Tag: NEDA

Anti-CD20 vs. Teriflunomide

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer: ★★ (seeing blue)

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. 

Gd-enhancing lesions (↓~95%): Ofatumumab >>>> teriflunomide

New T-2 lesions (↓~83%): Ofatumumab >>> teriflunomide

Relapses (↓~55%): Ofatumumab >> teriflunomide

Disability progression (↓~33%): Ofatumumab > teriflunomide

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?

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.

Are you tired of COVID-19 blog posts? If yes, then this letter is for you

Dear Blog Reader

I spent 15 minutes on the phone with one of my patients who has secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. She was an avid blog reader but has stopped reading the blog because she can’t stand the constant barrage of posts about COVID-19 and vaccinations and she doesn’t understand the posts anymore. I think some other readers may share her views.

This patient’s real concerns are about her MS and why she has deteriorated so much over the last 12 months. Is it neglect? Is it because she has stopped her weekly physiotherapy and pilates sessions? Is her MS active? The last time we imaged her in late 2019 there were no new lesions on her brain MRI. For your information, she was treated with off-label subcutaneous cladribine 4 years ago having failed interferon-beta and fingolimod in the past.

Has she deteriorated because of her worsening depression? She is lonely and lives alone. Prior to COVID-19, she used to work 2-3 days a week for a charity, with lots of contact with the public; this brought purpose to her life. Now she has face-time calls with her ageing parents once a day.

Is her deterioration due to her poor sleep? Her recurrent UTIs? Or is due to premature ageing?

Has she lost confidence in walking because of repeated falls? She now uses her wheelchair almost all day indoors.

I spent some time explaining to her that as soon as we can we will repeat her MRI and if she has new lesions she may become eligible for siponimod treatment. In the interim, I have referred her for screening for the MS-STAT-2, or high-dose simvastatin, trial and I sent her a link to the following blog post which tries to explain to pwMS why they are getting worse despite being NEDA or ‘inactive’.

EXPLAINING WHY YOU GET WORSE DESPITE BEING NEDA

Does this lady’s story sound familiar to you? Have you also noticed your MS worsening over the last 12 months during lockdown? In addition, are you also COVIDed-out? If yes, any recommendations on what content you want us to cover on the blog would be much appreciated?

Hang in there if you can, the storm is beginning to subside. If you are feeling low I would recommend reading or listening to Charlie Mackesy’s book, ‘The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse’; it has kept me sane over the last 12 months.

https://youtu.be/81b4i9jQhck


I am thinking of all of you. I know how hard it is but we will get through this together.

Thank you.

Prof G

Are IRTs ahead of their time?

I am beginning to think that immune reconstitution therapies or IRTs are ahead of their time. Many neurologists, people with MS (pwMS), payers – particularly fee-for-service insurance companies – and the regulators are unable to get their heads around how these agents work. In addition, a few recent review articles, written by colleagues, cast doubt on this treatment strategy and the terminology we use. 

IRTs are the only treatments that are addressing the cause of MS and hence have the potential to cure MS. We will know in the near future how many pwMS in very long-term remission post -alemtuzumab, -HSCT or -cladribine are truly MS free. This information is critical to convince a sceptical field of the value of these treatments.

The mortality associated with HSCT makes people shudder. Although the risk of dying from one of the complications of HSCT is quoted as being between one of 1 in 333 (0.3%) to 1 in 50 (2%) many pwMS are taking this risk in the UK or abroad. Despite HSCT being a viable treatment option for pwMS in England and now Scotland many UK MSologists don’t routinely put this option on the table when discussing switching treatments with their patients who are failing other high-efficacy therapies. Why?

Even going to the easy-to-use, easy-to-monitor, oral cladribine option we are seeing slow adoption. Why? I am now convinced HCPs don’t understand IRTs, in particular, the concepts of frontloading of risk and long-term remission.

The study below shows that patients failing alemtuzumab in year one after the first course of five infusions, do very well after receiving their second course. Despite these patients having more active disease and early breakthrough activity, they do very well longterm with high chances of being rendered NEDA and experiencing disability improvement and having brain volume loss that slows markedly – into the normal range – after year 2.

DMTs are about protecting the end-organ or brain and keeping it as healthy as possible so that pwMS can live a normal life as possible and have the necessary reserve to deal with ageing when it sets in.  Is this message difficulty to communicate? Knowing this brain volume data why wouldn’t we want to at least offer an IRT to all our patients with active disease and I mean first, second or third line? It is clear the sooner you are treated with an IRT the better you do. 

I am now planning to do a series of online lectures on IRTs to explain why they should be so appealing as a treatment strategy for pwMS. Would you be interested in watching? 

I also have a vested interest in getting IRTs adopted. We want to use them as induction agents in more advanced MS to be followed by maintenance therapies that target the processes within the brain and spinal cord to address smouldering MS. 

Van Wijmeersch et al. Efficacy of alemtuzumab over 6 years in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients who relapsed between courses 1 and 2: Post hoc analysis of the CARE-MS studies. Mult Scler. 2019 Nov 1:1352458519881759

BACKGROUND: Alemtuzumab is administered as two annual courses for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). Patients may relapse before completing the two-course regimen.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate 6-year outcomes in patients who relapsed between alemtuzumab Courses 1 and 2 (early relapsers).

METHODS: Post hoc analysis of patients from the Comparison of Alemtuzumab and Rebif® Efficacy in Multiple Sclerosis (CARE-MS) studies who enrolled in the extension.

RESULTS: Early relapsers (CARE-MS I: 15%; CARE-MS II: 24%) had more relapses in 1-2 years pre-alemtuzumab and higher mean baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale score than patients without relapse. Their annualized relapse rate declined from Year 1 (CARE-MS I: 1.3; CARE-MS II: 1.2) to Year 2 following Course 2 (0.3; 0.5) and remained low thereafter. Over 6 years, 60% remained free of 6-month confirmed disability worsening; 24% (CARE-MS I) and 34% (CARE-MS II) achieved 6-month confirmed disability improvement. During Year 6, 69% (CARE-MS I) and 68% (CARE-MS II) were free of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) disease activity. Median percent yearly brain volume loss (Year 1: -0.67% (CARE-MS I); -0.47% (CARE-MS II)) declined after Course 2 (Year 6: -0.24%; -0.13%).

CONCLUSION: Early relapsers’ outcomes improved after completing the second alemtuzumab course. These findings support administering the approved two-course regimen to maximize clinical benefit.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRATION NUMBERS: CARE-MS I, II, extension: NCT00530348, NCT00548405, NCT00930553.

CoI: multiple

My ‘Smouldering MS Clinic’

I finished yesterday emotionally burnt-out; “broken and useless, no longer working or effective” or “kaput” as the Germans would say. I did an all-day clinic with my registrar off sick; it was hard and brutal. 

On my way home I wondered to myself if I should change the name of my MS clinic to the ‘Smouldering MS Clinic’. Virtually all of my patients had smouldering MS or as some of you would prefer me to call it PIRA (progression independent of relapses).

With our aggressive campaigns of treat-early-and-effectively, treat-2-target, zero-tolerance, NEDA (no evident disease activity) I think we have exposed the real MS, i.e. smouldering disease. Almost all my follow-up patients were NEDA yesterday and doing ‘well’. However, when I interrogated them almost all of them had subtle symptoms and signs of disease worsening. Worsening fatigue, cognitive slowing, reduced walking distance, dropped feet on exertion, nocturia, sexual dysfunction, numbness and clumsiness of the hand, subtle unsteadiness of gait, poor balance in the dark and when tired, increased leg spasms at night, reduced auditory discrimination, problems with night vision, etc. 

The new norm is smouldering MS or more likely the realisation that MS is smouldering MS. Our anti-inflammatory DMTs are doing what we say they should do, i.e. they are stopping focal inflammatory lesions and relapses, but are they getting to the core of the disease, ‘smouldering MS’? I suspect not.

I have argued several times before on this blog that focal inflammation is not MS and that the real disease is what is driving the immune system to produce the focal inflammatory events. I suspect that effective DMTs are simply converting relapsing-forms of MS into what we used to call primary progressive MS.

If you have MS this post will be very depressing, but as soon as the MS community faces up to the above the better. We would then start directing our limited resources to tackle smouldering MS. 

I would encourage the funders (government, charitable, private and pharma) to start to divert their R&D spend to addressing smouldering MS. What needs to be done? I would encourage out-of-the-box thinking and support alternative hypotheses of MS. We need deep phenotyping and biomarker studies. More trials on drugs targeting CNS B-cells and plasma cells, microglia inhibitors or activators (both need to be tested), drugs that target astrocyte and oligodendrocyte biology, antiviral trials and trials targeting ageing mechanisms. I would also include systems biology and the impact of diet, etc. on smouldering disease. We need a “Smouldering MS March of Dimes” event to raise the money to get on top of the real MS. 

I would like to thank you all for helping out with our grant naming survey. It is clear that from a scientific perspective PIRA (progression independent of relapses) won out. However, smouldering MS came a close second and most commentators prefer this name to describe PIRA to people with MS and their families, i.e. smouldering MS is a lay-term for PIRA. I, therefore, suggest we keep both names in the MS lexicon and use them interchangeably when discussing the real MS. 

Results of the blog survey.

Don’t be fooled into a false sense of security that because you are NEDA that your MS is under control. We clearly need to go beyond NEDA to tackle MS. 

CoI: multiple

8 picograms

What does your DMT say on the tin? 

Some advice on what to say to your neurologist, or HCP, the next time you see them; “I now know why I am not expecting to get anything more out of this DMT than what it says on the tin”. 

Our current crop of DMTs can only do what they are designed for, i.e. stopping the focal inflammatory activity or new lesions from forming.  They are not designed to switch-off smouldering MS, restore neurological function or scrub the brain clean of the damaging B-cells and plasma cells. Based on this we need to readjust our treatment goals for DMTs. 

This is why one of my #ECTRIMS2019 highlights was as a post-hoc analysis that showed the best predictors of treatment response to natalizumab was (1) MRI activity (Gd-enhancing lesions and new T2 lesions),  (2) neurofilament levels and (3) relapses. All the other factors did not contribute anything to predicting treatment response. Why not? The answer lies in the biology of MS. Relapses, focal MRI activity and raised neurofilament levels are the triumvirate of inflammatory disease activity. 

Calabresi et al. Disease control beyond NEDA: The value of non-clinical disease activity measures to determine treatment response to natalizumab. ECTRIMS Online Library. Calabresi P. Sep 13, 2019; 278615; P1415

Based on the analyses in this poster our treatment goal with anti-inflammatory DMTs should be NEDA based on these three variables. All the other factors (EDSS, 9HPT, 25TW, BVL, PASAT) that we analysed added zero to the predictive model. The reason for this is that all these additional variables measure disability worsening or end-organ damage that is the consequence of the previous inflammatory activity. 

This is why we should not expect our DMTs to do more than what they are designed to do. If you want to prevent worsening from occurring you have to get your MS treated early and effectively and prevent the accrual of early damage. 

Another message from this analysis is that relapses were the weakest member of the triumvirate; MRI and NFL levels trumped relapses. The implications of this are that you need to have your disease activity monitored; yes, measured on a regular basis. If your neurologist suggests that you don’t need an MRI, or in the future peripheral blood NFL measurements, can I suggest you tell them they are wrong? 

Another implication of this study is potentially a cut-off for what is an acceptable peripheral blood neurofilament level, i.e. you need your NFL levels kept below 8pg/mL. This cut-off will separate the ‘men from the boys’; the only DMTs that are effective enough to reduce average levels consistently below this point are the high efficacy DMTs. 

One final message. Natalizumab continues to teach us about MS. It is the one drug that has transformed MS in so many ways and it has taught me more about MS than anything else. As I have said before there are two phases to the history of MS; the phase before natalizumab and the phase after natalizumab. 

CoI: multiple

A sequence of losses

Prof G has the MS community go it wrong?

In this week’s NEJM there is an insightful perspective by Louise Aronson on ageing and driving.

Aronson. Don’t Ruin My Life — Aging and Driving in the 21st Century. N Engl J Med 2019; 380:705-707.

Louise quotes the American poet Donald Hall, who explains in Essays After Eighty how life is irrevocably and excruciatingly changed when a person must let go of their car: “For years I drove slowly and cautiously, but when I was eighty I had two accidents. I stopped driving before I killed somebody, and now when I shop or see a doctor, someone has to drive me. …Old age is a ceremony of losses.”

Although this refers to old age the same can be said for someone with MS. MS is a sequence of losses. Does it have to be this like this? I hope not, but to get to this position we need to go beyond NEDA.  

I am running one of our Barts-MS teaching programmes this week in which a case was presented by one of the delegates. The lady, who is in her early thirties, has a diagnosis of relapsing MS and is NEDA, off therapy for 5 years, i.e. no relapses and no new T2 lesions. However, when you look at her sequential MRIs next to each other it is clear that she has progressive brain volume loss. She has NEDA-3, but clearly, something else is happening to her brain. I suggested to the neurologist looking after this patient to interrogate her in detail, i.e. to measure her brain volume, send her for cognitive testing, arrange for a more objective interrogation of her neurological functioning and to do a lumbar puncture to assess if she has inflammation and ongoing damage as measured by CSF neurofilament levels. In other words, don’t rely on what we have now to assess her MS disease activity.

The problem we have is that we have created a beast called NEDA and the wider MS community now think evident disease activity or EDA (relapses and focal MRI activity) is MS. EDA is obviously not MS. It is clear that EDA in untreated patients is a very poor predictor of outcome. IF EDA was MS it would predict outcome regardless of being treated or not. In other words, EDA fails one of Prentice’s criteria for being a surrogate marker of MS.

Despite writing frequently on the topic that MS is not due to relapses and/or focal MRI activity the dogma seems to stick. I have arguably helped create NEDA as a treatment target and have been responsible for some of its stickiness as a treatment target. Can I admit I am wrong? NEDA is a useful construct, but it is now becoming a barrier to treating MS properly.

If I was a behavioural psychologist I would be referring to NEDA as the new cognitive bias. We need to shift our worldview of MS away from an MRI worldview. What we should be doing is creating a biological worldview of MS and asking what is happening in the ‘field‘ or the brains of people with MS. We have to explain why end-organ damage is ongoing despite switching off focal inflammatory activity. What is driving SELs (slowly expanding lesions), the subpial cortical lesion, grey matter atrophy and the accelerated brain volume loss? If we don’t then MS will remain a sequence of losses.

What is end-organ damage?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond the B-cell

Do we have the right cell target in MS? Yes and no; we need a multicellular approach.

Recently the attention in MS has been on the B-cell as if it was the holy grail of MS treatments. It is not.

In several posts, over the last few weeks, I have made the case that the B-cell is important, probably as an antigen presenting cell, but it is not the ‘be all and end all’ of MS treatments. It is clear that rebound post-natalizumab is driven my B-cells and the positive data on the first BTK inhibitor would indicate that the B-cells are working via the B-cell receptor on antigen presentation. If only we knew what these antigens were we would have a much better handle on the cause of MS.

I know this science stuff is hard, but it is important. At the end of the day, the nut and bolts of MS must be molecular; molecules mean treatment targets and potentially more focused and hopefully better and safer treatments in the future.

I have stressed that simply targeting B-cells in both the periphery and central nervous system will not be enough to effectively treat MS in the long-term. When we look at end-organ damage markers in pwMS who are on B-cell therapies they have ongoing brain volume loss, albeit at a lower rate, and enlarging lesions (T1 black holes), which are both indicative of ongoing smouldering MS. So what do we need to do? I have provided circumstantial evidence that NIRTs (non-selective immune reconstitution therapies) have a slight edge on the B-cell therapies and this may be because they are also targeting T-cells. The latter, however, comes at a price of greater adverse events in relation to immunosuppression. The proportion of MSers on NIRTs who experience disability improvement seems higher when compared to the anti-B cell agents, which indicates that NIRTs are doing something else over and above their effect on the B-cell compartment. However, based on their overall safety profile it is unlikely that the NIRTs (alemtuzumab & HSCT) will be a therapeutic strategy that the wider MS community will adopt with vigour. Although from comments on this blog there is an informed group of MSers who feel hard done by because their HCPs won’t offer them the option of using NIRTs first-line, i.e. very early in the course of their disease when they have the most to gain from these therapies.

Is there anything else we can do to improve on the profile of B-cell therapies to make them better? Yes, I think there is. Targeting the plasma cell,in addition to the B-cell. Data on plasma cells goes back decades and surprisingly the plasma cell has never been a major therapeutic target in MS. John Prineas, one of my MS heroes, has always stressed the importance of the plasma cell in MS. His paper below from 1978 documents just how enriched the brains of MSers are with this population of cells. What is often not stressed is that the biology of plasma cells is so so different to the B-cell, which opens up new therapeutic targets that are quite different to those in the T and B cell compartments. More on this topic another time.

You are aware of the recent publication showing that about 55% of Polish MSers treated with intravenous cladribine lost their oligoclonal bands 10 or more years after treatment and if they did lose their OCBs they tended to have lower EDSS scores. We have known for years that MSers, with either relapse-onset or primary progressive diseases, who don’t have OCBs do better. There is also evidence from biomarker and pathology studies that the OCBs may be driving several of the disease processes that have been linked to advanced or progressive MS, i.e. microglial activation and grey matter pathology. Based on these observations, we hypothesise that OCBs are very likely to be pathogenic in MS, which is why we are embarking a research programme to try and target the plasma cells within the CNS of MSers. Do you think we are crazy?

To get a handle on the plasma cell we are going to have to study what happens in the spinal fluid. There are simply too many plasma cells in the periphery which will drown out any signal from the CNS. To participate in the studies we are planning we will have to perform serial, annual, lumbar punctures or spinal taps to see if our add-on therapy is killing and/or reducing the number of plasma cells in your brain and spinal cords. The good news is that we have de-risked the lumbar puncture with the use of atraumatic needles and screening. I never thought I would be saying this but most of our patients don’t mind having LPs, particularly when they understand the reason behind the LP.  CSF neurofilament levels are now part of our prognostic profile of MSers at baseline and we are increasingly using them to assess response, or lack of response, to treatment. So if you want to be treated and treated-2-target beyond NEDA, and beyond the B-cell, then having an LP is important.

We hope our proposed plasma cells studies will lead to a mindset that goes beyond the B-cell to target some of the mechanisms that are responsible for smouldering MS.

Prineas & Wright. Macrophages, lymphocytes, and plasma cells in the perivascular compartment in chronic multiple sclerosis. Lab Invest. 1978 Apr;38(4):409-21.

Perivascular cells in CNS tissue from six multiple sclerosis (MS) patients and a patient with motor neuron disease were examined by light and electron microscopy. Lymph node tissue from one MS patient was also examined. CNS perivascular macrophages in both MA and motor neuron disease were found to closely resemble free macrophages elsewhere in the body except that they often contained unusually large primary lysosomes. Cytoplasmic inclusions consisting of membrane-bound stacks of curved linear profiles, presumed to be a product of myelin degradation, were constantly observed in microglia in MS plaques but were rarely observed in perivascular macrophages in the same area. Unidentified cylindrical bodies were observed within cysternae of rough endoplasmic reticulum in some lymph node cells. Quantitative studies of the perivascular cell population in one MS case revealed, in histologically normal white matter 260 lymphocytes and 178 plasma cells per cubic millimeter of fresh tissue. Typical chronic plaque tissue without obvious inflammatory cell cuffing contained 1772 plasma cells per cubic millimeter of fresh tissue. No plasma cells were observed in the CNS in motor neuron disease. The results of this study suggest that perivascular macrophages in the CNS represent a specialized population of monocyte-derived free macrophages, that these cells differ functionally from microglial cells, and that the digestion of myelin breakdown products in MS requires the participation of both cell types. The results also suggest that in some chronic MS cases there is a large, permanent population of CNS plasma cells that persists, like the elevated cerebrospinal fluid IgG level in this disease, for the life of the patient, that these cells, rather than inflammatory cells in fresh lesions, are the major source of this raised IgG, and that the existence of such a population of cells may indicate the continuing expression of antigens in chronic MS lesions in the absence of fresh lesion formation.

NEDADI or ‘Nee Daddy’ another treatment target beyond NEDA

Prof G do you think disability improvement is a reasonable treatment goal?

NEDADI = no evident disease activity and disability improvement

Two weeks ago one of my patients with PPMS, who we treated with off-label subcutaneous cladribine, came for her annual follow-up appointment. Despite being treated with cladribine over 2 years ago she has unfortunately progressed from EDSS 5.5 to 6.5. Her latest MRI brain did not show any new T2 lesions. She asked why we hadn’t scanned her spinal cord. She is desperate for us to find some disease activity so that she can be retreated or preferably offered ocrelizumab. She has a well-off family member who is prepared to cover the costs of ocrelizumab treatment privately. What should I do?

As you know I don’t support private prescribing in the NHS as it undermines the NHS’ founding principles; free at the point of access and equity. However, it is difficult to say no to private prescribing if a patient insists, particularly as there is now a mechanism to do this under the NHS. I am also first a doctor looking after the individual patient and this takes priority over my duty as an NHS employee and guardian of its socialist healthcare ideals.

I didn’t agree to a private prescription for ocrelizumab. Instead, I batted the problem into the long grass and agreed to bring her via our planned investigation unit for an MRI of the spine and lumbar puncture to measure CSF neurofilament levels. If there are new spinal cord lesions and/or a raised CSF neurofilament level then we could potentially look at an additional course of cladribine, off-label rituximab under the NHS, private ocrelizumab or possible recruitment into a clinical trial. I suspect that the MRI will show no new lesions and the CSF NFL levels will be normal. If this is the case then she has NEDA with worsening disability. I did refer her to my blog post on this issue (EXPLAINING WHY YOU GET WORSE DESPITE BEING NEDA) so she could get some understanding of what was happening to her.

During the consultation, she asked me ‘why a friend’s daughter with very bad MS, who had been treated with alemtuzumab, had made such a remarkable recovery?’ Apparently, this young woman had been rendered partially paraplegic from a spinal relapse and after alemtuzumab had recovered function and was now walking almost ‘normally’ again. My patient wanted to know why there was such a difference between herself, someone with PPMS, and her friend’s daughter a young woman with highly-active RRMS.

You may remember the other day I asked you to guess why I was so impressed with the HSCT-MIST trial. Let me try and explain why.

Should we be changing our expectations of what DMTs can offer pwMS? Are we entering an era when the expectation of disability improvement becomes the norm? I certainly hope so.

The most impressive aspect of the recent HSCT-MIST trial was not the NEDA data or the improved safety of HSCT, which are obviously important, but the disability improvement data. During the first year post-HSCT the mean EDSS scores improved from 3.4 to 2.4 vs. a worsening from 3.3 to 4.0 in those on the basket of licensed DMTs. Is this unique to HSCT? How does this HSCT data compare to other treatment options?

The first DMT to show a convincing impact on disability improvement in a phase 3 controlled trial was with natalizumab in the AFFIRM study; at 2 years the probability of a sustained improvement in disability was 30% for natalizumab-treated patients and 19% for patients who received placebo.

Phillips  et al. Sustained improvement in Expanded Disability Status Scale as a new efficacy measure of neurological change in multiple sclerosis: treatment effects with natalizumab in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2011 Aug;17(8):970-9.

The next convincing phase 3 result was with alemtuzumab-treated patients in the CARE-MS2 trial; alemtuzumab-treated patients were more than twice as likely as IFN-β-1a-treated patients to experience 3-month confirmed disability improvement (35% vs 19%).

Giovannoni et al. Alemtuzumab improves preexisting disability in active relapsing-remitting MS patients. Neurology. 2016 Nov 8;87(19):1985-1992.

Unfortunately, the latest HSCT trial did not report their disability improvement data as confirmed or sustained disability improvement at 3 months. The main reason for this was methodological in that patients patients on DMTs had a rescue option of being treated with HSCT. However, in the first 12 months, 12/55 (22%) of patients on DMTs compared to 38/55 (69%) who were treated with HSCT had an improvement in their EDSS. Based on the final data set I suspect that in a large proportion of the HSCT patients the improvements were sustained.

Burt et al.  Effect of Nonmyeloablative Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation vs Continued Disease-Modifying Therapy on Disease Progression in Patients With Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019 Jan 15;321(2):165-174.

What about the new kids on the block, i.e. ocrelizumab and cladribine? Unfortunately, we don’t have published data on cladribine, but I will try and rectify this and will ask for the analysis to be done. However, the phase 3 pooled OPERA data of ocrelizumab has been published; 21% of ocrelizumab-treated patients had disability improvement confirmed after at least 12 weeks compared to only 16% of  IFN-β-1a-treated patients.

Hauser et al. Ocrelizumab versus Interferon Beta-1a in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2017 Jan 19;376(3):221-234.

So the league table for disability improvement of HSCT over alemtuzumab, over natalizumab, followed by ocrelizumab seems to mirror the brain atrophy or end-organ damage data. Are you surprised? I am not. A large driver of disability improvement is reserve capacity, i.e. brain reserve or put simply the size of your brain, which predicts and provides the substrate for recovery. This is another reason why you would want your MS treated early and just maybe you would want to flip the pyramid and go for the DMTs that offer you the best chance of disability improvement.

Hidden in this data may be a clue about the pathogenesis of MS. What differentiates HSCT and alemtuzumab from natalizumab and then from ocrelizumab? Could it be the transient depletion and reconstitution of the T-cell compartment?

Joanne Jones and her colleagues from Cambridge showed that among trial participants with no clinical disease activity immediately before treatment, or any clinical or radiological disease activity on-trial, disability improved after alemtuzumab but not following interferon β-1a. They suggested that this disability improvement after alemtuzumab could not be attributable to its anti-inflammatory effects and suggested that T lymphocytes, reconstituting after alemtuzumab, permit or promote brain repair via the production of growth factors in particular brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF),  platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) and ciliary neurotrophic factor (CNTF). If their hypothesis holds out then this may be another reason why NIRTs (non-selective immune reconstitution therapies) outperform SIRTs (selective immune reconstitution therapies) in going beyond NEDA, i.e NEDADI. And just maybe you need these cells to traffic to the central nervous system to deliver these growth factors.

Jones et al. Improvement in disability after alemtuzumab treatment of multiple sclerosis is associated with neuroprotective autoimmunity. Brain. 2010 Aug;133(Pt 8):2232-47.

Another piece of the puzzle is the positive effect alemtuzumab has on the MRI metric called magnetization transfer ratio or MTR, which is a measure of tissue integrity. In a small study, the mean MTR fell in 18 untreated MSers in normal-appearing grey and white matter. Conversely, mean MTR was stable in 20 alemtuzumab-treated MSers, which suggests alemtuzumab protects against tissue damage. This MTR data mirrors the clinical observations and is congruent with some of the basic science. Wouldn’t it be nice to do an experiment of using natalizumab post-alemtuzumab to see if by blocking T-cell trafficking we blunt the alemtuzumab-associated improvement in disability, i.e. to test whether T-cell trafficking is required to drive repair mechanisms?

Button et al. Magnetization transfer imaging in multiple sclerosis treated with alemtuzumab.  Mult Scler. 2013 Feb;19(2):241-4.

So what do I tell my patient? Do I tell her that the reason why she has not improved is that she is older, has more advanced MS and hence less reserve capacity to allow disability improvement? Or that we may not have tackled the root cause of her MS with subcutaneous cladribine? I stuck to the former explanation as the latter is simply a hypothesis that needs more thinking, more debate and some new experiments to establish if the treatment hierarchy in relation to end-organ damage and disability improvement is based on the different modes of action of our DMTs.

Despite the reasons behind these observations we are now entering an era were disability improvement is not an unreasonable expectation for pwMS, provided they are treated early and with high-efficacy DMTs.

How many you have been told about disability improvement on DMTs?

CoI: multiple, please note that I am a co-author on the natalizumab, alemtuzumab and ocrelizumab disability improvement papers.

Beyond NEDA

Prof G are we being lulled into a false sense of security by being told that we have no evident disease activity (NEDA)?

A patient of mine, who I have been looking after now for over 11 years, asked me in clinic a few weeks ago why despite being NEDA for 6 years, on a highly effective maintenance DMT (fingolimod), has she gone from being able to run 5-10 km to needing a stick and barely managing to walk from the Whitechapel Underground Station to my clinic (~200m), without having to stop and rest?

What this patient doesn’t know, despite no new visible T2 lesions, is that she has developed obvious, to the naked eye, progressive brain atrophy.  This particular patient prompted me to write a few blog posts to try and explain what is happening to her brain. Before reading the remainder of this post you may want to read the following posts:

An important question in relation to this patient is why do some DMTs have such a profound impact on end-organ damage markers, in particular, brain volume loss and others do not? Not all DMTs are made equal when it comes to preventing, or slowing down, brain volume loss.

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 next with an annual brain volume loss in region of 0.25-0.30% per annum. Ocrelizumab (anti-CD20) comes fourth with a rate of brain volume loss of ~0.30-0.35% per annum. Fingolimod 5th at ~0.4% per annum. Cladribine has a rate of loss of brain volume of ~0.55% per annum with the other runs after that.

For me, the disappointment are the anti-B cell therapies, ocrelizumab and cladribine. Despite these DMTs being very effective at switching off new focal inflammatory lesions (relapses and new T2 and Gd-enhancing lesions) their impact on end-organ damage is only moderate. These observations have convinced me more than ever that focal inflammation is not MS, but simply the immune system’s response to what is causing MS. The latter hypothesis is what I have been presenting as part of my ‘Field Hypothesis’ for several years on this blog.

What these observations are telling me is that peripheral B-cells are a very important part of the immune response to the cause of MS, but they are not necessarily involved in driving the true pathology, which is causing the progressive brain volume loss. The caveat to this is that anti-CD20 therapies and cladribine may not be eliminating the B-cells and plasma cells within the CNS, which is why we need add-on treatments to try and scrub the brain free of these cells to see if the brain atrophy rate ‘normalises’. This is why we are starting a safety study this year of an add-on myeloma drug to target the CNS B-cell and plasma cell response to test this hypothesis.

What does this mean for the average person with MS? Firstly, you may not want to dismiss alemtuzumab and HSCT as a treatment option. These NIRTS differ from anti-CD20 therapies and cladribine in that they target both B and T cells. We may need to target both these cells types to really get on top of MS. I am aware of the appeal of anti-CD20 therapies and cladribine; they are safer and easier to use because of less monitoring, however, this may come at a cost in the long-term. The SIRTs (selective IRTs) may not be as good as the NEDA data suggests. Please remember that once you have lost brain you can’t get it back.

The tradeoff with alemtuzumab and HSCT is the frontloading of risk to get the greatest efficacy over time. Choosing a DMT on a rung or two down on the therapeutic ladder gives you better short-term safety and makes the lives of your MS team easier, because of less monitoring, but at a potential long-term cost to your brain and spinal cord.  This is why to make an informed decision about which DMT you choose is a very complicated process and subject to subtle and often hidden effects of cognitive 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 lose.

Over the last few years you may have seen a theme developing in my thinking as we move the goalposts in terms of our treatment target beyond NEDA-3 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 decade. Please stop and think!

When I was preparing this post I dropped Prof. Doug Arnold an email about the impact of alemtuzumab and HSCT on the slowly expanding lesion or SEL. Unfortunately, these analyses have not been done despite good trial data sets being available for analysis. He said it was a resource issue; i.e. a euphemism for money and permission to do the analyses. For me, these questions are the most important ones to answer in 2019. Wouldn’t you want to know if alemtuzumab and HSCT were able to switch off those destructive SELs in your brain? Knowing this may impact your decision to go for the most effective DMTs; frontloading risk to maximise outcomes in the long term.

What should I advise my patient; to stay on fingolimod or to escalate to a more effective DMT?

The following articles are the important ones for you to read or at least be aware of:

Article 1

Lee et al. Brain atrophy after bone marrow transplantation for treatment of multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2017 Mar;23(3):420-431.

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.

Article 2

Arnold et al. Superior MRI outcomes with alemtuzumab compared with subcutaneous interferon β-1a in MS. Neurology. 2016 Oct 4;87(14):1464-1472.Neurology. 2016 Oct 4;87(14):1464-1472.

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.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00530348 and NCT00548405.

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.

Article 3

Vavasour et al. A 24-month advanced magnetic resonance imaging study of multiple sclerosis patients treated with alemtuzumab. Mult Scler. 2018 Apr 1:1352458518770085. doi: 10.1177/1352458518770085.

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.

CoI: multiple

%%footer%%