ofatumumab – Page 2 – Prof G's MS Blog Archive

#MSCOVID19: an anti-CD20 backpedal

Science is not a religion and hence scientific advice, unlike beliefs, change as new evidence emerges. When the COVID-19 pandemic started we had to formulate advice on DMT use and their impact on SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 based on scientific principles and evidence of other viral infections. I created a table to summarise my opinions and as evidence has emerged I have updated the table accordingly. I have also added in new columns for example on advice about shielding/quarantine and on vaccine readiness. I have just updated the table for a sixth time changing the risk category of rituximab and other anti-CD20 therapies with a warning that it appears that this class of therapy increases your chance of getting COVID-19 and possibly severe COVID-19. This change is based on data from the Swedish MS registry and the survey below done in Iran. In short being on rituximab doubles your risk of getting COVID-19 and there is a suggestion that it increases your risk of getting severe COVID-19. At the moment there is not enough evidence to be firm about the latter or to comment on mortality risk.

How rituximab increases your chances of getting COVID-19 suggests it either (1) increases your exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which to me is not plausible unless it is due to increased exposure to the virus as a result of attending hospitals for infusions, or (2) it reduces your chances of having an asymptomatic infection. The latter seems most likely and is meanable to study.

It now seems that immune responses to other human coronaviruses, the ones that cause the common cold, may cross-react with SARS-CoV-2 and help keep the virus in check and explains why some people get asymptomatic or mild infections. So just maybe having had that common cold last winter or the year before has given you some built-in protection against getting COVID-19 and severe COVID-19. However, if you were B-cell depleted from being on an anti-CD20 when you had that common cold your immune system doesn’t make the necessary high-quality or high-affinity cross-reactive antibodies that you now need to protect yourself from getting symptomatic COVID-19 and potentially severe COVID-19. Please note this is a hypothesis, but it can be tested by studying people with MS and other condition on anti-CD20 therapies and screening them for antibodies against coronaviruses and comparing them to age-matched controls and patients on other DMTs. I am prepared to bet you the anti-CD20ers don’t have these cross-reactive antibodies or if they do they are at a lower level (titre) and are non-neutralizing.

Another possibility is that anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses, in particular IgM antibodies, help clear the virus and aid in a more rapid recovery from COVID-19 and milder disease. Therefore, if your anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response is delayed or blunted by being on an anti-CD20 therapy this will increases your chances of getting more severe COVID-19. Whether this contributes to you being less likely to have asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection is unknown, but again this can be studied in carefully designed studies.

Should this emerging data on rituximab change clinical practice? If you are already on an anti-CD20 therapy there is little you can do about your preexisting immunity to community-acquired coronaviruses; you either have immunity or you don’t. Similarly, you can’t simply revere the action of anti-CD20 therapies it takes months to years to reconstitute your peripheral B-cell pool. This is why I am now recommending that if you are on an anti-CD20 therapy you be extra-vigilant when it comes to trying to avoid being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 (social isolation, personal hygiene and avoiding high-risk environments). The good news is that the risk to individuals is low as a result of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection falls rapidly in most countries where anti-CD20 therapies are widely used to treat MS. I am still not recommending shielding because even though there is about a doubling of the risk of getting severe COVID-19 (hospitalization) the affected people with MS have been making a good recovery. The main determinants of death from COVID-19 in people with MS are older age, advanced disease and comorbidities and not the DMT they are on.

What about starting an anti-CD20 therapy? The decision to do this must be individualised and weighed against the risk of getting COVID-19. In countries where this risk is very low anti-CD20 therapies will be safe. The other issue that is emerging is vaccine readiness, i.e. having a peripheral immune system that is ready to respond to a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine if and when one emerges.

We know that people who are B-cell depleted, as a result of anti-CD20 therapies, make blunted vaccine responses. This is not surprising because anti-CD20 treated patients lack germinal centres in their lymph nodes and spleen. Germinal centres are the immunological equivalent of a university. It is in the germinal centres that T-cells help B-cell mature, class switch their antibodies, i.e. go from IgM to IgG for example, and to then undergo affinity maturation of the antibody genes to produce high-quality antibodies. Without germinal centres, your immune system can’t educate your B-cells to make high-quality antibodies and hence vaccine response will be poor. For people on anti-CD20 therapies, if they want to maximise your chances of responding to a vaccine you are going to have to pause your treatment to allow your immune systems to recover before receiving a coronavirus vaccine. When should you do this? I would not recommend this until a vaccine emerges; only cross bridges when they are built and if you need to cross them. There is still a relatively high chance that all of the 100+ SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates will fail; vaccine development for respiratory viruses is notoriously difficult.

At the moment the data we have from the Swedish registry and Iran is limited to rituximab but is likely to be relevant to ocrelizumab, ofatumumab and other anti-CD20 therapies. If you are conservative you may want to wait for the evidence base for these other anti-CD20 therapies to mature before incorporating the emerging evidence into your clinical decision-making. The good news is that there are several big data initiatives underway and we should report out within the next 1-2 months to confirm if this is a real signal, how robust the signal is and whether or not it applies to ocrelizumab and potentially other anti-CD20 therapies.

Does this have implications for other infectious diseases? I don’t know but I would not be surprised when we study the immune responses and outcomes to other viral infections, for example, seasonal influenza the same patterns may emerge. Now that we have set-up COVID-19 registries I would urge the MS community to keep them open so that we can study what happens with the next influenza epidemic that is only months away. The scary thought is what will happen if next season’s flu strain is a bad one? The impact of a more virulent flu strain on top of the tail of a SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is a scenario that makes me shudder. Do black swans ever emerge as twins?

Safavi et al B-cell depleting therapies may affect susceptibility to acute respiratory illness among patients with multiple sclerosis during the early COVID-19 epidemic in Iran. MSARDS Published:May 12, 2020.

Objective: To determine whether the course of COVID-19 is more severe in patients with MS and if MS disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) affect the risk of contracting the disease.

Methods: In a cross-sectional survey, data were collected by sending a questionnaire to 2000 patients with a demyelinating disease through an online portal system. Collected data included the current MS DMT and patient-reported disability level, history of recent sick contact, recent fever, respiratory symptoms, diagnosis with COVID-19, and the disposition after the diagnosis. We defined a COVID-19-suspect group as patients having fever and cough or fever and shortness of breath, or a presumptive diagnosis based on suggestive chest computed tomography. We calculated the proportion of COVID-19-suspect patients and compared their demographics, clinical characteristics, and DMT categories with the rest of survey-responders, using univariable and multivariable models.

Results: Out of 712 patients, 34 (4.8%) fulfilled our criteria for being in the COVID-19-suspect group. Only two patients required hospitalization. No patient required intensive care. In a multivariable model, disease duration (p-value=0.017), DMT category (p-value=0.030), and history of sick contact (p-values<0.001) were associated with the risk of being in the COVID-19-suspect group. Being on B-cell depleting antibodies (as compared to non-cell depleting, non-cell trafficking inhibitor DMTs) was associated with a 2.6-fold increase in the risk of being in the COVID-19-suspect group. (RR: 3.55, 95%CI: 1.45, 8.68, p-value=0.005).

Conclusions: The course of infection in patients with MS suspected of having COVID-19 was mild to moderate, and all patients had a full recovery. B-cell depleting antibodies may increase the susceptibility to contracting COVID-19.

Shen et al. Delayed Specific IgM Antibody Responses Observed Among COVID-19 Patients With Severe Progression. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Dec;9(1):1096-1101.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread rapidly worldwide since it was confirmed as the causative agent of COVID-19. Molecular diagnosis of the disease is typically performed via nucleic acid-based detection of the virus from swabs, sputum or bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF). However, the positive rate from the commonly used specimens (swabs or sputum) was less than 75%. Immunological assays for SARS-CoV-2 are needed to accurately diagnose COVID-19. Sera were collected from patients or healthy people in a local hospital in Xiangyang, Hubei Province, China. The SARS-CoV-2 specific IgM antibodies were then detected using a SARS-CoV-2 IgM colloidal gold immunochromatographic assay (GICA). Results were analysed in combination with sera collection date and clinical information. The GICA was found to be positive with the detected 82.2% (37/45) of RT-qPCR confirmed COVID-19 cases, as well as 32.0% (8/25) of clinically confirmed, RT-qPCR negative patients (4-14 days after symptom onset). Investigation of IgM-negative, RT-qPCR-positive COVID-19 patients showed that half of them developed severe disease. The GICA was found to be a useful test to complement existing PCR-based assays for confirmation of COVID-19, and a delayed specific IgM antibody response was observed among COVID-19 patients with severe progression.

Addendum

The following slides show some of the data I refer to above:

If you want to watch the iWiMS Webinar it is on YouTube; the relevant section starts at about 21 minutes.

CoI: multiple

#MSCOVID19 Anti-CD20 therapies and vaccines

Have we optimised the dose of anti-CD20 therapies to target the real MS or smouldering MS, i.e. disease progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA)?

I did an iWiMS webinar on Wednesday covering anti-CD20 therapies and the risk of COVID-19 and severe COVID-19. I covered vaccine responses and how to be vaccine-ready or vaccine responsive to a future SARS-CoV-2 vaccine if you are on an anti-CD20 therapy.

I also discussed optimising the dose of anti-CD20 therapies making the point we may need much higher doses than what we currently use to treat MS. The latter is because we have been blinkered by the impact of anti-CD20 therapy on focal inflammatory events, i.e. relapses and MRI lesions, when the real MS (disability/smouldering MS) appears to more responsive to higher doses of anti-CD20 therapies.

I re-recorded my lecture to spend more time on why these issues are important for people with MS. I have also shared my slides below.

CoI: multiple

the HYPE study

It is clear that many MSers on continuous anti-CD20 therapy are concerned about the risk of developing hypogammaglobulinaemia and subsequent infections. Yesterday, I spoke to several neurologists at the O’HAND investigators meeting in Barcelona who informed me that they are considering giving their ocrelizumab-treated patients hyperimmune globulin replacement therapy (HYPE-Ig-RT) when they develop hypogammaglobulinaemia to prevent serious and potentially fatal infections.

The problem I have with this is that HYPER-Ig-RT is expensive and for it to be covered by the NHS we will need to show that it is cost-effective. In response to these discussions Owen Pearson, an MSologist from Swansea, and I came up with the design of the HYPE study below.

The HYPE study

This is a randomised placebo-controlled trial to assess whether or not HYPE-Ig-RT will work, i.e. reduce the risk of serious infection, infections and mortality in MSers on continuous anti-CD20 therapy. Please note we don’t think this study should be limited to ocrelizumab-treated MSers but should be open to any patient on anti-CD20 therapy, including those on rituximab and ofatumumab.

What do you think of the HYPE study? Do we have clinical equipoise?

Please remember for the payers, i.e. NHS England and insurance companies, to pay for HYPER-Ig-RT we need class 1 evidence to make the financial case to them. This study will test the hypothesis that HYPE-Ig-RT will derisk continuous anti-CD20 therapies and prevent some of the infectious complications related to hypogammaglobulinaemia.

What is the risk of serious infections on anti-CD20 therapies?

The following figures put the serious infection risk, i.e. infections requiring hospitalisation, on ocrelizumab in context. The overall figure is 2.24 serious infections per 100 patient-years. In other words for every 45 patients on ocrelizumab for 12 months one patient will be admitted to hospital with a serious infection. However, if you develop low IgG levels (hypogammaglobulinaemia) the risk rises to 5.48 serious infections per 100 patient-years or for every 18 patients on ocrelizumab for 12 months one patient will be admitted with a serious infection. This is why we are now monitoring peripheral blood immunoglobulin levels on an annual basis in all our patients on anti-CD20 therapy.

Derfuss et al. Serum Immunoglobulin Levels and Risk of Serious Infections in the Pivotal Phase III Trials of Ocrelizumab in Multiple Sclerosis and Their Open-Label Extensions. ECTRIMS 2019,

CoI: multiple

OVO Study

Finally, after a week or more of thinking and contemplation my opinion about the ofatumumab vs. teriflunomide trial data (ASCLEPIOS I and II); another of my ECTRIMS highlights.

The result of the ASCLEPIOS I and II are not unexpected and in line with the treatment effects of anti-CD20 therapies with some caveats.

Novartis summary:

Both ASCLEPIOS I and II studies met their primary endpoints in patients with relapsing forms of MS (RMS); overall ofatumumab (OMB157), a subcutaneous, potent, fully-human antibody targeting CD20 positive B-cells, delivered efficacy with a favorable safety profile
RMS patients on ofatumumab had a reduction in annualized relapse rate (ARR) by 50.5% (0.11 vs. 0.22) and 58.5% (0.10 vs. 0.25) compared to Aubagio^®* (teriflunomide) (both studies p<0.001) in ASCLEPIOS I and II studies respectively
Ofatumumab showed highly significant suppression of gadolinium (Gd) T1 lesions when compared to Aubagio^®, demonstrating a profound suppression of new inflammatory activity
Ofatumumab showed a relative risk reduction of 34.4% in 3-month confirmed disability progression (CDP^†) (p=0.002) and 32.5% in 6-month CDP (p=0.012) versus Aubagio^® in pre-specified pooled analyses
Ofatumumab, if approved, will potentially become a treatment for a broad RMS population and the first B-cell therapy

My interpretation:

Inflammation: relapse rate, focal MRI activity (Gd-enhancing & new T2 lesions) and neurofilament data.

I have made the point that these three markers measure focal inflammation, driven by adaptive immunity, and there is little doubt that ofatumumab is superior in suppressing inflammation compared to teriflunomide. Does this make ofatumumab superior to other very high efficacy DMTs, such as natalizumab, rituximab, ocrelizumab, alemtuzumab and HSCT? I suspect not. To prove this we would need head-2-head studies. I also think there are floor effects on these outcomes, i.e. you can only reduce relapse rates to around 0.1 to 0.2 and no lower. Why? I suspect some relapses are pseudo-relapses and are due to intermittent symptoms in relation to infections, fatigue and possibly hidden symptoms.

Please note that I don’t consider peripheral blood neurofilament levels (pbNFL) to be a neurodegenerative marker in the context of MS. All the data I have seen to date indicates that it is linked to focal inflammatory activity. Clearly more needs to be done in progressive MS with pbNFL to understand what it means in inactive or smouldering MS.

End-organ damage: disability progression and brain volume data

I was disappointed with how ofatumumab did against teriflunomide in delaying disability progression and reducing the relative loss of brain volume. This will be ofatumumab’s Achille’s heel. Why? It is clear that MS the disease is not focal inflammation; I have made the point that based on the Prentice criteria, 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 very 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).

Why did ofatumumab do so poorly on these metrics relative to teriflunomide? It could be that teriflunomide is the outlier and this opinion is based on several observations.

Teriflunomide is the only DMT to have a consistent effect on disability progression; i.e. both teriflunomide phase 3 placebo-controlled trials were positive on this outcome. In addition, the treatment effect or impact of teriflunomide on disability progression has always been greater than what you would expect from its impact on relapses. For the tuned-on readers, you would have noticed the same disconnect between relapses and disease progression was observed in the ponesimod vs. teriflunomide trial.
Teriflunomide also has a significant effect on brain volume loss compared to placebo, which again is out of proportion to its impact on relapses (see picture below).
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.
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? This needs more study, but teriflunomide is the outlier, or exception, that disproves the dogma.

Is ofatumumab being underdosed?

Ofatumumab is being given at a dose of 20mg subcutaneously monthly. This dose was chosen to keep B-cells depleted, but not severely depleted, so as to allow rapid repopulation of peripheral B-cells numbers if ofatumumab is stopped. In other words, B-cell depletion is relatively mild compared to ocrelizumab 600mg every 6 months. With ocrelizumab, it takes 6 months or longer to start to see B-cell reconstitution.

I don’t buy this argument. The repopulation kinetics with ofatumumab are based on relatively short-term dosing studies in which deep tissue and in bone marrow B-cell depletion is likely to be relatively modest. I suspect with long-term dosing with ofatumumab deep tissue and bone marrow B-cell depletion is more likely and hence the B-cell repopulation kinetics will mimic that of rituximab and ocrelizumab.

I also think rapid B-cell repopulation is likely not to be relevant as the new B-cells will almost certainly be bone marrow-derived naive B-cells and not memory B-cells.

The question I have is the 20mg per month of ofatumumab sufficient to penetrate the CNS and clear the intrathecal of CNS resident B-cell follicles?

At the AAN this year Stephen Hauser presented data indicating that when it comes to disability progression, not relapse rate or MRI activity, the extent of exposure to ocrelizumab is very important.

The greater the ocrelizumab exposure the more effective it was at delaying disability progression. This could be related to deep tissue (peripheral) and end-organ (central) B-cell depletion. There is mounting evidence that the B-cells and plasma cells within the brain and spinal cord of MSers are driving some of the slow-burn we see clinically and on MRI (smouldering MS). What I am saying is that ocrelizumab could be superior to ofatumumab when it comes to scrubbing the brain clean of pathogenic B-cell follicles. Therefore it more important than ever to test this hypothesis in a head-2-head study of ocrelizumab vs. ofatumumab (OVO study) or the DODO study comparing double-dose (1200 mg) vs standard-dose (600 mg) ocrelizumab (DODO study) to see if the higher dose of ocrelizumab has a bigger impact on the intrathecal B cell response than the standard dose.

I would suggest these studies include next-generation MRI and other biomarkers to test the CNS penetration hypothesis. If these studies are positive, i.e. ocrelizumab is superior to ofatumumab and double-dose ocrelizumab is superior to single-dose ocrelizumab, it will not only tell us a lot about how anti-CD20 therapies work in MS, but it may answer the question of whether or not we need to target the intrathecal or CNS B-cell response in MS. The latter hypothesis is being tested by our group in two studies at present. We would love to add a third and fourth study to the portfolio. If you work for Novartis or Roche please tell the powers that we are really, really, interested in doing both the OVO and the DODO studies.

What about teriflunomide?

Don’t forget that the implications from the ponesimod vs. teriflunomide and ofatumumab vs. teriflunomide trials are quite profound. Teriflunomide is quite a remarkable DMT and we need to explore its antiviral effects in MS in more detail and understand what it is doing in MS independent of its rather weak anti-inflammatory effects. This is why I have proposed using teriflunomide as a maintenance therapy post-induction. In my ECTRIMS hot topic presentation, I called the trial the iTeri study (see slide show above).

If you work for Genzyme-Sanofi please tell the powers that be that we are really, really, interested in an induction-maintenance trial with both teriflunomide (iTeri study) and a second with your BTK inhibitor (iBruT study).

CoI: multiple

Derisking anti-CD20 therapy

An important highlight of ECTRIMS this year was the data on the safety of the anti-CD20 therapies as a class. It is clear that prolonged, and sustained, B-cell depletion is not safe. Hypogammaglobulinaemia will become a problem with the risk of both common and opportunistic infections.

Stephen Hauser presented the 7-year ocrelizumab safety data and there is a clear uptick in infections in year 7. His poster also included a probable opportunistic infection signal. As of January 2019, there were six potential serious opportunistic infections that had been reported from the ocrelizumab clinical trials.

Systemic Pasteurella infection in a patient with RMS following a cat bite (resolved)
Multisegmental herpes zoster infection in a patient with RMS, treated with intravenous (IV) acyclovir (resolved)
Enterovirus-induced fulminant hepatitis in a diabetic patient with RMS, resulting in liver transplant
Candida sepsis in a patient with PPMS who had stopped OCR treatment 11 months previously and was receiving cancer chemotherapy (resolved)
Viral meningitis in a patient with RMS, cerebrospinal fluid positive for varicella-zoster, treated with IV acyclovir (resolved)
Herpes zoster (monodermatomal) in a patient with RMS treated for a neutropenic fever (not assessed as an opportunistic infection) (resolved)

Continuous anti-CD20 therapy prevents you from forming germinal centres (where B-cells get educated and selected to make antibodies) in lymph nodes and the spleen. In other words, the anti-CD20 therapies result in what I refer to as a functional splenectomy. This causes a scotoma, or blind spot, in your immune system which means you can’t mount a vigorous immune response to new infectious agents or vaccines. In reality, your immune responses are muted.

I highlighted in my hot topics talk on ‘DMTs in RRMS 2019: what remains to be achieved’ about the problems of having a functional splenectomy on anti-CD20 therapies. I recommended that all MSers be vaccinated with the polyvalent pneumococcal vaccine (Pneumovax) and possibly the vaccines for Haemophilus influenzae type B and Meningococcus. In addition, all MSers should have the annual flu vaccine, but with the inactivated component flu vaccine and not the live flu vaccine. In fact, MSers on anti-CD20 therapy should avoid coming into contact with recipients of the live flu vaccine in case it becomes more virulent and infects them. Please note the live flu vaccine is used in the UK in young children and it is recommended that children who have parents or family members at home on immunosuppressive therapies should not have this vaccine.

Another option open to people on longterm anti-CD20 therapy is antibiotic prophylaxis against infections with these encapsulated bacteria. I suspect this may be necessary when MSers develop hypogammaglobulinaemia and recurrent infections, similar to the NMO cases described below. It is clear that anti-CD20 therapies will need annual immunoglobulin levels measured so that if hypogammaglobulinaemia develops MSers can we warned. I suspect immunoglobulin replacement therapy will only be required in the case of recurrent infections, for example, sinus or chest infections; for example, the NMO patient on longterm rituximab who developed bronchiectasis.

I would also recommend that MSers on immunosuppressive therapies wear a medic-alert bracelet that states they are on an anti-CD20 therapy. This would help HCP in an emergency if you are too sick to provide a history. An American colleague told me about one of his ocrelizumab-treated patients, who was fit and well, who died suddenly in the emergency department after presenting with a high temperature and not feeling well. I suspect the cause of death was probably septic shock from one of the encapsulated bacteria discussed above.

The facts that (1) the clinical development programme of ocrelizumab was stopped in rheumatoid arthritis and lupus because of infections and excessive number of deaths, (2) that there is a herpes zoster signal on ocrelizumab, (3) there is blunted vaccine response, in particular to pneumococcus, and (4) ocrelizumab reduces immunoglobulin levels explains why there are infectious complications on ocrelizumab.

So if you are on rituximab, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab or any othe anti-CD20 please be vigilant and take care. On the other side of the coin are the benefits of these treatments and their ease of use and low monitoring burden. As with all DMTs the risks need to be balanced against the benefits.

Tallantyre et al. Secondary Antibody Deficiency and infection following B-cell depletion for CNS neuroinflammation. ECTRIMS Online Library. Oct 25, 2017; 199742; EP1722

B-cell depleting anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapies have demonstrated promising clinical efficacy in suppressing relapses in individuals with neuromyelitis optica (NMO) and multiple sclerosis (MS). However, uncertainties remain about the optimum treatment schedule. In rheumatological disease, anti-CD20 agents are most often employed for short-term induction therapy and are subsequently replaced by longer-term maintenance therapy. In contrast, repeated cycles of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy are proposed as maintenance therapy for CNS neuro-inflammatory disorders. Post-marketing surveillance will be essential to fully uncover the long-term safety profile of repeated B-cell depletion. Hypogammaglobulinaemia is a recognised consequence in a proportion of patients treated with medium- to long-term B-cell therapy and may play a role in the increased incidence of infection observed in the anti-CD20 arms of treatment trials. We report 5 cases of serious infection associated with hypogammaglobulinaemia occurring in patients receiving rituximab for NMO. The cases were all female, all had low IgG with variable reductions in IgM and IgA. The cases had a mean treatment duration of 3.1 years, but not all cases had had extensive exposure (treatment duration range 0.5 – 6.2y). We review the evidence relating to hypogammaglobulinaemia following anti-CD20 treatment for neuroinflammatory disorders and propose an algorithm for monitoring and treatment of this recognised complication.

CoI: multiple

Results time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CoI: multiple

Competition time

The MouseDoc and I want to have a little bit of fun in anticipation of the late-breakers at ECTRIMS and at the same time do a thought experiment.

We want to see how wise the crowd is when it comes to predicting trial results.

Aware crowds may be wiser than individuals. In the book ‘The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations’ James Surowiecki argues that the aggregation of information in groups, results in decisions that are often better than could have been made by any single member of the group. He opens the book with an anecdote about Francis Galton’s surprise that the crowd at a county fair accurately guessed the weight of an ox when their individual guesses were averaged (the average was closer to the ox’s true butchered weight than the estimates of most crowd members).

We want to see how wise you are when it comes to guessing the outcome of the two phase 3 trials programmes being presented at ECTRIMS. We know they are positive, but how positive is the question? To make it a competition we will be giving away two prizes; a lego MRI scanner set or one of our #ThinkSocial Bart-MS T-shirts. You can choose your prize.

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

Please note the Janssen Pharmaceutical Company announced positive top-line results stating the study met its primary and most secondary endpoints. As you know ponesimod is a second-generationn S1P modulator. The question is how good will it be compared to Teriflunomide? It may help to remind you that fingolimod, the first licensed S1P modulator, reduced the annualised relapse rate by 52% compared to interferon-beta-1a (Avonex) in the TRANSFORMS study, but had no significant effect on disability progression.

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

Novartis has announced that both of their phase 3 trials of ofatumumab vs. teriflunomide met their primary outcome. In ASCLEPIOS I and II, ofatumumab (OMB157) met primary endpoints to reduce the annualized relapse rate over Aubagio (teriflunomide) in patients with relapsing forms of MS (RMS) and that key secondary endpoints of delaying time to confirmed disability progression were also met.

Ofatumumab is a 3rd-generation anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody. Ocrelizumab is already licensed and was compared to interferon-beta-1a (Rebif) in two parallel phase 3 trials (OPERA I & II); ocrelizumab reduced the annualised relapse rate by 47% and the rate of 3-month confirmed disability progression by 40% compared to interferon-beta in these trials.

I have recently argued that ofatumumab may be underdosed and that as a result, it won’t do as well against teriflunomide (which has similar efficacy to Rebif), compared to what ocrelizumab did against Rebif. Do you agree with me or not?

So please complete the survey below and leave your email address and name if you want to enter the draw for the prize.

CoI: multiple

MD Here….I asked a question in the comments

DODO study

When you are fighting a war, even if it is only a marketing war, small effects can be the difference between winning and losing.

The TENERE study below would indicate that teriflunomide has similar efficacy to interferon-beta-1a (Rebif). However, this study was underpowered to show a difference between these two DMTs. Based on this and other data I suspect teriflunomide is more effective than IFN-beta. Why?

(1) Teriflunomide is the only DMT to have a consistent effect on disability progression; i.e. both phase 3 placebo-controlled trials were positive on this outcome. (2) Teriflunomide also has a significant effect on brain volume loss compared to placebo; in comparison, subcutaneous IFN-beta-1a does not. (3) Teriflunomide is also 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 finding. (4) Finally, teriflunomide is a broad-spectrum antiviral agent, which may be part of its mode of action in MS.

Putting all these factors together I think teriflunomide will perform better than expected in head-2-head studies than Rebif has done in the past. Why is this important? Two of our top guns alemtuzumab and ocrelizumab were compared to Rebif and had a relative reduction in relapses of ~45%.

A 45% relative reduction in relapse rate has to be the new target in phase 3 active comparator trials. This is if you want your DMT to bat in the same division as alemtuzumab and ocrelizumab.

Yesterday Novartis announced that both of their phase 3 trials of ofatumumab vs. teriflunomide met their primary outcome. The following is an excerpt of Novartis’ press release:

In ASCLEPIOS I and II, ofatumumab (OMB157) met primary endpoints to reduce the annualized relapse rate over Aubagio (teriflunomide) in patients with relapsing forms of MS (RMS).

Key secondary endpoints of delaying time to confirmed disability progression were also met; additional secondary endpoints will be presented at ECTRIMS
Ofatumumab, a potent, fully-human antibody targeting CD20 positive B-cells, delivered sustained efficacy with a favourable safety profile
Novartis plans to initiate submissions to health authorities by the end of 2019. If approved, ofatumumab will potentially become a treatment for a broad RMS population and the first B-cell therapy that can be self-administered at home

If ofatumumab’s relative reduction in annualised relapse rate is not in the order of 45% the MS community is going to assume it is not as effective as alemtuzumab and ocrelizumab. Based on my comments above I suspect the relative reduction will be less than 40%. In other words, the effectiveness of teriflunomide may have been underestimated. Or the effectiveness of ofatumumab may have been over-interpreted and over-modelled.

An aspect that needs to be considered is that ofatumumab may be underdosed in these trials. Ofatumumab is being given at a dose of 20mg subcutaneously monthly. This dose was chosen to keep B-cells depleted, but not severely depleted, so as to allow rapid repopulation of peripheral B-cells numbers if ofatumumab is stopped. In other words, B-cell depletion is relatively mild compared to ocrelizumab 600mg every 6 months. With ocrelizumab, it takes 6 months or longer to start to see B-cell reconstitution. Is this important? I suspect yes.

At the AAN this year Stephen Hauser presented early data suggesting that when it comes to disability progression, not relapse rate or MRI activity, the extent of exposure to ocrelizumab makes a difference. The greater the ocrelizumab exposure the more effective it was. This could be related to deep tissue and end-organ B-cell depletion. There is mounting evidence that the B-cells and plasma cells within the brain and spinal cord of MSers are driving some of the slow-burn we see clinically and on MRI (smouldering MS).

What I am trying to say is that if ofatumumab does not bat in the same league as ocrelizumab when it comes to relative relapse reduction to an active platform comparator then all these factors will come to the fore and make ocrelizumab 600mg 6-monthly a more effective anti-CD20 than ofatumumab 20mg sc monthly.

My response to the Stephen Hauser’s presentation at AAN was to immediately design a study of double-dose (1200 mg) vs standard-dose (600 mg) ocrelizumab 6-monthly (DODO study) to see if the higher dose of ocrelizumab has a bigger impact on the intrathecal B cell response than the standard dose. The study will include next-generation MRI and other biomarkers to test the hypothesis. If this study was positive it will not only tell us a lot about how anti-CD20 therapies work in MS, but it may answer the question of whether or not we need to target the intrathecal or CNS B-cell response in MS. The latter hypothesis is being tested by our group in two studies at present. We would love to add a third study to the portfolio.

So please watch this space. We will soon hear about the ofatumumab results; they are being presented at ECTRIMS in 2 weeks time. And if you work at Roche please tell the powers that be that we are really, really, interested in doing the DODO study 😉

Vermersch et al. Teriflunomide versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis: a randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. Mult Scler. 2014 May;20(6):705-16.

BACKGROUND: In previous studies, teriflunomide significantly reduced the annualised relapse rate (ARR) and disability progression.

OBJECTIVE: This phase 3, rater-blinded study (NCT00883337) compared teriflunomide with interferon-beta-1a (IFNβ-1a).

METHODS: Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis were randomised (1:1:1) to oral teriflunomide 7-or 14 mg, or subcutaneous IFNβ-1a 44 µg. The primary composite endpoint was time to failure, defined as first occurrence of confirmed relapse or permanent treatment discontinuation for any cause. Secondary endpoints included ARR, Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS) and Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM). The study was completed 48 weeks after the last patient was randomised.

RESULTS: Some 324 patients were randomised (IFNβ-1a: 104; teriflunomide 7 mg: 109; teriflunomide 14 mg: 111). No difference in time to failure was observed. There was no difference in ARR between teriflunomide 14 mg and IFNβ-1a, but ARR was significantly higher with teriflunomide 7 mg. FIS scores indicated more frequent fatigue with IFNβ-1a, though differences were only significant with teriflunomide 7 mg. TSQM scores were significantly higher with teriflunomide. There were no unexpected safety findings.

CONCLUSION: Effects on time to failure were comparable between teriflunomide and IFNβ-1a. There was no difference between teriflunomide 14 mg and IFNβ-1a on ARR, though ARR was higher with teriflunomide 7 mg. The teriflunomide safety profile was consistent with previous studies.

CoI: multiple