Sweden – Prof G's MS Blog Archive

#MSCOVID19 ocrelizumab

Roche is the first company to publish their data on how patients with MS are doing with COVID-19 who are being treated with ocrelizumab. Please note the data is on the first 100 cases that have been reported to Roche via their adverse event (AE) reporting mechanisms. Twenty-six of the cases have been reported as being severe with 5 being critical (see table below). These figures are pretty much in line with what happens in the general population in relation to COVID-19 outcomes with a similar proportion of severe and critical cases. The one caveat is that ocrelizumab-treated patients may be younger and have fewer comorbidities than the general population.

Some of my colleagues have accused Roche of hiding data and selective reporting. Why would they do that? Pharma’s pharmacovigilance systems are transparent and open to audit by the regulators. It is not in Roche’s interests to not be open and frank about their data. At the end of the day, the data is what it is and we need to use it to help us make decisions about treatment.

I agree the data is full of warts and open to interpretation. It is likely to be biased in that clinicians are more likely to report hospitalised and severe cases as AEs and miss the milder cases. For example, I have collected 9 patients who have likely had COVID-19 over the last 8-10 weeks. Only one of these nine patients was admitted to a hospital with moderate COVID-19. In this case, the COVID-19 syndrome was confirmed on chest x-ray and other clinical features and her nasopharyngeal swab was positive for SARS-CoV-2. She was fortunately discharged after 4 days well and didn’t need any ventilatory support. The other 8 patients with MS all self-isolated and recovered at home and had no swabs taken. Only the admitted patient is part of the UK’s official figures the other 8 cases are not. Patients with COVID-19 who have mild disease, who don’t come to the hospital to get swabbed don’t get counted in the official figures. The same phenomenon is almost certainly happening with ocrelizumab and our other DMTs. Mild cases are not getting swabbed, diagnosed and reported. I, therefore, suspect that the Roche data represents the worse end of the spectrum.

Overall the Roche data is in keeping with the Italian, French and other registry data that people with MS on ocrelizumab don’t appear to be at higher risk of getting severe COVID-19. This also needs to be interpreted in the context of the immunology of COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2. It looks as if innate immunity (monocytes and macrophages) and T-cells, in particular CD8+ T-cells, are the most important lines of defence against SARS-CoV-2. The fact that two patients with X-linked agammaglobulinaemia recovered from COVID-19 and that anti-CD20 treated patients with no B-cells in the peripheral blood are recovering from COVID-19 tells you that B-cells are not essential for the antiviral response. The latter is also in keeping with the trial data that patients on B-cell depleting therapies don’t seem to have a problem dealing with viral infections.

Could there be an upside to B-cell depletion? Yes, I suspect there may be. As the humoral or antibody response emerges antibody-mediated damage to lung with complement activation may be responsible for some of the delayed tissue damage that occurs in COVID-19. This is why it will be important to get more data and better-defined comparator groups to see if anti-CD20 therapy treated patients may be doing better than expected. The recently presented Swedish data suggests not. However, the Swedish data is on rituximab, and not ocrelizumab, and the rituximab doses used in Sweden may not be high enough to block antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 and hence the data can’t simply be extrapolated to ocrelizumab or vice versa. For those of you who don’t know ocrelizumab is a much more potent B-cell depleter than rituximab.

Now, what about vaccine readiness? Are people on ocrelizumab less likely to develop an antibody response after COVID-19 and if they do is the antibody response good quality, i.e. capable of neutralizing the virus and preventing reinfection? We are in the process of validating an ultrasensitive assay and doing an antibody study to answer this question. So watch this space.

Even if antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 are blunted in ocrelizumabers, who have had COVID-19, this doesn’t mean they are not immune to reinfection. Cellular responses are likely to be sufficient to prevent reinfection. The latter has been shown to occur with the measles virus.

Vaccine readiness may become a real issue if a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 emerges. However, I suggest crossing that bridge when we get there. With anti-CD20 therapies, all you will have to do is miss a dose or two, wait for naive B-cell reconstitution and then have the vaccine. We have very good data that after 3 or 4 courses of ocrelizumab missing infusions for the next 12-18 months is unlikely to affect MS disease activity. The latter observation is why we are still planning to do an adaptive-dosing study in the UK (ADIOS Study).

I personally want to congratulate and thank Roche for putting their data into the public domain so rapidly. I have asked other Pharmaceutical companies to do the same. Having access to this data alongside other real-life data sets is what we and others are using to adjust treatment guidelines and is why we as an MS treatment centre are starting and redosing patients with MS with ocrelizumab. At last, we can say our practice is evidence-based rather than opinion-based.

Hughes et al. COVID-19 in persons with multiple sclerosis treated with ocrelizumab – a pharmacovigilance case series. MSARDs Available online 16 May 2020, 102192.

CoI: Multiple. Importantly I am a steering committee member on the ocrelizumab phase 3 development programme and I am PI on the ORATORIO-HAND study of ocrelizumab in PPMS.

Can MS be adoptively transferred?

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer ★★★

How much of your mother is inside you?

Cells from the maternal circulation (your mother) cross the placenta into the foetal circulation (you) and set-up shop in your brain and body. This phenomenon is called maternal microchimerism and is very common and may be more common in people with autoimmune disease. The implications, or hypothesis, is that cellular autoimmunity may be transmitted in this way. Could this explain why MS occurs at more than twice the familial rate in children of mothers, when compared to children of fathers, with MS?

The figure is from ‘Fetal microchimerism and maternal health: A review and evolutionary analysis of cooperation and conflict beyond the womb‘.

These maternal cells can be found in men by looking for female cells, i.e those that contain more than two X chromosomes.

The small study below does not show a difference between finding these cells in the brains of men with and without MS. Maybe the investigators’ should look in the immune compartment to see if maternal B- and/or T-cells could be found? Just maybe autoimmunity, or specifically MS, can be transferred from mother to child via the adoptive transfer of autoreactive B- and T-cells through the placenta? If this was the case then children born to pwMS on natalizumab may be more at risk? Why? Natalizumab is the one DMT that does not deplete the so-called peripheral autoreactive cells; in fact, natalizumab keeps them circulating in the periphery in high numbers hence making them more likely to cross the placenta in the foetal circulation.

The only way to find this out if children of natalizumab-treated pwMS are increased risk of getting MS is to start and run a pregnancy registry to collect data longterm and to follow-up all the children born to pwMS to see what happens to them in the future.

The good news is that Dr Ruth in our group will be doing just that a and will be launching a national UK pregnancy register with the aim of also collecting the outcomes of the children.

Another more sinister way to answer this question is via state surveillance, or Big Brother, which happens in Nordic countries. Sweden has probably the most mature system of state-sponsored surveillance and they could link all their databases to answer this question in the near future.

Snethen et al. Maternal micro-chimeric cells in the multiple sclerosis brain. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020 Jan 9;40:101925. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2020.101925.

Maternal microchimeric cells (MMC) pass across the placenta from a mother to her baby during pregnancy. MMC have been identified in healthy adults, but have been reported to be more frequent and at a higher concentration in individuals with autoimmune diseases. MMC in brain tissue from individuals with autoimmune neurological disease has never previously been explored. The present study aims to identify and quantify MMC in adult human brain from control and multiple sclerosis (MS) affected individuals using fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) with a probe for the X and Y chromosomes. Post mortem brain tissue from 6 male MS cases and 6 male control cases were examined. Female cells presumed to be MMC were identified in 5/6 MS cases and 6/6 control cases. Cell specific labelling identified female cells of neuronal and immune phenotype in both control and active MS lesion tissue. This study shows that female cells presumed to be MMC are a common phenomenon in the adult human brain where they appear to have embedded into brain tissue with the ability to express tissue-specific markers.

CoI: multiple

Zero stars

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer – zero stars

Some of our readers are not satisfied with the Swedish Gothenburg 50-year follow-up data on MS outcomes, I presented yesterday; they make the comment that the data is out of date. However, there are very few databases that have 50+ year follow-up data; one of them is the Swedish National MS Register.

The following is the latest Swedish registry data that has recently been published on long-term outcomes. Please note the Swedish register includes over 98% of pwMS living in Sweden so it is arguably the best population-based MS database that exists.

As you can see from figure over 90% of people in the registry with relapse-onset MS develop SPMS and over 90% eventually need a walking aid 50 years after clinical disease onset. This population includes pwMS from the pre-DMT era and post-DMT era. So the rosy-looking Gothenburg data loses it rosy-tint and becomes very grey when diluted out with the remainder of the country’s data.

Manouchehrinia et al. Clinical Course of Multiple Sclerosis: A Nationwide Cohort Study. Mult Scler, 23 (11), 1488-1495 Oct 2017.

Background: The course of multiple sclerosis (MS) has been studied in several cohorts; however, results have varied significantly.

Objective: To describe the clinical course of MS in a nationwide cohort of patients.

Method: Data from the Swedish MS register (SMSreg) were used to estimate the median time to the sustained Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores 3.0, 4.0 and 6.0, onset of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) and death using Kaplan-Meier method. A possible effect of first-line treatments on age at EDSS 6.0 and SPMS was estimated.

Results: In all, 12,703 patients were included. Median ages at EDSS scores 3.0, 4.0 and 6.0 were 55.4 (95% confidence interval (CI): 54.8-55.8), 60.7 (95% CI: 60.1-61.2) and 64.3 (95% CI: 63.6-64.7), respectively. Median age at SPMS was 57.4 (95% CI: 56.9-57.9). The median age at the time of death was 80.5 (95% CI: 79.9-81.1). Males and progressive-onset patients showed higher risks of disability worsening. On average, treated patients gained 1.6 years (95% CI: 0.2-3) to EDSS 6.0 as a result of treatment.

Conclusion: Ages at disability milestones in this population-based cohort were higher than previously described in clinic- and regional-based samples. Nevertheless, MS patients die at younger age and live at an average almost 20 years with moderate and 30 years with severe disability.

CoI: multiple

Glass-half-full

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer ★★★★★

I was attacked yesterday for painting a too bleak picture of MS outcomes and for not focusing on the fact that some pwMS actually age well and do well in the long-term. I apologise for being so negative, hence this post to address the data gap.

The best data we have on the longterm follow-up of pwMS in a ‘community-setting’ is the Gothenburg study. In Gothenburg, they were fortunate to have 50+ year systematic follow-up of an original cohort of pwMS, who were born between 1950 and 1964. Of the 202 patients with an initial relapsing-remitting course, the probability of non-progressive disease after 40 years was 22% and after 50 years it was 14%. So 1 in 7 patients with relapse-onset disease had not become secondary progressive after 50 years of follow-up. Importantly, these patients were functioning well socially. Nine of them had an EDSS of 0-2.5, and four patients had a score of 3 or 3.5, with most of their disability dating back to attacks from decades ago. These 1 in 7 patients have what I call ‘burnt-out’ MS.

Eight of these patients, who underwent a complete and detailed neuropsychological examination, showed some cognitive impairment concerning memory and executive function compared to an age and socially matched control group. This indicates that even in these ‘burnt-out ageing-well’ cohort that MS has clipped some of their cognition. i.e. they have some hidden disabilities.

At the last follow-up of this group of patients in 2009-10, when the group had reached the average age of the Swedish population life expectancy, only 13 patients remained alive and non-progressive. That is 6.5% were alive and well compared to an expected rate of 50% for the general population.

It is important to point out that as these patients are from a pre-DMT era these figures should be viewed as the worst-case-scenario. I would expect them to be much better than this now and, importantly, they will get better over time as we learn to diagnose and treat MS earlier and more effectively.

I like to think of MS outcomes as a bell-curve with a small proportion of people who can expect to age normally. But as we improve outcomes we shift the curve to the right with more and more pwMS having a good outcome.

I don’t like to think of myself as a glass-half-empty, hopefully, this bell curve will make you realise that I am a glass-half-full.

Bengt Skoog et al. A Representative Cohort of Patients With Non-Progressive Multiple Sclerosis at the Age of Normal Life Expectancy. Brain, 135 (Pt 3), 900-11 Mar 2012.

Multiple sclerosis may have a non-progressive symptomatology for decades; however, it is not clear whether the disease activity may abate completely. We identified a cohort of patients, resident in Gothenburg at the time of disease onset, between the years 1950-64 (n = 307). These geographical and temporal restrictions, along with favourable conditions for a ‘spider’ epidemiological study, were optimal for an unbiased selection; this 15-year incidence cohort was essentially followed prospectively for 37-59 years after onset. The shortest follow-up time for patients without primary or secondary progression was 45 years. For patients with an initial relapsing-remitting course and multiple sclerosis diagnosis according to the Poser criteria (n = 202), the probability of non-progressive disease after 40 years was 22% (standard error 3.0%), and after 50 years it was 14% (standard error 3.2%). For attack onset including patients with possible multiple sclerosis, the corresponding probabilities after 40 and 50 years were 35% (standard error 3.3%) and 28% (standard error 3.5%), respectively. At the last follow-up in 2009-10, when patients reached the average age of the Swedish population life expectancy, only 13 patients from the multiple sclerosis diagnosis cohort, according to the Poser criteria, remained alive and non-progressive. Their annualized attack frequency diminished with time from 0.29 to 0.015. These patients had been functioning well socially. Nine patients had an Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 0-2.5, and four patients had a score of 3 or 3.5, with deficits dating back to attacks decades ago. Eight patients participated in a complete neuropsychological examination, which showed a slight difference (P < 0.01) concerning verbal memory and executive function compared to an age and socially matched reference group, whereas results for five other cognitive domains were within the normal range. Magnetic resonance images fulfilled the Barkhof-Tintoré criteria for multiple sclerosis in 10 of 11 patients, with conspicuously few subcortical lesions relative to extensive periventricular lesions and lesions extending from the inferior midline aspect of the corpus callosum. Prediction of the non-progressive stage was possible with moderate hazard ratios and low sensitivity. Early features that predicted a non-progressive course were complete remission of the onset attack, low or moderate initial relapse frequency and-when the patients with possible multiple sclerosis were included-dominating afferent symptoms. The clinical disease activity had abated in these 13 patients, with the caveat that transition to secondary progression continued to occur after four decades, albeit with decreasing risk.

CoI: multiple

Why is everyone drinking anti-CD20 kool-aid?

Prof G will ocrelizumab and rituximab prevent SPMS?

Just back from the COMBAT-MS stakeholders meeting in Pasadena with the Kaiser (Kaiser Foundation Research Institute) and Swedish (Karolinska Institute) trial teams, PCORI (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute) and many brave an wonderful people with MS and their families.

The COMBAT-MS study (NCT03193866) is recruiting well and is on schedule to deliver very important comparative data on the effectiveness of rituximab in real-life. The full title of the study is ‘COMparison Between All immunoTherapies for Multiple Sclerosis. An Observational Long-term Prospective Cohort Study of Safety, Efficacy and Patient’s Satisfaction of MS Disease Modulatory Treatments in Relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis’. In short, COMBAT-MS will be comparing Rituximab with Natalizumab, Fingolimod, Alemtuzumab, Interferon-beta, Glatiramer acetate and Dimethyl Fumarate. Because the use of alemtuzumab seems to be quite limited in Sweden, with the majority of patients going onto rituximab, the study will not have enough power to compare rituximab with alemtuzumab. This a great pity because the real question I have is how does anti-CD20 therapy compare to our top-guns, i.e. alemtuzumab and HSCT. This question is becoming a priority for me.

We had a comprehensive safety update from the COMBAT-MS trial team, which will be presented later this year. However, the safety profile of rituximab is broadly in keeping with what is seen in rheumatology, with a few interesting exceptions. However, the overall safety profile will help with the adoption of rituximab as a treatment of MS in resource-poor environments.

I included in my presentation on why I think anti-CD20 is not good enough to treat MS in the long term and why we need to think beyond NEDA. I presented data, mainly from ocrelizumab, that shows MS continues to smoulder away on ocrelizumab despite patients being NEDA. The response to the data was what we are seeing was simply secondary progressive MS. Yes and no. It may be a secondary progressive disease, but the pathology driving smouldering MS (microglial activation, slowly expanding lesions, subpial cortical lesions, intrathecal immunoglobulin production, demyelination, mitochondrial toxicity and energy failure, oxidative damage, delayed axonal loss, synaptic pruning, premature ageing, etc.) are all present at the very earliest stages of the disease, even the asymptomatic stage of the disease, i.e. radiologically isolated syndromes. This is why I don’t think SPMS really exists and why MS is one and not two or three diseases.

The construct that MS has distinct phases, an early inflammatory and a delayed degenerative phase, is artificial and comes from the Pharma industry’s need to get interferon-beta licensed under the orphan drug act, i.e. MS had to have a prevalence of fewer than 200,000 affected people for the orphan drug act to apply. The only way to get the numbers down to less than 200,000 was to salami-slice up MS into three diseases, i.e. RRMS, SPMS and PPMS. Later on, a fourth category, CIS (clinically isolated syndrome) was added. However, CIS has largely disappeared as a category because of diagnostic creep and the earlier diagnosis of MS with the evolving definition of MS based on the newer versions of the McDonald criteria. Having looked hard I can find no scientific justification for making SPMS a different disease.

In my opinion, smouldering MS and the pathologies driving it do not seem to be anti-CD20 responsive. If they were then we would see a much better impact of anti-CD20 on brain volume loss, disease improvement and the slowly expanding lesion. What does this mean for people with MS? It means that anti-CD20 therapies may be a good platform to start on but you will require additional add-on therapies to stop smouldering MS. Can I please urge you to re-read Stephen Hauser’s case report below. You may argue that one swallow doesn’t make a summer, but Stephen Hauser implied two year’s ago in a response to a question at ECTRIMS that anti-CD20 was not the panacea everyone wants it to be and that a lot of his long-term rituximab-treated patients were now secondary progressive, i.e. they had smouldering MS.

The concept of smouldering MS is a difficult one for people in the field to grasp. Why? It is because NEDA-3 has become de-facto what defines MS. We need to move beyond what we can see and measure and focus on end-organ markers of disease activity, i.e. whole brain and regional or grey matter volumes, the expanding MS lesions, neurofilament levels and more sensitive clinical outcomes. An EDSS view of the world is simply too narrow. We need to look at cognition, visual function and more sensitive functional tests of different neuronal systems. One of the attendees was horrified when I said that the best thing that could happen to the field is if we could automate the neurological examination using a validated technology platform. The idea of using a neurologist to assess eye movements and balance, when it can be done so much better with eye tracking systems and balance sensors, shocked this individual. Bring on the robots and maybe our worldview of MS, in particular, smouldering MS, would change.

I was also able to deliver good news about our WHO Essential Medicine List (EML) application that includes ocrelizumab as one of the three drugs and rituximab as a suitable replacement for ocrelizumab if access to ocrelizumab is a problem. If our EML application is successful this will allow us to pressurise governments to prioritise the treatment of MS in low prevalence countries. I explained to the group that what had started out for me as an ‘Essential Off-label DMT list’ in 2014, may become an official WHO-backed Essential DMT list in 2019. I am holding thumbs we get MS onto the EML, it needs to be there for many reasons.

I also covered in my talk alternative hypotheses, i.e. that MS may be due to a virus and that our current world-view of MS being an autoimmune disease driven by T and B-cells may be wrong. I briefly presented the B-cell-EBV hypothesis and our proposed EBV vaccination trial. I stressed that we need to use anti-CD20 as a tool to explore the EBV hypothesis and the good news is that Fredrik Piehl is going to explore EBV biomarkers as part of the COMBAT-MS study.

I used my lecture to represent my ‘marginal gains’ philosophy as it applies to treating MS and how we need to manage MS holistically and focus on the small things that may make a big difference to MS outcomes in the future. This is only the second time that I have presented this concept to my peer group, but it is something that still needs work to make it sticky.

The following are my slides from the meeting, which you can download from my slide sharing site.

I would like to thank PCORI and the Kaiser team for including me in this study and for your wonderful hospitality. I have little doubt that the COMBAT-MS study is going to help change the way the MS community treats MS globally. I would also like to thank the MSers who attended and spoke at the meeting; you are are the reason why we are doing what we do.

von Büdingen et al. Onset of secondary progressive MS after long-term rituximab therapy – a case report. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2016 Dec 20;4(1):46-52.

A patient with relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) was treated with a standard immunomodulatory therapy, but due to ongoing disease activity was switched to rituximab. Relapses ceased, but secondary progressive MS (SPMS) eventually appeared, associated with new focal spinal cord white matter lesions. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) showed persistent oligoclonal bands (OCB) and clonally related B cells in CSF and peripheral blood. The treatment escalation approach failed to prevent evolution to SPMS, raising the question of whether initiation of B-cell depleting therapy at the time of RMS diagnosis should be tested to more effectively address the immune pathology leading to SPMS.

CoI: multiple

Playing second fiddle to the Swedes

Why can’t we use anti-CD20 therapies as immune constitution therapies?

For some years we have been promoting our Barts-MS Essential DMT list to treat people with MS (pwMS) in resource-poor environments. One of the big guns on our list has been rituximab (anti-CD20). One of the problems is that rituximab at a dose of 1g every 6 months is still too expensive to accessible for the vast majority of MSers living in these environments. The good news is that several developments have brought the price of rituximab down.

The Swedes, who are treating more than half their MS population, have data showing that 500mg every 6 months is as good as 1g every 6 months in terms of NEDA, i.e. preventing new relapses and new MR lesions from forming.
Rituximab has come off patent and several cheap biosimilars are now entering the market.
The Swedes are also testing adaptive dosing, i.e. after 2 years of 6 monthly infusions, they are extending the interval between doses to 12 months or more and/or are even beginning to redose rituximab based on peripheral memory B-cell reconstitution. At a recent meeting, I was at one Swedish neurologist is beginning to use rituximab as an IRT (immune reconstitution therapy), i.e. only redosing with rituximab if and when disease activity re-emerges.

I classify anti-CD20 therapies as both a maintenance therapy and an IRT. At the last AAN in Los Angeles, I attended a meeting of like-minded clinical scientists to set-up a trial to test anti-CD20 as a maintenance therapy vs. an IRT. The retreatment arms of the trial were to test redosing based on the reemergence of disease activity or the repopulation of memory B cells. Using anti-CD20 therapies as an IRT has appeal as it will almost certainly be safer in terms of infections, the emergence of hypogammaglobulinaemia and ability to respond to vaccines.

I am therefore very interested in seeing the results of the Swedish experiment of testing rituximab as a maintenance therapy vs. rituximab as an IRT. Just maybe we can get the price of treating MS with rituximab down to affordable levels for low-income countries.

The following is a back of envelope calculations based on the current BNF prices:

Mabthera (Roche) 500mg = £873.15 per 500mg vial
Rixathon (Sandoz) = £785.84 per 500mg vial
Truxima (Napp) = £785.84 per 500mg vial

Standard dose (1g) Mabthera maintenance regimen: 1g Day 0, 1g Day 14 then 1g 6 monthly indefinitely = £873.15 x 10= £8731.50 for the first 2 years and then £3492.60 annually.
Standard dose (1g) biosimilar maintenance regimen: 1g Day 0, 1g Day 14 then 1g 6 monthly indefinitely = £785.84 x 5 = £7858.40 for the first 2 years and then £3143.36 annually.
Reduced dose (500mg) Mabthera maintenance regimen: 1g Day 0, 1g Day 14 then 1g 6 monthly indefinitely = £873.15 x 10= £4365.75 for the first 2 years and then £1746.30 annually.
Reduced dose (500mg) biosimilar maintenance regimen: 1g Day 0, 500mg Day 14 then 500mg 6 monthly indefinitely = £785.84 x 5 = £3929.20 for the first 2 years and then £1571.68 annually.
Reduced dose (500mg) biosimilar maintenance regimen: 500mg Day 0, 500mg Day 14 then 500mg 6 monthly indefinitely = £785.84 x 5 = £3929.20 for the first 2 years and then £1571.68 annually.
Adaptive dose (500mg) biosimilar maintenance regimen: 500mg Day 0, 500mg Day 14 then 500mg 6 monthly for 2year and then 500mg approximately every 12 months = £785.84 x 5 = £3929.20 for the first 2 years and then £785.84 annually (the latter may be lower if redosing is done using peripheral B cell reconstitution).

Please note these figures are the list price and don’t include discounts, VAT nor the infusion costs. In reality, these costs could come down with central, say NHS, purchasing power. Unfortunately, they are still too high to help pwMS in low-income countries. Just maybe getting MS and anti-CD20 therapies onto the WHO Essential Medicines List may bring down the costs by creating political pressure on the Pharma industry or innovations in making cheap biosimilars may also help.

The Caveat

There is one major caveat I have about putting up anti-CD20 as the solution for MS is that we may be getting it wrong. I personally don’t think relapses and focal MRI activity are the disease we call MS; these markers are an inflammatory response to what is causing the disease. Therefore I suspect we may be lulling ourselves into a false sense of security with anti-CD20 therapies and ignoring what is really driving the disease, i.e. what is causing the end-organ damage in MS.

Do we know what is driving the slowly expanding lesion? What is causing the extensive cortical lesions in MS, which we can’t see on conventional MRI? What is driving the progressive brain volume and grey matter loss in MS? Don’t we need to go beyond NEDA as a treatment target? I know some would argue we have done this already, which is why so many MSers want HSCT as a first-line treatment option.