Reasons for switching to fingolimod in patients relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in France: the ESGILE study.


Journal

Multiple sclerosis and related disorders
ISSN: 2211-0356
Titre abrégé: Mult Scler Relat Disord
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101580247

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Nov 2020
Historique:
received: 25 05 2020
revised: 22 07 2020
accepted: 29 07 2020
pubmed: 31 8 2020
medline: 15 5 2021
entrez: 31 8 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Timely treatment switching is an important strategy in optimising management of patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Patient preferences, as well as clinical benefit, may contribute to the switch decision. Information on reasons determining switching choices and on outcome according to the reason for switching is scarce. Study objectives were to describe the consequences of switching to fingolimod in terms of clinical improvement according to the reasons underlying the switch and to evaluate treatment acceptability from the patient's perspective. This prospective observational study was conducted by 71 neurologists in France and included patients with RRMS switching to fingolimod following ≥6 months treatment with a first-line disease modifying treatment (DMT). Reasons for switching were documented. Patients were evaluated at inclusion and 12 months after initiating fingolimod. Physicians documented clinical status by relapse activity, disability (EDSS) at each visit and improvement with the Clinical Global Impression - Change (CGI-C) at Month 12. Patients rated improvement at Month 12 with the Patient Global Impression - Change (PGI-C) and treatment acceptability with the ACCEPT® questionnaire. Adverse events reported during fingolimod treatment were documented. Overall 232 patients were recruited of whom 190 could be analysed. Multiple reasons for switching were frequently given; 113 patients (59.4%) switched from a first-line injectable DMT. Switching was motivated by disease worsening in 161 patients (84.7%), tolerability in 35 (18.4%) and patient preference in 58 (30.5%). During the follow-up period, 38 patients (20.0%) experienced at least one exacerbation. The mean EDSS score was stable (2.0 ± 1.3 at inclusion; 2.0 ± 1.5 at M12). With the CGI-C, 67 patients (38.7%) were considered improved and 23 (13.3%) worsened. Although no obvious differences in CGI-C ratings were observed as a function of the reason for switching, when patient preferences entered into the decision, the proportion of patients considered minimally improved was somewhat higher (37.7%) and the proportion considered unchanged somewhat lower (41.5%). With the PGI-C, more patients rated themselves improved than were rated as improved by the physician: of 64 patients rated as 'no change' on the CGI-C, 21 (32.8%) rated themselves as 'improved' and 10 (15.6%) as 'worsened'. The overall level of agreement between the two measures was moderate (κ = 0.48 [95% CI: 0.35 - 0.60]). The mean general treatment acceptability score on the ACCEPT® questionnaire was 42.7 [95%CI: 34.5 - 50.9] at inclusion (reflecting acceptability of the previous DMT) and 64.6 [95%CI: 57.6 - 71.6] at M12 (reflecting acceptability of fingolimod). Mean dimension scores ranged from 36.7 for effectiveness to 72.2 for medication inconvenience at inclusion and from 63.4 for effectiveness to 96.8 for medication inconvenience at M12. The frequency and nature of reported adverse events was consistent with the well-characterised safety profile of fingolimod. Most patients switching from a first DMT to fingolimod do so due to persistent disease activity during the initial treatment, although patient preferences are also important. Switching is followed by a reduction in disease activity, perceived improvement in the clinical state of the patient and improved acceptability of treatment.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Timely treatment switching is an important strategy in optimising management of patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Patient preferences, as well as clinical benefit, may contribute to the switch decision. Information on reasons determining switching choices and on outcome according to the reason for switching is scarce. Study objectives were to describe the consequences of switching to fingolimod in terms of clinical improvement according to the reasons underlying the switch and to evaluate treatment acceptability from the patient's perspective.
METHODS METHODS
This prospective observational study was conducted by 71 neurologists in France and included patients with RRMS switching to fingolimod following ≥6 months treatment with a first-line disease modifying treatment (DMT). Reasons for switching were documented. Patients were evaluated at inclusion and 12 months after initiating fingolimod. Physicians documented clinical status by relapse activity, disability (EDSS) at each visit and improvement with the Clinical Global Impression - Change (CGI-C) at Month 12. Patients rated improvement at Month 12 with the Patient Global Impression - Change (PGI-C) and treatment acceptability with the ACCEPT® questionnaire. Adverse events reported during fingolimod treatment were documented.
RESULTS RESULTS
Overall 232 patients were recruited of whom 190 could be analysed. Multiple reasons for switching were frequently given; 113 patients (59.4%) switched from a first-line injectable DMT. Switching was motivated by disease worsening in 161 patients (84.7%), tolerability in 35 (18.4%) and patient preference in 58 (30.5%). During the follow-up period, 38 patients (20.0%) experienced at least one exacerbation. The mean EDSS score was stable (2.0 ± 1.3 at inclusion; 2.0 ± 1.5 at M12). With the CGI-C, 67 patients (38.7%) were considered improved and 23 (13.3%) worsened. Although no obvious differences in CGI-C ratings were observed as a function of the reason for switching, when patient preferences entered into the decision, the proportion of patients considered minimally improved was somewhat higher (37.7%) and the proportion considered unchanged somewhat lower (41.5%). With the PGI-C, more patients rated themselves improved than were rated as improved by the physician: of 64 patients rated as 'no change' on the CGI-C, 21 (32.8%) rated themselves as 'improved' and 10 (15.6%) as 'worsened'. The overall level of agreement between the two measures was moderate (κ = 0.48 [95% CI: 0.35 - 0.60]). The mean general treatment acceptability score on the ACCEPT® questionnaire was 42.7 [95%CI: 34.5 - 50.9] at inclusion (reflecting acceptability of the previous DMT) and 64.6 [95%CI: 57.6 - 71.6] at M12 (reflecting acceptability of fingolimod). Mean dimension scores ranged from 36.7 for effectiveness to 72.2 for medication inconvenience at inclusion and from 63.4 for effectiveness to 96.8 for medication inconvenience at M12. The frequency and nature of reported adverse events was consistent with the well-characterised safety profile of fingolimod.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Most patients switching from a first DMT to fingolimod do so due to persistent disease activity during the initial treatment, although patient preferences are also important. Switching is followed by a reduction in disease activity, perceived improvement in the clinical state of the patient and improved acceptability of treatment.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32862037
pii: S2211-0348(20)30508-3
doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2020.102433
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Immunosuppressive Agents 0
Fingolimod Hydrochloride G926EC510T

Types de publication

Journal Article Observational Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

102433

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Auteurs

Ayman Tourbah (A)

Service de Neurologie, Hôpital Raymond Poincaré, Garches, APHP, UFR Simone Veil, Université Versailles Saint-Quentin, Université Paris Saclay, France.

Caroline Papeix (C)

Service de Neurologie, Hôpital de la Pitié Salpêtrière, Sorbonne université, Paris, France.

Patricia Tourniaire (P)

Service de Neurologie, Hôpital Henri Duffaut, Avignon, France.

Karin Rerat (K)

Novartis Pharma S.A.S., Rueil-Malmaison, France.

Mohamed Meite (M)

Novartis Pharma S.A.S., Rueil-Malmaison, France.

Barbara Durand (B)

Novartis Pharma S.A.S., Rueil-Malmaison, France.

Fabienne Lamy (F)

Novartis Pharma S.A.S., Rueil-Malmaison, France.

Isabelle Chouette (I)

Novartis Pharma S.A.S., Rueil-Malmaison, France.

Claude Mekies (C)

Polyclinique du Parc, Toulouse, France.
Jennyfer Aboab, Paris; Abdullatif Al Khedr, Amiens; Amer Al Najjar Carpentier, Orsay; Géraldine Androdias, Bron; Rabah Benrabah, Paris; Damien Biotti, Toulouse; Valentin Bohotin, Le Coudray; Mickael Bonnan, Pau; Cecilia Bonnet, Versailles; Jean marc Boulesteix, Cahors; David Brassat, Toulouse; Philippe Busson, Avranches; William Camu, Montpellier; Giovanni Castelnovo, Nîmes; Stéphane Chapuis, Montluçon; Pierre Clavelou, Clermont Ferrand; Philippe Convers, St Priest en Jarez; Marc Coustans, Quimper; Alain Creange, Créteil; Sébastien Delassaux, Epinal; Éric Diot, Vienne; Madjid Djerdi, Bordeaux; Thomas Drouet, St Malo; Sophie Dufour Delalande, Tourcoing; Corinne Dupel Pottier, Pontoise; Didier Ferriby, Tourcoing; Philippe Gaida, La Teste de Buch; Guillaume Gal, Roanne; Pierric Giraud, Metz Tessy; Laurent Guilloton, Mornant; Tijani Hascar, Vienne; Olivier Heinzlef, Poissy; Violaine Jaffrenou Rouaud, Vannes; Alain Jager, Thionville; Christophe Kubler, Altkirch; Patrick Le Coz, Arras; Christine Lebrun Frenay, Nice; Elisabeth Maillart, Paris Marcel Maillet Vioud, Montluçon; Imad Malkoun, Belfort; Éric Manchon, Gonesse; Mikel Martinez, Dax; Dalia Meshaka Dimitri Boulos, Créteil; Alexis Montcuquet, Limoges; Thibault Moreau, Dijon; Antoine Moulignier, Paris; Jean-Philippe Neau, Poitiers; Philippe Neuschwander, Lyon; Ghislain Nokam Talom, Deauville; Jean-Christophe Ouallet, Bordeaux; Ivania Patry, Corbeil Essonne; Stéphane Peysson, Gleize; Fatai Radji, Agen; Viorica Razlog, Montélimar; Christophe Robin, Roanne; Jérôyme Romero, Cagnes-sur-Mer; Nathalie Rosey Dufosse, Boulogne sur Mer; Feras Abdul Samad, Châtellerault; Nicolas Schmidt, Rueil Malmaison; Nicolas Seiller, Sarreguemines; Thierry Soisson, Orléans; Éric Thouvenot, Nîmes; Ayman Tourbah, Reims; Mathieu Vaillant, La Tronche; Anne-Evelyne Vallet Racinoux, Vienne; Nadia Vandenberghe, Lyon; Frédérique Viala, Toulouse; Valery Wattier, St Julien en Genevois; Christophe Zaenker, Colmar; Fabien Zagnoli, Brest; Hatem Zekri, St Brieuc.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH