Skip to main content
. 2020 Jul 24;34(9):973–988. doi: 10.1007/s40263-020-00749-x

Table 2.

Efficacy through 9 years in alemtuzumab-treated patients with HAD according to different definitions (CARE-MS I and II pooled)

Parameter Alemtuzumab-treated patients
Primary HAD definition (N = 208)a Alternative HAD definition 1 (N = 438)b Alternative HAD definition 2 (N = 174)c Alternative HAD definition 3 (N = 180)d
Proportion of the overall pooled CARE-MS alemtuzumab-treated population satisfying each HAD definition (%) 26 54 21 22
Proportion of patients who received neither additional alemtuzumab nor another DMT in the extensions (%) 50 50 41 40
Proportion of patients who received additional alemtuzumab (%) 48g 48h 55i 55j
 3 total courses, % 26g 25h 26i 29j
 4 total courses, % 14g 15h 18i 16j
 5 total courses, % 5g 4h 8i 7j
 6 total courses, % 2g 2h 1i 2j
 7 total courses, % 0.5g 0.5h 2i 1j
 8 total courses, % 0.5g 0.2h 0 0.6j
ARR over Y3–9 (95% CI) 0.16 (0.13–0.19) 0.18 (0.16–0.21) 0.17 (0.14–0.21) 0.17 (0.14–0.21)
Proportion of patients relapse-free over Y3–9 (%) (95% CI)e 53 (45–61) 51 (46–57) 47 (39–56) 47 (38–56)
Mean EDSS score change over Y0–9 (95% CI) 0.17 (− 0.06 to 0.39) 0.19 (0.04–0.34) 0.28 (0.01–0.55) 0.33 (0.03–0.63)
Proportion of patients with improved or stable EDSS over Y0–9f (%) 72 (improved 25; stable 47) 71 (improved 22; stable 50) 70 (improved 22; stable 48) 66 (improved 22; stable 44)
Proportion of patients free of 6-month CDW over Y0–9 (%) (95% CI) 62 (54–69) 64 (59–69) 59 (51–66) 56 (48–64)
Proportion of patients with 6-month CDI over Y0–9 (%) (95% CI) 50 (41–59) 46 (40–52) 49 (40–59) 51 (42–60)
Proportion of patients free of MRI disease activity in Y9 (%) (95% CI)e 69 (61–77) 69 (63–74) 57 (48–66) 69 (60–78)
Proportion of patients with NEDA in Y9 (%) (95% CI)e 62 (54–70) 61 (56–67) 53 (44–63) 59 (49–69)
Proportion of patients with cumulative NEDA over Y3–9 (%) (95% CI)e 18 (11–25) 20 (15–26) 9 (3–15) 10 (3–17)
Median BPF change over Y0–9 (%) (95% CI) − 2.15 (− 2.65 to − 1.78) − 1.77 (− 2.02 to − 1.55) − 2.40 (− 2.80 to − 2.05) − 1.80 (− 2.20 to − 1.35)

Improved EDSS score: ≥ 1.0-point decrease from core study baseline; stable EDSS score: ≤ 0.5-point change in either direction from core study baseline

CDW: ≥ 1.0-point EDSS increase from core study baseline (or ≥ 1.5 points if baseline EDSS = 0) confirmed over 6 months

CDI: ≥ 1.0-point EDSS decrease from core study baseline confirmed over 6 months (assessed only in patients with baseline EDSS score ≥ 2.0)

Freedom from MRI disease activity: no new Gd-enhancing T1 lesions on current MRI and no new/enlarging T2 hyperintense lesions since last MRI

NEDA: absence of relapse, 6-month CDW, and MRI disease activity

ARR annualized relapse rate, BPF brain parenchymal fraction, CARE-MS Comparison of Alemtuzumab and Rebif® Efficacy in Multiple Sclerosis, CDI confirmed disability improvement, CDW confirmed disability worsening, CI confidence interval, DMT disease-modifying therapy, EDSS Expanded Disability Status Scale, Gd gadolinium, HAD highly active disease, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, NEDA no evidence of disease activity, Y year

aPrimary HAD definition: ≥ 2 relapses in the year prior to baseline and ≥ 1 Gd-enhancing lesion at baseline (number of evaluable patients ranged from 112 to 208)

bAlternative HAD definition 1: ≥ 2 relapses in year prior, independent of Gd-enhancing lesion count at baseline (number of evaluable patients ranged from 211 to 438)

cAlternative HAD definition 2: ≥ 1 relapse in year prior and ≥ 3 Gd-enhancing lesions at baseline (number of evaluable patients ranged from 98 to 174)

dAlternative HAD definition 3:  ≥ 1 relapse and ≥ 1 Gd-enhancing lesion in the year prior to baseline while on therapy with another DMT (number of evaluable patients ranged from 79 to 180)

eCIs were calculated using the Wald method

fValues may not sum appropriately due to rounding

gN = 191

hN = 401

iN = 159

jN = 161

HHS Vulnerability Disclosure