A real-world single-centre analysis of alemtuzumab and cladribine for multiple sclerosis

Highly active MS may warrant higher efficacy treatments for disease control. However, these often confer more risk and have not been compared in head-to-head clinical trials, making relative efficacy and safety difficult to interpret. Alemtuzumab and cladribine are two high-efficacy treatments given as discrete courses separated by one year, followed by a durable response that potentially does not require ongoing treatment. Before the approval of oral cladribine, our centre had been treating patients with a bioequivalent intravenous (IV) regimen since 2010. The objective of this study is to report the safety and efficacy data of alemtuzumab and cladribine in a real-world, single centre setting.

We retrospectively reviewed all patients treated with alemtuzumab or cladribine at the Ottawa Hospital MS Clinic with 2 or more years of follow-up. Information on baseline demographic variables, previous treatment, and prior disease activity was collected. Outcomes investigated were "no evidence of disease activity" (NEDA) and its constituents: new clinical relapse, new MRI activity, and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) progression; as well as any adverse events or treatment discontinuation. We performed univariate and multiple logistic regression to determine differences in 2-year NEDA and time-to-event analyses with Cox regression models to determine factors associated with each outcome through the study period.

Forty-six patients were treated with alemtuzumab and 65 with cladribine of whom 51 (78%) received the intravenous regimen, followed for a total of 420.1 person-years. The cladribine group was older (p=.0002), with higher baseline EDSS (p=.0015), and more likely secondary progressive (p<.0001). Alemtuzumab had a higher rate of 2-year NEDA than cladribine (OR 4.78, 95%CI: 1.57-14.50, p=.006), but beyond 2 years the difference was not statistically significant (HR 0.50, 95%CI: 0.25-1. 30, p=.061). More prior treatments were associated with lower likelihood of retaining NEDA (HR 1.26, 95%CI: 1.03-1.54, p=.027). Alemtuzumab had more infusion reactions (80% vs. 17%, p<.0001), shingles (22% vs. 2%, p=.005), and secondary autoimmunity (52% vs. 3%, p<.0001) than cladribine, but there was no difference in grade 3 or higher adverse events (21.7% vs. 18.5%, p=1.0).

In our cohort alemtuzumab and cladribine achieved similar rates of NEDA in long-term follow-up, with overall less adverse events with cladribine. Patient registries would allow more robust comparisons, detection of adverse events, and assessment of a durable response.