The effectiveness of natalizumab vs fingolimod\u2013A comparison of international registry studies

Background: Natalizumab and fingolimod were the first preparations recommended for disease breakthrough in priorly treated relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Of three published head-to-head studies two showed that natalizumab is the more effective to prevent relapses and EDSS worsening. Methods: By re-analyzing original published results from MSBase, France, and Denmark using uniform methodologies, we aimed at identifying the effects of differences in methodology, in the MS-populations, and at re-evaluating the differences in effectiveness between the two drugs. We gained access to copies of the individual amended databases and pooled all data. We used uniform inclusion/exclusion criteria and statistical methods with Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting. Results: The pooled analyses comprised 968 natalizumab- and 1479 fingolimod treated patients. The on-treatment natalizumab/fingolimod relapse rate ratio was 0.77 (p=0.004). The hazard ratio (HR) for a first relapse was 0.82 (p=0.030), and the HR for sustained EDSS improvement was 1.4 (p=0.009). There were modest differences between each of the original published studies and the replication study, but the conclusions of the three original studies remained unchanged: in two of them natalizumab was more effective, but in the third there was no difference between natalizumab and fingolimod. Conclusion: The results were largely invariant to the epidemiological and statistical methods but differed between the MS populations. Generally, the advantage of natalizumab was confirmed

Natalizumab Versus Fingolimod in Patients with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Subgroup Analysis From Three International Cohorts

Introduction : Natalizumab has proved to be more effective than fingolimod in reducing disease activity in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Whether this association is universal for all patient groups remains to be determined. Objective : The aim of this study was to compare the relative effectiveness of natalizumab and fingolimod in RRMS subgroups defined by the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of interest. Methods : Patients with RRMS who were given natalizumab or fingolimod were identified in a merged cohort from three international registries. Efficacy outcomes were compared across subgroups based on patients’ sex, age, disease duration, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, and disease and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity 12 months prior to treatment initiation. Study endpoints were number of relapses (analyzed with weighted negative binomial generalized linear model) and 6-month confirmed disability worsening and improvement events (weighted Cox proportional hazards model), recorded during study therapy. Each patient was weighted using inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity score. Results : A total of 5148 patients (natalizumab 1989; fingolimod 3159) were included, with a mean ± standard deviation age at baseline of 38 ± 10 years, and the majority (72%) were women. The median on-treatment follow-up was 25 (quartiles 15–41) months. Natalizumab was associated with fewer relapses than fingolimod (incidence rate ratio [IRR]; 95% confidence interval [CI]) in women (0.76; 0.65–0.88); in those aged ≤ 38 years (0.64; 0.54–0.76); in those with disease duration ≤ 7 years (0.63; 0.53–0.76); in those with EDSS score 38 years (1.34; 1.04–1.73); those with disease duration > 7 years (1.33; 1.01–1.74); those with EDSS score < 6 (1.21; 1.01–1.46) and ≥ 6 (1.93; 1.11–3.34); and patients with no new MRI lesion (1.73; 1.19–2.51). Conclusions : Overall, in women, younger patients, those with shorter disease durations, and patients with pre-treatment relapses, natalizumab was associated with a lower frequency of multiple sclerosis relapses than fingolimod. It was also associated with an increased chance of recovery from disability among most patients, particularly women and those with no recent MRI activity

Impact of methodological choices in comparative effectiveness studies: application in natalizumab versus fingolimod comparison among patients with multiple sclerosis

Abstract Background Natalizumab and fingolimod are used as high-efficacy treatments in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. Several observational studies comparing these two drugs have shown variable results, using different methods to control treatment indication bias and manage censoring. The objective of this empirical study was to elucidate the impact of methods of causal inference on the results of comparative effectiveness studies. Methods Data from three observational multiple sclerosis registries (MSBase, the Danish MS Registry and French OFSEP registry) were combined. Four clinical outcomes were studied. Propensity scores were used to match or weigh the compared groups, allowing for estimating average treatment effect for treated or average treatment effect for the entire population. Analyses were conducted both in intention-to-treat and per-protocol frameworks. The impact of the positivity assumption was also assessed. Results Overall, 5,148 relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis patients were included. In this well-powered sample, the 95% confidence intervals of the estimates overlapped widely. Propensity scores weighting and propensity scores matching procedures led to consistent results. Some differences were observed between average treatment effect for the entire population and average treatment effect for treated estimates. Intention-to-treat analyses were more conservative than per-protocol analyses. The most pronounced irregularities in outcomes and propensity scores were introduced by violation of the positivity assumption. Conclusions This applied study elucidates the influence of methodological decisions on the results of comparative effectiveness studies of treatments for multiple sclerosis. According to our results, there are no material differences between conclusions obtained with propensity scores matching or propensity scores weighting given that a study is sufficiently powered, models are correctly specified and positivity assumption is fulfilled

Impact of methodological choices in comparative effectiveness studies: application in natalizumab versus fingolimod comparison among patients with multiple sclerosis

Abstract Background Natalizumab and fingolimod are used as high-efficacy treatments in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. Several observational studies comparing these two drugs have shown variable results, using different methods to control treatment indication bias and manage censoring. The objective of this empirical study was to elucidate the impact of methods of causal inference on the results of comparative effectiveness studies. Methods Data from three observational multiple sclerosis registries (MSBase, the Danish MS Registry and French OFSEP registry) were combined. Four clinical outcomes were studied. Propensity scores were used to match or weigh the compared groups, allowing for estimating average treatment effect for treated or average treatment effect for the entire population. Analyses were conducted both in intention-to-treat and per-protocol frameworks. The impact of the positivity assumption was also assessed. Results Overall, 5,148 relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis patients were included. In this well-powered sample, the 95% confidence intervals of the estimates overlapped widely. Propensity scores weighting and propensity scores matching procedures led to consistent results. Some differences were observed between average treatment effect for the entire population and average treatment effect for treated estimates. Intention-to-treat analyses were more conservative than per-protocol analyses. The most pronounced irregularities in outcomes and propensity scores were introduced by violation of the positivity assumption. Conclusions This applied study elucidates the influence of methodological decisions on the results of comparative effectiveness studies of treatments for multiple sclerosis. According to our results, there are no material differences between conclusions obtained with propensity scores matching or propensity scores weighting given that a study is sufficiently powered, models are correctly specified and positivity assumption is fulfilled