Newsflash: the wait is over ocrelizumab finally gets its EU marketing authorisation

If you have PPMS, and live in Europe, you are one step closer to having a disease-modifying therapy for your MS.




If you have PPMS and live in England you have to wait for NICE to determine whether or not ocrelizumab is a cost-effective treatment to slow down your disease progression.  To help manage expectations I anticipate NICE saying no for the PPMS indication. Ocrelizumab will be priced for the RRMS indication and not PPMS. The impact of ocrelizumab on disease progression is less in PPMS compared to RRMS and because it will be compared to ‘best supportive care’ for PPMS it is unlikely to be deemed cost-effective. One solution to this impasse is for differential pricing, i.e. for Roche to charge the NHS much less for PPMS compared to RRMS. Is Roche and the NHS ready for differential pricing? I am not sure. However, the NHS accounting mechanisms are in place to do this. It will be interesting to see how the NICE negotiations play out.


EMA information on ocrelizumab.



ProfG    
.fa {
padding: 10px;
font-size: 20px;
width: 20px;
text-align: center;
text-decoration: none;
margin: 5px 2px;
border-radius: 50%;
}

.fa:hover {
opacity: 0.7;
}

.fa-facebook {
background: #3B5998;
color: white;
}

.fa-twitter {
background: #55ACEE;
color: white;
}

.fa-google {
background: #dd4b39;
color: white;
}

.fa-linkedin {
background: #007bb5;
color: white;
}

.fa-youtube {
background: #bb0000;
color: white;
}

.fa-instagram {
background: #125688;
color: white;
}

.fa-pinterest {
background: #cb2027;
color: white;
}

.fa-snapchat-ghost {
background: #fffc00;
color: white;
text-shadow: -1px 0 black, 0 1px black, 1px 0 black, 0 -1px black;
}

.fa-skype {
background: #00aff0;
color: white;
}

.fa-android {
background: #a4c639;
color: white;
}

.fa-dribbble {
background: #ea4c89;
color: white;
}

.fa-medium {
background: #000000;
color: white;
}

.fa-tumblr {
background: #2c4762;
color: white;
}

.fa-vine {
background: #00b489;
color: white;
}

.fa-foursquare {
background: #45bbff;
color: white;
}

.fa-stumbleupon {
background: #eb4924;
color: white;
}

.fa-flickr {
background: #f40083;
color: white;
}

.fa-yahoo {
background: #430297;
color: white;
}

.fa-soundcloud {
background: #ff5500;
color: white;
}

.fa-reddit {
background: #ff5700;
color: white;
}

.fa-rss {
background: #ff6600;
color: white;
}







Walking the talk, but too slowly: one #MSBrainAttack too many

How quickly should we treat MS? As soon as possible. 

I made the case on behalf of DrK last month for a natalizumab Brain Attack Trial? I now have a personal clinical anecdote why we should not delay things any longer.



I saw a new referral in my MS clinic about 6 weeks ago. She was from an ethnic minority (red flag) with highly-active disease. Her imaging was very active but slightly atypical; she had a confluent lesion around the aqueduct that has been described in anti-aquaporin-4 positive patients with NMO spectrum disorder. I, therefore, delayed making the diagnosis to repeat her imaging, do a lumbar puncture and check her anti-AQU-4 results. As this, all occurred over the Christmas period it took 6 weeks for her to come back to me with all the results. In this period she has gone onto to have a very disabling brainstem attack. All her tests are back and confirm the original diagnosis of MS. If only I had started her on natalizumab whilst I was doing all the tests we would probably have prevented her having this attack. 

She is now coming into hospital as an urgent admission for a course of intravenous steroids and to be started on natalizumab. Please note we have decided to start natalizumab without knowing her JCV serostatus. If she is JCV-ve we will leave her on natalizumab and if she comes back JCV+ve we will then decide on what DMT to transition her onto after a 12 month period of treatment. 

What this patient illustrates is that MS activity tends to be clustered. A powerful predictor of a relapse is a recent relapse. The case for putting patients with possible early active MS at risk from having to wait is well illustrated in this example. Why don’t we to treat all patients like this with natalizumab to protect their brains and spinal cords while we complete their diagnostic work-up? This is analogous to treating stroke.

Why natalizumab? (1) It is one of our most effective DMTs, (2) it works very quickly, (3) it is given as an IV infusion, hence there is no problem with adherence and (4) it is very safe for up to 12 months. (5) It is also relatively safe in pregnancy. During this 12 month period, the neurologist and the patient can then decide what strategy they want to pursue in the long-term. This could be to continue natalizumab long-term or to switch to another DMT, or in the case of an alternative diagnosis the drug can be stopped.

To make the Brain Attack Trial a reality we need the EMA to license natalizumab as a 1st-line treatment. This will probably require data. Hence we are proposing that Biogen sponsor a ‘Brain Attack Trial’. This would become even more important if you can derisk the PML problem associated with natalizumab. Imagine if we can reduce the risk of PML to zero? Who wouldn’t want to start on natalizumab as a first-line therapy? Natalizumab will become the one and only platform therapy. The problem with this is that Biogen has other DMTs in the MS space and the Brain Attack Trial will potentially result in natalizumab cannibalizing their other DMT market. How bold is Biogen?


ProfG    
.fa {
padding: 10px;
font-size: 20px;
width: 20px;
text-align: center;
text-decoration: none;
margin: 5px 2px;
border-radius: 50%;
}

.fa:hover {
opacity: 0.7;
}

.fa-facebook {
background: #3B5998;
color: white;
}

.fa-twitter {
background: #55ACEE;
color: white;
}

.fa-google {
background: #dd4b39;
color: white;
}

.fa-linkedin {
background: #007bb5;
color: white;
}

.fa-youtube {
background: #bb0000;
color: white;
}

.fa-instagram {
background: #125688;
color: white;
}

.fa-pinterest {
background: #cb2027;
color: white;
}

.fa-snapchat-ghost {
background: #fffc00;
color: white;
text-shadow: -1px 0 black, 0 1px black, 1px 0 black, 0 -1px black;
}

.fa-skype {
background: #00aff0;
color: white;
}

.fa-android {
background: #a4c639;
color: white;
}

.fa-dribbble {
background: #ea4c89;
color: white;
}

.fa-medium {
background: #000000;
color: white;
}

.fa-tumblr {
background: #2c4762;
color: white;
}

.fa-vine {
background: #00b489;
color: white;
}

.fa-foursquare {
background: #45bbff;
color: white;
}

.fa-stumbleupon {
background: #eb4924;
color: white;
}

.fa-flickr {
background: #f40083;
color: white;
}

.fa-yahoo {
background: #430297;
color: white;
}

.fa-soundcloud {
background: #ff5500;
color: white;
}

.fa-reddit {
background: #ff5700;
color: white;
}

.fa-rss {
background: #ff6600;
color: white;
}








2017: Reflections on another year in multiple sclerosis

Depending on how you see the world, i.e. through rose-tinted glasses, you may reflect on 2017 as being a landmark year for the field of MS.

Prof G’s rose-tinted view of the world!


The following are 10 of my highlights, and a few lowlights, from 2017.





10 MS highlights from 2017 in descending order:

#10 – Length-dependent axonopathy hypothesis: The gradual acceptance of the length-dependent axonopathy hypothesis as a theoretical construct to view and treat MS. At the European Charcot Foundation (ECF) meeting in Baveno in November several senior, and well respected, MSologists mentioned the length-dependent axonopathy hypothesis during their presentations and stated it as fact. This is an indication that the concept is finally being accepted, which is critical for our #ThinkHand campaign. We have a lot planned in 2018 to celebrate and promote hand function in MS. DrK is in the final stages of preparing a grant application to test off-label cladribine in people with advanced MS (wheelchair users). The aim of the study is to assess whether, or not, subcutaneous cladribine can protect upper limb and hand function in advanced MS (Chariot MS Study). We are also lobbying Pharma to do similar trials.  2018 will be a success if we can get a DMT trial off the ground in wheelchair users.


Giovannoni et al. Is multiple sclerosis a length-dependent central axonopathy? The case for therapeutic lag and the asynchronous progressive MS hypotheses. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2017 Feb;12:70-78.


Dubuisson, et al. Disease modification in advanced MS: Focus on upper limb function. Mult Scler. 2017 Dec;23(14):1956-1957.

#9 – #BrainHealth: We now have over 45 international endorsements of the Brain Health Time Matters in MS policy document. The fact that so many international organisations are endorsing the principles in our policy statement means that we are finally getting somewhere about what the aims of MS treatment are in the modern era. I sincerely hope our follow-on activities, including the development of a Brain Health quality improvement tool and patient checklist, also get such a positive response.


Giovannoni et al. Brain health: time matters in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2016 Sep;9 Suppl 1:S5-S48.


#8 – Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT): Submission of a grant to the NHIR (NHS equivalent of the NIH) to compare AHSCT to alemtuzumab in highly active MS. In addition to the grant submission more observational data emerged on the effectiveness of AHSCT in MS. We have had many debates on the Blog about the value of AHSCT as a treatment for MS. The fact that AHSCT is emerging as an accepted treatment option for MS in the UK is clearly an advance. What we need to find out is how effective is AHSCT compared to our other licensed very high efficacy DMTs and its relative safety profile.



Muraro et al. Long-term Outcomes After Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Multiple Sclerosis. JAMA Neurol. 2017 Apr 1;74(4):459-469.

#7 – RIS: The observation that a proportion of people with radiologically isolated syndromes (asymptomatic MS) present later with primary progressive MS. This tells you that MS is one disease and that if we can diagnose and treat MS in the asymptomatic phase we may be able to delay the onset of PPMS.



Kantarci et al. Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis Evolving From Radiologically Isolated Syndrome. Ann Neurol. 2016 Feb;79(2):288-94.


#6 – Plasma Neurofilament levels: A whole body of data emerged in 2017 of the potential utility of peripheral blood neurofilament levels as a biomarker of neuroaxonal damage MS. If this data holds up and can be confirmed it may replace CSF neurofilament analysis. This means phase 2 neuroprotective clinical trials could be done using peripheral blood neurofilament levels. Please watch this space. This is an example of technological innovation changing a field. Politicians should take note; they need to invest and reward innovation. This is not always that obvious in the NHS.


Novakova et al.  Monitoring disease activity in multiple sclerosis using serum neurofilament light protein. Neurology. 2017 Nov 28;89(22):2230-2237.

#5 – Remyelination: When the second phase 2 study of opicinumab (anti-lingo-1), a remyelination therapy, was reported as being negative my heart sank. Could this be the end of neuro-restorative therapies in MS? However, when Biogen reanalysed the data they discovered a clear signal that a subgroup of study subjects responded to opicinumab. The responder subgroup is identifiable using MRI biomarkers and disease duration. Based on this Biogen have launched a further phase 2b study to look at opicinumab as an add-on therapy in MS. Many other companies would have canned this programme, but not Biogen. This may explain why Biogen has recently been rated as the world’s most innovative pharma company.

Source IdeaPharma


#4 – B cells: The publication of the observation that all effective DMTs seem to have an impact on the peripheral memory B cells. I am aware that this hypothesis is controversial, but at least it is starting a discussion on the central role B cells play in driving MS disease activity. The real question is how does the B-cell hypothesis fit in with other well-established observations about MS; for example the strong HLA association. The latter suggests T-cells must also be involved, but how?

Baker et al. Memory B Cells are Major Targets for Effective Immunotherapy in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis. EBioMedicine. 2017 Feb;16:41-50.


Baker et al. Both cladribine and alemtuzumab may affect MS via B-cell depletion. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2017 Jun 5;4(4):e360.


#3 – Paediatric MS: The reporting of the fingolimod in paediatric MS trial (Paradigms Study). This is the first positive-controlled trial of a DMT in the paediatric space. In summary, fingolimod reduced the annualised relapse rate in children with MS by 82% compared to intramuscular interferon-beta (Avonex). The relapse rate on fingolimod was 0.12 per annum vs. 0.68 on interferon-beta. The relative effectiveness of fingolimod surpassed my expectations and at least gives children with MS and their parents some confidence about the effectiveness of fingolimod (and it is an oral agent). With all the other DMTs we have to extrapolate from adult data, but not with fingolimod. Could this be the end of injectables for paediatric MS? Let’s hope the EMA give fingolimod a 1st-line license for treating MS.


#2 – Oral Cladribine: The final licensing of oral cladribine (Mavenclad) as a treatment for relapsing MS. I have been intimately involved with the development of oral cladribine as a treatment of MS since 2002. Oral cladribine is the first selective immune reconstitution therapy (SIRT) and offers many advantages over other IRTs such as alemtuzumab and AHSCT. I think oral cladribine is going to really disrupt the MS space. Hopefully, a licensed formulation of cladribine will have a ‘halo effect’ and give neurologists working in resource-poor environments the confidence to prescribe off-label cladribine to their patients.


Alvarez-Gonzalez et al. Cladribine to treat disease exacerbation after fingolimod discontinuation in progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2017 May 17;4(7):506-511.


#1 – PPMS: Licensing of ocrelizumab as the first DMT for people with PPMS. I can’t stress how important this is to people with PPMS and the wider field of MS. The fact that PPMS is now modifiable changes the whole MS space and slays several dogmas that have crept into our psyche. I remain concerned, however, that NICE won’t greenlight the use of ocrelizumab in PPMS in the NHS.



Montalban et al. Ocrelizumab versus Placebo in Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2017 Jan 19;376(3):209-220.

The following are some of my low-lights for 2017:


#4 – #MS-is-1-not-2-or-3-diseases: The failure of Barts-MS to get across the science of MS is being one disease and modifiable at all stages of the disease. At several key meetings in 2017 KoLs (key opinion leaders) were still talking about MS being several diseases. They are still classifying PPMS and SPMS as two different diseases. Then there is the concept that RRMS and SPMS are also different diseases. Help! How can we slay this dogma?


#3 – Diagnostic criteria for MS: I am very disappointed that the McDonald Diagnostic Criteria Committee did not include asymptomatic MS as part of the definition of MS. This means we cannot diagnose presymptomatic MS and hence we can’t treat it. This was an opportunity missed and we will have to now wait another 5-6 years before the next review of the diagnostic criteria occurs. In that time we may have the first positive clinical trials of DMTs in asymptomatic MS and we won’t be able to offer people with RIS (radiologically isolated syndromes) treatment for their MS. In general, Healthcare payers only cover the costs of treatment for a real disease, i.e. as defined by the experts.


Thompson et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol. 2017 Dec 21. pii: S1474-4422(17)30470-2.

#2 – Brain atrophy: In the late-breaking session at ECTRIMS we saw that high-dose biotin had the opposite effect on brain atrophy to what we expected; study subjects treated with biotin had significantly more brain atrophy than study subjects on placebo. The investigators reported this as being a valid treatment effect and that shrinkage of the brain was due to normalisation of pathological enlarged brain volume. If this is the case it means brain atrophy cannot be used as an outcome measure in phase 2 neuroprotective clinical trials. More focus on the grey matter may be a solution.

Carassiti, et al. Neuronal loss, demyelination and volume change in the multiple sclerosis neocortex. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 2017 Apr 18. doi: 10.1111/nan.12405. 



#1 – Laquinimod: The failure of laquinimod to slow down disease progression in RRMS (Concerto Trial) and the failure of laquinimod show an effect on brain atrophy in PPMS (Arpeggio Trial). Laquinimod promised to be the first neuroprotective drug to be licensed in MS but failed to live up to its promise. Let’s hope other neuroprotective drugs emerge as potential add-on therapies for MS. Possibly ibudilast? However, unless ibudilast demonstrates a clinical signal, or a signal on peripheral blood neurofilament levels, over and above its effect on brain atrophy I will remain doubtful of its utility as a neuroprotective therapy in MS.


ProfG    
.fa {
padding: 10px;
font-size: 20px;
width: 20px;
text-align: center;
text-decoration: none;
margin: 5px 2px;
border-radius: 50%;
}

.fa:hover {
opacity: 0.7;
}

.fa-facebook {
background: #3B5998;
color: white;
}

.fa-twitter {
background: #55ACEE;
color: white;
}

.fa-google {
background: #dd4b39;
color: white;
}

.fa-linkedin {
background: #007bb5;
color: white;
}

.fa-youtube {
background: #bb0000;
color: white;
}

.fa-instagram {
background: #125688;
color: white;
}

.fa-pinterest {
background: #cb2027;
color: white;
}

.fa-snapchat-ghost {
background: #fffc00;
color: white;
text-shadow: -1px 0 black, 0 1px black, 1px 0 black, 0 -1px black;
}

.fa-skype {
background: #00aff0;
color: white;
}

.fa-android {
background: #a4c639;
color: white;
}

.fa-dribbble {
background: #ea4c89;
color: white;
}

.fa-medium {
background: #000000;
color: white;
}

.fa-tumblr {
background: #2c4762;
color: white;
}

.fa-vine {
background: #00b489;
color: white;
}

.fa-foursquare {
background: #45bbff;
color: white;
}

.fa-stumbleupon {
background: #eb4924;
color: white;
}

.fa-flickr {
background: #f40083;
color: white;
}

.fa-yahoo {
background: #430297;
color: white;
}

.fa-soundcloud {
background: #ff5500;
color: white;
}

.fa-reddit {
background: #ff5700;
color: white;
}

.fa-rss {
background: #ff6600;
color: white;
}

<!– Add font awesome icons
–>

What you had to say about coffee and MS

Thank you for completing our recent survey on coffee consumption amongst pwMS and the reasons for drinking coffee. The results are quite interesting. What do you think? 








The following are the results of the coffee survey in pwMS. Is clear that you find coffee helpful. 




ProfG    
.fa {
padding: 10px;
font-size: 20px;
width: 20px;
text-align: center;
text-decoration: none;
margin: 5px 2px;
border-radius: 50%;
}

.fa:hover {
opacity: 0.7;
}

.fa-facebook {
background: #3B5998;
color: white;
}

.fa-twitter {
background: #55ACEE;
color: white;
}

.fa-google {
background: #dd4b39;
color: white;
}

.fa-linkedin {
background: #007bb5;
color: white;
}

.fa-youtube {
background: #bb0000;
color: white;
}

.fa-instagram {
background: #125688;
color: white;
}

.fa-pinterest {
background: #cb2027;
color: white;
}

.fa-snapchat-ghost {
background: #fffc00;
color: white;
text-shadow: -1px 0 black, 0 1px black, 1px 0 black, 0 -1px black;
}

.fa-skype {
background: #00aff0;
color: white;
}

.fa-android {
background: #a4c639;
color: white;
}

.fa-dribbble {
background: #ea4c89;
color: white;
}

.fa-medium {
background: #000000;
color: white;
}

.fa-tumblr {
background: #2c4762;
color: white;
}

.fa-vine {
background: #00b489;
color: white;
}

.fa-foursquare {
background: #45bbff;
color: white;
}

.fa-stumbleupon {
background: #eb4924;
color: white;
}

.fa-flickr {
background: #f40083;
color: white;
}

.fa-yahoo {
background: #430297;
color: white;
}

.fa-soundcloud {
background: #ff5500;
color: white;
}

.fa-reddit {
background: #ff5700;
color: white;
}

.fa-rss {
background: #ff6600;
color: white;
}








The 9-Hole Peg Test detects change in Gaming trial

A big beast of the outcome measurement world has criticised our drive for self-assessment and self-monitoring in pwMS. Why? 







They suggested that the learning effect that occurs with repeated assessments will make it difficult to judge the results of a clinical trial. I disagree. Why? Surely the randomisation process between active and placebo groups will take care of learning effects?


It is clear from the spinal cord injury field that rehabilitation is essential to improve outcomes. Rats with spinal cord injury that are not given tasks to use the affected, or paralysed, limbs don’t recover function. In comparison rats who are given rehabilitation have a remarkable ability to recover function. The same applies to humans with spinal cord injury and surely to pwMS. If you don’t use it you lose it.


Contrary to the status quo we think that getting pwMS to use their hands and limbs will improve outcomes. This is why this study below of using computer games to promote recovery of upper limb function is so important. Alison in our group is currently developing a new upper limb outcome measure for pwMS. Her idea is that the outcome measure will encourage people to improve rather than remain the same or to simply watch themselves deteriorate. In other words, the outcome measure becomes the catalyst to ‘Do It and not Lose It’.


Alison is currently running an online survey to help with her project. If you have the time could you please complete the survey it takes less than 3 minutes. Thank you.




For more information on this research, please read the participant information and leave any questions in the comments field.


Jonsdottir et al. Serious games for arm rehabilitation of persons with multiple sclerosis. A randomized controlled pilot study. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2017 Oct 28;19:25-29


OBJECTIVES: The feasibility and preliminary evidence for the efficacy of a serious games platform compared to exergame using the Wii for arm rehabilitation in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) was investigated.


METHODS: A pilot single-blind randomized (2:1) controlled in clinical trial was carried out. Sixteen persons with MS participated (age years 56.8 (SD 12.3), MS-onset years 19.4 (SD 12.3), EDSS 6.5). Ten participants used a serious games platform (Rehab@Home) while 6 participants played with the commercial Wii platform, for four weeks (40min, 12 sessions/4 weeks). Feasibility and user experience measures were collected. Primary outcomes were the 9 Hole Peg Test (9HPT) and the Box and Block test (BBT). Secondary outcomes were the EQ-5D visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) and the SF-12. Nonparametric analysis was used to verify changes from pre to post-rehabilitation within group and treatment effect was verified with Mann-Whitney U test. P value was set at 0.10 and clinical improvement was set at 20% improvement from baseline.


RESULTS: Serious games were perceived positively in terms of user experience and motivation. There were clinically significant improvements in arm function in the serious games group as measured by 9HPT (38-29.5s, P = 0.046, > 20%) and BBT 32-42 cubes, P = 0.19, > 20%) following the 12 gaming sessions while the exergame group did not improve on either test (9HPT 34.5-41.5s, P = 0.34; BBT 38,5 to 42 cubes, P = 0.34). Only the exergame group perceived themselves as having improved their health. There was a significant between groups treatment effect only in the perception of health (EQ-VAS) (Z = 1.93, P = 0.06) favouring the exergame group.


CONCLUSIONS: Virtual reality in a serious gaming approach was feasible and beneficial to arm function of persons with MS but motivational aspects of the approach may need further attention.

ProfG    
.fa {
padding: 10px;
font-size: 20px;
width: 20px;
text-align: center;
text-decoration: none;
margin: 5px 2px;
border-radius: 50%;
}

.fa:hover {
opacity: 0.7;
}

.fa-facebook {
background: #3B5998;
color: white;
}

.fa-twitter {
background: #55ACEE;
color: white;
}

.fa-google {
background: #dd4b39;
color: white;
}

.fa-linkedin {
background: #007bb5;
color: white;
}

.fa-youtube {
background: #bb0000;
color: white;
}

.fa-instagram {
background: #125688;
color: white;
}

.fa-pinterest {
background: #cb2027;
color: white;
}

.fa-snapchat-ghost {
background: #fffc00;
color: white;
text-shadow: -1px 0 black, 0 1px black, 1px 0 black, 0 -1px black;
}

.fa-skype {
background: #00aff0;
color: white;
}

.fa-android {
background: #a4c639;
color: white;
}

.fa-dribbble {
background: #ea4c89;
color: white;
}

.fa-medium {
background: #000000;
color: white;
}

.fa-tumblr {
background: #2c4762;
color: white;
}

.fa-vine {
background: #00b489;
color: white;
}

.fa-foursquare {
background: #45bbff;
color: white;
}

.fa-stumbleupon {
background: #eb4924;
color: white;
}

.fa-flickr {
background: #f40083;
color: white;
}

.fa-yahoo {
background: #430297;
color: white;
}

.fa-soundcloud {
background: #ff5500;
color: white;
}

.fa-reddit {
background: #ff5700;
color: white;
}

.fa-rss {
background: #ff6600;
color: white;
}








A revolution: participatory medicine

‘‘Before the Internet, when first diagnosed, I depended on my neurologist. His opinion was the final say about everything from use of steroids to physical therapy to which disease-modifying medicine I would use. The Internet empowered me as a patient to become informed about my condition, to consider my options and the opinions of others, and to take charge of managing my disease in the best possible way for me.’’



How important are the internet and social media to you in managing your MS? 




I started this blog about 8 years ago to address an unmet need in my clinical practice. In response to spending most of my patient’s valuable face-to-face clinic time interpreting MS-related internet content, debunking anti-science movements and putting MS research into context I decided to do it online and for everyone. 

The aim was to post once on a topic and then to refer all my patients to the site and they could then ask questions and I could answer them. Since then the blog has become more than that. We now get many different MS stakeholders coming to the site for our interpretation of things MS. As a result of this we have tried to be too many things to too many different people. At its heart, ‘this blog is for people with MS and their families’. In response to recent feedback, we are trying to refocus our attention on this core mission. We want to keep in simple, to keep it varied and to try and not overload you with content! 

The following opinion piece on participatory medicine is very timely and address several of the issues I have alluded to above and in the past. I know Jeremy Bright very well and he is an A* writer; one of the best in the field. I have worked with him on many articles in the past and he is an uber professional. He takes the definition of participatory medicine to the next level. 

We are living in an era where knowledge is been rapidly democratized and most people have access to the same information as everyone else. This means people with MS can rapidly become experts in their own disease and use their expertise to challenge their HCPs positions and biases. I would recommend reading this article and starting a conversation with your HCP. 

We would also like you to help make this blog more participatory. If you are interested in a particular topic or hearing from a particular HCP or scientist please contact them and ask them to write a guest blog post on this site. We have created a platform that has a large readership and we want to open this to new voices. Our email is bartsmsblog@gmail.com

In fact, I am going to ask Jeremy Bright to write a post for us. Do you agree?

Kantor et al. Perspectives from the Patient and the Healthcare Professional in Multiple Sclerosis: Social Media and Participatory Medicine. Neurol Ther. 2017 Dec 8. doi: 10.1007/s40120-017-0088-2.

When faced with a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS), patients often turn to the Internet and social media to find support groups, read about the experiences of other people affected by MS and seek their advice, and research their condition and treatment options to discuss with their healthcare professionals (HCPs). Here, we examine the use of social media and the Internet among patients with MS, considering its impact on patient empowerment and patient participation in treatment decision-making and MS research. These themes are exemplified with first-hand experiences of the patient author. We also explore the impact of the Internet and social media on the management of patients from the perspective of HCPs, including new opportunities for HCPs to engage in participatory medicine and to improve communication with and among patients. We consider both the benefits afforded to and the potential pitfalls faced by HCPs when interacting with their patients via these routes and discuss potential concerns around privacy and confidentiality in the use of the Internet and social media in the clinical context. Communication online is driving the evolution of the patient-HCP relationship, and is empowering patients to participate more actively in the decision-making process relating to the provision of their health care. 

ProfG    
.fa {
padding: 10px;
font-size: 20px;
width: 20px;
text-align: center;
text-decoration: none;
margin: 5px 2px;
border-radius: 50%;
}

.fa:hover {
opacity: 0.7;
}

.fa-facebook {
background: #3B5998;
color: white;
}

.fa-twitter {
background: #55ACEE;
color: white;
}

.fa-google {
background: #dd4b39;
color: white;
}

.fa-linkedin {
background: #007bb5;
color: white;
}

.fa-youtube {
background: #bb0000;
color: white;
}

.fa-instagram {
background: #125688;
color: white;
}

.fa-pinterest {
background: #cb2027;
color: white;
}

.fa-snapchat-ghost {
background: #fffc00;
color: white;
text-shadow: -1px 0 black, 0 1px black, 1px 0 black, 0 -1px black;
}

.fa-skype {
background: #00aff0;
color: white;
}

.fa-android {
background: #a4c639;
color: white;
}

.fa-dribbble {
background: #ea4c89;
color: white;
}

.fa-medium {
background: #000000;
color: white;
}

.fa-tumblr {
background: #2c4762;
color: white;
}

.fa-vine {
background: #00b489;
color: white;
}

.fa-foursquare {
background: #45bbff;
color: white;
}

.fa-stumbleupon {
background: #eb4924;
color: white;
}

.fa-flickr {
background: #f40083;
color: white;
}

.fa-yahoo {
background: #430297;
color: white;
}

.fa-soundcloud {
background: #ff5500;
color: white;
}

.fa-reddit {
background: #ff5700;
color: white;
}

.fa-rss {
background: #ff6600;
color: white;
}








DrK’s Brain Attack trial

Time is Brain, even in MS! 


How quickly should we treat MS? 

DrK makes the case for treating everyone as quickly as possible. Do you agree? Can you help us convince Biogen about the case for a Brain Attack Trial?




When we were at the ECF meeting in Baveno DrK came up with a very important trial design to maximise the protection of the brain in MS. We all know that ‘Time is Brain’ and most MSologists will have patients who have had catastrophic relapses whilst waiting for a diagnostic workup and/or DMTs. We also know that MS activity tends to be clustered, i.e. one of the best predictors of a relapse is a recent relapse. Instead of putting patients with possible early symptomatic MS at risk from having to wait why don’t we to treat them all with natalizumab to protect their brains and spinal cords? This is analogous to treating stroke.

Why natalizumab? It is one of our most effective DMTs, it works very quickly, it is given as an IV infusion, hence there is no problem with adherence and is very safe for up to 12 months. It is also relatively safe in pregnancy. During this 12 month period, the neurologist and the patient can then decide what strategy they want to pursue in the long-term. This could be to continue natalizumab long-term or to switch to another DMT, or in the case of an alternative diagnosis the drug can be stopped.

To make the Brain Attack Trial a reality we would have to get Biogen to ask the EMA to license natalizumab as a 1st-line treatment. This may require data. Hence we are proposing that Biogen sponsor a ‘Brain Attack Trial’. This would become even more important if you can derisk the PML problem associated with natalizumab. Imagine if we can reduce the risk of PML to zero? Who wouldn’t want to start on natalizumab as a first-line therapy? Natalizumab will become the one and only platform therapy. The problem with this is that Biogen has other DMTs in the MS space and the Brain Attack Trial will potentially result in natalizumab cannibalizing their other DMT market. How bold is Biogen?



I can’t resist a business anecdote. Sony invented the Walkman, which transformed the way we listen to music. Sony then developed a digital version of the Walkman, i.e. their version of iPod. This was done a decade before Apple launched the iPod. However, Sony blinked and you should never blink in business. The issue was that Sony also produced content via Sony Music and other record labels (e.g. Columbia Records) and as a result of this Sony Executives decided it was too risky to launch the digital Walkman and decided to keep it under wraps and mothball it. Sony was worried that a digital Walkman would fuel digital piracy and cannibalize the music industry. Fast-forward a decade an Apple launches the iPod, which transforms the music industry, kills the Sony Walkman, revitalises Apple and the rest is history. 

Sony was the one company, outside of Apple, Steve Jobs admired and feared most. Have you compared the recent fortunes of Apple and Sony? Joseph Schumpeter, the famous economist, calls this creative destruction. 




The moral of this story is that if Biogen doesn’t do this study another company will and Biogen will run the risk of becoming the Sony of the MS world; first admired, then envied and finally irrelevant.

ProfG    
.fa {
padding: 10px;
font-size: 20px;
width: 20px;
text-align: center;
text-decoration: none;
margin: 5px 2px;
border-radius: 50%;
}

.fa:hover {
opacity: 0.7;
}

.fa-facebook {
background: #3B5998;
color: white;
}

.fa-twitter {
background: #55ACEE;
color: white;
}

.fa-google {
background: #dd4b39;
color: white;
}

.fa-linkedin {
background: #007bb5;
color: white;
}

.fa-youtube {
background: #bb0000;
color: white;
}

.fa-instagram {
background: #125688;
color: white;
}

.fa-pinterest {
background: #cb2027;
color: white;
}

.fa-snapchat-ghost {
background: #fffc00;
color: white;
text-shadow: -1px 0 black, 0 1px black, 1px 0 black, 0 -1px black;
}

.fa-skype {
background: #00aff0;
color: white;
}

.fa-android {
background: #a4c639;
color: white;
}

.fa-dribbble {
background: #ea4c89;
color: white;
}

.fa-medium {
background: #000000;
color: white;
}

.fa-tumblr {
background: #2c4762;
color: white;
}

.fa-vine {
background: #00b489;
color: white;
}

.fa-foursquare {
background: #45bbff;
color: white;
}

.fa-stumbleupon {
background: #eb4924;
color: white;
}

.fa-flickr {
background: #f40083;
color: white;
}

.fa-yahoo {
background: #430297;
color: white;
}

.fa-soundcloud {
background: #ff5500;
color: white;
}

.fa-reddit {
background: #ff5700;
color: white;
}

.fa-rss {
background: #ff6600;
color: white;
}








Dying on your terms: is it possible?

The Australian state of Victoria has become became the country’s first to legalise assisted dying or suicide. Is dying a better euphemism? 





Victoria’s Lower House ratified the euthanasia bill last week. Starting in mid-2019, the law will allow Victorians with a terminal, incurable illness — and, in most cases, a life expectancy of less than six months — to obtain a lethal drug within 10 days of requesting it.

Will MSer ever be able to show they have a life expectancy of less than 6 months? 

Victoria joins the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Colombia and Luxembourg in legalising euthanasia.  Is euthanasia a better term than assisted suicide or dying? 

Several other countries — and states and jurisdictions in the United States, including California, Washington, D.C., and Oregon — have passed laws allowing assisted suicide, in which doctors, in certain cases, may prescribe or suggest a means in which patients may end their own lives, without directly assisting in the act.


The critics will claim society is rejecting disabled people by offering them assisted suicide. I think the critics miss the point of assisted suicide; it is about personal choice. By not legalising assisted suicide you deny people the choice and instead you create a tourist industry in assisted suicide. The tragedy of the latter is that it only the well-off that can afford the trip abroad. In other words, we have a two-tiered system the haves and have-nots. The latter is against the founding principles of the NHS; that is if you consider assisted suicide part of healthcare, which I do.


[I am becoming increasingly appalled about inequality, particularly in healthcare!]


At a personal level, I remain ambivalent about assisted suicide; I want to have the option open to me and my family, but I don’t want to go near it as a healthcare professional. It is clear that the debate on assisted suicide will continue and I suspect it will only be a matter of time before another bill gets tabled in parliament on this issue. 

I have a handful of patients with MS who have registered with Dignitas; I had to write factual medical reports for them. To date, none of them has taken up the option of travelling to Switzerland.


I have attended several meetings in the last 12 month that have focused on how to change the behaviour of neurologists, and other healthcare professionals, to allow pwMS more say over their treatment decisions. When I talk at these meeting I tend to present my London Tube Map worldview of MS; i.e. a one-way train trip to the terminal phase of the disease. I have mentioned to you before that one of the major MS Society’s has previously asked me to leave off the terminal stop, in particular, the issue of assisted suicide. Therein lies the problem if you don’t tell pwMS that MS has a terminal phase, and has potential solutions, how can we expect them to way up the risks and benefits of treatment with the risk of the disease?


However, much more important that than the debate about assisted suicide is the issue of dying well. To do this you need to have an advanced directive, or living will, and have discussed things with your family. The latter is very important, in fact, it is critical. If you haven’t done this already I urge you to do it ASAP. It is vital that your family know what you want in the terminal phase of your life and how you want to die. The essay in the NEJM is a good read; it is beautifully written and illustrates why dying well is so important. Please read it and reflect on its message.


Katherine McKenzie. Perspective: A Modern Ars Moriendi. N Engl J Med 2016; 374:2107-2109.


Excerpts:


….. My father the rancher was stoic and taciturn…..


…… I didn’t want him to suffer. I wanted him to have a good death — something akin to the ars moriendi….


…… Latin for “art of dying,” the ars moriendi is a body of literature that originated in Europe during the 15th century, on the heels of the bubonic plague. Its aim was to provide a practical and spiritual framework for the preparation for death. It outlined prayers and protocols for the dying and for their communities. It emphasized the acknowledgement of human finitude…..
……. My father had never heard of the ars moriendi, but I was certain that it was what he would have wanted. In his living will and in past family discussions, Dad had been clear that he wanted no mechanical ventilation, no resuscitation, and no feeding tubes. And he wanted to die at the ranch, if possible…..


……. We arranged for an ambulance to transport him back to the ranch as soon as possible. “We’re leaving the hospital, Dad. We’re taking you to the ranch now.”…….


……. Removing him from the hospital most likely hastened his death. But the days that remained were rich — and in accord with his oft-stated wishes……


……. Voices soon filled the house; friends and family streamed in and out of his bedroom and paid their respects with quiet words and gestures, but with humour and laughter, too. The parish priest, Father Herman, administered the last rites, and a bedside vigil of contemplation and comfort unfolded for 3 days…….


……. In her book Dying in the Twenty-First Century, Lydia Dugdale asks whether we can revive the ars moriendi, despite our highly medicalized approach to dying. Looking at my dad, in his home, unencumbered by medical technology, I thought we had come pretty close. Here he was, embraced at home by the people who cared for him most. No medical teams on daily rounds, no machines to keep him alive. Just the smell of the plains, the comfort of his own bed, the voices of his loved ones……


…… Near the end of our vigil, my sisters and nieces and I were emotionally weary. As we sat with a neighbour in the living room adjacent to Dad’s bedroom, the neighbour inquired about the piano in the living room and mentioned that she played. “Could you play a piece for us?” we asked. Soon, plaintive, melancholy music surrounded us, soothing our sadness as we prepared to say goodbye to our father……


……. His condition continued to deteriorate, and on Thursday morning, my sister told him, “Dad, it’s a beautiful morning. It’s okay to go now.” Shortly thereafter, his breathing shifted and slowed, and then stopped. We held his hands and one another’s, feeling deep sorrow and a reverence for death……


……. In the year that has passed, I have been thankful to Dad for his foresight in preparing himself and his family for the kind of death he wanted. It was a challenge to resist the medical treatment I knew so well. But in honouring his wishes, we shifted our focus from life-prolonging technology to life-enriching community. And we managed to apply 15th-century principles to achieve a timeless outcome: a good death……

ProfG    
.fa {
padding: 10px;
font-size: 20px;
width: 20px;
text-align: center;
text-decoration: none;
margin: 5px 2px;
border-radius: 50%;
}

.fa:hover {
opacity: 0.7;
}

.fa-facebook {
background: #3B5998;
color: white;
}

.fa-twitter {
background: #55ACEE;
color: white;
}

.fa-google {
background: #dd4b39;
color: white;
}

.fa-linkedin {
background: #007bb5;
color: white;
}

.fa-youtube {
background: #bb0000;
color: white;
}

.fa-instagram {
background: #125688;
color: white;
}

.fa-pinterest {
background: #cb2027;
color: white;
}

.fa-snapchat-ghost {
background: #fffc00;
color: white;
text-shadow: -1px 0 black, 0 1px black, 1px 0 black, 0 -1px black;
}

.fa-skype {
background: #00aff0;
color: white;
}

.fa-android {
background: #a4c639;
color: white;
}

.fa-dribbble {
background: #ea4c89;
color: white;
}

.fa-medium {
background: #000000;
color: white;
}

.fa-tumblr {
background: #2c4762;
color: white;
}

.fa-vine {
background: #00b489;
color: white;
}

.fa-foursquare {
background: #45bbff;
color: white;
}

.fa-stumbleupon {
background: #eb4924;
color: white;
}

.fa-flickr {
background: #f40083;
color: white;
}

.fa-yahoo {
background: #430297;
color: white;
}

.fa-soundcloud {
background: #ff5500;
color: white;
}

.fa-reddit {
background: #ff5700;
color: white;
}

.fa-rss {
background: #ff6600;
color: white;
}








Reflections on the ECF 2017

I have just returned from the European Charcot Foundation meeting in Baveno, Italy. The meeting is small (< 500 attendees) with no parallel sessions and ample time to mix with attendees and chew the cud. I did a plenary presentation on “dealing with increasing economic constraints”.  The feedback I received after my talk, and subsequently via email, has been extraordinary. An eminent neurologist said he was glad that someone was thinking about these issues and taking it on. I have also been contacted by a health economist and have been urged to write up the talk.







I started the talk by focusing on microeconomic factors around treating and managing individuals with MS. The arguments are well rehearsed; most of the costs of treating MS are linked to disability. Treat-early and effectively to prevent disability and you lower treatment costs. To achieve this I asked the audience to read and adopt the “Brain Health: Time Matters” policy initiative. I used the recent cost of MS study done by Gisela Kobelt to strengthen my arguments.


I then briefly mentioned how innovation in the design of healthcare systems and service delivery could also save money. Due to time constraints, I didn’t go into details; this is a talk in itself. In short, new ways of managing patients using digital and asynchronous tools will change the way we run our MS services. Not to forget the revolution in self-monitoring and self-management that is about to transform clinical practice.


In terms of the high costs of DMTs, the major disruptor would be the small molecule DMTs when they come off-patent. When I was a trainee medical registrar in South Africa, Simvastatin had just been launched and it triggered a national debate about whether or not the country could afford statins. South Africa has one of the highest rates of cardiovascular diseases in the world, particularly in the Afrikaaners. Please note since statins have come off patent and generics have arrived the price of Simvastatin has almost plummeted to zero.  When fingolimod, teriflunomide, and oral cladribine come off-patent it will have the same effect.


I then made the case for using off-label therapies that are cheap, or relatively cheap, to treat MS in resource-poor environments. I mentioned the trials and tribulations of trying to get support for this list from the two largest MS Societies. Both the societies were supportive in principle but for various reasons are unable to endorse ‘off-label prescribing’ in the DMT space. I mentioned that I have had support from the MSIF (MS International Federation) who represent MS Societies from across the globe. Interestingly, the large MS Societies are prepared to support compassionate use or low-cost access programmes in resource-poor countries. With this advice in hand, I did contact several Pharma companies and Tim McCormick from Biogen stepped up to the plate. However, because I don’t work on the ground in one of these countries it was difficult for me to stay engaged with this initiative. In short, I have handed the baton to the MSIF. However, the experience has taught me that making high-cost innovator drugs available to patients in resource-poor environments has many legal, political and logistical hurdles they are highlighted in the slides.


I then went on to discuss some low hanging fruit, i.e. unplanned hospital admissions. A good proportion of these admissions are preventable by running a responsive and proactive MS service and targeting high-risk subjects. The potential savings for the healthcare system is quite large. I did some back of envelope calculations to show that by investing in trained staff, i.e. MS clinical nurse specialists, that you can make savings. I used data from Barts Health NHS Trust Hospitals and the local boroughs.


I then moved onto high-cost drugs and showed how effective NICE is at keeping down costs for the NHS. The downside of this strategy is the parallel observation on the rising costs of DMTs in the USA. I mentioned that as a consequence the USA is now subsidizing drug development for the world; a situation that is unsustainable in the long-term.


I briefly touched on the issue of off-label prescribing and the legal case that is currently being assessed under EU law between Bayer and the NHS. Bayer markets aflibercept (Eylea) and is challenging the rights of the NHS to allow the off-label prescribing of bevacizumab (Avastin) for wet macular degeneration. If Bayer wins then this will have implications for the use of rituximab to treat MS, an off-label indication.


I then discussed politics and the link between poverty and poor health outcomes and the need for us to address inequality. The UK has one of the greatest inequality gaps in Europe and may explain the disparity of DMT prescribing in the UK. Inequality is certainly one of the reasons why certain segments of the UK population voted to leave Europe. Inequality is a problem and Society needs to tackle it rather than ignoring it. 


How I could not resist presenting the threats and advantages of automation (robots) and artificial intelligence (AI) on the care of MS. I suspect algorithms are coming sooner than we realise to the management of MS.


I closed my presentation on the subject of MS prevention. I can imagine a world in which an EBV vaccine is licensed to prevent MS and other diseases caused by this virus. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? A low cost vaccine would be the most effective way to deal with the economic burden of MS. 


Read this post from last year for a further debate on high-cost drugs in the US.


Here’s my talk, please leave your comments below:

ProfG    
.fa {
padding: 10px;
font-size: 20px;
width: 20px;
text-align: center;
text-decoration: none;
margin: 5px 2px;
border-radius: 50%;
}

.fa:hover {
opacity: 0.7;
}

.fa-facebook {
background: #3B5998;
color: white;
}

.fa-twitter {
background: #55ACEE;
color: white;
}

.fa-google {
background: #dd4b39;
color: white;
}

.fa-linkedin {
background: #007bb5;
color: white;
}

.fa-youtube {
background: #bb0000;
color: white;
}

.fa-instagram {
background: #125688;
color: white;
}

.fa-pinterest {
background: #cb2027;
color: white;
}

.fa-snapchat-ghost {
background: #fffc00;
color: white;
text-shadow: -1px 0 black, 0 1px black, 1px 0 black, 0 -1px black;
}

.fa-skype {
background: #00aff0;
color: white;
}

.fa-android {
background: #a4c639;
color: white;
}

.fa-dribbble {
background: #ea4c89;
color: white;
}

.fa-medium {
background: #000000;
color: white;
}

.fa-tumblr {
background: #2c4762;
color: white;
}

.fa-vine {
background: #00b489;
color: white;
}

.fa-foursquare {
background: #45bbff;
color: white;
}

.fa-stumbleupon {
background: #eb4924;
color: white;
}

.fa-flickr {
background: #f40083;
color: white;
}

.fa-yahoo {
background: #430297;
color: white;
}

.fa-soundcloud {
background: #ff5500;
color: white;
}

.fa-reddit {
background: #ff5700;
color: white;
}

.fa-rss {
background: #ff6600;
color: white;
}








Can coffee really be good for you?

As you see we are trying to post less often on the blog so that you have more time to read and discuss the posts. The following blog post is a bit of a cheat as I have reviewed three papers. However, they are all related to coffee and are relevant to pwMS and their families.


Are you addicted to coffee? If you are, don’t worry, the latest research suggests it may be good for you. However, if you have urinary symptoms, anxiety, tremor or sleep problems there may be a downside. 






The good news is that coffee consumption seems safe. The study published last week in the BMJ indicates a reduction in the risk of various health outcomes at three to four cups a day. These results don’t necessarily mean that coffee consumption is causal; i.e. in itself responsible for the reduction. Coffee drinkers may be different to non-coffee drinkers and this rather than the coffee per se may be the reason for the reduction in risk. The evidence suggests that coffee could be tested as an intervention without significant risk of causing harm in the disease studied. This analysis did not cover MS. Maybe MS is too uncommon to have been noticed by this research group? 


However, a Swedish study has looked at coffee consumption and MS risk. If you are a coffee drinker it appears you reduce your risks of getting MS by ~30% compared to non-coffee drinkers. Again is this simply an association or causation? Is there something that coffee-drinkers do those non-coffee drinkers don’t that protects them from getting MS (association)? Or, do the genetic factors that increase your risk of getting MS simply increase your affinity for coffee, and your chances of becoming addicted to coffee (association)? Or is there something in coffee that alters the immune system and reduces your risk of getting MS (causation)? If the observation is causal what is it in coffee that reduces your chances of getting MS? Could it be caffeine? If it is caffeine then other caffeinated drinks should also reduce your risks of getting MS; e.g. tea, energy drinks, cola, etc. Apart from being a stimulant, we know that caffeine has many biological effects including immunological and neuroprotective effects.


Coffee not only reduces your chances of getting MS but is protective for Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease as well. The latter observations alone make it worthwhile taking up the habit. Which is the reason I give for my habit of drinking 6-8 espresso shots per day. Did you know that on a global level caffeine is the most prevalent human addiction? Could coffee be another lifestyle factor to take into account when optimising your brain health? 


There are downsides to caffeine if you have MS. Too much can make anxiety worse and could exacerbate tremor. If you take too much caffeine, particularly late in the day, it can cause insomnia. This is why I have my last coffee no later than ~3pm. Caffeine is also a mild diuretic and causes increased urine production (see paper 3 below). This may exacerbate bladder problems. I have many patients who report that just one coffee affects their bladder function (urinary urgency and frequency).

How much coffee do you have? Does it help you? 


Coffee and general health:


Poole et al. Coffee consumption and health: umbrella review of meta-analyses of multiple health outcomes. BMJ 2017;359:j5024.


Objectives: To evaluate the existing evidence for associations between coffee consumption and multiple health outcomes.


Design: Umbrella review of the evidence across meta-analyses of observational and interventional studies of coffee consumption and any health outcome.


Data sources: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and screening of references.


Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Meta-analyses of both observational and interventional studies that examined the associations between coffee consumption and any health outcome in any adult population in all countries and all settings. Studies of genetic polymorphisms for coffee metabolism were excluded.


Results: The umbrella review identified 201 meta-analyses of observational research with 67 unique health outcomes and 17 meta-analyses of interventional research with nine unique outcomes. Coffee consumption was more often associated with benefit than harm for a range of health outcomes across exposures including high versus low, any versus none, and one extra cup a day. There was evidence of a non-linear association between consumption and some outcomes, with summary estimates indicating largest relative risk reduction at intakes of three to four cups a day versus none, including all cause mortality (relative risk 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.88), cardiovascular mortality (0.81, 0.72 to 0.90), and cardiovascular disease (0.85, 0.80 to 0.90). High versus low consumption was associated with an 18% lower risk of incident cancer (0.82, 0.74 to 0.89). Consumption was also associated with a lower risk of several specific cancers and neurological, metabolic, and liver conditions. Harmful associations were largely nullified by adequate adjustment for smoking, except in pregnancy, where high versus low/no consumption was associated with low birth weight (odds ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.67), preterm birth in the first (1.22, 1.00 to 1.49) and second (1.12, 1.02 to 1.22) trimester, and pregnancy loss (1.46, 1.06 to 1.99). There was also an association between coffee drinking and risk of fracture in women but not in men.


Conclusion: Coffee consumption seems generally safe within usual levels of intake, with summary estimates indicating largest risk reduction for various health outcomes at three to four cups a day, and more likely to benefit health than harm. Robust randomised controlled trials are needed to understand whether the observed associations are causal. Importantly, outside of pregnancy, existing evidence suggests that coffee could be tested as an intervention without significant risk of causing harm. Women at increased risk of fracture should possibly be excluded.


Coffee and MS Risk:


Hedström et al. High consumption of coffee is associated with decreased multiple sclerosis risk; results from two independent studies. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry doi:10.1136/jnnp-2015-312176


Objective: Previous studies on consumption of caffeine and risk of multiple sclerosis (MS) have yielded inconclusive results. We aimed to investigate whether consumption of coffee is associated with risk of MS.


Methods: Using two population-representative case–control studies (a Swedish study comprising 1620 cases and 2788 controls, and a US study comprising 1159 cases and 1172 controls), participants with different habits of coffee consumption based on retrospective data collection were compared regarding risk of MS, by calculating ORs with 95% CIs. Logistic regression models were adjusted for a broad range of potential confounding factors.


Results: Compared with those who reported no coffee consumption, the risk of MS was substantially reduced among those who reported a high consumption of coffee exceeding 900 mL daily (OR 0.70 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.99) in the Swedish study, and OR 0.69 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.96) in the US study). Lower odds of MS with increasing consumption of coffee were observed, regardless of whether coffee consumption at disease onset or 5 or 10 years prior to disease onset was considered.
Conclusions: In accordance with studies in animal models of MS, high consumption of coffee may decrease the risk of developing MS. Caffeine, one component of coffee, has neuroprotective properties, and has been shown to suppress the production of proinflammatory cytokines, which may be mechanisms underlying the observed association. However, further investigations are needed to determine whether exposure to caffeine underlies the observed association and, if so, to evaluate its mechanisms of action.

Caffeine and urinary symptoms:

Bradley et al. Evidence of the Impact of Diet, Fluid Intake, Caffeine, Alcohol and Tobacco on Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms: A Systematic Review. J Urol. 2017 Nov;198(5):1010-1020.


PURPOSE: Diet, fluid intake and caffeine, alcohol and tobacco use may have effects on lower urinary tract symptoms. Constructive changes in these modifiable nonurological factors are suggested to improve lower urinary tract symptoms. To better understand the relationship between nonurological factors and lower urinary tract symptoms, we performed a systematic literature review to examine, grade and summarize reported associations between lower urinary tract symptoms and diet, fluid intake and caffeine, tobacco and alcohol use.


MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed PubMed® searches for eligible articles providing evidence on associations between 1 or more nonurological factors and lower urinary tract symptoms. A modified Oxford scale was used to grade the evidence.


RESULTS: We reviewed 111 articles addressing diet (28 studies), fluid intake (21) and caffeine (21), alcohol (26) and tobacco use (44). The evidence grade was generally low (6% level 1, 24% level 2, 11% level 3 and 59% level 4). Fluid intake and caffeine use were associated with urinary frequency and urgency in men and women. Modest alcohol use was associated with decreased likelihood of benign prostatic hyperplasia diagnosis and reduced lower urinary tract symptoms in men. Associations between lower urinary tract symptoms and ingestion of certain foods and tobacco were inconsistent.


CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of associations between lower urinary tract symptoms and diet, fluid intake and caffeine, alcohol and tobacco use is sparse and mostly observational. However, there is evidence of associations between an increased fluid and caffeine intake and urinary frequency/urgency, and between modest alcohol intake and decreased benign prostatic hyperplasia diagnosis and lower urinary tract symptoms. Given the importance of these nonurological factors in daily life, and their perceived impact on lower urinary tract symptoms, higher quality evidence is needed.