[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Clinical Outcomes of Escalation vs Early Intensive Disease-Modifying Therapy in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis

Educational Objective
To determine whether disability outcomes at 5 years differ between people with multiple sclerosis who have an early intensive approach to disease-modifying therapy vs those who have an escalation approach.
1 Credit CME
Key Points

Question  How do 5-year disability outcomes compare between people with multiple sclerosis who have an early intensive approach to disease-modifying therapy vs those who have an escalation approach?

Findings  In this cohort study including 592 people, those who received high-efficacy treatment initially had a smaller increase in Expanded Disability Status Scale score at 5 years vs those who first received moderate-efficacy disease-modifying therapy.

Meaning  These findings suggest that real-world escalation approaches may be inadequate to prevent unfavorable long-term outcomes and support the need for a prospective clinical trial to compare disease-modifying therapy algorithms.

Abstract

Importance  Uncertainty remains about how aggressively to treat early multiple sclerosis. High-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are often reserved for individuals expressing poor prognostic features at baseline.

Objective  To analyze long-term outcomes in a population-based cohort according to initial treatment strategy.

Design, Setting and Participants  In this cohort study, data were derived from January 1998 to December 2016, and analysis was performed in January 2017. From a total of 720 patients prescribed a DMT, 592 (82%) were included in analysis. Reasons for exclusion were first treated elsewhere or privately (n = 39), clinical trial participant (n = 25), and insufficient clinical data (n = 45).

Exposures  Patients were classified according to first-line treatment strategy: high-efficacy (early intensive treatment [EIT]) or moderate-efficacy DMT (escalation [ESC]).

Main Outcomes and Measures  Primary outcome was 5-year change in Expanded Disability Status Scale score. Secondary outcome was time to sustained accumulation of disability (SAD). Models were adjusted for sex, age at treatment, year of starting DMT, and escalation to high-efficacy treatment in the ESC group.

Results  Mean (SD) age of 592 patients at symptom onset was 27.0 (9.4) years. Mean (SD) 5-year change in Expanded Disability Status Scale score was lower in the EIT group than the ESC group (0.3 [1.5] vs 1.2 [1.5]); this remained significant after adjustment for relevant covariates (β = −0.85; 95% CI, −1.38 to −0.32; P = .002). Median (95% CI) time to SAD was 6.0 (3.17-9.16) years for EIT and 3.14 (2.77-4.00) years for ESC (P = .05). For those within the ESC group who escalated to high-efficacy DMT as second-line treatment, median (95% CI) time to SAD was 3.3 years (1.8-5.6; compared with EIT group log-rank test P = .08). After adjustment for relevant covariates, there was no difference in hazard of SAD between the groups. However, 60% of those who escalated to high-efficacy DMTs were observed to develop SAD while still receiving initial moderate-efficacy treatment before escalation.

Conclusions and Relevance  In a real-life setting, long-term outcomes were more favorable following early intensive therapy vs first-line moderate-efficacy DMT. Contemporary surveillance strategies and escalation protocols may be insufficiently responsive. This finding is particularly relevant as patients in real-world practice are typically selected for an EIT approach to therapy on the basis of clinical and radiological features predictive of a poor outcome. These data support the need for a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

Article Information

Corresponding Author: Neil Robertson, MD, Helen Durham Centre for Neuroinflammatory Disease, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XW, United Kingdom (robertsonnp@cardiff.ac.uk).

Accepted for Publication: December 13, 2018.

Published Online: February 18, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.4905

Author Contributions: Dr Harding had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Harding, Williams, Robertson, Tallantyre.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Harding, Rimmer, Joseph, Robertson, Tallantyre.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Harding, Williams, Willis, Hrastelj, Joseph, Tomassini, Wardle, Pickersgill, Robertson, Tallantyre.

Statistical analysis: Harding.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Hrastelj, Rimmer, Joseph, Tomassini, Wardle, Pickersgill, Robertson.

Supervision: Robertson, Tallantyre.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Harding reports grants from Novartis UK outside the submitted work. Dr Joseph reports honoraria and support to attend educational meetings from Biogen and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Dr Pickersgill reports honoraria from Roche and MedDay Pharma and travel expenses from Genzyme and Novartis. Dr Robertson reports honoraria from Biogen and Merck & Co and grants from Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries outside the submitted work. Dr Tallantyre reports honoraria and support to attend educational meetings from Merck and Novartis, support to attend educational meetings from Biogen, and salary as a UK MS Register fellow from Biogen outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

References
1.
Shirani  A, Zhao  Y, Karim  ME,  et al.  Association between use of interferon beta and progression of disability in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.  JAMA. 2012;308(3):247-256. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.7625PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Palace  J, Duddy  M, Bregenzer  T,  et al.  Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interferon beta and glatiramer acetate in the UK Multiple Sclerosis Risk Sharing Scheme at 6 years: a clinical cohort study with natural history comparator.  Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(5):497-505. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00018-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Tilling  K, Lawton  M, Robertson  N,  et al Modelling disease progression in relapsing-remitting onset multiple sclerosis using multilevel models applied to longitudinal data from two natural history cohorts and one treated cohort.  Health Technol Assess. 2016;20(81):1-48. doi:10.3310/hta20810.Google ScholarCrossref
4.
Cree  BAC, Gourraud  PA, Oksenberg  JR,  et al; University of California, San Francisco MS-EPIC Team.  Long-term evolution of multiple sclerosis disability in the treatment era.  Ann Neurol. 2016;80(4):499-510. doi:10.1002/ana.24747PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Greenberg  BM, Balcer  L, Calabresi  PA,  et al.  Interferon beta use and disability prevention in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.  JAMA Neurol. 2013;70(2):248-251. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2013.1017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Coles  AJ, Cox  A, Le Page  E,  et al.  The window of therapeutic opportunity in multiple sclerosis: evidence from monoclonal antibody therapy.  J Neurol. 2006;253(1):98-108. doi:10.1007/s00415-005-0934-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Edan  G, Comi  G, Le Page  E, Leray  E, Rocca  MA, Filippi  M; French–Italian Mitoxantrone Interferon-beta-1b Trial Group.  Mitoxantrone prior to interferon beta-1b in aggressive relapsing multiple sclerosis: a 3-year randomised trial.  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2011;82(12):1344-1350. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2010.229724PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Tremlett  H, Yousefi  M, Devonshire  V, Rieckmann  P, Zhao  Y; UBC Neurologists.  Impact of multiple sclerosis relapses on progression diminishes with time.  Neurology. 2009;73(20):1616-1623. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181c1e44fPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Scolding  N, Barnes  D, Cader  S,  et al.  Association of British Neurologists: revised (2015) guidelines for prescribing disease-modifying treatments in multiple sclerosis.  Pract Neurol. 2015;15(4):273-279. doi:10.1136/practneurol-2015-001139PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Wattjes  MP, Rovira  À, Miller  D,  et al; MAGNIMS study group.  Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis: establishing disease prognosis and monitoring patients.  Nat Rev Neurol. 2015;11(10):597-606. doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2015.157PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Lublin  FD, Reingold  SC, Cohen  JA,  et al.  Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: the 2013 revisions.  Neurology. 2014;83(3):278-286. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000000560PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Swingler  RJ, Compston  DA.  The prevalence of multiple sclerosis in south east Wales.  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1988;51(12):1520-1524. doi:10.1136/jnnp.51.12.1520PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Hennessy  A, Swingler  RJ, Compston  DA.  The incidence and mortality of multiple sclerosis in south east Wales.  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1989;52(9):1085-1089. doi:10.1136/jnnp.52.9.1085PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Hennessey  A, Robertson  NP, Swingler  R, Compston  DA.  Urinary, faecal and sexual dysfunction in patients with multiple sclerosis.  J Neurol. 1999;246(11):1027-1032. doi:10.1007/s004150050508PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Hirst  C, Ingram  G, Pickersgill  T, Swingler  R, Compston  DA, Robertson  NP.  Increasing prevalence and incidence of multiple sclerosis in South East Wales.  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2009;80(4):386-391. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2008.144667PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Kurtzke  JF.  Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS).  Neurology. 1983;33(11):1444-1452. doi:10.1212/WNL.33.11.1444PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Jokubaitis  VG, Spelman  T, Lechner-Scott  J,  et al; Australian Msbase Study Group.  The Australian Multiple Sclerosis (MS) immunotherapy study: a prospective, multicentre study of drug utilisation using the MSBase platform.  PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e59694. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059694PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Coles  AJ, Compston  DAS, Selmaj  KW,  et al; CAMMS223 Trial Investigators.  Alemtuzumab vs interferon beta-1a in early multiple sclerosis.  N Engl J Med. 2008;359(17):1786-1801. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0802670PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Willis  MD, Harding  KE, Pickersgill  TP,  et al.  Alemtuzumab for multiple sclerosis: Long term follow-up in a multi-centre cohort.  Mult Scler. 2016;22(9):1215-1223. doi:10.1177/1352458515614092Google ScholarCrossref
20.
Hirst  C, Ingram  G, Pearson  O, Pickersgill  T, Scolding  N, Robertson  N.  Contribution of relapses to disability in multiple sclerosis.  J Neurol. 2008;255(2):280-287. doi:10.1007/s00415-008-0743-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Weideman  AM, Tapia-Maltos  MA, Johnson  K, Greenwood  M, Bielekova  B.  Meta-analysis of the age-dependent efficacy of multiple sclerosis treatments.  Front Neurol. 2017;8:577. doi:10.3389/fneur.2017.00577PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Sormani  MP, Rio  J, Tintorè  M,  et al.  Scoring treatment response in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis.  Mult Scler. 2013;19(5):605-612. doi:10.1177/1352458512460605PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Freedman  MS, Selchen  D, Arnold  DL,  et al; Canadian Multiple Sclerosis Working Group.  Treatment optimization in MS: Canadian MS Working Group updated recommendations.  Can J Neurol Sci. 2013;40(3):307-323.Google ScholarCrossref
24.
Healy  BC, Glanz  BI, Stankiewicz  J, Buckle  G, Weiner  H, Chitnis  T.  A method for evaluating treatment switching criteria in multiple sclerosis.  Mult Scler. 2010;16(12):1483-1489. doi:10.1177/1352458510379245PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Giovannoni  G, Turner  B, Gnanapavan  S, Offiah  C, Schmierer  K, Marta  M.  Is it time to target no evident disease activity (NEDA) in multiple sclerosis?  Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2015;4(4):329-333. doi:10.1016/j.msard.2015.04.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Polman  CH, O’Connor  PW, Havrdova  E,  et al; AFFIRM Investigators.  A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis.  N Engl J Med. 2006;354(9):899-910. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa044397PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Cohen  JA, Coles  AJ, Arnold  DL,  et al; CARE-MS I investigators.  Alemtuzumab versus interferon beta 1a as first-line treatment for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial.  Lancet. 2012;380(9856):1819-1828. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61769-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right

Name Your Search

Save Search
With a personal account, you can:
  • Track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
jn-learning_Modal_SaveSearch_NoAccess_Purchase

Lookup An Activity

or

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Topics
State Requirements