Skip to main content
Top
Published in: CNS Drugs 9/2018

01-09-2018 | Systematic Review

Disease-Modifying Therapies for Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Network Meta-Analysis

Authors: Rosa C. Lucchetta, Fernanda S. Tonin, Helena H. L. Borba, Letícia P. Leonart, Vinicius L. Ferreira, Aline F. Bonetti, Bruno S. Riveros, Jefferson Becker, Roberto Pontarolo, Fernando Fernandez-Llimós, Astrid Wiens

Published in: CNS Drugs | Issue 9/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

A broad range of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) is available. However, the efficacy and safety of traditional DMTs compared with the recently developed DMTs remain unclear.

Objective

Therefore, we have synthesised available evidence of clinical outcomes for DMTs in adults with RRMS.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus and a manual search were performed. Bayesian network meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials assessing DMTs as monotherapies were conducted. SUCRA and GRADE were used to rank therapies and to assess quality of general evidence, respectively.

Results

Thirty-three studies were included in the meta-analyses. The most effective therapies for the outcome of annualised relapse rate were alemtuzumab (96% probability), natalizumab (96%) and ocrelizumab (85%), compared with all other therapies (hazard ratio versus placebo, 0.31, 0.31 and 0.37, respectively; p < 0.05 for all comparisons) (high-quality evidence). However, no significant differences among these three therapies were found. Discontinuation due to adverse events revealed similarity across all therapies, except for alemtuzumab, which showed less discontinuation when compared with interferon-1a intramuscular (relative risk 0.37; p < 0.05).

Conclusion

High-quality evidence shows that alemtuzumab, natalizumab and ocrelizumab present the highest efficacy among DMTs, and other meta-analyses are required regarding adverse events frequency, to better understand the safety of therapies. Based on efficacy profile, guidelines should consider a three-category classification (i.e. high, intermediate and low efficacy).
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
3.
go back to reference Lublin FD, Reingold SC, Cohen JA, Cutter GR, Sørensen PS, Thompson AJ, et al. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: the 2013 revisions. Neurology. 2014;83:278–86.CrossRef Lublin FD, Reingold SC, Cohen JA, Cutter GR, Sørensen PS, Thompson AJ, et al. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: the 2013 revisions. Neurology. 2014;83:278–86.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Pickin M, Cooper CL, Chater T, O’Hagan A, Abrams KR, Cooper NJ, et al. The multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme monitoring study—early results and lessons for the future. BMC Neurol BioMed Cent. 2009;9:1.CrossRef Pickin M, Cooper CL, Chater T, O’Hagan A, Abrams KR, Cooper NJ, et al. The multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme monitoring study—early results and lessons for the future. BMC Neurol BioMed Cent. 2009;9:1.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Kasper DL, Fauci AS, Hauser S, Longo D, Jameson JL, Loscalzo J. Harrisons manual of medicine. 19th ed. New York City: McGraw-Hill Education; 2016. Kasper DL, Fauci AS, Hauser S, Longo D, Jameson JL, Loscalzo J. Harrisons manual of medicine. 19th ed. New York City: McGraw-Hill Education; 2016.
6.
go back to reference Leary SM, Porter B, Thompson AJ. Multiple sclerosis: diagnosis and the management of acute relapses. The Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine. Postgrad Med J. 2005;81:302–8.CrossRef Leary SM, Porter B, Thompson AJ. Multiple sclerosis: diagnosis and the management of acute relapses. The Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine. Postgrad Med J. 2005;81:302–8.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Tonin FS, Rotta I, Mendes AM, Pontarolo R. Network meta-analysis: a technique to gather evidence from direct and indirect comparisons. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2017;15:943.CrossRef Tonin FS, Rotta I, Mendes AM, Pontarolo R. Network meta-analysis: a technique to gather evidence from direct and indirect comparisons. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2017;15:943.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:777–84.CrossRef Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:777–84.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
14.
go back to reference Higgins J, Sterne J, Savović J, Page M, Hróbjartsson A, Boutron I, et al. A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. In: Chandler J, McKenzie J, Boutron I, Welch V (eds) Cochrane Methods Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;Suppl.1. Higgins J, Sterne J, Savović J, Page M, Hróbjartsson A, Boutron I, et al. A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. In: Chandler J, McKenzie J, Boutron I, Welch V (eds) Cochrane Methods Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;Suppl.1.
17.
go back to reference Schwarzer G. Meta: An R package for meta-analysis. R News. 2007;7:40–5. Schwarzer G. Meta: An R package for meta-analysis. R News. 2007;7:40–5.
18.
go back to reference Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36:1–48.CrossRef Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36:1–48.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Plummer M, Best N, Cowles K, Vines K. CODA: convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. R News. 2006;6:7–11. Plummer M, Best N, Cowles K, Vines K. CODA: convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. R News. 2006;6:7–11.
26.
go back to reference Durelli L, Verdun E, Barbero P, Bergui M, Versino E, Ghezzi A, et al. Every-other-day interferon beta-1b versus once-weekly interferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis: results of a 2-year prospective randomised multicentre study (INCOMIN). Lancet (London, England). 2002;359:1453–60. Durelli L, Verdun E, Barbero P, Bergui M, Versino E, Ghezzi A, et al. Every-other-day interferon beta-1b versus once-weekly interferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis: results of a 2-year prospective randomised multicentre study (INCOMIN). Lancet (London, England). 2002;359:1453–60.
29.
go back to reference Hamidi V, Couto E, Ringerike T, Klemp M. A multiple treatment comparison of eleven disease-modifying drugs used for multiple sclerosis. J Clin Med Res. 2018;10:88–105.CrossRef Hamidi V, Couto E, Ringerike T, Klemp M. A multiple treatment comparison of eleven disease-modifying drugs used for multiple sclerosis. J Clin Med Res. 2018;10:88–105.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Vartanian T. An examination of the results of the EVIDENCE, INCOMIN, and phase III studies of interferon beta products in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Clin Ther. 2003; 25:105–18.CrossRef Vartanian T. An examination of the results of the EVIDENCE, INCOMIN, and phase III studies of interferon beta products in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Clin Ther. 2003; 25:105–18.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Tolley K, Hutchinson M, You X, Wang P, Sperling B, Taneja A, et al. A network meta-analysis of efficacy and evaluation of safety of subcutaneous pegylated interferon beta-1a versus other injectable therapies for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0127960.CrossRef Tolley K, Hutchinson M, You X, Wang P, Sperling B, Taneja A, et al. A network meta-analysis of efficacy and evaluation of safety of subcutaneous pegylated interferon beta-1a versus other injectable therapies for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0127960.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Coles JA, Fox EJ, Giovannoni G, Hartung HP, Havrdova E, Schippling S, Selmaj KW, Traboulsee A, Compston DAS, Margolin DH, Thangavelu K, Chirieac MC, Jody D, Xenopoulos P, Hogan RJ, Panzara MA, Arnold DAJC. Alemtuzumab CARE-MS II 5-year follow-up: efficacy and safety findings. Neurology. 2017;89:1117–26.CrossRef Coles JA, Fox EJ, Giovannoni G, Hartung HP, Havrdova E, Schippling S, Selmaj KW, Traboulsee A, Compston DAS, Margolin DH, Thangavelu K, Chirieac MC, Jody D, Xenopoulos P, Hogan RJ, Panzara MA, Arnold DAJC. Alemtuzumab CARE-MS II 5-year follow-up: efficacy and safety findings. Neurology. 2017;89:1117–26.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Clerico CA, Di Liberto A, Rolla S, Bardina V, Barbero P, De Mercanti SF, Durelli LMA. Long-term safety evaluation of natalizumab for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2017;16:963–72.CrossRef Clerico CA, Di Liberto A, Rolla S, Bardina V, Barbero P, De Mercanti SF, Durelli LMA. Long-term safety evaluation of natalizumab for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2017;16:963–72.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference McGinley BP, Cohen JAMPM. Safety of monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2017;16:89–100.CrossRef McGinley BP, Cohen JAMPM. Safety of monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2017;16:89–100.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Disease-Modifying Therapies for Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Network Meta-Analysis
Authors
Rosa C. Lucchetta
Fernanda S. Tonin
Helena H. L. Borba
Letícia P. Leonart
Vinicius L. Ferreira
Aline F. Bonetti
Bruno S. Riveros
Jefferson Becker
Roberto Pontarolo
Fernando Fernandez-Llimós
Astrid Wiens
Publication date
01-09-2018
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
CNS Drugs / Issue 9/2018
Print ISSN: 1172-7047
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1934
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-018-0541-5

Other articles of this Issue 9/2018

CNS Drugs 9/2018 Go to the issue