Search

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). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Quantitatively summarize patient preferences for European licensed relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) disease-modifying treatment (DMT) options. Methods. To identify and summarize the most important RRMS DMT characteristics, a literature review, exploratory physician interviews, patient focus groups, and confirmatory physician interviews were conducted in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was developed and executed to measure patient preferences for the most important DMT characteristics. The resulting DCE data ( n =799 and n =363 respondents in the United Kingdom and Germany, respectively) were analyzed using Bayesian mixed logit models. The estimated individual-level patient preferences were subsequently summarized using 3 additional analyses: the quality of the choice data was assessed using individual-level R 2 DMT usage differed between RRMS patients in Germany and the United Kingdom but aggregate patient preferences were similar. Across countries, 42% of all patients preferred oral medications, 38% infusions, 16% injections, and 4% no DMT. The most often preferred DMT was natalizumab (26%) and oral DMT cladribine tablets (22%). The least often preferred were mitoxantrone and the beta-interferon injections (1%-3%). Patient preferences were strongly correlated with patients' MS disease duration and DMT experience, and differences in patient preferences could be summarized using 8 principle components that together explain 99% of the variation in patients' DMT preferences. Results. DMT usage differed between RRMS patients in Germany and the United Kingdom but aggregate patient preferences were similar. Across countries, 42% of all patients preferred oral medications, 38% infusions, 16% injections, and 4% no DMT. The most often preferred DMT was natalizumab (26%) and oral DMT cladribine tablets (22%). The least often preferred were mitoxantrone and the beta-interferon injections (1%-3%). Patient preferences were strongly correlated with patients' MS disease duration and DMT experience, and differences in patient preferences could be summarized using 8 principle components that together explain 99% of the variation in patients' DMT preferences. Conclusion. This study summarizes patient preferences for the included DMTs, facilitates shared decision making along the dimensions that are relevant to RRMS patients, and introduces methods in the medical DCE literature that are ideally suited to summarize the impact of DMT introductions in preexisting treatment landscapes.