Multiple Sclerosis

Key clinical point: In patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), impaired odor identification is associated with a greater clinical decline and higher risk for death.

Major finding: Impaired Brief-Smell Identification (B-SIT) was associated with higher risk for death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 14.9; P less than .001). Among patients with progressive MS, impaired B-SIT vs normal B-SIT showed greater clinical change per month in terms of Multiple Sclerosis Severity scores (median, 0.62 vs. –0.08; P =.004) and Age-Related Multiple Sclerosis Severity scores (median, 0.54 vs. –0.07; P =.004).

Study details: Findings from a retrospective review on 149 patients with MS during a median follow-up of 121 months.

Disclosures: No funding source was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Citation: da Silva AM et al. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2020.102486.

Key clinical point: In patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), impaired odor identification is associated with a greater clinical decline and higher risk for death.

Major finding: Impaired Brief-Smell Identification (B-SIT) was associated with higher risk for death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 14.9; P less than .001). Among patients with progressive MS, impaired B-SIT vs normal B-SIT showed greater clinical change per month in terms of Multiple Sclerosis Severity scores (median, 0.62 vs. –0.08; P =.004) and Age-Related Multiple Sclerosis Severity scores (median, 0.54 vs. –0.07; P =.004).

Study details: Findings from a retrospective review on 149 patients with MS during a median follow-up of 121 months.

Disclosures: No funding source was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Citation: da Silva AM et al. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2020.102486.

Key clinical point: In patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), impaired odor identification is associated with a greater clinical decline and higher risk for death.

Major finding: Impaired Brief-Smell Identification (B-SIT) was associated with higher risk for death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 14.9; P less than .001). Among patients with progressive MS, impaired B-SIT vs normal B-SIT showed greater clinical change per month in terms of Multiple Sclerosis Severity scores (median, 0.62 vs. –0.08; P =.004) and Age-Related Multiple Sclerosis Severity scores (median, 0.54 vs. –0.07; P =.004).

Study details: Findings from a retrospective review on 149 patients with MS during a median follow-up of 121 months.

Disclosures: No funding source was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Citation: da Silva AM et al. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2020.102486.

Key clinical point: Impaired respiratory muscle functions are linked to sleep disturbance and cognitive impairment in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), warranting early evaluation of respiratory muscle strength.

Major finding: The respiratory muscle function test negatively correlated with the scores of Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and Perceived Deficits Questionnaire (PDQ) and showed a positive correlation with the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS) scale score (P less than .001 for all).

Study details: The study assessed 146 MS patients with a mean age of 29.3 years and a mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 4.11.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interests.

Citation: Hashim NA et al. Mult Scler Relat Dis. 2020 Sep 16. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2020.102514.

Key clinical point: Impaired respiratory muscle functions are linked to sleep disturbance and cognitive impairment in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), warranting early evaluation of respiratory muscle strength.

Major finding: The respiratory muscle function test negatively correlated with the scores of Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and Perceived Deficits Questionnaire (PDQ) and showed a positive correlation with the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS) scale score (P less than .001 for all).

Study details: The study assessed 146 MS patients with a mean age of 29.3 years and a mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 4.11.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interests.

Citation: Hashim NA et al. Mult Scler Relat Dis. 2020 Sep 16. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2020.102514.

Key clinical point: Impaired respiratory muscle functions are linked to sleep disturbance and cognitive impairment in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), warranting early evaluation of respiratory muscle strength.

Major finding: The respiratory muscle function test negatively correlated with the scores of Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and Perceived Deficits Questionnaire (PDQ) and showed a positive correlation with the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS) scale score (P less than .001 for all).

Study details: The study assessed 146 MS patients with a mean age of 29.3 years and a mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 4.11.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interests.

Citation: Hashim NA et al. Mult Scler Relat Dis. 2020 Sep 16. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2020.102514.

Key clinical point: Teriflunomide as a long-term immunomodulatory therapy in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) has a favorable benefit-risk profile.

Major finding: The safety profile of teriflunomide 14 mg in the extension study was consistent with that in the core study, with similar incidences of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. There were differences in serious AE incidences between the placebo and teriflunomide 14 mg groups (6.4% vs. 12.4%). Teriflunomide was associated with reduction in annualized relapse rates in all treatment groups, irrespective of when treatment was initiated.

Study details: Long-term extension of the phase 3 TOWER study: Patients who received teriflunomide 14 mg in the core study were assigned to their original dose (14 mg/14 mg group); patients who received placebo or teriflunomide 7 mg in the core study were reassigned to teriflunomide 14 mg (placebo/14 mg and 7 mg/14 mg groups, respectively).

Disclosures: Development of the manuscript was supported by Sanofi. AL Lublin, P Truffinet, J Chavin, J Delhay, and A Purvis are employees of Sanofi, with ownership interest. M Benamor is an employee of Sanofi. The remaining authors reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies, including Sanofi.

Citation: Miller AE et al. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020 Aug 1. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2020.102438.

Key clinical point: Teriflunomide as a long-term immunomodulatory therapy in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) has a favorable benefit-risk profile.

Major finding: The safety profile of teriflunomide 14 mg in the extension study was consistent with that in the core study, with similar incidences of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. There were differences in serious AE incidences between the placebo and teriflunomide 14 mg groups (6.4% vs. 12.4%). Teriflunomide was associated with reduction in annualized relapse rates in all treatment groups, irrespective of when treatment was initiated.

Study details: Long-term extension of the phase 3 TOWER study: Patients who received teriflunomide 14 mg in the core study were assigned to their original dose (14 mg/14 mg group); patients who received placebo or teriflunomide 7 mg in the core study were reassigned to teriflunomide 14 mg (placebo/14 mg and 7 mg/14 mg groups, respectively).

Disclosures: Development of the manuscript was supported by Sanofi. AL Lublin, P Truffinet, J Chavin, J Delhay, and A Purvis are employees of Sanofi, with ownership interest. M Benamor is an employee of Sanofi. The remaining authors reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies, including Sanofi.

Citation: Miller AE et al. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020 Aug 1. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2020.102438.

Key clinical point: Teriflunomide as a long-term immunomodulatory therapy in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) has a favorable benefit-risk profile.

Major finding: The safety profile of teriflunomide 14 mg in the extension study was consistent with that in the core study, with similar incidences of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. There were differences in serious AE incidences between the placebo and teriflunomide 14 mg groups (6.4% vs. 12.4%). Teriflunomide was associated with reduction in annualized relapse rates in all treatment groups, irrespective of when treatment was initiated.

Study details: Long-term extension of the phase 3 TOWER study: Patients who received teriflunomide 14 mg in the core study were assigned to their original dose (14 mg/14 mg group); patients who received placebo or teriflunomide 7 mg in the core study were reassigned to teriflunomide 14 mg (placebo/14 mg and 7 mg/14 mg groups, respectively).

Disclosures: Development of the manuscript was supported by Sanofi. AL Lublin, P Truffinet, J Chavin, J Delhay, and A Purvis are employees of Sanofi, with ownership interest. M Benamor is an employee of Sanofi. The remaining authors reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies, including Sanofi.

Citation: Miller AE et al. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020 Aug 1. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2020.102438.

In 1993 I graduated from medical school. That same year Betaseron (interferon beta-1b) came to market as the first treatment specifically approved for multiple sclerosis (MS). This was a groundbreaker at the time, as there’d been little besides steroids and other potent immunosuppressants to try. Now we had a real drug to offer patients.

The demand for Betaseron was huge, so much so that a lottery system was used to determine which patients would get it first, as there simply wasn’t enough to go around. In the next several years a few more agents jumped into the ring – Avonex (interferon beta-1a), Copaxone (glatiramer acetate), Novantrone (mitoxantrone), and Rebif (interferon beta-1a) – before things went quiet for a while.

In 2006 the first monoclonal antibody for MS – Tysabri (natalizumab) – came out, then almost just as quickly vanished again, not returning until 2009.

Since then we’ve had a gradual explosion of new treatments for MS – like watching kernels become popcorn – first one, then two, then a deluge filling up the basket.

So here we are, approaching the end of 2020, with a remarkable collection of monoclonal antibodies, S1P modulators, fumarates, immunosuppressants, and one symptomatic treatment, many of which weren’t even imagined in 1993. Not to mention the original ABCR (Avonex, Betaseron, Copaxone, Rebif) agents, though they’re riding into the sunset.

A friend and I were talking about this remarkable success story. MS certainly hasn’t been cured, but its treatments have had a dramatic improvement in efficacy over the last quarter century.

He made a point though: that this selection of treatments may be relegating MS from the province of a general neurologist to that of the fellowship-trained MS subspecialist.

Not that that is such a bad thing, as MS is a very challenging disease. But the point is well taken. As treatments become increasingly complicated, and numerous, it becomes harder to know which one is best. Most of us likely choose orals first and monoclonal antibodies second, but the question of “which one?” arises for each category. They each have their own risks, side effects, initiation protocols, and peculiarities. In a disease of heterogeneous presentations and courses, there are no clear data on which agent to start first for what patient type. To a general neurologist, also juggling migraines, strokes, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, and neuropathy (and many other disorders) in the course of a day, it becomes tricky to keep up on such.

At some point do general neurologists become a victim of this success? Maybe, but probably not. Just as there are more general practitioners than neurologists, there are more general neurologists than MS subspecialists. Their knowledge and training should be reserved for those patients not responding to our first- (and second-) line treatments, presentations that are atypical, and more complex issues outside the scope of those of us practicing whatever-comes-to-the-door neurology.

It would, however, be nice to have a good consensus on how to best use this array of treatments. Solid guidelines, breaking disease subtypes and treatments down by patient types, drugs, and mechanisms of action, would help those of us on the neurology frontlines to better care for those who need us.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In 1993 I graduated from medical school. That same year Betaseron (interferon beta-1b) came to market as the first treatment specifically approved for multiple sclerosis (MS). This was a groundbreaker at the time, as there’d been little besides steroids and other potent immunosuppressants to try. Now we had a real drug to offer patients.

The demand for Betaseron was huge, so much so that a lottery system was used to determine which patients would get it first, as there simply wasn’t enough to go around. In the next several years a few more agents jumped into the ring – Avonex (interferon beta-1a), Copaxone (glatiramer acetate), Novantrone (mitoxantrone), and Rebif (interferon beta-1a) – before things went quiet for a while.

In 2006 the first monoclonal antibody for MS – Tysabri (natalizumab) – came out, then almost just as quickly vanished again, not returning until 2009.

Since then we’ve had a gradual explosion of new treatments for MS – like watching kernels become popcorn – first one, then two, then a deluge filling up the basket.

So here we are, approaching the end of 2020, with a remarkable collection of monoclonal antibodies, S1P modulators, fumarates, immunosuppressants, and one symptomatic treatment, many of which weren’t even imagined in 1993. Not to mention the original ABCR (Avonex, Betaseron, Copaxone, Rebif) agents, though they’re riding into the sunset.

A friend and I were talking about this remarkable success story. MS certainly hasn’t been cured, but its treatments have had a dramatic improvement in efficacy over the last quarter century.

He made a point though: that this selection of treatments may be relegating MS from the province of a general neurologist to that of the fellowship-trained MS subspecialist.

Not that that is such a bad thing, as MS is a very challenging disease. But the point is well taken. As treatments become increasingly complicated, and numerous, it becomes harder to know which one is best. Most of us likely choose orals first and monoclonal antibodies second, but the question of “which one?” arises for each category. They each have their own risks, side effects, initiation protocols, and peculiarities. In a disease of heterogeneous presentations and courses, there are no clear data on which agent to start first for what patient type. To a general neurologist, also juggling migraines, strokes, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, and neuropathy (and many other disorders) in the course of a day, it becomes tricky to keep up on such.

At some point do general neurologists become a victim of this success? Maybe, but probably not. Just as there are more general practitioners than neurologists, there are more general neurologists than MS subspecialists. Their knowledge and training should be reserved for those patients not responding to our first- (and second-) line treatments, presentations that are atypical, and more complex issues outside the scope of those of us practicing whatever-comes-to-the-door neurology.

It would, however, be nice to have a good consensus on how to best use this array of treatments. Solid guidelines, breaking disease subtypes and treatments down by patient types, drugs, and mechanisms of action, would help those of us on the neurology frontlines to better care for those who need us.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In 1993 I graduated from medical school. That same year Betaseron (interferon beta-1b) came to market as the first treatment specifically approved for multiple sclerosis (MS). This was a groundbreaker at the time, as there’d been little besides steroids and other potent immunosuppressants to try. Now we had a real drug to offer patients.

The demand for Betaseron was huge, so much so that a lottery system was used to determine which patients would get it first, as there simply wasn’t enough to go around. In the next several years a few more agents jumped into the ring – Avonex (interferon beta-1a), Copaxone (glatiramer acetate), Novantrone (mitoxantrone), and Rebif (interferon beta-1a) – before things went quiet for a while.

In 2006 the first monoclonal antibody for MS – Tysabri (natalizumab) – came out, then almost just as quickly vanished again, not returning until 2009.

Since then we’ve had a gradual explosion of new treatments for MS – like watching kernels become popcorn – first one, then two, then a deluge filling up the basket.

So here we are, approaching the end of 2020, with a remarkable collection of monoclonal antibodies, S1P modulators, fumarates, immunosuppressants, and one symptomatic treatment, many of which weren’t even imagined in 1993. Not to mention the original ABCR (Avonex, Betaseron, Copaxone, Rebif) agents, though they’re riding into the sunset.

A friend and I were talking about this remarkable success story. MS certainly hasn’t been cured, but its treatments have had a dramatic improvement in efficacy over the last quarter century.

He made a point though: that this selection of treatments may be relegating MS from the province of a general neurologist to that of the fellowship-trained MS subspecialist.

Not that that is such a bad thing, as MS is a very challenging disease. But the point is well taken. As treatments become increasingly complicated, and numerous, it becomes harder to know which one is best. Most of us likely choose orals first and monoclonal antibodies second, but the question of “which one?” arises for each category. They each have their own risks, side effects, initiation protocols, and peculiarities. In a disease of heterogeneous presentations and courses, there are no clear data on which agent to start first for what patient type. To a general neurologist, also juggling migraines, strokes, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, and neuropathy (and many other disorders) in the course of a day, it becomes tricky to keep up on such.

At some point do general neurologists become a victim of this success? Maybe, but probably not. Just as there are more general practitioners than neurologists, there are more general neurologists than MS subspecialists. Their knowledge and training should be reserved for those patients not responding to our first- (and second-) line treatments, presentations that are atypical, and more complex issues outside the scope of those of us practicing whatever-comes-to-the-door neurology.

It would, however, be nice to have a good consensus on how to best use this array of treatments. Solid guidelines, breaking disease subtypes and treatments down by patient types, drugs, and mechanisms of action, would help those of us on the neurology frontlines to better care for those who need us.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Key clinical point: Fingolimod is superior to glatiramer acetate in reducing the relapse rates for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), and 0.5 mg is the optimal dose.

Major finding: Fingolimod 0.5 mg vs. glatiramer acetate treatment showed a 40.7% relative reduction in annualized relapse rate (P = .01). No statistically significant difference was seen with fingolimod 0.25 mg vs. glatiramer acetate (14.6% reduction in annualized relapse rate; P = .42).

Study details: Phase 3b ASSESS trial: Patients with RRMS were randomly assigned to fingolimod 0.5 mg (n = 352), fingolimod 0.25 mg (n = 370), or to glatiramer acetate 20 mg (n = 342) groups for 12 months.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. The authors reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

Citation: Cree BAC et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Aug 24. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2950

Key clinical point: Fingolimod is superior to glatiramer acetate in reducing the relapse rates for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), and 0.5 mg is the optimal dose.

Major finding: Fingolimod 0.5 mg vs. glatiramer acetate treatment showed a 40.7% relative reduction in annualized relapse rate (P = .01). No statistically significant difference was seen with fingolimod 0.25 mg vs. glatiramer acetate (14.6% reduction in annualized relapse rate; P = .42).

Study details: Phase 3b ASSESS trial: Patients with RRMS were randomly assigned to fingolimod 0.5 mg (n = 352), fingolimod 0.25 mg (n = 370), or to glatiramer acetate 20 mg (n = 342) groups for 12 months.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. The authors reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

Citation: Cree BAC et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Aug 24. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2950

Key clinical point: Fingolimod is superior to glatiramer acetate in reducing the relapse rates for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), and 0.5 mg is the optimal dose.

Major finding: Fingolimod 0.5 mg vs. glatiramer acetate treatment showed a 40.7% relative reduction in annualized relapse rate (P = .01). No statistically significant difference was seen with fingolimod 0.25 mg vs. glatiramer acetate (14.6% reduction in annualized relapse rate; P = .42).

Study details: Phase 3b ASSESS trial: Patients with RRMS were randomly assigned to fingolimod 0.5 mg (n = 352), fingolimod 0.25 mg (n = 370), or to glatiramer acetate 20 mg (n = 342) groups for 12 months.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. The authors reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

Citation: Cree BAC et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Aug 24. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2950

Key clinical point: This meta-analysis suggests that the risk for cancer in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is less than the general population.

Major finding: The pooled relative risk (RR) of developing cancer was estimated as 0.83 (P less than .001), which shows that risk for cancer was 17% less in patients with MS than the general population. The RR of developing cancer in MS individuals differed between studies ranging from 0.7 to 1.67.

Study details: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 5 studies.

Disclosures: The study received no funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Citation: Ghajarzadeh M et al. Autoimmun Rev. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2020.102650.

Key clinical point: This meta-analysis suggests that the risk for cancer in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is less than the general population.

Major finding: The pooled relative risk (RR) of developing cancer was estimated as 0.83 (P less than .001), which shows that risk for cancer was 17% less in patients with MS than the general population. The RR of developing cancer in MS individuals differed between studies ranging from 0.7 to 1.67.

Study details: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 5 studies.

Disclosures: The study received no funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Citation: Ghajarzadeh M et al. Autoimmun Rev. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2020.102650.

Key clinical point: This meta-analysis suggests that the risk for cancer in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is less than the general population.

Major finding: The pooled relative risk (RR) of developing cancer was estimated as 0.83 (P less than .001), which shows that risk for cancer was 17% less in patients with MS than the general population. The RR of developing cancer in MS individuals differed between studies ranging from 0.7 to 1.67.

Study details: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 5 studies.

Disclosures: The study received no funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Citation: Ghajarzadeh M et al. Autoimmun Rev. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2020.102650.

Key clinical point: Cladribine tablets had lower annualized relapse rate (ARR) vs. interferon, glatiramer acetate, and dimethyl fumarate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in the first 2 years; a similar ARR vs. fingolimod; and a higher ARR vs. natalizumab.

Major finding: Cladribine demonstrated significantly lower ARR vs. interferon (relapse ratio [RR], 0.48; P less than .001), glatiramer acetate (RR, 0.49; P less than .001), and dimethyl fumarate (RR, 0.6; P = .001). No significant differences in ARR were observed when compared with fingolimod (RR = 0.74; P = .24), whereas higher ARR was observed vs. natalizumab (RR, 2.13; P = .014).

Study details: This study compared the efficacy of cladribine vs. other approved drugs in patients with RRMS by matching randomized controlled trial (CLARITY trial; cladribine tablets vs. placebo; n = 945) to observational data (Italian multicenter database i-MuST; n = 2,204).

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Merck Serono S.p.A., Rome, Italy; an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. Dr. Signori had no disclosures. Dr. Visconti is an employee at Merck Serono, Italy, and Dr. Sormani received consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies including Merck KGaA.

Citation: Signori A et al. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2020 Aug 14. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000878.

Key clinical point: Cladribine tablets had lower annualized relapse rate (ARR) vs. interferon, glatiramer acetate, and dimethyl fumarate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in the first 2 years; a similar ARR vs. fingolimod; and a higher ARR vs. natalizumab.

Major finding: Cladribine demonstrated significantly lower ARR vs. interferon (relapse ratio [RR], 0.48; P less than .001), glatiramer acetate (RR, 0.49; P less than .001), and dimethyl fumarate (RR, 0.6; P = .001). No significant differences in ARR were observed when compared with fingolimod (RR = 0.74; P = .24), whereas higher ARR was observed vs. natalizumab (RR, 2.13; P = .014).

Study details: This study compared the efficacy of cladribine vs. other approved drugs in patients with RRMS by matching randomized controlled trial (CLARITY trial; cladribine tablets vs. placebo; n = 945) to observational data (Italian multicenter database i-MuST; n = 2,204).

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Merck Serono S.p.A., Rome, Italy; an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. Dr. Signori had no disclosures. Dr. Visconti is an employee at Merck Serono, Italy, and Dr. Sormani received consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies including Merck KGaA.

Citation: Signori A et al. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2020 Aug 14. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000878.

Key clinical point: Cladribine tablets had lower annualized relapse rate (ARR) vs. interferon, glatiramer acetate, and dimethyl fumarate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in the first 2 years; a similar ARR vs. fingolimod; and a higher ARR vs. natalizumab.

Major finding: Cladribine demonstrated significantly lower ARR vs. interferon (relapse ratio [RR], 0.48; P less than .001), glatiramer acetate (RR, 0.49; P less than .001), and dimethyl fumarate (RR, 0.6; P = .001). No significant differences in ARR were observed when compared with fingolimod (RR = 0.74; P = .24), whereas higher ARR was observed vs. natalizumab (RR, 2.13; P = .014).

Study details: This study compared the efficacy of cladribine vs. other approved drugs in patients with RRMS by matching randomized controlled trial (CLARITY trial; cladribine tablets vs. placebo; n = 945) to observational data (Italian multicenter database i-MuST; n = 2,204).

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Merck Serono S.p.A., Rome, Italy; an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. Dr. Signori had no disclosures. Dr. Visconti is an employee at Merck Serono, Italy, and Dr. Sormani received consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies including Merck KGaA.

Citation: Signori A et al. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2020 Aug 14. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000878.

Key clinical point: Pregnancy and childbirth seem to delay the onset of multiple sclerosis by more than 3 years. However, having more pregnancies is not associated with later onset.

Major finding: Onset of clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) was later in women with previous pregnancies and childbirths vs. those without pregnancies and childbirths (hazard ratio, 0.68; P less than .001), with a median delay of 3.3 years. No association was seen between higher number of pregnancies and childbirths and delay in CIS onset.

Study details: The findings are based on a multicenter cohort study of 2,557 women with CIS (mean age at CIS onset, 31.5 years) from the MSBase Registry.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a postgraduate scholarship and Ian Ballard Travel Award from MS Research Australia, an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, and a grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council. The lead author reported receiving grants from MS Research Australia during the conduct of the study; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Biogen; grants and personal fees from Merck Serono; personal fees from Teva and Novartis; and nonfinancial support from Roche and Genzyme-Sanofi outside the submitted work.

Citation: Nguyen AL et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Sep 14. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.3324.

Key clinical point: Pregnancy and childbirth seem to delay the onset of multiple sclerosis by more than 3 years. However, having more pregnancies is not associated with later onset.

Major finding: Onset of clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) was later in women with previous pregnancies and childbirths vs. those without pregnancies and childbirths (hazard ratio, 0.68; P less than .001), with a median delay of 3.3 years. No association was seen between higher number of pregnancies and childbirths and delay in CIS onset.

Study details: The findings are based on a multicenter cohort study of 2,557 women with CIS (mean age at CIS onset, 31.5 years) from the MSBase Registry.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a postgraduate scholarship and Ian Ballard Travel Award from MS Research Australia, an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, and a grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council. The lead author reported receiving grants from MS Research Australia during the conduct of the study; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Biogen; grants and personal fees from Merck Serono; personal fees from Teva and Novartis; and nonfinancial support from Roche and Genzyme-Sanofi outside the submitted work.

Citation: Nguyen AL et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Sep 14. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.3324.

Key clinical point: Pregnancy and childbirth seem to delay the onset of multiple sclerosis by more than 3 years. However, having more pregnancies is not associated with later onset.

Major finding: Onset of clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) was later in women with previous pregnancies and childbirths vs. those without pregnancies and childbirths (hazard ratio, 0.68; P less than .001), with a median delay of 3.3 years. No association was seen between higher number of pregnancies and childbirths and delay in CIS onset.

Study details: The findings are based on a multicenter cohort study of 2,557 women with CIS (mean age at CIS onset, 31.5 years) from the MSBase Registry.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a postgraduate scholarship and Ian Ballard Travel Award from MS Research Australia, an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, and a grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council. The lead author reported receiving grants from MS Research Australia during the conduct of the study; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Biogen; grants and personal fees from Merck Serono; personal fees from Teva and Novartis; and nonfinancial support from Roche and Genzyme-Sanofi outside the submitted work.

Citation: Nguyen AL et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Sep 14. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.3324.

Measuring serum levels of neurofilament light chain (NfL) is an effective way of detecting disease activity and the need to optimize treatment in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), independent of relapse and MRI activity, a new study has shown. 

The study found that current serum NfL levels predicted relapses, disability worsening, and MRI activity in the following year independent of standard metrics for treatment monitoring, such as relapse rate, disability worsening, and MRI findings. The biomarker also detected subclinical disease activity in patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA3), as measured by absence of previous relapses, worsening score on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), or brain lesion formation on MRI. 

“Our data in this well-characterized large real-world cohort supports the value of serum NfL levels for treatment monitoring in MS clinical practice,” lead author Özgür Yaldizli, MD, concluded.

Dr. Yaldizli, who is a consultant neurologist at University Hospital Basel (Switzerland), presented the findings at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“This is the first study to compare NfL simultaneously with other markers of disease progression, such as MRI lesions and relapse rate in treated patients. We show that NfL gives a unique signal that is not captured by other markers,” Dr. Yaldizli said.

“This is likely the largest study of NfL in MS to date, with more than 7,000 samples from well-characterized MS patients followed longitudinally for more than 5 years of sampling and including high quality data on MRI and clinical examinations. It is the first time all these factors have been combined so that we can see how NfL compares with other markers of disease progression in predicting clinical events and monitoring treatment efficacy,” said senior author Jens Kuhle, MD, PhD, also from University Hospital Basel. 
 

Large normative database for reference

The researchers also reported a large normative database of NfL values with data from more than 8,000 healthy controls. “This is the largest normative database to date, that gives us reliable reference values for NfL across a range of ages and comorbidities,” Dr. Kuhle noted.

In his presentation, Dr. Yaldizli explained that NfL is a neuronal cytoskeletal protein released into the cerebrospinal fluid and blood following neuroaxonal injury. Although numerous studies have shown that serum NfL is associated with clinical and MRI disease activity and treatment response, it is not clear whether serum NfL under established disease-modifying therapy (DMT) can identify patients with suboptimal treatment response, compared with standard clinical and MRI activity measures.

This study addressed that question in the large real-world Swiss MS cohort.

The study involved 1,366 patients (88.8% with relapsing remitting MS [RRMS], 5.4% with secondary progressive MS, and 5.8% with primary progressive MS) receiving DMT for at least 3 months from seven MS centers. The median disease duration was 7.2 years. Serum NfL was measured every 6 or 12 months with NF-Light assay on the latest-generation HDX platform (blinded for clinical and MRI data). The median follow-up was 4.9 years. There was an average of five samples per patient, with a total of 7462 samples.

Results showed that NfL levels were higher in older patients (14.5% per 10 years), those with secondary progressive MS (12.4% vs. RRMS), those with primary progressive MS (14.4% vs. RRMS), and in those who had a relapse in the last 4 months (53.4%).

NfL levels were 13.4% lower in patients receiving oral DMT (vs. untreated patients) and 17.7% in patients receiving monoclonal antibodies (vs. untreated patients).

In the large cohort of healthy controls, NfL levels also increased with age, but levels in patients with MS were higher than in controls across the whole age spectrum.

To obtain a measure of deviation from normal, the authors converted NfL levels to z score, which express how much (in terms of number of standard deviations) a measurement differs from mean values found in healthy controls of the same age. Effects were more pronounced with use of z score derived from the normative database than with use of absolute NfL levels even after adjustment for age.

In the univariate analysis, serum NfL z score predicted relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year: The higher the z score, the higher the risk for relapse or EDSS worsening. Patients with an NfL z score greater than 1 had a 41% higher risk for relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year, compared with those whose z score was less than 1 (odds ratio, 1.41).

Patients with an NfL z score exceeding 1.5 had an 80% higher risk for relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year than did those whose score was below 1.5 (OR, 1.8).

Patients with an NfL z score greater than 2 had a 2.3 times higher risk for relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year versus those with a score below 2. (P < 0.001 for all comparisons.)

A screen for nervous system conditions?

Dr, Kuhle reported that NfL is being used on an individual basis in clinical practice at present – at certain MS centers. “One of the problems is not having reliable reference values, so this database of normative values will be very helpful in developing those,” he said. “We see an increase in NfL with age in healthy controls. In order to know what pathological levels are, we need to know what normal levels are in controls throughout the spectrum of ages and other comorbidities, which also play a role. If we normalize these, then we can work out the MS signal in a more efficient way.”

Dr. Kuhle believes that, in the future, NfL may be used to screen for nervous system disease. “NfL is a measure of neuronal health independent of MS. If we have increased levels, we should be worried.”

There is a “high level of energy in this field,” he added. “In future, it could be like having a cholesterol test at present – picking up that something is not right and indicating the need for more tests.”

Dr. Yaldizli suggested that NfL monitoring could also help to individualize and optimize use of MS treatments. “There is a huge unmet need in MS. While we have a plethora of treatment options, we are struggling to individualize and monitor treatments. If NfL levels increase, this is likely a strong indication to change treatment even if there are no other overt symptoms.”

Commenting on the current study, ACTRIMS president, Jeffrey Cohen, MD, Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research at the Cleveland Clinic, called it “an important study.” 

“NfL clearly can detect disease activity and distinguish efficacy of DMT in groups of patients,” Dr. Cohen said.  

“This study shows that NfL can be used to monitor DMT efficacy in individual patients and can detect suboptimal treatment response in patients with NEDA (i.e., who appear stable by the measures we typically employ in practice),” he added.

Dr. Yaldizli sits on advisory boards for Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Biogen, and Novartis. Dr. Kuhle reported no relevant disclosures.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Measuring serum levels of neurofilament light chain (NfL) is an effective way of detecting disease activity and the need to optimize treatment in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), independent of relapse and MRI activity, a new study has shown. 

The study found that current serum NfL levels predicted relapses, disability worsening, and MRI activity in the following year independent of standard metrics for treatment monitoring, such as relapse rate, disability worsening, and MRI findings. The biomarker also detected subclinical disease activity in patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA3), as measured by absence of previous relapses, worsening score on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), or brain lesion formation on MRI. 

“Our data in this well-characterized large real-world cohort supports the value of serum NfL levels for treatment monitoring in MS clinical practice,” lead author Özgür Yaldizli, MD, concluded.

Dr. Yaldizli, who is a consultant neurologist at University Hospital Basel (Switzerland), presented the findings at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“This is the first study to compare NfL simultaneously with other markers of disease progression, such as MRI lesions and relapse rate in treated patients. We show that NfL gives a unique signal that is not captured by other markers,” Dr. Yaldizli said.

“This is likely the largest study of NfL in MS to date, with more than 7,000 samples from well-characterized MS patients followed longitudinally for more than 5 years of sampling and including high quality data on MRI and clinical examinations. It is the first time all these factors have been combined so that we can see how NfL compares with other markers of disease progression in predicting clinical events and monitoring treatment efficacy,” said senior author Jens Kuhle, MD, PhD, also from University Hospital Basel. 
 

Large normative database for reference

The researchers also reported a large normative database of NfL values with data from more than 8,000 healthy controls. “This is the largest normative database to date, that gives us reliable reference values for NfL across a range of ages and comorbidities,” Dr. Kuhle noted.

In his presentation, Dr. Yaldizli explained that NfL is a neuronal cytoskeletal protein released into the cerebrospinal fluid and blood following neuroaxonal injury. Although numerous studies have shown that serum NfL is associated with clinical and MRI disease activity and treatment response, it is not clear whether serum NfL under established disease-modifying therapy (DMT) can identify patients with suboptimal treatment response, compared with standard clinical and MRI activity measures.

This study addressed that question in the large real-world Swiss MS cohort.

The study involved 1,366 patients (88.8% with relapsing remitting MS [RRMS], 5.4% with secondary progressive MS, and 5.8% with primary progressive MS) receiving DMT for at least 3 months from seven MS centers. The median disease duration was 7.2 years. Serum NfL was measured every 6 or 12 months with NF-Light assay on the latest-generation HDX platform (blinded for clinical and MRI data). The median follow-up was 4.9 years. There was an average of five samples per patient, with a total of 7462 samples.

Results showed that NfL levels were higher in older patients (14.5% per 10 years), those with secondary progressive MS (12.4% vs. RRMS), those with primary progressive MS (14.4% vs. RRMS), and in those who had a relapse in the last 4 months (53.4%).

NfL levels were 13.4% lower in patients receiving oral DMT (vs. untreated patients) and 17.7% in patients receiving monoclonal antibodies (vs. untreated patients).

In the large cohort of healthy controls, NfL levels also increased with age, but levels in patients with MS were higher than in controls across the whole age spectrum.

To obtain a measure of deviation from normal, the authors converted NfL levels to z score, which express how much (in terms of number of standard deviations) a measurement differs from mean values found in healthy controls of the same age. Effects were more pronounced with use of z score derived from the normative database than with use of absolute NfL levels even after adjustment for age.

In the univariate analysis, serum NfL z score predicted relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year: The higher the z score, the higher the risk for relapse or EDSS worsening. Patients with an NfL z score greater than 1 had a 41% higher risk for relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year, compared with those whose z score was less than 1 (odds ratio, 1.41).

Patients with an NfL z score exceeding 1.5 had an 80% higher risk for relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year than did those whose score was below 1.5 (OR, 1.8).

Patients with an NfL z score greater than 2 had a 2.3 times higher risk for relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year versus those with a score below 2. (P < 0.001 for all comparisons.)

A screen for nervous system conditions?

Dr, Kuhle reported that NfL is being used on an individual basis in clinical practice at present – at certain MS centers. “One of the problems is not having reliable reference values, so this database of normative values will be very helpful in developing those,” he said. “We see an increase in NfL with age in healthy controls. In order to know what pathological levels are, we need to know what normal levels are in controls throughout the spectrum of ages and other comorbidities, which also play a role. If we normalize these, then we can work out the MS signal in a more efficient way.”

Dr. Kuhle believes that, in the future, NfL may be used to screen for nervous system disease. “NfL is a measure of neuronal health independent of MS. If we have increased levels, we should be worried.”

There is a “high level of energy in this field,” he added. “In future, it could be like having a cholesterol test at present – picking up that something is not right and indicating the need for more tests.”

Dr. Yaldizli suggested that NfL monitoring could also help to individualize and optimize use of MS treatments. “There is a huge unmet need in MS. While we have a plethora of treatment options, we are struggling to individualize and monitor treatments. If NfL levels increase, this is likely a strong indication to change treatment even if there are no other overt symptoms.”

Commenting on the current study, ACTRIMS president, Jeffrey Cohen, MD, Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research at the Cleveland Clinic, called it “an important study.” 

“NfL clearly can detect disease activity and distinguish efficacy of DMT in groups of patients,” Dr. Cohen said.  

“This study shows that NfL can be used to monitor DMT efficacy in individual patients and can detect suboptimal treatment response in patients with NEDA (i.e., who appear stable by the measures we typically employ in practice),” he added.

Dr. Yaldizli sits on advisory boards for Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Biogen, and Novartis. Dr. Kuhle reported no relevant disclosures.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Measuring serum levels of neurofilament light chain (NfL) is an effective way of detecting disease activity and the need to optimize treatment in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), independent of relapse and MRI activity, a new study has shown. 

The study found that current serum NfL levels predicted relapses, disability worsening, and MRI activity in the following year independent of standard metrics for treatment monitoring, such as relapse rate, disability worsening, and MRI findings. The biomarker also detected subclinical disease activity in patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA3), as measured by absence of previous relapses, worsening score on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), or brain lesion formation on MRI. 

“Our data in this well-characterized large real-world cohort supports the value of serum NfL levels for treatment monitoring in MS clinical practice,” lead author Özgür Yaldizli, MD, concluded.

Dr. Yaldizli, who is a consultant neurologist at University Hospital Basel (Switzerland), presented the findings at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“This is the first study to compare NfL simultaneously with other markers of disease progression, such as MRI lesions and relapse rate in treated patients. We show that NfL gives a unique signal that is not captured by other markers,” Dr. Yaldizli said.

“This is likely the largest study of NfL in MS to date, with more than 7,000 samples from well-characterized MS patients followed longitudinally for more than 5 years of sampling and including high quality data on MRI and clinical examinations. It is the first time all these factors have been combined so that we can see how NfL compares with other markers of disease progression in predicting clinical events and monitoring treatment efficacy,” said senior author Jens Kuhle, MD, PhD, also from University Hospital Basel. 
 

Large normative database for reference

The researchers also reported a large normative database of NfL values with data from more than 8,000 healthy controls. “This is the largest normative database to date, that gives us reliable reference values for NfL across a range of ages and comorbidities,” Dr. Kuhle noted.

In his presentation, Dr. Yaldizli explained that NfL is a neuronal cytoskeletal protein released into the cerebrospinal fluid and blood following neuroaxonal injury. Although numerous studies have shown that serum NfL is associated with clinical and MRI disease activity and treatment response, it is not clear whether serum NfL under established disease-modifying therapy (DMT) can identify patients with suboptimal treatment response, compared with standard clinical and MRI activity measures.

This study addressed that question in the large real-world Swiss MS cohort.

The study involved 1,366 patients (88.8% with relapsing remitting MS [RRMS], 5.4% with secondary progressive MS, and 5.8% with primary progressive MS) receiving DMT for at least 3 months from seven MS centers. The median disease duration was 7.2 years. Serum NfL was measured every 6 or 12 months with NF-Light assay on the latest-generation HDX platform (blinded for clinical and MRI data). The median follow-up was 4.9 years. There was an average of five samples per patient, with a total of 7462 samples.

Results showed that NfL levels were higher in older patients (14.5% per 10 years), those with secondary progressive MS (12.4% vs. RRMS), those with primary progressive MS (14.4% vs. RRMS), and in those who had a relapse in the last 4 months (53.4%).

NfL levels were 13.4% lower in patients receiving oral DMT (vs. untreated patients) and 17.7% in patients receiving monoclonal antibodies (vs. untreated patients).

In the large cohort of healthy controls, NfL levels also increased with age, but levels in patients with MS were higher than in controls across the whole age spectrum.

To obtain a measure of deviation from normal, the authors converted NfL levels to z score, which express how much (in terms of number of standard deviations) a measurement differs from mean values found in healthy controls of the same age. Effects were more pronounced with use of z score derived from the normative database than with use of absolute NfL levels even after adjustment for age.

In the univariate analysis, serum NfL z score predicted relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year: The higher the z score, the higher the risk for relapse or EDSS worsening. Patients with an NfL z score greater than 1 had a 41% higher risk for relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year, compared with those whose z score was less than 1 (odds ratio, 1.41).

Patients with an NfL z score exceeding 1.5 had an 80% higher risk for relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year than did those whose score was below 1.5 (OR, 1.8).

Patients with an NfL z score greater than 2 had a 2.3 times higher risk for relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year versus those with a score below 2. (P < 0.001 for all comparisons.)

A screen for nervous system conditions?

Dr, Kuhle reported that NfL is being used on an individual basis in clinical practice at present – at certain MS centers. “One of the problems is not having reliable reference values, so this database of normative values will be very helpful in developing those,” he said. “We see an increase in NfL with age in healthy controls. In order to know what pathological levels are, we need to know what normal levels are in controls throughout the spectrum of ages and other comorbidities, which also play a role. If we normalize these, then we can work out the MS signal in a more efficient way.”

Dr. Kuhle believes that, in the future, NfL may be used to screen for nervous system disease. “NfL is a measure of neuronal health independent of MS. If we have increased levels, we should be worried.”

There is a “high level of energy in this field,” he added. “In future, it could be like having a cholesterol test at present – picking up that something is not right and indicating the need for more tests.”

Dr. Yaldizli suggested that NfL monitoring could also help to individualize and optimize use of MS treatments. “There is a huge unmet need in MS. While we have a plethora of treatment options, we are struggling to individualize and monitor treatments. If NfL levels increase, this is likely a strong indication to change treatment even if there are no other overt symptoms.”

Commenting on the current study, ACTRIMS president, Jeffrey Cohen, MD, Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research at the Cleveland Clinic, called it “an important study.” 

“NfL clearly can detect disease activity and distinguish efficacy of DMT in groups of patients,” Dr. Cohen said.  

“This study shows that NfL can be used to monitor DMT efficacy in individual patients and can detect suboptimal treatment response in patients with NEDA (i.e., who appear stable by the measures we typically employ in practice),” he added.

Dr. Yaldizli sits on advisory boards for Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Biogen, and Novartis. Dr. Kuhle reported no relevant disclosures.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Last month, the American College of Rheumatology joined with 11 other medical associations and disease societies asking health insurance giant UnitedHealthcare (UHC) to not proceed with its proposed copay accumulator medical benefit program.

Copay accumulators are policies adopted by insurance companies or their pharmacy benefit managers to exclude patient copayment assistance programs for high-cost drugs, which are promulgated by the drug manufacturers, from being applied to a patient’s annual deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums. The manufacturer’s copay assistance, such as in the form of coupons, is designed to minimize the patient’s out-of-pocket costs. But insurers believe manufacturers will have no pressure to lower the prices of expensive specialty drugs unless patients are unable to afford them. Copay accumulators thus are aimed at giving insurers more leverage in negotiating prices for high-cost drugs.

UHC issued its new copay accumulator protocol for commercial individual and fully insured group plans in early October, effective Jan. 1, 2021, “in order to align employer costs for specialty medications with actual member out of pocket and deductibles,” according to the company’s announcement. In other words, patients will need to pay a higher share of the costs of these medications, said rheumatologist Christopher Phillips, MD, who chairs the Insurance Subcommittee of ACR’s Rheumatologic Care Committee. The annual price of biologic therapies for rheumatologic conditions ranges from $22,000 to $44,000, according to a recent press release from ACR.

The copay accumulator will negate the benefits of manufacturers’ copayment assistance programs for the patient, shifting more of the cost to the patient. With patients being forced to pay a higher share of drug costs for expensive biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other rheumatologic conditions, they’ll stop taking the treatments, Dr. Phillips said.

“In my solo rheumatology practice in Paducah, Kentucky, when I’ve seen this kind of program applied on the pharmacy benefit side, rather than the medical benefit side, almost uniformly patients stop taking the high-cost treatments.” That can lead to disease flares, complications, and permanent disability. The newer rheumatologic drugs can cost $500 to $1,000 per treatment, and in many cases, there’s no generic or lower-cost alternative, he says. “We see policies like this as sacrificing patients to the battle over high drug prices. It’s bad practice, bad for patient outcomes, and nobody – apart from the payer – benefits.”

In ACR’s 2020 Rheumatic Disease Patient Survey, nearly half of 1,109 online survey respondents who had rheumatic diseases reported out-of-pocket costs greater than $1,000 per year for treatment. An IQVIA report from 2016 found that one in four specialty brand prescriptions are abandoned during the deductible phase, three times the rate seen when there is no deductible.

In an Oct. 7 letter to UHC, the 12 groups acknowledged that the drugs targeted by the accumulator policy are expensive. “However, they are also vitally important for our patients.” In addition to the ACR, the organizations involved include the AIDS Institute, American Academy of Dermatology Association, American Academy of Neurology, American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, American Kidney Fund, Arthritis Foundation, Association for Clinical Oncology, Cancer Support Community, Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, and National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

UHC did not reply to questions in time for publication.


 

First large-scale payer to try copay accumulator program

Under UHC’s proposed policy, providers will be required to use UHC’s portal to report payment information received from drug manufacturer copay assistance programs that are applied to patients’ cost share of these drugs through a complex, 14-step “coupon submission process” involving multiple technology interfaces. “My first oath as a physician is to do no harm to my patient. Many of us are concerned about making these reports, which could harm our patients and undermine the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Phillips said.

“If I don’t report, what happens? I don’t think we know the answer to that. Some of us may decide we need to part ways with UHC.” Others may decline to participate in the drug manufacturers’ coupon programs beyond simply informing patients that manufacturer assistance is available.

“We’ve watched these copay accumulator policies for several years,” he said. “Some of them are rather opaque, with names like ‘copay savings programs’ or ‘copay value programs.’ But we had not seen a large-scale payer try to do this until now. Let’s face it: If UHC’s policy goes through, you can count the days until we see it from others.”

The Department of Health & Human Services, in its May 2020 final federal “Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2021,” indicated that individual states have the responsibility to regulate copay accumulator programs. Five states have banned them or restricted their use for individual and small group health plans. Arizona, Illinois, Virginia, and West Virginia passed such laws in 2019, and Georgia did so earlier this year.

“In next year’s state legislative sessions, we’ll make it a priority to pursue similar laws in other states,” Dr. Phillips said. “I’d encourage rheumatologists to educate their patients on the issues and be active in advocating for them.”

Last month, the American College of Rheumatology joined with 11 other medical associations and disease societies asking health insurance giant UnitedHealthcare (UHC) to not proceed with its proposed copay accumulator medical benefit program.

Copay accumulators are policies adopted by insurance companies or their pharmacy benefit managers to exclude patient copayment assistance programs for high-cost drugs, which are promulgated by the drug manufacturers, from being applied to a patient’s annual deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums. The manufacturer’s copay assistance, such as in the form of coupons, is designed to minimize the patient’s out-of-pocket costs. But insurers believe manufacturers will have no pressure to lower the prices of expensive specialty drugs unless patients are unable to afford them. Copay accumulators thus are aimed at giving insurers more leverage in negotiating prices for high-cost drugs.

UHC issued its new copay accumulator protocol for commercial individual and fully insured group plans in early October, effective Jan. 1, 2021, “in order to align employer costs for specialty medications with actual member out of pocket and deductibles,” according to the company’s announcement. In other words, patients will need to pay a higher share of the costs of these medications, said rheumatologist Christopher Phillips, MD, who chairs the Insurance Subcommittee of ACR’s Rheumatologic Care Committee. The annual price of biologic therapies for rheumatologic conditions ranges from $22,000 to $44,000, according to a recent press release from ACR.

The copay accumulator will negate the benefits of manufacturers’ copayment assistance programs for the patient, shifting more of the cost to the patient. With patients being forced to pay a higher share of drug costs for expensive biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other rheumatologic conditions, they’ll stop taking the treatments, Dr. Phillips said.

“In my solo rheumatology practice in Paducah, Kentucky, when I’ve seen this kind of program applied on the pharmacy benefit side, rather than the medical benefit side, almost uniformly patients stop taking the high-cost treatments.” That can lead to disease flares, complications, and permanent disability. The newer rheumatologic drugs can cost $500 to $1,000 per treatment, and in many cases, there’s no generic or lower-cost alternative, he says. “We see policies like this as sacrificing patients to the battle over high drug prices. It’s bad practice, bad for patient outcomes, and nobody – apart from the payer – benefits.”

In ACR’s 2020 Rheumatic Disease Patient Survey, nearly half of 1,109 online survey respondents who had rheumatic diseases reported out-of-pocket costs greater than $1,000 per year for treatment. An IQVIA report from 2016 found that one in four specialty brand prescriptions are abandoned during the deductible phase, three times the rate seen when there is no deductible.

In an Oct. 7 letter to UHC, the 12 groups acknowledged that the drugs targeted by the accumulator policy are expensive. “However, they are also vitally important for our patients.” In addition to the ACR, the organizations involved include the AIDS Institute, American Academy of Dermatology Association, American Academy of Neurology, American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, American Kidney Fund, Arthritis Foundation, Association for Clinical Oncology, Cancer Support Community, Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, and National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

UHC did not reply to questions in time for publication.


 

First large-scale payer to try copay accumulator program

Under UHC’s proposed policy, providers will be required to use UHC’s portal to report payment information received from drug manufacturer copay assistance programs that are applied to patients’ cost share of these drugs through a complex, 14-step “coupon submission process” involving multiple technology interfaces. “My first oath as a physician is to do no harm to my patient. Many of us are concerned about making these reports, which could harm our patients and undermine the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Phillips said.

“If I don’t report, what happens? I don’t think we know the answer to that. Some of us may decide we need to part ways with UHC.” Others may decline to participate in the drug manufacturers’ coupon programs beyond simply informing patients that manufacturer assistance is available.

“We’ve watched these copay accumulator policies for several years,” he said. “Some of them are rather opaque, with names like ‘copay savings programs’ or ‘copay value programs.’ But we had not seen a large-scale payer try to do this until now. Let’s face it: If UHC’s policy goes through, you can count the days until we see it from others.”

The Department of Health & Human Services, in its May 2020 final federal “Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2021,” indicated that individual states have the responsibility to regulate copay accumulator programs. Five states have banned them or restricted their use for individual and small group health plans. Arizona, Illinois, Virginia, and West Virginia passed such laws in 2019, and Georgia did so earlier this year.

“In next year’s state legislative sessions, we’ll make it a priority to pursue similar laws in other states,” Dr. Phillips said. “I’d encourage rheumatologists to educate their patients on the issues and be active in advocating for them.”

Last month, the American College of Rheumatology joined with 11 other medical associations and disease societies asking health insurance giant UnitedHealthcare (UHC) to not proceed with its proposed copay accumulator medical benefit program.

Copay accumulators are policies adopted by insurance companies or their pharmacy benefit managers to exclude patient copayment assistance programs for high-cost drugs, which are promulgated by the drug manufacturers, from being applied to a patient’s annual deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums. The manufacturer’s copay assistance, such as in the form of coupons, is designed to minimize the patient’s out-of-pocket costs. But insurers believe manufacturers will have no pressure to lower the prices of expensive specialty drugs unless patients are unable to afford them. Copay accumulators thus are aimed at giving insurers more leverage in negotiating prices for high-cost drugs.

UHC issued its new copay accumulator protocol for commercial individual and fully insured group plans in early October, effective Jan. 1, 2021, “in order to align employer costs for specialty medications with actual member out of pocket and deductibles,” according to the company’s announcement. In other words, patients will need to pay a higher share of the costs of these medications, said rheumatologist Christopher Phillips, MD, who chairs the Insurance Subcommittee of ACR’s Rheumatologic Care Committee. The annual price of biologic therapies for rheumatologic conditions ranges from $22,000 to $44,000, according to a recent press release from ACR.

The copay accumulator will negate the benefits of manufacturers’ copayment assistance programs for the patient, shifting more of the cost to the patient. With patients being forced to pay a higher share of drug costs for expensive biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other rheumatologic conditions, they’ll stop taking the treatments, Dr. Phillips said.

“In my solo rheumatology practice in Paducah, Kentucky, when I’ve seen this kind of program applied on the pharmacy benefit side, rather than the medical benefit side, almost uniformly patients stop taking the high-cost treatments.” That can lead to disease flares, complications, and permanent disability. The newer rheumatologic drugs can cost $500 to $1,000 per treatment, and in many cases, there’s no generic or lower-cost alternative, he says. “We see policies like this as sacrificing patients to the battle over high drug prices. It’s bad practice, bad for patient outcomes, and nobody – apart from the payer – benefits.”

In ACR’s 2020 Rheumatic Disease Patient Survey, nearly half of 1,109 online survey respondents who had rheumatic diseases reported out-of-pocket costs greater than $1,000 per year for treatment. An IQVIA report from 2016 found that one in four specialty brand prescriptions are abandoned during the deductible phase, three times the rate seen when there is no deductible.

In an Oct. 7 letter to UHC, the 12 groups acknowledged that the drugs targeted by the accumulator policy are expensive. “However, they are also vitally important for our patients.” In addition to the ACR, the organizations involved include the AIDS Institute, American Academy of Dermatology Association, American Academy of Neurology, American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, American Kidney Fund, Arthritis Foundation, Association for Clinical Oncology, Cancer Support Community, Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, and National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

UHC did not reply to questions in time for publication.


 

First large-scale payer to try copay accumulator program

Under UHC’s proposed policy, providers will be required to use UHC’s portal to report payment information received from drug manufacturer copay assistance programs that are applied to patients’ cost share of these drugs through a complex, 14-step “coupon submission process” involving multiple technology interfaces. “My first oath as a physician is to do no harm to my patient. Many of us are concerned about making these reports, which could harm our patients and undermine the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Phillips said.

“If I don’t report, what happens? I don’t think we know the answer to that. Some of us may decide we need to part ways with UHC.” Others may decline to participate in the drug manufacturers’ coupon programs beyond simply informing patients that manufacturer assistance is available.

“We’ve watched these copay accumulator policies for several years,” he said. “Some of them are rather opaque, with names like ‘copay savings programs’ or ‘copay value programs.’ But we had not seen a large-scale payer try to do this until now. Let’s face it: If UHC’s policy goes through, you can count the days until we see it from others.”

The Department of Health & Human Services, in its May 2020 final federal “Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2021,” indicated that individual states have the responsibility to regulate copay accumulator programs. Five states have banned them or restricted their use for individual and small group health plans. Arizona, Illinois, Virginia, and West Virginia passed such laws in 2019, and Georgia did so earlier this year.

“In next year’s state legislative sessions, we’ll make it a priority to pursue similar laws in other states,” Dr. Phillips said. “I’d encourage rheumatologists to educate their patients on the issues and be active in advocating for them.”