Causes – Page 2 – Prof G's MS Blog Archive

The new black death is ageing

I say to many of patients one of the most powerful predictors of progressive, or more correctly worsening, MS is ageing. Age also predicts recovery of function; the younger you are the better you do. This study shows that ageing restricts the ability of stem cells to make oligodendrocytes to promote remyelination.

As you are aware age also predicts response, or lack or response, to DMTs. The older you are the less effective DMTs are. The list linked to ageing and poor prognosis goes on ….

I have always said ‘life is a sexually transmitted neurodegenerative disease with a 100% mortality’. This usually gets a mutated laugh until people start pondering the joke and its implications and then gradually realise that I am being serious.

Evolution never designed, and selected, the human brain and nervous system to function much past the age of 35. It is only relatively recently that life expectancy has increased dramatically with the requirement of our brains to function into ‘old age’. It is clear that when we measure cognitive function, and brain volume, it is all downhill from about 35 years of age.

Those of us who are older than 35 notice the subtle cognitive impairments that increase with age and the gradual malfunction and deterioration in our nervous systems. When last have you tried tight-rope walking? Your failing balance system is simply a reflection of the global rot that is also shredding your cognition. Fortunately, we have enough reserve to adapt and cope with the slow decline in our mental faculties. However, if we live long enough we are all likely to become demented. Dementia in this setting is simply the reduction of cognition to a point when you can’t manage socially and occupationally. To prevent the inevitable consequence of ageing is there anything we can do to optimise our brain health so our ‘brains outlive’ our ‘bodies’?

There is a lot we can do to improve brain health. However, some of the interventions may require the administration of medications in the future. For the anti-ageing revolution to happen, and be adopted by society, we need to make ageing a disease.

By defining ageing as a disease it changes everything. Firstly, it creates incentives for the pharmaceutical industry to invest in the necessary R&D to get drugs to market. If ageing is a disease healthcare providers will pay for interventions. The corollary is that if ageing is not defined as a disease, any interventions to delay or modify ageing, will be limited to lifestyle interventions. By defining ageing as a disease it will allow us to develop tools for population screening to identify people who are either healthy or in the presymptomatic phase of known neurodegenerative disease. This will then allow us to test preventive strategies to delay the onset of symptomatic disease.

If on the other hand, you have MS we already know you have a neurodegenerative disease that shreds reserve capacity and brings forward ageing mechanisms, which is why we need to manage MS as early and as effectively as possible and holistically. This is why the new treatment target is ‘to maximise brain health for the lifetime of the person with MS’.

Please be aware that ageing is a biological process and hence we can target the biology with both lifestyle interventions and drugs. For example, recent evidence suggests metformin, a diabetes drug, may reverse some of the ageing programmes. Dimethyl fumarate (DMF), a licensed MS DMT, seems to activate antiageing pathways that overlap with pathways linked to specific dietary interventions, i.e. calorie-restricted, intermittent fasting and ketogenic diets. Should all MSers be on metformin and/or DMF and/or one of these diets? We need trials to test these hypotheses. But at least there are investigators exploring the questions.

Please let me know if you find the anti-ageing hypothesis of MS compelling; it overlaps with diet, sleep, exercise and many other things that I can discuss in future blog posts.

Rivera et al. Aging restricts the ability of mesenchymal stem cells to promote the generation of oligodendrocytes during remyelination. Glia. 2019 Apr 30. doi: 10.1002/glia.23624.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a demyelinating disease of the central nervous system (CNS) that leads to severe neurological deficits. Due to their immunomodulatory and neuroprotective activities and their ability to promote the generation of oligodendrocytes, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are currently being developed for autologous cell therapy in MS. As aging reduces the regenerative capacity of all tissues, it is of relevance to investigate whether MSCs retain their pro-oligodendrogenic activity with increasing age. We demonstrate that MSCs derived from aged rats have a reduced capacity to induce oligodendrocyte differentiation of adult CNS stem/progenitor cells. Aging also abolished the ability of MSCs to enhance the generation of myelin-like sheaths in demyelinated cerebellar slice cultures. Finally, in a rat model for CNS demyelination, aging suppressed the capability of systemically transplanted MSCs to boost oligodendrocyte progenitor cell (OPC) differentiation during remyelination. Thus, aging restricts the ability of MSCs to support the generation of oligodendrocytes and consequently inhibits their capacity to enhance the generation of myelin-like sheaths. These findings may impact on the design of therapies using autologous MSCs in older MS patients.

CoI: multiple

Old age; how is it going to affect me?

Is ageing a disease? It is if you have MS.

We have been making the argument for moving our treatment target in MS to focus on old age; i.e. how do we your HCPs get you to old age with enough brain to deal with the ravages of age-related cognitive impairment?

It is clear that your brain and cognitive reserves are what protects you from the ‘normal age-related neuronal drop-out’, which occurs as part of normal life. We know that MS shreds both brain (size) and cognitive (synapses) reserve and hence it should bring forward age-related cognitive impairment in MSers. The latter was a hypothesis, but the study below shows it is not necessarily a hypothesis anymore. In summary, older MSers are more likely to be cognitively impaired (77%) compared to younger MSers (43%). The challenge is to prevent this. How? Early effective treatment to stop the shredder and to make sure we tackle smouldering MS.

Do you need any more evidence? Please ask your neurologist if you have NEDA is there any evidence of smouldering MS? He/She may want to know what smouldering MS is. You can then tell them it is what is happening at the bottom of the treatment pyramid that is out of sight of our routine monitoring. This is the reason why you need to self-monitor and if you are getting worse you need to ask what can be done about it.

Branco et al. Aging with multiple sclerosis: prevalence and profile of cognitive impairment. Neurol Sci. 2019 Apr 23. doi: 10.1007/s10072-019-03875-7.

BACKGROUND: The increase in life expectancy of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) requires a better knowledge of disease features in the older patients group.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence and profile of cognitive impairment (CI) in older patients with MS and perform a comparison with younger patients.

METHODS: Patients were consecutively recruited for 6 months. Cognitive performance was assessed through the Brief Repeatable Battery and the Stroop Test. CI was defined as impairment in ≥ 2 cognitive domains.

RESULTS: We identified 111 patients older than 55 years (mean age 59.7 years). The prevalence of CI was 77.4%, which was significantly higher than in younger patients (42.8%; p < 0.01). Information processing speed was the most impaired domain (68.8%), followed by verbal learning (49.5%), executive function (47.7%), and visuospatial learning (26.6%). We found no significant differences in the prevalence of impairment in the distinct cognitive domains between older and younger patients with CI. Depression and fatigue were not associated with increased CI among patients in the older age group (p > 0.70).

CONCLUSION: There is a remarkably high frequency of CI in older patients with MS. The similar profile of CI between older and younger patients suggests that CI is mostly directly related to MS itself and not to comorbid age-related disorders.

CoI: multiple

Why is everyone drinking anti-CD20 kool-aid?

Prof G will ocrelizumab and rituximab prevent SPMS?

Just back from the COMBAT-MS stakeholders meeting in Pasadena with the Kaiser (Kaiser Foundation Research Institute) and Swedish (Karolinska Institute) trial teams, PCORI (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute) and many brave an wonderful people with MS and their families.

The COMBAT-MS study (NCT03193866) is recruiting well and is on schedule to deliver very important comparative data on the effectiveness of rituximab in real-life. The full title of the study is ‘COMparison Between All immunoTherapies for Multiple Sclerosis. An Observational Long-term Prospective Cohort Study of Safety, Efficacy and Patient’s Satisfaction of MS Disease Modulatory Treatments in Relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis’. In short, COMBAT-MS will be comparing Rituximab with Natalizumab, Fingolimod, Alemtuzumab, Interferon-beta, Glatiramer acetate and Dimethyl Fumarate. Because the use of alemtuzumab seems to be quite limited in Sweden, with the majority of patients going onto rituximab, the study will not have enough power to compare rituximab with alemtuzumab. This a great pity because the real question I have is how does anti-CD20 therapy compare to our top-guns, i.e. alemtuzumab and HSCT. This question is becoming a priority for me.

We had a comprehensive safety update from the COMBAT-MS trial team, which will be presented later this year. However, the safety profile of rituximab is broadly in keeping with what is seen in rheumatology, with a few interesting exceptions. However, the overall safety profile will help with the adoption of rituximab as a treatment of MS in resource-poor environments.

I included in my presentation on why I think anti-CD20 is not good enough to treat MS in the long term and why we need to think beyond NEDA. I presented data, mainly from ocrelizumab, that shows MS continues to smoulder away on ocrelizumab despite patients being NEDA. The response to the data was what we are seeing was simply secondary progressive MS. Yes and no. It may be a secondary progressive disease, but the pathology driving smouldering MS (microglial activation, slowly expanding lesions, subpial cortical lesions, intrathecal immunoglobulin production, demyelination, mitochondrial toxicity and energy failure, oxidative damage, delayed axonal loss, synaptic pruning, premature ageing, etc.) are all present at the very earliest stages of the disease, even the asymptomatic stage of the disease, i.e. radiologically isolated syndromes. This is why I don’t think SPMS really exists and why MS is one and not two or three diseases.

The construct that MS has distinct phases, an early inflammatory and a delayed degenerative phase, is artificial and comes from the Pharma industry’s need to get interferon-beta licensed under the orphan drug act, i.e. MS had to have a prevalence of fewer than 200,000 affected people for the orphan drug act to apply. The only way to get the numbers down to less than 200,000 was to salami-slice up MS into three diseases, i.e. RRMS, SPMS and PPMS. Later on, a fourth category, CIS (clinically isolated syndrome) was added. However, CIS has largely disappeared as a category because of diagnostic creep and the earlier diagnosis of MS with the evolving definition of MS based on the newer versions of the McDonald criteria. Having looked hard I can find no scientific justification for making SPMS a different disease.

In my opinion, smouldering MS and the pathologies driving it do not seem to be anti-CD20 responsive. If they were then we would see a much better impact of anti-CD20 on brain volume loss, disease improvement and the slowly expanding lesion. What does this mean for people with MS? It means that anti-CD20 therapies may be a good platform to start on but you will require additional add-on therapies to stop smouldering MS. Can I please urge you to re-read Stephen Hauser’s case report below. You may argue that one swallow doesn’t make a summer, but Stephen Hauser implied two year’s ago in a response to a question at ECTRIMS that anti-CD20 was not the panacea everyone wants it to be and that a lot of his long-term rituximab-treated patients were now secondary progressive, i.e. they had smouldering MS.

The concept of smouldering MS is a difficult one for people in the field to grasp. Why? It is because NEDA-3 has become de-facto what defines MS. We need to move beyond what we can see and measure and focus on end-organ markers of disease activity, i.e. whole brain and regional or grey matter volumes, the expanding MS lesions, neurofilament levels and more sensitive clinical outcomes. An EDSS view of the world is simply too narrow. We need to look at cognition, visual function and more sensitive functional tests of different neuronal systems. One of the attendees was horrified when I said that the best thing that could happen to the field is if we could automate the neurological examination using a validated technology platform. The idea of using a neurologist to assess eye movements and balance, when it can be done so much better with eye tracking systems and balance sensors, shocked this individual. Bring on the robots and maybe our worldview of MS, in particular, smouldering MS, would change.

I was also able to deliver good news about our WHO Essential Medicine List (EML) application that includes ocrelizumab as one of the three drugs and rituximab as a suitable replacement for ocrelizumab if access to ocrelizumab is a problem. If our EML application is successful this will allow us to pressurise governments to prioritise the treatment of MS in low prevalence countries. I explained to the group that what had started out for me as an ‘Essential Off-label DMT list’ in 2014, may become an official WHO-backed Essential DMT list in 2019. I am holding thumbs we get MS onto the EML, it needs to be there for many reasons.

I also covered in my talk alternative hypotheses, i.e. that MS may be due to a virus and that our current world-view of MS being an autoimmune disease driven by T and B-cells may be wrong. I briefly presented the B-cell-EBV hypothesis and our proposed EBV vaccination trial. I stressed that we need to use anti-CD20 as a tool to explore the EBV hypothesis and the good news is that Fredrik Piehl is going to explore EBV biomarkers as part of the COMBAT-MS study.

I used my lecture to represent my ‘marginal gains’ philosophy as it applies to treating MS and how we need to manage MS holistically and focus on the small things that may make a big difference to MS outcomes in the future. This is only the second time that I have presented this concept to my peer group, but it is something that still needs work to make it sticky.

The following are my slides from the meeting, which you can download from my slide sharing site.

I would like to thank PCORI and the Kaiser team for including me in this study and for your wonderful hospitality. I have little doubt that the COMBAT-MS study is going to help change the way the MS community treats MS globally. I would also like to thank the MSers who attended and spoke at the meeting; you are are the reason why we are doing what we do.

von Büdingen et al. Onset of secondary progressive MS after long-term rituximab therapy – a case report. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2016 Dec 20;4(1):46-52.

A patient with relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) was treated with a standard immunomodulatory therapy, but due to ongoing disease activity was switched to rituximab. Relapses ceased, but secondary progressive MS (SPMS) eventually appeared, associated with new focal spinal cord white matter lesions. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) showed persistent oligoclonal bands (OCB) and clonally related B cells in CSF and peripheral blood. The treatment escalation approach failed to prevent evolution to SPMS, raising the question of whether initiation of B-cell depleting therapy at the time of RMS diagnosis should be tested to more effectively address the immune pathology leading to SPMS.

CoI: multiple

Calling all vegans

As a vegan what supplements do I need to take?

I am in the process of researching the dietary landscape for people with MS and will not be ready to make any firm recommendations for some time, but I can make a recommendation of what diets to avoid. The first is a strict vegan diet without supplements.

My index patient was an Asian woman, in her mid-20s, with RRMS who referred for a second opinion about worsening MS symptoms and escalation therapy. She was on glatiramer acetate and was complaining of progressive visual disturbance and painful pins and needles in her hands and feet. When I saw her there was little doubt she had RRMS, but it was clear to me she had superimposed vitamin B12 deficiency as well. She had bilateral visual failure (6/60 vision) with large central blind spots and when I looked into the back of her eyes her optic nerve was very pale indicating she had lost a lot of nerve fibres in the eyes (optic atrophy). The clue to the diagnosis was that she was pale and had a smooth red tongue (atrophic glossitis) and she had lost sensation in her feet and her tendon reflexes were depressed (neuropathy). Other problems included excessive fatigue, shortness of breath with minimal exertion, memory loss, poor concentration and attention, irregular periods and patchy hair loss. When I asked her about her diet she volunteered to be a vegetarian for most of her life and had become a strict vegan in the last 5 years. Apart from the intermittent use of iron supplements for anaemia, she was not taking any supplements. When I checked her blood results she had very low vB12 levels and mild anaemia with a mixed pattern due to a combination of being iron and vB12 deficient. Tragically this patient’s visual function did not recover on vB12 supplements and her peripheral neuropathy became very painful presumably as the nerve fibres started to recover in her feet they started to fire aberrantly causing pain. She is now registered legally blind; a tragedy as her visual loss was preventable.

In addition, to this patient in my 5-years of doing the physician’s clinic at Moorfields eye hospital under Professor W. Ian McDonald’s mentorship, I must have diagnosed subacute combined degeneration of the spinal cord due to dietary vB12 deficiency in at least 5 other patients who were vegans. I have also seen a remarkable case of a lady, who was a vegan, who presented with pins and needles around the mouth and a numb tongue. She was not vB12 deficient as she was taking vB12 supplements, but when I did her peripheral metabolic profile she was profoundly zinc deficient and also had low levels of selenium. Within a week of going onto zinc and selenium supplements, her symptoms resolved.

From an evolutionary medicine, perspective veganism is not natural. We evolved as omnivores, i.e. vegetable and meat eaters; our metabolism tells us this and hence a strict vegan diet is unnatural and unbalanced. If you are vegan you need to make sure you supplement your diet with the following essential nutrients and minerals:

Vitamin B12
Iron
Zinc
Iodine
Calcium
Essential fatty acids, in particular, omega-3 fatty acids

The following may need supplementing:

Vitamin D (you can get sufficient from sunlight exposure at the correct time of the year). At Barts-MS we recommend that all our patients and first- and second-degree relatives take vD supplements according to the vD Council’s recommendations.
Selenium (you can get sufficient selenium from some vegan food sources, e.g. brazil nuts, mushrooms, sunflower seeds and beans)
Protein (adults can get enough protein from a vegan diet, but children and people in a catabolic state, for example with certain diseases, may need additional protein sources)

If you have children on a vegan diet you should be careful about making sure they get enough protein and the above supplements. If not they may become stunted.

The bottom line; strict veganism is not natural in health and/or disease and is deficient in several key nutrients and minerals that need to be supplemented. This is a problem for people who are on the breadline; supplements are relatively expensive and hence vegan diets put poorer people at greater risk of the health consequences of an inadequate diet.

Please note that vB12 is essential for myelin metabolism and is the reason why when you are vB12 deficient you get a mixed demyelinating and axonal nerve loss picture in the optic nerves, spinal cord and peripheral nerves. There is a body of literature showing that pwMS tend to have low vB12 levels and this may be an indication of them needing more vB12 that the average person as it is consumed as part of myelin turnover. I therefore suspect that pwMS are even more senstive to vegan diets than people without MS.

Baroni et al. Vegan Nutrition for Mothers and Children: Practical Tools for Healthcare Providers. Nutrients. 2019 Jan; 11(1): 5.

As the number of subjects choosing vegan diets increases, healthcare providers must be prepared to give the best advice to vegan patients during all stages of life. A completely plant-based diet is suitable during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, and childhood, provided that it is well-planned. Balanced vegan diets meet energy requirements on a wide variety of plant foods and pay attention to some nutrients that may be critical, such as protein, fibre, omega-3 fatty acids, iron, zinc, iodine, calcium, vitamin D, and vitamin B12. This paper contains recommendations made by a panel of experts from the Scientific Society for Vegetarian Nutrition (SSNV) after examining the available literature concerning vegan diets during pregnancy, breastfeeding, infancy, and childhood. All healthcare professionals should follow an approach based on the available evidence in regard to the issue of vegan diets, as failing to do so may compromise the nutritional status of vegan patients in these delicate periods of life.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What is end-organ damage?

Help! How do I manage progressive brain atrophy in a patient who is NEDA-3?

End-organ damage is a catch-all phrase for the degeneration of the brain; it occurs as part of the ageing process that some consider pathological and others as a normal fact of life. I have hinted that I consider it both because end-organ damage is potentially modifiable via lifestyle modifications and pharmacological interventions. If it was a normal process it should not be modifiable. How can you be more normal than normal? Making ageing a disease also has political ramifications, for example, it will almost certainly incentivise Pharma to develop treatments for ageing.

In MS end-organ damage is massively accelerated by the MS disease process itself, i.e. inflammation and demyelination, and from delayed downstream processes triggered by inflammation, for example, energy failure, microglial activation, ongoing inflammation driven by antibodies, possible slow viral infection and its consequences and comorbidities. It is clear that all people with MS will have end-organ damage, but what can we do about it? To be honest, apart from early treatment to prevent damage, we haven’t got an evidence base about how to manage this problem in MS.

As an example, I saw a patient earlier this week. He has relapsing-remitting MS diagnosed in the mid-2000s and started on interferon-beta (Avonex). He also has type 1 diabetes which he developed when he was 14 years of age, 8 years before he was diagnosed with MS. His diabetes was poorly controlled initially but is now well controlled on an insulin pump. He has renal (proteinuria), eye (retinopathy) and hypertension as complications of his diabetes. His hypertension is controlled on medication. He has been relapse-free and his MRI has not shown any obvious new lesions over the last 6 years; i.e. he is NEDA-3. He does not smoke, but he drinks between 3 and 4 units of alcohol per day. He was referred to me because he is sick and tired of injecting himself with interferon and he has heard of a new drug called ocrelizumab. He wants to be switched to it because is more efficacious and only give every 6 months. His treating neurologist said no, hence his referral to me for a second opinion.

When I went through his history it is clear he has had no relapses in the last 6 years and is fully functional and working full-time. I reviewed his MRIs and I agree he has no new lesions over the last 6 years, but he has developed quite profound and progressive brain atrophy over this timeframe; he is definitely not NEDA-4. What do I do?

Do I switch him from interferon-beta to ocrelizumab? Or do I leave him on Avonex, which is doing its job and rendering him NEDA-3?

If I do switch him to ocrelizumab, will it normalise his brain volume loss? Will he become NEDA-4?

What is causing his brain volume loss? MS, hypertension, diabetes, alcohol or something else?

Do I tell him about his gross brain atrophy, which he is blissfully unaware of?

Do I offer him a formal cognitive assessment to see if he has cognitive impairments? If he has a cognitive assessment and they come back abnormal, which they are likely to, how do I tell him? Will knowing he cognitively impaired affect his management?

Do I offer him a lumbar puncture to measure his spinal fluid neurofilament levels?

Do I recommend any add-on off-label treatments that may help?

Or do I just take the easy option and send him back to his neurologist with a recommendation to leave things as is?

Can I suggest we debate these issues over the next few days and I can then potentially do a live webinar on the issue of end-organ damage and how to handle the problem of progressive brain volume loss on DMTs when you are NEDA-3.