Briumvi led to fewer relapses, less MRI activity and better disability improvement than Aubagio when used as the first disease-modifying therapy for relapsing multiple sclerosis, according to a new post-hoc analysis of the phase 3 ULTIMATE I and II trials.
The analysis focused on 722 participants who had not previously received an approved disease-modifying therapy, including 279 people whose first MS symptoms had appeared within three years of entering the trials. Researchers found that starting treatment with Briumvi, also known as ublituximab, produced better outcomes than Aubagio, teriflunomide, across several key measures after 96 weeks.
In the treatment-naive group, Briumvi reduced the annualised relapse rate by 56.7% compared with Aubagio, with relapse rates of 0.081 versus 0.188. In the subgroup treated earlier in the disease course, within three years of symptom onset, the reduction was 61.0%, with relapse rates of 0.130 versus 0.334.
The study also found higher rates of confirmed disability improvement with Briumvi. In the overall treatment-naive population, 10.7% of patients receiving Briumvi achieved 12-week confirmed disability improvement compared with 5.3% of those on Aubagio. In the early-treatment subgroup, the gap was wider, 14.4% versus 3.6%. Rates of confirmed disability progression were low in both arms and did not differ significantly.
| Sign up to the ACNR email newsletter here |
MRI outcomes also favoured Briumvi. Compared with Aubagio, the therapy reduced gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions by 96.1% in the treatment-naive population and 95.0% in the early-treatment subgroup. New or enlarging T2 lesions were cut by 90.6% and 91.6% respectively.
A further measure, no evidence of disease activity, was achieved by 82.7% of treatment-naive patients on Briumvi compared with 23.1% on Aubagio. In the early-treatment subgroup, the rates were 80.5% and 23.8%.
The researchers said the findings add to evidence supporting early use of high-efficacy therapies in relapsing MS, but noted that the analysis was retrospective and based on a relatively small subgroup. They said prospective head-to-head trials are still needed to compare high-efficacy treatments started early in the disease course.
This news item has been summarised using AI and checked by humans before publication
Sources
| Sign up for our online community for neurology specialists |
