How flipped is your consultant?

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer: ★★

If you don’t measure it you can’t change it.  The fact that the UK was performing so poorly relative to other EU countries on the EMSP’s MS barometer was one of the reasons why I got into MS politics and helped put together the ‘Brain Health: Time Matters’ policy document. 

In 2015, despite being the second wealthiest nation in Europe, the UK was in the bottom three of the EU league table in terms of prescribing DMTs, particularly high efficacy DMTs. Fortunately, things have improved slightly and we are now mid-table, but way below average (see figure below). Is this good enough? NO! The under-treatment of MS in the UK will obviously be linked to poorer outcomes, i.e. more disabled, more unemployed, more demented and smaller-brained people living with MS in the UK compared to comparator countries above us in the league table.

I am often asked if I had MS what country would I want to live in to have my MS treated. I rarely hesitate, it has to be either Sweden or Australia. Why? Because these two countries have universal healthcare policies and they both allow their MSologists to manage MS how they see fit. This is why both Sweden and Australia have about 70% of their patients on high efficacy DMTs. There are also no Swedish or Australian DMT police standing over their consultants saying you can only use drug X or refer this patient for HSCT if they fulfil these criteria. Yes, the Swedish and Australian healthcare systems trust their consultants to get on with the job they have been trained to do, i.e. to treat MS with very little central interference. 

Some conservative neurologists argue that both Sweden and Australia are over-treating MS and by doing so they are exposing people who will eventually turn out to have benign MS to unnecessary risks associated with high-efficacy DMTs. Please remember that only a small minority of people with MS turn out to have benign MS. Therefore the non-Swedish-Australian or conservative approach to treating MS puts the majority of pwMS at risk of under-treating their disease to protect the minority. This could be referred to as the anti-vaxxer approach to treating MS; let’s not treat MS aggressively so that we harm nobody. 

In comparison, the Swedes and Australians will be exposing a small proportion of their benign MS patients to unnecessary risks to offer the majority the protection their brains need from under-treated MS. This is like the public health approach to vaccines; let’s treat MS aggressively to improve the outcome of the majority and by doing this we are prepared to accept some collateral damage in terms of adverse events. 

Another argument that is often used against the active-treatment approach of the Swedes and Australians is that if everyone ends up on high efficacy therapy what do you do next? I counter this argument by saying these patients are probably on high-efficacy treatment because they need to be on high-efficacy treatment.

The other issue that needs discussion is the variation within countries and even within MS centres. When I first saw the DMT prescribing data from Blueteq, the NHS high-cost drug database, I was appalled. There is such wide variation between UK centres in terms of DMT prescribing behaviour that even NHS England are concerned. It can’t be right that some MS centres have 80% of their patients on high-efficacy DMTs and other centres have less than 20% of their patients on these treatments. 

Some UK centres don’t prescribe some classes of DMT. In fact, the latter may be illegal. There is in fact an act of parliament stating that NHS centres have to offer NICE approved therapies. Therefore refusing to offer and treat someone who is eligible for say alemtuzumab could be legally challenged.  As a result of this variation, we started the Raising-the-Bar initiative to address variation in MS service provision across the UK. A national audit is the keystone of this initiative and all MS centres will be able to see how they are performing relative to the national average and other regional centres. Hopefully, this national audit data will act as the catalyst to stop the scourge of undertreated MS in the UK. 

The audit data will be so granular that it has the potential to expose outliers at the individual consultant level. For example, if one consultant has no patients treated with alemtuzumab, cladribine or HSCT and his/her colleagues in the same centre has substantial patients on these treatments it may trigger a review of that consultant’s fitness to practice as an MSologist. I am sure many neurologists will be appalled by this suggestion, but this type of individual performance review is widely used in surgical specialities and will arrive in neurology soon. In fact, it already has in some countries. If you are an epilepsy expert and are not referring a certain proportion of your patients for epilepsy surgery every year then you will have your fitness to practice as an epilepsy expert questioned. Epileptologists have agreed that a small number of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy will benefit from surgery and if one of their colleagues is not identifying and referring these patients for surgery then they are not practising according to international standards. 

My dream is that every MS centre in the UK will not only have access to their audit data for quality and performance review but patients will be able to access this data on a publically available website so that that can ascertain how conservative or active their MS centre is at treating MS. My vision is to have an MS-Advisor app modelled on TripAdvisor that will allow patients to review and provide feedback on their MS service. There is nothing like a bad review to change behaviour. 

So if you have MS and think your disease is being under-treated you should ask your HCP for their audit figures, i.e. how many of their patients are on DMTs, how many are on high efficacy DMTs and how do their figures compare to their colleagues and to the national average. If they are not prepared to provide you with this data you can always put in a freedom of information request.

Yes, the Raising-the-Bar national audit is going to make it hard for participating centres to not participate in the audit and to ignore their own audit data. The objectives of the RtB initiative is to raise the standard of MS services for pwMS, to reduce the under-treatment of MS and to ultimately improve MS outcomes and the quality of life of our NHS patients. 

So when I ask has your neurologist flipped; I mean has your neurologist adopted a more active approach to treating MS. Are they flipping the pyramid?

Conflicts of Interest

Preventive Neurology

Twitter

LinkedIn

Medium

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.

Two, four, six, eight, who do you appreciate?

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer: ★

This week I was asked by two patients independently of each other who had delayed access to treatment if this could explain why they now have secondary progressive MS. In parallel, I had a meeting with a friend yesterday, who was the primary driver of the 21-year interferon-beta follow-up survival study (see below), who said that to him this was the most convincing data to support the early treatment paradigm in MS. 

In summary, trial subjects in the pivotal original interferon-beta-1b study who had delayed access to interferon-beta-1b because they were randomised to receive placebo were 50% less likely to be alive at 21 years compared to study subjects with early access to treatment. Was this due to the impact of interferon-beta on MS or some other confounding factor? In the 69 pwMS for whom information on the relationship of death to MS was available 78% were judged to have died from MS-related complications. This tells us that IFN-beta increases your life expectancy by reducing MS-related complications that can cause death in the future. The latter include swallowing problems that are associated with aspiration pneumonia, urinary dysfunction that lead to urinary tract infections and septicaemia, immobility and pressure sores, falls and fractures, to name the most common causes of premature death in pwMS. 

You need to remember that this was a placebo-controlled study and the subjects on placebo were switched to active treatment after 3 years, with some subjects having to wait up to 5 years (trial recruitment was from June 1988 to May 1990; with placebo-treated subjects given free commercial supply as of October 1993). What this study shows is that delaying access to treatment by just 3-5 years has a major impact on long-term outcomes. 

Please note that apart from suicide most pwMS get to EDSS 10 or death as a result of MS by passing through EDSS stages 2, 4, 6 (stick), 8 (wheelchair/bed). So my answer to these patients was yes your delayed access to DMTs in the early 2000s is almost certainly the reason why you now have secondary progressive MS and are disabled. 

Please note this there is now overwhelming evidence from other controlled trials and real-life data to support the interferon-beta 21-year mortality data. In fact, the debate about early treatment and MS outcomes is so widely accepted that it has now has shifted from early access to DMTs to early access to highly effective DMTs, i.e. flipping the pyramid. It is clear that pwMS who are treated with more effective DMTs first-line do so much better than those who are asked to wait (watchful waiting) or are escalated gradually up the DMT ladder (slow escalation). This is why, despite us designing the early treat-2-target NEDA trial, our centre couldn’t participate in the trial comparing maintenance-escalation vs. flipping the pyramid. We simply don’t have equipoise; in other words, we don’t think it is ethical to randomise patients to a treatment arm that is less effective and hence will result in poorer long-term outcomes and probably poorer long-term survival. This is why it is our current clinical practice to offer pwMS who have active disease and are eligible under the NHSE algorithm for treatment access to highly effective treatment first-line. 

We are so convinced about the early treatment that we are doing the ATTACK-MS trial, which will explore if access to the highly effective treatment natalizumab, 2 months earlier than what happens in routine practice, improves outcomes. Yes, we will be randomising patients before they have finished the MS diagnostic pathway to treatment vs. delayed access, i.e. only 2 months later when they have a definitive diagnosis of MS. We anticipate that the ATTACK-MS study will activate the MS community to treat the MS brain as we treat the brain in stroke. Forget about years, every day, week or month for the untreated MS brain is like every second, minute or hour in the non-perfused brain of a person having a stroke.

Yes, in MS time really is brain and by delaying access to DMTs and potentially highly effective DMTs is unacceptable in the modern era of treating MS. The data below not only supports the maxim “Time is Brain” but “Time is Life“, why would anyone wait to treat someone with active MS knowing this?

Figure from Neurology 2012;78(17):1315-22.

Goodin et al. Survival in MS: a randomized cohort study 21 years after the start of the pivotal IFNβ-1b trial. Neurology. 2012 Apr 24;78(17):1315-22.

Objective: To examine the effects of interferon beta (IFNβ)-1b on all-cause mortality over 21 years in the cohort of 372 patients who participated in the pivotal randomized clinical trial (RCT), retaining (in the analysis) the original randomized treatment-assignments.

Methods: For this randomized long-term cohort study, the primary outcome, defined before data collection, was the comparison of all-cause mortality between the IFNβ-1b 250 μg and placebo groups from the time of randomization through the entire 21-year follow-up interval (intention-to-treat, log-rank test for Kaplan-Meier survival curves). All other survival outcomes were secondary.

Results: After a median of 21.1 years from RCT enrollment, 98.4%(366 of 372) of patients were identified, and, of these, 81 deaths were recorded (22.1% [81 of 366]). Patients originally randomly assigned to IFNβ-1b 250 μg showed a significant reduction in all-cause mortality over the 21-year period compared with placebo (p = 0.0173), with a hazard ratio of 0.532 (95% confidence interval 0.314-0.902). The hazard rate of death at long-term follow-up by Kaplan-Meier estimates was reduced by 46.8% among IFNβ-1b 250 μg-treated patients (46.0% among IFNβ-1b 50 μg-treated patients) compared with placebo. Baseline variables did not influence the observed treatment effect.

Conclusions: There was a significant survival advantage in this cohort of patients receiving early IFNβ-1b treatment at either dose compared with placebo. Near-complete ascertainment, together with confirmatory findings from both active treatment groups, strengthens the evidence for an IFNβ-1b benefit on all-cause mortality.

Classification of evidence: This study provides Class III evidence that early treatment with IFNβ-1b is associated with prolonged survival in initially treatment-naive patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

Goodin et al. Cause of death in MS: long-term follow-up of a randomised cohort, 21 years after the start of the pivotal IFNβ-1b study. BMJ Open. 2012 Nov 30;2(6).

Objectives: Compared with controls, multiple sclerosis (MS) patients die, on average, 7–14 years prematurely. Previously, we reported that, 21 years after their participation in the pivotal randomised, controlled trial (RCT) of interferon β-1b, mortality was reduced by 46–47% in the two groups who received active therapy during the RCT. To determine whether the excessive deaths observed in placebo-treated patients was due to MS-related causes, we analysed the causes-of-death (CODs) in these three, randomised, patient cohorts.

Design: Long-term follow-up (LTF) of the pivotal RCT of interferon β-1b.

Setting: Eleven North American MS-centres participated.

Participants: In the original RCT, 372 patients participated, of whom 366 (98.4%) were identified after a median of 21.1 years from RCT enrolment.

Interventions: Using multiple information sources, we attempted to establish COD and its relationship to MS in deceased patients.

Primary outcome: An independent adjudication committee, masked to treatment assignment and using prespecified criteria, determined the likely CODs and their MS relationships.

Results: Among the 366 MS patients included in this LTF study, 81 deaths were recorded. Mean age-at-death was 51.7 (±8.7) years. COD, MS relationship, or both were determined for 88% of deaths (71/81). Patients were assigned to one of nine COD categories: cardiovascular disease/stroke; cancer; pulmonary infections; sepsis; accidents; suicide; death due to MS; other known CODs; and unknown COD. Of the 69 patients for whom information on the relationship of death to MS was available, 78.3% (54/69) were adjudicated to be MS related. Patients randomised to receive placebo during the RCT (compared with patients receiving active treatment) experienced an excessive number of MS-related deaths.

Conclusions: In this long-term, randomised, cohort study, MS patients receiving placebo during the RCT experienced greater all-cause mortality compared to those on active treatment. The excessive mortality in the original placebo group was largely from MS-related causes, especially, MS-related pulmonary infections.

If you are interested you can watch my presentation from last year’s ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS meeting during which I make the case for flipping the pyramid. Please note the ATTACK-MS study paradigm takes this concept of time is brain even further. Do you agree with this approach?

Conflicts of Interest

Preventive Neurology

Twitter

LinkedIn

Medium

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.

Real Life

After my #1 highlight #ECTRIMS2019 post, I was sent an email by Antoinio Scalafari, a like-minded colleague, to remind me of their real-life data at Imperial College on alemtuzumab in clinical practice. It mirrors the trial experience and needs a platform for discussion (see below).

In parallel, I heard via the MS grapevine that the MS community does not appreciate me questioning the ethics of the DELIVER-MS and TREAT-MS Trials. Why not? These are pragmatic trials to compare escalation therapy with the strategy of flipping the pyramid (high-efficacy therapy first-line).

Giovannoni. Do we have equipoise when it comes to how we treat active multiple sclerosis? Lancet Neurol. 2019 Jul 30. pii: S1474-4422(19)30227-3. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30227-3.

Don’t I have a right to an opinion? I finish my commentary with a simple question for the trialists: ‘The real litmus test for the investigators of the DELIVER-MS and TREAT-MS trials is the question they should all ask themselves: “If I had multiple sclerosis, how would I want to be treated?” Given the evidence, patients deserve the choice of being treated with a high-efficacy DMT first-line’.

Why shouldn’t MSers with active MS not have the option of being treated with alemtuzumab, or for that matter HSCT?

CoI: multiple

#AttackMS – a flipped pyramid

Why does Selma Blair’s speech sound slurred?

Whenever a celebrity gets MS and comes out of the ‘closet’ MS trends on social media. When Selma Blair attended the Oscar ceremony on Sunday night walking with a cane it caused quite a stir. You can now watch an interview with her on ABC News. You will notice that she has a slurred speech, which we call dysarthria and she is unsteady on her feet and needs the cane for balance. Her walking problem is called ataxia. It is clear from these signs that she has probably had a brainstem and/or cerebellar attack. This would be due to a so-called posterior fossa lesion, which is considered a poor prognostic sign.

In an interview in Vanity Fair, she talks about starting a monthly infusion therapy, which by inference must be natalizumab. As you are aware natalizumab is one of our most effective maintenance therapies and importantly is in the top league when it comes to disability improvement, i.e. no evident disease activity and disease improvement (NEDADI). As she appears to be quite early on in the course of her disease she has a good chance of some, or most, of her disabilities improving. However, against making a full recovery is the severity of her attack and the fact that she is now 46 an age when recovery mechanisms are known to be below par.

It is really a good sign that she is on a high-efficacy DMT (flipped pyramid) and has not being treated on a low efficacy therapy with the aim of escalating her therapy if and when necessary. Don’t forget time is brain so flipping the pyramid makes sense.

I am interested in knowing if natalizumab is being used as part of DrK’s #AttackMS paradigm (aka #BrainAttack), i.e. to get on top of the inflammation ASAP with natalizumab and to transition onto to another DMT later on if necessary, for example, if she was JCV-positive. I would also be very interested to know if an IRT (alemtuzumab or HSCT) was discussed as a potential treatment option with her?

Whatever you say it takes a brave person to come out and speak in public when you have such a potentially disabling disease and it when MS remains such a stigmatizing disease.

CoI: multiple

Flipping the pyramid

Was the concept of flipping the pyramid as a treatment strategy explained to you when you were started on a DMT?

For several years I have been arguing for adopting the concept of flipping the pyramid as a treatment strategy for MS. This is a treatment strategy developed by rheumatologists for treating rheumatoid arthritis with great success. In short, flipping the pyramid is using very high efficacy treatments first line. The other treatment strategies are watchful waiting, slow escalation or rapid escalation.

I kid you not that watchful waiting is still alive and kicking, but is less common now than it was a decade or so ago. The message is finally getting through that ‘active MS’ is a modifiable disease and should be treated. Please note my emphasis on ‘active MS’, we are unable to offer people with inactive MS DMTs nor should we, therefore, watchful waiting is entirely appropriate in this situation. The debate, however, is about how to define inactive MS and how hard should we interrogate patients to exclude smouldering MS?

The slow escalation strategy uses clinical monitoring to make a decision to change treatments or not and is probably still the norm in the UK. The main reason is a lack of resources, i.e. staff and MRI scanners to implement annual MRI monitoring. Rapid escalation is probably the most common option chosen by patients and neurologists in other high-income countries, however, frequent MRI monitoring which is costly remains a barrier in many parts of the world.

By maintenance-escalation, we mean starting low and escalating up a treatment ladder using MRI monitoring to assist decision making. We know from several real-life data sets and clinical trials that on average you do better if you start on either natalizumab, fingolimod, alemtuzumab, daclizumab or more recently ocrelizumab, compared to the lower efficacy platform therapies.

It is very reassuring to see the latest real-life data set from Wales showing how much better pwMS do when they have started an ‘early intensive therapy’ compared to a ‘moderate efficacy maintenance-escalation’ approach. The evidence is now overwhelmingly in favour of the former treatment approach.

The question is whether or not neurologists and HCPs will at least register these observations and start to offer their patients a choice between these two treatment approaches?

When we designed our treat-2-target NEDA trial to compare these two approaches, several years ago, these concepts were quite new. When the trials finally got funded we at Barts-MS declined to participate because we don’t think there is clinical equipoise anymore; in other words, we don’t think it is ethical to randomise patients to a maintenance-escalation arm of a study given the emerging evidence-base.

At Barts-MS we feel strongly that our patients are educated about the above issues and actively participate in the decisions about which treatments they are started on or switched to. This does not mean that we the neurologists are not involved. In some situations, we make the decisions for our patients or limit the choices available because of extenuating factors. We also offer patients the choice of allowing us to choose or recommend a specific treatment for them. Interestingly, with the rising complexity of treatment options many more patients are opting for the latter.

Paternalistic medicine, i.e when the doctor makes the decisions, is making a comeback but only this time as an informed choice

Many of the relevant issues I discuss above were covered in my ‘Hot Topics’ talk at ECTRIMS. I am going to suggest I do a Hangout on this topic to go through these in more detail and to allow you to ask questions. In particular, I need you to understand about the cognitive bias I refer to as the Gambler’s dilemma and how you need to try and overcome it when making decisions about your treatment.

For those of you reading this post and have been started on DMTs in the last 5 years was the concept of flipping the pyramid ever explained to you and the potential consequences, to you and your brain, if you chose the slower maintenance-escalation approach?

Harding et al. Clinical Outcomes of Escalation vs Early Intensive Disease-Modifying Therapy in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.4905.

IMPORTANCE: Uncertainty remains about how aggressively to treat early multiple sclerosis. High-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are often reserved for individuals expressing poor prognostic features at baseline.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze long-term outcomes in a population-based cohort according to initial treatment strategy.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cohort study, data were derived from January 1998 to December 2016, and analysis was performed in January 2017. From a total of 720 patients prescribed a DMT, 592 (82%) were included in the analysis. Reasons for exclusion were first treated elsewhere or privately (n = 39), clinical trial participant (n = 25), and insufficient clinical data (n = 45).

EXPOSURES: Patients were classified according to first-line treatment strategy: high-efficacy (early intensive treatment [EIT]) or moderate-efficacy DMT (escalation [ESC]).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome was 5-year change in Expanded Disability Status Scale score. Secondary outcome was time to sustained accumulation of disability (SAD). Models were adjusted for sex, age at treatment, year of starting DMT, and escalation to high-efficacy treatment in the ESC group.

RESULTS: Mean (SD) age of 592 patients at symptom onset was 27.0 (9.4) years. Mean (SD) 5-year change in Expanded Disability Status Scale score was lower in the EIT group than the ESC group (0.3 [1.5] vs 1.2 [1.5]); this remained significant after adjustment for relevant covariates (β = -0.85; 95% CI, -1.38 to -0.32; P = .002). Median (95% CI) time to SAD was 6.0 (3.17-9.16) years for EIT and 3.14 (2.77-4.00) years for ESC (P = .05). For those within the ESC group who escalated to high-efficacy DMT as second-line treatment, median (95% CI) time to SAD was 3.3 years (1.8-5.6; compared with EIT group log-rank test P = .08). After adjustment for relevant covariates, there was no difference in hazard of SAD between the groups. However, 60% of those who escalated to high-efficacy DMTs were observed to develop SAD while still receiving initial moderate-efficacy treatment before escalation.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In a real-life setting, long-term outcomes were more favorable following early intensive therapy vs first-line moderate-efficacy DMT. Contemporary surveillance strategies and escalation protocols may be insufficiently responsive. This finding is particularly relevant as patients in real-world practice are typically selected for an EIT approach to therapy on the basis of clinical and radiological features predictive of a poor outcome. These data support the need for a prospective randomized clinical trial.

CoI: multiple

The Learner

Do we need to include cognition as a treatment target in multiple sclerosis?

In every clinic, I do patients with MS complain of cognitive symptoms. Either it is increasing forgetfulness, difficult multi-tasking, the inability to learn and use a new technology or cognitive fatigue.

Case study: One of my high functioning patients, who worked in a large City law firm, simply could not keep up and was recently forced to take early retirement because of her MS. She had been interferon-beta-1b for 12 years but had stopped treatment about 7 years ago when she had moved to London. Her MRI showed a highish lesion load and severe brain atrophy. She had had a few relapses on interferon-beta in the early years, but her neurologist decided to leave her on interferon-beta. Back then this was normal practice; we didn’t expect interferon-beta to render you relapse-free. Interferons were only meant to reduced attack rates by about a third and severe attacks, i.e. those requiring steroids and/or hospital admission, by about a half. The only alternative when this patient was having relapses on interferon-beta was glatiramer acetate; please remember this was pre-natalizumab era. Apart from her cognitive problems, this patient had mild unsteadiness of gait, but this had not affected her walking distance and she was still able to do yoga several times per week. To help with her unemployment insurance claim I requested a formal neuropsychological assessment and she was documented to have profound cognitive deficits across multiple domains. The conclusion based on these tests was that she would never be able to have meaningful employment again; at least not in the knowledge economy When I took a detailed history it was clear that she had had progressive cognitive impairment over at least 7-10 years. In other words, she had secondary progressive MS manifesting as progressive dementia.

You must not underestimate the impact MS has on cognition. Cognitive problems can be there from the start; approximately a quarter of people with a radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS) or asymptomatic MS already have cognitive impairment. The proportion with cognitive impairment just gets higher the longer you have the disease. What is driving cognitive impairment is almost certainly grey matter pathology, both in the cortex and deep grey matter, which is not detected with our current monitoring tools.

In the analysis below, of the pivotal phase 3 fingolimod trials, we showed that not being able to improve on the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT) at baseline predicted a worse outcome. The PASAT is a very sensitive cognitive test that used to part of the battery we called the MS Functional Composite (MSFC). The PASAT is not very nice to do and has now been replaced by the SDMT (symbol digital modality test).

When you start doing cognitive screening tests such as the PASAT and SDMT you tend to improve the scores due to a learning effect. We hypothesised that pwMS who couldn’t learn i.e. were unable to improve their PASAT scores at baseline would do worse. This is exactly what we found and we noted it regardless of treatment allocation; i.e. whether you were on fingolimod or placebo. Poor learners were older, had a higher disability score at baseline, smaller brains and higher lesions volumes on MRI; i.e. they had reduced cognitive reserve. The depressing point about this analysis was that even the poor learners on fingolimod did badly; it was if they were already primed to do badly and that starting a DMT had a limited impact on the outcome. Active MS in the past had primed their brains to continue deteriorating; previous damage or a new type of MS lesion, possibly SELs (slowly expanding lesions) was driving their worsening.

The message here is that it is very important to prevent the ravages of MS by treating as early and effectively as possible. In some pwMS, this is easy because you present early before too much damage has accrued. In others, you may have longer asymptomatic periods during which you have already acquired a lot of damage. Regardless of what group you are in, you need to seriously consider getting on top of your MS disease activity as soon as possible to prevent further damage.

It is clear from the Sormani meta-analysis (article 2 below) that you do best on DMTs that have the greatest impact on inflammatory activity (new MRI lesions) and those that reduce brain volume loss the most. This is why flipping the pyramid and going for the most effective DMTs first-line is a very appealing treatment strategy; particularly those that ‘normalise’ brain volume loss.

This study also raises the question about whether or not we should be monitoring cognition in routine clinical practice? This topic is a hot potato and gets discussed and debated all the time. At the moment I think most neurologists don’t agree with doing routine cognitive testing, because of the lack of evidence in terms of treatments that impact on cognition. This, however, may change when siponimod gets licensed. It is clear in the siponimod trial that siponimod delayed cognitive worsening compared to placebo. The following is the siponimod data that was presented at the AAN and EAN last year.

I believe that everyone with MS should have the option of monitoring their own cognition. If your cognition is improving and/or is stable that is good news. If, however, cognition is worsening then a frank discussion needs to be had about why it is getting worse and can anything be done about it. There are many reasons why pwMS may have worsening cognition and some of these are treatable. This is why we have developed an online cognitive test, which we are currently validating, to allow self-monitoring of cognition. If you had access to the test would you use it?

Article 1

Sormani et al. Learning ability correlates with brain atrophy and disability progression in RRMS. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019 Jan;90(1):38-43.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prognostic value of practice effect on Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT) in multiple sclerosis.

METHODS: We compared screening (day -14) and baseline (day 0) PASAT scores of 1009 patients from the FTY720 Research Evaluating Effects of Daily Oral therapy in Multiple Sclerosis (FREEDOMS) trial. We grouped patients into high and low learners if their PASAT score change was above or below the median change in their screening PASAT quartile group. We used Wilcoxon test to compare baseline disease characteristics between high and low learners, and multiple regression models to assess the respective impact of learning ability, baseline normalised brain volume and treatment on brain volume loss and 6-month confirmed disability progression over 2 years.

RESULTS: The mean PASAT score at screening was 45.38, increasing on average by 3.18 from day -14 to day 0. High learners were younger (p=0.003), had lower Expanded Disability Status Scale score (p=0.031), higher brain volume (p<0.001) and lower T2 lesion volume (p=0.009) at baseline. Learning status was not significantly associated with disability progression (HR=0.953, p=0.779), when adjusting for baseline normalised brain volume, screening PASAT score and treatment arm. However, the effect of fingolimod on disability progression was more pronounced in high learners (HR=0.396, p<0.001) than in low learners (HR=0.798, p=0.351; p for interaction=0.05). Brain volume loss at month 24 tended to be higher in low learners (0.17%, p=0.058), after adjusting for the same covariates.

CONCLUSIONS: Short-term practice effects on PASAT are related to brain volume, disease severity and age and have clinically meaningful prognostic implications. High learners benefited more from fingolimod treatment.

Article 2

Sormani et al. Treatment effect on brain atrophy correlates with treatment effect on disability in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 2014 Jan;75(1):43-9.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent to which treatment effect on brain atrophy is able to mediate, at the trial level, the treatment effect on disability progression in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS).

METHODS: We collected all published randomized clinical trials in RRMS lasting at least 2 years and including as endpoints disability progression (defined as 6 or 3 months confirmed 1-point increase on the Expanded Disability Status Scale), active magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions (defined as new/enlarging T2 lesions), and brain atrophy (defined as change in brain volume between month 24 and month 6-12). Treatment effects were expressed as relative reductions. A linear regression, weighted for trial size and duration, was used to assess the relationship between the treatment effects on MRI markers and on disability progression.

RESULTS: Thirteen trials including >13,500 RRMS patients were included in the meta-analysis. Treatment effects on disability progression were correlated with treatment effects both on brain atrophy (R(2)  = 0.48, p = 0.001) and on active MRI lesions (R(2)  = 0.61, p < 0.001). When the effects on both MRI endpoints were included in a multivariate model, the correlation was higher (R(2)  = 0.75, p < 0.001), and both variables were retained as independently related to the treatment effect on disability progression.

INTERPRETATION: In RRMS, the treatment effect on brain atrophy is correlated with the effect on disability progression over 2 years. This effect is independent of the effect of active MRI lesions on disability; the 2 MRI measures predict the treatment effect on disability more closely when used in combination.

CoI: multiple