Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer: ★★★★★ (A blue sky and sunflower yellow Tuesday; #87CEEB #ffda03)
I bang on about treating-2-target beyond NEIDA (no evident inflammatory disease activity) and targeting the end-organ, i.e. to try and normalise brain volume loss (BVL). The aim is to get pwMS to old age with a healthy brain so that they can age normally. Who wants to be at risk of premature ageing and being demented earlier than you have to be?
When it comes to BVL, not all DMTs are made equal. At the top of the ladder are HSCT and alemtuzumab, then natalizumab. Behind these come the anti-CD20 therapies, the S1P modulators, cladribine, teriflunomide and the also-rans.
In the smallish real-life study below pwMS who have been on natalizumab for at least 2 years appear to lose brain volume at a similar rate as normal controls. I wonder what would happen over a longer period of time? Natalizumab is very effective but it does not necessarily get on top of smouldering MS, so some patients will be doing better than others. Don’t be lulled into a sense of security by the average effect; 50% of people do worse than average (median) and 50% of people do better than average (median).
Please be aware that BVL is complicated with many physiological (day-2-day), biological (age), disease factors(duration, level of disability, lesion load, comorbidities) and other Influences (e.g. genomic factors) affecting the brain volume and rate of BVL. Despite BVL not being assessed in routine clinical practice, it is one of the metrics that need to be taken into account when choosing your DMT. Just maybe BVL should be the most important factor to consider in terms of efficacy? What do you think?
Yes, the volume of your brain predicts disability outcomes, cognition and how well you will do in old age.
Background: Clinically stable multiple sclerosis (MS) patients often have negligible inflammatory MRI changes. Brain atrophy may provide insight into subclinical disease progression. The objective was to compare brain atrophy rates in stable patients on long term natalizumab treatment vs. age and gender matched healthy non-MS controls (HC) prospectively over two-years examining brain volume, cognition, and patient reported outcomes (PROs).
Methods: MS patients treated with natalizumab for a minimum of 2 years, age 18-60 were recruited and compared with age- and gender-matched healthy controls (HC). Both groups were followed prospectively to obtain two years of consecutive magnetic resonance imaging, clinical and PRO data. Baseline normalized brain volume (NBV), yearly T2 lesion volume (T2LV), and percent brain volume change (PBVC) were measured using SIENAX, JIM 6.0, and SIENA respectively. Neuropsychological tests from the MACFIMS battery were selected to optimize assessments for impairments in the domains of information processing speed and memory. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) for domains of physical, mental and social quality of life were evaluated using the NeuroQol short forms.
Results: Forty-eight natalizumab and 62 HC completed all study visits. At baseline, unadjusted mean NBV (natalizumab=1508.80cm (Popescu et al., 2013) vs. HC=1539.23cm (Popescu et al., 2013); p=0.033) and median baseline T2LV (natalizumab=1724.62mm (Popescu et al., 2013) vs. HC=44.20mm (Popescu et al., 2013); p=<0.0001) were different. The mean PBVC at year 2, adjusted for gender and baseline age was -0.57% (CI: 0.7620, -0.3716) for natalizumab and -0.50% (-0.7208, -0.2831) for HC, but the difference between groups was not statistically significant (0.073%; p=0.62). Over the 2-year period, HC demonstrated mild improvements in some cognitive tests vs. natalizumab subjects. However, PROs were similar between the two groups.
Conclusion: Stable MS patients on natalizumab have similar brain volume loss as people who do not have MS, suggesting normalization of brain atrophy.
General Disclaimer: Please note that the opinions expressed here are those of Professor Giovannoni and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry nor Barts Health NHS Trust and are not meant to be interpreted as personal clinical advice.
When I state that the real MS is smouldering MS and that relapses and focal MRI activity are not the disease I really mean it.
PwMS who are NEDA-2, without relapses and with no new MRI lesions, but getting worse must have something going on in their brains and spinal cords. This is why we need to go beyond NEIDA (no evidence of inflammatory disease activity) as a treatment target in MS and focus on protecting the end-organ so that pwMS can have enough reserve to cope with normal ageing when they get older.
One example or ugly fact to illustrate the disconnect between inflammation (relapses and focal MRI activity) and the end-organ (brain volume loss) is the recent ofatumumab vs. teriflunomide trials.
Brain volume loss (↓~0%): Ofatumumab = teriflunomide
If ofatumumab is so much more effective as an anti-inflammatory than teriflunomide why doesn’t it protect the end-organ more than teriflunomide? I don’t know but is clear, at least to me, that there is something else going on that is driving the end-organ damage in MS that is not linked to focal inflammation. Could something about teriflunomide’s mode of action that is downstream of focal inflammation be telling us something fundamental about the cause of MS?
General Disclaimer: Please note that the opinions expressed here are those of Professor Giovannoni and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry nor Barts Health NHS Trust.
Side of the fence: used to refer to either of the opposing positions or interests involved in a particular situation.
Status quo: the current situation; the way things are now. The MS community, i.e. patients and HCPs are content with the status quo and aren’t looking for a change.
NEDA: no evident MS disease activity
The question you need to ask yourself is which side of the fence are you on? MS is a focal inflammatory disease of the central nervous system vs. MS is a smouldering disease process and focal inflammatory events are in response to what is causing the disease. If you favour the former you will be happy with being NEDA-2, i.e. having no relapses or new focal inflammatory lesions. If you are in the latter camp you will want to focus on end-organ damage and preserving your brain and spinal cord volume for old age.
The wider MS community seems to prefer the current dogma and status quo; i.e. that MS is a focal inflammatory disease and that everything we see can be explained by relapses and focal MRI activity. I think this is wrong and have argued this from not only a scientific point of view but also from a philosophical one.
Deciding which side of the fence you are on may make an enormous difference to your outcome. It is clear that not all DMTs are made equal when it comes to preserving brain volume and hence brain reserve.
Did you know that pwMS lose brain volume at a 2-7x faster rate than age-matched controls from the general population? Accelerated brain volume loss predicts and is strongly associated with cognitive impairment and long term disability. The following picture shows you just how much brain someone with MS can lose over an 18 month period.
If we moved our treatment target to go beyond NEDA to focus on protecting the end-organ so that pwMS may have a brain that is in good enough condition to withstand the ageing process in later life I suspect the treatment landscape would change dramatically. To achieve this we need to diagnose MS and treat it early and effectively and in many cases, we need to flip the pyramid and use high efficacy therapies at the beginning, in particular agent such as alemtuzumab and AHSCT, which have been shown to protect the end-organ better than other DMTs.
General Disclaimer: Please note that the opinions expressed here are those of Professor Giovannoni and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry nor Barts Health NHS Trust.
The one good thing about thinking aloud is that your colleagues’ chip in and provide feedback. Case 2 from my ‘ethical quandary post‘ is generating an important debate about whether to support this patient’s decision to switch therapy or not.
As a reminder, this is the 40-year old woman who started natalizumab as a first-line therapy 11 years ago after presenting with two disabling relapses in a four-month period. She has done exceptionally well on natalizumab, i.e. she is NEDA-3 (no relapses, no MRI activity and no change in her EDSS). In fact, her original disabilities from the two relapses recovered. At present she is fully functional, working full-time and very active physically. For example, she plays competitive tennis in her local sports club and ran the London marathon 2 years ago. Her current EDSS is 1.0.
The problem is that her serial annual MRI studies demonstrate that she has progressive macroscopic (visible by the naked eye) brain volume loss. Being an intelligent woman and a self-taught MS expert she knows this is a poor prognostic sign and she wants to stop natalizumab and have HSCT or alemtuzumab. She is aware from reading The MS-Blog (formerly the Barts-MS blog) that alemtuzumab and HSCT have a greater impact than natalizumab on end-organ damage or brain volume loss. After HSCT and alemtuzumab treatment brain volume loss is on average in the normal range (please see BEYOND NEDA).
What I didn’t say to you is that this lady has already made the decision that she wants to be treated with AHSCT, either on the NHS (not possible at present), abroad at one of the reputable private BMT units or in the private sector within the UK. The problem we have is that we have no idea what will happen to her BVL once she makes the switch. I suspect she will have accelerated BVL in the first year post-AHSCT, which is well described and is likely to be due to the neurotoxicity of the chemotherapy. After year-1 the BVL may or may not normalise. We have no idea what happens to the MS brain after being subjected to smouldering MS pathology on natalizumab for a decade.
Fortunately, we do have data from interferon-beta to alemtuzumab switching and, yes, after 2 years of interferon-beta therapy switching to alemtuzumab does normalise BVL. What is clear from the 8-year alemtuzumab follow-up data (see below) is that the rate of brain volume loss is age-dependent. Being in the 35-45 year age group the BVL was 0.13% per annum ((1.51-0.71)/6) on alemtuzumab. When you compare this to the 0.06% per annum in study subjects 18-25 years of age ((1.24-0.87)/6) you realise how important age is in determining treatment effects.
Is this data sufficient to talk this young woman down from her decision to have AHSCT and to go with alemtuzumab? What do you think? If this patient is reading this blog post will it affect your decision?
Another thing this ‘thinking out loud’ exercise has taught me is that having annual BVL measurements on our patients with MS on DMTs could be very helpful. I also think we should ask around to see if we can get a case series of natalizumab to alemtuzumab switchers to see what happens to the trajectory of BVL before, on natalizumab, and after the switch to alemtuzumab. At least then we will have data to inform such difficult decisions.
Background: Alemtuzumab significantly improved clinical and MRI outcomes vs. subcutaneous interferon beta-1a (SC IFNB-1a) in the CARE-MS trials (NCT00530348, NCT00548405), with sustained efficacy in 2 consecutive extensions (NCT00930553, NCT02255656 [TOPAZ]).
Methods: Post hoc analysis of 8-year alemtuzumab efficacy and safety in pooled CARE-MS patients (N=811) stratified by baseline age (≥18 to ≤25, >25 to ≤35, >35 to ≤45, >45 to ≤55 years).
Results: Compared with SC IFNB-1a over 2 years across age cohorts, alemtuzumab lowered annualized relapse rates (ARR; 0.22-0.24 vs. 0.38-0.51), improved or stabilized disability (freedom from 6-month confirmed disability worsening [CDW]: 85%-92% vs. 62%-88%; achievement of 6-month confirmed disability improvement [CDI]: 20%-31% vs. 13%-25%), increased proportions free of MRI disease activity (70%-86% vs. 42%-63% per year), and slowed brain volume loss (BVL; -0.45% to -0.87% vs. -0.50% to -1.39%). Through Year 2, the treatment effect with alemtuzumab did not significantly differ among age groups for ARR (p-interaction=0.6325), 6-month CDW-free (p-interaction=0.4959), 6-month CDI (p-interaction=0.9268), MRI disease activity-free (p-interaction=0.6512), and BVL (p-interaction=0.4970). Alemtuzumab remained effective on outcomes through Year 8 across age groups. Age-related increases in malignancies (≤45 years: 0.9%-2.2% vs. >45 years: 8.1%) and deaths (0%-1.7% vs. 7.0%) were observed. Serious infections also increased from the youngest (5.1%) to oldest (12.8%) age cohorts.
Conclusions: Alemtuzumab had greater efficacy than SC IFNB-1a over 2 years across comparable age groups, with no significant differences between alemtuzumab-treated age groups. Efficacy on relapse, disability, and MRI outcomes continued through Year 8 across age groups. Age-related increases in serious infections, malignancies, and deaths were observed.
General Disclaimer: Please note that the opinions expressed here are those of Professor Giovannoni and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry nor Barts Health NHS Trust.
What do you say when I colleague chastises you for stating the fact that MS is potentially a ‘preventable dementia’? This particular colleague was clear that there is no need to draw any parallels between MS and other neurodegenerative diseases because of the negative connations that the term dementia has. I had to remind him that MS ticks all the boxes for being classified as a dementia; i.e. (1) MS is an acquired and not a congenital disorder; (2) MS is a chronic progressive disease; (3) MS impacts on multiple cognitive domains and (4) MS impacts on social and occupational functioning. Have I missed something?
I also had to remind this colleague that almost every neurology or psychiatry textbook included MS on its list of causes of dementia. I am not prepared to peddle alternative facts because pwMS may find it distressing to find out that if MS is left to its own devices it will shred their brains and cause dementia. Please note the rose-tinted-odometer is set to zero for this post.
The small study below reiterates what we already know that both relapsing and progressive patients have cognitive problems that correlate with physical disability. This study also confirms that T1 hypodensities or blackholes on MRI, particular in the thalamus (a deep grey matter structure in the brain) predicts cognition problems. T1 hypodense MS lesions or black holes, or at least a proportion of them, have been shown to be very destructive and include lesions with so-called phase-rims (iron around them) and a subset we call SELs (slowly expanding lesions). Some neuroradiologists often describe an MS brain with a high volume of black holes as being similar to Swiss cheese in reference to Emmental cheese.
Now for the good news is that these studies below are on patients with significant end-organ damage and if we can diagnose and treat MS effectively early on we can prevent or at least delay the end-organ damage and the progressive loss of cognition. This is why we have spent years promoting the concepts of ‘Time-is-Brain’,‘Treat-2-Target of NEDA’, ‘Rapid escalation’, ‘Flipping-the-Pyramid’, ‘Brain Health’, ‘Beyond-NEDA preventing end-organ damage’, ‘Holistic Management’, ‘Marginal Gains’, etc. Buried in all of these concepts is the use of effective DMTs to prevent end-organ damage and to prevent dementia.
I am very pleased that my pwMS in Australia have taken this one step further and launched their own awareness campaign, albeit sponsored by Biogen, to raise awareness about early effective treatment (www.msmotion.com.au). The campaign is been run by a group of MS social media influencers. I met them all virtually last year and spoke to them about the concepts that underpin our ‘Brain Health: Time Matters’ policy document. It would be great if pwMS across the world could do a similar thing.
Do you agree with my colleague above that we should try and protect pwMS from the harsh realities of MS and what can happen to their brains if we don’t manage their MS appropriately? Or should we peddle false facts and a rose-tinted view of the world?
Background: Cognitive impairment (CI) is present in all stages and subtypes of multiple sclerosis (MS). However, the majority of studies examined relapsing-remitting (RRMS) patients, and did not address cognitive phenotyping. Is still not clear whether patients with progressive MS (PMS) have a distinct pattern of CI compared to RRMS. In addition, there is conflicting data regarding the correlation between clinical and cognitive disability.
Objective: To investigate the differences of CI between PMS and RRMS patients, evaluating cognitive phenotypes. We also aimed to analyze the association between physical and cognitive disability with MRI measures of grey-matter atrophy and lesion burden.
Methods: Thirty patients with PMS and twenty-four with RRMS underwent neurological, neuropsychological (BRB-N, Boston Naming, and Tower of London), and MRI assessments (3T). Brain volume evaluations were performed using FreeSurfer. Principal Components Analysis on neuropsychological yielded six principal cognitive domains. Cognitive deficits were classified according to three categories: no CI, impairment in isolated cognitive domain, or impairment in combined domains.
Results: In the overall sample, the most frequently impaired cognitive domains were information processing speed (IPS) and visual memory. PMS patients had a higher prevalence of verbal memory and verbal fluency deficits, and more frequent impairment in combined cognitive domains compared to RRMS individuals. After multivariable regression analysis with clinical variables, EDSS was associated with most cognitive domains. Nevertheless, after including T1-lesion volume in the model, it was the most consistent predictor of cognitive performance. To further analyze the interaction between EDSS and T1-lesions, we performed GLM analysis with EDSS and T1-hypointense lesion volume as covariates, and T1-lesion volume adjusted better the model for verbal memory (p = 0.013), IPS (p = 0.021) and total number of impaired cognitive domains (p = 0.021).
Conclusions: RRMS and PMS patients tend to have a similar neuropsychological profile in general, but the extent of CI was greater in PMS patients. Worse cognitive performance was associated with increased physical disability, but this correlation was no longer significant after controlling for T1-lesion volume, suggesting that the underlying MS pathology might be involved in this relationship. Thalamic and T1-lesion volumes were the most consistent MRI predictors associated with cognitive disability.
As someone with MS do you worry about how you are going to cope with ageing and old age?
As MS shreds both your brain and cognitive reserve will MS bring forward and accelerate the ageing process and the time when you may develop neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease? These are all hypotheses but are very relevant to people with MS (pwMS) and their families.
I recall how much stick I got from the MS community, including some very close colleagues when I tried to rebrand MS as a ‘preventable dementia’. The objective of the #ThinkCognition campaign was to make the MS community look beyond the blinkers of the EDSS and realise that MS was not only physical disabling but it was affecting cognition much earlier than people realised. For example, 40% of people already have significant cognitive impairment in at least two cognitive domains at the CIS (clinically-isolated syndrome) stage of their disease. If you go earlier to RIS (radiologically-isolated syndrome) or asymptomatic stage of the disease about a quarter of subjects have cognitive impairment. People with RIS and CIS are not aware of having cognitive impairment because the brain is able to compensate for the damage at an early stage.
In early MS cognitive impairment is more likely to cause cognitive fatigue and be associated with anxiety and depression than overt cognitive problems. The brain compensates for the damage by doing extra work, consuming more energy and getting tired more easily. Most people with MS realise they attention spans are often markedly reduced because of this phenomenon.
The reason why 50% of pwMS living in Europe are unemployed at an EDSS of 3.0 to 3.5 is not physical but cognitive disabilities. The #ThinkCognition campaign highlights the early hit the MS brain takes and makes the argument for effective early treatment to prevent dementia.
The problem with society’s view of dementia, i.e. of a little old lady with poor memory in a care home, is that it doesn’t easily translate to MS. What you have to remember is that dementia is a syndrome and MS is a well-known cause of dementia. The definition of dementia is that it is an acquired (not born with it), chronic (greater than 6 months), progressive condition (gets worse over time) that affects cognition in multiple domains (for example, problem-solving, processing speed, memory, speech, calculations, etc.) and impacts on the individuals occupational and social functioning. I would challenge anyone to say that worsening MS-related cognitive impairment fulfil this definition of dementia. The good news is that dementia associated with MS is preventable, i.e. if you treat MS early and effectively you will stop the end-organ damage and prevent the consequences of MS on longterm cognitive functioning.
Now the question about bringing forward ageing and the presentation of other neurodegenerative diseases is an open question. Below is a case report of an elderly woman with MS who presents with memory loss and a workup showed a pattern of cognitive decline that was more in keeping with Alzheimer’s disease than MS. She then goes onto to have diagnostic amyloid and is diagnosed as having Alzheimer’s disease. One could argue if she didn’t have MS this may have protected her from getting Alzheimer’s disease or at least delayed its onset by several years.
It is important to stress that the type of cognitive impairment associated with MS is very different to that of classic or amnestic Alzheimer’s disease and well-done neuropsychological tests should be able to differentiate the two conditions (see pilot study below). Saying that I have a handful of patients with ‘cognitive MS’ who have taken a massive hit on their ability to store and process short term memory because in their case MS has affected the temporal lobes and their connecting structures that are critical for memory.
Other issues that the #ThinkCognition campaign addresses are (1) the need to be able to identify relapses as being purely cognitive, (2) using cognitive impairment to say that patients with RIS have CIS or MS so they can be treated, (3) using a change in cognition to define worsening MS or progressive disease, (4) incorporating cognition into our treatment target in MS, (5) including cognitive screening or testing as part of the annual MS assessment and (6) including cognition in our longterm treatment goal of maximising brain health for the life of the pwMS.
I want to point out that none of the points I make in this post is necessarily accepted by the wider MS community and many of the points remain controversial, which is why I would encourage a debate around these issues. What I can tell you, however, if I had MS I would want my neurologist and MS team to treat me as if my brain was the most precious thing on planet earth; I would want them to protect my cognition and make it their number one objective. I suspect this is easier said than done.
Progressive brain volume loss or atrophy in a pwMS over 18 months
Due to increasingly improved disability outcomes, and the resultant significantly improved life span, of the multiple sclerosis (MS) population, questions regarding cognitive aging and the prevalence of comorbid Alzheimer disease (AD) have emerged. We describe neuropsychological and MRI-based changes that occurred in an 84-year-old MS patient with comorbid amnestic mild cognitive impairment (a precursor to AD) and cerebrovascular pathology. The neuropsychological examination demonstrated impairment in cognitive processing speed as well as in verbal and visual memory-domains that are potentially affected by any, or all, of the three co-existing diseases. Amyloid-based PET imaging showed increased focal uptake within the gray matter of the occipital lobe. We highlight how these clinical and radiologic observations can inform future research that could elucidate interactions between MS, a probable AD diagnosis, and cerebrovascular pathology in elderly individuals with MS. A comprehensive neuropsychological examination of multiple cognitive domains of individuals with MS may aid in the differential diagnosis of late-in-life cognitive decline.
Background: Cognitive impairment can be seen in patients of all ages with multiple sclerosis (MS). However, there is limited research on neurocognitive disorder in older adults with MS and how to detect Alzheimer’s disease (AD) or its prodromal stage, amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI). Thus, the MS clinician is challenged to discriminate between signs of MS-related cognitive decline versus a secondary neurodegenerative process.
Objective: Compare cognition in older MS patients to patients with AD and aMCI.
Methods: We evaluated cognitively impaired and unimpaired MS patients, AD patients, aMCI patients, and healthy controls (HCs), all elderly (n = 20 per group). AD and aMCI diagnoses were derived by consensus conference independent of the MS research project. Neuropsychological measures assessed domains commonly affected in AD, including verbal memory and expressive language.
Results: Cognitively impaired and unimpaired MS groups did not differ on any measures sensitive to AD. Unimpaired MS patients were comparable to HCs. Impaired MS patients showed decreased semantic fluency, similar to aMCI patients. Lastly, while both AD and aMCI groups had deficient memory retention, there was no evidence of a retention deficit in either MS group.
Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the cognitive profiles of MS and AD are distinct. In contrast to AD, MS is not associated with impairment of memory consolidation. However, there may be overlap between cognitive deficits related to MS and aMCI. Thus, evidence of poor memory retention, in an older MS patient may merit comprehensive dementia evaluation. The study is preliminary and includes no AD biomarkers (e.g., amyloid imaging) to confirm or rule out AD pathology.
Crowdfunding: Have you contributed to Prof G’s ‘Bed-to-5km Challenge’ in support of MS research?
Just catching up with my reading. Whilst I was away on holiday the ASCLEPIOS I and II trials was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
There is little doubt that ofatumumab is superior to teriflunomide when it comes to suppressing focal inflammation, i.e. relapses, MRI activity and peripheral blood neurofilament levels. However, ofatumumab’s effectiveness against teriflunomide on the real MS (delaying disability progression and reducing the relative loss of brain volume) is less impressive. Is this just another example of a dissociation between the anti-inflammatory effects of an anti-CD20 therapy and its impact on the end-organ as measured using brain volume loss or is it telling us something about teriflunomide and the cause of MS?
It is clear, at least to me, that MS the disease is not due to focal inflammation. Based on the Prentice criteria for disease surrogates, both relapse and focal MRI activity don’t predict disability outcomes in natural history studies and placebo arms of clinical trials. If focal inflammation was MS then relapses and focal MRI activity would predict outcome whether or not you are on a DMT. The point I making here may be a philosophical one, but it a critically important one. In comparison, sustained or confirmed disability progression has to be MS and is based on the pathological correlates that define MS (demyelination, neuroaxonal loss and gliosis).
So why does ofatumumab do so poorly on these metrics relative to teriflunomide, when you would expect it do better? I think teriflunomide is the outlier and this opinion is based on several observations.
Teriflunomide has effects on disability progression that are way and above what you expect from its impact on relapses and focal MRI activity; i.e. both teriflunomide phase 3 placebo-controlled trials were positive on disability progression, despite a moderate reduction in relapse rate (~33% vs. placebo).
Teriflunomide also has a significant and unexpected effect on brain volume loss compared to placebo, which again is out of proportion to its anti-inflammatory effects.
Teriflunomide is more effective when used 2nd and 3rd line. Teri is the only DMT to show the latter and this observation was seen in both phase 3 studies, which makes it likely to be a real, and a very important, finding.
Finally, teriflunomide is a broad-spectrum antiviral agent, which may be part of its mode of action in MS. Could teriflunomide be targeting the viral cause of MS independent of its effects on the immune system’s response to that virus? Could it be an anti-EBV agent? Although teriflunomide’s antiviral mode of action needs more study, I suspect this is the reason why teriflunomide is the outlier that disproves the dogma.
Despite these observations, I suspect the MS community is going to propel ofatumumab to blockbuster status within the first 12 months of its launch. However, I want to reiterate that I think anti-CD20 therapies are lulling us into a false sense of security, i.e. because anti-CD20 therapies are so good at suppressing relapses and focal MRI activity we think we have sorted out the treatment of MS. However, when you look carefully at the end-organ of pwMS on anti-CD20 it is clear that their brains are still being shredded by smouldering MS. It is clear to me that we need to go way and beyond ofatumumab and anti-CD20 therapies to target whatever is causing smouldering MS. This is why we need to think combination therapies and find an add-on therapy, possibly an antiviral, that normalises brain volume loss in people with MS who are rendered free of focal inflammatory activity.
BACKGROUND: Ofatumumab, a subcutaneous anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, selectively depletes B cells. Teriflunomide, an oral inhibitor of pyrimidine synthesis, reduces T-cell and B-cell activation. The relative effects of these two drugs in patients with multiple sclerosis are not known.
METHODS: In two double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3 trials, we randomly assigned patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis to receive subcutaneous ofatumumab (20 mg every 4 weeks after 20-mg loading doses at days 1, 7, and 14) or oral teriflunomide (14 mg daily) for up to 30 months. The primary end point was the annualized relapse rate. Secondary end points included disability worsening confirmed at 3 months or 6 months, disability improvement confirmed at 6 months, the number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions per T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, the annualized rate of new or enlarging lesions on T2-weighted MRI, serum neurofilament light chain levels at month 3, and change in brain volume.
RESULTS: Overall, 946 patients were assigned to receive ofatumumab and 936 to receive teriflunomide; the median follow-up was 1.6 years. The annualized relapse rates in the ofatumumab and teriflunomide groups were 0.11 and 0.22, respectively, in trial 1 (difference, −0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.16 to −0.06; P<0.001) and 0.10 and 0.25 in trial 2 (difference, −0.15; 95% CI, −0.20 to −0.09; P<0.001). In the pooled trials, the percentage of patients with disability worsening confirmed at 3 months was 10.9% with ofatumumab and 15.0% with teriflunomide (hazard ratio, 0.66; P=0.002); the percentage with disability worsening confirmed at 6 months was 8.1% and 12.0%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.68; P=0.01); and the percentage with disability improvement confirmed at 6 months was 11.0% and 8.1% (hazard ratio, 1.35; P=0.09). The number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions per T1-weighted MRI scan, the annualized rate of lesions on T2-weighted MRI, and serum neurofilament light chain levels, but not the change in brain volume, were in the same direction as the primary end point. Injection-related reactions occurred in 20.2% in the ofatumumab group and in 15.0% in the teriflunomide group (placebo injections). Serious infections occurred in 2.5% and 1.8% of the patients in the respective groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with multiple sclerosis, ofatumumab was associated with lower annualized relapse rates than teriflunomide. (Funded by Novartis; ASCLEPIOS I and II ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02792218 and NCT02792231).
I continue to be amazed when I hear senior MS neurologists make the claim they have never prescribed alemtuzumab or referred any of their patients for HSCT and don’t intend to do so either. These same neurologists seem to be happy with natalizumab and ocrelizumab as their #1 high-efficacy go to DMTs. When I challenge them with the exceptional longterm outcomes for pwMS treated early with alemtuzumab or HSCT I get a glazed look, which I now learnt is cognitive dissonance.
“Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviours. This produces a feeling of mental discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviours to reduce the discomfort and restore balance. For example, when people smoke (behaviour) and they know that smoking causes cancer (cognition), they are in a state of cognitive dissonance.” Source: Simply Psychology
It is quite clear that both ocrelizumab and natalizumab are very effective DMTs at switching-off focal inflammatory disease activity in MS; a large number of pwMS on these therapies are NEDA-2 (relapse-free and no new T2 lesions on MRI). This is interpreted by these neurologists and the wider MS community that MS is all sorted. Go away, get on with your life and be happy.
What these neurologists don’t tell their patients on ocrelizumab and natalizumab that despite no relapses or new MRI lesions the accelerated brain volume loss due to MS is continuing unabated. These neurologists and their patients are being lulled into a sense of false security because they believe MS is focal inflammatory disease, when in fact the real MS is the smouldering disease, which drives end-organ damage.
I have addressed these topics many times on this blog. If you are interested in reading some of my back catalogue of posts on this particular topic you can start with the posts below or you could watch a recent lecture I have given on the topic.
It is clear that not all DMTs are made equal when it comes to preventing end-organ damage. At the top of the league table are alemtuzumab and HSCT (~0.2-0.25% loss per annum). Both these treatments are NIRTs (non-selective immune reconstitution therapies).
Natalizumab is probably next with an annual brain volume loss in the region of 0.25-0.30% per annum. Ocrelizumab (anti-CD20) comes next with a rate of brain volume loss of ~0.374% per annum (see latest data below).
Why do natalizumab and ocrelizumab, despite being very effective anti-inflammatory DMTs have only a moderate impact on end-organ damage? This and other observations have convinced me that MS is not focal inflammation, which represents the immune system’s response to what is causing MS. I suspect there is something going in the CNS of pwMS that is the real MS; I refer to this hypothesis as the ‘Field Hypothesis’.
What these observations are telling us that peripheral B-cells are an important part of the immune response to the cause of MS, but B-cells are not necessarily involved in driving the true MS pathology, which is causing the progressive brain volume loss.
What does this mean for the well-informed person with MS? Firstly, you and your neurologist may not want to dismiss alemtuzumab and HSCT as a first-line, or at least early, treatment option. These non-selective highly effective IRTs differ from anti-CD20 therapies in that they target both B and T cells. I suspect we need to target both these cells types early in the course of the disease to really get on top of the real MS.
I am aware of the appeal of anti-CD20 therapies and natalizumab in that they are safer and easier to use because of less monitoring, however, this may come at a cost in the long-term. Please remember that once you have lost brain you can’t get it back. With alemtuzumab and HSCT, the risk is frontloaded, and balanced against the potential long-term gains in efficacy, which are unprecedented. Choosing a DMT on a rung or two lower down on the therapeutic ladder gives you better short-term safety and makes the life of your MS neurologist less stressful, because of less monitoring and fewer risks, but at a potential long-term cost to your brain and spinal cord.
This is why making an informed decision about which DMT you choose is a very complicated process and subject to subtle and often hidden effects of cognitive biases; cognitive dissonance is just one of these biases. The one bias I am very aware of is the ‘Gambler’s Dilemma’, be careful not to be lulled into a false sense of security by your beliefs; most gamblers eventually end-up losing.
In reality, we need to move treatment target in MS way beyond NEDA-2 to target end-organ damage, i.e. brain volume loss, T1 black holes, the slowly expanding lesions (SELs), neurofilament levels, cognition, sickness behaviour, OCBs, etc. Our treatment aim should be to ‘Maximise Brain Health’ across your life and not just the next few years.
As yet we don’t know what the impact of alemtuzumab and HSCT are on the pathology of smouldering MS, but these agents must be doing something to these pathologies based on clinical and MRI outcomes (see below). Despite this data gap, I think we have enough empirical evidence that alemtuzumab and HSCT are doing some fundamental to the pathology of MS.
Coming back to cognitive dissonance. It could be argued that if an MS neurologist or MS centre does not offer alemtuzumab or HSCT to at least some of their patients then they are not providing their patients with sufficient choice. In addition, they will almost certainly not accept the concept of smouldering MS being the real MS.
Objective: To assess over 3 years of follow-up, the effects of maintaining or switching to ocrelizumab (OCR) therapy on clinical and MRI outcomes and safety measures in the open-label extension (OLE) phase of the pooled OPERA studies in relapsing multiple sclerosis.
Methods: After 2 years of double-blind, controlled treatment, patients continued OCR (600 mg infusions every 24 weeks) or switched from interferon (IFN) β-1a (44 μg 3 times weekly) to OCR when entering the OLE phase (3 years). Adjusted annualized relapse rate, time to onset of 24-week confirmed disability progression/improvement (CDP/CDI), brain MRI activity (gadolinium-enhanced and new/enlarging T2 lesions), and percentage brain volume change were analyzed.
Results: Of patients entering the OLE phase, 88.6% completed Year 5. The cumulative proportion with 24-week CDP was lower in patients who initiated OCR earlier, vs patients initially receiving IFN β-1a (16.1% vs 21.3% at Year 5; p=0.014). Patients continuing OCR maintained, and those switching from IFN β-1a to OCR attained near complete and sustained suppression of new brain MRI lesion activity from Year 3 to 5. Over the OLE phase, patients continuing OCR exhibited less whole brain volume loss from double-blind study baseline vs those switching from IFN β-1a (–1.87% vs –2.15% at Year 5; p<0.01). Adverse events were consistent with past reports and no new safety signals emerged with prolonged treatment.
Conclusion: Compared with patients switching from IFN β-1a, earlier and continuous OCR treatment up to 5 years provided sustained benefit on clinical and MRI measures of disease progression.
Classification of evidence: This study provides Class III evidence that earlier and continuous treatment with ocrelizumab provided sustained benefit on clinical and MRI outcomes of disease activity and progression compared with patients switching from IFN β-1a. The study is rated Class III because of the initial treatment randomization disclosure that occurred after inclusion in OLE.
BACKGROUND: A cohort of patients with poor-prognosis multiple sclerosis (MS) underwent chemotherapy-based immune ablation followed by immune reconstitution with an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (IA/aHSCT). This eliminated new focal inflammatory activity, but resulted in early acceleration of brain atrophy.
OBJECTIVE: We modeled the time course of whole-brain volume in 19 patients to identify the baseline predictors of atrophy and to estimate the average rate of atrophy after IA/aHSCT.
METHODS: Percentage whole-brain volume changes were calculated between the baseline and follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; mean duration: 5 years). A mixed-effects model was applied using two predictors: total busulfan dose and baseline volume of T1-weighted white-matter lesions.
RESULTS: Treatment was followed by accelerated whole-brain volume loss averaging 3.3%. Both the busulfan dose and the baseline lesion volume were significant predictors. The atrophy slowed progressively over approximately 2.5 years. There was no evidence that resolution of edema contributed to volume loss. The mean rate of long-term atrophy was -0.23% per year, consistent with the rate expected from normal aging.
CONCLUSION: Following IA/aHSCT, MS patients showed accelerated whole-brain atrophy that was likely associated with treatment-related toxicity and degeneration of “committed” tissues. Atrophy eventually slowed to that expected from normal aging, suggesting that stopping inflammatory activity in MS can reduce secondary degeneration and atrophy.
OBJECTIVE: To describe detailed MRI results from 2 head-to-head phase III trials, Comparison of Alemtuzumab and Rebif Efficacy in Multiple Sclerosis Study I (CARE-MS I; NCT00530348) and Study II (CARE-MS II; NCT00548405), of alemtuzumab vs subcutaneous interferon β-1a (SC IFN-β-1a) in patients with active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS).
METHODS: The impact of alemtuzumab 12 mg vs SC IFN-β-1a 44 μg on MRI measures was evaluated in patients with RRMS who were treatment-naive (CARE-MS I) or who had an inadequate response, defined as at least one relapse, to prior therapy (CARE-MS II).
RESULTS: Both treatments prevented T2-hyperintense lesion volume increases from baseline. Alemtuzumab was more effective than SC IFN-β-1a on most lesion-based endpoints in both studies (p < 0.05), including decreased risk of new/enlarging T2 lesions over 2 years and gadolinium-enhancing lesions at year 2. Reduced risk of new T1 lesions (p < 0.0001) and gadolinium-enhancing lesion conversion to T1-hypointense black holes (p = 0.0078) were observed with alemtuzumab vs SC IFN-β-1a in CARE-MS II. Alemtuzumab slowed brain volume loss over 2 years in CARE-MS I (p < 0.0001) and II (p = 0.012) vs SC IFN-β-1a.
CONCLUSIONS: Alemtuzumab demonstrated greater efficacy than SC IFN-β-1a on MRI endpoints in active RRMS. The superiority of alemtuzumab was more prominent during the second year of both studies. These findings complement the superior clinical efficacy of alemtuzumab over SC IFN-β-1a in RRMS.
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: The results reported here provide Class I evidence that, for patients with active RRMS, alemtuzumab is superior to SC IFN-β-1a on multiple MRI endpoints.
BACKGROUND: Tissue damage in both multiple sclerosis (MS) lesions and normal-appearing white matter (NAWM) are important contributors to disability and progression. Specific aspects of MS pathology can be measured using advanced imaging. Alemtuzumab is a humanised monoclonal antibody targeting CD52 developed for MS treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate changes over 2 years of advanced magnetic resonance (MR) metrics in lesions and NAWM of MS patients treated with alemtuzumab.
METHODS: A total of 42 relapsing-remitting alemtuzumab-treated MS subjects were scanned for 2 years at 3 T. T1 relaxation, T2relaxation, diffusion tensor, MR spectroscopy and volumetric sequences were performed. Mean T1 and myelin water fraction (MWF) were determined for stable lesions, new lesions and NAWM. Fractional anisotropy was calculated for the corpus callosum (CC) and N-acetylaspartate (NAA) concentration was determined from a large NAWM voxel. Brain parenchymal fraction (BPF), cortical thickness and CC area were also calculated.
RESULTS: No change in any MR measurement was found in lesions or NAWM over 24 months. BPF, cortical thickness and CC area all showed decreases in the first year followed by stability in the second year.
CONCLUSION: Advanced MR biomarkers of myelin (MWF) and neuron/axons (NAA) show no change in NAWM over 24 months in alemtuzumab-treated MS participants.
Louise quotes the American poet Donald Hall, who explains in Essays After Eighty how life is irrevocably and excruciatingly changed when a person must let go of their car: “For years I drove slowly and cautiously, but when I was eighty I had two accidents. I stopped driving before I killed somebody, and now when I shop or see a doctor, someone has to drive me. …Old age is a ceremony of losses.”
Although this refers to old age the same can be said for someone with MS. MS is a sequence of losses. Does it have to be this like this? I hope not, but to get to this position we need to go beyond NEDA.
I am running one of our Barts-MS teaching programmes this week in which a case was presented by one of the delegates. The lady, who is in her early thirties, has a diagnosis of relapsing MS and is NEDA, off therapy for 5 years, i.e. no relapses and no new T2 lesions. However, when you look at her sequential MRIs next to each other it is clear that she has progressive brain volume loss. She has NEDA-3, but clearly, something else is happening to her brain. I suggested to the neurologist looking after this patient to interrogate her in detail, i.e. to measure her brain volume, send her for cognitive testing, arrange for a more objective interrogation of her neurological functioning and to do a lumbar puncture to assess if she has inflammation and ongoing damage as measured by CSF neurofilament levels. In other words, don’t rely on what we have now to assess her MS disease activity.
The problem we have is that we have created a beast called NEDA and the wider MS community now think evident disease activity or EDA (relapses and focal MRI activity) is MS. EDA is obviously not MS. It is clear that EDA in untreated patients is a very poor predictor of outcome. IF EDA was MS it would predict outcome regardless of being treated or not. In other words, EDA fails one of Prentice’s criteria for being a surrogate marker of MS.
Despite writing frequently on the topic that MS is not due to relapses and/or focal MRI activity the dogma seems to stick. I have arguably helped create NEDA as a treatment target and have been responsible for some of its stickiness as a treatment target. Can I admit I am wrong? NEDA is a useful construct, but it is now becoming a barrier to treating MS properly.
If I was a behavioural psychologist I would be referring to NEDA as the new cognitive bias. We need to shift our worldview of MS away from an MRI worldview. What we should be doing is creating a biological worldview of MS and asking what is happening in the ‘field‘ or the brains of people with MS. We have to explain why end-organ damage is ongoing despite switching off focal inflammatory activity. What is driving SELs (slowly expanding lesions), the subpial cortical lesion, grey matter atrophy and the accelerated brain volume loss? If we don’t then MS will remain a sequence of losses.
Help! How do I manage progressive brain atrophy in a patient who is NEDA-3?
End-organ damage is a catch-all phrase for the degeneration of the brain; it occurs as part of the ageing process that some consider pathological and others as a normal fact of life. I have hinted that I consider it both because end-organ damage is potentially modifiable via lifestyle modifications and pharmacological interventions. If it was a normal process it should not be modifiable. How can you be more normal than normal? Making ageing a disease also has political ramifications, for example, it will almost certainly incentivise Pharma to develop treatments for ageing.
In MS end-organ damage is massively accelerated by the MS disease process itself, i.e. inflammation and demyelination, and from delayed downstream processes triggered by inflammation, for example, energy failure, microglial activation, ongoing inflammation driven by antibodies, possible slow viral infection and its consequences and comorbidities. It is clear that all people with MS will have end-organ damage, but what can we do about it? To be honest, apart from early treatment to prevent damage, we haven’t got an evidence base about how to manage this problem in MS.
As an example, I saw a patient earlier this week. He has relapsing-remitting MS diagnosed in the mid-2000s and started on interferon-beta (Avonex). He also has type 1 diabetes which he developed when he was 14 years of age, 8 years before he was diagnosed with MS. His diabetes was poorly controlled initially but is now well controlled on an insulin pump. He has renal (proteinuria), eye (retinopathy) and hypertension as complications of his diabetes. His hypertension is controlled on medication. He has been relapse-free and his MRI has not shown any obvious new lesions over the last 6 years; i.e. he is NEDA-3. He does not smoke, but he drinks between 3 and 4 units of alcohol per day. He was referred to me because he is sick and tired of injecting himself with interferon and he has heard of a new drug called ocrelizumab. He wants to be switched to it because is more efficacious and only give every 6 months. His treating neurologist said no, hence his referral to me for a second opinion.
When I went through his history it is clear he has had no relapses in the last 6 years and is fully functional and working full-time. I reviewed his MRIs and I agree he has no new lesions over the last 6 years, but he has developed quite profound and progressive brain atrophy over this timeframe; he is definitely not NEDA-4. What do I do?
Do I switch him from interferon-beta to ocrelizumab? Or do I leave him on Avonex, which is doing its job and rendering him NEDA-3?
If I do switch him to ocrelizumab, will it normalise his brain volume loss? Will he become NEDA-4?
What is causing his brain volume loss? MS, hypertension, diabetes, alcohol or something else?
Do I tell him about his gross brain atrophy, which he is blissfully unaware of?
Do I offer him a formal cognitive assessment to see if he has cognitive impairments? If he has a cognitive assessment and they come back abnormal, which they are likely to, how do I tell him? Will knowing he cognitively impaired affect his management?
Do I offer him a lumbar puncture to measure his spinal fluid neurofilament levels?
Do I recommend any add-on off-label treatments that may help?
Or do I just take the easy option and send him back to his neurologist with a recommendation to leave things as is?
Can I suggest we debate these issues over the next few days and I can then potentially do a live webinar on the issue of end-organ damage and how to handle the problem of progressive brain volume loss on DMTs when you are NEDA-3.
