Induction versus escalation in multiple sclerosis: a 10-year real-world study
ECTRIMS Online Library. Prosperini L. 09/13/19; 278544; P1342
Luca Prosperini
Luca Prosperini
Contributions
Abstract

Abstract: P1342

Type: Poster Sessions

Abstract Category: Therapy - Immunomodulation/Immunosuppression

L. Prosperini1, C.R. Mancinelli2, C.M. Solaro3, V. Nociti4, S. Haggiag1, C. Cordioli2, L. De Giglio5, N. De Rossi2, S. Galgani1, F. Gurreri5, S. Rasia2, S. Ruggieri5, C. Tortorella1, R. Capra2, M. Mirabella4, C. Gasperini1

1S. Camillo-Forlanini Hospital, Rome, 2Multiple Sclerosis Centre, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, P.O. Montichiari, Brescia, 3Rehabilitation Unit 'Mons. L. Novarese' Hospital, Loc.Trompone, Moncrivello (VC), 4Fondazione Policlinico Universitario 'A. Gemelli', IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 5Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

Background: Escalation and induction are the main treatment strategy adopted in multiple sclerosis (MS). Escalation refers to starting in newly diagnosed patients with less potent, but relatively safe, agents and eventually moving on to more potent drugs in case of disease activity. Induction refers to starting early on high-efficacy immunosuppressant agents, followed by maintenance with immunomodulation. To date, induction is rarely used only in aggressive MS, and long-term real-world data are not available.
Objective: To directly compare escalation and induction strategies on the risk of reaching the disability milestone of Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) ≥6.0 over a 10-year follow-up.
Methods: We collected data of patients with relapsing-remitting MS who started interferon beta (escalation) and mitoxantrone or cyclophosphamide (induction) as initial treatment. The main inclusion criteria were: age < 55 years; < 5 years since MS onset; EDSS ≤4.0; ≥1 relapse in previous year. We performed a 1:1 ratio propensity score (PS)-based nearest-neighbor matching (without replacement) to select patients with homogeneous baseline characteristics. Comparisons were then conducted using a Cox model stratified by matched pairs, with time to EDSS ≥6.0 as main outcome.
Results: Overall, 738 and 74 eligible patients were started with escalation and induction, respectively. Serious adverse events occurred more frequently in induction (n=8, 10.8%) than in escalation (n=12, 1.6%) group (p< 0.001). At follow-up, 108 (14.6%) and 20 (27.0%) patients reached the outcome in escalation and induction group, respectively (p=0.005). However, there was a significant between-group imbalance in baseline characteristics as for older age, higher EDSS and more pre-treatment relapses in the induction group (p< 0.05). This imbalance did not survive after the PS-matching procedure retaining 148 patients (74 per group). In the re-matched samples, proportions of patients reaching the outcome was lower in induction (n=20, 27.0%) than escalation group (n=28, 37.8%; HR=0.46, p=0.014). We found similar results even after matching in a 1:2 ratio (HR=0.59, p=0.042).
Discussion: In patients with bad prognostic factors, initial treatment with an induction approach was more effective than escalation in preventing the risk of disability milestone, but at the price of a worse safety profile. Further efforts are now warranted to clarify if the newer induction agents could provide a better risk:benefit ratio.
Disclosure: LP: consulting fees from Biogen, Novartis and Roche; speaker honoraria from Biogen, Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Teva; travel grants from Biogen, Genzyme, Novartis and Teva; research grants from the Italian MS Society (Associazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla) and Genzyme.
CRM: nothing to disclose.
CMS: consulting fees for advisory board from Biogen, Merck Serono, Almirall and GW Pharma; speaking honoraria from Biogen and Merck Serono; research grants and support by the FISM (Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla).
VN: nothing to disclose.
SH: nothing to disclose.
CC: fees as invited speaker and travel grants for attending meeting from Serono, Biogen, Teva, Novartis.
LDG: travel grants from Biogen, Novartis, and Teva.
NDR received speaker honoraria from Biogen Idec, Genzyme, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis; received funding for participation in advisory board to Novartis and Genzyme-Sanofi and for travel to scientific meetings from Biogen Idec, Teva, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, Almirall and Novartis.
SG: fees as invited speaker or travel expenses for attending meeting from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Teva, Almirall, Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, and Genzyme.
FG: nothing to disclose.
SR: fees as invited speaker or travel expenses for attending meeting from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis, Genzyme.
SR: speaking honoraria from Merck Serono and Teva.
CT: honoraria for speaking and travel grants from Biogen, Sanofi-Aventis, Merck Serono, Bayer-Schering,
Teva, Genzyme, Almirall and Novartis
RC: lecture fees and/or travel grants from Novartis, Biogen, Celgene, Novartis, TEVA, Genzyme, and Sanofi-Aventis.
MM: scientific advisory board membership of Bayer Schering, Biogen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva; consulting and/or speaking fees, research support or travel grants from Almirall, Bayer Schering, Biogen, CSL Behring, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Teva, Ultragenix; principal investigator in clinical trials for Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva, Ultragenix.
CG: fees as invited speaker or travel expenses for attending meeting from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis, Genzyme.

Abstract: P1342

Type: Poster Sessions

Abstract Category: Therapy - Immunomodulation/Immunosuppression

L. Prosperini1, C.R. Mancinelli2, C.M. Solaro3, V. Nociti4, S. Haggiag1, C. Cordioli2, L. De Giglio5, N. De Rossi2, S. Galgani1, F. Gurreri5, S. Rasia2, S. Ruggieri5, C. Tortorella1, R. Capra2, M. Mirabella4, C. Gasperini1

1S. Camillo-Forlanini Hospital, Rome, 2Multiple Sclerosis Centre, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, P.O. Montichiari, Brescia, 3Rehabilitation Unit 'Mons. L. Novarese' Hospital, Loc.Trompone, Moncrivello (VC), 4Fondazione Policlinico Universitario 'A. Gemelli', IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 5Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

Background: Escalation and induction are the main treatment strategy adopted in multiple sclerosis (MS). Escalation refers to starting in newly diagnosed patients with less potent, but relatively safe, agents and eventually moving on to more potent drugs in case of disease activity. Induction refers to starting early on high-efficacy immunosuppressant agents, followed by maintenance with immunomodulation. To date, induction is rarely used only in aggressive MS, and long-term real-world data are not available.
Objective: To directly compare escalation and induction strategies on the risk of reaching the disability milestone of Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) ≥6.0 over a 10-year follow-up.
Methods: We collected data of patients with relapsing-remitting MS who started interferon beta (escalation) and mitoxantrone or cyclophosphamide (induction) as initial treatment. The main inclusion criteria were: age < 55 years; < 5 years since MS onset; EDSS ≤4.0; ≥1 relapse in previous year. We performed a 1:1 ratio propensity score (PS)-based nearest-neighbor matching (without replacement) to select patients with homogeneous baseline characteristics. Comparisons were then conducted using a Cox model stratified by matched pairs, with time to EDSS ≥6.0 as main outcome.
Results: Overall, 738 and 74 eligible patients were started with escalation and induction, respectively. Serious adverse events occurred more frequently in induction (n=8, 10.8%) than in escalation (n=12, 1.6%) group (p< 0.001). At follow-up, 108 (14.6%) and 20 (27.0%) patients reached the outcome in escalation and induction group, respectively (p=0.005). However, there was a significant between-group imbalance in baseline characteristics as for older age, higher EDSS and more pre-treatment relapses in the induction group (p< 0.05). This imbalance did not survive after the PS-matching procedure retaining 148 patients (74 per group). In the re-matched samples, proportions of patients reaching the outcome was lower in induction (n=20, 27.0%) than escalation group (n=28, 37.8%; HR=0.46, p=0.014). We found similar results even after matching in a 1:2 ratio (HR=0.59, p=0.042).
Discussion: In patients with bad prognostic factors, initial treatment with an induction approach was more effective than escalation in preventing the risk of disability milestone, but at the price of a worse safety profile. Further efforts are now warranted to clarify if the newer induction agents could provide a better risk:benefit ratio.
Disclosure: LP: consulting fees from Biogen, Novartis and Roche; speaker honoraria from Biogen, Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Teva; travel grants from Biogen, Genzyme, Novartis and Teva; research grants from the Italian MS Society (Associazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla) and Genzyme.
CRM: nothing to disclose.
CMS: consulting fees for advisory board from Biogen, Merck Serono, Almirall and GW Pharma; speaking honoraria from Biogen and Merck Serono; research grants and support by the FISM (Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla).
VN: nothing to disclose.
SH: nothing to disclose.
CC: fees as invited speaker and travel grants for attending meeting from Serono, Biogen, Teva, Novartis.
LDG: travel grants from Biogen, Novartis, and Teva.
NDR received speaker honoraria from Biogen Idec, Genzyme, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis; received funding for participation in advisory board to Novartis and Genzyme-Sanofi and for travel to scientific meetings from Biogen Idec, Teva, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, Almirall and Novartis.
SG: fees as invited speaker or travel expenses for attending meeting from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Teva, Almirall, Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, and Genzyme.
FG: nothing to disclose.
SR: fees as invited speaker or travel expenses for attending meeting from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis, Genzyme.
SR: speaking honoraria from Merck Serono and Teva.
CT: honoraria for speaking and travel grants from Biogen, Sanofi-Aventis, Merck Serono, Bayer-Schering,
Teva, Genzyme, Almirall and Novartis
RC: lecture fees and/or travel grants from Novartis, Biogen, Celgene, Novartis, TEVA, Genzyme, and Sanofi-Aventis.
MM: scientific advisory board membership of Bayer Schering, Biogen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva; consulting and/or speaking fees, research support or travel grants from Almirall, Bayer Schering, Biogen, CSL Behring, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Teva, Ultragenix; principal investigator in clinical trials for Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva, Ultragenix.
CG: fees as invited speaker or travel expenses for attending meeting from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis, Genzyme.

By clicking “Accept Terms & all Cookies” or by continuing to browse, you agree to the storing of third-party cookies on your device to enhance your user experience and agree to the user terms and conditions of this learning management system (LMS).

Cookie Settings
Accept Terms & all Cookies