Persistence on therapy and propensity matched outcome comparison of two subcutaneous interferon beta 1a dosages for multiple sclerosis

To compare treatment persistence between two dosages of interferon β-1a in a large observational multiple sclerosis registry and assess disease outcomes of first line MS treatment at these dosages using propensity scoring to adjust for baseline imbalance in disease characteristics. Treatment discontinuations were evaluated in all patients within the MSBase registry who commenced interferon β-1a SC thrice weekly (n = 4678). Furthermore, we assessed 2-year clinical outcomes in 1220 patients treated with interferon β-1a in either dosage (22 µg or 44 µg) as their first disease modifying agent, matched on propensity score calculated from pre-treatment demographic and clinical variables. A subgroup analysis was performed on 456 matched patients who also had baseline MRI variables recorded. Overall, 4054 treatment discontinuations were recorded in 3059 patients. The patients receiving the lower interferon dosage were more likely to discontinue treatment than those with the higher dosage (25% vs. 20% annual probability of discontinuation, respectively). This was seen in discontinuations with reasons recorded as “lack of efficacy” (3.3% vs. 1.7%), “scheduled stop” (2.2% vs. 1.3%) or without the reason recorded (16.7% vs. 13.3% annual discontinuation rate, 22 µg vs. 44 µg dosage, respectively). Propensity score was determined by treating centre and disability (score without MRI parameters) or centre, sex and number of contrast-enhancing lesions (score including MRI parameters). No differences in clinical outcomes at two years (relapse rate, time relapse-free and disability) were observed between the matched patients treated with either of the interferon dosages. Treatment discontinuations were more common in interferon β-1a 22 µg SC thrice weekly. However, 2-year clinical outcomes did not differ between patients receiving the different dosages, thus replicating in a registry dataset derived from “real-world” database the results of the pivotal randomised trial. Propensity score matching effectively minimised baseline covariate imbalance between two directly compared sub-populations from a large observational registry

Association of Initial Disease-Modifying Therapy With Later Conversion to Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis.

IMPORTANCE: Within 2 decades of onset, 80% of untreated patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) convert to a phase of irreversible disability accrual termed secondary progressive MS. The association between disease-modifying treatments (DMTs), and this conversion has rarely been studied and never using a validated definition. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between the use, the type of, and the timing of DMTs with the risk of conversion to secondary progressive MS diagnosed with a validated definition. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cohort study with prospective data from 68 neurology centers in 21 countries examining patients with relapsing-remitting MS commencing DMTs (or clinical monitoring) between 1988-2012 with minimum 4 years' follow-up. EXPOSURES: The use, type, and timing of the following DMTs: interferon beta, glatiramer acetate, fingolimod, natalizumab, or alemtuzumab. After propensity-score matching, 1555 patients were included (last follow-up, February 14, 2017). MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: Conversion to objectively defined secondary progressive MS. RESULTS: Of the 1555 patients, 1123 were female (mean baseline age, 35 years [SD, 10]). Patients initially treated with glatiramer acetate or interferon beta had a lower hazard of conversion to secondary progressive MS than matched untreated patients (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.81; P < .001; 5-year absolute risk, 12% [49 of 407] vs 27% [58 of 213]; median follow-up, 7.6 years [IQR, 5.8-9.6]), as did fingolimod (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.62; P < .001; 5-year absolute risk, 7% [6 of 85] vs 32% [56 of 174]; median follow-up, 4.5 years [IQR, 4.3-5.1]); natalizumab (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.86; P = .005; 5-year absolute risk, 19% [16 of 82] vs 38% [62 of 164]; median follow-up, 4.9 years [IQR, 4.4-5.8]); and alemtuzumab (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.85; P = .009; 5-year absolute risk, 10% [4 of 44] vs 25% [23 of 92]; median follow-up, 7.4 years [IQR, 6.0-8.6]). Initial treatment with fingolimod, alemtuzumab, or natalizumab was associated with a lower risk of conversion than initial treatment with glatiramer acetate or interferon beta (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44-0.99; P = .046); 5-year absolute risk, 7% [16 of 235] vs 12% [46 of 380]; median follow-up, 5.8 years [IQR, 4.7-8.0]). The probability of conversion was lower when glatiramer acetate or interferon beta was started within 5 years of disease onset vs later (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.98; P = .03; 5-year absolute risk, 3% [4 of 120] vs 6% [2 of 38]; median follow-up, 13.4 years [IQR, 11-18.1]). When glatiramer acetate or interferon beta were escalated to fingolimod, alemtuzumab, or natalizumab within 5 years vs later, the HR was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.66-0.88; P < .001; 5-year absolute risk, 8% [25 of 307] vs 14% [46 of 331], median follow-up, 5.3 years [IQR], 4.6-6.1). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with relapsing-remitting MS, initial treatment with fingolimod, alemtuzumab, or natalizumab was associated with a lower risk of conversion to secondary progressive MS vs initial treatment with glatiramer acetate or interferon beta. These findings, considered along with these therapies' risks, may help inform decisions about DMT selection.This study was financially supported by National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (fellowships 1140766 and 1080518, project grants 1129189 and 1083539), the University of Melbourne (Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences research fellowship), a Next Generation Fellowship funded by the Grand Charity of the Freemason’s (recipient JWLB), and the MSBase 2017 Fellowship (recipient JWLB). Alemtuzumab studies done in Cambridge were supported by the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre and the MS Society UK

Escalating Immunotherapy of Multiple Sclerosis

Basic disease-modifying treatment for relapsing forms of active multiple sclerosis (MS) is now available in many countries with high prevalence rates, for this chronic inflammatory disease of the central nervous system. Several lines of evidence support early immunomodulatory treatment with either recombinant interferon-beta or glatiramer acetate, and positive results from phase III trials encourage start of treatment even in patients with clinically isolated syndromes (CIS). However, currently available drugs for basic therapy are only partially effective and patients may still encounter relapses or disease progression. As treatment-refractory, clinically active MS can quickly lead to irreversible neurological disability there is an urgent need for effective escalating strategies. Patients with suboptimal treatment response to basic therapy have been treated with combination therapies, cytotoxic drugs (such as mitoxantrone and cyclophosphamide) or autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Recently, the monoclonal antibody, natalizumab, was added to this armamentarium. None of these strategies have been vigorously evaluated in large randomized, controlled phase III trials with patients who failed basic therapy. Therefore, the decision to escalate immunotherapy is still based on limited evidence. This article will review potential candidates for intensified immunosuppression and call for innovative study designs to better evaluate escalating immunotherapy in MS

Tactical Industry Allocation and Model Uncertainty

We use Bayesian model averaging to analyze industry return predictability in the presence of model uncertainty. The posterior analysis shows the importance of inflation and earnings yield in predicting industry returns. The out-of-sample performance of the Bayesian approach is, in general, superior to that of other statistical model selection criteria. However, the out-of-sample forecasting power of a naive i.i.d. forecast is similar to the Bayesian forecast. A variance decomposition into model risk, estimation risk, and forecast error shows that model risk is less important than estimation risk. Copyright (c)2008, The Eastern Finance Association.