Disease Modifying Therapies Withdrawal in Inactive Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis Patients Older Than 50 Years (STOP-I-SEP) (STOP-I-SEP)
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03653273|
Recruitment Status : Recruiting
First Posted : August 31, 2018
Last Update Posted : March 28, 2022
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Multiple Sclerosis||Other: DMT withdrawal Drug: DMT continuation||Phase 3|
Multiple sclerosis (MS) usually evolves over decades and can present several phenotypes. Approximately 85% of newly diagnosed Multiple Sclerosis (MS) patients present the Relapsing-Remitting MS (RRMS) phenotype. After a mean time of approximatively 20 years, a large majority of these patients evolve to the so-called "Secondary Progressive MS" (SPMS) phase. SPMS is characterized by an irreversible disability progression not related to relapses, although relapses could be superimposed. Nevertheless, the shift in-between RRMS and SPMS is not clear. Different subtypes of SPMS have been recently defined by F Lublin et al. This classification takes into account persistent focal inflammatory activity (active vs inactive SPMS) along with disease progression (progressing vs non-progressing SPMS). In clinical routine, it is important to identify these stages of MS as they differently respond to the disease modifying therapies (DMTs).
Introducing DMTs during the RRMS phase had consistently demonstrated a significant impact on the annual relapse rate (ARR) and on the short-term disability progression. Conversely, during the SPMS phase, the impact of DMTs remained uncertain on disability progression, especially in older patients, with "inactive" disease. As a matter of fact, the DMTs are considered to be anti-inflammatory by nature, but the focal inflammation reduces with age and disease duration.
In addition, the DMTs have side effects and cost approximately 10,000 euros per year and per patient. In this context, the usefulness of continuing DMTs in "inactive" SPMS patients older than 50 years is questionable.
In a preliminary retrospective study conducted at our Institute which enrolled 100 SPMS patients, the ARR remained stable 3 years after treatment withdrawal (0.07, 95% CI [0.05, 0.11]), relative to the 3 years prior to treatment withdrawal (0.12, [0.09, 0.16]). EDSS scores were available for 94 patients The percentage of patients experiencing a significant increase of their EDSS score during the 3 years after treatment withdrawal also remained stable compared to the 3 years prior treatment withdrawal. These preliminary data support the safety of DMTs withdrawal in selected SPMS patients. However, further prospective studies are needed to provide evidence-based guidelines for daily practice.
This randomized controlled clinical trial thus aims to compare SPMS patients older than 50 years without evidence of focal inflammatory activity for 3 years, stopping DMTs versus patients with the same criteria still receiving treatment. We hypothesize that stopping DMTs will not induce an increased risk of disability progression or relapse in SPMS patients but will improve their quality of life and have an impact on treatment-related costs.
So far, the impact of DMTs withdrawal in a selected SPMS population has not been explored. Having evidence-based recommendations on the treatment management of these patients is essential, considering the consequences in terms of disability, relapses, side effects, quality of life and costs. DMTs in MS are now available since 20 years, with an increasing number of approved molecules. As a matter of fact, this question concerns a large number of patients: a retrospective analysis of patients included in the Rennes EDMUS database allowed to identify 71 SPMS patients older than 50 years and without evidence of focal inflammatory activity for 3 years actually undergoing a DMT.
For evident conflict of interests, the pharmaceutical firms will not promote or fund clinical trials on treatment withdrawal. A randomized controlled study initiated by academia and financed by public funding should be performed to explore these questions. We will evaluate the impact of these changes from the patient and the health system's points of view. The results of this clinical trial will lead to a concrete change in clinical practice.
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Estimated Enrollment :||250 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Parallel Assignment|
|Masking:||None (Open Label)|
|Official Title:||Disease Modifying Therapies Withdrawal in Inactive Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis Patients Older Than 50 Years|
|Actual Study Start Date :||January 24, 2019|
|Estimated Primary Completion Date :||July 2026|
|Estimated Study Completion Date :||January 2028|
Experimental: DMT withdrawal
DMT will be immediately stopped after randomization.These patients will be followed for 2 years.
Other: DMT withdrawal
Group 1 (DMT withdrawal) will not undergo any disease modifying treatments (DMT).
Active Comparator: DMT continuation
The previously established therapy will be continued at the same dose during two years.
Drug: DMT continuation
Group 2 (DMT continuation) may undergo the DMT . The therapy continued in this research is the one previously established, at the same dose, not implying additional precautions for use.
- Disability progression measured by EDSS [ Time Frame: 24 months ]
Disability progression measured by the Percentage of patients experiencing disability progression (confirmed at 6 months) at 2 years.
Disability progression will be defined as an increase in the EDSS of at least 1 point if the baseline EDSS was 5.5 or less, or 0.5 point if the Baseline EDSS was more than 5.5.
- Time of Disability progression [ Time Frame: 24 months ]Disability progression measured by Time from DMT withdrawal to disability progression
- Disability progression measured by composite score [ Time Frame: 24 months ]Disability progression measured by Change in a composite disability progression score (increase in the EDSS score, or an increase in the time to perform the timed 25-foot walk ≥ 20%, or an increase in the time to complete the 9-hole peg test ≥ 20%) confirmed at 6 months
- Disability progression measured by SDMT [ Time Frame: 24 months ]Disability progression measured by Change in the SDMT score from baseline to 2-year
- Percentage of patients with Relapse [ Time Frame: 24 months ]Relapses measured by Percentage of patients with at least one relapse from baseline to 2-year
- Annualized relapse rate [ Time Frame: 24 months ]Relapses measured by Annualized relapse rate during 2-year
- Time of Relapses [ Time Frame: 24 months ]Relapses measured byTime from DMT withdrawal to first relapse;
- Percentage of patients with brain lesion [ Time Frame: 24 months ]Percentage of patients with one or more new or enlarging brain MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) lesions from baseline to 2-year
- Percentage of patients with gadolinium enhancing lesion [ Time Frame: 24 months ]Percentage of patients with at least one gadolinium enhancing lesion(s) at 6 months, and/or 1 year,and/or 2-year
- Change in brain volume [ Time Frame: 24 months ]Change in brain volume from baseline to 2-year measured on MRI
- Percentage of patients with no evidence of disease activity [ Time Frame: 24 months ]Percentage of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA 3: no clinical relapse, no MRI activity, no disability progression) at 2-year
- Percentage of patients who resume DMT in the treatment withdrawal group [ Time Frame: 24 months ]Percentage of patients who resume DMT in the treatment withdrawal group at 2-year
- Quality of life measured by SEP-59 score [ Time Frame: 24 months ]Change in the SEP-59 score from baseline to 2-year;
- Quality of life measured by EQ-5D score [ Time Frame: 24 months ]Change in the EuroQOL EQ-5D from baseline to 2-year;
- Medico economic impact [ Time Frame: 24 months ]Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) defined as the cost for QALY gained in "treatment withdrawal group" versus "treatment continued group"
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT03653273
|Contact: Anne KERBRAT, Dr||2 99 28 41 69 ext +email@example.com|
|Contact: Gilles EDAN, Pr||2 99 28 41 22 ext +firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Principal Investigator:||Anne KERBRAT, Dr||CHU Rennes - National Headache Center|
|Principal Investigator:||Clarisse SCHERER-GAGOU, Dr||University Hospital, Angers|
|Principal Investigator:||Jean PELLETIER, Pr||AP-HM|
|Principal Investigator:||Céline LOUAPRE, Dr||AP-HP La pitié Salpêtrière|
|Principal Investigator:||François ROUHART, Dr||CHU Brest|
|Principal Investigator:||Pierre CLAVELOU, Pr||University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand|
|Principal Investigator:||Thibault MOREAU, Pr||CHU Dijon|
|Principal Investigator:||Olivier CASEZ, Dr||University Hospital, Grenoble|
|Principal Investigator:||Hélène ZEPHIR, Pr||CHU Lille|
|Principal Investigator:||Sandra VUKUSIC, Pr||Hospices Civils de Lyon|
|Principal Investigator:||Pierre LABAUGE, Pr||University Hospital, Montpellier|
|Principal Investigator:||Guillaume MATHEY, Dr||CHU Nancy|
|Principal Investigator:||David LAPLAUD, Pr||CHU Nantes|
|Principal Investigator:||Christine LEBRUN-FRENAY, Pr||CHU Nice|
|Principal Investigator:||Olivier HEINZLEF, Dr||CH Poissy|
|Principal Investigator:||Jean-Philippe NEAU, Pr||CHU Poitiers|
|Principal Investigator:||Marc COUSTANS, Dr||CH Quimper|
|Principal Investigator:||Jérôme DE SEZE, Pr||CHU Strasbourg|
|Principal Investigator:||Anne-Marie GUENNOC, Dr||CHU Tours|
|Principal Investigator:||Caroline BENSA-KOSCHER, Dr||Fondation de Rothschild|
|Principal Investigator:||Eric THOUVENOT, Pr||Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nīmes|
|Principal Investigator:||Alain CREANGE, Pr||CH Henri Mondor|
|Principal Investigator:||Arnaud KWIATKOWSKI, Dr||Hôpital Saint Vincent de Paul|