BACKGROUND: In relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), extended exposure to high-efficacy disease modifying therapy may increase the risk of side effects, compromise treatment adherence, and inflate medical costs. Treatment de-escalation, here defined as a switch to a lower efficacy therapy, is often considered by patients and physicians, but evidence to guide such decisions is scarce. In this study, we aimed to compare clinical outcomes between patients who de-escalated therapy versus those who continued their therapy. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of data from an observational, longitudinal cohort of 87,239 patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) from 186 centers across 43 countries, we matched treatment episodes of adult patients with RRMS who underwent treatment de-escalation from either high- to medium-, high- to low-, or medium- to low-efficacy therapy with counterparts that continued their treatment, using propensity score matching and incorporating 11 variables. Relapses and 6-month confirmed disability worsening were assessed using proportional and cumulative hazard models. RESULTS: Matching resulted in 876 pairs (de-escalators: 73% females, median [interquartile range], age 40.2 years [33.6, 48.8], Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] 2.5 [1.5, 4.0]; non-de-escalators: 73% females, age 40.8 years [35.5, 47.9], and EDSS 2.5 [1.5, 4.0]), with a median follow-up of 4.8 years (IQR 3.0, 6.8). Patients who underwent de-escalation faced an increased hazard of future relapses (hazard ratio 2.36 and 95% confidence intervals [CI] [1.79-3.11], p < 0.001), which was confirmed when considering recurrent relapses (2.43 [1.97-3.00], p < 0.001). It was also consistent across subgroups stratified by age, sex, disability, disease duration, and time since last relapse. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this observational analysis, de-escalation may not be recommended as a universal treatment strategy in RRMS. The decision to de-escalate should be considered on an individual basis, as its safety is not clearly guided by specific patient or disease characteristics evaluated in this study.

• MeSH
• dospělí MeSH
• kohortové studie MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• longitudinální studie MeSH
• recidiva MeSH
• relabující-remitující roztroušená skleróza * farmakoterapie   MeSH
• retrospektivní studie MeSH
• výsledek terapie MeSH
• Check Tag
• dospělí MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mužské pohlaví MeSH
• ženské pohlaví MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• multicentrická studie MeSH
• pozorovací studie MeSH

AIM: To evaluate the real-world comparative effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness, from a UK National Health Service perspective, of natalizumab versus fingolimod in patients with rapidly evolving severe relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RES-RRMS). METHODS: Real-world data from the MSBase Registry were obtained for patients with RES-RRMS who were previously either naive to disease-modifying therapies or had been treated with interferon-based therapies, glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, or teriflunomide (collectively known as BRACETD). Matched cohorts were selected by 3-way multinomial propensity score matching, and the annualized relapse rate (ARR) and 6-month-confirmed disability worsening (CDW6M) and improvement (CDI6M) were compared between treatment groups. Comparative effectiveness results were used in a cost-effectiveness model comparing natalizumab and fingolimod, using an established Markov structure over a lifetime horizon with health states based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale. Additional model data sources included the UK MS Survey 2015, published literature, and publicly available sources. RESULTS: In the comparative effectiveness analysis, we found a significantly lower ARR for patients starting natalizumab compared with fingolimod (rate ratio [RR] = 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.73) or BRACETD (RR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.42-0.53). Similarly, CDI6M was higher for patients starting natalizumab compared with fingolimod (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55) and BRACETD (HR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.16-1.85). In patients starting fingolimod, we found a lower ARR (RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.80) compared with starting BRACETD, but no difference in CDI6M (HR = 1.17; 95% CI, 0.91-1.50). Differences in CDW6M were not found between the treatment groups. In the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis, natalizumab dominated fingolimod (0.302 higher quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and £17,141 lower predicted lifetime costs). Similar cost-effectiveness results were observed across sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This MSBase Registry analysis suggests that natalizumab improves clinical outcomes when compared with fingolimod, which translates to higher QALYs and lower costs in UK patients with RES-RRMS.

• MeSH
• analýza nákladové efektivity MeSH
• analýza nákladů a výnosů MeSH
• fingolimod hydrochlorid terapeutické užití   MeSH
• imunosupresiva terapeutické užití   MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• natalizumab terapeutické užití   MeSH
• relabující-remitující roztroušená skleróza * farmakoterapie   MeSH
• roztroušená skleróza * farmakoterapie   MeSH
• státní lékařství MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• Geografické názvy
• Spojené království MeSH