Publications by authors named "Eva K Havrdova"

3 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Ponesimod Compared With Teriflunomide in Patients With Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis in the Active-Comparator Phase 3 OPTIMUM Study: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA Neurol 2021 Mar 29. Epub 2021 Mar 29.

Neurology and Research Center for Clinical Neuroimmunology and Neuroscience Basel, Departments of Medicine, Clinical Research, Biomedicine and Biomedical Engineering University Hospital and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Importance: To our knowledge, the Oral Ponesimod Versus Teriflunomide In Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis (OPTIMUM) trial is the first phase 3 study comparing 2 oral disease-modifying therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS).

Objective: To compare the efficacy of ponesimod, a selective sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 1 (S1P1) modulator with teriflunomide, a pyrimidine synthesis inhibitor, approved for the treatment of patients with RMS.

Design, Setting, And Participants: This multicenter, double-blind, active-comparator, superiority randomized clinical trial enrolled patients from April 27, 2015, to May 16, 2019, who were aged 18 to 55 years and had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis per 2010 McDonald criteria, with a relapsing course from the onset, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores of 0 to 5.5, and recent clinical or magnetic resonance imaging disease activity.

Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1) to 20 mg of ponesimod or 14 mg of teriflunomide once daily and the placebo for 108 weeks, with a 14-day gradual up-titration of ponesimod starting at 2 mg to mitigate first-dose cardiac effects of S1P1 modulators and a follow-up period of 30 days.

Main Outcomes And Measures: The primary end point was the annualized relapse rate. The secondary end points were the changes in symptom domain of Fatigue Symptom and Impact Questionnaire-Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis (FSIQ-RMS) at week 108, the number of combined unique active lesions per year on magnetic resonance imaging, and time to 12-week and 24-week confirmed disability accumulation. Safety and tolerability were assessed. Exploratory end points included the percentage change in brain volume and no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3 and NEDA-4) status.

Results: For 1133 patients (567 receiving ponesimod and 566 receiving teriflunomide; median [range], 37.0 [18-55] years; 735 women [64.9%]), the relative rate reduction for ponesimod vs teriflunomide in the annualized relapse rate was 30.5% (0.202 vs 0.290; P < .001); the mean difference in FSIQ-RMS, -3.57 (-0.01 vs 3.56; P < .001); the relative risk reduction in combined unique active lesions per year, 56% (1.405 vs 3.164; P < .001); and the reduction in time to 12-week and 24-week confirmed disability accumulation risk estimates, 17% (10.1% vs 12.4%; P = .29) and 16% (8.1% vs 9.9; P = .37), respectively. Brain volume loss at week 108 was lower by 0.34% (-0.91% vs -1.25%; P < .001); the odds ratio for NEDA-3 achievement was 1.70 (25.0% vs 16.4%; P < .001). Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (502 of 565 [88.8%] vs 499 of 566 [88.2%]) and serious treatment-emergent adverse events (49 [8.7%] vs 46 [8.1%]) was similar for both groups. Treatment discontinuations because of adverse events was more common in the ponesimod group (49 of 565 [8.7%] vs 34 of 566 [6.0%]).

Conclusions And Relevance: In this study, ponesimod was superior to teriflunomide on annualized relapse rate reduction, fatigue, magnetic resonance imaging activity, brain volume loss, and no evidence of disease activity status, but not confirmed disability accumulation. The safety profile was in line with the previous safety observations with ponesimod and the known profile of other S1P receptor modulators.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02425644.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.0405DOI Listing
March 2021

Delay from treatment start to full effect of immunotherapies for multiple sclerosis.

Brain 2020 09;143(9):2742-2756

CORe, Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 3050, Australia.

In multiple sclerosis, treatment start or switch is prompted by evidence of disease activity. Whilst immunomodulatory therapies reduce disease activity, the time required to attain maximal effect is unclear. In this study we aimed to develop a method that allows identification of the time to manifest fully and clinically the effect of multiple sclerosis treatments ('therapeutic lag') on clinical disease activity represented by relapses and progression-of-disability events. Data from two multiple sclerosis registries, MSBase (multinational) and OFSEP (French), were used. Patients diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, minimum 1-year exposure to treatment, minimum 3-year pretreatment follow-up and yearly review were included in the analysis. For analysis of disability progression, all events in the subsequent 5-year period were included. Density curves, representing incidence of relapses and 6-month confirmed progression events, were separately constructed for each sufficiently represented therapy. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to identify the first local minimum of the first derivative after treatment start; this point represented the point of stabilization of treatment effect, after the maximum treatment effect was observed. The method was developed in a discovery cohort (MSBase), and externally validated in a separate, non-overlapping cohort (OFSEP). A merged MSBase-OFSEP cohort was used for all subsequent analyses. Annualized relapse rates were compared in the time before treatment start and after the stabilization of treatment effect following commencement of each therapy. We identified 11 180 eligible treatment epochs for analysis of relapses and 4088 treatment epochs for disability progression. External validation was performed in four therapies, with no significant difference in the bootstrapped mean differences in therapeutic lag duration between registries. The duration of therapeutic lag for relapses was calculated for 10 therapies and ranged between 12 and 30 weeks. The duration of therapeutic lag for disability progression was calculated for seven therapies and ranged between 30 and 70 weeks. Significant differences in the pre- versus post-treatment annualized relapse rate were present for all therapies apart from intramuscular interferon beta-1a. In conclusion we have developed, and externally validated, a method to objectively quantify the duration of therapeutic lag on relapses and disability progression in different therapies in patients more than 3 years from multiple sclerosis onset. Objectively defined periods of expected therapeutic lag allows insights into the evaluation of treatment response in randomized clinical trials and may guide clinical decision-making in patients who experience early on-treatment disease activity. This method will subsequently be applied in studies that evaluate the effect of patient and disease characteristics on therapeutic lag.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/brain/awaa231DOI Listing
September 2020

Efficacy and safety of ozanimod in multiple sclerosis: Dose-blinded extension of a randomized phase II study.

Mult Scler 2019 08 25;25(9):1255-1262. Epub 2018 Jul 25.

Neurologic Clinic and Polyclinic, University Hospital of Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Background: Ozanimod, an oral immunomodulator, selectively targets sphingosine 1-phosphate receptors 1 and 5.

Objective: Evaluate efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ozanimod in relapsing multiple sclerosis.

Methods: In the RADIANCE Part A phase II study (NCT01628393), participants with relapsing multiple sclerosis were randomized (1:1:1) to once-daily ozanimod hydrochloride (0.5 or 1 mg) or placebo. After 24 weeks, participants could enter a 2-year, dose-blinded extension. Ozanimod-treated participants continued their assigned dose; placebo participants were re-randomized (1:1) to ozanimod hydrochloride 0.5 or 1 mg (equivalent to ozanimod 0.46 and 0.92 mg).

Results: A total of 223 (89.6%) of the 249 participants completed the blinded extension. At 2 years of the extension, the percentage of participants who were gadolinium-enhancing lesion-free ranged from 86.5% to 94.6%. Unadjusted annualized relapse rate during the blinded extension (week 24-end of treatment) was 0.32 for ozanimod hydrochloride 0.5 mg → ozanimod hydrochloride 0.5 mg, 0.18 for ozanimod hydrochloride 1 mg → ozanimod hydrochloride 1 mg, 0.30 for placebo → ozanimod hydrochloride 0.5 mg, and 0.18 for placebo → ozanimod hydrochloride 1 mg. No second-degree or higher atrioventricular block or serious opportunistic infection was reported.

Conclusion: Ozanimod demonstrated sustained efficacy in participants continuing treatment up to 2 years and reached similar efficacy in participants who switched from placebo; no unexpected safety signals emerged.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1352458518789884DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6681431PMC
August 2019