User login
FDA approves intramuscular administration for peginterferon beta-1a in MS
“The new IM administration offers people living with relapsing MS the well-characterized efficacy and safety of Plegridy with the potential for significantly reduced injection site reactions,” Biogen said in a news release announcing the FDA action.
Plegridy is a pegylated version of interferon beta-1a, which prolongs the circulation time of the molecule in the body by increasing its size. The process extends the drug’s half-life, allowing for a less-frequent dosing schedule.
Peginterferon beta-1a administered subcutaneously was first approved by the FDA in 2014 based on data showing it significantly reduces MS relapses, disability progression, and brain lesions.
The FDA approved IM administration for peginterferon beta-1a based on data evaluating bioequivalence and adverse reactions associated with IM administration compared with subcutaneous (SC) administration in healthy volunteers.
Bioequivalence of the IM and SC dosing regimens was confirmed and volunteers receiving the drug through IM administration experienced fewer injection site reactions relative to those receiving SC administration (14.4% vs. 32.1%), the company said.
The overall safety profiles of IM and SC administration were generally similar, with no new safety signals.
The European Commission allowed marketing authorization for IM administration of peginterferon beta-1a in December 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“The new IM administration offers people living with relapsing MS the well-characterized efficacy and safety of Plegridy with the potential for significantly reduced injection site reactions,” Biogen said in a news release announcing the FDA action.
Plegridy is a pegylated version of interferon beta-1a, which prolongs the circulation time of the molecule in the body by increasing its size. The process extends the drug’s half-life, allowing for a less-frequent dosing schedule.
Peginterferon beta-1a administered subcutaneously was first approved by the FDA in 2014 based on data showing it significantly reduces MS relapses, disability progression, and brain lesions.
The FDA approved IM administration for peginterferon beta-1a based on data evaluating bioequivalence and adverse reactions associated with IM administration compared with subcutaneous (SC) administration in healthy volunteers.
Bioequivalence of the IM and SC dosing regimens was confirmed and volunteers receiving the drug through IM administration experienced fewer injection site reactions relative to those receiving SC administration (14.4% vs. 32.1%), the company said.
The overall safety profiles of IM and SC administration were generally similar, with no new safety signals.
The European Commission allowed marketing authorization for IM administration of peginterferon beta-1a in December 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“The new IM administration offers people living with relapsing MS the well-characterized efficacy and safety of Plegridy with the potential for significantly reduced injection site reactions,” Biogen said in a news release announcing the FDA action.
Plegridy is a pegylated version of interferon beta-1a, which prolongs the circulation time of the molecule in the body by increasing its size. The process extends the drug’s half-life, allowing for a less-frequent dosing schedule.
Peginterferon beta-1a administered subcutaneously was first approved by the FDA in 2014 based on data showing it significantly reduces MS relapses, disability progression, and brain lesions.
The FDA approved IM administration for peginterferon beta-1a based on data evaluating bioequivalence and adverse reactions associated with IM administration compared with subcutaneous (SC) administration in healthy volunteers.
Bioequivalence of the IM and SC dosing regimens was confirmed and volunteers receiving the drug through IM administration experienced fewer injection site reactions relative to those receiving SC administration (14.4% vs. 32.1%), the company said.
The overall safety profiles of IM and SC administration were generally similar, with no new safety signals.
The European Commission allowed marketing authorization for IM administration of peginterferon beta-1a in December 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Is the EDSS an adequate outcome measure in secondary progressive MS trials?
Clinical trials enrolling patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) commonly use the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), an instrument that looks at impairment across several different functional domains, as a primary outcome measure. But results from
For their research, published in the Jan. 5 issue of Neurology, Marcus W. Koch, MD, PhD, of the department of neurosciences at Hotchkiss Brain Institute at the University of Calgary (Alta.) and colleagues looked at data from the placebo arms of two randomized trials that collectively enrolled nearly 700 patients with secondary progressive MS (SPMS). The trials were similar in terms of baseline patient characteristics and level of disability.
Comparing three outcome measures
The investigators compared disability progression and improvement across each of the three instruments and their combinations. Because improvement is understood to occur only rarely in untreated secondary progressive MS, most improvement picked up in the placebo arm of a trial is assumed to be noise from random variation or measurement error.
Dr. Koch and colleagues found that the EDSS showed higher rates of improvement than the other tests. The EDSS also showed the smallest differences between progression and improvement among the three instruments, with improvement rate over time increasing in parallel with disability progression rates. With the other two tests, improvement rates remained low – at 10% or less – while disability was seen steadily increasing over time.
The results, the investigators wrote in their analysis, suggest that the timed 25-foot walk and 9-hole peg test are the more reliable outcome measures. The reason “may simply lie in the fact that both the timed 25-foot walk and 9-hole peg test are objective and quantitative interval-scaled measures while the EDSS is a graded categorical measure.” As primary outcome measures in clinical trials, “the lower noise of the timed 25-foot walk and 9-hole peg test may make them preferable over the EDSS,” Dr. Koch and colleagues concluded. The investigators noted that a 2019 analysis of different MS disability scales across more than 13,000 patients in 14 trials did not find such stark differences – but that the patients in the pooled trials had less disability at baseline (median EDSS score of 2.5, compared with 6.0 for the two trials in Dr. Koch and colleagues’ study). This suggests, the investigators wrote, “that the timed 25-foot walk and 9-hole peg test may be more useful outcomes in patients with a progressive disease course and with greater baseline disability.”
‘Considerable implications’ for the design of future clinical trials
In an accompanying editorial, Tomas Kalincik, MD, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, along with colleagues in Italy and Britain, praised Dr. Koch and colleagues’ study as having “considerable implications for the design of future clinical trials because detecting a treatment effect on an outcome that is subject to large measurement error is difficult.” Most trials in progressive MS use change in EDSS score as their primary or key secondary outcomes. “However, as the authors elegantly show, other, more reliable clinical outcomes are needed. As we are revisiting our biological hypotheses for treatment of progressive MS, perhaps the time has come that we should also revisit the instruments that we use to examine their efficacy.”
The editorialists allowed for the possibility that something besides noise or measurement error could be responsible for the disparities seen across the instruments. “An alternative interpretation of the presented results could be that recovery of neurologic function is more common in SPMS than what we had previously thought and that EDSS is more sensitive to its detection than the other two measures,” they wrote.
Dr. Koch and colleagues’ study received no outside funding. Dr. Koch disclosed consulting fees and other financial support from several drug manufacturers, and three coauthors also disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. All three editorial writers disclosed similar relationships.
Clinical trials enrolling patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) commonly use the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), an instrument that looks at impairment across several different functional domains, as a primary outcome measure. But results from
For their research, published in the Jan. 5 issue of Neurology, Marcus W. Koch, MD, PhD, of the department of neurosciences at Hotchkiss Brain Institute at the University of Calgary (Alta.) and colleagues looked at data from the placebo arms of two randomized trials that collectively enrolled nearly 700 patients with secondary progressive MS (SPMS). The trials were similar in terms of baseline patient characteristics and level of disability.
Comparing three outcome measures
The investigators compared disability progression and improvement across each of the three instruments and their combinations. Because improvement is understood to occur only rarely in untreated secondary progressive MS, most improvement picked up in the placebo arm of a trial is assumed to be noise from random variation or measurement error.
Dr. Koch and colleagues found that the EDSS showed higher rates of improvement than the other tests. The EDSS also showed the smallest differences between progression and improvement among the three instruments, with improvement rate over time increasing in parallel with disability progression rates. With the other two tests, improvement rates remained low – at 10% or less – while disability was seen steadily increasing over time.
The results, the investigators wrote in their analysis, suggest that the timed 25-foot walk and 9-hole peg test are the more reliable outcome measures. The reason “may simply lie in the fact that both the timed 25-foot walk and 9-hole peg test are objective and quantitative interval-scaled measures while the EDSS is a graded categorical measure.” As primary outcome measures in clinical trials, “the lower noise of the timed 25-foot walk and 9-hole peg test may make them preferable over the EDSS,” Dr. Koch and colleagues concluded. The investigators noted that a 2019 analysis of different MS disability scales across more than 13,000 patients in 14 trials did not find such stark differences – but that the patients in the pooled trials had less disability at baseline (median EDSS score of 2.5, compared with 6.0 for the two trials in Dr. Koch and colleagues’ study). This suggests, the investigators wrote, “that the timed 25-foot walk and 9-hole peg test may be more useful outcomes in patients with a progressive disease course and with greater baseline disability.”
‘Considerable implications’ for the design of future clinical trials
In an accompanying editorial, Tomas Kalincik, MD, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, along with colleagues in Italy and Britain, praised Dr. Koch and colleagues’ study as having “considerable implications for the design of future clinical trials because detecting a treatment effect on an outcome that is subject to large measurement error is difficult.” Most trials in progressive MS use change in EDSS score as their primary or key secondary outcomes. “However, as the authors elegantly show, other, more reliable clinical outcomes are needed. As we are revisiting our biological hypotheses for treatment of progressive MS, perhaps the time has come that we should also revisit the instruments that we use to examine their efficacy.”
The editorialists allowed for the possibility that something besides noise or measurement error could be responsible for the disparities seen across the instruments. “An alternative interpretation of the presented results could be that recovery of neurologic function is more common in SPMS than what we had previously thought and that EDSS is more sensitive to its detection than the other two measures,” they wrote.
Dr. Koch and colleagues’ study received no outside funding. Dr. Koch disclosed consulting fees and other financial support from several drug manufacturers, and three coauthors also disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. All three editorial writers disclosed similar relationships.
Clinical trials enrolling patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) commonly use the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), an instrument that looks at impairment across several different functional domains, as a primary outcome measure. But results from
For their research, published in the Jan. 5 issue of Neurology, Marcus W. Koch, MD, PhD, of the department of neurosciences at Hotchkiss Brain Institute at the University of Calgary (Alta.) and colleagues looked at data from the placebo arms of two randomized trials that collectively enrolled nearly 700 patients with secondary progressive MS (SPMS). The trials were similar in terms of baseline patient characteristics and level of disability.
Comparing three outcome measures
The investigators compared disability progression and improvement across each of the three instruments and their combinations. Because improvement is understood to occur only rarely in untreated secondary progressive MS, most improvement picked up in the placebo arm of a trial is assumed to be noise from random variation or measurement error.
Dr. Koch and colleagues found that the EDSS showed higher rates of improvement than the other tests. The EDSS also showed the smallest differences between progression and improvement among the three instruments, with improvement rate over time increasing in parallel with disability progression rates. With the other two tests, improvement rates remained low – at 10% or less – while disability was seen steadily increasing over time.
The results, the investigators wrote in their analysis, suggest that the timed 25-foot walk and 9-hole peg test are the more reliable outcome measures. The reason “may simply lie in the fact that both the timed 25-foot walk and 9-hole peg test are objective and quantitative interval-scaled measures while the EDSS is a graded categorical measure.” As primary outcome measures in clinical trials, “the lower noise of the timed 25-foot walk and 9-hole peg test may make them preferable over the EDSS,” Dr. Koch and colleagues concluded. The investigators noted that a 2019 analysis of different MS disability scales across more than 13,000 patients in 14 trials did not find such stark differences – but that the patients in the pooled trials had less disability at baseline (median EDSS score of 2.5, compared with 6.0 for the two trials in Dr. Koch and colleagues’ study). This suggests, the investigators wrote, “that the timed 25-foot walk and 9-hole peg test may be more useful outcomes in patients with a progressive disease course and with greater baseline disability.”
‘Considerable implications’ for the design of future clinical trials
In an accompanying editorial, Tomas Kalincik, MD, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, along with colleagues in Italy and Britain, praised Dr. Koch and colleagues’ study as having “considerable implications for the design of future clinical trials because detecting a treatment effect on an outcome that is subject to large measurement error is difficult.” Most trials in progressive MS use change in EDSS score as their primary or key secondary outcomes. “However, as the authors elegantly show, other, more reliable clinical outcomes are needed. As we are revisiting our biological hypotheses for treatment of progressive MS, perhaps the time has come that we should also revisit the instruments that we use to examine their efficacy.”
The editorialists allowed for the possibility that something besides noise or measurement error could be responsible for the disparities seen across the instruments. “An alternative interpretation of the presented results could be that recovery of neurologic function is more common in SPMS than what we had previously thought and that EDSS is more sensitive to its detection than the other two measures,” they wrote.
Dr. Koch and colleagues’ study received no outside funding. Dr. Koch disclosed consulting fees and other financial support from several drug manufacturers, and three coauthors also disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. All three editorial writers disclosed similar relationships.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Stem cell transplant shows long-term benefit in MS
The benefits of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) persist for more than 10 years in the majority of patents, new data show. The study reports on 210 Italian patients who underwent AHSCT between 2007 and 2019. Among the entire study cohort, 79.5% of patients had not experienced worsening of disability at 5 years, and 65.5% had not experienced it at 10 years.
Patients with relapsing remitting MS had better results, with 85.5% experiencing no worsening of disability at 5 years, and 71.3% at 10 years. Among patients with progressive MS, 71.0% showed no worsening of disability at 5 years, and 57.2% at 10 years.
“This is the longest follow-up of AHSCT in MS patients so far to be reported,” said study author Matilde Inglese, MD, University of Genoa (Italy). “We have shown AHSCT to be highly effective to prevent long-term disability worsening in most treated patients.”
The study was published online Jan. 20 in Neurology.
“We suggest that AHSCT should be considered as a treatment strategy for MS not responding to conventional therapy,” the authors concluded.
The study had no control group, so a direct comparison is not possible. Nevertheless, Dr. Inglese said she believed these results are better than those that would be achieved with disease-modifying drug therapy for similar patients.
“The best patient candidates for this procedure are those with highly active multiple sclerosis who are not responsive to high-efficacy drugs, such as alemtuzumab or ocrelizumab,” Dr. Inglese commented. “Younger patients with an aggressive form of relapsing remitting MS tend to do the best, although patients with progressive forms of MS who still have active lesions on MRI also benefit.”
Renewing the immune system
The transplant procedure involves giving high-dose cyclophosphamide to stimulate mobilization of bone marrow stem cells, which are collected from peripheral blood. Patients then undergo intense immunosuppression with a cocktail of drugs to remove the autoreactive T cells, and the stem cells, which are not autoreactive, are reinfused.
“We are effectively renewing the immune system,” Dr. Inglese said. “While it is not correct to call it a cure, as we are not eliminating the etiology of the disease, it is the closest to complete suppression of the disease that we can get.”
Other results from the study show that among patients with relapsing remitting MS, rates of relapse-free survival were 78.1% at 5 years and 63.5% at 10 years.
Better results were achieved for patients who received the BEAM+ATG conditioning regimen for immunosuppression. That regimen includes carmustine, cytosine-arabinoside, etoposide, and melphalan, followed by rabbit antithymocyte globulin. Among patients with relapsing remitting disease who were treated with this protocol, rates of relapse-free survival were 86.4% at 5 years and 77.0% at 10 years.
For patients with relapsing remitting MS, the probability of achieving NEDA-3 status (no evidence of disease activity, including the absence of clinical relapses, disability worsening, and MRI inflammatory activity) was 62.2% at 5 years and 40.5% at 10 years.
Among those patients with relapsing remitting MS who received the BEAM+ATG conditioning protocol, NEDA-3 status was achieved in 67.7% at 5 years and in 54.9% at 10 years.
Three deaths occurred within 100 days following AHSCT (1.4% of the entire study population). One patient developed pulmonary thromboembolism, received fibrinolytic treatment, and died 48 hours later after intracranial hemorrhage. The second patient experienced engraftment failure and died 24 days after transplant because of an opportunistic infection. The third patient died 1 month after transplant from Wernicke-like encephalopathy. All the patients who died received the BEAM+ATG conditioning regimen. No transplant-related deaths occurred in patients who underwent transplant after 2007.
Dr. Inglese noted that the mortality rate associated with AHSCT has been greatly reduced in recent years. “We are seeing a very low mortality rate – about 0.3% – thanks to improvements in the procedure and better patient selection. This seems acceptable, given that we are treating patients with very aggressive disease who have a high risk of becoming significantly disabled relatively early in life,” she commented.
However, it is vitally important that the procedure be conducted in a specialized center with a highly experienced multidisciplinary team, she stressed.
In the Neurology article, the authors concluded: “Although patients with RRMS [relapsing remitting MS] are those who benefit the most from transplant, AHSCT has been also shown to prevent disability worsening in a large proportion of patients with active progressive MS.
“The BEAM+ATG conditioning protocol, although associated with a higher transplant mortality rate, was associated with a more pronounced suppression of clinical relapses and MRI inflammatory activity, allowing complete disease control in a higher proportion of patients,” they wrote.
Potent and durable efficacy, with caveats
Commenting on these latest findings, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, of the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “AHSCT appears to have potent and durable efficacy in MS but is associated with significant risk and cost.”
The patients who are most likely to benefit are young and have experienced the onset of disease relatively recently. They are still ambulatory with highly active MS and have experienced recent clinical relapses and/or MRI lesion activity, and such activity continues despite disease-modifying therapy, Dr. Cohen noted. He added that “AHSCT is a reasonable option for such patients who have essentially failed the available disease-modifying therapy options.”
He pointed out that the key question is where AHSCT belongs in the overall MS algorithm relative to other high-efficacy therapies. “We need to know whether it should be used more broadly rather than as a last resort.”
To address that question, several randomized trials comparing AHSCT with high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy are in progress, including the National Institutes of Health–sponsored BEAT-MS trial in the United States (for which Dr. Cohen is the lead investigator) and four European trials – NET-MS (for which Dr. Inglese is the lead investigator), STAR-MS, RAM-MS, and COAST-MS.
The current study was partially funded and supported by the Italian Multiple Sclerosis Foundation. Dr. Inglese disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The benefits of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) persist for more than 10 years in the majority of patents, new data show. The study reports on 210 Italian patients who underwent AHSCT between 2007 and 2019. Among the entire study cohort, 79.5% of patients had not experienced worsening of disability at 5 years, and 65.5% had not experienced it at 10 years.
Patients with relapsing remitting MS had better results, with 85.5% experiencing no worsening of disability at 5 years, and 71.3% at 10 years. Among patients with progressive MS, 71.0% showed no worsening of disability at 5 years, and 57.2% at 10 years.
“This is the longest follow-up of AHSCT in MS patients so far to be reported,” said study author Matilde Inglese, MD, University of Genoa (Italy). “We have shown AHSCT to be highly effective to prevent long-term disability worsening in most treated patients.”
The study was published online Jan. 20 in Neurology.
“We suggest that AHSCT should be considered as a treatment strategy for MS not responding to conventional therapy,” the authors concluded.
The study had no control group, so a direct comparison is not possible. Nevertheless, Dr. Inglese said she believed these results are better than those that would be achieved with disease-modifying drug therapy for similar patients.
“The best patient candidates for this procedure are those with highly active multiple sclerosis who are not responsive to high-efficacy drugs, such as alemtuzumab or ocrelizumab,” Dr. Inglese commented. “Younger patients with an aggressive form of relapsing remitting MS tend to do the best, although patients with progressive forms of MS who still have active lesions on MRI also benefit.”
Renewing the immune system
The transplant procedure involves giving high-dose cyclophosphamide to stimulate mobilization of bone marrow stem cells, which are collected from peripheral blood. Patients then undergo intense immunosuppression with a cocktail of drugs to remove the autoreactive T cells, and the stem cells, which are not autoreactive, are reinfused.
“We are effectively renewing the immune system,” Dr. Inglese said. “While it is not correct to call it a cure, as we are not eliminating the etiology of the disease, it is the closest to complete suppression of the disease that we can get.”
Other results from the study show that among patients with relapsing remitting MS, rates of relapse-free survival were 78.1% at 5 years and 63.5% at 10 years.
Better results were achieved for patients who received the BEAM+ATG conditioning regimen for immunosuppression. That regimen includes carmustine, cytosine-arabinoside, etoposide, and melphalan, followed by rabbit antithymocyte globulin. Among patients with relapsing remitting disease who were treated with this protocol, rates of relapse-free survival were 86.4% at 5 years and 77.0% at 10 years.
For patients with relapsing remitting MS, the probability of achieving NEDA-3 status (no evidence of disease activity, including the absence of clinical relapses, disability worsening, and MRI inflammatory activity) was 62.2% at 5 years and 40.5% at 10 years.
Among those patients with relapsing remitting MS who received the BEAM+ATG conditioning protocol, NEDA-3 status was achieved in 67.7% at 5 years and in 54.9% at 10 years.
Three deaths occurred within 100 days following AHSCT (1.4% of the entire study population). One patient developed pulmonary thromboembolism, received fibrinolytic treatment, and died 48 hours later after intracranial hemorrhage. The second patient experienced engraftment failure and died 24 days after transplant because of an opportunistic infection. The third patient died 1 month after transplant from Wernicke-like encephalopathy. All the patients who died received the BEAM+ATG conditioning regimen. No transplant-related deaths occurred in patients who underwent transplant after 2007.
Dr. Inglese noted that the mortality rate associated with AHSCT has been greatly reduced in recent years. “We are seeing a very low mortality rate – about 0.3% – thanks to improvements in the procedure and better patient selection. This seems acceptable, given that we are treating patients with very aggressive disease who have a high risk of becoming significantly disabled relatively early in life,” she commented.
However, it is vitally important that the procedure be conducted in a specialized center with a highly experienced multidisciplinary team, she stressed.
In the Neurology article, the authors concluded: “Although patients with RRMS [relapsing remitting MS] are those who benefit the most from transplant, AHSCT has been also shown to prevent disability worsening in a large proportion of patients with active progressive MS.
“The BEAM+ATG conditioning protocol, although associated with a higher transplant mortality rate, was associated with a more pronounced suppression of clinical relapses and MRI inflammatory activity, allowing complete disease control in a higher proportion of patients,” they wrote.
Potent and durable efficacy, with caveats
Commenting on these latest findings, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, of the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “AHSCT appears to have potent and durable efficacy in MS but is associated with significant risk and cost.”
The patients who are most likely to benefit are young and have experienced the onset of disease relatively recently. They are still ambulatory with highly active MS and have experienced recent clinical relapses and/or MRI lesion activity, and such activity continues despite disease-modifying therapy, Dr. Cohen noted. He added that “AHSCT is a reasonable option for such patients who have essentially failed the available disease-modifying therapy options.”
He pointed out that the key question is where AHSCT belongs in the overall MS algorithm relative to other high-efficacy therapies. “We need to know whether it should be used more broadly rather than as a last resort.”
To address that question, several randomized trials comparing AHSCT with high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy are in progress, including the National Institutes of Health–sponsored BEAT-MS trial in the United States (for which Dr. Cohen is the lead investigator) and four European trials – NET-MS (for which Dr. Inglese is the lead investigator), STAR-MS, RAM-MS, and COAST-MS.
The current study was partially funded and supported by the Italian Multiple Sclerosis Foundation. Dr. Inglese disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The benefits of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) persist for more than 10 years in the majority of patents, new data show. The study reports on 210 Italian patients who underwent AHSCT between 2007 and 2019. Among the entire study cohort, 79.5% of patients had not experienced worsening of disability at 5 years, and 65.5% had not experienced it at 10 years.
Patients with relapsing remitting MS had better results, with 85.5% experiencing no worsening of disability at 5 years, and 71.3% at 10 years. Among patients with progressive MS, 71.0% showed no worsening of disability at 5 years, and 57.2% at 10 years.
“This is the longest follow-up of AHSCT in MS patients so far to be reported,” said study author Matilde Inglese, MD, University of Genoa (Italy). “We have shown AHSCT to be highly effective to prevent long-term disability worsening in most treated patients.”
The study was published online Jan. 20 in Neurology.
“We suggest that AHSCT should be considered as a treatment strategy for MS not responding to conventional therapy,” the authors concluded.
The study had no control group, so a direct comparison is not possible. Nevertheless, Dr. Inglese said she believed these results are better than those that would be achieved with disease-modifying drug therapy for similar patients.
“The best patient candidates for this procedure are those with highly active multiple sclerosis who are not responsive to high-efficacy drugs, such as alemtuzumab or ocrelizumab,” Dr. Inglese commented. “Younger patients with an aggressive form of relapsing remitting MS tend to do the best, although patients with progressive forms of MS who still have active lesions on MRI also benefit.”
Renewing the immune system
The transplant procedure involves giving high-dose cyclophosphamide to stimulate mobilization of bone marrow stem cells, which are collected from peripheral blood. Patients then undergo intense immunosuppression with a cocktail of drugs to remove the autoreactive T cells, and the stem cells, which are not autoreactive, are reinfused.
“We are effectively renewing the immune system,” Dr. Inglese said. “While it is not correct to call it a cure, as we are not eliminating the etiology of the disease, it is the closest to complete suppression of the disease that we can get.”
Other results from the study show that among patients with relapsing remitting MS, rates of relapse-free survival were 78.1% at 5 years and 63.5% at 10 years.
Better results were achieved for patients who received the BEAM+ATG conditioning regimen for immunosuppression. That regimen includes carmustine, cytosine-arabinoside, etoposide, and melphalan, followed by rabbit antithymocyte globulin. Among patients with relapsing remitting disease who were treated with this protocol, rates of relapse-free survival were 86.4% at 5 years and 77.0% at 10 years.
For patients with relapsing remitting MS, the probability of achieving NEDA-3 status (no evidence of disease activity, including the absence of clinical relapses, disability worsening, and MRI inflammatory activity) was 62.2% at 5 years and 40.5% at 10 years.
Among those patients with relapsing remitting MS who received the BEAM+ATG conditioning protocol, NEDA-3 status was achieved in 67.7% at 5 years and in 54.9% at 10 years.
Three deaths occurred within 100 days following AHSCT (1.4% of the entire study population). One patient developed pulmonary thromboembolism, received fibrinolytic treatment, and died 48 hours later after intracranial hemorrhage. The second patient experienced engraftment failure and died 24 days after transplant because of an opportunistic infection. The third patient died 1 month after transplant from Wernicke-like encephalopathy. All the patients who died received the BEAM+ATG conditioning regimen. No transplant-related deaths occurred in patients who underwent transplant after 2007.
Dr. Inglese noted that the mortality rate associated with AHSCT has been greatly reduced in recent years. “We are seeing a very low mortality rate – about 0.3% – thanks to improvements in the procedure and better patient selection. This seems acceptable, given that we are treating patients with very aggressive disease who have a high risk of becoming significantly disabled relatively early in life,” she commented.
However, it is vitally important that the procedure be conducted in a specialized center with a highly experienced multidisciplinary team, she stressed.
In the Neurology article, the authors concluded: “Although patients with RRMS [relapsing remitting MS] are those who benefit the most from transplant, AHSCT has been also shown to prevent disability worsening in a large proportion of patients with active progressive MS.
“The BEAM+ATG conditioning protocol, although associated with a higher transplant mortality rate, was associated with a more pronounced suppression of clinical relapses and MRI inflammatory activity, allowing complete disease control in a higher proportion of patients,” they wrote.
Potent and durable efficacy, with caveats
Commenting on these latest findings, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, of the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “AHSCT appears to have potent and durable efficacy in MS but is associated with significant risk and cost.”
The patients who are most likely to benefit are young and have experienced the onset of disease relatively recently. They are still ambulatory with highly active MS and have experienced recent clinical relapses and/or MRI lesion activity, and such activity continues despite disease-modifying therapy, Dr. Cohen noted. He added that “AHSCT is a reasonable option for such patients who have essentially failed the available disease-modifying therapy options.”
He pointed out that the key question is where AHSCT belongs in the overall MS algorithm relative to other high-efficacy therapies. “We need to know whether it should be used more broadly rather than as a last resort.”
To address that question, several randomized trials comparing AHSCT with high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy are in progress, including the National Institutes of Health–sponsored BEAT-MS trial in the United States (for which Dr. Cohen is the lead investigator) and four European trials – NET-MS (for which Dr. Inglese is the lead investigator), STAR-MS, RAM-MS, and COAST-MS.
The current study was partially funded and supported by the Italian Multiple Sclerosis Foundation. Dr. Inglese disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Physicians react: Doctors worry about patients reading their clinical notes
Patients will soon be able to read the notes that physicians make during an episode of care, as well as information about diagnostic testing and imaging results, tests for STDs, fetal ultrasounds, and cancer biopsies. This open access is raising concerns among physicians.
As part of the 21st Century Cures Act, patients have the right to see their medical notes. Known as Open Notes, the policy will go into effect on April 5, 2021. The Department of Health & Human Services recently changed the original start date, which was to be Nov. 2, 2020.
The mandate has some physicians worrying about potential legal risks and possible violation of doctor-patient confidentiality. When asked to share their views on the new Open Notes mandate, many physicians expressed their concerns but also cited some of the positive effects that could come from this.
Potentially more legal woes for physicians?
A key concern raised by one physician commenter is that patients could misunderstand legitimate medical terminology or even put a physician in legal crosshairs. For example, a medical term such as “spontaneous abortion” could be misconstrued by patients. A physician might write notes with the idea that a patient is reading them and thus might alter those notes in a way that creates legal trouble.
“This layers another level of censorship and legal liability onto physicians, who in attempting to be [politically correct], may omit critical information or have to use euphemisms in order to avoid conflict,” one physician said.
She also questioned whether notes might now have to be run through legal counsel before being posted to avoid potential liability.
Another doctor questioned how physicians would be able to document patients suspected of faking injuries for pain medication, for example. Could such documentation lead to lawsuits for the doctor?
As one physician noted, some patients “are drug seekers. Some refuse to aid in their own care. Some are malingerers. Not documenting that is bad medicine.”
The possibility of violating doctor-patient confidentiality laws, particularly for teenagers, could be another negative effect of Open Notes, said one physician.
“Won’t this violate the statutes that teenagers have the right to confidential evaluations?” the commenter mused. “If charts are to be immediately available, then STDs and pregnancies they weren’t ready to talk about will now be suddenly known by their parents.”
One doctor has already faced this issue. “I already ran into this problem once,” he noted. “Now I warn those on their parents’ insurance before I start the visit. I have literally had a patient state, ‘well then we are done,’ and leave without being seen due to it.”
Another physician questioned the possibility of having to write notes differently than they do now, especially if the patients have lower reading comprehension abilities.
One physician who uses Open Notes said he receives patient requests for changes that have little to do with the actual diagnosis and relate to ancillary issues. He highlighted patients who “don’t want psych diagnosis in their chart or are concerned a diagnosis will raise their insurance premium, so they ask me to delete it.”
Will Open Notes erode patient communication?
One physician questioned whether it would lead to patients being less open and forthcoming about their medical concerns with doctors.
“The main problem I see is the patient not telling me the whole story, or worse, telling me the story, and then asking me not to document it (as many have done in the past) because they don’t want their spouse, family, etc. to read the notes and they have already given their permission for them to do so, for a variety of reasons,” he commented. “This includes topics of STDs, infidelity, depression, suicidal thoughts, and other symptoms the patient doesn’t want their family to read about.”
Some physicians envision positive developments
Many physicians are unconcerned by the new mandate. “I see some potential good in this, such as improving doctor-patient communication and more scrupulous charting,” one physician said.
A doctor working in the U.S. federal health care system noted that open access has been a part of that system for decades.
“Since health care providers work in this unveiled setting for their entire career, they usually know how to write appropriate clinical notes and what information needs to be included in them,” he wrote. “Now it’s time for the rest of the medical community to catch up to a reality that we have worked within for decades now.
“The world did not end, malpractice complaints did not increase, and physician/patient relationships were not damaged. Living in the information age, archaic practices like private notes were surely going to end at some point.”
One doctor who has been using Open Notes has had experiences in which the patient noted an error in the medical chart that needed correcting. “I have had one patient correct me on a timeline in the HPI which was helpful and I made the requested correction in that instance,” he said.
Another physician agreed. “I’ve had patients add or correct valuable information I’ve missed. Good probably outweighs the bad if we set limits on behaviors expressed by the personality disordered group. The majority of people don’t seem to care and still ask me ‘what would you do’ or ‘tell me what to do.’ It’s all about patient/physician trust.”
Another talked about how Open Notes should have little or no impact. “Here’s a novel concept – talking to our patients,” he commented. “There is nothing in every one of my chart notes that has not already been discussed with my patients and I dictate (speech to text) my findings and plan in front of them. So, if they are reviewing my office notes, it will only serve to reinforce what we have already discussed.”
“I don’t intend to change anything,” he added. “Chances are if they were to see a test result before I have a chance to discuss it with them, they will have already ‘Googled’ its meaning and we can have more meaningful interaction if they have a basic understanding of the test.”
“I understand that this is anxiety provoking, but in general I think it is appropriate for patients to have access to their notes,” said another physician. “If physicians write lousy notes that say they did things they didn’t do, that fail to actually state a diagnosis and a plan (and they often do), that is the doc’s problem, not the patient’s.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients will soon be able to read the notes that physicians make during an episode of care, as well as information about diagnostic testing and imaging results, tests for STDs, fetal ultrasounds, and cancer biopsies. This open access is raising concerns among physicians.
As part of the 21st Century Cures Act, patients have the right to see their medical notes. Known as Open Notes, the policy will go into effect on April 5, 2021. The Department of Health & Human Services recently changed the original start date, which was to be Nov. 2, 2020.
The mandate has some physicians worrying about potential legal risks and possible violation of doctor-patient confidentiality. When asked to share their views on the new Open Notes mandate, many physicians expressed their concerns but also cited some of the positive effects that could come from this.
Potentially more legal woes for physicians?
A key concern raised by one physician commenter is that patients could misunderstand legitimate medical terminology or even put a physician in legal crosshairs. For example, a medical term such as “spontaneous abortion” could be misconstrued by patients. A physician might write notes with the idea that a patient is reading them and thus might alter those notes in a way that creates legal trouble.
“This layers another level of censorship and legal liability onto physicians, who in attempting to be [politically correct], may omit critical information or have to use euphemisms in order to avoid conflict,” one physician said.
She also questioned whether notes might now have to be run through legal counsel before being posted to avoid potential liability.
Another doctor questioned how physicians would be able to document patients suspected of faking injuries for pain medication, for example. Could such documentation lead to lawsuits for the doctor?
As one physician noted, some patients “are drug seekers. Some refuse to aid in their own care. Some are malingerers. Not documenting that is bad medicine.”
The possibility of violating doctor-patient confidentiality laws, particularly for teenagers, could be another negative effect of Open Notes, said one physician.
“Won’t this violate the statutes that teenagers have the right to confidential evaluations?” the commenter mused. “If charts are to be immediately available, then STDs and pregnancies they weren’t ready to talk about will now be suddenly known by their parents.”
One doctor has already faced this issue. “I already ran into this problem once,” he noted. “Now I warn those on their parents’ insurance before I start the visit. I have literally had a patient state, ‘well then we are done,’ and leave without being seen due to it.”
Another physician questioned the possibility of having to write notes differently than they do now, especially if the patients have lower reading comprehension abilities.
One physician who uses Open Notes said he receives patient requests for changes that have little to do with the actual diagnosis and relate to ancillary issues. He highlighted patients who “don’t want psych diagnosis in their chart or are concerned a diagnosis will raise their insurance premium, so they ask me to delete it.”
Will Open Notes erode patient communication?
One physician questioned whether it would lead to patients being less open and forthcoming about their medical concerns with doctors.
“The main problem I see is the patient not telling me the whole story, or worse, telling me the story, and then asking me not to document it (as many have done in the past) because they don’t want their spouse, family, etc. to read the notes and they have already given their permission for them to do so, for a variety of reasons,” he commented. “This includes topics of STDs, infidelity, depression, suicidal thoughts, and other symptoms the patient doesn’t want their family to read about.”
Some physicians envision positive developments
Many physicians are unconcerned by the new mandate. “I see some potential good in this, such as improving doctor-patient communication and more scrupulous charting,” one physician said.
A doctor working in the U.S. federal health care system noted that open access has been a part of that system for decades.
“Since health care providers work in this unveiled setting for their entire career, they usually know how to write appropriate clinical notes and what information needs to be included in them,” he wrote. “Now it’s time for the rest of the medical community to catch up to a reality that we have worked within for decades now.
“The world did not end, malpractice complaints did not increase, and physician/patient relationships were not damaged. Living in the information age, archaic practices like private notes were surely going to end at some point.”
One doctor who has been using Open Notes has had experiences in which the patient noted an error in the medical chart that needed correcting. “I have had one patient correct me on a timeline in the HPI which was helpful and I made the requested correction in that instance,” he said.
Another physician agreed. “I’ve had patients add or correct valuable information I’ve missed. Good probably outweighs the bad if we set limits on behaviors expressed by the personality disordered group. The majority of people don’t seem to care and still ask me ‘what would you do’ or ‘tell me what to do.’ It’s all about patient/physician trust.”
Another talked about how Open Notes should have little or no impact. “Here’s a novel concept – talking to our patients,” he commented. “There is nothing in every one of my chart notes that has not already been discussed with my patients and I dictate (speech to text) my findings and plan in front of them. So, if they are reviewing my office notes, it will only serve to reinforce what we have already discussed.”
“I don’t intend to change anything,” he added. “Chances are if they were to see a test result before I have a chance to discuss it with them, they will have already ‘Googled’ its meaning and we can have more meaningful interaction if they have a basic understanding of the test.”
“I understand that this is anxiety provoking, but in general I think it is appropriate for patients to have access to their notes,” said another physician. “If physicians write lousy notes that say they did things they didn’t do, that fail to actually state a diagnosis and a plan (and they often do), that is the doc’s problem, not the patient’s.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients will soon be able to read the notes that physicians make during an episode of care, as well as information about diagnostic testing and imaging results, tests for STDs, fetal ultrasounds, and cancer biopsies. This open access is raising concerns among physicians.
As part of the 21st Century Cures Act, patients have the right to see their medical notes. Known as Open Notes, the policy will go into effect on April 5, 2021. The Department of Health & Human Services recently changed the original start date, which was to be Nov. 2, 2020.
The mandate has some physicians worrying about potential legal risks and possible violation of doctor-patient confidentiality. When asked to share their views on the new Open Notes mandate, many physicians expressed their concerns but also cited some of the positive effects that could come from this.
Potentially more legal woes for physicians?
A key concern raised by one physician commenter is that patients could misunderstand legitimate medical terminology or even put a physician in legal crosshairs. For example, a medical term such as “spontaneous abortion” could be misconstrued by patients. A physician might write notes with the idea that a patient is reading them and thus might alter those notes in a way that creates legal trouble.
“This layers another level of censorship and legal liability onto physicians, who in attempting to be [politically correct], may omit critical information or have to use euphemisms in order to avoid conflict,” one physician said.
She also questioned whether notes might now have to be run through legal counsel before being posted to avoid potential liability.
Another doctor questioned how physicians would be able to document patients suspected of faking injuries for pain medication, for example. Could such documentation lead to lawsuits for the doctor?
As one physician noted, some patients “are drug seekers. Some refuse to aid in their own care. Some are malingerers. Not documenting that is bad medicine.”
The possibility of violating doctor-patient confidentiality laws, particularly for teenagers, could be another negative effect of Open Notes, said one physician.
“Won’t this violate the statutes that teenagers have the right to confidential evaluations?” the commenter mused. “If charts are to be immediately available, then STDs and pregnancies they weren’t ready to talk about will now be suddenly known by their parents.”
One doctor has already faced this issue. “I already ran into this problem once,” he noted. “Now I warn those on their parents’ insurance before I start the visit. I have literally had a patient state, ‘well then we are done,’ and leave without being seen due to it.”
Another physician questioned the possibility of having to write notes differently than they do now, especially if the patients have lower reading comprehension abilities.
One physician who uses Open Notes said he receives patient requests for changes that have little to do with the actual diagnosis and relate to ancillary issues. He highlighted patients who “don’t want psych diagnosis in their chart or are concerned a diagnosis will raise their insurance premium, so they ask me to delete it.”
Will Open Notes erode patient communication?
One physician questioned whether it would lead to patients being less open and forthcoming about their medical concerns with doctors.
“The main problem I see is the patient not telling me the whole story, or worse, telling me the story, and then asking me not to document it (as many have done in the past) because they don’t want their spouse, family, etc. to read the notes and they have already given their permission for them to do so, for a variety of reasons,” he commented. “This includes topics of STDs, infidelity, depression, suicidal thoughts, and other symptoms the patient doesn’t want their family to read about.”
Some physicians envision positive developments
Many physicians are unconcerned by the new mandate. “I see some potential good in this, such as improving doctor-patient communication and more scrupulous charting,” one physician said.
A doctor working in the U.S. federal health care system noted that open access has been a part of that system for decades.
“Since health care providers work in this unveiled setting for their entire career, they usually know how to write appropriate clinical notes and what information needs to be included in them,” he wrote. “Now it’s time for the rest of the medical community to catch up to a reality that we have worked within for decades now.
“The world did not end, malpractice complaints did not increase, and physician/patient relationships were not damaged. Living in the information age, archaic practices like private notes were surely going to end at some point.”
One doctor who has been using Open Notes has had experiences in which the patient noted an error in the medical chart that needed correcting. “I have had one patient correct me on a timeline in the HPI which was helpful and I made the requested correction in that instance,” he said.
Another physician agreed. “I’ve had patients add or correct valuable information I’ve missed. Good probably outweighs the bad if we set limits on behaviors expressed by the personality disordered group. The majority of people don’t seem to care and still ask me ‘what would you do’ or ‘tell me what to do.’ It’s all about patient/physician trust.”
Another talked about how Open Notes should have little or no impact. “Here’s a novel concept – talking to our patients,” he commented. “There is nothing in every one of my chart notes that has not already been discussed with my patients and I dictate (speech to text) my findings and plan in front of them. So, if they are reviewing my office notes, it will only serve to reinforce what we have already discussed.”
“I don’t intend to change anything,” he added. “Chances are if they were to see a test result before I have a chance to discuss it with them, they will have already ‘Googled’ its meaning and we can have more meaningful interaction if they have a basic understanding of the test.”
“I understand that this is anxiety provoking, but in general I think it is appropriate for patients to have access to their notes,” said another physician. “If physicians write lousy notes that say they did things they didn’t do, that fail to actually state a diagnosis and a plan (and they often do), that is the doc’s problem, not the patient’s.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Which imaging criteria identify progressive forms of MS?
The role of imaging in diagnosing progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) and in assessing prognosis is the subject of a new review.
MRI is central in the diagnostic work-up of patients suspected of having MS, given its high sensitivity in detecting disease dissemination in space and over time and its notable ability to exclude mimics of MS, the authors noted. However, diagnosis of primary progressive MS remains challenging and is only possible retrospectively on the basis of clinical assessment.
they wrote.
Diagnosis of progressive MS is limited by difficulties in distinguishing accumulating disability caused by inflammatory disease activity from that attributable to degenerative processes associated with secondary progressive MS. Moreover, there are no accepted clinical criteria for diagnosing secondary progressive MS, the authors explained.
This need has promoted extensive research in the field of imaging, facilitated by definition of novel MRI sequences, to identify imaging features reflecting pathophysiological mechanisms relevant to the pathobiology of progressive MS, the authors said.
The current review reports the conclusions of a workshop held in Milan in November 2019, at which an expert panel of neurologists and neuroradiologists addressed the role of MRI in progressive MS.
Massimo Filippi, MD, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, was the lead author of the review, which was published online Dec. 14, 2020, in JAMA Neurology.
The authors concluded that no definitive, qualitative clinical, immunologic, histopathologic, or neuroimaging features differentiate primary progressive and secondary progressive forms of MS; both are characterized by neurodegenerative phenomena and a gradual and irreversible accumulation of clinical disability, which is also affected by aging and comorbidities.
A definitive diagnosis of primary progressive MS is more difficult than a diagnosis of relapsing remitting MS; in part, primary progressive MS is a diagnosis of exclusion because it can be mimicked by other conditions clinically and radiologically, the authors noted.
The writers did report that, although nonspecific, some spinal cord imaging features are typical of primary progressive MS. These include diffuse abnormalities and lesions involving gray matter and two or more white-matter columns, but confirmation of this is required.
In patients with primary progressive MS and those with relapse-onset MS, MRI features at disease onset predict long-term disability and a progressive disease course. These features include lesions in critical central nervous system regions (i.e., spinal cord, infratentorial regions, and gray matter) and high inflammatory activity in the first years after disease onset. These measures are evaluable in clinical practice, the authors said.
In patients with established MS, gray-matter involvement and neurodegeneration are associated with accelerated clinical worsening; however, detection validation and standardization need to be implemented at the individual patient level, they commented.
Novel candidate imaging biomarkers, such as subpial demyelination, and the presence of slowly expanding lesions or paramagnetic rim lesions may identify progressive MS but should be further investigated, they added.
Discovery of MRI markers capable of detecting evolution from relapsing-remitting to secondary progressive MS remains an unmet need that will probably require multiparametric MRI studies, because it is unlikely that a single MRI method will be able to allow clinicians to optimally distinguish among these stages, the authors said.
The contribution of these promising MRI measures combined with other biomarkers, such as quantification of serum neurofilament light chain levels or optical coherence tomography assessment, should be explored to improve the identification of patients with progressive MS, they concluded.
‘A comprehensive review’
In a comment, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, director of the Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research, said the article is a comprehensive review of the pathologic mechanisms that underlie progression in MS and the proxy measures of those processes (brain and spinal cord MRI, PET, optical coherence tomography, and biomarkers).
“The paper reports there is no qualitative difference between relapsing remitting and progressive MS; rather, the difference is quantitative,” Dr. Cohen noted. “In other words, the processes that underlie progression are present from the earliest stages of MS, becoming more prominent over time.”
The apparent transition to progressive MS, he added, “rather than representing a ‘transition,’ instead results from the accumulation of pathology over time, a shift from focal lesions to diffuse inflammation and damage, and unmasking of the damage due to decreased resiliency due to aging and failure of compensatory mechanisms (neuroplasticity and remyelination).”
Also commenting, Edward Fox, MD, director, MS Clinic of Central Texas and clinical associate professor, University of Texas, Austin, explained that loss of tissue is the main driver of progressive MS.
“We all look at imaging to confirm that the progressive symptoms expressed by the patient are related to demyelinating disease,” he said. “When I see MRI of the spinal cord showing multifocal lesions, especially if localized atrophy is seen in a region of the cord, I expect to hear a history of progressive deficits in gait and other signs of disability.”
Dr. Fox noted that, on MRI of the brain, gray matter atrophy both cortically and in the deep gray structures usually manifests as cognitive slowing and poorer performance in work and social situations.
“We hope that other biomarkers, such as neurofilament light chain, will add to this body of knowledge and give us a better grasp of the definition of neurodegeneration to confirm the clinical and radiographic findings,” he added.
Dr. Filippi has received compensation for consulting services and/or speaking activities from Bayer, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Genzyme, Takeda, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries; and research support from ARiSLA, Biogen Idec, Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla, Italian Ministry of Health, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Teva.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The role of imaging in diagnosing progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) and in assessing prognosis is the subject of a new review.
MRI is central in the diagnostic work-up of patients suspected of having MS, given its high sensitivity in detecting disease dissemination in space and over time and its notable ability to exclude mimics of MS, the authors noted. However, diagnosis of primary progressive MS remains challenging and is only possible retrospectively on the basis of clinical assessment.
they wrote.
Diagnosis of progressive MS is limited by difficulties in distinguishing accumulating disability caused by inflammatory disease activity from that attributable to degenerative processes associated with secondary progressive MS. Moreover, there are no accepted clinical criteria for diagnosing secondary progressive MS, the authors explained.
This need has promoted extensive research in the field of imaging, facilitated by definition of novel MRI sequences, to identify imaging features reflecting pathophysiological mechanisms relevant to the pathobiology of progressive MS, the authors said.
The current review reports the conclusions of a workshop held in Milan in November 2019, at which an expert panel of neurologists and neuroradiologists addressed the role of MRI in progressive MS.
Massimo Filippi, MD, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, was the lead author of the review, which was published online Dec. 14, 2020, in JAMA Neurology.
The authors concluded that no definitive, qualitative clinical, immunologic, histopathologic, or neuroimaging features differentiate primary progressive and secondary progressive forms of MS; both are characterized by neurodegenerative phenomena and a gradual and irreversible accumulation of clinical disability, which is also affected by aging and comorbidities.
A definitive diagnosis of primary progressive MS is more difficult than a diagnosis of relapsing remitting MS; in part, primary progressive MS is a diagnosis of exclusion because it can be mimicked by other conditions clinically and radiologically, the authors noted.
The writers did report that, although nonspecific, some spinal cord imaging features are typical of primary progressive MS. These include diffuse abnormalities and lesions involving gray matter and two or more white-matter columns, but confirmation of this is required.
In patients with primary progressive MS and those with relapse-onset MS, MRI features at disease onset predict long-term disability and a progressive disease course. These features include lesions in critical central nervous system regions (i.e., spinal cord, infratentorial regions, and gray matter) and high inflammatory activity in the first years after disease onset. These measures are evaluable in clinical practice, the authors said.
In patients with established MS, gray-matter involvement and neurodegeneration are associated with accelerated clinical worsening; however, detection validation and standardization need to be implemented at the individual patient level, they commented.
Novel candidate imaging biomarkers, such as subpial demyelination, and the presence of slowly expanding lesions or paramagnetic rim lesions may identify progressive MS but should be further investigated, they added.
Discovery of MRI markers capable of detecting evolution from relapsing-remitting to secondary progressive MS remains an unmet need that will probably require multiparametric MRI studies, because it is unlikely that a single MRI method will be able to allow clinicians to optimally distinguish among these stages, the authors said.
The contribution of these promising MRI measures combined with other biomarkers, such as quantification of serum neurofilament light chain levels or optical coherence tomography assessment, should be explored to improve the identification of patients with progressive MS, they concluded.
‘A comprehensive review’
In a comment, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, director of the Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research, said the article is a comprehensive review of the pathologic mechanisms that underlie progression in MS and the proxy measures of those processes (brain and spinal cord MRI, PET, optical coherence tomography, and biomarkers).
“The paper reports there is no qualitative difference between relapsing remitting and progressive MS; rather, the difference is quantitative,” Dr. Cohen noted. “In other words, the processes that underlie progression are present from the earliest stages of MS, becoming more prominent over time.”
The apparent transition to progressive MS, he added, “rather than representing a ‘transition,’ instead results from the accumulation of pathology over time, a shift from focal lesions to diffuse inflammation and damage, and unmasking of the damage due to decreased resiliency due to aging and failure of compensatory mechanisms (neuroplasticity and remyelination).”
Also commenting, Edward Fox, MD, director, MS Clinic of Central Texas and clinical associate professor, University of Texas, Austin, explained that loss of tissue is the main driver of progressive MS.
“We all look at imaging to confirm that the progressive symptoms expressed by the patient are related to demyelinating disease,” he said. “When I see MRI of the spinal cord showing multifocal lesions, especially if localized atrophy is seen in a region of the cord, I expect to hear a history of progressive deficits in gait and other signs of disability.”
Dr. Fox noted that, on MRI of the brain, gray matter atrophy both cortically and in the deep gray structures usually manifests as cognitive slowing and poorer performance in work and social situations.
“We hope that other biomarkers, such as neurofilament light chain, will add to this body of knowledge and give us a better grasp of the definition of neurodegeneration to confirm the clinical and radiographic findings,” he added.
Dr. Filippi has received compensation for consulting services and/or speaking activities from Bayer, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Genzyme, Takeda, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries; and research support from ARiSLA, Biogen Idec, Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla, Italian Ministry of Health, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Teva.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The role of imaging in diagnosing progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) and in assessing prognosis is the subject of a new review.
MRI is central in the diagnostic work-up of patients suspected of having MS, given its high sensitivity in detecting disease dissemination in space and over time and its notable ability to exclude mimics of MS, the authors noted. However, diagnosis of primary progressive MS remains challenging and is only possible retrospectively on the basis of clinical assessment.
they wrote.
Diagnosis of progressive MS is limited by difficulties in distinguishing accumulating disability caused by inflammatory disease activity from that attributable to degenerative processes associated with secondary progressive MS. Moreover, there are no accepted clinical criteria for diagnosing secondary progressive MS, the authors explained.
This need has promoted extensive research in the field of imaging, facilitated by definition of novel MRI sequences, to identify imaging features reflecting pathophysiological mechanisms relevant to the pathobiology of progressive MS, the authors said.
The current review reports the conclusions of a workshop held in Milan in November 2019, at which an expert panel of neurologists and neuroradiologists addressed the role of MRI in progressive MS.
Massimo Filippi, MD, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, was the lead author of the review, which was published online Dec. 14, 2020, in JAMA Neurology.
The authors concluded that no definitive, qualitative clinical, immunologic, histopathologic, or neuroimaging features differentiate primary progressive and secondary progressive forms of MS; both are characterized by neurodegenerative phenomena and a gradual and irreversible accumulation of clinical disability, which is also affected by aging and comorbidities.
A definitive diagnosis of primary progressive MS is more difficult than a diagnosis of relapsing remitting MS; in part, primary progressive MS is a diagnosis of exclusion because it can be mimicked by other conditions clinically and radiologically, the authors noted.
The writers did report that, although nonspecific, some spinal cord imaging features are typical of primary progressive MS. These include diffuse abnormalities and lesions involving gray matter and two or more white-matter columns, but confirmation of this is required.
In patients with primary progressive MS and those with relapse-onset MS, MRI features at disease onset predict long-term disability and a progressive disease course. These features include lesions in critical central nervous system regions (i.e., spinal cord, infratentorial regions, and gray matter) and high inflammatory activity in the first years after disease onset. These measures are evaluable in clinical practice, the authors said.
In patients with established MS, gray-matter involvement and neurodegeneration are associated with accelerated clinical worsening; however, detection validation and standardization need to be implemented at the individual patient level, they commented.
Novel candidate imaging biomarkers, such as subpial demyelination, and the presence of slowly expanding lesions or paramagnetic rim lesions may identify progressive MS but should be further investigated, they added.
Discovery of MRI markers capable of detecting evolution from relapsing-remitting to secondary progressive MS remains an unmet need that will probably require multiparametric MRI studies, because it is unlikely that a single MRI method will be able to allow clinicians to optimally distinguish among these stages, the authors said.
The contribution of these promising MRI measures combined with other biomarkers, such as quantification of serum neurofilament light chain levels or optical coherence tomography assessment, should be explored to improve the identification of patients with progressive MS, they concluded.
‘A comprehensive review’
In a comment, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, director of the Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research, said the article is a comprehensive review of the pathologic mechanisms that underlie progression in MS and the proxy measures of those processes (brain and spinal cord MRI, PET, optical coherence tomography, and biomarkers).
“The paper reports there is no qualitative difference between relapsing remitting and progressive MS; rather, the difference is quantitative,” Dr. Cohen noted. “In other words, the processes that underlie progression are present from the earliest stages of MS, becoming more prominent over time.”
The apparent transition to progressive MS, he added, “rather than representing a ‘transition,’ instead results from the accumulation of pathology over time, a shift from focal lesions to diffuse inflammation and damage, and unmasking of the damage due to decreased resiliency due to aging and failure of compensatory mechanisms (neuroplasticity and remyelination).”
Also commenting, Edward Fox, MD, director, MS Clinic of Central Texas and clinical associate professor, University of Texas, Austin, explained that loss of tissue is the main driver of progressive MS.
“We all look at imaging to confirm that the progressive symptoms expressed by the patient are related to demyelinating disease,” he said. “When I see MRI of the spinal cord showing multifocal lesions, especially if localized atrophy is seen in a region of the cord, I expect to hear a history of progressive deficits in gait and other signs of disability.”
Dr. Fox noted that, on MRI of the brain, gray matter atrophy both cortically and in the deep gray structures usually manifests as cognitive slowing and poorer performance in work and social situations.
“We hope that other biomarkers, such as neurofilament light chain, will add to this body of knowledge and give us a better grasp of the definition of neurodegeneration to confirm the clinical and radiographic findings,” he added.
Dr. Filippi has received compensation for consulting services and/or speaking activities from Bayer, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Genzyme, Takeda, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries; and research support from ARiSLA, Biogen Idec, Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla, Italian Ministry of Health, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Teva.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MS: Unified Protocol can effectively treat emotional disorders
Key clinical point: The unified protocol (UP), a transdiagnostic skill-based therapy, is effective for the treatment of emotional disorders in multiple sclerosis (MS).
Major finding: Compared with treatment as usual (TAU), the UP intervention group significantly improved depression, anxiety, emotional dysregulation, positive and negative affects, and worry symptoms (P less than .001 for all).
Study details: Seventy adults with MS were randomly assigned to either UP or TAU group.
Disclosures: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of the study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Nazari N et al. BMC Psychol. 2020 Oct 31. doi: 10.1186/s40359-020-00480-8.
Key clinical point: The unified protocol (UP), a transdiagnostic skill-based therapy, is effective for the treatment of emotional disorders in multiple sclerosis (MS).
Major finding: Compared with treatment as usual (TAU), the UP intervention group significantly improved depression, anxiety, emotional dysregulation, positive and negative affects, and worry symptoms (P less than .001 for all).
Study details: Seventy adults with MS were randomly assigned to either UP or TAU group.
Disclosures: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of the study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Nazari N et al. BMC Psychol. 2020 Oct 31. doi: 10.1186/s40359-020-00480-8.
Key clinical point: The unified protocol (UP), a transdiagnostic skill-based therapy, is effective for the treatment of emotional disorders in multiple sclerosis (MS).
Major finding: Compared with treatment as usual (TAU), the UP intervention group significantly improved depression, anxiety, emotional dysregulation, positive and negative affects, and worry symptoms (P less than .001 for all).
Study details: Seventy adults with MS were randomly assigned to either UP or TAU group.
Disclosures: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of the study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Nazari N et al. BMC Psychol. 2020 Oct 31. doi: 10.1186/s40359-020-00480-8.
RRMS: Natalizumab improves work ability during first year of treatment
Key clinical point: One year of natalizumab treatment in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) improved absenteeism and work productivity loss.
Major finding: One year of natalizumab exposure showed an early improvement in absenteeism scores (mean change, −4.2; P = .0190) and the work productivity loss scores (mean change, −7.2; P = .0456).
Study details: The data come from the WANT observational study of 91 Italian patients with RRMS.
Disclosures: The WANT study was funded by Biogen. The authors reported relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.
Source: Capra R et al. Neurol Sci. 2020 Nov 17. doi: 10.1007/s10072-020-04838-z.
Key clinical point: One year of natalizumab treatment in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) improved absenteeism and work productivity loss.
Major finding: One year of natalizumab exposure showed an early improvement in absenteeism scores (mean change, −4.2; P = .0190) and the work productivity loss scores (mean change, −7.2; P = .0456).
Study details: The data come from the WANT observational study of 91 Italian patients with RRMS.
Disclosures: The WANT study was funded by Biogen. The authors reported relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.
Source: Capra R et al. Neurol Sci. 2020 Nov 17. doi: 10.1007/s10072-020-04838-z.
Key clinical point: One year of natalizumab treatment in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) improved absenteeism and work productivity loss.
Major finding: One year of natalizumab exposure showed an early improvement in absenteeism scores (mean change, −4.2; P = .0190) and the work productivity loss scores (mean change, −7.2; P = .0456).
Study details: The data come from the WANT observational study of 91 Italian patients with RRMS.
Disclosures: The WANT study was funded by Biogen. The authors reported relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.
Source: Capra R et al. Neurol Sci. 2020 Nov 17. doi: 10.1007/s10072-020-04838-z.
Depressive symptoms linked to cognitive multitasking in early MS
Key clinical point: In patients with early multiple sclerosis (MS), depressive symptoms are linked to cognitive multitasking.
Major finding: Depressive symptoms in early MS cohort had a stronger association with cognitive multitasking (R2 = 0.125) than with traditional monotasking procedures, including a SPEED composite variable (R2 = 0.079; P less than .001).
Study details: RADIEMS was a cohort study on 185 patients with MS diagnosed in less than or equal to 5 years.
Disclosures: The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Glukhovsky L et al. Mult Scler. 2020 Nov 16. doi: 10.1177/1352458520958359.
Key clinical point: In patients with early multiple sclerosis (MS), depressive symptoms are linked to cognitive multitasking.
Major finding: Depressive symptoms in early MS cohort had a stronger association with cognitive multitasking (R2 = 0.125) than with traditional monotasking procedures, including a SPEED composite variable (R2 = 0.079; P less than .001).
Study details: RADIEMS was a cohort study on 185 patients with MS diagnosed in less than or equal to 5 years.
Disclosures: The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Glukhovsky L et al. Mult Scler. 2020 Nov 16. doi: 10.1177/1352458520958359.
Key clinical point: In patients with early multiple sclerosis (MS), depressive symptoms are linked to cognitive multitasking.
Major finding: Depressive symptoms in early MS cohort had a stronger association with cognitive multitasking (R2 = 0.125) than with traditional monotasking procedures, including a SPEED composite variable (R2 = 0.079; P less than .001).
Study details: RADIEMS was a cohort study on 185 patients with MS diagnosed in less than or equal to 5 years.
Disclosures: The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Glukhovsky L et al. Mult Scler. 2020 Nov 16. doi: 10.1177/1352458520958359.
Multiple sclerosis and vitiligo: Is there a link?
Key clinical point: This meta-analysis found no significant association between multiple sclerosis and vitiligo.
Major finding: No significant association of multiple sclerosis with prevalent vitiligo was found (pooled odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-2.22).
Study details: A meta-analysis of 6 case-control studies including 12,930 participants.
Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Shen MH et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 20. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-74298-0.
Key clinical point: This meta-analysis found no significant association between multiple sclerosis and vitiligo.
Major finding: No significant association of multiple sclerosis with prevalent vitiligo was found (pooled odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-2.22).
Study details: A meta-analysis of 6 case-control studies including 12,930 participants.
Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Shen MH et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 20. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-74298-0.
Key clinical point: This meta-analysis found no significant association between multiple sclerosis and vitiligo.
Major finding: No significant association of multiple sclerosis with prevalent vitiligo was found (pooled odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-2.22).
Study details: A meta-analysis of 6 case-control studies including 12,930 participants.
Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Shen MH et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 20. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-74298-0.
BTK Inhibitors: Researchers Eye Next-Generation Treatment Options for MS
Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors effectively treat certain leukemias and lymphomas, due to their ability to inhibit a protein kinase that is critical for B cell receptor signaling. These agents can inhibit antigen-triggered activation and maturation of B cells and their release of pro-inflammatory cytokines. BTK is also a key signaling protein that controls activation of monocytes, macrophages and neutrophils and its inhibition reduces the activation of these cells.
Judging from the papers presented at the recent MS Virtual 2020—the 8th Joint ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS Meeting, BTK inhibitors are showing promise in the management of multiple sclerosis (MS), as well, as researchers eye next-generation treatment options. They may prove to be effective not only in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis, but also on progressive disease through their effect on brain macrophages and microglial cells.
Leading the way at MS Virtual 2020 was a presentation by Patrick Vermersch, MD, PhD, who summarized the results to date of masitinib’s role in primary progressive MS (PPMS) and non-active secondar progressive MS (nSPMS). The professor of neurology at Lille University in Lille, France, and his colleagues conducted a phase 3 study to assess masitinib’s efficacy at two dosage levels – 4.5 mg/kg/day (n=199) and a 6.0 mg/kg/day (n=199) -- vs placebo (n=101). The randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled, two-parallel group trial involved adult participants with EDSS scores between 2.0 and 6.0 with either PPMS or nSPMS. Investigators looked at overall EDSS change from baseline using a variety of repeated measures, with an emphasis on determining whether participants improved, were stable, or worsened. Among the results
- In the lower-dose contingent, the odds of either a reduction in EDSS progression or increased EDSS improvement improved by 39% for patients taking masitinib, vs those receiving placebo
- Also, among those receiving the lower dose, the odds of experiencing disability progression decreased by 37% in the treatment group, compared with placebo
- Results using the higher dose of masitinib were inconclusive
Based on these results, investigators concluded that masitinib 4.5 mg/kg/day is very likely to emerge as a new treatment option for individuals with for PPMS and nSPMS.
Another MS Virtual 2020 presentation focused on fenebrutinib, an investigational, noncovalent investigational BTK inhibitor being studies as a possible treatment for MS. Investigators assessed the potency, selectivity, and kinetics of inhibition of the BTK enzyme via fenebrutinib, compared with two other BTK inhibitors, evobrutinib and tolebrutinib, in a panel of 219 human kinases.
Fenebrutinib was found to be a more potent inhibitor, compared with the other two BTK inhibitors. Additionally, fenebrutinib effectively blocked B cell and basophil activation. Moreover, fenebrutinib inhibited fewer off target kinases >50%, compared with the other two BTK inhibitors. Investigators concluded that fenebrutinib’s high selectivity and potency shows promise as a drug linked with fewer adverse events and a better treatment profile than other investigational BTK inhibitors.
These encouraging findings are leading to the initiation of three phase 3 clinical trials involving fenebrutinib, announced at MS Virtual 2020 by Stephen L. Hauser, MD, professor of neurology, and director of the UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences. The trials will evaluate fenebrutinib’s impact on disease progression in relapsing MS and primary progressive MS. The primary endpoint of the studies will be 12-week composite Confirmed Disability Progression, which investigators hope will provide a stronger, more thorough assessment of disability progression, vs EDSS score alone.
Other BTK inhibitors worth watching include:
- Evobrutinib: An open-label phase 2 study has shown that the drug is linked with reduced annualized relapse rate through 108 weeks
- BIIB091: Safety and tolerability has been demonstrated in phase 1, clearing the way for further investigation
- Tolebrutinib: Under assessment for its ability to inhibit microglia-driven inflammation in murine models
Torke S, Pretzch R, Hausler D, et al. Inhibition of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase interferes with pathogenic B-cell development in inflammatory CNS demyelinating disease. Acta Neuropathol. 2020;140;535-548. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/
Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors effectively treat certain leukemias and lymphomas, due to their ability to inhibit a protein kinase that is critical for B cell receptor signaling. These agents can inhibit antigen-triggered activation and maturation of B cells and their release of pro-inflammatory cytokines. BTK is also a key signaling protein that controls activation of monocytes, macrophages and neutrophils and its inhibition reduces the activation of these cells.
Judging from the papers presented at the recent MS Virtual 2020—the 8th Joint ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS Meeting, BTK inhibitors are showing promise in the management of multiple sclerosis (MS), as well, as researchers eye next-generation treatment options. They may prove to be effective not only in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis, but also on progressive disease through their effect on brain macrophages and microglial cells.
Leading the way at MS Virtual 2020 was a presentation by Patrick Vermersch, MD, PhD, who summarized the results to date of masitinib’s role in primary progressive MS (PPMS) and non-active secondar progressive MS (nSPMS). The professor of neurology at Lille University in Lille, France, and his colleagues conducted a phase 3 study to assess masitinib’s efficacy at two dosage levels – 4.5 mg/kg/day (n=199) and a 6.0 mg/kg/day (n=199) -- vs placebo (n=101). The randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled, two-parallel group trial involved adult participants with EDSS scores between 2.0 and 6.0 with either PPMS or nSPMS. Investigators looked at overall EDSS change from baseline using a variety of repeated measures, with an emphasis on determining whether participants improved, were stable, or worsened. Among the results
- In the lower-dose contingent, the odds of either a reduction in EDSS progression or increased EDSS improvement improved by 39% for patients taking masitinib, vs those receiving placebo
- Also, among those receiving the lower dose, the odds of experiencing disability progression decreased by 37% in the treatment group, compared with placebo
- Results using the higher dose of masitinib were inconclusive
Based on these results, investigators concluded that masitinib 4.5 mg/kg/day is very likely to emerge as a new treatment option for individuals with for PPMS and nSPMS.
Another MS Virtual 2020 presentation focused on fenebrutinib, an investigational, noncovalent investigational BTK inhibitor being studies as a possible treatment for MS. Investigators assessed the potency, selectivity, and kinetics of inhibition of the BTK enzyme via fenebrutinib, compared with two other BTK inhibitors, evobrutinib and tolebrutinib, in a panel of 219 human kinases.
Fenebrutinib was found to be a more potent inhibitor, compared with the other two BTK inhibitors. Additionally, fenebrutinib effectively blocked B cell and basophil activation. Moreover, fenebrutinib inhibited fewer off target kinases >50%, compared with the other two BTK inhibitors. Investigators concluded that fenebrutinib’s high selectivity and potency shows promise as a drug linked with fewer adverse events and a better treatment profile than other investigational BTK inhibitors.
These encouraging findings are leading to the initiation of three phase 3 clinical trials involving fenebrutinib, announced at MS Virtual 2020 by Stephen L. Hauser, MD, professor of neurology, and director of the UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences. The trials will evaluate fenebrutinib’s impact on disease progression in relapsing MS and primary progressive MS. The primary endpoint of the studies will be 12-week composite Confirmed Disability Progression, which investigators hope will provide a stronger, more thorough assessment of disability progression, vs EDSS score alone.
Other BTK inhibitors worth watching include:
- Evobrutinib: An open-label phase 2 study has shown that the drug is linked with reduced annualized relapse rate through 108 weeks
- BIIB091: Safety and tolerability has been demonstrated in phase 1, clearing the way for further investigation
- Tolebrutinib: Under assessment for its ability to inhibit microglia-driven inflammation in murine models
Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors effectively treat certain leukemias and lymphomas, due to their ability to inhibit a protein kinase that is critical for B cell receptor signaling. These agents can inhibit antigen-triggered activation and maturation of B cells and their release of pro-inflammatory cytokines. BTK is also a key signaling protein that controls activation of monocytes, macrophages and neutrophils and its inhibition reduces the activation of these cells.
Judging from the papers presented at the recent MS Virtual 2020—the 8th Joint ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS Meeting, BTK inhibitors are showing promise in the management of multiple sclerosis (MS), as well, as researchers eye next-generation treatment options. They may prove to be effective not only in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis, but also on progressive disease through their effect on brain macrophages and microglial cells.
Leading the way at MS Virtual 2020 was a presentation by Patrick Vermersch, MD, PhD, who summarized the results to date of masitinib’s role in primary progressive MS (PPMS) and non-active secondar progressive MS (nSPMS). The professor of neurology at Lille University in Lille, France, and his colleagues conducted a phase 3 study to assess masitinib’s efficacy at two dosage levels – 4.5 mg/kg/day (n=199) and a 6.0 mg/kg/day (n=199) -- vs placebo (n=101). The randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled, two-parallel group trial involved adult participants with EDSS scores between 2.0 and 6.0 with either PPMS or nSPMS. Investigators looked at overall EDSS change from baseline using a variety of repeated measures, with an emphasis on determining whether participants improved, were stable, or worsened. Among the results
- In the lower-dose contingent, the odds of either a reduction in EDSS progression or increased EDSS improvement improved by 39% for patients taking masitinib, vs those receiving placebo
- Also, among those receiving the lower dose, the odds of experiencing disability progression decreased by 37% in the treatment group, compared with placebo
- Results using the higher dose of masitinib were inconclusive
Based on these results, investigators concluded that masitinib 4.5 mg/kg/day is very likely to emerge as a new treatment option for individuals with for PPMS and nSPMS.
Another MS Virtual 2020 presentation focused on fenebrutinib, an investigational, noncovalent investigational BTK inhibitor being studies as a possible treatment for MS. Investigators assessed the potency, selectivity, and kinetics of inhibition of the BTK enzyme via fenebrutinib, compared with two other BTK inhibitors, evobrutinib and tolebrutinib, in a panel of 219 human kinases.
Fenebrutinib was found to be a more potent inhibitor, compared with the other two BTK inhibitors. Additionally, fenebrutinib effectively blocked B cell and basophil activation. Moreover, fenebrutinib inhibited fewer off target kinases >50%, compared with the other two BTK inhibitors. Investigators concluded that fenebrutinib’s high selectivity and potency shows promise as a drug linked with fewer adverse events and a better treatment profile than other investigational BTK inhibitors.
These encouraging findings are leading to the initiation of three phase 3 clinical trials involving fenebrutinib, announced at MS Virtual 2020 by Stephen L. Hauser, MD, professor of neurology, and director of the UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences. The trials will evaluate fenebrutinib’s impact on disease progression in relapsing MS and primary progressive MS. The primary endpoint of the studies will be 12-week composite Confirmed Disability Progression, which investigators hope will provide a stronger, more thorough assessment of disability progression, vs EDSS score alone.
Other BTK inhibitors worth watching include:
- Evobrutinib: An open-label phase 2 study has shown that the drug is linked with reduced annualized relapse rate through 108 weeks
- BIIB091: Safety and tolerability has been demonstrated in phase 1, clearing the way for further investigation
- Tolebrutinib: Under assessment for its ability to inhibit microglia-driven inflammation in murine models
Torke S, Pretzch R, Hausler D, et al. Inhibition of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase interferes with pathogenic B-cell development in inflammatory CNS demyelinating disease. Acta Neuropathol. 2020;140;535-548. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/
Torke S, Pretzch R, Hausler D, et al. Inhibition of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase interferes with pathogenic B-cell development in inflammatory CNS demyelinating disease. Acta Neuropathol. 2020;140;535-548. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/