Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-2
Risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with multiple sclerosis treated with fingolimod compared to natalizumab: A nationwide cohort study of 2095 patients in Denmark
Fingolimod may be associated with risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD). Studies including reference groups and long follow-up are scarce.
Objectives:
We hypothesized that patients treated with fingolimod would be at higher risk of developing CVD compared to patients treated with natalizumab.
Methods:
A nationwide 12-year cohort study linking individual-level data from the Danish Multiple Sclerosis Registry with health registries on 2095 adult patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) without any health records of CVD at follow-up start. Exposure to fingolimod and natalizumab was defined by the first treatment of at least 3 months. Cohort entry was from 2011 to 2018. We defined CVD as a composite measure, including hypertension, ischemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke. We used multivariable adjusted Cox regression.
Results:
There were 28.8 and 17.4 CVD events per 1000 person-years in fingolimod and natalizumab groups, respectively. Compared to natalizumab-treated patients, fingolimod-treated patients had a higher risk of CVD (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.18–2.08). Hypertension comprised 200 of 244 CVD events.
Conclusion:
We found an increased risk of CVD in patients with MS treated with fingolimod. This increased risk was mainly due to hypertension.
KapposLRadueEWO’ConnorP, et al. A Placebo-controlled trial of oral fingolimod in relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med2010; 362(5): 387–401.
3.
VoldsgaardAKoch-HenriksenNMagyariM, et al. Early safety and efficacy of fingolimod treatment in Denmark. Acta Neurol Scand2017; 135(1): 129–133.
4.
LinkerRAWendtG. Cardiac safety profile of first dose of fingolimod for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in real-world settings: Data from a German prospective multi-center observational study. Neurol Ther2016; 5(2): 193–201.
5.
ZhaoZLvYGuZC, et al. Risk for cardiovascular adverse events associated with Sphingosine-1-Phosphate receptor modulators in patients with multiple sclerosis: Insights From a pooled analysis of 15 randomised controlled trials. Front Immunol2021; 12: 795574.
6.
ButzkuevenHLicataSJefferyD, et al. Natalizumab versus fingolimod for patients with active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: Results from REVEAL, a prospective, randomised head-to-head study. BMJ Open2020; 10(10): e038861.
7.
SaidaTItoyamaYKikuchiS, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of fingolimod in Japanese patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis: 3-year results of the phase 2 extension study. BMC Neurol2017; 17(1): 17.
8.
BatistaSNunesCCCerqueiraJJ, et al. REALMS study: Real-world effectiveness and safety of fingolimod in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Portugal. Neurol Sci2021; 42(5): 1995–2003.
9.
Meca-LallanaJEOreja-GuevaraCMuñozD, et al. Four-year safety and effectiveness data from patients with multiple sclerosis treated with fingolimod: The Spanish GILENYA registry. PLoS ONE2021; 16(10): e0258437.
10.
PapeixCCastelnovoGLerayE, et al. Long-term effectiveness, safety and tolerability of fingolimod in patients with multiple sclerosis in real-world treatment settings in France: The VIRGILE study. Neurol Ther2022; 11(2): 633–658.
11.
ZiemssenTLangMSchmidtS, et al. Long-term real-world effectiveness and safety of fingolimod over 5 years in Germany. J Neurol2022; 269(6): 3276–3285.
12.
BiernackiTSandiDFüvesiJ, et al. The safety and efficacy of fingolimod: Real-world data from a long-term, non-interventional study on the treatment of RRMS patients spanning up to 5 years from Hungary. PLoS ONE2022; 17(4): e267346.
13.
MitsikostasDDOrologasADardiotisE, et al. A prospective, observational study assessing effectiveness, safety, and QoL of Greek patients with multiple sclerosis under treatment with fingolimod. Adv Ther2023; 40(5): 2217–2233.
14.
PolmanCHO’ConnorPWHavrdovaE, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med2006; 354(9): 899–910.
MagyariMJoensenHLaursenB, et al. The Danish Multiple Sclerosis Registry. Brain Behav2021; 11(1): e01921.
17.
SchmidtMSchmidtSASandegaardJL, et al. The Danish National Patient Registry: A review of content, data quality, and research potential. Clin Epidemiol2015; 7: 449–490.
18.
Helweg-LarsenK. The Danish register of causes of death. Scand J Public Health2011; 39(7): 26–29.
19.
Wallach KildemoesHToft SørensenHHallasJ. The Danish National Prescription Registry. Scand J Public Health2011; 39(7 Suppl.): 38–41.
20.
PedersenCB. The Danish civil registration system. Scand J Public Health2011; 39(7 Suppl.): 22–25.
21.
MackenbachJPStirbuIRoskamAJR, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries. N Engl J Med2008; 358(23): 2468–2481.
22.
ZhangJFangYYaoY, et al. Disparities in cardiovascular disease prevalence among middle-aged and older adults: Roles of socioeconomic position, social connection, and behavioral and physiological risk factors. Front Cardiovasc Med2022; 9: 972683.
23.
AltmanDGAndersenPK. Calculating the number needed to treat for trials where the outcome is time to an event. Br Med J1999; 319(7223): 1492.
24.
CohenJATenenbaumNBhattA, et al. Extended treatment with fingolimod for relapsing multiple sclerosis: The 14-year LONGTERMS study results. Ther Adv Neurol Disord2019; 12: 1756286419878324.
25.
ChristiansenCFChristensenSFarkasDK, et al. Risk of arterial cardiovascular diseases in patients with multiple sclerosis: A population-based cohort study. Neuroepidemiology2010; 35(4): 267–274.
26.
ChengSClaggettBCorreiaAW, et al. Temporal trends in the population attributable risk for cardiovascular disease: The atherosclerosis risk in communities study. Circulation2014; 130(10): 820–828.
27.
KalincikTButzkuevenH. Observational data: Understanding the real MS world. Mult Scler2016; 22(13): 1642–1648.
28.
StürmerTJoshiMGlynnRJ, et al. A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods. J Clin Epidemiol2006; 59(5): 437–447.
29.
MendesDAlvesCBatel-MarquesF. Number needed to treat (NNT) in clinical literature: An appraisal. BMC Med2017; 15(1): 112.
30.
Sahl AndersenJDe Fine OlivariusNKrasnikA. The Danish National Health Service Register. Scand J Public Health2011; 39(7 Suppl.): 34–37.
