Journal of Neurology

, Volume 259, Issue 5, pp 898–905

Additional efficacy endpoints from pivotal natalizumab trials in relapsing-remitting MS

  • Bianca Weinstock-Guttman
  • Steven L. Galetta
  • Gavin Giovannoni
  • Eva Havrdova
  • Michael Hutchinson
  • Ludwig Kappos
  • Paul W. O’Connor
  • J. Theodore Phillips
  • Chris Polman
  • William H. Stuart
  • Frances Lynn
  • Christophe Hotermans
Original Communication

Abstract

Standard clinical endpoints in multiple sclerosis (MS) studies, such as disability progression defined by the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) and annualized relapse rate, may not fully reflect all aspects of therapeutic benefit experienced by patients. Pivotal studies showed that natalizumab is effective both as monotherapy (AFFIRM study) and in combination with interferon beta-1a (IFNβ-1a) (SENTINEL study) in patients with relapsing MS. We present AFFIRM and SENTINEL data demonstrating the efficacy of natalizumab on prespecified tertiary endpoints, including extent of confirmed change in EDSS score from baseline, time to sustained progression to EDSS milestone scores, hospitalizations, corticosteroid use, and time to confirmed progression of cognitive deficits. Natalizumab significantly reduced changes in EDSS scores (P < 0.001) and proportion of patients progressing to an EDSS score ≥4.0 (P < 0.001) and ≥6.0 (P = 0.002) compared with placebo. Natalizumab + IFNβ-1a significantly reduced changes in EDSS scores compared with placebo + IFNβ-1a (P = 0.011). Based on 0.5 standard deviation change in paced auditory serial addition test-3 score, natalizumab treatment reduced the risk of confirmed progression of cognitive deficits by 43% compared with placebo (HR 0.57 [95% CI 0.37, 0.89], P = 0.013); however, no significant difference between groups was seen in SENTINEL. Natalizumab, both as monotherapy and in combination with IFNβ-1a, significantly reduced the annualized rate of MS-related hospitalizations (by 64 and 61%, respectively) and the annualized rate of relapses severe enough to require steroid treatment (by 69 and 61%, respectively) compared with placebo and placebo + IFNβ-1a (P < 0.001). These analyses underline beneficial effects of natalizumab therapy in relapsing MS patients.

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis Natalizumab Outcomes Cognitive function Hospitalization Corticosteroids 

References

  1. 1.
    Naci H, Fleurence R, Birt J, Duhig A (2010) Economic burden of multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 28:363–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tremlett H, Zhao Y, Rieckmann P, Hutchinson M (2010) New perspectives in the natural history of multiple sclerosis. Neurology 74:2004–2015PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hutchinson M (2007) Natalizumab: a new treatment for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. Ther Clin Risk Manag 3:259–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Polman CH, O’Connor PW, Havrdova E et al (2006) A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 354:899–910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rudick RA, Stuart WH, Calabresi PA et al (2006) Natalizumab plus interferon beta-1a for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 354:911–923PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fischer JS, Rudick RA, Cutter GR et al (1999) The multiple sclerosis functional composite measure (MSFC): an integrated approach to MS clinical outcome assessment. Mult Scler 5:244–250PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoogervorst ELJ, Kalkers NF, van Winsen LML, MJ Uitdehaag B, Polman CH (2001) Differential treatment effect on measures of neurologic exam, functional impairment and patient self-report in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 7:335–339PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rao SM, Leo GJ, Bernardin L, Unverzagt F (1991) Cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. I. frequency, patterns, and prediction. Neurology 41:685–691PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rovaris M, Riccitelli G, Judica E et al (2008) Cognitive impairment and structural brain damage in benign multiple sclerosis. Neurology 71:1521–1526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miller D, Rudick RA, Hutchinson M (2010) Patient-centered outcomes: translating clinical efficacy into benefits on health-related quality of life. Neurology 74(Suppl 3):S24–S35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sutliff MH (2010) Contribution of impaired mobility to patient burden in multiple sclerosis. Curr Med Res Opin 26:109–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salter AR, Cutter GR, Tyry T, Marrie RA, Vollmer T (2010) Impact of loss of mobility on instrumental activities of daily living and socioeconomic status in patients with MS. Curr Med Res Opin 26:493–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fischer JS, Priore RL, Jacobs LD et al (2000) Neuropsychological effects of interferon beta-1a in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Collaborative Research Group. Ann Neurol 48:885–892PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halper J (2007) The psychosocial effect of multiple sclerosis: the impact of relapses. J Neurol Sci 256(Suppl 1):S34–S38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sellebjerg F, Barnes D, Filippini G et al (2005) EFNS guideline on treatment of multiple sclerosis relapses: report of an EFNS task force on treatment of multiple sclerosis relapses. Eur J Neurol 12:939–946PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chataway J, Porter B, Riazi A et al (2006) Home versus outpatient administration of intravenous steroids for multiple-sclerosis relapses: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 5:565–571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tyas D, Kerrigan J, Russell N, Nixon R (2007) The distribution of the cost of multiple sclerosis in the UK: how do costs vary by illness severity? Value Health 10:386–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bourdette DN, Prochazka AV, Mitchell W, Licari P, Burks J (1993) Health care costs of veterans with multiple sclerosis: implications for the rehabilitation of MS. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 74:26–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Brien JA, Ward AJ, Patrick AR, Caro J (2003) Cost of managing an episode of relapse in multiple sclerosis in the United States. BMC Health Serv Res 3:17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goodin DS, Cohen BA, O’Connor P, Kappos L, Stevens JC (2008) Assessment: the use of natalizumab (Tysabri) for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (an evidence-based review). Report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 71:766–773PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bianca Weinstock-Guttman
    • 1
  • Steven L. Galetta
    • 2
  • Gavin Giovannoni
    • 3
  • Eva Havrdova
    • 4
  • Michael Hutchinson
    • 5
  • Ludwig Kappos
    • 6
  • Paul W. O’Connor
    • 7
  • J. Theodore Phillips
    • 8
  • Chris Polman
    • 9
  • William H. Stuart
    • 10
  • Frances Lynn
    • 11
  • Christophe Hotermans
    • 12
  1. 1.Jacobs Neurological InstituteBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.University of Pennsylvania Medical CenterPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Barts and The London School of Medicine and DentistryQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.Department of Neurology and Centre of Clinical NeuroscienceFirst Faculty of Medicine and General University Hospital, Charles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  5. 5.St Vincent’s University HospitalDublinIreland
  6. 6.NeurologyUniversity Hospital BaselBaselSwitzerland
  7. 7.St. Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada
  8. 8.MS Center at Texas NeurologyDallasUSA
  9. 9.VU Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  10. 10.MS Center of AtlantaAtlantaUSA
  11. 11.Biogen Idec IncMaidenheadUK
  12. 12.Biogen Idec IncWestonUSA

Personalised recommendations