Long-term follow-up from the ORATORIO trial of ocrelizumab for primary progressive multiple sclerosis: a post-hoc analysis from the ongoing open-label extension of the randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of ocrelizumab in primary progressive multiple sclerosis were shown in the phase 3 ORATORIO trial. In this study, we assessed the effects of maintaining or switching to ocrelizumab therapy on measures of disease progression and safety in the open-label extension phase of ORATORIO. METHODS: ORATORIO was an international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 182 study locations including academic centres, hospitals, and community speciality centres within 29 countries across the Americas, Australia, Europe, Israel, New Zealand, and Russia. Patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis aged 18-55 years who had an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 3·0-6·5 were eligible for enrolment. Those who had previous treatment with B-cell-targeted therapies or other immunosuppressive medications were excluded. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either intravenous infusion of 600 mg of ocrelizumab (two 300 mg infusions 14 days apart) or placebo every 24 weeks for at least 120 weeks until a prespecified number (n=253) of disability events occurred. After the double-blind phase, patients entered an extended controlled period of variable duration, during which they and investigators became aware of treatment allocation. Following this period, patients could enter an optional open-label extension, during which they continued ocrelizumab or switched from placebo to ocrelizumab. Time to onset of disability progression was confirmed at 24 weeks with four measures (ie, increase in EDSS score, ≥20% increase in time to complete the 9-Hole Peg Test [9HPT], ≥20% increase in time to perform the Timed 25-Foot Walk [T25FW], and composite progression defined as the first confirmed occurrence of any of these three individual measures), as was time to requiring a wheelchair (EDSS ≥7). Conventional MRI measures were also analysed. The intention-to-treat population was used for the safety and efficacy analyses; all analyses, and their timings, were done post hoc. ORATORIO is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01194570, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: From March 3, 2011, to Dec 27, 2012, 488 patients were randomly assigned to the ocrelizumab group and 244 to the placebo group. The extended controlled period started on July 24, 2015, and ended on April 27, 2016, when the last patient entered the open-label extension. Overall, 544 (74%) of 732 participants completed the double-blind period to week 144; 527 (97%) of 544 entered the open-label extension phase, of whom 451 (86%) are ongoing in the open-label extension. After at least 6·5 study years (48 weeks per study year) of follow-up, the proportion of patients with progression on disability measures was lower in those who initiated ocrelizumab early than in those initially receiving placebo for most of the measures of 24-week confirmed disability progression: EDSS, 51·7% vs 64·8% (difference 13·1% [95% CI 4·9-21·3]; p=0·0018); 9HPT, 30·6% vs 43·1% (12·5% [4·1-20·9]); p=0·0035); T25FW, 63·2% vs 70·7% (7·5% [-0·3 to 15·2]; p=0·058); composite progression, 73·2% vs 83·3% (10·1% [3·6-16·6]; p=0·0023); and confirmed time to requiring a wheelchair, 11·5% vs 18·9% (7·4% [0·8-13·9]; p=0·0274). At study end, the percentage change from baseline was lower in those who initiated ocrelizumab early than in those initially receiving placebo for T2 lesion volume (0·45% vs 13·00%, p<0·0001) and T1 hypointense lesion volume (36·68% vs 60·93%, p<0·0001). Over the entire period, in the ORATORIO all ocrelizumab exposure population, the rate of adverse events was 238·09 (95% CI 232·71-243·57) per 100 patient-years and serious adverse events was 12·63 (95% CI 11·41-13·94) per 100 patient-years; the most common serious adverse events were infections at 4·13 (95% CI 3·45-4·91) per 100 patient-years. No new safety signals emerged compared with the double-blind phase of ORATORIO. INTERPRETATION: Compared with patients switching from placebo, earlier and continuous ocrelizumab treatment provided sustained benefits on measures of disease progression over the 6·5 study years of follow-up. Although this study shows the benefit of earlier intervention with ocrelizumab in primary progressive disease, progression remains an important unmet need in multiple sclerosis. Further research should focus on how the potential benefits described in this study might be improved upon, particularly over longer time periods. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing ocrelizumab with other treatments for relapsing multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Ocrelizumab was approved for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) and primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) by the US Food and Drug Administration in March 2017 and by the European Medicines Agency in January 2018. These approvals were based on two pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs), OPERA I and OPERA II, comparing ocrelizumab 600 mg with an active comparator, interferon ß-1a 44 µg (Rebif), and the first trial with positive results in patients with PPMS, which compared ocrelizumab with placebo. However, direct evidence of the efficacy and safety of ocrelizumab in RMS compared with other disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) approved for RMS is not available from RCTs. In the absence of such RCTs, network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted to compare indirectly the relative efficacy and safety of ocrelizumab with all other approved DMTs for the treatment of RMS. METHODS: Systematic literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, trial registers, relevant conference websites and health technology assessment agency websites. Eligible RCTs evaluated approved treatments for multiple sclerosis (MS) in which more than 75% of patients had a relapsing form of MS. NMAs were conducted for four efficacy and three safety outcomes, and treatment hierarchies were generated for each outcome using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. RESULTS: Results suggest that ocrelizumab has superior efficacy to 10 of the 17 treatments in the 12-week confirmed disability progression network and 12 of the 17 treatments in the annualized relapse rate network (both including placebo). The efficacy of ocrelizumab was comparable with the other treatments in both networks. In the serious adverse events and discontinuation due to adverse events networks, ocrelizumab demonstrated a safety profile comparable with all other treatments (including placebo). SUCRA values consistently ranked ocrelizumab among the most effective or tolerable treatments across all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that ocrelizumab has an efficacy superior to or comparable with all other currently approved DMTs across all endpoints analyzed, and a similar safety profile, indicating it offers a valuable package for the treatment of patients with RMS.

A simple method for combining binomial counts or proportions with hazard ratios for evidence synthesis of time-to-event data.

In studies with time-to-event data, outcomes may be reported as hazard ratios (HR) or binomial counts/proportions at a specific time point. If the intent is to synthesise evidence by performing a meta-analysis or network meta-analysis (NMA) using the HR as the measure of treatment effect, studies that only report binomial data cannot be included in the network. Methods for converting binomial data to HRs were investigated, so that studies reporting binomial data only could be included in a network of HR data. Estimating the log HR is relatively straightforward under the assumptions of proportional hazards and minimal censoring at the binomial data time point. Estimating the standard error of the log HR is harder, but a simple method based on using a Taylor series expansion to approximate the variance is proposed. Thus, we have 2 easy-to-calculate equations for the log HR and variance. The performance of the method was assessed using simulations and data from a NMA of multiple sclerosis treatments. In the simulation, our binomial method produced very similar HRs to those from survival analysis when censoring rates were low, and also when censoring rates were high but the event rate was low. In all situations, it outperformed using relative risk to approximate the HR. In the NMA, results were consistent between reported HRs and HRs derived from binomial data for studies that reported both types of data. This method may be useful for easily incorporating trials reporting binomial data into an evidence synthesis of HR data, under certain assumptions.

No evidence of disease activity (NEDA) analysis by epochs in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis treated with ocrelizumab vs interferon beta-1a.

BACKGROUND: No evidence of disease activity (NEDA; defined as no 12-week confirmed disability progression, no protocol-defined relapses, no new/enlarging T2 lesions and no T1 gadolinium-enhancing lesions) using a fixed-study entry baseline is commonly used as a treatment outcome in multiple sclerosis (MS). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to assess the effect of ocrelizumab on NEDA using re-baselining analysis, and the predictive value of NEDA status. METHODS: NEDA was assessed in a modified intent-to-treat population (n = 1520) from the pooled OPERA I and OPERA II studies over various epochs in patients with relapsing MS receiving ocrelizumab (600 mg) or interferon beta-1a (IFN ß-1a; 44 µg). RESULTS: NEDA was increased with ocrelizumab vs IFN ß-1a over 96 weeks by 75% (p < 0.001), from Week 0‒24 by 33% (p < 0.001) and from Week 24‒96 by 72% (p < 0.001). Among patients with disease activity during Weeks 0‒24, 66.4% vs 24.3% achieved NEDA during Weeks 24‒96 in the ocrelizumab and IFN ß-1a groups (relative increase: 177%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Superior efficacy with ocrelizumab compared with IFN ß-1a was consistently seen in maintaining NEDA status in all epochs evaluated. By contrast with IFN ß-1a, the majority of patients with disease activity early in the study subsequently attained NEDA status with ocrelizumab.

Accounting for Uncertainty in Decision Analytic Models Using Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time Modeling: Application to Parametric Survival Models.

OBJECTIVES: Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time models are one of the most commonly used statistical methods to adjust for treatment switching in oncology clinical trials. The method is often applied in a decision analytic model without appropriately accounting for additional uncertainty when determining the allocation of health care resources. The aim of the study is to describe novel approaches to adequately account for uncertainty when using a Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time model in a decision analytic model. METHODS: Using two examples, we tested and compared the performance of the novel Test-based method with the resampling bootstrap method and with the conventional approach of no adjustment. In the first example, we simulated life expectancy using a simple decision analytic model based on a hypothetical oncology trial with treatment switching. In the second example, we applied the adjustment method on published data when no individual patient data were available. RESULTS: Mean estimates of overall and incremental life expectancy were similar across methods. However, the bootstrapped and test-based estimates consistently produced greater estimates of uncertainty compared with the estimate without any adjustment applied. Similar results were observed when using the test based approach on a published data showing that failing to adjust for uncertainty led to smaller confidence intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Both the bootstrapping and test-based approaches provide a solution to appropriately incorporate uncertainty, with the benefit that the latter can implemented by researchers in the absence of individual patient data.