Help

I have been tasked with designing an International MS Masterclass to teach neurologists and other HCPS (healthcare professionals) about MS. The idea is to run four 2-day courses. I have put together the following draft programme and would appreciate your thoughts on it.

If you have MS is there anything that you want to be added, i.e. is there anything that you would want your HCPs to know about?

If you are an HCP are there any glaring omissions that should be added? Is this the kind, of course, you would interested in attending? Thanks.

It is important to realise that there is a large unmet educational need to help general neurologists skill-up for managing MS.

CoI: multiple

Results time

It is time to set in stone our #CrowdThink competition results. We had over 110 responses; thank you. If you want to know more about the rationale behind this competition you need to read my post on the DODO trial and the post explaining the rationale behind the COMPETITION.

Study 1: Oral Ponesimod Versus Teriflunomide In Relapsing MUltiple Sclerosis (OPTIMUM).

The Crowd has predicted that ponesimod will reduce the ARR (relative annualised relapse rate) and CDP (confirmed disability progression) compared to teriflunomide by 33.8% (interquartile range=24.5-44.3%) and 21.2% (interquartile range=10.0-25.0%), respectively.

This would suggest that ponesimod is probably batting in the same league as fingolimod. I wouldn’t put too much weight on the TRANSFORMS study that compared fingolimod to interferon-beta-1a. The majority of subjects were failing interferon who went into that study and were then randomised to fingolimod or back onto interferon-beta-1a. This study inflated fingolimod’s relative efficacy as it was being compared to interferon-beta failures on interferon-beta.

Study 2: Efficacy and Safety of Ofatumumab Compared to Teriflunomide in Patients With Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis (ASCLEPIOS I & II)

The Crowd has predicted that ofatumumab will reduce the ARR (relative annualised relapse rate) and CDP (confirmed disability progression) compared to teriflunomide by 41.2% (interquartile range=34.0-49.0%) and 29.3% (interquartile range=20.0-37.3%), respectively.

These results are interesting and broadly put ofatumumab in the same ballpark as ocrelizumab as well; 41% is close enough in my book to 47% for it not to register as being meaningfully different to ocrelizumab. In comparison, 29.3% for CDP is too far away from 40% to be dismissed. The question is this because of ofatumumab being inferior to ocrelizumab? Or teriflunomide is superior to interferon-beta-1a (Rebif)? I would favour the latter interpretation. The former interpretation would support the hypothesis for the need to target intrathecal B-cells and that the higher dose of ocrelizumab is superior at doing this compared to the smaller but more frequent ofatumumab dosing. These results would support us pushing for the DODO study to be done.

However, would it not be a more interesting story if ofatumumab out-performed ocrelizumab? This would be against my predictions, but it opens a new vista on how anti-CD20 therapies work. If ofatumumab outperforms ocrelizumab it would argue for a peripheral mode of action, i.e. keeping peripheral B-cells depleted continuously, rather than using intermittent depletion paradigm of rituximab and ocrelizumab. It would also challenge the hypothesis that we need to have CNS penetration for targeting of the intrathecal B-cell compartment.

The peripheral B-cell hypothesis would raise very interesting questions about whether or not anti-CD20 therapy is working as an anti-EBV agent and keeping the memory B cell compartment, which hosts EBV, suppressed.

I have already been criticised by a few people at this conference for my musings on the potential results of these trial. Don’t we live in a world where free and open thought is allowed? I speculate and write these sorts of posts deliberately to be controversial. But I would hope that they stimulate you to think more deeply about MS and what these results could mean for us and in particular people with MS.

Let’s hope it is not the same-old, same-old; i.e. another me too study of an anti-CD20. Let’s hope the results support either the central B-cell depletion hypothesis or the peripheral-continuous B-cell depletion hypothesis. The former supports our programme of activities to scrub the brain clean of B-cells and plasma cells and the latter to treat MS with anti-virals, in particular, anti-EBV drugs.

To conclude, I was very disappointed that two-thirds of you chose the MRI lego set over my #ThinkSocial T-shirt as a prize. I am clearly not a very good T-shirt designer ;-(

Lego MRI scan set
Barts-MS #ThinkSocial T-shirt

CoI: multiple

Building a Rocket

As I write this I am on the way back from an ‘atypical’ summer holiday with my family. We spent a week in the ‘Oude Land’, South Africa, celebrating my mother in law’s 80th Birthday and then a week in the subtropics for some warm sunshine. The internet access was dismal, which was a good thing that allowed me to switch-off, sleep, eat, exercise, think, relax and recharge my batteries. 

The insights learned, or relearned, is that my family are my priority and for quality reading and thinking time you need to take yourself offline for long as possible. One consequence of the latter is that I now have two inboxes with over 3,000 unread emails (panic). 

As I lay next to the pool I had ample time to contemplate life, the universe and all things MS. I came to the conclusion that the biggest threat to our field, at least in the short term, is dogma and groupthink. We are so entrenched in the MS autoimmune hypothesis that it is becoming increasingly difficult to see the light, and blue sky, because of the sheer depth of the autoimmune trench we have dug ourselves into. 

In Range: How Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World, by David Epstein, one of my holiday reads, I learnt that Arturo Casadevall believes that specialisation has created a ‘system of parallel trenches‘; everyone is digging deeper into their own trench and rarely standing up to look in the next trench over, even if the solution to their problem happens to reside therein. 

Using the trench analogy we are going to have to build a human scaffold several generations deep to get out of the trench the MS community has dug, or we could build a rocket. I can’t resist the rocket analogy. Whilst away I also read Loonshots: How to Nurture the Crazy Ideas That Win Wars, Cure Diseases, and Transform Industries by Safi Bahcall, which describes how out-of-the-box thinking has the ability to transform a field. 

Image from the Innovation Matrix

It is clear that the autoimmunity model has many flaws or as Safi Bahcall would say warts. As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult to support the autoimmune hypothesis intellectually. Some of the holes in the autoimmune hypothesis have been rehearsed many times before on this blog. 

  1. Dear MSologist, why am I progressing despite being NEDA?
  2. What is causing my accelerated brain volume loss when my disease is in remission?
  3. You say I am in long term remission, and possibly cured, from MS, but my last CSF analysis shows that I am still oligoclonal band positive? Why?
  4. My head is full of slowly expanding blackholes. Can you please stop them expanding?
  5. There is an epidemic (increasing incidence) of MS in Scotland and almost every geographical area studied. Why? Is the increasing incidence explicable by the autoimmune hypothesis?
  6. If MS is an autoimmune disease please tell me why your immunotherapies are only partially effective at preventing disease activity and worsening disability?
  7. How do you explain the early Prineas MS lesion; massive oligodendrocyte apoptosis without T- and B-cell infiltration?
  8. Why does rebound happen post natalizumab and fingolimod? And why are anti-CD20 therapies so effective in preventing rebound? How do these observations fit into the autoimmune hypothesis?
  9. What about the evidence that EBV plays such a pivotal role in MS? How does this fit in with MS being an autoimmune disease?
  10. Is the human endogenous retroviral or HERV activation within the peripheral and CNS compartments of MSers simply a bystander phenomenon or part of the disease? Are HERVs a non-specific trigger of autoimmune disease? 
  11. Does the memory B-cell data and hypothesis sit comfortably with MS being an autoimmune disease? Could this be explained by EBV alone? 
  12. Does the strong MHC association with MS have to be due to autoimmunity? Could the MHC link be explained by an infection or dual-infection hypothesis?
  13. How does the epidemiological data on vitamin D, childhood/adolescent obesity, smoking, solvent exposure, HIV and MS, explain autoimmunity? 

It seems to me that most people in the field of MS are content with fitting a square peg into a round hole. I am not. So what am I going to do about all my angst and increasing doubts? We have been trying to do something about it with our Charcot Project and our Preventive Neurology Unit, but things are happening too slowly. What we need is a turbocharge – a rocket –  to accelerate our programme of work. In short, we need people, resources and money. Therefore, the 2019/2020 academic year will be a year of grant writing focusing on MS prevention and loonshots. 

Inactive MS; does it exist?

I had an interesting discussion with some like-minded colleagues recently about active and inactive MS. We seemed to agree on what active MS is, be it in the relapsing or progressive phases of MS. However, we couldn’t really agree on what inactive MS is. Take this following case scenario; many said he was inactive, but others felt he had active MS and should have his treatment switched. Would you agree?

When you look at post-mortem studies of people dying with endstage MS they all have active inflammation within their brains. Active inflammation refers to both adaptive (memory responses) and innate (hard-wired) immune responses. MSers at death still have T-cells, B-cells and plasma cells in their brains in addition to astrocyte and microglial activation. 

If we extrapolate these pathological findings to life then all MSers have active MS. What is the solution in terms of forming a common nomenclature? Surely MS is a biological disease rather than a clinical disease? If this is the case we need to come up with a biological classification system to describe active and inactive MS.  

On reflection, I think we need to get rid of the terms active and inactive and describe what we mean pathologically using metrics. For example, 

  1. This patient has evidence of ongoing focal inflammation (relapses, new and/or enlarging T2 lesions and/or Gd-enhancing lesions and/or raised CSF NFL levels) in the last 12 or 24 months. 
  2. This patient has no evidence of ongoing focal inflammation in the last 24 months but has worsening disability (physical and/or cognitive) and evidence of smouldering MS with increased brain/spinal cord atrophy and/or an increasing T1 black volume. 
  3. This patient has no evidence of ongoing focal inflammation in the last 24 months, is stable clinically (physical and cognitive) and has no evidence of smouldering MS, i.e. no increased brain/spinal cord atrophy and a stable T1 black volume. 

I suspect that we will have very few MSers in category 3, simply because with an MS-centric view of the world we are forgetting that MSers are human and will age and will get comorbidities. Therefore, how do we include ageing and comorbidities, which affect these biomarkers, into this classification system? In addition, none of our metrics is black-and-white so there is scope for miss-classification. What is clear that if you take this approach then MS is one, and not two or three, diseases. A person with PPMS with new lesions will be treated in the same way as someone in the relapsing-remitting phase of the disease. Do you have a problem with this?

Thoughts, please?  

CoI: multiple

#ThinkSocial

At our second MS Services Variance meeting, ‘Raising the Bar’, in Birmingham last week my colleague Helen Ford and I co-chaired the workstream on the social determinants of health (SDoH). 

What are the SDoH?

The SDoH are life-enhancing resources, such as food supply, housing, economic and social relationships, transportation, education and health care, whose distribution across populations effectively determines length and quality of life. As MS is such a disabling disease with poor quality of life it is likely to impact on the SDoH, which in turn will feedback and make MS outcomes worse. This vicious cycle needs to be broken if we want to optimise MS outcomes; i.e. when applying the philosophy of marginal gains we can’t ignore the SDoH when managing someone with MS. 

The following is a selection of slides we put together around the SDoH theme.

Do you have an example of how the SDoH can impact on a person with MS?

The study highlighted below from Sweden is an example of how MS reduces your earnings. Interestingly, the reduction in earnings even begins before MS diagnosis and clearly increases thereafter. I suspect some people who have prodromal MS have difficulty working, which impacts on the average outcome or earnings. Besides sickness absence and disability pension, educational level and type of occupation are influential determinants of earnings in pwMS. In other words, inequality plays a role in determining your earnings once you have MS. Are you surprised? I am not.

When we asked whether or not MS HCPs routinely screen for the SDoH very few hands went up in the room. The hands that went up tended to belong to occupational therapists; they clearly need to look at SDoH as part of their treatment plans. No neurologists put up their hands and therein lies a problem or a solution depending on how you look at things.

The following is a short list of some of the SDoH that may impact on MS outcomes, which we discussed.

  1. Level of education and health literacy
  2. Poverty (absolute or relative)
  3. Employment / unemployment
  4. Access to social services (personal independent payments, etc.)
  5. Home environment (heating, cleanliness, amenities, etc.)
  6. Local environment (safety, green spaces, amenities, etc.)
  7. Food poverty (absolute or relative)
  8. Transport (access and costs)
  9. Childcare (access and costs)
  10. Social isolation (social networks, access to the internet, mobile phone, data, etc.)
  11. Lifestyle factors (sedentary vs. active, smoking, alcohol and other addictions)
  12. Need to be looked after by a child (child carer) or ageing parents or other family members (aged carers)
  13. Cognitive impairment and hidden psychiatric comorbidities (depression and anxiety)
  14. Physical and emotional abuse

How do we address these issues in an MS clinic without upsetting our patients by being too overbearing? We did agree that there was a lot we could potentially do about some of these SDoH and that we had an obligation to at least consider these as part of our routine management of our patients and their families. Some ideas that emerged in our session include the following:

  1. Provide information about IT solutions to help pwMS.
  2. Start a high-risk register of patients within our service; patients on this list would need to be seen and contacted more frequently, ideally on pre-planned and regular basis.
  3. Start a home visit programme. Most services have had to stop home visits because of resource and staffing issues. 
  4. Make sure our patients know that they can get hospital transport so they don’t go out of pocket or reimburse their travel costs. 
  5. Convert were possible physical face-2-face visits with telemedicine options.
  6. To do a complex needs assessment similar to what is done in other disease areas to identify high-risk or vulnerable patients.
  7. Lobby the government to waive prescription costs for pwMS and other disabilities.
  8. Lobby government to create a healthy food voucher system for pwMS and other disabilities.
  9. Lobby government to improve social services for pwMS and other disabilities.
  10. Engage pwMS and include them in your service; for example, using an MS Health Champions model.
  11. Explore social prescribing to increase social capital.
  12. Enrol all patients into a lifestyle and wellness programme.

Wiberg et al. Earnings among people with multiple sclerosis compared to references, in total and by educational level and type of occupation: a population-based cohort study at different points in time. BMJ Open. 2019 Jul 11;9(7):e024836. 

OBJECTIVES: To investigate earnings among people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) before and after MS diagnosis compared with people without MS, and if identified differences were associated with educational levels and types of occupations. Furthermore, to assess the proportions on sickness absence (SA) and disability pension (DP) in both groups.

DESIGN: Population-based longitudinal cohort study, 10 years before until 5 years after MS diagnosis.

SETTING: Working-age population using microdata linked from nationwide Swedish registers.

PARTICIPANTS: Residents in Sweden in 2004 aged 30-54 years with MS diagnosed in 2003-2006 (n=2553), and references without MS (n=7584) randomly selected by stratified matching.

OUTCOME MEASURES: Quartiles of earnings were calculated for each study year prior to and following the MS diagnosis. Mean earnings, by educational level and type of occupation, before and after diagnosis were compared using t-tests. Tobit regressions investigated the associations of earnings with individual characteristics. The proportions on SA and/or DP, by educational level and type of occupation, for the diagnosis year and 5 years later were compared. 

RESULTS: Differences in earnings between PwMS and references were observed beginning 1 year before diagnosis, and increased thereafter. PwMS had lower mean earnings for the diagnosis year (difference=SEK 28 000, p<0.05), and 5 years after diagnosis, this difference had more than doubled (p<0.05). These differences remained after including educational level and type of occupation. Overall, the earnings of PwMS with university education and/or more qualified occupations were most like their reference peers. The proportions on SA and DP were higher among PwMS than the references.

CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the PwMS’ earnings are lower than the references’ beginning shortly before MS diagnosis, with this gap increasing thereafter. Besides SA and DP, the results indicate that educational level and type of occupation are influential determinants of the large heterogeneity of PwMS’ earnings.

#OffLabel

I am speaking at the Multiple Sclerosis International Federation (MSIF) Access to Treatment and Healthcare meeting next week in London. My talk is on “Off-label opportunities, barriers and risks in availability and affordability”.

My journey to this point goes back 5-years and started when I was on sabbatical and was visiting countries all over the world and seeing how MS was managed. I soon realised that MSers living in resource-poor environments had poor access to MS disease-modifying therapies and other MS services. This led us to formulate an Essential Off-Label DMT list and to start a social media campaign using the hashtag #OffLabel to get people to adopt off-label prescribing of DMTs. We also developed a protocol for off-label cladribine use and have distributed it widely. 

These activities and other factors nudged the MSIF to make ‘access to treatment’ one of their priorities and led to the MSIF submitting an application to the WHO to get three DMTs, albeit licensed DMTs, onto the essential medicines list (EML). If successful (hopefully we will hear next week – fingers-crossed) we will be able to use this as a springboard to raise awareness of untreated or under-treated MS across the world. It will also raise awareness about MS in low prevalence areas and challenge the prevailing dogma that MS is a rich-world problem. 

Please note our essential off-label DMT list is ‘evidence-based’ or at least anchored to licensed DMTs. The following is a new version of the list.

  1. Azathioprine*
  2. Dimethyl fumarate (generic, licensed for psoriasis)
  3. Cladribine
  4. Cyclophosphamide*
  5. Fludarabine*
  6. Leflunomide
  7. Methotrexate*
  8. Mitoxantrone
  9. Rituximab* 
  10. HSCT

*drugs that are on the 19th WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (April 2015)

I am particularly interested to hear stories about off-label treatments in your countries and if any of you are receiving off-label treatments.

Apart from rituximab use, particularly in Sweden, off-label prescribing is simply not being adopted. Why? I think it takes more than a few people standing on a soap-box to make it happen; what is required is a systems change and a whole lot of nudges to get HCPs to start doing it. This is why I have become so interested in behavioural psychology and behavioural economics, which teaches us why information is simply not enough to change HCP behaviour.

CoI: multiple

Unassisted

Let’s talk about death, that is unassisted suicide

The meta-analysis below, not surprisingly, shows that if you have MS your chances of suicide are about twice the background rate. The risk is particularly high at diagnosis compared to symptom onset. I suspect this latter is an artificial finding; if you commit suicide before you are diagnosed with MS the code ‘multiple sclerosis’ is unlikely to be recorded alongside suicide as a cause of death. Despite this, it is clear that suicide is a not such an uncommon cause of jumping from EDSS 2.0 or 3.0, at diagnosis,  to EDSS 10 or death.

In my career as an MSologist, I have had two patients commit suicide. Both made me question whether or not we could have done something to prevent their deaths. In both cases, the answer was yes; I could have done much more to manage their associated depression and social isolation. HCPs working in MS need to skilled in recognising depression and suicide risk. One of the reasons why we are running our #ThinkSocial campaign is to address these issues and the social determinants of outcomes in MSers.

It is understandable why MSers resort to suicide. MS is a devastating diagnosis with major consequences for individuals. As it is a brain disease it affects your personality and hence interpersonal relationships. MSers are often anxious and depressed. It has a major impact on your life trajectory.  Most MSers given sufficient time will become disabled and unemployed. The loss of income results in downward social drift, often causing poverty and in some cases severe social isolation. It is not surprising that some MSers turn to suicide as a way out. 

Society doesn’t help. It rates the life of someone with MS who has lost both lower and upper limb function (EDSS>=8.5), who need 24-hour a day care, as having a quality of life worse than death. However, it doesn’t have to be this way. I suspect this negative view of MS will change as a result of earlier diagnosis and treatment of the disease to prevent end-organ damage and its consequences.

We are beginning to see a transformation in outcomes as new cohorts of MSers are being diagnosed earlier and treated effectively. The problem we have is getting the wider MS community to acknowledge that MS as a neurological emergency. When we say ‘Time Matters’ and ‘Time is Brain’ we really mean it. This is why we want to do our #AttackMS trial to try and change attitudes to treating MS.

I am aware talking about death is a taboo, but unless we do how do we expect MSers to take decisions about their treatment seriously. Yes, seriously. I often speak about the Gambler’s dilemma, a cognitive bias that affects both MSers and their HCPs. 

A gambler never goes into a casino to lose money. However, the gambler knows that on average he/she will lose money. The cognitive bias that affects MSers is that they will be the lucky one that will win; they are going to be the lucky one that will turn out to have benign MS. ‘I am going to be the one that ends up with no problems in the future, therefore, I don’t need to be treated’ or ‘ No, that treatment is far too risky for me, I will take my chances with an injectable’. Chances are you will be wrong.

As I have said given sufficient time MS causes disability in the majority of people with MS. Therefore the practices of watchful waiting (a British medical tradition) and/or slow stepwise escalation of treatment comes at a cost to individuals with MS. This is why it is so important to buy into an aggressive treatment goal when you are diagnosed with MS. 

The treatment targets in MS have evolved from simply reducing the frequency of relapses (NEDA-0) to becoming relapse-free (NEDA-1) to having no measurable disease activity (NEDA-3), to preventing end-organ damage (NEDA4 and NEDA-5) to finally maximising brain health to allow you to age normally. 

In the future, we will want to cure you of your MS before any meaningful damage is done to your brain and spinal cord, and we will want to prevent people at risk of MS getting the disease. To achieve these targets we need a much more proactive treatment approach and we also need to manage MS holistically, which includes actively preventing and managing comorbidities and focusing on wellness and lifestyle factors.

The cynics will be poo-pooing my enthusiasm, but if we don’t aim high we will never achieve a world without MS and suicide will remain a problem. 

Let’s talk about death, but focus on what needs to be done to prevent it! 

Shen et al. Association between suicide and multiple sclerosis: An updated meta-analysis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019 Jun 19;34:83-90.

BACKGROUND: Whether multiple sclerosis is associated with a higher rate of suicide remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the risk of suicide in multiple sclerosis patients based on a meta-analysis of previously published data.

METHODS: We searched for studies that measured the suicide risk in multiple sclerosis patients compared with the general population that were published up to 1 December 2018 in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. Sixteen studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. We performed random-effects meta-analyses to calculate suicide rate ratio (SRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for patients with multiple sclerosis.

RESULTS: The association between suicide and multiple sclerosis was statistically significant with a pooled SRR 1.72 (95%CI 1.48-1.99, I-squared = 55.0%). Risk of suicide at diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (SRR 2.12, 95% CI 1.84-2.46; I-squared = 4.4%) was higher than the risk of suicide at symptom onset (SRR 1.69; 95% CI 1.43-2.00; I-squared = 0.0%). Gender may exert an influence on the impact of sex on the association between MS multiple sclerosis and suicide, but this requires is controversial and need further studies to demonstrate.

CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis shows a significant association between suicide and multiple sclerosis, although ethnic and geographical differences were not considered. These findings should be confirmed and extended in future large studies.

Cubed

How do we colour in each block of this cube?

Making a decision about which DMT to prescribe, or preferably to help your patients make a decision, many of my colleagues mix up their priorities. For example, some mix-up baseline prognostic profiling and disease activity, and then some of them throw disease-stage or disability progression into the mix. I think this occurs because these factors are somewhat related, but only tell part of the story.

Disease activity (DA) – Disease activity (DA) really refers to the here-and-now and what has happened in the last 12-24 months. DA does affect prognostic profiling (PP), but it is only one component of PP.

DA refers to recent focal inflammatory activity and hence is defined as relapses in the last 2 years and focal MRI activity, i.e. new or enlarging T2 lesions and Gd-enhancing lesions, in the last 12 months. More recently raised at Barts-MS we have also incorporated raised CSF neurofilament levels in the last 12 months.

In the UK/NHS we have 4 categories of DA:

  1. Inactive
  2. Active
  3. Highly-active
  4. Rapidly evolving severe

Inactive MS – If you have had no relapses in the last 24 months, and serial MRI studies covering this period show no new lesions, then your MS is defined as being inactive. This does not mean your MS is necessarily stable. I have said that you could have worsening disability as part of the progressive phase of the disease without focal inflammatory activity. If you have so-called inactive MS you need to be monitored, as inactive MS may reactivate and you could then become eligible for treatment.

Active MS – Most neurologists require evidence of disease activity in the last 24 months, with most accepting a 12-month window if there is MRI support. Our current criteria for active MS incorporates MRI into the definition, which allows us to treat so-called high-risk patients with CIS.

Highly-active MS – These are MSers with unchanged or increased relapse rate, or ongoing severe relapses compared with the previous year, despite treatment with beta interferon, or another so-called first-line DMT. Another category refers to treatment-naive MSers with two attacks in a 12 month period with MRI evidence of activity during this period.

Rapidly-evolving severe MS – Rapidly-evolving severe MS (RES) is defined as two disabling attacks in a 12 month period with MRI evidence of activity during this period.

Prognostic Profiling (PP) – Prognostic profiling (PP) really refers to baseline factors that have been linked to poor prognosis. Although several of DA metrics are associated with a poor prognosis they are a small part of the prognostic profiling metrics I personally use. The following is a list of 24 prognostic factors I tend to use in clinical practice. In general, if you have four or less you fall into the good prognostic category, five to eight the intermediate prognostic category and if nine or more the poor prognostic category.

  1. Age of onset (<40 vs. >40 years) (1)
  2. Sex (F vs. M) (1)
  3. Sites: unifocal vs. multifocal onset (1)
  4. System:
    1. Motor:  no vs. yes (1)
    2. Cerebellar: no vs. yes (1)
    3. Bladder: no vs. yes (1)
    4. Cognition
      1. Impairment: no vs.  yes (1)
      2. Learner: yes vs. no (1)
  5. Recovery: complete vs. partial or no recovery from initial relapses (1)
  6. Relapse rate: low/ ≤ 2 vs. high / >2 in the first 2 year (1)
  7. Early disability: EDSS < 3.0 vs. EDSS ≥ 3.0 within 5 years (1)
  8. MRI
    1. Baseline lesion load: low / <9 T2 vs. ≥ 9 T2 lesions (1)
    2. Active: no Gd-enhancing vs. Gd-enhancing lesions (1)
    3. Posterior fossa lesions: no vs. yes (1)
    4. Spinal cord lesions: no vs. yes (1)
    5. Brain atrophy: no vs. yes (1)
  9. CSF
    1. OCBs (oligoclonal IgG bands): no vs. yes (1)
    2. Raised neurofilament levels: no vs. yes  (1)
  10. Vitamin D levels: low vs. normal (1)
  11. Smoker: no vs. yes (1)
  12. Comorbidities
    1. diabetes/prediabetes: no vs. yes (1)
    2. Hypertension: no vs. yes (1)
    3. Hypercholesterolaemia: no vs. yes (1)
    4. obesity: no vs. yes (1)

      Total Score out of 24

Disease Stage (DS) – Disease stage (DS) simply refers to the amount of damage accumulated, i.e. how disabled you are. We tend to overlap this with disease descriptors early in the disease course, simply to help deal with treatment guidelines and to set the scene for changing our worldview of MS; i.e. away from a neurological/clinical perspective to a biological perspective (pathology). If we changed our worldview of MS we would almost certainly want to treat MS in the asymptomatic stage to prevent disability. Please note that we still live in an EDSS-centric world and hence the EDSS is used by most people to define disability.

In an ideal world, we would include other metrics, in particular, cognition, to define MS-related disability and include end-organ damage markers (brain volume loss) or other metrics that measure reserve capacity. The latter is critical in defining the resilience of your nervous system to deal with insults in the future including physiological or normal ageing.  

The following is my classification system of DS:

  1. Radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS) with no apparent disability (EDSS = 0)
  2. Clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) with no apparent disability (EDSS = 0)
  3. MS with no apparent disability (EDSS = 0)
  4. MS with mild physical disability (EDSS=1.0-3.0)
  5. MS with moderate physical disability (EDSS=3.5-5.5)
  6. MS with severe physical disability (EDSS=6.0-6.5)
  7. Advanced MS with profound physical disability(EDSS >=7.0)

Although DS may affect treatment decisions we need to get away for the idea that to be treated effectively, i.e. with highly-effective treatments, you need to be disabled. Our current philosophy is to treat early to prevent disability.

In the following slideshow, I try and put all these factors together in a 3D graph. Please note that the grey cubes represent an evidence-free zone and DMTs are typically not used in MSers with these attributes. We are trying to change this with our #TreatEarly, #BrainHealth, #PreventMS and #ThinkHand campaigns.

The colour scheme to denote the level of DMT by risk category is an estimate. I have included this to try an illustrate the complexity of decision making that is involved in selecting DMTs when considering only three factors. This gets even much more complex when you start to incorporate personal factors.

I predict this post will be very controversial. So let me know your thoughts.

CoI: multiple

Bandwagon

Our microbiomes are clearly very important, but they don’t come close to explaining why you get MS and whether or not one of our microbiomes is causal in MS. Yes, there are multiple microbiomes in and on our bodies. At the moment the attention is all focused on the gut microbiome, in particular, the distal colon. Why? Because it is easy to collect poo samples. But why the colonic microbiome in MS and not another site?

If I had the time and interest I would focus on other sites, in particular, the paranasal sinuses and lungs. There is a hypothesis that infections in the paranasal sinuses are more common in MSers and can trigger MS. There is some evidence, albeit weak,  that MSers are more likely to have had sinusitis than control subjects. What organisms are causing these episodes of sinusitis?

The other site is the lungs. Smoking and solvent exposure increases your risk of getting MS. It does not appear to be tobacco itself which is the risk factor because the oral use of tobacco is not associated with an increased risk of getting MS. In fact, oral tobacco use appears to lower the risk of getting MS. The overlap between smoking and solvents could be via the microbiome in the lung and/or lower respiratory tract.

For me, the most exciting data points to our internal or systemic microbiome, i.e. the viruses and bacteria that live within our bodies. EBV is an exogenous virus that lives with our bodies; in fact inside memory B-cells the major therapeutic target of our treatments. The evidence for EBV being the cause of MS is so overwhelming that we are planning an anti-EBV vaccine prevention trial and we are also exploring anti-viral strategies against EBV.

How EBV causes MS is unknown, but one hypothesis is via its induction of HERVs (human endogenous retroviruses). EBV simply wakes-up, or resurrects, these dormant viruses which then activate the immune system and trigger autoimmunity. This is why we are so keen to target HERVs with antivirals as a treatment strategy for MS.

But getting back to the gut microbiome. In my opinion, it is simply the latest research bandwagon with everyone making premature claims that by manipulating it we may be able to prevent people from getting MS in the first place. Or alternatively, once you have MS we may be able to treat your disease by manipulating the microbiome with diet or by providing you with ‘good’ bugs. This has resulted in a new generation of quacks offering vulnerable MSers faecal transplants to ‘treat’ and ‘cure’ them of having MS. There is simply zero evidence to support these claims so please avoid being hoodwinked into having a faecal transplant, which may be dangerous.

The following microbiome paper is interesting and shows that (1) daily microbiome variation is related to your food choices, but not to conventional nutrients, (2) daily microbiome variation depends on at least two days of dietary history and most importantly (3) similar foods have different effects on different people’s microbiomes. Therefore, there will be no magic bullet bacterial pill, super-poo transplant or some superfood diet that will necessarily alter your microbiome.

My advice is to eat well and eat sensibly, real-food rather than processed food, and get off the microbiome bandwagon until some class 1 evidence emerges to contrary.

Johnson et al. Daily Sampling Reveals Personalized Diet-Microbiome Associations in Humans. Cell Host Microbe. 2019 Jun 12;25(6):789-802.e5.

Diet is a key determinant of human gut microbiome variation. However, the fine-scale relationships between daily food choices and human gut microbiome composition remain unexplored. Here, we used multivariate methods to integrate 24-h food records and fecal shotgun metagenomes from 34 healthy human subjects collected daily over 17 days. Microbiome composition depended on multiple days of dietary history and was more strongly associated with food choices than with conventional nutrient profiles, and daily microbial responses to diet were highly personalized. Data from two subjects consuming only meal replacement beverages suggest that a monotonous diet does not induce microbiome stability in humans, and instead, overall dietary diversity associates with microbiome stability. Our work provides key methodological insights for future diet-microbiome studies and suggests that food-based interventions seeking to modulate the gut microbiota may need to be tailored to the individual microbiome. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03610477.

Marmite on toast: the social crisis and MS

Recently one of my patients chastised me for telling her off for her poor diet, which consisted mainly of bread. She lives alone, which may explain why she eats so poorly. She has marmite or jam on toast for breakfast, a sandwich for lunch and if she feels hungry another piece of toast for dinner.

Interestingly, my mother used to refer to her elderly stepmother as a tea-and-toast lady and I never knew why until I became a doctor. My step-grandmother, we used to call her Aunty Betty, didn’t do marmite but stuck to marmalade. She prefered lime to orange marmalade suggesting she had at least preserved her senses of taste and smell. She lived into her late 80’s and died of frailty. For those of you who don’t know the tea-and-toast syndrome is well described. The following excerpt is from Wikipedia:

“Tea and toast syndrome is a form of malnutrition commonly experienced by elderly people who are unable to prepare meals and tend to themselves. Their diets often dwindle to tea and toast resulting in a deficiency of vitamins and other nutrients. The syndrome often manifests itself as hyponatremia, a low concentration of the electrolyte sodium in the bloodstream, due to the lack of salt in the diet.

The syndrome often occurs once children have moved away, and a partner has died or is dying. An elderly person with nobody left to cook for, or without the skills to cook, will revert to a diet of simple foods such as bread, cheese and crackers, and canned foods. According to the New York Times, as many as 60% of seniors living at home are either malnourished or at risk of becoming malnourished. In addition to the problems lack of nutrients will cause, this state also means that the complications of other illnesses, even the common cold, can be much more severe.

Factors that lead to the syndrome include social isolation, psychological issues such as depression, illness, and physical limitations. Though less of a factor than psychological issues, the increased number of medications often taken by elderly people can also affect eating habits. These medications may suppress appetite, make food taste different, or affect how nutrients are absorbed, making it even less likely seniors will get the required nutrients. Typical laboratory findings for tea and toast syndrome include a low serum osmolality (hypotonicity) with a normal urine osmolality since antidiuretic hormone levels are normal.”

Maybe I should update the Wikipedia entry to include multiple sclerosis and other socially-isolating chronic conditions as a cause of this syndrome?  Interestingly, my patient is not underweight, which implies she is getting enough calories. She wants to eat other food, but simply can’t afford more nutritious meals, nor does she have the physical energy to cook because of her MS. Her story is not unique. Three years ago when we did a dietary audit of a group of our Barts-MS patients I was horrified at how poor their diets were in general. Most of our patients eat large quantities of cheap processed foods. The main reason is cost and convenience. I suspect with increasing austerity over the last few years things could have only gotten worse and may get even worse if food prices rise, as predicted, if and when Brexit goes ahead.

An editorial in last week’s British Medical Journal, by Michael Marmot, does not pull any punches. It explains why the social crisis is leading to a health crisis with knock-on effects. Marmot in his final paragraph states: ‘A stalling or reversal of long term improvements in health and increases in health inequalities are of great concern to anyone who cares about health’.  This applies to me as a neurologist working in the NHS. I see the impact of austerity and the social crisis is having on my patients week after week and it is getting worse. The question is what can we do about it? Yes, we. This is not something that can be tackled by one person it is something society has to address.

Our second variance meeting in relation to MS services, called ‘Raising the Bar’, in Birmingham next month (8th & 9th July) has a workstream dedicated to the social determinants of health. At the end of year 3, we want all participating centres to be working differently and managing MS holistically. This will include programmes to screen and manage comorbidities and promote lifestyle interventions. To make sure it is not only MSers in the top echelons who benefit most from changes in service provision we want all HCPs to adopt a ‘no patient left behind’ philosophy as part of this holistic management and embed this philosophy in all MS services.

How we make this happen with fewer resources is going to require ingenuity and a different way of working. We are going to have to create disruptive new systems to make sure that all people with MS, who are covered by a particular service, have access to that service.  We don’t want vulnerable, less educated, ethnic minorities or less well off patients to be disadvantaged by the service.

This is why we are reaching out to all HCPs and people with MS and their families to help us change the current and outdated ‘Victorian’ model of healthcare, which is configured around the HCP and to make the person with the disease the person who controls their care. I anticipate the changes happening gradually and incrementally; one brick at a time. By linking the changes to a national audit and the MS Academy, a platform to share best practice and resources, we will hopefully create an environment that will transform the way people with MS are managed in the NHS.

What concerns me, however, is how do we tackle the social crisis? Our patients not having enough money to buy food or access transport to attend group therapy to tackle social isolation? Surely we need more resources for the NHS and social care? Marmot politicises his Editorial by linking the social crisis to changes in government: ‘In the UK, the fact that the break in the long term rise in life expectancy began in 2011 and has been accompanied by an increase in health inequalities must lead to serious questions about whether the government elected in 2010, with its flagship austerity policies, made a difference for the worse’. This makes you worry that under the current government there will simply be no new resources for implementing our ideas. This raises many challenges and will make the task harder. We may have to mobilise a volunteer army of helpers or we are going to have to show senior NHS managers that the changes we are proposing will save the NHS money.

In a parallel editorial to Marmot’s, Rajan and Mckee remind HCPs that we have a duty to speak out. The following are a few excerpts:

…. Nothing Left in the Cupboards, by Human Rights Watch, describes a country in which tens of thousands of families lack enough food to live on. The second report, by Philip Alston, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, also examines food poverty but goes much broader, covering the many ways in which successive British governments have been “dismantling the social safety net.” Neither report makes comfortable reading for the British government. The Human Rights Watch report talks of “a grim picture of the grinding reality that teachers are dealing with,” with children arriving at school hungry, without warm clothes or dry shoes. Alston describes a situation that is not just “a disgrace, but a social calamity and an economic disaster rolled into one.”…..

…… In 2002, Derek Wanless published a landmark report commissioned by Gordon Brown, then chancellor of the exchequer. It concluded that sustainable NHS funding into the future required a “fully engaged” scenario, with investment in action on the determinants of health allowing people to live longer in better health. Yet, since 2010, mortality has been stagnating and, for some groups, increasing……

……Yet the British government is currently in a state of near paralysis as it struggles with the Brexit process. And as Alston notes, “If Brexit proceeds, it is likely to have a major adverse impact on the most vulnerable.” When added to the damage that any Brexit will do to the NHS, the outlook is extremely concerning…..

…… Over 150 years ago Rudolf Virchow said that doctors are “natural advocates of the poor.” When, as Alston argues, “the government has remained determinedly in a state of denial,” it is time for all health professionals to stand up for those who are falling through the increasingly large holes in our social safety nets. We must do so not only for the individuals concerned but for the future of the NHS, which, as Wanless pointed out, cannot continue to pick up the pieces following failures by others…….

If the issues in this blog post affect you, or someone close to you, please do not hesitate to reach out to us or your local MS team. We are committed to improving the care we provide all of our patients with MS and that includes helping you with your social issues.  

Michael Marmot. A health crisis is a social crisis. BMJ 2019;365:l2278.

Rajan & McKee. NHS is picking up the pieces as social safety nets fail. BMJ 2019;365:l2360.

%%footer%%