Abstract
Introduction
Diroximel fumarate (DRF) and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) are orally administered fumarate disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS). The safety, tolerability, and exploratory efficacy of DRF were evaluated in the phase 3 EVOLVE-MS-1 study. No Evidence of Disease Activity (NEDA-3) is a composite efficacy endpoint used in clinical trials for MS defined as no relapse, no 24-week confirmed disability progression (CDP), no new/newly enlarging T2 lesions, and no new gadolinium-enhancing lesions. As NEDA outcomes in studies may be confounded by initial disease activity, the objective of this analysis was to evaluate NEDA-3 in EVOLVE-MS-1 for newly enrolled patients and patients who were re-baselined after approximately 7 weeks.
Methods
Patients entered EVOLVE-MS-1 as either newly enrolled or having completed the 5-week phase 3 EVOLVE-MS-2 study of DRF and DMF. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) was performed at baseline before each study (approx. 7 weeks apart) and at weeks 48 and 96 in EVOLVE-MS-1. Therefore, patients entering from EVOLVE-MS-2 were re-baselined after approximately 7 weeks. NEDA-3 outcomes on DRF are reported for prior DRF, prior DMF, and de novo patient groups.
Results
Of 1057 patients in EVOLVE-MS-1, 239 (22.6%) had rolled over from receiving DRF in EVOLVE-MS-2 (“prior DRF”), 225 (21.3%) had rolled over from receiving DMF in EVOLVE-MS-2 (“prior DMF”), and 593 (56.1%) were newly enrolled (“de novo”). At week 48, Kaplan–Meier estimates of NEDA-3 were 72.3% (prior DRF), 72.1% (prior DMF), and 62.1% (de novo); at week 96, estimates were 50.2% (prior DRF), 48.2% (prior DMF), and 36.5% (de novo).
Conclusions
In EVOLVE-MS-1, after re-baselining at approximately 7 weeks, approximately half of DRF-treated patients achieved NEDA-3 at week 96, compared with 36.5% of patients who were not re-baselined. Re-baselining may be useful for assessing efficacy of DMTs by mitigating the influence of disease activity prior to the onset of efficacy.
Clinical Trial Registrations
NCT03093324 (EVOLVE-MS-2); NCT02634307 (EVOLVE-MS-1).
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Diroximel fumarate (DRF) and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) are orally administered fumarate disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS). |
No Evidence of Disease Activity (NEDA-3) is a composite efficacy endpoint used in clinical trials for MS; however, efficacy assessments may be confounded by the time taken for the effect of a DMT to become established. |
This analysis used data from the 96-week, open-label, phase 3 EVOLVE-MS-1 study of DRF to re-baseline NEDA-3 outcomes for patients who had previously received DRF as part of the preceding EVOLVE-MS-2 study (“prior DRF”); outcomes were compared with those for patients who had received DMF in EVOLVE-MS-2 (“prior DMF”) and patients who were newly enrolled (“de novo”). |
At week 48, NEDA-3 estimates were 72.3% (prior DRF), 72.1% (prior DMF), and 62.1% (de novo); at week 96, estimates were 50.2% (prior DRF), 48.2% (prior DMF), and 36.5% (de novo). |
After re-baselining at approximately 7 weeks, approximately half of DRF-treated patients achieved NEDA-3 at week 96, compared with 36.5% of patients who had not been re-baselined. |
These outcomes support that re-baselining may be valuable for mitigating the influence of disease activity prior to the onset of efficacy when assessing the effect of DMTs. |
Introduction
Diroximel fumarate (DRF) is an orally administered fumarate disease-modifying therapy (DMT) approved in the USA for adult patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS) and in Europe for adult patients with relapsing–remitting MS (RRMS) [1, 2]. The safety, tolerability, and exploratory efficacy of DRF were evaluated in the 96-week, open-label, phase 3 EVOLVE-MS-1 study (NCT02634307) [3, 4]. As of December 31, 2023, 44,297 patients had been treated with DRF, corresponding to 61,780 patient-years of exposure [5].
DRF and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) have a common active metabolite, monomethyl fumarate (MMF). Oral administration of DRF 462 mg and DMF 240 mg produces bioequivalent exposure to MMF, and therefore DRF and DMF are expected to have similar efficacy and safety profiles [2, 6, 7]. However, DRF demonstrated improved gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability compared with DMF in the 5-week, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 EVOLVE-MS-2 study (NCT03093324), with lower rates of GI adverse events (AEs) and more favorable quality of life outcomes [8, 9].
No Evidence of Disease Activity (NEDA-3), a composite endpoint of clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes, is increasingly evaluated in MS studies, and comprises assessments of relapses, disability progression, and MRI activity (gadolinium-enhancing and new or newly enlarging T2 lesions). Efficacy and NEDA outcomes may be confounded by initial disease activity, e.g., on MRI, that occurs before the full effect of a DMT has been achieved. One possible approach to account for such activity in clinical trials assessments is by re-baselining for a duration after the initiation of treatment, thereby accommodating for the time taken until the onset of efficacy, as utilized in other studies [10,11,12,13]. The therapeutic effect of fumarates on disease activity may take several weeks to become established; reductions in serum neurofilament light chain were recorded approximately 10 weeks after starting DMF in the open-label, phase 4 TREMEND study, and reductions in MRI activity occur as early as 7 weeks after initiation of DRF treatment [14, 15].
The EVOLVE-MS-1 study population comprised patients who had previously received DRF or DMF in the EVOLVE-MS-2 study and then rolled over into EVOLVE-MS-1, and patients who were newly enrolled in the DRF program and had no recent fumarate treatment. Based on this, it is possible to re-baseline efficacy data from EVOLVE-MS-1 for patients who had prior fumarate treatment. Therefore, in order to account for the duration between the initiation of treatment and the onset of efficacy, the objective of this analysis was to assess NEDA-3 outcomes in patients newly enrolled in EVOLVE-MS-1 and those who had previously received DMF or DRF in EVOLVE-MS-2 and were re-baselined after approximately 7 weeks.
Methods
Study Design and Patients
The study design for EVOLVE-MS-1 was reported previously [3, 4]. Briefly, EVOLVE-MS-1 was an open-label, single-arm, 96-week, phase 3 study to evaluate DRF safety, tolerability, and exploratory efficacy endpoints in adults with RRMS (Fig. 1) [3, 4]. Patients entered the study either after completing EVOLVE-MS-2, a randomized, 5-week, double-blind, head-to-head, phase 3 study of DRF and DMF, or as newly enrolled in the DRF clinical development program [3, 4, 8].
EVOLVE-MS-1 eligibility criteria required patients to be 18–65 years old with a confirmed diagnosis of RRMS, and no history of clinically significant recurring or active GI symptoms within 3 months of screening [4]. Patients were neurologically stable with no evidence of relapse in the 30 days before screening [4]. Prior treatment with DMTs was permitted; exclusion criteria for newly enrolled patients included the use of teriflunomide within 2 years of visit 2 (week 1); natalizumab within 2 months of visit 2; alemtuzumab; fingolimod within 90 days of visit 2; daclizumab within 6 months of visit 2; or B cell-depleting therapies within 12 months of screening [4].
EVOLVE-MS-1 was approved by local and central ethics committees and conducted in accordance with International Council on Harmonisation Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki [4]. All patients provided written, informed consent [4]. Ethical approval was not applicable for this analysis as data were based on existing outputs from the EVOLVE-MS-1 study.
Re-Baselining and Assessments
This analysis assessed outcomes in EVOLVE-MS-1 based on patients who had rolled over from receiving DRF or DMF in EVOLVE-MS-2 (“prior DRF” and “prior DMF” groups, respectively), or who had newly enrolled in EVOLVE-MS-1 (“de novo” group). Patients who rolled over from EVOLVE-MS-2 had a treatment duration of ≥ 5 weeks on DRF or DMF in EVOLVE-MS-2 and rolled over into EVOLVE-MS-1 within 7 days of treatment completion. MRI was performed within 7 days of the start of EVOLVE-MS-1. Therefore, patients who received DRF in both studies were on study medication for up to 7 weeks before efficacy outcomes were assessed and were thus re-baselined after approximately 7 weeks.
Baseline characteristics and demographics for the prior DRF and prior DMF groups are reported and based on assessments at baseline of EVOLVE-MS-2; the corresponding characteristics for the de novo group are given on the basis of assessments at baseline of EVOLVE-MS-1.
MRI scans were performed at baseline before each study start (approx. 7 weeks apart) and at weeks 48 and 96 in EVOLVE-MS-1. Relapses and disability were assessed in EVOLVE-MS-1. NEDA-3 was defined as having no relapse, no 24-week confirmed disability progression (CDP), and no MRI activity (i.e., no new or newly enlarging T2 lesions and no new gadolinium-enhancing lesions). Proportions of patients who were free from CDP, were relapse free, and had NEDA-3 were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier product limit method. Analyses were performed using SAS 9.4.
Safety outcomes reported for the prior DRF, prior DMF, and de novo patient groups included AEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, and serious AEs.
Results
Patients
Overall, 1057 patients were included in EVOLVE-MS-1, of whom 239 (22.6%) had received DRF in EVOLVE-MS-2 and then rolled over into EVOLVE-MS-1 (“prior DRF” group); 225 (21.3%) had received DMF in EVOLVE-MS-2 and rolled over into EVOLVE-MS-1 (“prior DMF” group); and 593 (56.1%) were newly enrolled (“de novo” group). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 43.8 (11.0) years in the prior DRF group at EVOLVE-MS-2 baseline, 43.5 (9.8) years in the prior DMF group at EVOLVE-MS-2 baseline, and 41.5 (11.0) years in the de novo group at EVOLVE-MS-1 baseline (Table 1). Baseline characteristics were generally consistent between the patient groups. There were 71 (29.7%) discontinuations in the prior DRF group, 61 (27.1%) in the prior DMF group, and 125 (21.1%) in the de novo group. Median (min, max) duration of exposure to fumarate (DRF or DMF) across EVOLVE-MS-2 and EVOLVE-MS-1 was 708 (51, 751) days in the prior DRF group and 708 (57, 732) days in the prior DMF group; for the de novo group, median (min, max) duration of exposure to DRF in EVOLVE-MS-1 was 673 (1, 702) days.
NEDA-3 Outcomes
Week 48 NEDA-3 Component Outcomes
At week 48, estimated proportions of patients with no relapse were 89.0% in the prior DRF group, 88.0% in the prior DMF group, and 87.1% in the de novo group.
Estimated proportions of patients free of 24-week CDP were 95.0% in the prior DRF group, 93.3% in the prior DMF group, and 96.1% in the de novo group.
From baseline to week 48, the proportions of patients with no new or newly enlarging T2 lesions were 70.5% (n = 146/207; prior DRF), 68.0% (n = 136/200; prior DMF), and 50.6% (n = 264/522; de novo). At week 48, proportions of patients free of gadolinium-enhancing lesions were 94.7% (n = 196/207) in the prior DRF group, 95.5% (n = 191/200) in the prior DMF group, and 90.6% (n = 473/522) in the de novo group.
Week 96 NEDA-3 Component Outcomes
At week 96, estimated proportions of patients with no relapse were 83.3% in the prior DRF group, 81.7% in the prior DMF group, and 82.3% in the de novo group.
Estimated proportions of patients free of 24-week CDP were 92.4% in the prior DRF group, 92.7% in the prior DMF group, and 93.9% in the de novo group.
From baseline to week 96, the proportions of patients with no new or newly enlarging T2 lesions were 64.2% (n = 111/173; prior DRF), 62.1% (n = 105/169; prior DMF), and 46.6% (n = 220/472; de novo). Mean (SD) number of new or newly enlarging T2 lesions from baseline to week 96 was 1.8 (6.5) for prior DRF, 1.6 (3.8) for prior DMF, and 4.4 (13.9) for de novo. Most patients were free of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at week 96, with rates of 90.2% (n = 156/173) in the prior DRF group, 92.9% (n = 157/169) in the prior DMF group, and 90.7% (n = 431/475) in the de novo group. Mean (SD) number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at week 96 was 0.2 (0.7) in prior DRF patients, 0.2 (0.8) in prior DMF patients, and 0.5 (3.8) in de novo patients.
NEDA-3
From baseline to week 48, Kaplan–Meier estimates of proportions achieving NEDA-3 were 72.3% in the prior DRF group, 72.1% in the prior DMF group, and 62.1% in the de novo group (Fig. 2a). Corresponding estimates at week 96 were 50.2% in the prior DRF group, 48.2% in the prior DMF group, and 36.5% in the de novo group (Fig. 2b). Compared with the de novo group, the proportion of patients achieving NEDA over the study period was significantly higher in the prior DRF group (p < 0.001) and the prior DMF group (p = 0.004).
Safety Outcomes
AEs occurred in 212 (88.7%) patients in the prior DRF group, 207 (92.0%) patients in the prior DMF group, and 519 (87.5%) patients in the de novo group; most were mild to moderate in severity. The most common AEs in the prior DRF and prior DMF groups were MS relapse (20.1% and 20.0%, respectively), upper respiratory tract infection (17.6% and 15.6%), lymphopenia (14.6% and 16.9%), and flushing (13.8% and 12.9%); in the de novo group, the most common AEs were flushing (38.1%), MS relapse (19.1%), and nasopharyngitis (14.5%). Lymphopenia was reported in 51 (8.6%) patients in the de novo group. AEs led to discontinuation of DRF in 23 (9.6%) patients in the prior DRF group, 13 (5.8%) patients in the prior DMF group, and 49 (8.3%) patients in the de novo group. Serious AEs occurred in 12.1% (n = 29) of patients in the prior DRF group, 11.1% (n = 25) of patients in the prior DMF group, and 11.6% (n = 69) of patients in the de novo group.
Discussion
No Evidence of Disease Activity has become established as a useful outcome measure in clinical studies of DMTs [16]. While separate clinical and radiological parameters are valuable for evaluating disease activity, combining them allows for a broader, and at the same time more stringent, assessment of the impact of disease activity on patients. In an observational study of a longitudinal cohort of patients with clinically isolated syndrome or RRMS, NEDA at 2 years was predictive of disability progression at 7 years [17]. The efficacy of several DMTs has been demonstrated by increased proportions of patients achieving NEDA-3 status at 1–2 years compared with placebo or active comparator in phase 3 studies [16, 18,19,20]. NEDA status has also been assessed as part of real-world comparisons of DMF with other DMTs, with favorable outcomes for DMF versus interferon beta-1a [21], and no significant differences observed between DMF and teriflunomide or fingolimod, in separate studies [22, 23].
This analysis of the EVOLVE-MS-1 study of DRF assessed NEDA-3 outcomes over 96 weeks in newly enrolled patients and in patients after re-baselining to account for clinical and radiological disease activity that occurred during the preceding EVOLVE-MS-2 study. At week 96, 50.2% of DRF-treated patients achieved NEDA-3 after re-baselining, compared with 36.5% of patients who were newly enrolled to EVOLVE-MS-1 and who had not been re-baselined. Of patients who had previously received DMF in EVOLVE-MS-2, 48.2% achieved NEDA-3 at week 96 on DRF in EVOLVE-MS-1, a similar rate to that estimated for the prior DRF group.
Outcomes for separate components of NEDA-3 were generally consistent between the prior DRF, prior DMF, and de novo patient groups. However, one notable difference was observed in the rates of patients who were free of new or newly enlarging T2 lesions at week 96, which were 64.2% and 62.1% in prior DRF and prior DMF groups, respectively, and 46.6% in the de novo group. Given the consistency observed between groups across other assessments, it is likely that the T2 lesion outcomes contributed significantly toward the lower NEDA-3 rates for de novo patients compared with the prior DRF and prior DMF groups. Previous studies showed that MRI activity is the most common reason for failure to achieve NEDA-3 [13]. We hypothesize that in the relatively short period of approximately 7 weeks, new or newly enlarging T2 lesions were the most sensitive measurement of carryover disease activity that occurred prior to the onset of efficacy of DRF.
Re-baselining was proposed as a monitoring strategy for NEDA outcomes, based on the fact that the onset of DMT biological activity is often delayed in comparison to DMT half-life [24]. Consequently, the initial disease activity that occurs before achieving the full effect of a DMT may result in the underestimation of its efficacy and needs to be accounted for to avoid misrepresenting early efficacy outcomes. For example, for DMF, a re-baselining period of 3–6 months was previously suggested as being appropriate [24].
The re-baselining period of approximately 7 weeks used in the current analysis was notably shorter when compared with the previous recommendations and the periods of 6 and 12 months used in other studies [11,12,13, 24]. MS DMTs included in prior analyses that re-baselined at week 24 or week 48 have an onset of efficacy within 2–3 months; therefore, re-baselining at week 24 disregards 3 months of disease activity that occurred while the drug had already taken effect, and re-baselining at week 48 disregards 9 months of disease activity that occurred after the drug had taken effect. A key strength of the study design of EVOLVE-MS-1 is that it allowed for re-baselining after approximately 7 weeks in the patients who rolled over from EVOLVE-MS-2, whereas the earliest time point at which most other phase 3 studies can re-baseline patients is typically not until week 24, as that is often the time point of the earliest post-baseline MRI scan. One other published phase 3 study that utilized a similar NEDA re-baselining approach as in our study was the open-label, phase 3b CASTING study of ocrelizumab in patients with RRMS, which used MRI re-baselining 8 weeks after ocrelizumab initiation [10]. Our study and the CASTING study would likely have shown higher rates of NEDA with the use of a longer re-baselining period (i.e., 24-week or 48-week) owing to the high reliance of NEDA on MRI parameters; however, these longer re-baselining periods may overestimate NEDA because of the aforementioned reasons.
Taken together, based on evidence from analyses of study populations as well as the protocols employed in clinical practice by the authors of this paper, re-baselining after about 3 months in the real-world setting may be a good compromise to avoid over- or underestimation of treatment effects. This strategy may be useful to judge an individual patient’s response to treatment, and the evidence shown here and discussed above supports the authors’ recommendation for this interval.
Safety outcomes from the current analysis were consistent with those previously reported for the overall EVOLVE-MS-1 population. However, some differences were identified in the rates of specific AEs between patient groups, and these variations might be reflective of the longer duration on fumarate treatment for the prior DRF and prior DMF groups, as well as the dynamics by which certain AEs typically occur. Flushing occurred more frequently in the de novo group (38.1%) than in either of the prior DRF (13.8%) or prior DMF (12.9%) groups. Flushing symptoms are often reported during the first month on DMF and improve thereafter, consistent with the current observation of higher rates of flushing in the de novo patients who had more recently initiated fumarate treatment [25]. Lymphocyte counts have been reported to decrease during the first year on fumarate treatment and subsequently plateau [4, 26]. This aligns with the higher rates of lymphopenia observed in the prior DRF (14.6%) and prior DMF (16.9%) groups in this analysis, compared with the de novo group (8.6%), given their longer cumulative duration of exposure to fumarate treatment. Across the patient groups, there were low rates of serious AEs and discontinuation of DRF treatment due to AEs.
One limitation of this analysis is that the study design did not assess disease activity within the first 7 weeks before re-baselining in the prior DRF or prior patients with DMF, and therefore it was not possible to determine NEDA-3 without re-baselining in those two groups. In addition, since this was a post hoc analysis and NEDA-3 was an exploratory efficacy endpoint of EVOLVE-MS-1, the study had not been specifically developed to assess the effect of re-baselining on NEDA-3 outcomes.
Conclusion
In EVOLVE-MS-1, after re-baselining after about 7 weeks, approximately half of the DRF-treated patients achieved NEDA-3 at week 96, compared with 36.5% of newly enrolled patients who achieved NEDA-3 at the same time point having not been re-baselined. For clinicians who consider re-baselining as a standard practice for monitoring the efficacy of MS DMTs, a re-baselining period of 2 or 3 months from DMT initiation may be a reasonable interval to use for gauging the effectiveness of the DMT.
Data Availability
EVOLVE-MS-1 was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02634307). Study data will be shared in accordance with applicable regulations and laws.
References
European Medicines Agency: Vumerity summary of product characteristics. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/vumerity-epar-product-information_en.pdf. 2022. Accessed 11 Jul 2023.
VUMERITY® (diroximel fumarate) Prescribing Information. Biogen, Cambridge, MA. 2023.
Naismith RT, Wolinsky JS, Wundes A, et al. Diroximel fumarate (DRF) in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: interim safety and efficacy results from the phase 3 EVOLVE-MS-1 study. Mult Scler. 2020;26(13):1729–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458519881761.
Singer BA, Arnold DL, Drulovic J, et al. Diroximel fumarate in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: final safety and efficacy results from the phase 3 EVOLVE-MS-1 study. Mult Scler. 2023;29(14):1795–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/13524585231205708.
Biogen. Data on file. 2024.
TECFIDERA® (dimethyl fumarate) Prescribing Information. Biogen, Cambridge, MA. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2023/204063s029lbl.pdf Accessed May 25, 2023.
Wehr A, Hard M, Yu M, Leigh-Pemberton R, von Moltke L. Relative bioavailability of monomethyl fumarate after administration of ALKS 8700 and dimethyl fumarate in healthy subjects (P1.403). Neurology. 2018;90(15 Supplement):P1.403.
Naismith RT, Wundes A, Ziemssen T, et al. Diroximel fumarate demonstrates an improved gastrointestinal tolerability profile compared with dimethyl fumarate in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: results from the randomized, double-blind, phase III EVOLVE-MS-2 study. CNS Drugs. 2020;34(2):185–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-020-00700-0.
Wundes A, Wray S, Gold R, et al. Improved gastrointestinal profile with diroximel fumarate is associated with a positive impact on quality of life compared with dimethyl fumarate: results from the randomized, double-blind, phase III EVOLVE-MS-2 study. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2021;14:1756286421993999. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756286421993999.
Vermersch P, Oreja-Guevara C, Siva A, et al. Efficacy and safety of ocrelizumab in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with suboptimal response to prior disease-modifying therapies: a primary analysis from the phase 3b CASTING single-arm, open-label trial. Eur J Neurol. 2022;29(3):790–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.15171.
Havrdova E, Arnold DL, Bar-Or A, et al. No evidence of disease activity (NEDA) analysis by epochs in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis treated with ocrelizumab vs interferon beta-1a. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. 2018;4(1):2055217318760642. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055217318760642.
Russo CV, Sacca F, Frau J, et al. A real-world study of alemtuzumab in a cohort of Italian patients. Eur J Neurol. 2022;29(1):257–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.15121.
Simonsen CS, Flemmen HO, Broch L, Brekke K, Brunborg C, Berg-Hansen P, et al. Rebaseline no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) as a predictor of long-term disease course in a Norwegian multiple sclerosis population. Front Neurol. 2022;13:1034056. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2022.1034056.
Singer BA, Shafer SJ, Arnold DL, et al. Diroximel fumarate and dimethyl fumarate demonstrate early radiological efficacy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (2190). Neurology. 2021;96(15 Suppl):2190.
Sejbaek T, Nielsen HH, Penner N, et al. Dimethyl fumarate decreases neurofilament light chain in CSF and blood of treatment naive relapsing MS patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019;90(12):1324–30. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2019-321321.
Newsome SD, Binns C, Kaunzner UW, Morgan S, Halper J. No evidence of disease activity (NEDA) as a clinical assessment tool for multiple sclerosis: clinician and patient perspectives [narrative review]. Neurol Ther. 2023;12(6):1909–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40120-023-00549-7.
Rotstein DL, Healy BC, Malik MT, Chitnis T, Weiner HL. Evaluation of no evidence of disease activity in a 7-year longitudinal multiple sclerosis cohort. JAMA Neurol. 2015;72(2):152–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.3537.
Havrdova E, Galetta S, Hutchinson M, et al. Effect of natalizumab on clinical and radiological disease activity in multiple sclerosis: a retrospective analysis of the Natalizumab Safety and Efficacy in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (AFFIRM) study. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8(3):254–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70021-3.
Arnold DL, Calabresi PA, Kieseier BC, et al. Effect of peginterferon beta-1a on MRI measures and achieving no evidence of disease activity: results from a randomized controlled trial in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurol. 2014;14:240. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-014-0240-x.
Kappos L, Fox RJ, Burcklen M, et al. Ponesimod compared with teriflunomide in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis in the active-comparator phase 3 OPTIMUM study: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol. 2021;78(5):558–67. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.0405.
Sattarnezhad N, Healy BC, Baharnoori M, et al. Comparison of dimethyl fumarate and interferon outcomes in an MS cohort. BMC Neurol. 2022;22(1):252. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-022-02761-8.
D’Amico E, Zanghi A, Callari G, et al. Comparable efficacy and safety of dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide treatment in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: an Italian real-word multicenter experience. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2018;11:1756286418796404. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756286418796404.
Prosperini L, Lucchini M, Haggiag S, et al. Fingolimod vs dimethyl fumarate in multiple sclerosis: a real-world propensity score-matched study. Neurology. 2018;91(2):e153–61. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000005772.
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):329–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2015.04.006.
Phillips JT, Selmaj K, Gold R, et al. Clinical significance of gastrointestinal and flushing events in patients with multiple sclerosis treated with delayed-release dimethyl fumarate. Int J MS Care. 2015;17(5):236–43. https://doi.org/10.7224/1537-2073.2014-069.
Fox RJ, Chan A, Gold R, et al. Characterizing absolute lymphocyte count profiles in dimethyl fumarate-treated patients with MS: patient management considerations. Neurol Clin Pract. 2016;6(3):220–9. https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000000238.
Medical Writing and Editorial Assistance
Medical writing support for the preparation of this manuscript was provided by David Pertab, PhD, Excel Scientific Solutions (Glasgow, UK), under the direction of the authors; funding was provided by Biogen.
Funding
EVOLVE-MS-1 and the current analysis were sponsored by Biogen (Cambridge, MA, USA). The Rapid Service and Open Access Fees were supported by Biogen.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
James D. Bowen: data collection, reviewed and revised drafts of the manuscript, and approved the final version. Jessica Stulc: data collection, reviewed and revised drafts of the manuscript, and approved the final version. Samuel F. Hunter: data collection, reviewed and revised drafts of the manuscript, and approved the final version. Hailu Chen: study design, data analysis, reviewed and revised drafts of the manuscript, and approved the final version. James B. Lewin: study design, data analysis, reviewed and revised drafts of the manuscript, and approved the final version. Matthew Scaramozza: study design, data analysis, reviewed and revised drafts of the manuscript, and approved the final version. Ivan Bozin: study conception, study design, data analysis, reviewed and revised drafts of the manuscript, and approved the final version. Florian Then Bergh: data collection, reviewed and revised drafts of the manuscript, and approved the final version.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
James D. Bowen: speaker/consulting/advisory fees from Alexion, Alkermes, Biogen, Celgene, EMD Serono, Genentech, Genzyme, Novartis, and TG Therapeutics; holds stock in Amgen; research support from Alexion, Alkermes, Biogen, Celgene, Genzyme, Genentech, Novartis, and TG Therapeutics. Jessica Stulc: advisory/data safety monitoring boards for EMD Serono; speaker bureaus for Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, and Sanofi; research support from Biogen, EMD Serono, Genentech, Novartis, Sanofi, and TG Therapeutics. Samuel F. Hunter: received consulting fees from Alexion, Biogen, BMS, Genentech, Horizon, Janssen, Sanofi, and Serono; contracted research for Anokion, Atara, Biogen, Genentech, Janssen, and Sanofi; and served on speaker bureaus for Biogen, BMS, EMD Serono, Horizon, and Janssen. Hailu Chen: employee of and held stock/stock options in Biogen at the time of this work; current employee of and holds stock/stock options in Alkermes. James B. Lewin, Matthew Scaramozza, and Ivan Bozin: employees of Biogen and may hold stock in the company. Florian Then Bergh: research support and travel grants, through his institution, from the German Science Fund (DFG), German Federal Ministry of Education and Science (BMBF), Bayer-Schering, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Teva and speaker fees from and advisory boards for Actelion, Alexion, Bayer, Biogen, CSL Behring, Fresenius, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Teva.
Ethical Approval
EVOLVE-MS-1 was approved by local and central ethics committees and conducted in accordance with International Council on Harmonisation Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki [4]. All patients provided written, informed consent. Ethical approval was not applicable for this analysis as data were based on existing outputs from the EVOLVE-MS-1 study.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Bowen, J.D., Stulc, J., Hunter, S.F. et al. Diroximel Fumarate in Patients with Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: NEDA-3 After Re-Baselining in the Phase 3 EVOLVE-MS-1 Study. Adv Ther (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-024-02901-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-024-02901-1