SAN DIEGO – Switching relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients from glatiramer acetate to daclizumab beta resulted in no increase in the adverse event profile and was associated with superior efficacy, a post hoc analysis of data from the DECIDE study showed.
“There is always a challenge in transitioning patients from one therapeutic agent to another, with concerns for adequate efficacy to justify the switch, and heightened risks of toxicity or adverse events,” lead study author Stanley L. Cohan, MD, PhD, said in an interview prior to the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis. “Daclizumab is not a first-line or platform therapeutic agent, but has clearly superior efficacy to first-line medication, and, based upon the current data presented, safety and efficacy are not adversely influenced by prior treatment history with a first-line agent.”
Dr. Stanley L. Cohan
In the phase 3 DECIDE trial, daclizumab beta 150 mg demonstrated greater efficacy versus intramuscular (IM) interferon (IFN) beta-1a 30 mcg on several clinical, radiographic, and patient-centered outcomes in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (N Engl J Med 2015; 373:1418-28). The purpose of the current study was to examine the efficacy and safety of daclizumab beta vs. IM IFN beta-1a in the subgroup of RRMS patients treated with glatiramer acetate (GA) as their only previous disease-modifying therapy (DMT) before entering DECIDE.
Dr. Cohan, a neurologist who directs the Providence MS Center at the Providence Brain and Spine Institute in Portland, Ore., and his associates reported data from 42 of 922 (5%) IM IFN beta-1a and 50 of 919 (5%) daclizumab beta patients who had received treatment with GA only prior to DECIDE. Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment groups, including duration of prior treatment with GA, reasons for discontinuing GA, and time between GA discontinuation and start of treatment in DECIDE. The annualized relapse rate was 42% lower in patients treated with daclizumab beta vs. IM IFN beta-1a (rate ratio of 0.58). Daclizumab beta also reduced risk of relapse by 53% (hazard ratio of 0.47; P = .048) and the mean number of new or newly-enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions at week 96 by 58% (lesion mean ratio, 0.42; P = .021) vs. IM IFN beta-1a.
In patients treated with GA only before DECIDE, 98% of IM IFN beta-1a patients and 94% of daclizumab beta patients reported any adverse event (AE). In all, 2% of IM IFN beta-1a patients and 16% of daclizumab beta patients had a serious AE (excluding MS relapse), and 10% of IM IFN beta-1a and 12% of daclizumab beta patients discontinued treatment because of an AE (excluding MS relapse).
The incidence of elevations of alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase three times the upper limit of normal or greater was 10% in the IM IFN beta-1a group and 8% in the daclizumab beta, while the ALT and AST elevations were greater than five times the ULN in 0% and 4% of patients, respectively.
Serious adverse events were reported in eight participants in the daclizumab beta group (including abortion induced, ankle fracture, anal fistula, anxiety, appendicitis perforated, convulsion, pelvic abscess, inguinal hernia, abnormal cervix smear), and one participant in the IM IFN beta-1a group (ligament rupture).
“This post hoc analysis demonstrates that in switching from glatiramer to daclizumab there was no unanticipated or increase in the AE profile, and that a switch from glatiramer to daclizumab was associated with superior efficacy, again in line with overall efficacy observed for daclizumab in this study,” Dr. Cohan said.
He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the post hoc nature of the analysis. “The small glatiramer cohort size, and the large percentage of former glatiramer patients who entered DECIDE because of lack of glatiramer efficacy may have introduced a selection bias which would magnify the seeming efficacy of daclizumab, and interferon-beta,” he added.
Dr. Cohan reported that he receives research support from Biogen, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Mallinckrodt, and speaking honoraria from Acorda, Biogen, Roche, and Sanofi. He has served on advisory boards for Biogen, Sanofi, and Novartis.
SOURCE: Cohan et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2018, Poster 42.