Advertisement

CNS Drugs

, Volume 32, Issue 11, pp 1069–1078 | Cite as

Oral Disease-Modifying Treatments for Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis: A Likelihood to Achieve No Evidence of Disease Activity or Harm Analysis

  • Dimitrios Papadopoulos
  • Dimos-Dimitrios D. MitsikostasEmail author
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

The likelihood to help or harm (LHH) is an absolute measure of the benefit versus risk profile of a medication, which can be used to assess the potential for benefit versus harm of different disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for relapsing multiple sclerosis (R-MS) and facilitate clinical decision-making.

Objective

The objective of this study was to assess absolute differences in benefit:risk ratios of oral DMTs for R-MS, using LHH analysis with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) as beneficial outcome.

Design/Methods

The number needed to treat for a paient to achieve NEDA (NNTBNEDA) was used as an effect size metric of efficacy and the number needed to treat for a patient  to experience  an adverse event (NNTHAE), a serious adverse event (NNTHSAE), or treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event (NNTHAE-D) were used as measures of risk. The LHH—which is the ratio of NNTH:NNTB—values were calculated from published phase III trial data for oral DMTs.

Results

The values for likelihood to achieve NEDA than experience any AE ratio (LHH(AE/NEDA)) were 3.9, 6.8, 12.5 and 3.7, the likelihood to achieve NEDA than experience a SAE ratio (LHH(SAE/NEDA)) values were 3.5, 15, 23.5 and 2.8, and the likelihood to achieve NEDA versus discontinue treatment (LHH(AE-D/NEDA)) values were 20.3, 4.3, 3.9 and 3.1 for cladribine, dimethyl-fumarate, fingolimod, and teriflunomide, respectively.

Conclusions

With all of the oral DMTs examined, R-MS patients are more likely to achieve NEDA than experience any adverse event.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr S.J. Kedikoglou, MD, MPH, PhD and Mrs. E. Delicha, MSc for their expert statistical advice.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval and Consent

No ethics approval or patient consent was obtained because all data used in this study were collected from previously published peer-reviewed articles.

Conflict of interest

DP has received consulting, speaking fees, and travel grants from Bayer, Genesis Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Specifar, and Teva. DDM has received consulting, speaking fees, and travel grants from Allergan, Amgen, Cefaly, ElectroCore, Genesis Pharma, Eli Lily, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Speficar, and Teva.

Funding

No funding source had a role in the conception and preparation of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Citrome L, Ketter TA. When does a difference make a difference? Interpretation of number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped to harmed. Int J Clin Pract. 2013;67:407–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrade C. Likelihood of being helped or harmed as a measure of clinical outcomes in psychopharmacology. J Clin Psychiatr. 2017;78:e73–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parks NE, Flanagan EP, Lucchinetti CF, Wingerchuk DM. NEDA treatment target? No evident disease activity as an actionable outcome in practice. J Neurol Sci. 2017;383:31–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giovannoni G, Turner B, Gnanapavan S, Offiah C, Schmierer K, Marta M. Is it time to target no evident disease activity (NEDA) in multiple sclerosis? Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2015;4:329–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giovannoni G, Tomic D, Bright JR, Havrdová E. “No evident disease activity”: the use of combined assessments in the management of patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2017;23:1179–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hincapie AL, Penm J, Burns CF. Factors associated with patient preferences for disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017;23:822–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Higuera L, Carlin CS, Anderson S. adherence to disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2016;22:1394–401.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mitsikostas DD, Goodin DS. Comparing the efficacy of disease modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2017;18:109–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mendes D, Alves C, Batel-Marques F. Benefit-risk of therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: testing the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB), number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) and the likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH): a systematic review and meta-analysis. CNS Drugs. 2016;30:909–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freedman MS, Montalban X, Miller AE, Dive-Pouletty C, Hass S, Thangavelu K, et al. Comparing outcomes from clinical studies of oral disease-modifying therapies (dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, and teriflunomide) in relapsing MS: assessing absolute differences using a number needed to treat analysis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2016;10:204–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giovannoni G, Comi G, Cook S, Rammohan K, Rieckmann P, Soelberg Sorensen P, et al. CLARITY study Group. A placebo-controlled trial of oral cladribine for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:416–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gold R, Kappos L, Arnold DL, Bar-Or A, Giovannoni G, Selmaj K, et al. DEFINE Study Investigators. Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1098–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fox RJ, Miller DH, Phillips JT, Hutchinson M, Havrdova E, Kita M, et al. CONFIRM Study Investigators. Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 or glatiramer in multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1087–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kappos L, Radue E-W, O’Connor P, Polman C, Hohlfeld R, Calabresi P, et al. FREEDOMS Study Group. A placebo-controlled trial of oral fingolimod in relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Calabresi PA, Radue E-W, Goodin D, Jeffery D, Rammohan KW, Reder AT, et al. Safety and efficacy of fingolimod in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (FREEDOMS II): a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13:545–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    O’Connor P, Wolinsky JS, Confavreux C, Comi G, Kappos L, Olsson TP, et al. TEMSO Trial Group. Randomised trial of oral teriflunomide for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Confavreaux C, O’Connor P, Comi G, Freedman MS, Miller AE, Olsson TP, et al. TOWER Trial Group. Oral teriflunomide for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (TOWER): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13:247–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Havrdova E, Giovannoni G, Gold R, Fox RJ, Kappos L, Phillips JT, et al. Effect of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate on no evidence of disease activity in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: integrated analysis of the phase III DEFINE and CONFIRM studies. Eur J Neurol. 2017;24:726–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Viglietta V, Miller D, Bar-Or A, Phillips JT, Arnold DL, Selmaj K, et al. Efficacy of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: integrated analysis of the phase III trials. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2015;2:103–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kappos L, De Stefano N, Freedman MS, Cree BA, Radue EW, Sprenger T, et al. Inclusion of brain volume loss in a revised measure of ‘no evidence of disease activity’ (NEDA-4) in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J. 2016;22:1297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Giovannoni G, Cook S, Rammohan K, Rieckmann P, Sørensen PS, Vermersch P, et al. CLARITY study group. Sustained disease-activity-free status in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treated with cladribine tablets in the CLARITY study: a post hoc and subgroup analysis. Lancet Neurol. 2011;10:329–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Freedman M, O’Connor P, Wolinsky J, Confavreux C, Comi G, Kappos L, et al. Teriflunomide increases the proportion of patients free from disease activity in the TEMSO phase III study. Neurology. 2012;78(suppl):PD5.007.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Altman DG. Confidence intervals for the number needed to treat. BMJ. 1998;317:1309–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dahdaleh D, Sharrack B. We can compare the relative efficacy of multiple sclerosis medications by examining the results of independent clinical trials: yes. Mult Scler J. 2015;21:35–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ciccarelli O, Chataway J. We can compare the relative efficacy of multiple sclerosis medications by examining the results of independent clinical trials: no. Mult Scler J. 2015;21:37–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zakaria M. Smoke and mirrors: limited value of relative risk reductions for assessing the benefits of disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2015;4:187–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goodin DS. Disease-modifying therapy in multiple sclerosis: update and clinical implications. Neurology 2008;71:(24 Suppl 3) S8–13.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Citrome L. Relative vs. absolute measures of benefit and risk: what’s the difference? Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2010;121:94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nixon R, Bergvall N, Tomic D, Sfikas N, Cutter G, Giovannoni G. No evidence of disease activity: indirect comparisons of oral therapies for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Adv Ther. 2014;31:1134–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goodin DS, Mitsikostas DD. Reply to Tsivgoulis and colleagues comments [letter]. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2018;21:120–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goltz HH, Smith ML. Yule-Simpson’s paradox in research. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2010;15:1–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Multiple Sclerosis Centre and Neurology SectionAthens Medical Centre - Paleo Phaliro ClinicAthensGreece
  2. 2.1st Neurology Department, Aeginition Hospital, Medical SchoolNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations