Dimethyl fumarate is associated with lower rates of infection and lower infection-related healthcare costs when compared with ocrelizumab.

BACKGROUND: Infections in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) may have a detrimental effect on disease progression, risk of hospitalization, and healthcare resource utilization (HRU). The infection risk and HRU costs may vary between disease-modifying therapies (DMTs); however, the individual risks and differences associated with DMTs are not well characterized. Some DMTs may increase the risk for infections in PwMS; however, previous studies have reported an intact humoral immune response in dimethyl fumarate (DMF)-treated patients. The objective was to compare infection-related HRU and healthcare costs (HCCs) between PwMS treated with DMF or ocrelizumab (OCR). METHODS: Eligible patients were identified from the Optum US claims database between April 2017 and September 2020 (DMF n = 1429; OCR n = 3170). Patients were followed from index date to first occurrence of: (1) end of study, (2) end of insurance eligibility, (3) discontinuation of index DMT, or (4) switch from index DMT to another DMT. Outcomes were annualized rate of infection encounters (defined as infection encounters [n] during follow-up window / days followed [n] × 365); annualized infection-related HCCs (defined as aggregated costs of infection encounters during follow-up window / days followed [n] × 365); location-specific infections, and overall infection-related events. Propensity score matching (PSM) 1:1 method was used; PS was calculated via logistic regression for probability of DMF treatment conditional on demographics and comorbidities. Mean differences (MD) were reported for infection encounter measures. RESULTS: After PSM, DMF and OCR cohorts (n = 1094 in each cohort) were balanced based on baseline characteristics (standardized MD of adjusted baseline characteristics <0.1). Mean (standard deviation) follow-up was 296 (244) days for DMF patients and 297 (243) for OCR patients. DMF patients experienced lower annualized rates of overall infection encounters vs OCR patients (MD -0.51 [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.92 to -0.11], p = 0.01). When stratified by type of infection encounter, DMF patients experienced significantly lower annualized rates of outpatient (MD [95% CI]: -0.44 [-0.80 to -0.08], p = 0.02) and inpatient/hospitalization infection encounters (-0.08 [-0.14 to -0.02], p<0.01) vs OCR patients. A trend towards a shorter duration of infection-related hospitalization in the DMF vs the OCR group was observed (MD [95% CI]: -2.20 [-4.73 to 0.26] days, p = 0.08). The most common infection types in both DMT groups were urinary tract infections, sepsis, and pneumonia. DMF patients experienced lower annualized infection-related HCCs (MD [95% CI]: -$3642 [-$6380 to -$904], p < 0.01) vs OCR patients, which were driven largely by infection-related hospitalization costs (-$3639 [-$6019 to -$1259], p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: DMF-treated patients PS-matched with OCR patients experienced lower annualized rates of infection encounters and lower infection-related HCCs.

Impact of absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) frequency on detection of dimethyl fumarate–associated lymphopenia

IntroductionLymphopenia is a known adverse event of dimethyl fumarate (DMF) with treatment dis- continuation recommended for patients with severe prolonged (≥6 months) lymphopenia. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic burden on healthcare systems, we retrospectively examined the impact of absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) monitoring frequency (every-3-months vs every-6-months) on lym- phopenia detection.MethodsSamples from patients enrolled in phase 3 trials (DEFINE/CONFIRM) and the extension study (ENDORSE) were retrospectively analysed using 3-month or 6-month intervals. Lymphopenia was defined as ALC <0.91x109/L and severe lymphopenia as ALC <0.5×109/L. Times to the first lymphopenia event and first severe lymphopenia event were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods.ResultsThe analysis included 741 patients. There were 355 lymphopenia cases (76 severe) with 3-month monitoring, and 314 cases (70 severe) with 6-month monitoring. Over 120 months, incidence of first lympho- penia event was significantly different for 3-month vs 6-month monitoring (difference range: 2.64%–6.54%;P=0.0088). Incidence of first severe lymphopenia event was not significantly different for the two intervals (P=0.5866). Proportions of patients with severe prolonged lymphopenia with 3-month and 6-month moni- toring were similar (4.0% vs 4.2%).ConclusionsThe results of this study may be informative to clinicians managing pandemic-related health- care resource burdens. Support: Biogen. Disclosures on poster.

Effect of intensive versus limited monitoring on clinical trial conduct and outcomes: A randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory agencies have endorsed more limited approaches to clinical trial site monitoring. However, the impact of different monitoring strategies on trial conduct and outcomes is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a patient-level block-randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of intensive versus limited monitoring on cardiovascular clinical trial conduct and outcomes nested within the CoreValve Continued Access and Expanded Use Studies. Intensive monitoring included complete source data verification of all critical datapoints whereas limited monitoring included automated data checks only. This study's endpoints included clinical trial outcome ascertainment as well as monitoring action items, protocol deviations, and adverse event ascertainment. RESULTS: A total of 2,708 patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and were randomized to either intensive monitoring (n = 1,354) or limited monitoring (n = 1,354). Monitoring action items were more common with intensive monitoring (52% vs 15%; P < .001), but there was no difference in the percentage of patients with any protocol deviation (91.6% vs 90.4%; P = .314). The reported incidence of trial outcomes between intensive and limited monitoring was similar for mortality (30 days: 4.8% vs 5.5%, P = .442; 1 year: 20.3% vs 21.3%, P = .473) and stroke (30 days: 2.8% vs 2.4%, P = .458), as well as most secondary trial outcomes with the exception of bleeding (intensive: 36.3% vs limited: 32.0% at 30 days, P = .019). There was a higher reported incidence of cardiac adverse events reported in the intensive monitoring group at 1 year (76.7% vs 72.4%; P = .019). CONCLUSIONS: Tailored limited monitoring strategies can be implemented without influencing the integrity of TAVR trial outcomes.

Cardiovascular Deaths During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Although the direct toll of COVID-19 in the United States has been substantial, concerns have also arisen about the indirect effects of the pandemic. Hospitalizations for acute cardiovascular conditions have declined, raising concern that patients may be avoiding hospitals because of fear of contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome- coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Other factors, including strain on health care systems, may also have had an indirect toll. OBJECTIVES: This investigation aimed to evaluate whether population-level deaths due to cardiovascular causes increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The authors conducted an observational cohort study using data from the National Center for Health Statistics to evaluate the rate of deaths due to cardiovascular causes after the onset of the pandemic in the United States, from March 18, 2020, to June 2, 2020, relative to the period immediately preceding the pandemic (January 1, 2020 to March 17, 2020). Changes in deaths were compared with the same periods in the previous year. RESULTS: There were 397,042 cardiovascular deaths from January 1, 2020, to June 2, 2020. Deaths caused by ischemic heart disease increased nationally after the onset of the pandemic in 2020, compared with changes over the same period in 2019 (ratio of the relative change in deaths per 100,000 in 2020 vs. 2019: 1.11, 95% confidence interval: 1.04 to 1.18). An increase was also observed for deaths caused by hypertensive disease (1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.09 to 1.26), but not for heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, or other diseases of the circulatory system. New York City experienced a large relative increase in deaths caused by ischemic heart disease (2.39, 95% confidence interval: 1.39 to 4.09) and hypertensive diseases (2.64, 95% confidence interval: 1.52 to 4.56) during the pandemic. More modest increases in deaths caused by these conditions occurred in the remainder of New York State, New Jersey, Michigan, and Illinois but not in Massachusetts or Louisiana. CONCLUSIONS: There was an increase in deaths caused by ischemic heart disease and hypertensive diseases in some regions of the United States during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings suggest that the pandemic may have had an indirect toll on patients with cardiovascular disease.