Effect of Previous Disease-Modifying Therapy on Treatment Effectiveness for Patients Treated With Ocrelizumab.
Journal
Neurology(R) neuroimmunology & neuroinflammation
ISSN: 2332-7812
Titre abrégé: Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101636388
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2023
05 2023
Historique:
received:
27
05
2022
accepted:
27
01
2023
medline:
13
4
2023
entrez:
11
4
2023
pubmed:
12
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
B cell-depleting antibodies were proven as effective strategy for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). The monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab was approved in 2017 in the United States and in 2018 in the European Union, but despite proven efficacy in randomized, controlled clinical trials, its effectiveness in the real-world setting remains to be fully elucidated. In particular, most study patients were treatment naive or switched from injectable therapies, whereas oral substances or monoclonal antibodies made up >1% of previous treatments. We evaluated ocrelizumab-treated patients with RMS enrolled in the prospective cohorts at the University Hospitals Duesseldorf and Essen, Germany. Epidemiologic data at baseline were compared, and Cox proportional hazard models were applied to evaluate outcomes. Two hundred eighty patients were included (median age: 37 years, 35% male patients). Compared with using ocrelizumab as a first-line treatment, its use as a third-line therapy increased hazard ratios (HRs) for relapse and disability progression, whereas differences between first- vs second-line and second- vs third-line remained smaller. We stratified patients according to their last previous disease-modifying treatment and here identified fingolimod (FTY) (45 patients, median age 40 years, 33% male patients) as a relevant risk factor for ongoing relapse activity despite 2nd-line (HR: 3.417 [1.007-11.600]) or 3rd-line (HR: 5.903 [2.489-13.999]) ocrelizumab treatment, disability worsening (2nd line: HR: 3.571 [1.013-12.589]; 3rd line: HR: 4.502 [1.728-11.729]), and occurrence of new/enlarging MRI lesions (2nd line: HR: 1.939 [0.604-6.228]; 3rd line: HR: 4.627 [1.982-10.802]). Effects were persistent throughout the whole follow-up. Neither peripheral B-cell repopulation nor immunoglobulin G levels were associated with rekindling disease activity. Our prospectively collected observational data suggest suboptimal effectiveness of ocrelizumab in patients switching from FTY compared with those switching from other substances or having been treatment naive. These findings support previous studies indicating abated effectiveness of immune cell-depleting therapies following FTY treatment in patients with RMS. This study provides Class IV evidence that for patients with RMS, previous treatment with FTY compared with previous treatment with other immunomodulating therapies decreases the effectiveness of ocrelizumab.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
B cell-depleting antibodies were proven as effective strategy for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). The monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab was approved in 2017 in the United States and in 2018 in the European Union, but despite proven efficacy in randomized, controlled clinical trials, its effectiveness in the real-world setting remains to be fully elucidated. In particular, most study patients were treatment naive or switched from injectable therapies, whereas oral substances or monoclonal antibodies made up >1% of previous treatments.
METHODS
We evaluated ocrelizumab-treated patients with RMS enrolled in the prospective cohorts at the University Hospitals Duesseldorf and Essen, Germany. Epidemiologic data at baseline were compared, and Cox proportional hazard models were applied to evaluate outcomes.
RESULTS
Two hundred eighty patients were included (median age: 37 years, 35% male patients). Compared with using ocrelizumab as a first-line treatment, its use as a third-line therapy increased hazard ratios (HRs) for relapse and disability progression, whereas differences between first- vs second-line and second- vs third-line remained smaller. We stratified patients according to their last previous disease-modifying treatment and here identified fingolimod (FTY) (45 patients, median age 40 years, 33% male patients) as a relevant risk factor for ongoing relapse activity despite 2nd-line (HR: 3.417 [1.007-11.600]) or 3rd-line (HR: 5.903 [2.489-13.999]) ocrelizumab treatment, disability worsening (2nd line: HR: 3.571 [1.013-12.589]; 3rd line: HR: 4.502 [1.728-11.729]), and occurrence of new/enlarging MRI lesions (2nd line: HR: 1.939 [0.604-6.228]; 3rd line: HR: 4.627 [1.982-10.802]). Effects were persistent throughout the whole follow-up. Neither peripheral B-cell repopulation nor immunoglobulin G levels were associated with rekindling disease activity.
DISCUSSION
Our prospectively collected observational data suggest suboptimal effectiveness of ocrelizumab in patients switching from FTY compared with those switching from other substances or having been treatment naive. These findings support previous studies indicating abated effectiveness of immune cell-depleting therapies following FTY treatment in patients with RMS.
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE
This study provides Class IV evidence that for patients with RMS, previous treatment with FTY compared with previous treatment with other immunomodulating therapies decreases the effectiveness of ocrelizumab.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37041077
pii: 10/3/e200104
doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000200104
pmc: PMC10091366
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
ocrelizumab
A10SJL62JY
Antilymphocyte Serum
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology.
Références
J Neurol. 2022 Mar;269(3):1463-1469
pubmed: 34292396
Nature. 2019 Oct;574(7776):122-126
pubmed: 31554970
Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2021 Jul 14;8(5):
pubmed: 34261812
Lancet Neurol. 2014 Apr;13(4):353-63
pubmed: 24613349
Int J Mol Sci. 2015 Jul 20;16(7):16414-39
pubmed: 26204829
Neurol Ther. 2019 Dec;8(2):241-250
pubmed: 31677060
Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2015 Feb;2(2):119-30
pubmed: 25750917
Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2020 Apr 9;7(4):
pubmed: 32273482
Case Rep Neurol Med. 2018 Jul 19;2018:5190794
pubmed: 30112230
Ann Neurol. 2016 Jun;79(6):950-8
pubmed: 27038238
PLoS One. 2020 Jul 27;15(7):e0235449
pubmed: 32716916
Neurology. 2016 Nov 15;87(20):2074-2081
pubmed: 27760868
J Neuroimmunol. 2019 Jul 15;332:187-197
pubmed: 31077854
J Neurol. 2019 Mar;266(3):726-734
pubmed: 30661133
Lancet Neurol. 2017 Apr;16(4):252-253
pubmed: 28209332
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021 Sep;92(9):1007-1013
pubmed: 33712515
Brain. 2019 Jan 1;142(1):120-132
pubmed: 30561509
Lancet Neurol. 2018 Feb;17(2):162-173
pubmed: 29275977
Front Immunol. 2022 Jul 28;13:814064
pubmed: 35967378
J Neurol. 2022 May;269(5):2806-2818
pubmed: 34999925
Mult Scler. 2022 Jan;28(1):93-101
pubmed: 33855897
N Engl J Med. 2008 Feb 14;358(7):676-88
pubmed: 18272891
BMC Med. 2016 May 31;14:81
pubmed: 27246898
J Autoimmun. 2016 Jun;70:40-51
pubmed: 27055778
J Neuroinflammation. 2019 Nov 16;16(1):228
pubmed: 31733652
J Neurol. 2018 May;265(5):1115-1122
pubmed: 29511864
J Exp Med. 2014 Aug 25;211(9):1833-46
pubmed: 25135296
Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2018 Apr 25;5(4):e463
pubmed: 29707611
Nat Immunol. 2018 Jul;19(7):696-707
pubmed: 29925992
Mult Scler. 2022 May;28(6):958-969
pubmed: 34623947
Ann Neurol. 2018 Jan;83(1):13-26
pubmed: 29244240
JAMA. 2021 Feb 23;325(8):765-779
pubmed: 33620411
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Dec 17;116(51):25800-25807
pubmed: 31748274
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jan 19;376(3):221-234
pubmed: 28002679
Brain. 2016 Sep;139(Pt 9):2395-405
pubmed: 27401521