Fingolimod vs. Siponimod

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer: ★★ (mid-week sepia = #704214)

In my post on rebound disease activity in a person with secondary progressive MS switching from fingolimod to siponimod, someone asked whether there is any logic in switching DMTs within the class of S1P modulators. Two or three years ago I would have said no, but now I would say yes. There are well defined and clear differences between the two compounds that may explain their different effects as DMTs in people with more advanced or progressive MS (see figure and table below). 

The fact that fingolimod works on a broader spectrum of S1P receptors may explain why it has a greater effect on peripheral immune function, i.e. its action on S1P4 may explain why it disrupts antibody responses to new vaccines. S1P4 plays an important role in the functioning of germinal centres (GCs) in lymph nodes and other secondary lymphoid organs, i.e. so-called follicular T-helper cells use S1P4 for migration signals. If these cells can’t enter the GCs they can’t help B-cells make good antibody responses. I, therefore, predict that vaccine responses in response to the COVID-19 vaccines will be better preserved with siponimod, ozanimod and ponesimod because this new generation of S1P modulators has less or no activity on S1P4 receptors.  

Fingolimod needs to be phosphorylated to become active, in comparison siponimod is active already. This may explain why siponimod has greater activity on the S1P5 receptor within the central nervous system (CNS) and explains its greater apparent effects on cells within the central nervous system (CNS). It is clear that when you look at the results of the fingolimod in the PPMS trial there was very little evidence that fingolimod was having any effect on the end-organ, i.e. there was no impact on brain volume loss and no difference across any of the clinical endpoints in the PPMS trial. In comparison, siponimod has a clear CNS signal compared to placebo in subjects with SPMS. Compared to placebo, patients on siponimod have less whole brain, grey matter and thalamic volume loss, preservation of brain tissue integrity on MTR, an MRI marker of myelination, and these effects correlated with better preservation of cognition. On the downside, siponimod was associated with a small but significant risk of seizures, which seems to be more common than with fingolimod in adults with MS.  

I have interpreted these results as showing fingolimod as being a more powerful peripheral immunosuppressive therapy but has fewer direct CNS effects. In comparison, siponimod is likely to be less immunosuppressive, but have more direct CNS effects. So based on these differences I think there is a rationale for switching someone on fingolimod to siponimod who has more advanced MS or has transitioned to SPMS. The downside of this switch is that in the NHS you will have to label someone as having SPMS to be able to prescribe siponimod. Using our current criteria SPMS is a one-way street, i.e. once you are labelled as having SPMS you can’t be undiagnosed and converted back to RRMS. As there are no other DMTs currently licensed for SPMS you are therefore theoretically stuck with siponimod. This is why I refer to siponimod as the cul de sac DMT. 

The other issue is that to be eligible for siponimod you have to have active SPMS, i.e. relapses or MRI activity (new or enlarging lesions) in the last 2 years. Most people who develop SPMS on fingolimod have inactive SPMS, which means they are not eligible for siponimod. To become eligible under NHS England guidelines you would have to stop fingolimod and hope you develop rebound disease activity that will then allow you to be eligible for siponimod. I have previously stated that I think this is unethical based on our current biological understanding of MS. In any case, once you label someone as having SPMS on fingolimod you are meant to stop their fingolimod in the NHS; the latter is one of the NHS England’s stopping criteria.

So based on the above if you have transitioned to SPMS on fingolimod would you (1) want to switch to siponimod and (2) would you be prepared to stop fingolimod so that your SPMS became active, i.e. developed rebound disease activity? 

FingolimodSiponimod
MOA: Targets S1P1, S1P3, S1P4 & S1P5MOA: Targets S1P1 & S1P5
No baseline pharmacogenomicsBaseline pharmacogenomics (CYP2C9 genotyping)CYP2C9 Genotypes *1/*1, *1/*2, or *2/*2 = 2 mg/dayCYP2C9 Genotypes *1/*3 or *2/*3  = 1 mg /dayModerate CYP2C9 and strong CYP3A4 inducers are not recommended (e.g. rifampin, carbamazepine) 
First dose monitoring for all patientsFirst dose monitoring in patients with certain pre-existing cardiac conditions
Half life of 6-9 daysHalf life of approximately 30 hours
Lymphocyte counts progressively return to normal range within 1-2 months of stopping therapy in most patientsLymphocyte counts return to the normal range within 10 days of stopping therapy in the vast majority (90%) of patients
Prodrug – needs to phosphorylatedActive compound no need for activation

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.

Be careful when switching from Fingolimod to Siponimod

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer: zero-★s (purple Sunday)

The following case suggests a horizontal switch from fingolimod to siponimod may not be the wisest thing to do. This patient developed severe fingolimod rebound despite switching to siponimod without a washout. As you know fingolimod works on 4 out of 5 of S1P receptors (S1P1, 3, 4, and 5). In comparison, siponimod works on S1P1 and S1P5 only. Is this telling us that some of the modes of action of the S1P modulators are via S1P3 and S1P4? I suspect Yes. S1P4 may be important for antigen presentation and germinal centre (GC) function in lymph nodes and other secondary lymphoid organs, which explains why COVID-19 vaccine responses are so flat in pwMS on fingolimod. If this is correct then we may see better vaccine response in patients on the other S1P modulators that don’t impact GC biology to the same extent.  

I predict that there will be many more patients like this. The important thing is to ask why and to explore exactly what the differences are between fingolimod and siponimod on immune function in MS. Who knows what it is telling us about the cause and immunology of MS. 

Senzaki et al. Disease reactivation in a patient with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis after switching treatment from fingolimod to siponimod. eNeurologicalSci. 2021 May 15;23:100346. doi: 10.1016/j.ensci.2021.100346.

Excerpt: …… A 42-year-old woman with RRMS was started on fingolimod due to high disease activity; three relapses in the previous year and the presence of gadolinium-enhancing brain lesions before fingolimod. During the first two years after initiation of fingolimod, she experienced several relapses with incomplete recovery and progressive increase in brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesion load, and her EDSS deteriorated from 3.5 to 5.5. In the next five years, she was relapse-free without MRI activity; however, her disability gradually worsened to EDSS score of 7.0 and she was diagnosed with SPMS. Fingolimod was switched to siponimod without a wash-out period. Peripheral lymphocyte count at initiation of siponimod (day 1) was 376/μL, and 433/μL at day 7. She developed double vision at day 11.  Neurological examination revealed no new additional findings except for right internuclear ophthalmoplegia. Brain MRI showed multiple hyperintense infra- and supra-tentorial lesions on fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery images, some of which were enhanced with gadolinium (Fig. 1).

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.

An ethical quandary

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer: ★★

The two case studies below are creating an ethical quandary in my MS practice. Can you help me please?

Case 1

The first is the 40-year old woman with MS who is NEDA-2 (no evident disease activity) on DMF (Tecfidera) with no documented relapses in the last 4 years and a series of annual MRI scans with no new or enlarging T2 MS lesions. However, there has been a worsening of her disability; increasing bladder problems and a progressive spastic paraparesis (weak legs). Her EDSS has moved from 4.0 to 5.5 in the last three years. She has self-diagnosed herself as having secondary progressive MS and wants to switch to siponimod. Unfortunately, according to the current NICE approval and NHSE guidelines, this patient is ineligible for siponimod because she has inactive MS (NEDA-2). 

Do I recommend she stops her DMF so that her MS can reactivate, which will then make her eligible for siponimod? Most MSologists would say yes, mainly because the development of SPMS is one of NHS England’s stopping criteria. The problem I have is we, the patient and I,  have no idea how active her MS will become if and when her MS reactivates. For example, she could have a catastrophic spinal relapse that leaves her doubly incontinent and quadriplegic or it may be on the other side of the spectrum, i.e. one or two new asymptomatic MRI lesions on her annual MRI follow-up. If you were in her position would you stop your treatment to develop active MS? 

Case 2

The second is the 40-year old woman who started natalizumab as a first-line therapy 11 years ago after presenting with two disabling relapses in a four-month period. She has done exceptionally well on natalizumab, i.e. she is NEDA-3 (no relapses, no MRI activity and no change in her EDSS). In fact, her original disabilities from the two relapses recovered. At present she is fully functional, working full-time and very active physically. For example, she plays competitive tennis in her local sports club and ran the London marathon 2 years ago. Her current EDSS is 1.0.

The problem is that her serial annual MRI studies demonstrate that she has progressive macroscopic (visible by the naked eye) brain volume loss. Being an intelligent woman and a self-taught MS expert she knows this is a poor prognostic sign and she wants to stop natalizumab and have HSCT or alemtuzumab. She is aware from reading The MS-Blog (formerly the Barts-MS blog) that alemtuzumab and HSCT have a greater impact than natalizumab on end-organ damage or brain volume loss. After HSCT and alemtuzumab treatment brain volume loss is on average in the normal range (please see BEYOND NEDA).

Would you allow this patient to switch treatments? Under the current London MS HSCT guidelines she would not be eligible for HSCT as she has not failed natalizumab; please note, progressive brain volume loss is not considered a treatment failure. What about alemtuzumab? Applying the strict NHSE guidelines she would not be eligible for alemtuzumab as her MS is inactive at present. However,  one could argue that we need to go back to 2010 when she started natalizumab and ask ourselves now would she have been eligible back then if alemtuzumab had been available? The answer is yes as she had what we call rapidly evolving severe MS; in 2021 someone with rapidly evolving severe MS could be treated with alemtuzumab first-line.  Should we apply treatment criteria retrospectively? 

This patient is JCV negative. If, however, she seroconverted to being JCV positive it would be easier to justify to NHS England for the switch to alemtuzumab, i.e. NHSE guidelines support the principle of derisking PML. The one thing I can’t tell this patient is whether or not alemtuzumab or HSCT will have an impact on her brain volume loss as we simply don’t have the data from a cohort of patients making the switch from natalizumab to alemtuzumab 10+ years into their disease. In other words will the smouldering or real MS that causes the accelerated brain volume loss respond to a potent IRT treatment strategy 11 years after diagnosis? This patient understands there is no data on natalizumab-switchers to support her request, but she is willing to take the risk of either alemtuzumab or HSCT. What do I advise her?

HELP! It is not easy being an MSologist. Please note these two scenarios are based on real patients of mine and are not hypothetical and represent the MS world I live and practice in. 

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.

Please help I am getting worse

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer: ★

After my clinic last week I was emotionally drained and probably more than usual. Patient after patient was telling me the same story and asking the same questions.

“Since lockdown last year things have gotten worse, what can I do about it?”

My superficial interpretation is that most of these patients had gotten worse because of relative physical and mental inactivity. Working from home or not working, self-isolation to prevent getting COVID-19 and less physical exercise are taking their toll. I am increasingly making the point that unless you use it you will lose it (#UseItOrLoseIt). Put simply less physical exercise (self-isolation), less mental exercise (reduced work or no work) and less emotional exercise (social interactions) are having a devastating impact on people with MS. Then there is the shredder, i.e. ongoing MS disease activity be it new focal inflammatory lesions or the dreaded smouldering MS. As we have not been able to monitor pwMS with regular MRIs and change and escalate treatments a large number of pwMS are paying the price of having their MS undertreated.

One of the patients I spoke to via a video consult wanted to know why she was getting worse and why she was not eligible for siponimod treatment. She had not had a relapse in over 10 years and had no new lesions when we imaged her last year January 2020. She has gone from EDSS 6.0, i.e. being able to walk several hundred metres with a cane, to being wheelchair-bound in just 12 months. This rapidity of her secondary progression is faster than what we usually see. Most people spend at least 3 to 4 years at EDSS 6.0 and EDSS 6.5. The question I have is there be another reason for the rapid progression? Had she developed a new lesion in the spinal cord? The only way to sort this out is with an MRI and possible lumbar puncture and CSF analysis to measure neurofilament levels. The problem we have is that we are not doing non-urgent MRIs or lumbar punctures at present. However, I suspect the repeat MRI and CSF analysis will show no obvious new inflammation, which will make her ineligble for siponimod.

Many of these patients don’t understand that beyond relapses and focal MRI activity the real MS lurks. I explain why disease worsening or disability progression occurs in MS under 4 headings:

1. SS (scissors and stripper): The acute focal inflammatory lesion acts like molecular scissors and strippers, cutting axons and stripping myelin off axons. The cut and naked axons are blocked from conducting signals and result in a neurological deficit. The neurological deficit from this acute conduction block will vary depending on the pathway affected, for example, if the lesions affect the optic nerves it will cause loss of vision. The way to prevent the SS from causing conduction block is to prevent new lesions from forming. If this patient has a new lesion it would offer her hope and make her eligible for siponimod.

2. EF (energy failure): The demyelinated axons may recover function by a process called axonal plasticity or remyelination. Axonal plasticity is the process by which the neuron inserts new ion channels into the demyelinated axonal segments and restores conduction. Remyelination may also occur, but the new myelin is never as thick and as efficient as the old myelin and is susceptible to intermittent failure. These demyelinated and thinly remyelinated sections of axons are susceptible to temperature and fatigue. If the temperature rises these sections block and if the axons are used too much, for example with exercise, they run out of energy and also block. Sometimes the type of ion channel that is inserted into the axons fire spontaneously can cause intermittent symptoms, for example, pins and needles, pain, neuralgia and muscle spasms. As these ion channels are sodium channels it explains why these intermittent symptoms respond to drugs that block sodium channels, for example, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, phenytoin and lamotrigine.

I suspect a large amount of progressive disability in this patient is due to these mechanisms; sadly, we don’t have any add-on treatments we can offer her at present.

Another process that helps with recovery is that the surviving axons form sprouts to reconnect disconnected pathways and create new synapses, which are the connections between nerve fibres. All these processes increase the energy requirements of the axon, which makes it vulnerable to die-off later. At the same time the ‘MS lesion’ remains inflamed and some of the chemicals produced as part of the inflammation poison the mitochondria, which are energy factories of the axons. A further reduction in energy production puts further stress on the system. As a result of these processes, there is a delayed dying off of axons that takes place over months to years after the initial MS lesion has formed. This delayed dying off of axons explains why despite effective treatments stopping new MS lesions from forming some people with MS still notice a slow deterioration in their functioning. This is why we have added this patient to our prescreening log for the upcoming Chariot-MS trial in which we will be testing whether or not oral cladribine will slow down the worsening of upper limb function.

There is mounting evidence that exercise encourages plasticity, i.e. axonal plasticity and sprouting and synaptogenesis and recovery or maintenance of function. Sadly due to lockdown this patient had not been having physiotherapy and was unable to attend her regular aqua aerobics. Could she be losing function because of this? I suspect this could explain some of her deterioration.

3. SB (slow burn): Some MS lesions never recover and become slowly expanding lesions or SELs. SELs have a rim of hot microglia at their edges and continue to swallow up the myelin and axons of the surrounding ‘normal-appearing’ tissue. These lesions don’t have much acute inflammation left in them, i.e. there are very little T and B cells in these lesions. SELs continue to expand over years to decades and are responsible for the slow accumulation of damage over many years. SELs can be seen on MRI; they typically cause black holes on so-called T1-weighted MR images and have a dark rim of iron around them when viewed with special MR sequences (susceptibility imaging). The iron rim is a marker of these so-called ‘hot microglia’.

I would not be surprised if this patient had a SEL in a critical position in her cervical spinal cord. At present we have no idea what causes some MS lesions to regress and recover and for others to expand and become SELs. What we do know is that our standard anti-inflammatory DMTs have very little or no effect on SELs once they have developed. It is important to realise that SELs are found throughout the course of MS and are even seen in people with a radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS) or asymptomatic MS. In other words, the so-called ‘progressive MS pathology’ is found very early in the MS disease course. We do know that the number and size of the SELs increase with disease duration, i.e. the more MS lesions that develop the more SELs will be formed. Another important observation that has recently emerged is that a single strategically located SEL can cause an extraordinary amount of damage; for example, a single SEL in the so-called pyramidal tract or motor pathway can cause progressive weakness down one side of the body. I have a few patients like this and it is very disheartening when their weakness fails to respond to standard anti-inflammatory therapies.

An interesting debate is whether or not the ‘hot microglial’ response is abnormal, i.e. pathological, or is occurring in response to something in the surrounding tissue. I support the latter view and hypothesise that there is something in the surrounding tissue that is activating the microglia and they are just doing their job and trying to clear-up the inciting agent. Others have suggested these microglia are responding to the back-end, or Fc-end, of antibodies and activated complement components as a result of these antibodies reacting with their target or in a non-specific manner. Other hypotheses include viruses, e.g. EBV and HERVs, are driving the expansion of these lesions. The way to test these two competing hypotheses is to use drugs that switch off or suppress microglia. If the ‘hot microglia’ are the problem these drugs will work and stop SELs getting bigger. If the microglia are just doing their ‘job’ these agents are unlikely to work. It is also important to remind you that myelin debris inhibits remyelination so these microglia may be needed to help with the repair. The problem is that without being able to switch off the abnormal processes that are causing SELs to enlarge trying to stimulate repair mechanisms may be futile.

Another factor that can’t be ignored is recurrent infections, which sometimes affects a lot of people with advanced MS. Recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) are the biggest problem. This is why we take UTIs so seriously. Every time you get an infection it causes your immune system to produce cytokines, or inflammatory messengers, that travel to the brain and boosts the activity of the microglia. The hot microglia then exacerbate the damage that MS is doing to your brain and spinal cord. This is why many of you tolerate infections so poorly and often don’t recover back to baseline after a severe infection. There is a lot we can do to reduce recurrent bladder infections. For example, the judicious use of intermittent self-catheterisation, drinking lots of liquids to flush the bladder, using urinary antiseptics to suppress the growth of bacteria in the bladder and screening for asymptomatic UTIs using self-monitoring home dipsticking and prompt treatment.

This patient has had several UTIs in the last 12 months. To manage this I recommended she starts taking daily urinary antiseptics and she starts self-monitoring her urine twice weekly with dipstix and to start antibiotics ASAP as she picks up an early UTI. I hope the GP will do what I recommend; not all GPs are prepared to allow their patients to self-monitor and manage their bladders in this way.

The upshot of ‘slow burn’ is that we need additional therapies to add on top of DMTs that stop new lesions, and in particular chronic expanding or SELs, from forming. These treatments may be drugs to purge the CNS of antibody-producing B cells and plasma cells, drugs that inhibit complement activation and/or the activation of Fc receptors on microglia, anti-virals that target EBV and HERVs, and/or drugs that inhibit activated microglia. In other words, there are many therapeutic targets that still need to be explored as add-on therapies in MS.

4. PA (premature ageing): Most of you are aware of the effects of ageing on the nervous system. The brain and spinal cord were never designed by evolution to last longer than about 35 years. It is only relatively recently that as a species we have extended our lifespans. Once you go beyond approximately 35 years of age there is a gradual loss of nerve cells and axons. This explains why as you get older you notice the effects of ageing; reduced vision, loss of hearing, poor balance and sadly age-related cognitive impairment. In short, life is an age-dependent neurodegenerative disease. If we all live long enough we will all develop cognitive impairment. What protects us from age-related changes is so-called brain reserve capacity, i.e. the size of the brain and spinal cord, and cognitive reserve, which relates to education level and environmental enrichment (social capital, adult learning, cognitive exercises, etc.). We know that MS reduces both brain and cognitive reserve and as a result people with MS experience the impact of ageing much earlier. I refer to this as premature ageing. Can we do anything about this? Yes, we can. We know from studies in the general population there are many things that you can do to maximise your brain and cognitive reserve. This is called Brain Health and involves lifestyle factors such as exercise, diet, sleep and avoiding smoking and excessive alcohol consumption. It is also important to be screened for comorbidities or other diseases and have them treated; these include smoking, hypertension, diabetes, obesity and abnormal lipids. As for diet, there have not been any that have been studied specifically in MS. However, data from animal and other studies indicate that calorie restricted, intermittent fasting and ketogenic diets have the most promise with regard to brain health. However, we need more evidence of their beneficial effects before promoting these to pwMS.

Yes, this patient is in late 50’s and ageing mechanisms are clearly contributing her loss of function.

Ageing is also a biological process and as we decode the molecular programmes that cause ageing we may be able to develop treatments that reverse ageing. An example of this is metformin, a drug for treating diabetes that has recently been shown to reprogramme oligodendrocyte precursors in older animals to behave as if they were young cells and become more efficient at remyelinating axons. I envisage in the future using anti-ageing drugs as add-on therapies to treat MS.

At the moment we don’t have enough evidence to recommend an add-on treatment for this patient. However, trials are happening so maybe in the next decade of so we will have add-on treatments to slow down or reverse these premature ageing mechanisms.

Finally, we know from other diseases that mood and other social determinants affect outcomes in other diseases and likely play a role in MS. This patient was clearly socially-isolated and depressed. The social-isolation was self-inflicted due to her anxiety about getting COVID-19. Now that she has been vaccinated and with national cases numbers falling she start to get-out and meeting her family and friend again. I suspect she will improve, maybe not back to her pre-COVID-19 baseline, once she starts exercising and reconnencting with the world.

Does this patient’s story sound familiar to you? Have you managed to cope with the lockdown? What have you done to keep going?

CoI: multiple

Twitter: @gavinGiovannoni                                              Medium: @gavin_24211

Swiss Neurologists Challenge Lublin

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer: ★

I have just been chastised by someone from a Swiss Pharma company for suggesting that siponimod is a cul-de-sac DMT. Why can’t someone who is diagnosed and labelled as having SPMS who is started on siponimod be switched to any other DMT? I agree, but the absurdity of the situation arises because of the rigidity of the Lublin classification of MS (see below) and the salami-slicing of MS into multiple disease entities. 

The cul-de-sac is based on the assumption that once you have progressive MS, either primary progressive or secondary progressive MS, you can’t become unprogressive and be subsequently re-diagnosed as having relapsing-remitting MS. This is explicit in the Lublin classification system that defines the clinical course of MS.  According to Lublin progressive MS is a one-way street.

The reason we find ourselves in this ridiculous situation is that MS was salami-sliced up into three and four diseases in the 1990s to allow interferon-beta to get licensed under the US Orphan Drug Act. The Orphan Drug Act states that to be an orphan disease there have to be fewer than 200,000 US citizens with the disease.  There are clearly more than 200,000 people with MS in the US, but there were less than 200,000 people with relapsing-remitting MS, secondary progressive MS or primary progressive MS in the 1990s. Subsequently, a fourth category was added to the classification system of clinically-isolated syndrome (CIS). Fortunately, CIS is gradually disappearing as the McDonald criteria are gradually nibbling away at this pseudo-category of MS.

Few people are aware of the history of MS becoming four diseases, but the consequences of this to the field have been enormous. For one it means that Pharma has had to do trials in all four ‘pseudo-MS disease states’ at great expense to the field. It has had major psychological effects on people with the disease. When you tell people they have SPMS it is like telling them they have a second disease that until recently was unmodifiable. 

The other consequence of MS being three or four diseases is that once you have been diagnosed as having SPMS we are mandated under NHS England guidelines to stop DMTs. This is why most neurologists in the UK avoid labelling their patients as having SPMS. 

The Lublin classification system is based on a clinico-radiological worldview of MS and is not underpinned by biology. If you take a biological worldview of MS, which is the correct philosophy based on our current thinking of what constitutes a disease, then MS is one disease and not three or four diseases. 

Interestingly, I have been asked by the CONY Virtual Conference organisers to give a keynote plenary lecture on this exact topic, which I recorded yesterday. 

The good news is that this Pharma Executive tells me that the Swiss Neurologists have decided that the Lublin classification system is incorrect and that according to the Swiss it will be fine to reverse out of the secondary-progressive cul de sac and to relabel their patients as having relapsing MS and to be able to switch their patients from siponimod to ofatumumab once it is licensed in Switzerland. I sincerely hope the Swiss neurologists publish their new classification system of MS, or MS roadmap, as the Lublin one is out-of-date. More importantly, will the Swiss neurologists be prepared to convince the NHS of their wisdom?  

Lublin et al. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: the 2013 revisions. Neurology 2014 Jul 15;83(3):278-86.

Accurate clinical course descriptions (phenotypes) of multiple sclerosis (MS) are important for communication, prognostication, design and recruitment of clinical trials, and treatment decision-making. Standardized descriptions published in 1996 based on a survey of international MS experts provided purely clinical phenotypes based on data and consensus at that time, but imaging and biological correlates were lacking. Increased understanding of MS and its pathology, coupled with general concern that the original descriptors may not adequately reflect more recently identified clinical aspects of the disease, prompted a re-examination of MS disease phenotypes by the International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials of MS. While imaging and biological markers that might provide objective criteria for separating clinical phenotypes are lacking, we propose refined descriptors that include consideration of disease activity (based on clinical relapse rate and imaging findings) and disease progression. Strategies for future research to better define phenotypes are also outlined.

CoI: multiple

Twitter: @gavinGiovannoni      Medium: @gavin_24211

The forgotten many: not any more

Most of you will have heard by now that NICE has green-lighted siponimod for the treatment of active secondary progressive multiple sclerosis on the NHS. As the UK member of the EXPAND trial steering committee, Novartis who market the drug asked me for a quote, which sums up my opinion about the news.

“The NICE approval of siponimod to treat secondary progressive multiple sclerosis with active disease is a landmark that promises to transform the way we view and manage MS. At last, we have a treatment that can modify the progressive pathology that underpins secondary progressive MS with active disease. The ‘Forgotten Many’ is how people with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis have described themselves; but not anymore. Our challenge is to configure our NHS services to treat patients with secondary progressive MS and to manage expectations, as not all people with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis will be eligible for siponimod. However, this is the beginning of a new era in the management of MS and should be celebrated for that.”

CoI: multiple

NICE & Siponimod

Here we go again. Most readers will have gathered by now that NICE has not recommended Siponimod for treating active SPMS under the NHS. This is a big disappointment for the MS community in the UK particularly for those patients who have active SPMS or worsening SPMS on a DMT who were hoping to be switched to Siponimod. 

It is clear that some of the assumptions NICE have made about the treatment of MS don’t represent the reality on the ground, in particular, that most people diagnosed with SPMS do not have any disease-modifying treatment. I would argue that the biggest population of potential ‘siponimod-eligible’ patients with SPMS are those smouldering away on existing DMTs. A straw poll of UK MSologits we did in 2014 indicated that most were reluctant to label their patients as having SPMS because of the implications it has for treatment. Most MSologists don’t necessarily stop existing DMTs in patients with worsening disability because they are concerned about the potential for a rebound in inflammatory disease activity. 

NICE Recommendations 

1.1 Siponimod is not recommended, within its marketing authorisation, for treating secondary progressive multiple sclerosis with evidence of active disease (that is, relapses or imaging features of inflammatory activity) in adults. 

1.2 This recommendation is not intended to affect treatment with siponimod that was started in the NHS before this guidance was published. People having treatment outside this recommendation may continue without change to the funding arrangements in place for them before this guidance was published, until they and their NHS healthcare professional consider it appropriate to stop. 

Why the committee made these recommendations 

Interferon beta-1b is the only disease-modifying treatment available for people with active secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. However, few people take it. 

Most people do not have any disease-modifying treatment. Clinical trial results show that siponimod reduces the number of relapses and slows disability progression compared with placebo. It is uncertain how effective siponimod is compared with interferon beta-1b because there is no evidence directly comparing them.

Because of the limited clinical evidence, the cost-effectiveness estimates are uncertain, and none of the analyses reflect the committee’s preferred assumptions. Therefore, siponimod is not recommended.

The idea that MS is three diseases rather one disease is clearly coming back to haunt the field. I think most people working in MS understand that MS is one disease with superimposed inflammation, i.e. relapses and focal MRI activity, determining the clinical phenotype and being the treatment target for licensed anti-inflammatory agents such as siponimod. The question about whether or not focal inflammation drives all pathology has yet to be answered, but based on the early treatment trials of highly-effective agents this seems likely. 

As always we as an MS community are going to have to respond to NICE. But what do we say? I am not sure there is a consensus amongst UK neurologists about how we diagnose and manage SPMS. The following are a series of questions that I think need to be answered when it comes to managing pwMS who are ‘transitioning to’ or have become secondary progressive, which will inform the content and tone of our response to NICE. As always our role as MSologists and MS HCPs is to be patient advocates; I sincerely hope we won’t let you down. 

What components of  ‘disease activity’ do you think should define active SPMS?

What timeframe should be used to define active SPMS?

Do you actively screen for and diagnose SPMS in patients on DMTs?

Do you actively avoid diagnosing SPMS so that you don’t have to stop their DMT?

Do you generally stop DMTs in patients who have transitioned to becoming secondary progressive?

What concerns you when stopping DMTs in patients who have transitioned to becoming secondary progressive?

Do you think it is appropriate to stop DMTs in patients who have transitioned to becoming secondary progressive to see if they become active?

Do you start or switch patients who you have diagnosed as having active SPMS onto interferon-beta-1b according to NHS England’s or other guidelines?

Do you have any patients under your care who have become secondary progressive on DMTs who are now wheelchair-bound (EDSS>6.5)?

CoI: multiple

The Hopebird is singing

Today the EU licensed siponimod for the treatment of active secondary progressive MS. It has been a very long and winding road to get here.

Siponimod is not an eagle, phoenix or maven, but rather a hopebird which symbolises the importance of “an optimistic approach to what lies ahead”. Less than a decade ago we were telling our patients with a progressive course that they were beyond hope, that has now changed. 

Being able to offer treatment to people with SPMS will be a challenge to the NHS, because of the way our services are configured, but it is doable. If there is a will to make it happen it will happen.

The next task is to challenge the term ‘active’ SPMS. What does it really mean? How can you tell someone with worsening SPMS they don’t have active SPMS. I think it is time to challenge the old dogmas that thave crept into our field. I also hope siponimod will be a segway into a new era of combination therapy.

CoI: multiple; in particular, I sit on the Siponimod SPMS trial steering committee

Is siponimod the first cul-de-sac DMT?

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer  ★

A big worry for neurologists and pwMS is the sequencing of DMTs. What DMTs can be used before and after each other and does the sequencing of DMTs change the risk profile of the individual DMTs concerned? These have been dealt with many times on this blog and I am in the final stages of completing phase 1 of my app that will address the specific issues around each DMT. 

Another issue relates to the specifics of the label and how we classify patients; this is particularly problematic when it comes to the EMA’s label for siponimod, i.e. “treatment of adult patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) with active disease evidenced by relapses or imaging features of inflammatory activity (see section 5.1)”. 

To prescribe siponimod we will have to (1) label the patient concerned as having secondary progressive MS and (2) provide evidence, at least in the UK, that the patient has active disease. The latter would be relapses and/or evidence of MRI activity (new or enlarging T2 lesions or Gd-enhancing lesions). The latest NICE guidance, which is trying to standardise the definition states that MRI activity is “1 T1 gadolinium-enhancing lesion at baseline MRI or a significant increase in T2-lesion load compared with a previous MRI”. Although we haven’t been given a specific time period it is likely to refer to the last 24 months. 

Some questions. If the relapses and MRI activity occurred prior to the diagnosis of SPMS can they still be counted? Or does the diagnosis of SPMS rebaseline patients? I think the answer should be somewhere in between these two extremes. As the diagnosis of SPMS is retrospective the baseline or clock for assessing disease activity should be set when the first objective evidence of worsening was documented. In reality, this is typically 6 or 12 months in the past depending on the frequency of follow-up appointments. The definition of SPMS requires at least 6 months of worsening disability independent of relapse activity. The problem here is that to have active SPMS you also need to have had a relapse and/or MRI activity in this period as well. So it becomes very difficult to untangle worsening from relapses from worsening independent of relapses. These definitions are a mess!

In an ideal world, all the above may make sense, but this does not take into account the reluctance of neurologists and HCPs to document or label their patients as having SPMS. In some countries, a label of SPMS means the current DMTs may need to be stopped. Also the label SPMS has other negative connotations; it is often interpreted as having a second disease, importantly a disease that is not modifiable. I know this happens a lot. When we tried to recruit study subjects for our PROXIMUS study (add-on neuroprotection with oxcarbazepine) my colleagues were reluctant to refer their patients for the trial as it required them to diagnose early SPMS and nobody wanted to do that. 

Another issue that arises is that once someone is labelled as having SPMS can you unlabel them and refer to them as having relapsing MS? Common wisdom says no. In other words, once you have transitioned (and I hate this term) to becoming SPMS you can’t go backwards. This has major implications for patients with active SPMS; once you are on siponimod it may close the door to the other DMTs as they are not licensed, at least in Europe, for SPMS. I suspect this will be one of the biggest hurdles for the widespread adoption of siponimod for active SPMS in the UK. In other words, siponimod will become the cul-de-sac or dead-end DMT until another DMT is licensed for SPMS.  I can already see NHS England making it impossible to switch someone who is failing on siponimod, can’t tolerate it, or develops adverse events that require stopping siponimod, onto another high-cost DMT that is licensed for RRMS.

I think we as an MS community need to make the argument that you can flip-flop between MS subtypes. We have evidence buried in the trial data that a subset of patient labelled as having SPMS behave as having RRMS, i.e. their EDSS scores improve despite superimposed relapses. Similarly, there is a subgroup of patients with ‘inactive’ or ‘smouldering’ SPMS who have not had a relapse for years suddenly become active. The same thing happens with PPMS; approximately 25% of pwPPMS will go onto have superimposed relapses. Surely these people have relapsing MS rather than PPMS? Calling them progressive-relapsing MS does not deal with the biology of the disease in these patients nor their treatment. Leaving them as having a form of PPMS means that are only eligible for ocrelizumab, whereas relabeling them as having RMS opens up many more treatment options for these patients.

These arguments are more than just semantics they have real-life implications for individuals with MS and how we treat their disease.

At the end of the day, we can avoid all these arguments by defining MS as one disease and not two or three diseases (#MS_is_1_not_2_or_3_diseases). Until we do this siponimod, despite the hype and hope around its anticipated launch, is likely to not to be used as much as it should be used to avoid putting patients down a treatment pathway that is a cul-de-sac.

CoI: multiple

Hopebird

The debate about what is active and inactive secondary progressive MS will not be settled by the EMA adopting a positive opinion, recommending the granting of a marketing authorisation for siponimod, which is now ‘licensed’ for the treatment of adult patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) with active disease. Siponimod reduces disability progression in people with active SPMS. The most common side effects are headache, hypertension and increased liver enzyme levels. The full indication is: “treatment of adult patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) with active disease evidenced by relapses or imaging features of inflammatory activity (see section 5.1)”

This label will disappoint the many pwSPMS who don’t have active scans and therefore won’t be eligible for DMTs. I have commented on what is and is not active SPMS in the past. I think the siponimod label entrenches the MRIcentric worldview of what is active MS. We know that the majority of people dying with SPMS have ongoing inflammation in their brains and spinal cords at post-mortem. Try telling someone with SPMS who is getting worse that they don’t have active MS because they have no enhancing, or new or enlarging T2, lesions on MRI. And what about using CSF and/or peripheral blood neurofilament levels to assess activity? We clearly need to challenge the EMA’s and FDA’s definitions of what is active SPMS.

At least the licensing of siponimod for treating SPMS is a big positive for the field and indicates that we are beginning to address the unmet need in treating more advanced MS. 

The impact that this will have on our MS services should not be underestimated. We are now going to have to monitor our SPMS patients with annual MRI scans. Do we have the resources for this? What about the extra follow-up clinic slots? This alongside ocrelizumab for active PPMS is going to put a major strain on our MS services. Will our managers give us more resources?

Siponimod may not be an eagle, phoenix or maven, but rather a hopebird which symbolises the importance of “an optimistic approach to what lies ahead” and why it is important to have a “glass half full” attitude. Less than a decade ago we were telling our patients with a progressive course that they were beyond hope, that has now changed. 

CoI: multiple

%%footer%%