DMT44
Patient Experience on Diroximel Fumarate (DRF) from the Mymsteam Social Network: Considerations for Dmt Selection

Thursday, June 2, 2022
Prince George's Exhibit Hall (Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center)
Meghan Garabedian, CRNP, MSN, MSCN , Neurology, Penn Neuroscience Center, Perelmen Center for Advanced Medicine, Philadelphia, PA
Cortnee Roman, MSN, FNP-BC , Rocky Mountain Multiple Sclerosis Clinic and Research Group, Salt Lake City, UT
Denise R Bruen, MSN , University of Virginia Neuroscience, Charlottesville, VA
Kevin Benny, BS , MyMSTeam, San Francisco, CA
Elizabeth Luce, BS, MBA , MyHealthTeam, San Francisco, CA
Beth Schneider, PhD , MyMSTeam, San Francisco, CA
Shivani Kapadia, PharmD, RPh , Biogen, Cambridge, MA
Jason P Mendoza, PhD , Biogen, Cambridge, MA
James B Lewin, PharmD , Biogen, Cambridge, MA
Mary Zhang, PharmD , Biogen, Cambridge, MA
Sai L Shankar, PhD , Biogen, Cambridge, MA
PDF


Background: Biogen and MyHealthTeam surveyed members of the MyMSTeam social network to evaluate multiple sclerosis (MS) patient experience with DRF and dimethyl fumarate (DMF).

Objectives: To evaluate patient reported outcomes for patients with MS currently taking DRF (Vumerity®) including benefits, tolerability, and mitigation strategies. Awareness, interest, and barriers to considering DRF were also evaluated.

Methods: An anonymous online survey was conducted of users of MyMSTeam, a social network of over 179,000 people diagnosed with MS. The survey was fielded in January 2022. All respondents were US residents and ≥21 years of age.

Results: Of 452 people surveyed, 36 (8%) were receiving DRF, 77 (17%) were receiving DMF, 122 (27%) had previously received DMF, and 82 (18%) were receiving other (non-DMF/DRF) oral DMTs. Of the 36 DRF patients, prior DMT use included DMF (64%), glatiramer acetate (25%), interferon beta-1a (11%), fingolimod (8%) and ocrelizumab (8%); 17% took DRF as first-line therapy.

Most common reasons for initiating DRF were health care provider’s (HCP) recommendation (75%) and preference for an oral treatment (44%). 69% of patients on DRF reported physical benefits despite an average treatment duration of less than 1 year. Physical benefits reported for DRF include slowed disease progression (42%), decreased relapses (31%), and prevention of new symptoms (28%).

83% of DRF patients reported that side effects were somewhat/very tolerable. No gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability issues were reported by 58% of the patients on DRF. 64% utilized a 1-week titration and 64% took DRF doses with a meal.

Of patients receiving DMF, 32% expressed interest in DRF when informed it would be similar to DMF but with fewer GI issues. Important considerations among current DMF users in asking the HCP about DRF include if their insurance plan covers it (55%), if their current DMT stops working (45%), and if their HCP encourages them to switch (43%). The DRF dosing schedule was cited as a reason not to consider DRF in only 8% of patients on injectable DMTs and 19% of those on other non-fumarate oral DMTs.

Conclusions: HCP recommendation for which DMT a patient takes is an important consideration when starting therapy. However, the decision to remain on a treatment is determined by efficacy and tolerability. Early real-world data suggest that DRF is well tolerated and the majority of DRF patients reported experiencing physical benefits.

Study support: Biogen.