Literature DB >> 27878443

Real-world effectiveness of natalizumab and fingolimod compared with self-injectable drugs in non-responders and in treatment-naïve patients with multiple sclerosis.

Luca Prosperini1, Francesco Saccà2, Cinzia Cordioli3, Antonio Cortese4, Fabio Buttari5,6, Simona Pontecorvo4, Assunta Bianco7, Serena Ruggieri4,8, Shalom Haggiag8, Vincenzo Brescia Morra2, Ruggero Capra3, Diego Centonze5,6, Giancarlo Di Battista9, Elisabetta Ferraro9, Ada Francia4, Simonetta Galgani8, Claudio Gasperini8, Enrico Millefiorini4, Massimiliano Mirabella7, Carlo Pozzilli4,10.   

Abstract

In this independent, multicentre post-marketing study we directly compared the effectiveness of natalizumab (NTZ), fingolimod (FNG) and self-injectable drugs (INJ), in non-responders to first immunomodulating treatment and in highly active treatment-naïve patients with multiple sclerosis. As main outcome measure we considered the proportions of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3), defined as absence of relapses, disability worsening and radiological activity. A total of 567 non-responders to interferon beta (IFNB) or glatiramer acetate (GA) [dataset A] and 216 highly active treatment-naïves [dataset B] were followed up to 24 months from the beginning of NTZ, FNG or INJ, i.e. switching from IFNB to GA or viceversa (in the case of non-responders) or starting high-dose IFNB (in the case of highly active treatment-naïves). Propensity score matching in a 1:1:1 ratio was used to select only patients with similar baseline characteristics, retaining 330 and 120 patients in dataset A and B, respectively. In dataset A, the 24-month proportion with NEDA-3 was greater in both NTZ group (67%) and FNG group (42%) than in INJ group (35%) (p ≤ 0.016); however, NTZ was superior to FNG in promoting the attainment of NEDA-3 status (p = 0.034). In dataset B, the 24-month proportion with NEDA-3 was greater in NTZ group (75%) and FNG group (67%) than in INJ group (40%), but the small cohort sizes most likely prevented the detection of any statistically significant difference. Our study provides real-world evidence that NTZ was more effective than both FNG and INJ in non-responders, while it could seem that, in highly active treatment-naïves, NTZ was as effective as FNG and both were superior to INJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Disease-modifying drugs; Multiple sclerosis; NEDA; Propensity score

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27878443     DOI: 10.1007/s00415-016-8343-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurol        ISSN: 0340-5354            Impact factor:   4.849


  34 in total

1.  A comparison of multiple sclerosis clinical disease activity between patients treated with natalizumab and fingolimod.

Authors:  Nils Koch-Henriksen; Melinda Magyari; Finn Sellebjerg; Per Soelberg Sørensen
Journal:  Mult Scler       Date:  2016-07-11       Impact factor: 6.312

2.  Simultaneously assessing intended and unintended treatment effects of multiple treatment options: a pragmatic "matrix design".

Authors:  Jeremy A Rassen; Daniel H Solomon; Robert J Glynn; Sebastian Schneeweiss
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2011-05-30       Impact factor: 2.890

3.  Sustained disability improvement is associated with T1 lesion volume shrinkage in natalizumab-treated patients with multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Luca Prosperini; Floriana De Angelis; Rosanna De Angelis; Fulvia Fanelli; Carlo Pozzilli
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2014-04-30       Impact factor: 10.154

4.  Long-term assessment of No Evidence of Disease Activity with natalizumab in relapsing multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Luca Prosperini; Fulvia Fanelli; Carlo Pozzilli
Journal:  J Neurol Sci       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 3.181

5.  Natalizumab therapy of multiple sclerosis: recommendations of the Multiple Sclerosis Study Group--Italian Neurological Society.

Authors:  A Ghezzi; L M E Grimaldi; M G Marrosu; C Pozzilli; G Comi; A Bertolotto; M Trojano; P Gallo; R Capra; D Centonze; E Millefiorini; S Sotgiu; V Brescia Morra; M P Amato; A Lugaresi; G Mancardi; D Caputo; E Montanari; L Provinciali; L Durelli; R Bergamaschi; P Bellantonio; M R Tola; S Cottone; G Savettieri; G Tedeschi
Journal:  Neurol Sci       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 3.307

6.  Natalizumab versus fingolimod in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis non-responding to first-line injectable therapies.

Authors:  Damiano Baroncini; Angelo Ghezzi; Pietro O Annovazzi; Bruno Colombo; Vittorio Martinelli; Giorgio Minonzio; Lucia Moiola; Mariaemma Rodegher; Mauro Zaffaroni; Giancarlo Comi
Journal:  Mult Scler       Date:  2016-05-26       Impact factor: 6.312

7.  A placebo-controlled trial of oral fingolimod in relapsing multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Ludwig Kappos; Ernst-Wilhelm Radue; Paul O'Connor; Chris Polman; Reinhard Hohlfeld; Peter Calabresi; Krzysztof Selmaj; Catherine Agoropoulou; Malgorzata Leyk; Lixin Zhang-Auberson; Pascale Burtin
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-01-20       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Comparative efficacy of switching to natalizumab in active multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Timothy Spelman; Tomas Kalincik; Annie Zhang; Fabio Pellegrini; Heinz Wiendl; Ludwig Kappos; Larisa Tsvetkova; Shibeshih Belachew; Robert Hyde; Freek Verheul; Francois Grand-Maison; Guillermo Izquierdo; Pierre Grammond; Pierre Duquette; Alessandra Lugaresi; Jeannette Lechner-Scott; Celia Oreja-Guevara; Raymond Hupperts; Thor Petersen; Michael Barnett; Maria Trojano; Helmut Butzkueven
Journal:  Ann Clin Transl Neurol       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 4.511

9.  Second line use of Fingolimod is as effective as Natalizumab in a German out-patient RRMS-cohort.

Authors:  Stefan Braune; M Lang; A Bergmann
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2013-09-06       Impact factor: 4.849

10.  Comparative efficacy of fingolimod vs natalizumab: A French multicenter observational study.

Authors:  Laetitia Barbin; Chloe Rousseau; Natacha Jousset; Romain Casey; Marc Debouverie; Sandra Vukusic; Jerome De Sèze; David Brassat; Sandrine Wiertlewski; Bruno Brochet; Jean Pelletier; Patrick Vermersch; Gilles Edan; Christine Lebrun-Frenay; Pierre Clavelou; Eric Thouvenot; Jean-Philippe Camdessanché; Ayman Tourbah; Bruno Stankoff; Abdullatif Al Khedr; Philippe Cabre; Caroline Papeix; Eric Berger; Olivier Heinzlef; Thomas Debroucker; Thibault Moreau; Olivier Gout; Bertrand Bourre; Alain Créange; Pierre Labauge; Laurent Magy; Gilles Defer; Yohann Foucher; David A Laplaud
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2016-01-29       Impact factor: 9.910

View more
  16 in total

1.  Effectiveness and baseline factors associated to fingolimod response in a real-world study on multiple sclerosis patients.

Authors:  F Esposito; L Ferrè; F Clarelli; M A Rocca; G Sferruzza; L Storelli; M Radaelli; F Sangalli; L Moiola; B Colombo; F Martinelli Boneschi; G Comi; M Filippi; V Martinelli
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2018-02-12       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 2.  Therapeutic Targets for Multiple Sclerosis: Current Treatment Goals and Future Directions.

Authors:  Andrew L Smith; Jeffrey A Cohen; Le H Hua
Journal:  Neurotherapeutics       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 7.620

3.  Effectiveness of Fingolimod versus Natalizumab as Second-Line Therapy for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis in Spain: Second-Line GATE Study.

Authors:  José Meca-Lallana; Teresa Ayuso; Sergio Martínez-Yelamos; Carmen Durán; Yessica Contreras Martín; Nicolás Herrera Navarro; Angel Pérez Sempere; Jose C Álvarez-Cermeño; Jorge Millán Pascual; Virginia Meca-Lallana; Raúl Romero Sevilla; Javier Ricart
Journal:  Eur Neurol       Date:  2020-03-18       Impact factor: 1.710

Review 4.  Early Aggressive Treatment Approaches for Multiple Sclerosis.

Authors:  Alexandra Simpson; Ellen M Mowry; Scott D Newsome
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Neurol       Date:  2021-05-15       Impact factor: 3.598

5.  Herding: a new phenomenon affecting medical decision-making in multiple sclerosis care? Lessons learned from DIScUTIR MS.

Authors:  Gustavo Saposnik; Jorge Maurino; Angel P Sempere; Christian C Ruff; Philippe N Tobler
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 2.711

6.  Plasma protein profiling reveals candidate biomarkers for multiple sclerosis treatment.

Authors:  Sahl Khalid Bedri; Ola B Nilsson; Katharina Fink; Anna Månberg; Carl Hamsten; Burcu Ayoglu; Ali Manouchehrinia; Peter Nilsson; Tomas Olsson; Jan Hillert; Hans Grönlund; Anna Glaser
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Effectiveness of fingolimod in real-world relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis Italian patients: the GENIUS study.

Authors:  Giancarlo Comi; Carlo Pozzilli; Vincenzo Brescia Morra; Antonio Bertolotto; Francesca Sangalli; Luca Prosperini; Antonio Carotenuto; Pietro Iaffaldano; Marco Capobianco; Delia Colombo; Mihaela Nica; Sara Rizzoli; Maria Trojano
Journal:  Neurol Sci       Date:  2020-04-21       Impact factor: 3.307

8.  Aggressive multiple sclerosis (2): Treatment.

Authors:  Georgina Arrambide; Ellen Iacobaeus; Maria Pia Amato; Tobias Derfuss; Sandra Vukusic; Bernhard Hemmer; Lou Brundin; Mar Tintore
Journal:  Mult Scler       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 6.312

9.  NEDA-3 status including cortical lesions in the comparative evaluation of natalizumab versus fingolimod efficacy in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Marco Puthenparampil; Chiara Cazzola; Sofia Zywicki; Lisa Federle; Erica Stropparo; Mariagiulia Anglani; Francesca Rinaldi; Paola Perini; Paolo Gallo
Journal:  Ther Adv Neurol Disord       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 6.570

10.  Annualized hospitalization rate with natalizumab vs fingolimod in second-line treatment for RRMS in the public healthcare system in Brazil: A claim database approach.

Authors:  Guilherme Silva Julian; Ricardo Papaléo Rosim; Estela Cristina Carneseca; Jéssica Rigolon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-03-02       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.