Search

Ublituximab (BRIUMVITM), an anti-CD20 immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody, is a promising new treatment option for patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS). Ublituximab is approved in the USA and the EU for the treatment of adult patients with relapsing forms of MS. Following a starting dose of 150 mg infused over 4 h, ublituximab is conveniently administered twice-yearly as a short (1 h) intravenous infusion. In phase 3 clinical trials in patients with relapsing MS, ublituximab was more effective than oral teriflunomide at reducing annualized relapse rates and numbers of brain lesions over a period of 96 weeks. However, ublituximab did not result in a significantly lower risk of worsening of disability. Ublituximab had an acceptable tolerability profile in clinical trials. The most commonly reported adverse events were infusion-related reactions (IRRs), which occurred in almost half of ublituximab recipients. However, the majority of IRRs were of mild to moderate severity, occurred after the first dose and decreased in frequency with subsequent dosing. Plain language summary: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic illness whereby the body's immune system causes damage to the brain and spinal cord. Most patients with MS have a relapsing-remitting form of the disease, where symptoms flare for a period of time and then ease. Ublituximab (BRIUMVITM) is a monoclonal antibody approved for treating adults with relapsing forms of MS. Of convenience to patients, ublituximab is given intravenously once every 6 months after initial dosing and can be infused rapidly (over 1 h). In clinical trials, ublituximab recipients were half as likely to have a relapse and had fewer areas of inflammation in the brain than patients receiving oral teriflunomide. However, ublituximab did not significantly reduce the risk of worsening disability. Ublituximab had an acceptable safety profile in clinical trials. Nearly half of patients receiving ublituximab had mild to moderate infusion-related reactions that became less frequent with later infusions. Thus, ublituximab is a promising new treatment option for patients with relapsing forms of MS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Disease modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) aim to delay progression and reduce relapses. Evidence is limited on the comparative effectiveness of the oral DMTs fingolimod and teriflunomide. This study evaluated time to treatment failure among patients with MS who initiated fingolimod versus teriflunomide in real-world settings.Methods: The retrospective cohort included 18-64 year old patients diagnosed with MS who initiated fingolimod or teriflunomide during 12 September 2012 to 30 September 2015 within MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Claims. Patients were followed from treatment initiation (index date) until first treatment failure or censoring. Treatment failure was defined as the first occurrence of MS relapse (identified using a validated algorithm) or treatment discontinuation (≥60 day supply gap). Treatment failure was examined through Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox regression adjusting for 1 year baseline factors (age, gender, plan type, region, index year, prior DMT use, baseline relapses, Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI] and MS symptoms).Results: On average, patients treated with fingolimod (n = 2704) were younger (43.6 versus 49.8 years) with lower CCI (0.4 versus 0.7) and more relapses at baseline (0.46 versus 0.42) than those treated with teriflunomide (n = 1859). Median time to treatment failure was 19.5 months with fingolimod versus 9.6 months with teriflunomide (p < .001). After controlling key demographic and clinical characteristics through multivariable regression, fingolimod was associated with 38.9% lower hazards of treatment failure versus teriflunomide (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.611; 95% CI: 0.559-0.669; p < .001).Conclusions: In a large cohort of US adults with MS, controlling for key baseline characteristics, fingolimod was associated with significantly longer time to treatment failure and lower risk of treatment failure compared with teriflunomide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]