4.3 Article

Two-year results from a phase 2 extension study of oral amiselimod in relapsing multiple sclerosis

Journal

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
Volume 24, Issue 12, Pages 1605-1616

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458517728343

Keywords

Amiselimod (MT-1303); sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator; multiple sclerosis; long-term treatment; clinical trials

Funding

  1. Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Amiselimod, an oral selective sphingosine-1-phosphate 1 receptor modulator, suppressed disease activity dose-dependently without clinically relevant bradyarrhythmia in a 24-week phase 2, placebo-controlled study in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Objective: To assess safety and efficacy of amiselimod over 96weeks. Methods: After completing the core study, patients on amiselimod continued at the same dose, whereas those on placebo were randomised 1:1:1 to amiselimod 0.1, 0.2 or 0.4mg for another 72weeks. Most patients receiving 0.1mg were re-randomised to 0.2 or 0.4mg upon availability of the core study results. Results: Of 415 patients randomised in the core study, 367 (88.4%) entered and 322 (77.6%) completed the extension. One or more adverse events were reported in 303 (82.6%) of 367 patients: headache', lymphocyte count decreased', nasopharyngitis' and MS relapse' were most common (14.7%-16.9%). No serious opportunistic infection, macular oedema or malignancy was reported and no bradyarrhythmia of clinical concern was observed by Holter or 12-lead electrocardiogram. The dose-dependent effect of amiselimod on clinical and magnetic resonance imaging-related outcomes from the core study was sustained in those continuing on amiselimod and similarly observed after switching to active drug. Conclusion: For up to 2years of treatment, amiselimod was well tolerated and dose-dependently effective in controlling disease activity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available