Category: News and events

HSCT and fake news

I post to manage expectations and counteract fake news. 

There is a group of pro-HSCTers going around and saying HSCT is a cure for MS even in MSers with more advanced disease, i.e. it halts and reverses their disability. This is simply not correct and we have no published, peer-reviewed, data to support their position. 

The meta-analysis below from Paulo Muraro and colleagues clearly shows that in MSers with SPMS and PPMS having HSCT the ‘majority of study subjects’ continue to progress. This is why most bone marrow transplant units generally don’t treat progressive MS.  Even Richard Burt one of the main proponents of treating MS with HSCT stopped transplanting MSers with progressive MS when his BMT unit was still active.

The figure below from the Muraro paper confirms the above; over 60% of the SPMSers and 100% of the PPMSers worsened compared to about 45% of the RRMSers. Why? I suspect it is due to smouldering MS.

HSCT is simply a very potent IRT (immune reconstitution therapy) and is effective at switching off relapses and new focal MRI activity. We have no data to suggest that it impacts on smouldering MS. In fact, we have evidence to the contrary, that the chemotherapy used to deplete the immune system is neurotoxic and some patients actually develop worsening disability as a result of ‘chemo brain’ or acute neurotoxicity associated with the induction protocol. In the Canadian study, which uses myeloablative chemotherapy, treated patients lost more than 2% of their brain volume in year 1. Believe me, this is serious brain volume loss way above what you expect MS to do and is indicative of neurotoxicity. The reason why relapsing MSers cope with the HSCT conditioning is because of reserve and progressive MSers do not, because their MS has already consumed their reserve capacity.

Many years ago we showed that MSers undergoing BMT/HSCT release very high levels of neurofilaments as part of the induction protocol and the levels of neurofilaments released predicted worsening disability. In other words, the chemotherapy caused acute neurotoxicity and resulted in disability worsening. This is one of the reasons why the Rotterdam BMT unit, and many other units, stopped treating progressive MSers. However, if you go to a fee-for-service BMT unit they will treat all-comers. Why? It is called a business and money talks. Don’t be gullible. 

What about the anecdotal cases of HSCT curing progressive MS? I can’t say I have seen a single case. All the patients in my practice with progressive MS who have gone abroad to have HSCT have continued to worsen on their return. I am aware of a case of a colleague of mine who had a patient who was in a wheelchair who had HSCT abroad who miraculously got up and walked after having HSCT. My colleague informed me that he had diagnosed this patient as having somatization disorder, a very common MS mimic, that is a psychiatric condition. I am, therefore, sceptical about miraculous anecdotes and I would urge you to be careful before you base your decisions to have HSCT based on anecdotes. What we as an MS community needs is published data on the risks and benefits of HSCT in advanced MS to base our decisions on.  

Muraro et al. Long-term Outcomes After Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Multiple Sclerosis. JAMA Neurol. 2017 Apr 1;74(4):459-469. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.5867.

IMPORTANCE: Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) may be effective in aggressive forms of multiple sclerosis (MS) that fail to respond to standard therapies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term outcomes in patients who underwent AHSCT for the treatment of MS in a large multicenter cohort.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were obtained in a multicenter, observational, retrospective cohort study. Eligibility criteria were receipt of AHSCT for the treatment of MS between January 1995 and December 2006 and the availability of a prespecified minimum data set comprising the disease subtype at baseline; the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score at baseline; information on the administered conditioning regimen and graft manipulation; and at least 1 follow-up visit or report after transplant. The last patient visit was on July 1, 2012. To avoid bias, all eligible patients were included in the analysis regardless of their duration of follow-up. Data analysis was conducted from September 1, 2014 to April 27, 2015.

EXPOSURES: Demographic, disease-related, and treatment-related exposures were considered variables of interest, including age, disease subtype, baseline EDSS score, number of previous disease-modifying treatments, and intensity of the conditioning regimen.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were MS progression-free survival and overall survival. The probabilities of progression-free survival and overall survival were calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis models.

RESULTS: Valid data were obtained from 25 centers in 13 countries for 281 evaluable patients, with median follow-up of 6.6 years (range, 0.2-16 years). Seventy-eight percent (218 of 281) of patients had progressive forms of MS. The median EDSS score before mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells was 6.5 (range, 1.5-9). Eight deaths (2.8%; 95% CI, 1.0%-4.9%) were reported within 100 days of transplant and were considered transplant-related mortality. The 5-year probability of progression-free survival as assessed by the EDSS score was 46% (95% CI, 42%-54%), and overall survival was 93% (95% CI, 89%-96%) at 5 years. Factors associated with neurological progression after transplant were older age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.05), progressive vs relapsing form of MS (HR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.27-4.28), and more than 2 previous disease-modifying therapies (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.10-2.47). Higher baseline EDSS score was associated with worse overall survival (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.40-2.95).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this observational study of patients with MS treated with AHSCT, almost half of them remained free from neurological progression for 5 years after transplant. Younger age, relapsing form of MS, fewer prior immunotherapies, and lower baseline EDSS score were factors associated with better outcomes. The results support the rationale for further randomized clinical trials of AHSCT for the treatment of MS.

Atkins et al. Immunoablation and autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation for aggressive multiple sclerosis: a multicentre single-group phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2016 Aug 6;388(10044):576-85. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30169-6. 

BACKGROUND: Strong immunosuppression, including chemotherapy and immune-depleting antibodies followed by autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation (aHSCT), has been used to treat patients with multiple sclerosis, improving control of relapsing disease. We addressed whether near-complete immunoablation followed by immune cell depleted aHSCT would result in long-term control of multiple sclerosis.

METHODS: We did this phase 2 single-arm trial at three hospitals in Canada. We enrolled patients with multiple sclerosis, aged 18-50 years with poor prognosis, ongoing disease activity, and an Expanded Disability Status Scale of 3.0-6.0. Autologous CD34 selected haemopoietic stem-cell grafts were collected after mobilisation with cyclophosphamide and filgrastim. Immunoablation with busulfan, cyclophosphamide, and rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin was followed by aHSCT. The primary outcome was multiple sclerosis activity-free survival (events were clinical relapse, appearance of a new or Gd-enhancing lesion on MRI, and sustained progression of Expanded Disability Status Scale score). This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01099930.

FINDINGS: Between diagnosis and aHSCT, 24 patients had 167 clinical relapses over 140 patient-years with 188 Gd-enhancing lesions on 48 pre-aHSCT MRI scans. Median follow-up was 6.7 years (range 3.9-12.7). The primary outcome, multiple sclerosis activity-free survival at 3 years after transplantation was 69.6% (95% CI 46.6-84.2). With up to 13 years of follow-up after aHSCT, no relapses occurred and no Gd enhancing lesions or new T2 lesions were seen on 314 MRI sequential scans. The rate of brain atrophy decreased to that expected for healthy controls. One of 24 patients died of transplantation-related complications. 35% of patients had a sustained improvement in their Expanded Disability Status Scale score.

INTERPRETATION: We describe the first treatment to fully halt all detectable CNS inflammatory activity in patients with multiple sclerosis for a prolonged period in the absence of any ongoing disease-modifying drugs. Furthermore, many of the patients had substantial recovery of neurological function despite their disease’s aggressive nature.

Petzold et al.  Evidence for acute neurotoxicity after chemotherapy. Ann Neurol. 2010 Dec;68(6):806-15. doi: 10.1002/ana.22169.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic neurotoxicity is a recognized long-term complication following chemotherapy in a range of diseases. Neurotoxicity adversely affects patients’ quality of life. The objective of this study is to examine whether there is evidence of acute neurotoxicity.

METHODS: This prospective study included patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS-BMT, n = 14) and hematological malignancies (HM-BMT, n = 17) receiving chemotherapy as preconditioning for bone marrow transplant. The control groups included SPMS patients matched for demographic and clinical data (SPMS-PL, n = 14) and healthy controls (n = 14). Neurodegeneration was assessed at baseline and longitudinally (months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 24, and 36), combining a clinical scale for disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS]), a serum protein biomarker for neurodegeneration (neurofilaments, NfH-SMI35), and brain atrophy measures (magnetic resonance imaging).

RESULTS: Disability progression was significantly more acute and severe following chemotherapy compared to placebo. Immediately after starting chemotherapy, serum NfH-SMI35 levels increased in 79% (p < 0.0001) of SPMS-BMT patients and 41% (p < 0.01) of HM-BMT patients compared to 0% of SPMS-PL patients or healthy controls. In SPMS-BMT serum NfH-SMI35 levels were > 100-fold higher 1 month after chemotherapy (29.73ng/ml) compared to baseline (0.28ng/ml, p < 0.0001). High serum NfH-SMI35 levels persisting for at least 3 months were associated with sustained disability progression on the EDSS (p < 0.05). Brain atrophy rates increased acutely in SPMS-BMT (-2.09) compared to SPMS-PL (-1.18, p < 0.05).

INTERPRETATION: Neurotoxicity is an unwanted acute side effect of aggressive chemotherapy.

CoI: multiple

De novo PML on ocrelizumab

In my career as a neurologist, I have seen three patients who developed PML (progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy) without any apparent risk factors apart from being old. They were all over 70. Prior to the HIV epidemic, about 1 in 10 patients with PML did not have an obvious underlying risk factor except for age or immunosenescence of the elderly.  Immunosenescence is the term immunologists use to describe malfunctioning of the immune system with ageing.

Based on the fact that even ‘normal’ elderly people have a very small risk of getting PML, it comes as no surprise that age is an emerging PML risk factor in MS, and explains why relatively safe DMTs have been associated with rare cases of PML. The last case of DMF-associated PML, who had a total lymphocyte count above 500, was in her sixties and old-age partially explains the first de novo case of PML on ocrelizumab (see below). 

We received the notification from Roche today describing a case of PML in a patient treated with ocrelizumab as first-line therapy, who also had a mild lymphopaenia. The question you will be asking is why is a 76-year-old MSer being exposed to such a potent immunosuppressive agent?  I don’t know. Maybe he had very active MS and his neurologist wanted to offer him a highly effective DMT first-line (flipping the pyramid). 

As what has happened with alemtuzumab usage in the US we are likely to see a more severe and unexpected adverse event profile in MSers who are older on ocrelizumab. Being older means they are more likely to have comorbidities, immunosenescence and less biological reserve to deal with serious and life-threatening infections. 

Am I concerned about this case? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that I would think twice about using such a potent immunosuppressive agent in an elderly person with MS. No, in that de novo PML is rare with anti-CD20 treatment and is highly unlikely to be a problem in younger people with MS. 

On reflection, cladribine would have been a better high-efficacy DMT for this patient. The fact that cladribine is a selective IRT (immune reconstitution therapy) and does not cause longterm immunosuppression makes it a safer agent in this population group. Unfortunately, when this patient was started on ocrelizumab oral cladribine was not licensed in the US and the current FDA label discourages first-line use of oral cladribine. So even if cladribine was available at the time it is unlikely that it would have been prescribed. An interesting topic that is emerging in the field is the management of MS in the elderly, including the management of highly-active MS in this population group. Maybe we should put this topic forward for one of our future triMS.online conferences?

ROCHE STATEMENT

In the interest of patient safety, and as part of our ongoing commitment to transparency, I am forwarding this information.

  • We are aware of a report of a confounded case of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) in a multiple sclerosis (MS) patient in the United States of America who was treated with Ocrevus®▼(ocrelizumab). The potential contribution of Ocrevus treatment to this PML case is difficult to quantify but cannot be ruled out.
  • The patient has a long-standing history of MS. They were previously untreated and hence Ocrevus was their first disease-modifying therapy (DMT). The patient was treated with Ocrevus for two years, with the initiation of treatment in July 2017 and the last dose was administered in February 2019.
  • The treating physician has reported this as a confounded case of PML. Contributing factors (confounders) reported by the physician are the patient’s age (78) with potential immunosenescence, low absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) prior to treatment with Ocrevus (max CTCAE grade 1, no subtypes available), as well as low ALC (max grade 2), low CD4+ (max grade 2) and low CD8+ counts during treatment, with Ocrevus as a probable contributor.
  • Roche follow the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) criteria to establish the diagnosis of PML, in addition to consultation with an external advisory panel of experts.
  • Patient safety is Roche’s highest priority, and, consistent with our safety reporting processes, we report to health authorities in accordance with standard pharmacovigilance processes.
  • Roche is in contact with the treating physician to help evaluate the case, providing support and expertise where appropriate. 
  • The overall benefit/risk for Ocrevus remains unchanged at this time. As of 30th September 2019, more than 130,000 people with MS have been treated with Ocrevus globally (1). To date, there have been no unconfounded cases of PML reported in patients treated with Ocrevus. All seven previous confirmed PML cases of patients treated with Ocrevus were confounded by and attributed to the previous DMT (carry-over cases). This is the first PML case in a patient treated with Ocrevus where the cause of the PML, although confounded, has not been attributed to a previous DMT.

The recommendations relating to PML in the approved product labelling for Ocrevus remain unchanged. Physicians should be vigilant for early signs and symptoms of PML, which can include any new-onset, or worsening of neurological signs or symptoms, as these can be similar to an MS relapse. If PML is suspected, withhold dosing with Ocrevus.

Please refer to the summary of product characteristics for full prescribing information here.

For ease of reference, we have collated an overview of all confirmed PML cases to date (October 2019):

Confirmed case no.CountryReportedSettingConfounding factor(s)
1GermanyMay 2017Compassionate Use programmePrior DMT (Natalizumab)
2CanadaApril 2018Post-marketingPrior DMT (Fingolimod)
3USAMay 2018Post-marketingPrior DMT (Natalizumab)
4USAJune 2018Post-marketingPrior DMT (Natalizumab)
5USAJuly 2018Post-marketingPrior DMT (Natalizumab)
6LuxembourgSeptember 2018Post-marketingPrior DMT (Natalizumab)
7USAFebruary 2019Post-marketingPrior DMT (Natalizumab)
8USAOctober 2019Post-marketingAge (78) & low lymphocyte counts prior to, and during Tx

Mills and  Mao-Draayer. Aging and lymphocyte changes by immunomodulatory therapies impact PML risk in multiple sclerosis patients. Mult Scler. 2018 Jul;24(8):1014-1022. doi: 10.1177/1352458518775550. 

New potent immunomodulatory therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS) are associated with increased risk for progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). It is unclear why a subset of treated patients develops PML, but patient age has emerged as an important risk factor. PML is caused by the JC virus and aging is associated with immune senescence, which increases susceptibility to infection. With the goal of improving PML risk stratification, we here describe the lymphocyte changes that occur with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) associated with high or moderate risk toward PML in MS patients, how these changes compare to immune aging, and which measures best correlate with risk. We reviewed studies examining how these therapies alter patient immune profiles, which revealed the induction of changes to lymphocyte number and/or function that resemble immunosenescence. Therefore, the immunosuppressive activity of these MS DMTs may be enhanced in the context of an immune system that is already exhibiting features of senescence.

CoI: multiple

Inequality

Prof G why the sudden and recent fixation with inequality? 

There is overwhelming evidence that many health outcomes, including life expectancy, infant mortality, obesity, cancer survival rates, suicide, addiction and many more are linked to the level of economic inequality within society. In short, greater economic inequality leads to worse health outcomes. 

Inequality does not necessarily refer to poverty, but relative poverty in society. For example, somebody in the lowest decile of the income distribution of a rich country such as the UK may not be considered poor by international standards, but relative to other people in the UK they are poor. 

If you are interested in understanding more about this can I suggest you read Danny Dorling’s book “Injustice: Why social inequality still persists”. In this book, he uses the example of not be able to go on a family holiday as been a good indicator of the ‘have-nots’. The corollary is being able to afford an annual family holiday in modern Britain defines you as being one of the ‘haves’. 

Why inequality results in poor health outcomes is complex. Michael Marmot argues in “The Health Gap: The Challenge of an Unequal World” that it causes chronic stress that results in poor outcomes. Please note stress is a biological response and can be measured; when people are stressed they produce excessive cortisol (a steroid) that then triggers a biological cascade that drives many disease processes and behavioural responses. The implications of this are that at a population level stress is bad and to improve outcomes you need population-based interventions to reduce stress. The latter is easier said than done when you have at least half the political establishment pushing a neoliberal (market) agenda that has been shown to increase inequality. 

How does this relate to MS? At the moment we are not sure if inequality affects MS outcomes, but we suspect it does. Many comorbidities associated with inequality, such as smoking, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, stroke and myocardial infarction are associated with a worse MS prognosis. In addition, healthcare literacy and healthcare utilization are also linked to inequality and this is very relevant to MS. 

To address this data gap we are starting a programme of work in the UK to investigate inequality and whether or not it is impacting on MS practice, MS outcomes and access to MS services. Although we started this at Barts-MS the main body of work will be done under one of the MS Academy workstreams we have defined as part of our ‘Raising the Bar’ initiative. Please note this is not just about defining and measuring inequality in MS Service provision and use, but implementing service change to make sure no MSers are left behind. 

I note many commentators on this blog don’t like us highlighting political issues and would prefer us to focus on science. I would argue healthcare is politics and politics is health. If you are an HCP you can’t practice your trade without getting involved with politics or at least having a position on political issues. 

The one positive outcome for me from the Brexit debacle is that it has made me realise that I didn’t have the background knowledge to have an informed opinion on Brexit and the reasons for Brexit. As a result of the self-exploration Brexit triggered (see Medium post), I have become an amateur economist, behavioural psychologist and geopolitician. All this has changed my worldview. This is why we have launched our #ThinkSocial campaign to raise awareness and make sure every HCP working in the MS space understands how inequality impacts on their patients and rather than accepting the status quo they should do something about it. 

CoI: multiple

the HYPE study

It is clear that many MSers on continuous anti-CD20 therapy are concerned about the risk of developing hypogammaglobulinaemia and subsequent infections. Yesterday, I spoke to several neurologists at the O’HAND investigators meeting in Barcelona who informed me that they are considering giving their ocrelizumab-treated patients hyperimmune globulin replacement therapy (HYPE-Ig-RT) when they develop hypogammaglobulinaemia to prevent serious and potentially fatal infections. 

The problem I have with this is that HYPER-Ig-RT is expensive and for it to be covered by the NHS we will need to show that it is cost-effective. In response to these discussions Owen Pearson, an MSologist from Swansea, and I came up with the design of the HYPE study below.

The HYPE study

This is a randomised placebo-controlled trial to assess whether or not  HYPE-Ig-RT will work, i.e. reduce the risk of serious infection, infections and mortality in MSers on continuous anti-CD20 therapy. Please note we don’t think this study should be limited to ocrelizumab-treated MSers but should be open to any patient on anti-CD20 therapy, including those on rituximab and ofatumumab. 

What do you think of the HYPE study? Do we have clinical equipoise? 

Please remember for the payers, i.e. NHS England and insurance companies, to pay for HYPER-Ig-RT we need class 1 evidence to make the financial case to them. This study will test the hypothesis that HYPE-Ig-RT will derisk continuous anti-CD20 therapies and prevent some of the infectious complications related to hypogammaglobulinaemia. 

What is the risk of serious infections on anti-CD20 therapies? 

The following figures put the serious infection risk, i.e. infections requiring hospitalisation, on ocrelizumab in context. The overall figure is 2.24 serious infections per 100 patient-years. In other words for every 45 patients on ocrelizumab for 12 months one patient will be admitted to hospital with a serious infection. However, if you develop low IgG levels (hypogammaglobulinaemia) the risk rises to 5.48 serious infections per 100 patient-years or for every 18 patients on ocrelizumab for 12 months one patient will be admitted with a serious infection. This is why we are now monitoring peripheral blood immunoglobulin levels on an annual basis in all our patients on anti-CD20 therapy.

Derfuss et al. Serum Immunoglobulin Levels and Risk of Serious Infections in the Pivotal Phase III Trials of Ocrelizumab in Multiple Sclerosis and Their Open-Label Extensions. ECTRIMS 2019, 

CoI: multiple

O’HAND

I am very excited and proud to be attending and speaking at the first European Oratoria-HAND, or O’Hand, study investigator meeting in Barcelona. With Chariot-MS, the O’HAND study is the culmination of more than 4 years of work and campaigning for Barts-MS. 

However, our #ThinkHand campaign will only be considered a true success if we get a positive outcome from one of our studies and a DMT gets licensed to protect, or delay loss of, hand and arm function in people with more advanced MS. These trials have the potential to change the field and make more advanced MS modifiable. Many cynics think we are wasting our time. But if you have MS and you lose your lower limb function you become dependent on your hand and arms to maintain your independence. In other words, your arms become your legs. 

The following is my presentation from the meeting, which you can download from my bespoke SlideShare site. 

O’HAND Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study:  18 Years to 65 Years   (Adult, Older Adult)
Sexes Eligible for Study:  All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:  No

Inclusion Criteria:

  • EDSS score at screening and baseline >= 3.0 to 8.0, inclusive
  • Disease duration from the onset of MS symptoms:

Less than 15 years in patients with an EDSS at screening > 5.0 Less than 10 years in patients with an EDSS at screening <= 5.0

  • Documented history or presence at screening of at least one of the following laboratory findings in a cerebrospinal fluid specimen: Elevated IgG index or one or more IgG oligoclonal bands detected by isoelectric focusing
  • Screening and baseline 9-HPT completed in > 25 seconds (average of the two hands)
  • Ability to complete the 9-HPT within 240 seconds with each hand at screening and baseline
  • Patients previously treated with immunosuppressants, immunomodulators, or other immunomodulatory therapies must undergo an appropriate washout period according to the local label of the immunosuppressant/immunomodulatory drug used
  • For women of childbearing potential: agreement to remain abstinent (refrain from heterosexual intercourse) or use adequate contraceptive methods during the treatment period and for 6 months after the final dose of ocrelizumab. Adherence to local requirements, if more stringent, is required.
  • For female patients without reproductive potential: Women may be enrolled if post-menopausal unless the patient is receiving a hormonal therapy for her menopause or if surgically sterile

Exclusion Criteria:

  • History of relapsing-remitting or secondary progressive MS at screening
  • Confirmed serious opportunistic infection including: active bacterial, viral, fungal, mycobacterial infection or other infection, including tuberculosis or atypical mycobacterial disease
  • Patients who have or have had confirmed or a high degree of suspicion of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML)
  • Known active malignancy or are being actively monitored for recurrence of malignancy
  • Immunocompromised state
  • Receipt of a live-attenuated vaccine within 6 weeks prior to randomization
  • Inability to complete an MRI or contraindication to Gd administration.
  • Patients requiring symptomatic treatment of MS and/or physiotherapy who are not on a stable regimen. Patients must not initiate symptomatic treatment of MS or physiotherapy within 4 weeks of randomization.
  • Contraindications to mandatory premedications for infusion-related reactions, including:

uncontrolled psychosis for corticosteroids and closed-angle glaucoma for antihistamines

  • Known presence of other neurologic disorders
  • Pregnant or breastfeeding, or intending to become pregnant during the study and 6 months after last infusion of the study drug
  • Lack of peripheral venous access
  • Significant, uncontrolled disease, such as cardiovascular, pulmonary, renal, hepatic, endocrine or gastrointestinal, or any other significant disease that may preclude patient from participating in the study
  • Any concomitant disease that may require chronic treatment with systemic corticosteroids or immunosuppressants during the course of the study
  • History of alcohol or other drug abuse
  • History of primary or secondary immunodeficiency
  • Treatment with any investigational agent within 24 weeks prior to screening (Visit 1) or 5 half-lives of the investigational drug (whichever is longer), or treatment with any experimental procedure for MS
  • Previous treatment with B-cell targeting therapies
  • Any previous treatment with bone marrow transplantation and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation
  • Any previous history of transplantation or anti-rejection therapy
  • Treatment with IV Ig or plasmapheresis within 12 weeks prior to randomization
  • Systemic corticosteroid therapy within 4 weeks prior to screening
  • Positive serum hCG measured at screening or positive urine β-hCG at baseline
  • Positive screening tests for hepatitis B
  • Any additional exclusionary criterion as per ocrelizumab (Ocrevus®) local label, if more stringent than the above
  • Lack of MRI activity at screening/baseline if more than 650 patients without MRI activity have already been enrolled, as defined by T1 Gd+ lesion(s) and/or new and/or enlarged T2 lesion(s) in the screening, to ensure that at least 350 patients with MRI activity will be randomized

Eligibility Criteria for Open-Label Extension Phase:

  • Completed the double-blind treatment phase of the trial or have received PDP OCR in the FU1 phase, and who, in the opinion of the investigator, may benefit from treatment with Ocrelizumab. Patients who withdrew from study treatment and received another disease-modifying therapy (DMT) or commercial ocrelizumab will not be allowed to enter in the OLE phase.
  • Meet the re-treatment criteria for ocrelizumab
  • For women of childbearing potential: agreement to remain abstinent (refrain from heterosexual intercourse) or use adequate contraceptive methods during the treatment period and for 6 months after the final dose of ocrelizumab. Adherence to local requirements, if more stringent, is required.
  • For female patients without reproductive potential: Women may be enrolled if post-menopausal unless the patient is receiving a hormonal therapy for her menopause or if surgically sterile

CoI: I am the principal investigator on the O’Hand study

Who said anti-CD20 therapies were safe?

When I highlighted the risk of hypogammaglobulinaemia and infection in MSers receiving anti-CD20 therapy after ECTRIMS I go a very long email from someone from Roche playing down the risks. The following study is therefore very timely and shows that when comparing interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, fingolimod and rituximab with each other it is rituximab that comes out worst in relation to infectious complications. 

You also need to remember that not all anti-CD20 therapies are made equal and that ocrelizumab is a more potent B-cell depleter than rituximab. We know this based on the infectious complications seen in study subjects with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and the observation that there is a clear varicella-zoster signal in the ocrelizumab phase 3 programme. In this context, an interesting observation was that there was a lower rate of anti-herpes/anti-virals in the rituximab-treated MSers compared to the other DMTs. This is interesting and raises questions of why this should be? Could it be because rituximab only reduces the CD8+ T-cell counts by about 15% after the first infusion and his little impact thereafter? 

So don’t let anyone pull the wool over your eyes that anti-CD20 therapies are not immunosuppressive and are not associated with an infection signal. It is becoming clear to me that continuous dosing with anti-CD20 therapy will result in a cumulative increase in infections and at some stage we are as an MS community are going to have to derisk this problem by using (1) anti-CD20 therapy as an immune-reconstitution therapy (IRT) or as (2) an induction agent or (3) by correcting the immune deficiency by giving immunoglobulin replacement therapy when our patients develop hypogammaglobulinaemia. 

I think we need to do the ADIOS study sooner than later. Don’t you?

Gustavo et al. Infection Risks Among Patients With Multiple Sclerosis Treated With Fingolimod, Natalizumab, Rituximab, and Injectable Therapies. JAMA Neurol. Published online October 7, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.3365

Question: What is the risk of infections in association with different disease-modifying treatments for multiple sclerosis?

Findings:  This nationwide cohort study found that patients with multiple sclerosis are at a generally increased risk of infections, and this risk is partly dependent on the choice of treatment. The rate of infections was lowest with injectable therapies; among newer treatments, use of rituximab was associated with the highest rate of serious infections but less use of herpes antiviral medications compared with fingolimod and natalizumab.

Meaning:  Per the results of this study, physicians and patients should be aware of infection risks associated with newer multiple sclerosis treatments and perhaps particularly anti-CD20 therapies.

Importance:  Although highly effective disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS) have been associated with an increased risk of infections vs injectable therapies interferon beta and glatiramer acetate (GA), the magnitude of potential risk increase is not well established in real-world populations. Even less is known about infection risk associated with rituximab, which is extensively used off-label to treat MS in Sweden.

Objective:  To examine the risk of serious infections associated with disease-modifying treatments for MS.

Design, Setting, and Participants:  This nationwide register-based cohort study was conducted in Sweden from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2017. National registers with prospective data collection from the public health care system were used. All Swedish patients with relapsing-remitting MS whose data were recorded in the Swedish MS register as initiating treatment with rituximab, natalizumab, fingolimod, or interferon beta and GA and an age-matched and sex-matched general population comparator cohort were included.

Exposures:  Treatment with rituximab, natalizumab, fingolimod, and interferon-beta and GA.

Main Outcomes and Measures:  Serious infections were defined as all infections resulting in hospitalization. Additional outcomes included outpatient treatment with antibiotic or herpes antiviral medications. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated in Cox regressions.

Results:  A total of 6421 patients (3260 taking rituximab, 1588 taking natalizumab, 1535 taking fingolimod, and 2217 taking interferon beta/GA) were included, plus a comparator cohort of 42 645 individuals. Among 6421 patients with 8600 treatment episodes, the mean (SD) age at treatment start ranged from 35.0 (10.1) years to 40.4 (10.6) years; 6186 patients were female. The crude rate of infections was higher in patients with MS taking interferon beta and GA than the general population (incidence rate, 8.9 [95% CI, 6.4-12.1] vs 5.2 [95% CI, 4.8-5.5] per 1000 person-years), and higher still in patients taking fingolimod (incidence rate, 14.3 [95% CI, 10.8-18.5] per 1000 person-years), natalizumab (incidence rate, 11.4 [95% CI, 8.3-15.3] per 1000 person-years), and rituximab (incidence rate, 19.7 [95% CI, 16.4-23.5] per 1000 person-years). After confounder adjustment, the rate remained significantly higher for rituximab (HR, 1.70 [95% CI, 1.11-2.61]) but not fingolimod (HR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.84-2.03]) or natalizumab (HR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.71-1.77]) compared with interferon beta and GA. In contrast, use of herpes antiviral drugs during rituximab treatment was similar to that of interferon beta and GA and lower than that of natalizumab (HR, 1.82 [1.34-2.46]) and fingolimod (HR, 1.71 [95% CI, 1.27-2.32]).

Conclusions and Relevance:  Patients with MS are at a generally increased risk of infections, and this differs by treatment. The rate of infections was lowest with interferon beta and GA; among newer treatments, off-label use of rituximab was associated with the highest rate of serious infections. The different risk profiles should inform the risk-benefit assessments of these treatments.

POST-SCRIPT

In response to a comment, the following figures put the serious infection (requiring hospitalisation) risk on ocrelizumab in context; i.e. how common is this complication. The overall figure is 2.24 serious infections per 100 patient-years. In other words for every 45 patients on ocrelizumab for 12 months 1 patient will be admitted to hospital with a serious infection.

However, if you develop low IgG levels (hypogammaglobulinaemia) the risk rises to 5.48 serious infections per 100 patient-years or for every 18 patients on ocrelizumab for 12 months 1 patient will be admitted with a serious infection. This is why we are now monitoring peripheral blood immunoglobulin levels on an annual basis in all our patients on anti-CD20 therapy.

Derfuss et al. Serum Immunoglobulin Levels and Risk of Serious Infections in the
Pivotal Phase III Trials of Ocrelizumab in Multiple Sclerosis and Their Open-Label Extensions. ECTRIMS 2019,

MD Here I add this to the bottom of ProfGs post

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of ZytuxTM (Rituximab, AryoGen pharmed) in Iranian multiple sclerosis patients: An observational study. Naser Moghadasi A, Darki A, Masoumi P, Hashemi SN, Ghadiri F. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019 Sep 27;36:101419

BACKGROUND:Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies such as ocrelizumab, rituximab, and ofatumumab target B-cell lineage. Clinical trials have demonstrated their effect on reducing both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) active lesion burden as well as clinical activity. Zytux™ (Rituximab, AryoGen Pharmed) used in the present study for multiple sclerosis (MS) patients is basically a biosimilar rituximab. In this observational study, a total of 100 patients receiving Zytux™ were collected to see its effect on the clinical course of the disease.

RESULT: A total of 100 MS patients including 36 males and 64 females participated in the present study. The patients included 20 relapsing remitting MS (RRMS), 20 primary progressive MS (PPMS), and 60 secondary progressive MS (SPMS) patients. Totally, the mean of EDSS score before and after the administration of drug was 5.50 ± 1.04 (ranging from 1 to 7) and 5.11 ± 1.59 (ranging from 0 to 7), respectively, with the difference between them being very significant (p-value: 0.000). Also, the mean of ARR before and after the initiation of the medication was 0.47 and 0.10, respectively, whose difference was also significant (p-value: 0.000). In our study, the greatest effect of Zytux™ was observed in RRMS patients. At the time of injection, 70 patients indicated some reactions including limb pain, skin sensitivity, and throat irritation. One month after the injection, one of the patients suffered from pneumonia and two patients had a urinary tract infection.

CONCLUSION:The observed results revealed that the Zytux™ could have a positive and significant effect on all types of MS

CoI: multiple

The cause of MS

When I posted the link to our EBV and MS meta-analysis on social media yesterday I was taken to task because of the slow progress we have made in MS prevention. 

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Can I remind you that science moves steadily and slowly and the biggest problem we have is the slow adoption, or rejection, of innovations or new ideas. 

“The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange protein; it rejects it.”
Peter Medawar, Nobel prize laureate, in Physiology or Medicine, 1960.

I was convinced by the evidence already back in 1999 that EBV was the likely cause of MS. I have been working on EBV ever since and the progress has been very slow. The main reason I left the Institute of Neurology (Queen Square) was to move to a multi-disciplinary institute, that would allow me space and time to work on EBV. However, it takes more than just moving to a new research environment to build momentum around a new research hypothesis. 

I have had more grant applications rejected around the viral hypothesis of MS than I care to count. It is very depressing. Despite this, we are pushing on slowly with our plans to create a trial-ready cohort of people at high risk of MS for exploratory MS prevention studies. Dr Ruth Dobson is doing quite an amazing job at getting this off the ground. We are also pushing forward with our ideas around treating MS with antivirals that target EBV. To say that the funding for doing these trials has been difficult is an understatement, but I am hoping if we can get pilot data we can convince the sceptics to fund definitive trials. 

We are also not the only team working on the EBV hypothesis of MS. Michael Pender in Brisbane, Australia, is doing great things and Atara Bio has taken up the baton in industry. I have recently posted on their preliminary results that were presented at ECTRIMS.

I spend most of my waking day doing MS and a large part of that is thinking about EBV and MS prevention. The main strand of MS prevention is an EBV vaccination study. The vaccine is not in our hands, but the capable hands of Jeff Cohen at the NIH, and hopefully a deep-pocketed Pharma company to commercialise it. Even if we get an effective EBV vaccine developed and launched we will still have to overcome the public resistance to vaccination and to convince public health officials that this is a worthy idea. 

The battles ahead are numerous, but we will get there in the end. We have to. We don’t want the next generation of MSers asking us why we haven’t done anything to prevent MS given the current state of knowledge.

EBV is almost certainly the cause of MS. What are we doing about it?  

Jacobs et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between Epstein-Barr virus, Multiple Sclerosis, and other risk factors. https://doi.org/10.1101/19007450

Background: EBV infection is thought to play a central role in the development of Multiple Sclerosis (MS). If causal, it represents a target for interventions to reduce MS risk. 

Objective: To examine the evidence for interaction between EBV and other risk factors, and explore mechanisms via which EBV infection may influence MS risk. 

Methods: Pubmed was searched using the terms multiple sclerosis AND Epstein Barr virus, multiple sclerosis AND EBV, clinically isolated syndrome AND Epstein Barr virus and clinically isolated syndrome AND EBV. All abstracts were reviewed for possible inclusion. 

Results: 262 full-text papers were reviewed. There was evidence of interaction on the additive scale between anti-EBV antibody titre and HLA genotype (AP 0.48, p<1×10-4; RERI 3.84, p<5×10-3; S 1.68, p=0.06). Previous IM was associated with increased OR of MS in HLA-DRB1*1501 positive but not HLA-DRB1*1501 negative persons. Smoking was associated with a greater risk of MS in those with high anti-EBV antibodies (OR 2.76) but not low anti-EBV antibodies (OR 1.16). No interaction between EBV and risk factors was found on a multiplicative scale. 

Conclusions: EBV appears to interact with at least some established MS risk factors. The mechanism via which EBV influences MS risk remains unknown.

CoI: multiple

For English PPMSers

“I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by” Douglas Adams, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

There is one deadline that happened quitely earlier this month. NHS England turned on the blueteq form ocrelizumab treatment for PPMSers living in England; they did at the last possible timepoint dictated by the law. The good news is that the requirements for someone with PPMS to be treated are relatively simple. All that is required from us is the following:

1. Confirmation the patient has a diagnosis of early PPMS with active disease, defined by the appearance of new lesions confirmed by two MRI studies taken at least 6 months apart OR one or more gadolinium enhancing lesions on one MRI over the last three years.

2. EDSS score <= 6.5

3. A decision agreed at an MS multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meeting.

4. Recording of all the above in the patient’s records (for audit purposes).

This has been a long time coming and I want to thank all my colleagues who signed-up to the open letter we sent to the Chief Medical Officer (see below). I suspect the letter may have helped find a funding solution. It is clear that when there is a will there is a way.

I am also beginning to realise that NHSE is actually on the side of the patient and contrary to my previous perceptions NHSE want patients to access effective treatments. The problem is they have limited budgets and are beholden to the Department of Health and the political system of the day.

We may have won one battle, but the war continues. PPMSers in Scotland still have no access to ocrelizumab. How can we live in a country, with a socialist healthcare system, that allows your place of abode to dictate your access to treatment? If there is anything we can do to help PPMSers living in Scotland please let us know.

Open Letter

Professor Dame Sally Davies
Chief Medical Officer
Department of Health
Room 114, Richmond House
79 Whitehall
London SW1A 2NS
Email:CMOweb@dh.gsi.gov.uk

24 September 2018

Dear Dame Sally

Ocrelizumab for the Treatment of Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis

We are writing to you as concerned healthcare professionals for help. We are neurologists, nurse specialists and allied healthcare professionals who specialise in multiple sclerosis (MS). Although patients with the relapsing-remitting type of MS have access to many disease-modifying treatments no treatments until now have been licensed for those with the primary progressive type of MS (PPMS). In its final appraisal document [FAD ID938] NICE has not recommended the first available licensed treatment ocrelizumab, for treating early PPMS.

The problem with NICE’s appraisal determination (FAD) is that the price for ocrelizumab had already been set for treating relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS, FAD TA533), but this price was considered not cost-effective for the treatment of PPMS based on its efficacy in the PPMS trial. As there are currently no licensed treatments for PPMS ocrelizumab had to be compared with best supportive care or no treatment. In comparison, when NICE appraised ocrelizumab for RRMS it was compared to all the other licensed disease-modifying therapies (DMTs).

We have been told that Roche had then agreed to lower the price for ocrelizumab so that it would be cost-effective for the PPMS indication. If this was accepted it would mean ocrelizumab having two NHS prices, a higher price for the treatment of RRMS and a lower price for the treatment of PPMS. Apparently, the Department of Health is not prepared to support differential pricing, despite having a mechanism with the blueteq system for tracking prescribing for the PPMS and RRMS indications.

NICE’s decision in association with the Department of Health’s Rules means an irrational decision has been made. It also creates inequity. People with PPMS who are prepared to pay for ocrelizumab privately will be able to receive the therapy, potentially in an NHS institution. Similarly, those who are fortunate may be able to move and be treated with ocrelizumab in another country where ocrelizumab is covered for the PPMS indication as other UK and EU countries have different decision-making processes.

We would appreciate it if you could review the Department of Health’s position on differential pricing as a solution for people with PPMS being treated with ocrelizumab? We are convinced that there must be a solution that will allow our patients with PPMS to be appropriately treated under the NHS.

Despite the pharmaceutical company conceding to the NICE target and the drug receiving a European license, it is now the government who is preventing patients receiving appropriate treatment for their MS simply due to a rule, arguably an irrational rule, created by the Department of Health.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Concerned NHS HCPs.

CoI: multiple


Self-diagnosis

Dear Neuro,

You see me once a year for 15 minutes, you look at my MRI report and blood results, you ask me a lot of questions, you examine me and then you tell me that everything is fine. At my last visit, you said my MS was stable, you mentioned to me that I was NEDA, because I had had no relapses, no new lesions on my MRI and my EDSS was static at 3.0. 

I have now looked up and read about NEDA (no evident disease activity) and I disagree with your assessment. I am clearly getting worse. The Christmas before last I remember going for a 5-mile walk with my family after lunch and managed it fine. When I tried the same walk last Christmas I had to turn back after a mile because my right leg was dragging. 

I also have other problems that you didn’t pick up on during the consultation. I now have to get up 2 or 3 times at night to pass urine. My memory is much worse than it was last year. My head feels foggy all the time as if I have a permanent mild hangover. I now avoid any social occasions with colleagues after work. The truth is I am too tired to at the end of the day to do anything else than get home. I feel exhausted most of the time. I have stopped gardening. 

I think I have developed secondary progressive MS. Do you agree? Would it be possible to see you sooner to discuss this? Is there anything you can do about my deterioration in functioning?

Yours sincerely

Patient Y

Does this story sound familiar? 

At first glance, it is easy to say this person has SPMS. But do they? 

Based on the definition of SPMS it seems likely, i.e. objective worsening of function for at least 6-12 months independent of relapse activity. Based on the latter it seems Patient Y is not having relapses. As for the objective worsening of function the interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. As far as the neurologist is concerned the patient is not deteriorating because the EDSS is stable. In comparison, the patient has documented, albeit rather crudely, a drop if in functioning. Who do you believe? 

The scenario illustrates what will happen when MSers begin to self-monitor and prepare for clinic appointments in advance, i.e. they will potentially be self-diagnosing secondary progressive or worsening MS. 

However, I want you to take a step back and ask could the deterioration be due to something else, something reversible? If it is due to something else it may be treatable and potentially reversible. 

Does this patient have any reversible comorbidities that could be responsible for the deterioration? Smoking, hypertension, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, obesity, underactive or overactive thyroid function, renal, liver, heart or lung disease? If a woman, is she menopausal? What about mental health issues; depression and anxiety? Is this patient drinking too much alcohol? Is the patient malnourished? They may be eating a diet of toast and tea.

Is this patient sleeping well? Getting-up 2 or 3  times a night to pass urine means their sleep hygiene is very poor. Just improving this patient’s bladder problems will have a major impact on their daytime fatigue and work performance.

What about a chronic infection? Could this patient have a low-grade urinary tract infection? What about their oral health; could they have gingivitis or periodontitis? Sinusitis?

Is this patient exercising enough? I suspect not. The drop off in the walking distance could be deconditioning, i.e. losing fitness because of lack of exercise. In this particular patient, I suspect this, however, is unlikely because deconditioning is unlikely to result in a dragging leg on walking a mile.

What medication is this patient on? Are they are on an anti-spastic medication or anticholinergics for their bladder problems? Both these class of drugs affect cognition and may explain the memory loss and brain fog. I have commented on baclofen being particularly problematic in the past.

How well is patient Y? Patient Y seems to have become socially isolated and withdrawing from having social interactions with their work colleagues. The patient has stopped gardening, which helps improve mental health. What about the home environment? Is patient Y’s relationship with the family stable, etc? What are this patient’s finances like? Are they in debt? Are they struggling economically? 

Could this patient have smouldering MS? Does this patient need an MRI of the spine and a lumbar puncture to measure CSF neurofilament levels? We know that brain MRI will not pick-up all disease activity. Does this patient need to start a DMT or have a DMT switched and escalated? I would be very interested to know how this patient’s cognitive function is and whether or not they have a swiss cheese brain (lots of black holes) and brain volume loss. Having this information makes a diagnosis of SPMS and/or smouldering MS more likely.

How old is patient Y? If they are over the age of 50 we may be seeing early ageing. 

Making a diagnosis of SPMS is not simple and most neurologists would prefer not to do it. However, if we are to improve the lives of our patients we need to take a holistic approach to the management of MS. Clinical practice must not be a box-ticking exercise. We need to provide our patients with the tools to self-monitor, self-diagnose and self-manage. We need them to become partners on a life-long MS journey that will result in better outcomes and happier and more content MSers and HCPs. 

To reiterate the philosophy of marginal gains “if you break down everything we can think of that goes into improving MS outcomes, and then improving it by 1%, we will get a significant increase when we put them all together”. This case vignette illustrates this very well. 

I hope this post motivates you to start self-monitoring and to start preparing for your consultations with your HCP. You need to have a list of questions to ask. Don’t let your neurologist or HCP fob you off. You know yourself better than they do; please don’t forget this.

CoI: multiple