MARATTO

article · JAMA Neurology

Comparative Effectiveness of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant vs Fingolimod, Natalizumab, and Ocrelizumab in Highly Active Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis

202350 citationsOpen accessUniversity of Tunis El Manar

In plain language

Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation is an established intervention for highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. A comparative effectiveness study evaluated outcomes from patients treated with transplantation against those receiving standard disease-modifying therapies, namely fingolimod, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab. Over five years of observation, stem cell transplantation demonstrated superior outcomes compared to fingolimod, showing lower annualised relapse rates and a significantly higher probability of disability improvement, alongside similar risks of disability progression. When compared to natalizumab over five years, transplantation showed marginally lower relapse rates and a higher likelihood of disability recovery. Over a three-year follow-up period, outcomes for transplantation and ocrelizumab were comparable regarding relapses and disability changes. Treatment-related mortality among transplant recipients was low, recorded at under one per cent. These findings provide comparative evidence on how stem cell transplantation performs alongside contemporary high-efficacy medical therapies.

Key takeaways

  • Stem cell transplantation achieved lower relapse rates and a greater chance of disability improvement than fingolimod over five years.
  • Transplantation demonstrated marginally lower relapse rates and higher rates of disability recovery compared to natalizumab over five years.
  • Transplantation and ocrelizumab showed comparable effectiveness regarding relapses and disability outcomes over three years.
  • Treatment-related mortality among patients undergoing stem cell transplantation was 0.6 per cent.

Why it matters

Managing highly active multiple sclerosis requires balancing treatment risks with the potential to halt disease progression. By comparing stem cell transplantation directly against leading disease-modifying therapies using real-world clinical registry data, these findings help clinicians and patients evaluate the long-term trade-offs between intensive cellular therapy and standard pharmaceutical treatments in reducing relapses and promoting physical recovery.

Commercialisation angle

The abstract evaluates established clinical therapies and hospital procedures already used in specialist centres, rather than a novel commercial product. Healthcare providers, specialist neurological centres, and clinical decision-makers can use this comparative effectiveness data to guide treatment selection protocols and resource allocation for severe multiple sclerosis. As an applied clinical comparison of existing approved drugs and medical interventions, the research informs clinical adoption rather than a new technology transfer pathway.

AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.

Abstract

Importance: Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) is available for treatment of highly active multiple sclerosis (MS). Objective: To compare the effectiveness of AHSCT vs fingolimod, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab in relapsing-remitting MS by emulating pairwise trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative treatment effectiveness study included 6 specialist MS centers with AHSCT programs and international MSBase registry between 2006 and 2021. The study included patients with relapsing-remitting MS treated with AHSCT, fingolimod, natalizumab, or ocrelizumab with 2 or more years study follow-up including 2 or more disability assessments. Patients were matched on a propensity score derived from clinical and demographic characteristics. Exposure: AHSCT vs fingolimod, natalizumab, or ocrelizumab. Main outcomes: Pairwise-censored groups were compared on annualized relapse rates (ARR) and freedom from relapses and 6-month confirmed Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score worsening and improvement. Results: Of 4915 individuals, 167 were treated with AHSCT; 2558, fingolimod; 1490, natalizumab; and 700, ocrelizumab. The prematch AHSCT cohort was younger and with greater disability than the fingolimod, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab cohorts; the matched groups were closely aligned. The proportion of women ranged from 65% to 70%, and the mean (SD) age ranged from 35.3 (9.4) to 37.1 (10.6) years. The mean (SD) disease duration ranged from 7.9 (5.6) to 8.7 (5.4) years, EDSS score ranged from 3.5 (1.6) to 3.9 (1.9), and frequency of relapses ranged from 0.77 (0.94) to 0.86 (0.89) in the preceding year. Compared with the fingolimod group (769 [30.0%]), AHSCT (144 [86.2%]) was associated with fewer relapses (ARR: mean [SD], 0.09 [0.30] vs 0.20 [0.44]), similar risk of disability worsening (hazard ratio [HR], 1.70; 95% CI, 0.91-3.17), and higher chance of disability improvement (HR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.71-4.26) over 5 years. Compared with natalizumab (730 [49.0%]), AHSCT (146 [87.4%]) was associated with marginally lower ARR (mean [SD], 0.08 [0.31] vs 0.10 [0.34]), similar risk of disability worsening (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.54-2.09), and higher chance of disability improvement (HR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.72-4.18) over 5 years. AHSCT (110 [65.9%]) and ocrelizumab (343 [49.0%]) were associated with similar ARR (mean [SD], 0.09 [0.34] vs 0.06 [0.32]), disability worsening (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.61-5.08), and disability improvement (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.66-2.82) over 3 years. AHSCT-related mortality occurred in 1 of 159 patients (0.6%). Conclusion: In this study, the association of AHSCT with preventing relapses and facilitating recovery from disability was considerably superior to fingolimod and marginally superior to natalizumab. This study did not find evidence for difference in the effectiveness of AHSCT and ocrelizumab over a shorter available follow-up time.

Research topics

  • Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Polyomavirus and related diseases
  • Systemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.1184

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.