Gavin Giovannoni

ADIOS

Yes, why can’t we use anti-CD20 therapies as an immune constitution therapy (IRT) or at least adapt the dose based on B-cell reconstitution kinetics? And if we can’t beat the Swedes why can’t we join them?

ADIOS = ADaptIve Ocrelizumab dosing Study

There is mounting evidence from NMO and rheumatology that anti-CD20 therapies can be used as either a maintenance therapy or an immune reconstitution therapy (IRT). Another way of using them is to adjust the dose based on memory B-cell reconstitution (MBR) kinetics.

Adapting the dose of anti-CD20 therapies using MBR or as IRT has appeal as it will almost certainly be safer in terms of infections, the emergence of hypogammaglobulinaemia and possibly the ability to respond to vaccines. It could also lead to better family planning by being able to expand the treatment-free period safely. Another plus would be cost-saving for the NHS and the other healthcare systems.

We are therefore in the process of designing a new trial to test standard interval dosing (SID) of ocrelizumab vs. adaptive dosing either using an MBR or an IRT protocol. What do you think? If you were on ocrelizumab would you sign up for this study? The advantage for you is that it may make your treatment safer in the long-term and it will potentially save the NHS millions.

CoI: multiple

A sequence of losses

Prof G has the MS community go it wrong?

In this week’s NEJM there is an insightful perspective by Louise Aronson on ageing and driving.

Aronson. Don’t Ruin My Life — Aging and Driving in the 21st Century. N Engl J Med 2019; 380:705-707.

Louise quotes the American poet Donald Hall, who explains in Essays After Eighty how life is irrevocably and excruciatingly changed when a person must let go of their car: “For years I drove slowly and cautiously, but when I was eighty I had two accidents. I stopped driving before I killed somebody, and now when I shop or see a doctor, someone has to drive me. …Old age is a ceremony of losses.”

Although this refers to old age the same can be said for someone with MS. MS is a sequence of losses. Does it have to be this like this? I hope not, but to get to this position we need to go beyond NEDA.

I am running one of our Barts-MS teaching programmes this week in which a case was presented by one of the delegates. The lady, who is in her early thirties, has a diagnosis of relapsing MS and is NEDA, off therapy for 5 years, i.e. no relapses and no new T2 lesions. However, when you look at her sequential MRIs next to each other it is clear that she has progressive brain volume loss. She has NEDA-3, but clearly, something else is happening to her brain. I suggested to the neurologist looking after this patient to interrogate her in detail, i.e. to measure her brain volume, send her for cognitive testing, arrange for a more objective interrogation of her neurological functioning and to do a lumbar puncture to assess if she has inflammation and ongoing damage as measured by CSF neurofilament levels. In other words, don’t rely on what we have now to assess her MS disease activity.

The problem we have is that we have created a beast called NEDA and the wider MS community now think evident disease activity or EDA (relapses and focal MRI activity) is MS. EDA is obviously not MS. It is clear that EDA in untreated patients is a very poor predictor of outcome. IF EDA was MS it would predict outcome regardless of being treated or not. In other words, EDA fails one of Prentice’s criteria for being a surrogate marker of MS.

Despite writing frequently on the topic that MS is not due to relapses and/or focal MRI activity the dogma seems to stick. I have arguably helped create NEDA as a treatment target and have been responsible for some of its stickiness as a treatment target. Can I admit I am wrong? NEDA is a useful construct, but it is now becoming a barrier to treating MS properly.

If I was a behavioural psychologist I would be referring to NEDA as the new cognitive bias. We need to shift our worldview of MS away from an MRI worldview. What we should be doing is creating a biological worldview of MS and asking what is happening in the ‘field‘ or the brains of people with MS. We have to explain why end-organ damage is ongoing despite switching off focal inflammatory activity. What is driving SELs (slowly expanding lesions), the subpial cortical lesion, grey matter atrophy and the accelerated brain volume loss? If we don’t then MS will remain a sequence of losses.

News for alemtuzumabers

Prof G what can be done to manage my hyperthyroidism if I want to fall pregnant?

Carbimazole is associated with an increased risk of congenital malformations, especially when administered in the first trimester of pregnancy and at high doses. Women of childbearing potential should use effective contraception during treatment with carbimazole.

Carbimazole: increased risk of congenital malformations; strengthened advice on contraception

As you know about 40% of women treated with alemtuzumab go onto to develop hyperthyroidism. The number one drug for controlling thyrotoxicosis is carbimazole. The fact that it is teratogenic is a problem as a lot of women with MS choose to be treated with alemtuzumab so that they can fall pregnant safely off a DMT.

Endocrinologists will have to rely on using propylthiouracil another oral medication that is used to manage hyperthyroidism. Although propylthiouracil may be given in pregnancy it crosses the placenta and in high doses may cause foetal goitre and hypothyroidism, therefore the lowest possible dose should be given and thyroid function monitored every 4-6 weeks to maintain optimum control. Propylthiouracil also transfers to breast milk but this does not necessarily preclude breastfeeding. Neonatal development and infant thyroid function should be closely monitored.

The management of MS gets more complex. I am becoming an endocrinologist in my spare time 😉

Playing second fiddle to the Swedes

Why can’t we use anti-CD20 therapies as immune constitution therapies?

For some years we have been promoting our Barts-MS Essential DMT list to treat people with MS (pwMS) in resource-poor environments. One of the big guns on our list has been rituximab (anti-CD20). One of the problems is that rituximab at a dose of 1g every 6 months is still too expensive to accessible for the vast majority of MSers living in these environments. The good news is that several developments have brought the price of rituximab down.

The Swedes, who are treating more than half their MS population, have data showing that 500mg every 6 months is as good as 1g every 6 months in terms of NEDA, i.e. preventing new relapses and new MR lesions from forming.
Rituximab has come off patent and several cheap biosimilars are now entering the market.
The Swedes are also testing adaptive dosing, i.e. after 2 years of 6 monthly infusions, they are extending the interval between doses to 12 months or more and/or are even beginning to redose rituximab based on peripheral memory B-cell reconstitution. At a recent meeting, I was at one Swedish neurologist is beginning to use rituximab as an IRT (immune reconstitution therapy), i.e. only redosing with rituximab if and when disease activity re-emerges.

I classify anti-CD20 therapies as both a maintenance therapy and an IRT. At the last AAN in Los Angeles, I attended a meeting of like-minded clinical scientists to set-up a trial to test anti-CD20 as a maintenance therapy vs. an IRT. The retreatment arms of the trial were to test redosing based on the reemergence of disease activity or the repopulation of memory B cells. Using anti-CD20 therapies as an IRT has appeal as it will almost certainly be safer in terms of infections, the emergence of hypogammaglobulinaemia and ability to respond to vaccines.

I am therefore very interested in seeing the results of the Swedish experiment of testing rituximab as a maintenance therapy vs. rituximab as an IRT. Just maybe we can get the price of treating MS with rituximab down to affordable levels for low-income countries.

The following is a back of envelope calculations based on the current BNF prices:

Mabthera (Roche) 500mg = £873.15 per 500mg vial
Rixathon (Sandoz) = £785.84 per 500mg vial
Truxima (Napp) = £785.84 per 500mg vial

Standard dose (1g) Mabthera maintenance regimen: 1g Day 0, 1g Day 14 then 1g 6 monthly indefinitely = £873.15 x 10= £8731.50 for the first 2 years and then £3492.60 annually.
Standard dose (1g) biosimilar maintenance regimen: 1g Day 0, 1g Day 14 then 1g 6 monthly indefinitely = £785.84 x 5 = £7858.40 for the first 2 years and then £3143.36 annually.
Reduced dose (500mg) Mabthera maintenance regimen: 1g Day 0, 1g Day 14 then 1g 6 monthly indefinitely = £873.15 x 10= £4365.75 for the first 2 years and then £1746.30 annually.
Reduced dose (500mg) biosimilar maintenance regimen: 1g Day 0, 500mg Day 14 then 500mg 6 monthly indefinitely = £785.84 x 5 = £3929.20 for the first 2 years and then £1571.68 annually.
Reduced dose (500mg) biosimilar maintenance regimen: 500mg Day 0, 500mg Day 14 then 500mg 6 monthly indefinitely = £785.84 x 5 = £3929.20 for the first 2 years and then £1571.68 annually.
Adaptive dose (500mg) biosimilar maintenance regimen: 500mg Day 0, 500mg Day 14 then 500mg 6 monthly for 2year and then 500mg approximately every 12 months = £785.84 x 5 = £3929.20 for the first 2 years and then £785.84 annually (the latter may be lower if redosing is done using peripheral B cell reconstitution).

Please note these figures are the list price and don’t include discounts, VAT nor the infusion costs. In reality, these costs could come down with central, say NHS, purchasing power. Unfortunately, they are still too high to help pwMS in low-income countries. Just maybe getting MS and anti-CD20 therapies onto the WHO Essential Medicines List may bring down the costs by creating political pressure on the Pharma industry or innovations in making cheap biosimilars may also help.

The Caveat

There is one major caveat I have about putting up anti-CD20 as the solution for MS is that we may be getting it wrong. I personally don’t think relapses and focal MRI activity are the disease we call MS; these markers are an inflammatory response to what is causing the disease. Therefore I suspect we may be lulling ourselves into a false sense of security with anti-CD20 therapies and ignoring what is really driving the disease, i.e. what is causing the end-organ damage in MS.

Do we know what is driving the slowly expanding lesion? What is causing the extensive cortical lesions in MS, which we can’t see on conventional MRI? What is driving the progressive brain volume and grey matter loss in MS? Don’t we need to go beyond NEDA as a treatment target? I know some would argue we have done this already, which is why so many MSers want HSCT as a first-line treatment option.

Are nutritional supplements a waste of money?

Do you take dietary supplements? If yes, are you prepared to review what you are taking and ask yourself if you need to spend the money taking something that is not supported by any evidence?

In the US the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently announced measures to regulate dietary supplements.

The FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said: “It’s clear that the US Food and Drug Administration plays an important role in helping consumers make use of safe, high-quality dietary supplements while also protecting Americans from the potential dangers of products that don’t meet the agency’s standards for marketing. He continued: “I’m concerned that changes in the supplement market may have outpaced the evolution of our own policies and our capacity to manage emerging risks. To continue to fulfil our public health obligations we need to modernize and strengthen our overall approach to these products. Toward these goals, the FDA is committing to new priorities when it comes to our oversight of dietary supplements at the same time that we carefully evaluate what more we can do to meet the challenge of effectively overseeing the dietary supplement market while still preserving the balance struck by Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act.”

The FDA’s priorities will include (1) communicating better about safety issues related with dietary supplements and (2) establishing a regulatory framework to promote innovation, as well as upholding product safety and (3) creating new strategies of enforcement.

Earlier this month, the FDA posted 12 warning letters and five online advisory letters to US and international companies, which are illegally selling more than 58 products, primarily dietary supplements, as treatments for serious health conditions, when their safety and efficacy is unknown.

Gottlieb stated: “Science and evidence are the cornerstone of the FDA’s review process and are imperative to demonstrating medical benefit, especially when a product is marketed to treat serious and complex diseases like Alzheimer’s. Alzheimer’s is a challenging disease that, unfortunately, has no cure. Any products making unproven drug claims could mislead consumers to believe that such therapies exist and keep them from accessing therapies that are known to help support the symptoms of the disease, or worse as some fraudulent treatments can cause serious or even fatal injuries. Simply put, health fraud scams prey on vulnerable populations, waste money and often delay proper medical care – and we will continue to take action to protect patients and caregivers from misleading unproven products.”

The advice above applies to people with MS. We have no evidence that pwMS need to take any supplements. If you eat a healthy balanced diet, for example the Mediterranean diet, you don’t need supplements. The only supplement I routinely recommend to my patients is vitamin D (vD). Why? There is no evidence that vD makes any difference to the outcome of your MS, but it has a role to play in bone health. We know that pwMS are more likely to have thin bones (osteopenia and osteoporosis) and are much more likely to suffer falls and fractures. Extrapolating data from the studies in elderly women we recommend pwMS keep themselves vD replete. We also know that the vast majority of our patients with MS are vD insufficient or deficient. Why? They don’t get enough sunlight exposure to manufacture their own vD in their skin or enough vD from their diets. Recommending vD supplementation is therefore not really evidence-based; we need to do trials to see if it helps prevent fractures in pwMS.

Please let us know what supplements you are using and who recommended them? We really need to debate this issue. Too many of my patients can’t afford to make ends meet; not wasting money on unproven supplements is one-way of saving money.

Skint Britain

Did anyone watch ‘Skint Britain: friends without benefits’ on Channel 4 in the week?

‘Skint Britain: friends without benefits’ looks at the rollout and impact of the new Universal Credit scheme for British people who are unemployed or unable to work. The ‘big idea’ behind universal credit is to incentivise people who are unemployed to work or at least to be shown to be actively seeking work in order to ‘earn their benefits’. The scheme makes some basic assumptions that the people need to be literate and be able to use a web or smartphone based database to log their job seeking activities. One of the young men on the programme clearly had behavioural issues at school and was excluded from education; the result is a 21-year-old man who is unable to read and write. He has been let down by the system and the very same system is now excluding him yet again. He seemed to like animals and was using his pet dog to help him forage and catch wild moles, squirrels and rabbits, to feed himself and his girlfriend. What type of society are we living in that in 2019 we are forcing some of our citizens to forage for food? Not to mention the increasing use of food banks to survive.

Economists glibly refer to Britain as being post-industrial and in the throes of the 3rd industrial revolution, a euphemism for automation and un- or under-employment, without considering what we are doing to society. We are now a society of haves and have-nots; a society that is more divided than ever. The have-nots, who are touchingly, albeit tragically, portrayed in this Channel 4 documentary have little hope of getting out of the economic trap society has created for them.

On a personal note, I am seeing the impact of Britain’s new social policies on patients in my care. As you are aware most of my patients with MS are unemployed. As a result, a large proportion of my patients are on benefits and depend on these to survive and participate in society. A typical example is Susan, a patient of mine with MS, who I saw in clinic last week. Susan has secondary progressive MS and lives alone in a small flat in an East London tower block. Susan’s benefits were cut last year and as a result she is finding it increasingly difficult to come out each month on her meagre allowance. The person who reassessed Susan for her benefits is expecting Susan to look for and find work. Susan is semi-skilled and has an EDSS of 6.5 and is probably 12-24 months off needing a wheelchair. Any thinking, compassionate, person should know that Susan is not going be able to find and do any meaningful work; not at this stage of her MS.

Before her benefits were cut Susan was able to afford to travel and visit her daughter and two grandchildren in the Midlands every month. This visit was Susan’s highlight of the month. Susan can’t afford the train fare anymore. Susan rarely goes out anymore and is becoming increasingly isolated. Not surprisingly Susan is depressed. Simply asking Susan about her typical day was enough to reduce her to tears. Susan is also being let down by the system. What Susan needs are meaningful connections and interactions; friends and family to make her feel loved and wanted. Should the neurologist’s job extend into the social domain of their patients? I would argue yes. If we are to adopt a treatment target that maximises the lifelong brain health of our patients we can’t ignore the social determinants of health, which have a massive impact of outcomes.

To help people like Susan and our other patients we are exploring several initiatives this year to try and increase the social capital of our patients. We are not sure what our social capital programme will look like, but is quite clear that we can’t simply manage the medical side of MS and ignore the social consequences of living with this disease in modern Britain.

What to do about my haloes?

Why do MS lesions with an iron halo continue to expand?

The slowly expanding MS lesion or SEL is where the money or lack of money is. In my post ‘explaining why you are getting worse despite being NEDA‘ I mention SELs as one of the reasons that underlie progressive MS and are largely unresponsive or poorly responsive, to standard DMTs.

Danny Reich’s team at the NIH have convincingly showed how these lesions differ from other lesions that regress over time. The expanding lesions have a rim of macrophages/microglia on their edges that are actively phagocytosing, or eating, myelin. These lesions are characterised by a prolonged rim of Gd-enhancement and dark rim on MRI that occurs due to an accumulation of iron in macrophages/microglia. These lesions are very destructive and leave behind a black-hole on MRI; the so-called Swiss cheese brain.

SELs and black-holes are associated with more axonal loss. The pathological study below shows that these lesions are not found (or rarely found) around remyelinated shadow plaques. Iron rims were due to pro-inflammatory activated microglia/macrophages and only very rarely in astrocytes.

An important observation is that these lesions don’t seem to have prominent lymphocytes infiltrates; it is as if the macrophages/microglia in these lesions have become independent of adaptive (T and B cells) inflammation. Are these microglia dysregulated or are they responding appropriately to something in the surrounding tissue. One of the current hypotheses is that progressive MS is due to ‘hot microglia‘; the chronic expanding lesion may be the substrate for how microglia lead to progressive MS. Could SELs be the real disease?

Some have suggested these microglia are responding to the immunoglobulin that has bound to myelin or other components in the issue. Some have suggested the microglia are activated to clear up myelin that is being damaged by other mechanisms, for example, from viral or toxic factors.

SELs are found very early in the course of MS, even in the asymptomatic phase of MS or RIS (radiologically isolated syndrome) and a SEL forms in a strategic location it can drive worsening of disability in one pathway, such as progressive weakness of one side of the body (hemiplegia).

DMTs reduce the development of new SELs but have minimal impact on established SELs. This is another reason why we need to treat MS early and effectively. Clearly, to address SELs we will need to do a lot more research and develop new CNS-penetrant drugs that target the pathogenic mechanisms that are driving the expansion of these lesions. This may include add-on drugs to scrub the CNS clean of plasma cells, i.e. the cells that are producing the abnormal immunoglobulins, antivirals to switch off the causative virus or drugs that switch off macrophages/microglia. I am a little sceptical about the latter approach; I truly believe the microglia and macrophages are simply doing their jobs and are responding to the cause of the disease.

Dal-Bianco et al. Slow expansion of multiple sclerosis iron rim lesions: pathology and 7 T magnetic resonance imaging. Acta Neuropathol. 2016 Oct 27.

Background: In multiple sclerosis (MS), iron accumulates inside activated microglia/macrophages at edges of some chronic demyelinated lesions, forming rims. In susceptibility-based magnetic resonance imaging at 7 T, iron-laden microglia/macrophages induce a rim of decreased signal at lesion edges and have been associated with slowly expanding lesions.

Aims: We aimed to determine (1) what lesion types and stages are associated with iron accumulation at their edges, (2) what cells at the lesion edges accumulate iron and what is their activation status, (3) how reliably can iron accumulation at the lesion edge be detected by 7 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and (4) if lesions with rims enlarge over time in vivo, when compared to lesions without rims.

Methods: Double-hemispheric brain sections of 28 MS cases were stained for iron, myelin, and microglia/macrophages. Prior to histology, 4 of these 28 cases were imaged at 7 T using post-mortem susceptibility-weighted imaging. In vivo, seven MS patients underwent annual neurological examinations and 7 T MRI for 3.5 years, using a fluid attenuated inversion recovery/susceptibility-weighted imaging fusion sequence.

Results: Pathologically, we found iron rims around slowly expanding and some inactive lesions but hardly around remyelinated shadow plaques. Iron in rims was mainly present in microglia/macrophages with a pro-inflammatory activation status, but only very rarely in astrocytes. Histological validation of post-mortem susceptibility-weighted imaging revealed a quantitative threshold of iron-laden microglia when a rim was visible. Slowly expanding lesions significantly exceeded this threshold, when compared with inactive lesions (p = 0.003).

Conclusions: We show for the first time that rim lesions significantly expanded in vivo after 3.5 years, compared to lesions without rims (p = 0.003). Thus, slow expansion of MS lesions with rims, which reflects chronic lesion activity, may, in the future, become an MRI marker for disease activity in MS.

What’s your excuse?

What will it take to get me to stop smoking?

If you are a smoker and continue to smoke you need to think about how you want to manage your own MS. We debate endlessly about the lack of progress in developing effective treatments to slow down the worsening of MS and ignore the obvious. The first study below implies that by simply stopping smoking it will have a major impact on the outcome of your MS. Do you want to stop smoking? If you do please ask your GP or family doctor to refer you to a stop smoking cessation clinic; please note it is very difficult to stop smoking without professional help.

I am going to use this post to blow our own trumpet. In this week’s New England Journal of Medicine is a paper from a group in our University showing that e-cigarettes are superior to nicotine replacement therapies in getting people to stop smoking. This is good news; e-cigarettes give those who are really addicted to nicotine the necessary ‘nicotine hit’, whilst reducing the harm associated with cigarettes. In my opinion, there is now really now no excuse for someone with MS to continue smoking. Or am I wrong?

How smoking speeds up the onset and rate of progressive MS is unknown. Smoking may simply unregulate proinflammatory mechanisms, reduce recovery mechanisms in the brain and spinal cord or speed up the development of comorbidities in particular vascular disease, which in turn speeds up the rate of worsening in progressive MS.

The effect of smoking on progressive MS may be independent of it being a risk factor for developing MS in the first place. We need more research in this area to see what it is about smoking that triggers MS. Based on other Swedish data it appears that it is something that is in smoked tobacco that is to blame. In Sweden use of snuff or non-smoked tobacco, does not increase your risk of getting MS; in fact, the risk of getting MS in snuff users is actually lower than that of the general population.

With my #PreventMS hat on is that if we get the population not to start smoking in the first place we can prevent 1 in 5 future people from developing MS. This is why it upsets me so much when my own children smoke. Even more worrying is that if you are loaded with the correct genetic factors that predispose you to develop MS your odds of getting MS are increased dramatically if you smoke. The latter is more reason to make sure your brothers and sisters, children, nephews and nieces don’t smoke. Tragically this is easier said than done.

Study 1

Ramanujam et al. Effect of Smoking Cessation on Multiple Sclerosis Prognosis. JAMA Neurol. 2015 Oct 1;72(10):1117-1123.

IMPORTANCE: Smoking tobacco is a well-established risk factor for multiple sclerosis (MS), a chronic inflammatory disorder of the central nervous system usually characterized by bouts and remissions and typically followed by a secondary progressive (SP) course. However, it is not clear whether smoking after diagnosis is detrimental.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether smoking after MS diagnosis is associated with a change in time to SP disease.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional study of patients with prevalent MS who smoked at diagnosis (n = 728) taken from the Genes and Environment in Multiple Sclerosis Study, which consists of patients from the Swedish National MS Registry. The study entrance date was at time of first-year smoking. The study was conducted between November 2008 and December 2011, with patient environmental data collected from November 2009 to March 2011 via questionnaire. Study participants were from all counties in Sweden diagnosed as having MS at the time of the Genes and Environment in Multiple Sclerosis Study and registered in the Swedish National MS Registry. Patients with MS with relapsing-remitting disease course or SP were included. These patients’ conditions were diagnosed according to the McDonald criteria and the patients responded to recruitment letters with detailed questionnaires.

EXPOSURE: Smoking, considered yearly after diagnosis and combined into a time-invariant covariate before diagnosis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Time to SPMS, measured using an accelerated failure time model, with smoking as a time-varying covariate. Other covariates included sex, age at diagnosis, snuff use, and smoking before diagnosis.

RESULTS: The optimized model illustrated that each additional year of smoking after diagnosis accelerated the time to conversion to SPMS by 4.7% (acceleration factor, 1.047; 95% CI, 1.023-1.072; P < .001). Kaplan-Meier plots demonstrated that those who continued to smoke continuously each year after diagnosis converted to SPMS faster than those who quit smoking, reaching SP disease at 48 and 56 years of age, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study provides evidence that continued smoking is associated with an acceleration in time to SPMS and that those who quit fare better. Therefore, we propose that patients with MS should be advised to stop smoking once a diagnosis has been made, not only to lessen risks for comorbidities, but also to avoid aggravating MS-related disability.

Study 2

Hajeck et al. A Randomized Trial of E-Cigarettes versus Nicotine-Replacement Therapy. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 30.

BACKGROUND: E-cigarettes are commonly used in attempts to stop smoking, but evidence is limited regarding their effectiveness as compared with that of nicotine products approved as smoking-cessation treatments.

METHODS: We randomly assigned adults attending U.K. National Health Service stop-smoking services to either nicotine-replacement products of their choice, including product combinations, provided for up to 3 months, or an e-cigarette starter pack (a second-generation refillable e-cigarette with one bottle of nicotine e-liquid [18 mg per milliliter]), with a recommendation to purchase further e-liquids of the flavor and strength of their choice. Treatment included weekly behavioral support for at least 4 weeks. The primary outcome was sustained abstinence for 1 year, which was validated biochemically at the final visit. Participants who were lost to follow-up or did not provide biochemical validation were considered to not be abstinent. Secondary outcomes included participant-reported treatment usage and respiratory symptoms.

RESULTS: A total of 886 participants underwent randomization. The 1-year abstinence rate was 18.0% in the e-cigarette group, as compared with 9.9% in the nicotine-replacement group (relative risk, 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30 to 2.58; P<0.001). Among participants with 1-year abstinence, those in the e-cigarette group were more likely than those in the nicotine-replacement group to use their assigned product at 52 weeks (80% [63 of 79 participants] vs. 9% [4 of 44 participants]). Overall, throat or mouth irritation was reported more frequently in the e-cigarette group (65.3%, vs. 51.2% in the nicotine-replacement group) and nausea more frequently in the nicotine-replacement group (37.9%, vs. 31.3% in the e-cigarette group). The e-cigarette group reported greater declines in the incidence of cough and phlegm production from baseline to 52 weeks than did the nicotine-replacement group (relative risk for cough, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9; relative risk for phlegm, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9). There were no significant between-group differences in the incidence of wheezing or shortness of breath.

CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarettes were more effective for smoking cessation than nicotine-replacement therapy, when both products were accompanied by behavioral support. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and Cancer Research UK; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN60477608 .).

Study 3

Hedström et al. Smoking is a major preventable risk factor for multiple sclerosis.Mult Scler. 2015 Oct 12. pii: 1352458515609794.

BACKGROUND: Both smoking and exposure to passive smoking have repeatedly been associated with increased multiple sclerosis (MS) risk, but have never before been studied together. We assessed the public health impact of these factors.

METHODS: In a Swedish population-based case-control study (2455 cases, 5336 controls), we calculated odds ratios of developing MS associated with different categories of tobacco smoke exposure, together with 95% confidence intervals, by using logistic regression. The excess proportion of cases attributable to smoking and passive smoking was calculated as a percentage.

RESULTS: Both smoking and exposure to passive smoking contribute to MS risk in a dose-dependent manner. At the population level, 20.4% of all cases were attributable to smoke exposure. Among subjects carrying the genetic risk factor HLA-DRB1*15 but lacking HLA-A*02, 41% of the MS cases were attributable to smoking.

CONCLUSIONS: From a public health perspective, the impact of smoking and passive smoking on MS risk is considerable. Preventive measures in order to reduce tobacco smoke exposure are, therefore, essential. In particular, individuals with a history of MS in the family should be informed regarding the impact of smoking on the risk of MS, and the importance of preventing their children from being exposed to passive smoke.

To vaccinate or not?

Should your vaccine status be checked and updated before you start treatment?

As part of our programme to derisk disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for pwMS in our service, we are reviewing our vaccination policy. One issue that has emerged is the possible need to boost immunity to certain types of bacteria that are known to pose a risk in patients on long-term immunosuppression, in particular B cell depleters, such as rituximab, ocrelizumab and ofatumumab. Why?

Chronic B-cell depletion essentially prevents B-cells mounting an adequate antibody response to new antigens. It does this by preventing the formation of so-called germinal centres in the spleen and/or lymph nodes. In other words patients on longterm anti-CD20 therapy behave, from an immunological perspective, if they have had a functional splenectomy. This put patients with longterm B cell depletion at risk of hypogammaglobulinaemia (low immunoglobulin levels) in the future and predisposes them to infections caused by so-called encapsulated bacteria; these include pneumococcus, meningococcus and Haemophilus Influenzae.

When you review the rheumatoid arthritis literature in relation to longterm rituximab (anti-CD20) therapy both these problems have been documented. How do the rheumatologists deal with these problems? They appear to routinely monitor immunoglobulin levels and they proactively vaccinate their patients prior to starting long-term anti-CD20 therapy.

It seems pretty obvious to me, reading the rheumatology literature, that before you start long-term anti-CD20 therapy you should have your vaccination status checked and we should start vaccinating patients against pneumococcus, meningococcus and Haemophilus Influenzae B. In fact, pneumococcal vaccine is already recommended, if possible, for all patients before starting immunosuppressive treatments. It is clear for anti-CD20 therapies that the vaccines will need to be given prior to starting treatment (see Nguyen paper below).

We also recommend doing baseline immunoglobulin levels on all patients before starting treatment as a reference and then to start checking levels from year 3 onwards. I say year 3 because in the ocrelizumab trials we only saw a significant drop in IgM and IgA levels over 2 years and IgG levels were stable. Based on the rituximab data a drop in IgG levels is, therefore, only likely to emerge after 2 years of treatment.

I would be interested to know if any of you had your vaccine status discussed before you started maintenance immunosuppression?

Makatsori et al. Hypogammaglobulinaemia after rituximab treatment-incidence and outcomes. QJM. 2014 Oct;107(10):821-8.

BACKGROUND: Rituximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody against CD20, is increasingly used in the treatment of B-cell lymphomas and autoimmune conditions. Transient peripheral B-cell depletion is expected following rituximab therapy. Although initial clinical trials did not show significant hypogammaglobulinaemia, reports of this are now appearing in the literature.

METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients previously treated with rituximab that were referred to Clinical Immunology with symptomatic or severe hypogammaglobulinaemia. Patient clinical histories, immunological markers, length of rituximab treatment and need for intravenous immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IVIG) were evaluated. An audit of patients receiving rituximab for any condition in a 12-month period and frequency of hypogammaglobulinaemia was also carried out.

RESULTS: We identified 19 post-rituximab patients with persistent, symptomatic panhypogammaglobulinaemia. Mean IgG level was 3.42 ± 0.4 g/l (normal range 5.8-16.3 g/l). All patients had reduced or absent B-cells. Haemophilus Influenzae B, tetanus and Pneumococcal serotype-specific antibody levels were all reduced and patients failed to mount an immune response post-vaccination. Nearly all of them ultimately required IVIG. The mean interval from the last rituximab dose and need for IVIG was 36 months (range 7 months-7 years). Of note, 23.7% of 114 patients included in the audit had hypogammaglobulinaemia.

CONCLUSION: With the increasing use of rituximab, it is important for clinicians treating these patients to be aware of hypogammaglobulinaemia and serious infections occurring even years after completion of treatment and should be actively looked for during follow-up. Referral to clinical immunology services and, if indicated, initiation of IVIG should be considered.

Nguyen et al. Initial Serological Response after Prime-boost Pneumococcal Vaccination in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Rheumatol. 2017 Dec;44(12):1794-1803.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the initial serological responses to pneumococcal vaccination with the 13-valent protein-conjugated pneumococcal vaccine (PCV13) followed by the 23-valent polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine (PPV23) among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) according to dosing and intervals between immunizations.

METHODS: Investigator-initiated clinical trial. Patients with RA receiving bDMARD were randomized (1:1:1) to immunization with single dose PCV13 followed by PPV23 after 16 or 24 weeks, or double dose PCV13 followed by PPV23 after 16 weeks. A comparison group of patients with RA treated with conventional synthetic (cs)DMARD received single dose PCV13 followed by PPV23 16 weeks later. Pneumococcal antibodies were collected before and 4 weeks after each vaccination. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants responding to ≥ 6/12 pneumococcal serotypes 4 weeks after both vaccinations.

RESULTS: Sixty-five participants receiving bDMARD and 35 participants receiving csDMARD were included. After PPV23 vaccination, 87% (95% CI 0.76-0.94) and 94% (95% CI 0.77-0.99), respectively, of participants treated with bDMARD and csDMARD had reached the primary endpoint. There was no significant difference in primary endpoint between the 3 randomization arms. The response for rituximab-treated participants was 25% compared to ≥ 89% in participants treated with bDMARD with other mode of action.

CONCLUSION: The early serological response to prime-boost vaccination with PCV13 followed by PPV23 was very similar among participants receiving bDMARD and csDMARD. However, notable differences in response were observed according to individual bDMARD. It is important to consider the RA treatment when planning pneumococcal vaccination in patients with RA.

Friedman & Winthrop. Vaccinations for rheumatoid arthritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2016 May;28(3):330-6.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients experience increased infectious disease-related morbidity and mortality, and vaccinations represent an important element in their care. However, vaccine immunogenicity can be affected by disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy, such that vaccine choice and timing can be clinically challenging. We review the indications, safety, and immunogenicity of vaccines in the setting of RA.

RECENT FINDINGS: Recent recommendations highlight the use of influenza, pneumococcal, and shingles vaccines in RA patients. Studies suggest influenza and pneumococcal vaccines are underutilized, but well tolerated in RA patients and generally immunogenic during DMARD use with the exception of rituximab. Though data for other nonlive vaccines are more limited, hepatitis B virus and human papilloma virus vaccines also appear well tolerated and immunogenic in this population. Live vaccines for shingles and yellow fever remain contraindicated in some RA patients; however, limited data suggest they might be well tolerated in certain individuals.

SUMMARY: The review updates rheumatologists on the optimal use and timing of routine vaccinations in the care of RA.

CoI: multiple

EBV infects T-cells

Why are experts important?

In the so-called post-truth era experts are derided and ignored. Not at Barts-MS.

Last Friday we held a lock-in to review and discuss our EBV research programme and bring in expertise from outside our group. We were fortunate to have card-carrying EBV experts, oncologists, B-cell biologists and protein and antibody experts around the table. A central plank of the EBV hypothesis of MS has been built on the B-cell data, i.e. memory B-cells is one of the likely treatment targets for licensed DMTs and it just so happens to be the cell that EBV uses as its home. EBV hijacks the B-cell’s machinery and is so doing is likely to tip the balance towards autoimmunity. The dogma in the field is EBV is a B-cell tropic virus. I was therefore very surprised to hear new evidence which shows EBV also infects T-cells and therefore is likely to have an impact on T-cell biology. At the moment it is only the EBV type 2 that has been shown in infect T-cells, but this observation is likely to apply to the type 1 virus as well.

What does this mean for MS? I am not sure, but it has potential implications for how we target EBV in people with established MS; that is if EBV is the treatment target. At the very least it challenges some of our thinking about how we treat MS. For example, if we need to eliminate EBV to cure MS we probably have to target other compartments, including the T-cell compartment, and not just the B-cell and plasma cell compartments. T-cells may act as a reservoir for persistent EBV infection. This may explain why combined T- and B-cell depleters (non-selective immune reconstitution therapies), although riskier in the short-term, seem to have the edge over B-cell depleters when it comes to end-organ damage markers (brain volume loss) and confirmed disability improvement (CDI). NIRTs have also been described to eliminate EBV from the body in a small number of patients, which has not been described for B-cell depleters. It also means that we will need to build in components to our research programme that also focuses on T-cells as a potential mediator of EBV’s effects on the immune system.

Why are experts important? Experts teach you things you don’t know. Experts have the time and background knowledge to do the necessary deep thinking on their subject, which is required to challenge the prevailing dogma. I would like to thank the experts who came to our lock-in last Friday; you have changed my worldview on EBV.

Coleman et al. Epstein-Barr Virus Type 2 Infects T Cells in Healthy Kenyan Children. J Infect Dis. 2017 Sep 15;216(6):670-677.

BACKGROUND: The 2 strains of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), EBV type 1 (EBV-1) and EBV-2, differ in latency genes, suggesting that they use distinct mechanisms to establish latency. We previously reported that EBV-2 infects T cells in vitro. In this study, we tested the possibility that EBV-2 infects T cells in vivo.

METHODS: Purified T-cell fractions isolated from children positive for EBV-1 or EBV-2 and their mothers were examined for the presence of EBV and for EBV type.

RESULTS: We detected EBV-2 in all T-cell samples obtained from EBV-2-infected children at 12 months of age, with some children retaining EBV-2-positive T cells through 24 months of age, suggesting that EBV-2 persists in T cells. We were unable to detect EBV-2 in T-cell samples from mothers but could detect EBV-2 in samples of their breast milk and saliva.

CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that EBV-2 uses T cells as an additional latency reservoir but that, over time, the frequency of infected T cells may drop below detectable levels. Alternatively, EBV-2 may establish a prolonged transient infection in the T-cell compartment. Collectively, these novel findings demonstrate that EBV-2 infects T cells in vivo and suggest EBV-2 may use the T-cell compartment to establish latency.