← Back
NeuroTrials.ai
Neurology Clinical Trial Database

OPTIMUM-LTE

Long-term safety and efficacy of ponesimod in participants with relapsing multiple sclerosis: results from the phase 3 OPTIMUM 5-year long term extension study

Year of Publication: 2026

Authors: Montalban X, Hohlfeld R, Pozzilli C, ..., Kappos L

Journal: Journal of Neurology

Citation: Montalban X, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of ponesimod in participants with relapsing multiple sclerosis: results from the phase 3 OPTIMUM 5-year long term extension study. J Neurol. 2026;273(4):234.

Link: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-026-13675-7


Clinical Question

Is the efficacy and safety of ponesimod maintained over 5 years of extended treatment in relapsing MS, and does switching from teriflunomide to ponesimod sustain disease control?

Bottom Line

In the open-label OPTIMUM long-term extension, ponesimod 20 mg maintained low relapse rates and sustained disease control over 5 years in relapsing MS with no new safety signals; participants who switched from teriflunomide to ponesimod also had low relapse activity, though continuous ponesimod achieved higher NEDA-3 (17.5% vs 7.5%).

Major Points

  • Of 1133 participants who completed the OPTIMUM core study, 877 enrolled in the 240-week (5-year) open-label extension (P20/P20: 439; T14/P20: 438).
  • Mean ARR over the combined analysis period was 0.143 (95% CL 0.123–0.167) for continuous ponesimod and 0.184 (95% CL 0.158–0.213) for the teriflunomide-to-ponesimod switch group.
  • Relapse occurred in 44.3% of P20/P20 vs 49.5% of T14/P20 participants over the extension.
  • NEDA-3 at end of the extension was achieved by 17.5% of continuous-ponesimod vs 7.5% of switch-group participants.
  • Safety was consistent with the known ponesimod profile: 93.6% of both groups had ≥1 TEAE, serious TEAEs in 12.9% overall, treatment-discontinuation TEAEs in 8.6% overall, and no new safety signals.
  • All efficacy analyses were descriptive (open-label, non-comparative), as baseline characteristics may not be comparable between groups at extension entry.

Design

Study Type: Prospective, multicenter, open-label, non-comparative long-term extension of the phase 3 OPTIMUM study

Randomization:

Blinding: Open-label (the parent OPTIMUM core study was double-blind, randomized 1:1)

Allocation: Continuation by prior core-study assignment; teriflunomide-treated participants switched to ponesimod at extension entry

Follow-up Duration: Treatment period up to 240 weeks (~5 years); up to 288 weeks in Ukraine; combined analysis period from core randomization onward

Centers: 0

Countries:

Sample Size: 877

Analyzed: 877

Analysis: Descriptive efficacy analyses without formal statistical comparison between groups; all efficacy endpoints exploratory

Power Calculation: No formal power calculation; sample size determined by the number of core-study completers who consented to enter the extension

Registration: NCT02425644


Inclusion Criteria

  • Completion of the 108-week double-blind treatment period of the phase 3 OPTIMUM core study
  • Completion of the core study safety follow-up period
  • Sufficient compliance with the accelerated teriflunomide elimination procedure (assessed at follow-up visit 1 or abbreviated follow-up visit 2)
  • Core-study criteria: age 18–55, relapsing MS (RRMS or SPMS with relapses per 2010 McDonald criteria), EDSS 0–5.5, recent clinical or MRI activity

Arms

FieldP20/P20 (continuous ponesimod)Control
N439438
InterventionPonesimod 20 mg once daily continued from the core study (with up-titration 2→10 mg over days 1–14, then 20 mg maintenance)Switched from teriflunomide 14 mg once daily to ponesimod 20 mg once daily at extension entry (with up-titration then 20 mg maintenance)
DurationUp to 240 weeksUp to 240 weeks

Outcomes

OutcomeTypeControlInterventionHR / OR / RRP-value
Annualized relapse rate (ARR), defined as the number of confirmed relapses per patient-year, over the combined analysis period (exploratory)PrimaryT14/P20: 0.184 (95% CL 0.158–0.213)P20/P20: 0.143 (95% CL 0.123–0.167)Not applicable (descriptive, non-comparative analysis)
SecondaryT14/P20: 49.5%P20/P20: 44.3%Not applicable (descriptive)
SecondaryT14/P20: 7.5%P20/P20: 17.5%Not applicable (descriptive)
SafetyT14/P20: 93.6%P20/P20: 93.6%
SafetyT14/P20: 13.0%P20/P20: 12.8%
SafetyT14/P20: 9.4%P20/P20: 7.7%
93.6% in both groupsAdverse
Overall 12.9% (P20/P20 12.8%; T14/P20 13.0%)Adverse
Overall 8.6% (P20/P20 7.7%; T14/P20 9.4%)Adverse
None reportedAdverse

Criticisms

  • Open-label, non-comparative extension; all efficacy analyses were descriptive and exploratory with no formal statistical testing.
  • Baseline characteristics may not be comparable between groups at extension entry, and the switch group had a treatment change confounding direct comparison.
  • Selection/survivorship bias: only core-study completers (877 of 1133) entered the extension.
  • Variable treatment exposure, since the treatment period could be shortened in some countries once ponesimod became commercially available (or extended to 288 weeks in Ukraine).

Funding

Johnson & Johnson

Based on: OPTIMUM-LTE (Journal of Neurology, 2026)

Authors: Montalban X, Hohlfeld R, Pozzilli C, ..., Kappos L

Citation: Montalban X, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of ponesimod in participants with relapsing multiple sclerosis: results from the phase 3 OPTIMUM 5-year long term extension study. J Neurol. 2026;273(4):234.

Content summarized and formatted by NeuroTrials.ai.