Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Oct 1;78(10):1197-1204.
doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.2738.

Treatment Escalation vs Immediate Initiation of Highly Effective Treatment for Patients With Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: Data From 2 Different National Strategies

Tim Spelman  1 , Melinda Magyari  2   3   4 , Fredrik Piehl  1 , Anders Svenningsson  5 , Peter Vestergaard Rasmussen  6 , Matthias Kant  7   8 , Finn Sellebjerg  3   4 , Hanna Joensen  2   4 , Jan Hillert  1 , Jan Lycke  9   10
Affiliations

Treatment Escalation vs Immediate Initiation of Highly Effective Treatment for Patients With Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: Data From 2 Different National Strategies

Tim Spelman et al. JAMA Neurol. .

Abstract

Importance: Treatment strategies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) vary markedly between Denmark and Sweden. The difference in the association of these national strategies with clinical outcomes is unknown.

Objective: To investigate the association of national differences in disease-modifying treatment (DMT) strategies for RRMS with disability outcomes.

Design, setting, and participants: This cohort study used data on 4861 patients from the Danish and Swedish national multiple sclerosis (MS) registries from the date of index DMT initiation (between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016) until the last recorded visit at time of data extraction (October 2, 2019).

Exposures: All MS-specific DMTs initiated during the observation period were included in the analysis.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary study outcome was time to 24-week confirmed disability worsening. Secondary outcomes were 24-week confirmed disability improvement, milestone Expanded Disability Status Scale scores of 3 and 4, annualized relapse rate, time to first relapse, and treatment switching. Data were analyzed using inverse probability of treatment weighting-based models using a propensity score to weight and correct the comparison for the imbalance of confounders observed at baseline between the 2 countries.

Results: A total of 2700 patients from the Swedish MS registry (1867 women [69.2%]; mean [SD] age, 36.1 [9.5] years) and 2161 patients from the Danish MS registry (1472 women [68.1%]; mean [SD] age, 37.3 [9.4 years]) started a first DMT between 2013 and 2016, were included in the analysis, and were observed for a mean (SD) of 4.1 (1.5) years. A total of 1994 Danish patients (92.3%) initiated a low to moderately effective DMT (teriflunomide, 907 [42.0%]) and 165 (7.6%) initiated a highly effective DMT, whereas a total of 1769 Swedish patients (65.5%) initiated a low to moderately effective DMT (teriflunomide, 64 [2.4%]) and 931 (34.5%) initiated a highly effective DMT. The Swedish treatment strategy was associated with a 29% reduction in the rate of postbaseline 24-week confirmed disability worsening relative to the Danish treatment strategy (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.90; P = .004). The Swedish treatment strategy was also associated with a 24% reduction in the rate of reaching an expanded disability status scale score of 3 (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.97; P = .03) and a 25% reduction in the rate of reaching an expanded disability status scale score of 4 (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.96; P = .01) relative to Danish patients.

Conclusions and relevance: The findings of this study suggest that there is an association between differences in treatment strategies for RRMS and disability outcomes at a national level. Escalation of treatment efficacy was inferior to using more efficacious DMT as initial treatment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Spelman reported receiving compensation for serving on scientific advisory boards, honoraria for consultancy, and funding for travel from Biogen Inc; and speaker honoraria from Novartis. Dr Magyari reported receiving personal fees and grants from Biogen, Novartis, Merck, Sanofi, and Roche; personal fees from AbbVie, Alexion, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and grants from Teva outside the submitted work. Dr Piehl reported receiving grants from Swedish Medical Research Council and County of Stockholm during the conduct of the study; grants from Genzyme, Merck KGaA, UCB, Biogen, and Novartis; and personal fees from Parexel serving as chair of DMC in clinical trials outside the submitted work. Dr Rasmussen reported receiving personal fees from Novartis, Biogen, Alexion, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and Merck outside the submitted work. Dr Sellebjerg reported receiving grants and personal fees from Biogen, Novartis, Merck, Roche, and Sanofi Genzyme; and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and Alexion outside the submitted work. Ms Joensen reported receiving personal fees from Biogen outside the submitted work. Dr Hillert reported receiving grants and personal fees from Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi; grants from Roche; personal fees from Janssen, Bayer Schering, and Teva; funding from Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Brain Foundation; and serving as principal investigator for or receiving unrestricted research support from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, TEVA, Sanofi Genzyme, and Bayer Schering outside the submitted work. Dr Lycke reported receiving grants from the Swedish Federal Government during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Biogen, Novartis, Merck, Alexion, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and BMS; and grants from Biogen and Novartis; and serving on the editorial board of the Acta Neurologica Scandinavica outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Time to Confirmed Disability Progression by Treatment Strategy Cohort
DMT indicates disease-modifying treatment.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Time to First Relapse by Treatment Strategy Cohort
DMT indicates disease-modifying treatment.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Col N, Alvarez E, Springmann V, et al. . A novel tool to improve shared decision making and adherence in multiple sclerosis: development and preliminary testing. MDM Policy Pract. 2019;4(2):2381468319879134. doi:10.1177/2381468319879134 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Comi G, Radaelli M, Soelberg Sørensen P. Evolving concepts in the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. Lancet. 2017;389(10076):1347-1356. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32388-1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gafson A, Craner MJ, Matthews PM. Personalised medicine for multiple sclerosis care. Mult Scler. 2017;23(3):362-369. doi:10.1177/1352458516672017 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ingwersen J, Aktas O, Hartung HP. Advances in and algorithms for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Neurotherapeutics. 2016;13(1):47-57. doi:10.1007/s13311-015-0412-4 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Trojano M, Tintore M, Montalban X, et al. . Treatment decisions in multiple sclerosis—insights from real-world observational studies. Nat Rev Neurol. 2017;13(2):105-118. doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2016.188 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Substances