Comparative Effectiveness vs DMF

A propensity score-matched retrospective claims analysis

Real-world comparative effectiveness of VUMERITY vs DMF1

Study description:

A retrospective, real-world claims analysis using the Forian administrative claims database evaluated the comparative effectiveness of VUMERITY vs DMF on relapse outcomes in patients with MS. The study included patients initiating VUMERITY or DMF and were propensity score-matched (1:3 ratio) based on baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Outcomes were assessed over 1- and 2-year follow-up periods. The primary endpoint was annualized relapse rate (ARR).

Limitations:

  • Real-world retrospective claims analyses lack randomization and are subject to potential coding errors, inability to verify reported diagnoses, and limited clinical detail (eg, disease severity and disability level)
  • MS relapses were identified using claims-based algorithms rather than clinical adjudication due to the absence of a specific ICD-10 code
  • Use of open and closed claims data may introduce fragmentation and potential underestimation of relapse rates, although this is expected to be consistent across cohorts
  • The DMF cohort included both branded and generic formulations over the study period
  • Residual confounding may remain despite propensity score matching, as unmeasured factors (eg, lifestyle, MS phenotype) were not captured

VUMERITY patients had a lower ARR over 2 years1

31% lower relapse rate vs DMF at 2 years1

Study was funded by Biogen.