Contributions
Abstract: P684
Type: Poster
Abstract Category: Therapy - disease modifying - 26 Immunomodulation/Immunosuppression
Background: The management of multiple sclerosis (MS) has changed substantially over the past 10 years. The availability of new, approved disease modifying therapies (DMTs) has provided physicians and patients with treatment options with different clinical profiles (levels of efficacy and type of risks associated), administration regimens (route and frequency), and associated risk.
Objective: To compare time between DMT initiation and first DMT switch by year of diagnosis, and to compare reasons for switching from previous DMT to current DMT by year of switch, amongst patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) currently treated with a DMT in real-world clinical practice.
Methods: RRMS patients diagnosed prior to 2016, currently receiving a DMT were identified from the Adelphi MS Disease Specific Programme, a global cross-sectional study of MS patients from clinical practice in various countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK and US). Time from DMT initiation to first DMT switch was compared across year of initial MS diagnosis (between ≤2006 and 2015) using a log-rank test, and a test for trend. Physician-reported reasons (efficacy, any other reason) for switching from previous DMT to current DMT were compared across year of switch (between ≤2011 and 2015) using Chi-Squared tests.
Results: Analysis of time from DMT initiation to first DMT switch was conducted on 5929 patients. Results differed significantly by year of initial MS diagnosis (log-rank P< 0.001; trend P< 0.001). The time taken for 25% of patients to replace their first DMT was 3.6 years for those diagnosed in ≤2006 and 1.3 years for those diagnosed in 2014, with corresponding trend of decreasing time taken between 2007 and 2013. Analysis on reasons for switching was conducted on 2939 patients. Reasons for switching from previous to current DMT differed significantly by year of switch, for Efficacy (≤2011, 73.8%; 2012, 72.7%; 2013, 70.2%; 2014, 69.6%; 2015, 60.8%; P< 0.001) and for Any Other Reason (≤2011, 43.9%; 2012, 48.9%; 2013, 52.2%; 2014, 54.5%; 2015, 59.5%; P< 0.001).
Conclusion: The introduction of new DMTs for MS that vary in route of administration, frequency of dosing, and associated benefit/risk profile has been associated with a reduction in the time patients are treated with their first DMT before switching to a different DMT, and switching is increasingly driven by reasons other than efficacy.
Disclosure:
C. Wakeford, S. Fam: Employees of and hold stock/stock options in Biogen.
X. Ye: Employee of and holds stock/stock options in AbbVie Inc.
J. Pike, E. Jones, A. Hadfield: Employees of Adelphi Real World and paid consultants for Biogen.
Supported by: Biogen and AbbVie Inc. Editorial support for this abstract was provided by Excel Scientific Solutions (Southport, CT, USA): funding was provided by Biogen and AbbVie Inc.
Abstract: P684
Type: Poster
Abstract Category: Therapy - disease modifying - 26 Immunomodulation/Immunosuppression
Background: The management of multiple sclerosis (MS) has changed substantially over the past 10 years. The availability of new, approved disease modifying therapies (DMTs) has provided physicians and patients with treatment options with different clinical profiles (levels of efficacy and type of risks associated), administration regimens (route and frequency), and associated risk.
Objective: To compare time between DMT initiation and first DMT switch by year of diagnosis, and to compare reasons for switching from previous DMT to current DMT by year of switch, amongst patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) currently treated with a DMT in real-world clinical practice.
Methods: RRMS patients diagnosed prior to 2016, currently receiving a DMT were identified from the Adelphi MS Disease Specific Programme, a global cross-sectional study of MS patients from clinical practice in various countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK and US). Time from DMT initiation to first DMT switch was compared across year of initial MS diagnosis (between ≤2006 and 2015) using a log-rank test, and a test for trend. Physician-reported reasons (efficacy, any other reason) for switching from previous DMT to current DMT were compared across year of switch (between ≤2011 and 2015) using Chi-Squared tests.
Results: Analysis of time from DMT initiation to first DMT switch was conducted on 5929 patients. Results differed significantly by year of initial MS diagnosis (log-rank P< 0.001; trend P< 0.001). The time taken for 25% of patients to replace their first DMT was 3.6 years for those diagnosed in ≤2006 and 1.3 years for those diagnosed in 2014, with corresponding trend of decreasing time taken between 2007 and 2013. Analysis on reasons for switching was conducted on 2939 patients. Reasons for switching from previous to current DMT differed significantly by year of switch, for Efficacy (≤2011, 73.8%; 2012, 72.7%; 2013, 70.2%; 2014, 69.6%; 2015, 60.8%; P< 0.001) and for Any Other Reason (≤2011, 43.9%; 2012, 48.9%; 2013, 52.2%; 2014, 54.5%; 2015, 59.5%; P< 0.001).
Conclusion: The introduction of new DMTs for MS that vary in route of administration, frequency of dosing, and associated benefit/risk profile has been associated with a reduction in the time patients are treated with their first DMT before switching to a different DMT, and switching is increasingly driven by reasons other than efficacy.
Disclosure:
C. Wakeford, S. Fam: Employees of and hold stock/stock options in Biogen.
X. Ye: Employee of and holds stock/stock options in AbbVie Inc.
J. Pike, E. Jones, A. Hadfield: Employees of Adelphi Real World and paid consultants for Biogen.
Supported by: Biogen and AbbVie Inc. Editorial support for this abstract was provided by Excel Scientific Solutions (Southport, CT, USA): funding was provided by Biogen and AbbVie Inc.