Oncologising MS

We have been beating the combination-therapy drum for so long now we have become bored with the concept. Every time we apply for grants to test the concept, be it with pharma or via other traditional funding routes, we get pushback. Either our targets are questioned or the concept of combination therapies is challenged based on the scientific principles underlying the combination being proposed. Then there is regulatory complexity of doing licensing combination trials that makes most Pharma companies put their heads in the sand.

It is obvious that if we want to achieve our aim of getting pwMS to old age so that they can age normally we are going to have to do more than simply tackle inflammation. 

Oncologise is a neologism or new word

I propose oncologising multiple sclerosis and putting in place a national NHS-funded register as part of routine practice, similar to what happens with cancer patients so that everyone can participate in add-on trials of neuroprotectants, remyelination and neurorestoration therapies and any other add-on treatments that we think may work in MS. The latter can include dietary interventions, for example, intermittent-fasting or ketogenic diets. 

Making the case for building a treatment sandwich or pyramid

If the NHS doesn’t fund this I would urge Roche and Biogen to do start with the two biggest blockbusters, i.e. ocrelizumab- and DMF-treated patients and to do this as an international initiative. The real-life trial platform could be run like the oncology platforms in that as soon as you find a combination that is better than the monotherapy (plus placebo) the combination then becomes the standard of care. We would have to implement this with more sensitive outcome measures, possibly brain volume loss, rather than the EDSS which has too many warts to survive much longer. 

Do you think we can oncologise MS? Would you be interested in participating in add-on studies as proposed above? We have ten or more compounds that we could test right now. 

The good news is that I have an ally who works in a large Pharma company who has been chewing the cud with me on this concept and is hopefully going to be able to sell it within his company. If he doesn’t do it I suspect another company may be tempted to take it on.

I gave a talk to general physicians at the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) yesterday afternoon telling them how we have transformed the management of MS. But have we really? To really transform the management of MS we need to cure the disease and then tackle the problem of post-inflammatory neurodegeneration or smouldering MS. The problem we have is that the wider MS community is not necessarily prepared to accept this position and the need for combination therapy add-on studies or the sequential therapy paradigm (induction-maintenance). 

CoI: multiple

OXO Study

We want to build a sandwich to tackle the many facets of multiple sclerosis that result in neuroaxonal loss. At the base of treatment pyramid, we need an anti-inflammatory onto which we want to add a neuroprotectant, i.e. the combination therapy strategy.

You need to protect damaged and vulnerable axons so that you can then remyelinate them or restore their function. We assume this makes sense, but still, we get push back from many in the field who are determined to still do monotherapy neuroprotective trials. 

What is the point of protecting an axon, allowing it to be remyelinated and to recover function for it to be damaged again in the next round of inflammatory attack? 

Barts-MS Dictum: It makes no biological sense to do monotherapy MS neuroprotective trials in the modern era.

With this in mind, we had a ‘brainstorming’ session last week and came up with a new neuroprotective trial design in primary progressive MS; it is called the OXO PPMS trial or  ‘Add-on OXcarbazepine to Ocrelizumab in PPMS Study’. 

Why PPMS? We feel that PPMS has a massive unmet need and that as ocrelizumab is now licensed as the only DMT in PPMS it makes an ideal platform therapy. We have chosen oxcarbazepine, a sodium channel blocker, as our add-on agent because we have pilot data (animal and clinical) showing it may work and it seems to be better tolerated than other sodium channel blockers. In an ideal world, we would want this study to be done with a new agent that has a long patent life, which would allow Pharma to invest in the necessary studies to get the drug licensed. But alas we can’t find a Pharma company with a new sodium channel blockers who would be interested in MS.

Raj Kapoor, David Baker and I have spent an extraordinary amount of time trying to get Big Pharma to buy into the add-on sodium channel blocker neuroprotection paradigm. Sadly none of the decision-makers has bought into the paradigm, yet. Just maybe with new data and the fact that all the low-hanging fruit on the MS tree has been picked they may change their minds. 

Please note that neuroprotection is only a small part of the solution to worsening or progressive MS. To tackle this problem we need a lot more than neuroprotection, which is why we need to manage MS holistically. 

To reiterate the philosophy of marginal gains “if you break down everything we can think of that goes into improving MS outcomes, and then improving it by 1%, we will get a significant increase when we put them all together. This also means avoiding things that make MS worse”. This is why anti-ageing strategies, in particular, lifestyle factors, need to be included in the longterm treatment strategy to manage MS.  

What do you think of the OXO PPMS study? If you have PPMS would you volunteer for this study? 

CoI: multiple

Exit mobile version
%%footer%%