Advertisement

Assessing the Long-Term Effectiveness of Cladribine vs. Placebo in the Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis CLARITY Randomized Controlled Trial and CLARITY Extension Using Treatment Switching Adjustment Methods

  • Helen Bell GorrodEmail author
  • Nicholas R. Latimer
  • Doris Damian
  • Robert Hettle
  • Gerard T. Harty
  • Schiffon L. Wong
Original Research

Abstract

Objectives

Treatment switching adjustment methods are often used to adjust for switching in oncology randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In this exploratory analysis, we apply these methods to adjust for treatment changes in the setting of an RCT followed by an extension study in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis.

Methods

The CLARITY trial evaluated cladribine tablets versus placebo over 96 weeks. In the 96-week CLARITY Extension, patients who received placebo in CLARITY received cladribine tablets; patients who received cladribine tablets in CLARITY were re-randomized to placebo or cladribine tablets. End points were time to first qualifying relapse (FQR) and time to 3- and 6-month confirmed disability progression (3mCDP, 6mCDP). We aimed to compare the effectiveness of cladribine tablets with placebo over CLARITY and the extension. The rank-preserving structural failure time model (RPSFTM) and iterative parameter estimation (IPE) were used to estimate what would have happened if patients had received placebo in CLARITY and the extension versus patients that received cladribine tablets and switched to placebo. To gauge whether treatment effect waned after the 96 weeks of CLARITY, we compared hazard ratios (HRs) from the adjustment analysis with HRs from CLARITY.

Results

The RPSFTM resulted in an HR of 0.48 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36–0.62] for FQR, 0.62 (95% CI 0.46–0.84) for 3mCDP and 0.62 (95% CI 0.44–0.88) for 6mCDP. IPE algorithm results were similar. CLARITY HRs were 0.44 (95% CI 0.34–0.58), 0.60 (95% CI 0.41–0.87) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.40–0.83) for FQR, 3mCDP and 6mCDP, respectively.

Conclusions

Treatment switching adjustment methods are applicable in non-oncology settings. Adjusted CLARITY plus CLARITY Extension HRs were similar to the CLARITY HRs, demonstrating significant treatment benefits associated with cladribine tablets versus placebo.

Funding

EMD Serono, Inc. (a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany).

Keywords

Adjustment methods Iterative parameter estimation Multiple sclerosis Neurology Rank-preserving structural failure time model Time-to-event Treatment switching 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the participants of the study.

Funding

Financial support for this study, medical writing support and article processing charges were provided entirely by EMD Serono, Inc. (a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany). The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing and publishing the report. All authors had full access to all of the data in this study and take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the data analysis.

Medical Writing Assistance

The authors also thank Jason Allaire, PhD, of Generativity Solutions Group for his assistance with editing the paper. Medical writing assistance was funded by EMD Serono, Inc.

Authorship

All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.

Disclosures

Nicholas R. Latimer reports having received consultancy fees for providing modeling advice to Astra Zeneca, BMS and Pfizer and funding from EMD Serono, Inc. (a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) to undertake the analysis presented in this paper. NRL was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR Post Doctoral Fellowship, Dr. Nicholas Latimer, PDF-2015-08-022) while contributing to this work. He is now supported by Yorkshire Cancer Research (award reference number S406NL). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research, the Department of Health or Yorkshire Cancer Research. Helen Bell Gorrod declares that The University of Sheffield has received funding for consultancy work for pharmaceutical companies, which covered the cost of their time spent working on projects. Helen Bell Gorrod received personal consulting fees from PharmaMar, fees for providing training courses on statistical methods to Merck EMD Serono and Pfizer, fees for attending an advisory board meeting and funding to present the work at a conference and has claimed back travel expenses from Merck EMD Serono. Robert Hettle was an employee of PAREXEL International, who received payment for consultancy support to EMD Serono during the conduct of this analysis. Doris Damian is an employee of EMD Serono, Inc. (a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany). Gerard T. Harty is an employee of EMD Serono, Inc. (a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany). Schiffon Wong is an employee of EMD Serono, Inc. (a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany).

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

CLARITY and the CLARITY Extension were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (1964) and its later amendments [14] and the Good Clinical Practice guidelines in accordance with the International Conference of Harmonisation [15]. The protocols for CLARITY and CLARITY Extension were reviewed and approved by the relevant local review board or ethics committee at each participating study center. Further information has been published previously elsewhere [12]. Due to ethical considerations, patients who received placebo in CLARITY received low-dose cladribine tablets in the extension; thus, no group received placebo in both CLARITY and CLARITY Extension.

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available because this was a randomized clinical trial but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. 1.
    Latimer NR, Bell H, Abrams KR, Amonkar MM, Casey M. Adjusting for treatment switching in the METRIC study shows further improved overall survival with trametinib compared with chemotherapy. Cancer Med. 2016;5(5):806–15.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.643.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Latimer NR, Henshall C, Siebert U, Bell H. Treatment switching: statistical and decision-making challenges and approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32(3):160–6.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S026646231600026X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Latimer NR, Abrams KR, Amonkar MM, Stapelkamp C, Swann RS. Adjusting for the confounding effects of treatment switching—the BREAK-3 trial: dabrafenib versus dacarbazine. Oncologist. 2015;20(7):798–805.  https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0429.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Latimer NR, Abrams KR. NICE DSU technical support document 16: adjusting survival time estimates in the presence of treatment switching. Sheffield: Decision Support Unit; 2014.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Latimer NR. Treatment switching in oncology trials and the acceptability of adjustment methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15(4):561–4.  https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2015.1037835.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Robins JM, Tsiatis AA. Correcting for noncompliance in randomized trials using rank preserving structural failure time models. Commun Stat Theory Methods. 1991;20(8):2609–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Branson M, Whitehead J. Estimating a treatment effect in survival studies in which patients switch treatment. Stat Med. 2002;21(17):2449–63.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1219.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robins JM, Finkelstein DM. Correcting for noncompliance and dependent censoring in an AIDS Clinical Trial with inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) log-rank tests. Biometrics. 2000;56(3):779–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Latimer NR, Abrams KR, Lambert PC, Crowther MJ, Wailoo AJ, Morden JP, et al. Adjusting survival time estimates to account for treatment switching in randomized controlled trials—an economic evaluation context: methods, limitations, and recommendations. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34(3):387–402.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13520192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weinshenker BG. Epidemiology of multiple sclerosis. Neurol Clin. 1996;14(2):291–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goodin DS, Frohman EM, Garmany GP Jr, Halper J, Likosky WH, Lublin FD, et al. Disease modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis: report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the MS Council for Clinical Practice Guidelines. Neurology. 2002;58(2):169–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giovannoni G, Comi G, Cook S, Rammohan K, Rieckmann P, Soelberg Sorensen P, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of oral cladribine for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(5):416–26.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0902533.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    eMC. MAVENCLAD 10 mg tablets. 2017. https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/34044. Accessed 18 Dec 2017.
  14. 14.
    World Medical Association. WMA declaration of Helsinki—ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. 2017. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/. Accessed 14 Jul 2017.
  15. 15.
    Dixon JR. The international conference on harmonization good clinical practice guideline. Qual Assur. 1999;6(2):65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    White IR, Walker S, Babiker AG. strbee: randomization-based efficacy estimator. Strata J. 2002;2(2):140–50.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bell Gorrod H, Latimer NR, Damian D, Hettle R, Harty GT, Wong LS. Impact of non-randomised drop-out on treatment switching adjustment in the relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis CLARITY trial and the CLARITY Extension study. Value Health. 2019;22(7):772–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thompson AJ, Baranzini SE, Geurts J, Hemmer B, Ciccarelli O. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet (London, England). 2018;391(10130):1622–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30481-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meng X, Chin PS, Hashmonay R, Zahur Islam M, Cutter G. Effect of switching from intramuscular interferon beta-1a to oral fingolimod on time to relapse in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis enrolled in a 1-year extension of TRANSFORMS. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;41:69–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2014.12.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    White IR, Babiker AG, Walker S, Darbyshire JH. Randomization-based methods for correcting for treatment changes: examples from the Concorde trial. Stat Med. 1999;18(19):2617–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Healthcare Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helen Bell Gorrod
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nicholas R. Latimer
    • 1
  • Doris Damian
    • 2
  • Robert Hettle
    • 3
  • Gerard T. Harty
    • 2
  • Schiffon L. Wong
    • 2
  1. 1.School for Health and Related Research (ScHARR)University of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  2. 2.EMD Serono, Inc.BillericaUSA
  3. 3.PAREXEL InternationalLondonUK

Personalised recommendations