Cost, efficacy, and safety comparison between early intensive and escalating strategies for multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment strategy of multiple sclerosis (MS) is a matter of debate. The classical approach is the escalating (ESC) strategy, which consists of starting with low- to moderate-efficacy disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) and upscale to high-efficacy DMDs when noting some evidence of active disease. Another approach, the early intensive (EIT) strategy, is starting with high-efficiency DMDs as first-line therapy. Our goal was to compare effectiveness, safety, and cost of ESC and EIT strategies.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and SCOPUS until September 2022, for studies comparing EIT and ESC strategies in adult participants with relapsing-remitting MS and a minimum follow-up of 5 years. We examined the Expanded Disability Severity Scale (EDSS), the proportion of severe adverse events, and cost in a 5-year period. Random-effects meta-analysis summarized the efficacy and safety and an EDSS-based Markov model estimated the cost.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 3,467 participants showed a 30% reduction in EDSS worsening in 5 years (RR 0.7; [0.59-0.83]; p < 0.001) in the EIT group vs in the ESC group. Two studies with 1,118 participants suggested a similar safety profile for these strategies (RR 1.92; [0.38-9.72]; p = 0.4324). EIT with natalizumab in extended interval dosing, rituximab, alemtuzumab, and cladribine demonstrated cost-effectiveness in our model.

DISCUSSION

EIT presents higher efficacy in preventing disability progression, a similar safety profile, and can be cost-effective within a 5-year timeline.