases used in the review included MEDLINE Ovid (from 1950 to March 2015), Embase Ovid (from 1980 to March 2015), CENTRAL on The Cochrane Library (2011, Issue 4) and ClinicalTrials.gov (from 1997 to March 2015). All studies that compared the efficacy of the different formulations of IFN-β in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis including IFN-β-1a Avonex™, IFN-β-1a Rebif™, IFN-β-1b Betaferon/Betaseron™ and IFN-β-1b Extavia™ were included. RESULTS: Assessment of randomised controlled trials demonstrated that Avonex™ was 76% less likely than Rebif™ to lead to the formation of NAbs. Avonex™ was 88% less likely than Betaferon/Betaseron™ to lead to the formation of NAbs. Similar findings were also observed in the non-randomised controlled studies, with Avonex™ having the lowest risk. The formation of NAbs was dose dependent: Avonex™ at 30 μg was 64% less risky than Avonex™ at 60 μg. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that 2.0-18.9% of patients developed NAbs to Avonex™, 16.5-35.4% of patients developed NAbs to Rebif™ and 27.3-53.3% of patients developed NAbs to Betaferon/Betaseron™.
Authors: Douglas S Goodin; Hans-Peter Hartung; Paul O'Connor; Massimo Filippi; Barry Arnason; Giancarlo Comi; Stuart Cook; Douglas Jeffery; Ludwig Kappos; Timon Bogumil; Volker Knappertz; Rupert Sandbrink; Karola Beckmann; Rick White; John Petkau; Christoph Pohl Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2011-09-27 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: M S Freedman; G S Francis; E A C M Sanders; G P A Rice; P O'Connor; G Comi; P Duquette; L Metz; T J Murray; J-P Bouchard; O Abramsky; J Pelletier; F O'Brien Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: H-P Hartung; M S Freedman; C H Polman; G Edan; L Kappos; D H Miller; X Montalbán; F Barkhof; J Petkau; R White; V Sahajpal; V Knappertz; K Beckmann; V Lanius; R Sandbrink; C Pohl Journal: Neurology Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: A Dicitore; E S Grassi; M O Borghi; G Gelmini; M C Cantone; G Gaudenzi; L Persani; M Caraglia; G Vitale Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: María Isabel Carrasco-Campos; Cristina Pérez-Ramírez; Elena Macías-Cortés; Elena Puerta-García; Antonio Sánchez-Pozo; Carmen Arnal-García; Francisco Javier Barrero-Hernández; Miguel Ángel Calleja-Hernández; Alberto Jiménez-Morales; Marisa Cañadas-Garre Journal: Mol Neurobiol Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 5.590
Authors: Jae Won Hyun; Gayoung Kim; Yeseul Kim; Byungsoo Kong; AeRan Joung; Na Young Park; Hyunmin Jang; Hyun June Shin; Su Hyun Kim; Suk Won Ahn; Ha Young Shin; So Young Huh; Woojun Kim; Min Su Park; Byung Jo Kim; Byoung Joon Kim; Jeeyoung Oh; Ho Jin Kim Journal: J Clin Neurol Date: 2018-02-28 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Alexander Y Lau; W K Ip; Cheryl Au; K K Lau; Winnie Wong; K K Yip; Jonas Yeung; S H Li; Patrick Li; Ryan Lee; Deyond Siu; Jill Abrigo; Adrian Wong; Vincent Mok; Eric Chan Journal: Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin Date: 2017-10-09