User login
Neurology Reviews covers innovative and emerging news in neurology and neuroscience every month, with a focus on practical approaches to treating Parkinson's disease, epilepsy, headache, stroke, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, and other neurologic disorders.
PML
Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
Rituxan
The leading independent newspaper covering neurology news and commentary.
Where do you stand on the Middle East conflict?
“What do you think about the whole Israel thing?”
That question came at the end of an otherwise routine appointment.
Maybe she was just chatting. Maybe she wanted something deeper. I have no idea. I just said, “I don’t discuss those things with patients.”
My answer surprised her, but she didn’t push it. She paid her copay, scheduled a follow-up for 3 months, and left.
As I’ve written before, I try to avoid all news except the local weather. The sad reality is that most of it is bad and there’s nothing I can really do about it. It only upsets me, which isn’t good for my mental health and blood pressure, and if I can’t change it, what’s the point of knowing? It falls under the serenity prayer.
Of course, some news stories are too big not to hear something. I pass TVs in the doctors lounge or coffee house, hear others talking as I stand in line for the elevator, or see blurbs go by when checking the weather. It’s not entirely unavoidable.
I’m not trivializing the Middle East. But, to me, it’s not part of the doctor-patient relationship any more than my political views are. You run the risk of driving a wedge between you and the person you’re caring for. If you don’t like their opinion, you may find yourself less interested in them and their care. If they don’t like your opinion on news, they may start to question your ability as a doctor.
That’s not what we strive for, but it can be human nature. For better or worse we often reduce things to “us against them,” and learning someone is on the opposite side may, even subconsciously, alter how you treat them.
That’s not good, so to me it’s best not to know.
Some may think I’m being petty, or aloof, to be unwilling to discuss nonmedical issues of significance, but I don’t see it that way. Time is limited at the appointment and is best spent on medical care. Something unrelated to the visit that may alter my objective opinion of a patient – or theirs of me as a doctor – is best left out of it.
I’m here to be your doctor, and to do the best I can for you. I’m not here to be a debate partner. Whenever a patient asks me a question on politics or news I always think of the Monty Python skit “Argument Clinic.” That’s not why you’re here. There are plenty places to discuss such things. My office isn’t one of them.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
“What do you think about the whole Israel thing?”
That question came at the end of an otherwise routine appointment.
Maybe she was just chatting. Maybe she wanted something deeper. I have no idea. I just said, “I don’t discuss those things with patients.”
My answer surprised her, but she didn’t push it. She paid her copay, scheduled a follow-up for 3 months, and left.
As I’ve written before, I try to avoid all news except the local weather. The sad reality is that most of it is bad and there’s nothing I can really do about it. It only upsets me, which isn’t good for my mental health and blood pressure, and if I can’t change it, what’s the point of knowing? It falls under the serenity prayer.
Of course, some news stories are too big not to hear something. I pass TVs in the doctors lounge or coffee house, hear others talking as I stand in line for the elevator, or see blurbs go by when checking the weather. It’s not entirely unavoidable.
I’m not trivializing the Middle East. But, to me, it’s not part of the doctor-patient relationship any more than my political views are. You run the risk of driving a wedge between you and the person you’re caring for. If you don’t like their opinion, you may find yourself less interested in them and their care. If they don’t like your opinion on news, they may start to question your ability as a doctor.
That’s not what we strive for, but it can be human nature. For better or worse we often reduce things to “us against them,” and learning someone is on the opposite side may, even subconsciously, alter how you treat them.
That’s not good, so to me it’s best not to know.
Some may think I’m being petty, or aloof, to be unwilling to discuss nonmedical issues of significance, but I don’t see it that way. Time is limited at the appointment and is best spent on medical care. Something unrelated to the visit that may alter my objective opinion of a patient – or theirs of me as a doctor – is best left out of it.
I’m here to be your doctor, and to do the best I can for you. I’m not here to be a debate partner. Whenever a patient asks me a question on politics or news I always think of the Monty Python skit “Argument Clinic.” That’s not why you’re here. There are plenty places to discuss such things. My office isn’t one of them.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
“What do you think about the whole Israel thing?”
That question came at the end of an otherwise routine appointment.
Maybe she was just chatting. Maybe she wanted something deeper. I have no idea. I just said, “I don’t discuss those things with patients.”
My answer surprised her, but she didn’t push it. She paid her copay, scheduled a follow-up for 3 months, and left.
As I’ve written before, I try to avoid all news except the local weather. The sad reality is that most of it is bad and there’s nothing I can really do about it. It only upsets me, which isn’t good for my mental health and blood pressure, and if I can’t change it, what’s the point of knowing? It falls under the serenity prayer.
Of course, some news stories are too big not to hear something. I pass TVs in the doctors lounge or coffee house, hear others talking as I stand in line for the elevator, or see blurbs go by when checking the weather. It’s not entirely unavoidable.
I’m not trivializing the Middle East. But, to me, it’s not part of the doctor-patient relationship any more than my political views are. You run the risk of driving a wedge between you and the person you’re caring for. If you don’t like their opinion, you may find yourself less interested in them and their care. If they don’t like your opinion on news, they may start to question your ability as a doctor.
That’s not what we strive for, but it can be human nature. For better or worse we often reduce things to “us against them,” and learning someone is on the opposite side may, even subconsciously, alter how you treat them.
That’s not good, so to me it’s best not to know.
Some may think I’m being petty, or aloof, to be unwilling to discuss nonmedical issues of significance, but I don’t see it that way. Time is limited at the appointment and is best spent on medical care. Something unrelated to the visit that may alter my objective opinion of a patient – or theirs of me as a doctor – is best left out of it.
I’m here to be your doctor, and to do the best I can for you. I’m not here to be a debate partner. Whenever a patient asks me a question on politics or news I always think of the Monty Python skit “Argument Clinic.” That’s not why you’re here. There are plenty places to discuss such things. My office isn’t one of them.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Stem cell transplants in early MS: Who benefits most?
MILAN – researchers told colleagues at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting. But there’s no consensus over best practices.
“Is this a good alternative regarding treatment efficacy and risk? When should we switch from standard treatment? Should we switch from a low-efficacy treatment, from a previous high-efficacy treatment, or from two or more? There is no agreement on this at the moment,” said neurologist Lars Bø, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Bergen (Norway).
However, rapid conversion to efficient treatment in the early stages of disease is turning out to be crucial, Dr. Bø said. “Early inflammatory activity has lasting effects. A delay from less than 2 years to 4-6 years has implications for disability.”
Where does HSCT fit in? According to Dr. Bø, a 2017 study found that newer treatments bring up to 50% of patients to no evidence of disease activity at 2 years compared with 70%-90% for HSCT. That study reported that “optimal candidates ... are young, ambulatory, and have inflammatory-active relapsing remitting MS.”
But other research is presenting a different picture with “data that doesn’t show such a clear-cut difference.” Dr. Bø highlighted a study published earlier this year that found that HSCT was “considerably superior” to fingolimod and “marginally superior” to natalizumab, but was not superior to ocrelizumab over shorter periods of time. As a result, “there is a need for further randomized trials comparing [HSCT] with these newer medications.”
Would it make sense to treat all younger patients with highly active MS? Research does suggest that “there’s a significant benefit in what we describe as aggressive [disease], high-disability, young age, very short disease lengths,” said neurologist Richard Nicholas, MBBS, of Imperial College London, in a separate presentation.
However, he cautioned that not everyone with highly active MS may be appropriate for HSCT. “That number could be as high as 15%, and “that’s a rather large group of people who would be treated with this therapy.” He suggested focusing on “the most important features”: “two or more relapses and also rapid accrual of disabilities.”
Dr. Nicholas also noted the findings of a study that he coauthored into HSCT versus alemtuzumab and ocrelizumab. The findings of that study were released at ECTRIMS and presented by neurologist Antonio Scalfari, MD, PhD, of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust.
The researchers tracked 103 patients after stem cell transplants (median, 45 months), 204 patients on alemtuzumab (median, 45 months), and 314 patients on ocrelizumab (median, 35 months). Those who received transplants had a 74% lower risk of relapse versus alemtuzumab, and a 66% lower risk of new MS activity detected via MRI. Compared with ocrelizumab, patients who received stem cell transplants had a 60% lower risk of relapse but the same risk of MS activity detected via MRI.
The researchers noted that the patients who underwent stem cell transplantation had numerous adverse effects.
What happens now? “HSCT should be available for our MS patients when standard treatment is no longer effective,” Dr. Bø said. “When treatment options are limited, it is likely to have a good effect in younger patients with a shorter disease duration and a low disability.”
He added that “there is an increasing use of high-efficacy treatment early in RRMS [relapsing-remitting MS], and this may make the subgroup with indication for HSCT as a rescue therapy smaller.”
Meanwhile, he said, “demonstrating a higher efficacy may require larger studies and a combined analysis of data from the ongoing randomized trials. Also, there is a need for follow-up longer than 2 or 3 years for the estimation of cost versus benefit for this treatment.”
Dr. Bø disclosed receiving speaker fees from Novartis and consulting fees from Viatris. Dr. Nicholas disclosed speaker advisory board relationships with Roche and Novartis.
MILAN – researchers told colleagues at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting. But there’s no consensus over best practices.
“Is this a good alternative regarding treatment efficacy and risk? When should we switch from standard treatment? Should we switch from a low-efficacy treatment, from a previous high-efficacy treatment, or from two or more? There is no agreement on this at the moment,” said neurologist Lars Bø, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Bergen (Norway).
However, rapid conversion to efficient treatment in the early stages of disease is turning out to be crucial, Dr. Bø said. “Early inflammatory activity has lasting effects. A delay from less than 2 years to 4-6 years has implications for disability.”
Where does HSCT fit in? According to Dr. Bø, a 2017 study found that newer treatments bring up to 50% of patients to no evidence of disease activity at 2 years compared with 70%-90% for HSCT. That study reported that “optimal candidates ... are young, ambulatory, and have inflammatory-active relapsing remitting MS.”
But other research is presenting a different picture with “data that doesn’t show such a clear-cut difference.” Dr. Bø highlighted a study published earlier this year that found that HSCT was “considerably superior” to fingolimod and “marginally superior” to natalizumab, but was not superior to ocrelizumab over shorter periods of time. As a result, “there is a need for further randomized trials comparing [HSCT] with these newer medications.”
Would it make sense to treat all younger patients with highly active MS? Research does suggest that “there’s a significant benefit in what we describe as aggressive [disease], high-disability, young age, very short disease lengths,” said neurologist Richard Nicholas, MBBS, of Imperial College London, in a separate presentation.
However, he cautioned that not everyone with highly active MS may be appropriate for HSCT. “That number could be as high as 15%, and “that’s a rather large group of people who would be treated with this therapy.” He suggested focusing on “the most important features”: “two or more relapses and also rapid accrual of disabilities.”
Dr. Nicholas also noted the findings of a study that he coauthored into HSCT versus alemtuzumab and ocrelizumab. The findings of that study were released at ECTRIMS and presented by neurologist Antonio Scalfari, MD, PhD, of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust.
The researchers tracked 103 patients after stem cell transplants (median, 45 months), 204 patients on alemtuzumab (median, 45 months), and 314 patients on ocrelizumab (median, 35 months). Those who received transplants had a 74% lower risk of relapse versus alemtuzumab, and a 66% lower risk of new MS activity detected via MRI. Compared with ocrelizumab, patients who received stem cell transplants had a 60% lower risk of relapse but the same risk of MS activity detected via MRI.
The researchers noted that the patients who underwent stem cell transplantation had numerous adverse effects.
What happens now? “HSCT should be available for our MS patients when standard treatment is no longer effective,” Dr. Bø said. “When treatment options are limited, it is likely to have a good effect in younger patients with a shorter disease duration and a low disability.”
He added that “there is an increasing use of high-efficacy treatment early in RRMS [relapsing-remitting MS], and this may make the subgroup with indication for HSCT as a rescue therapy smaller.”
Meanwhile, he said, “demonstrating a higher efficacy may require larger studies and a combined analysis of data from the ongoing randomized trials. Also, there is a need for follow-up longer than 2 or 3 years for the estimation of cost versus benefit for this treatment.”
Dr. Bø disclosed receiving speaker fees from Novartis and consulting fees from Viatris. Dr. Nicholas disclosed speaker advisory board relationships with Roche and Novartis.
MILAN – researchers told colleagues at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting. But there’s no consensus over best practices.
“Is this a good alternative regarding treatment efficacy and risk? When should we switch from standard treatment? Should we switch from a low-efficacy treatment, from a previous high-efficacy treatment, or from two or more? There is no agreement on this at the moment,” said neurologist Lars Bø, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Bergen (Norway).
However, rapid conversion to efficient treatment in the early stages of disease is turning out to be crucial, Dr. Bø said. “Early inflammatory activity has lasting effects. A delay from less than 2 years to 4-6 years has implications for disability.”
Where does HSCT fit in? According to Dr. Bø, a 2017 study found that newer treatments bring up to 50% of patients to no evidence of disease activity at 2 years compared with 70%-90% for HSCT. That study reported that “optimal candidates ... are young, ambulatory, and have inflammatory-active relapsing remitting MS.”
But other research is presenting a different picture with “data that doesn’t show such a clear-cut difference.” Dr. Bø highlighted a study published earlier this year that found that HSCT was “considerably superior” to fingolimod and “marginally superior” to natalizumab, but was not superior to ocrelizumab over shorter periods of time. As a result, “there is a need for further randomized trials comparing [HSCT] with these newer medications.”
Would it make sense to treat all younger patients with highly active MS? Research does suggest that “there’s a significant benefit in what we describe as aggressive [disease], high-disability, young age, very short disease lengths,” said neurologist Richard Nicholas, MBBS, of Imperial College London, in a separate presentation.
However, he cautioned that not everyone with highly active MS may be appropriate for HSCT. “That number could be as high as 15%, and “that’s a rather large group of people who would be treated with this therapy.” He suggested focusing on “the most important features”: “two or more relapses and also rapid accrual of disabilities.”
Dr. Nicholas also noted the findings of a study that he coauthored into HSCT versus alemtuzumab and ocrelizumab. The findings of that study were released at ECTRIMS and presented by neurologist Antonio Scalfari, MD, PhD, of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust.
The researchers tracked 103 patients after stem cell transplants (median, 45 months), 204 patients on alemtuzumab (median, 45 months), and 314 patients on ocrelizumab (median, 35 months). Those who received transplants had a 74% lower risk of relapse versus alemtuzumab, and a 66% lower risk of new MS activity detected via MRI. Compared with ocrelizumab, patients who received stem cell transplants had a 60% lower risk of relapse but the same risk of MS activity detected via MRI.
The researchers noted that the patients who underwent stem cell transplantation had numerous adverse effects.
What happens now? “HSCT should be available for our MS patients when standard treatment is no longer effective,” Dr. Bø said. “When treatment options are limited, it is likely to have a good effect in younger patients with a shorter disease duration and a low disability.”
He added that “there is an increasing use of high-efficacy treatment early in RRMS [relapsing-remitting MS], and this may make the subgroup with indication for HSCT as a rescue therapy smaller.”
Meanwhile, he said, “demonstrating a higher efficacy may require larger studies and a combined analysis of data from the ongoing randomized trials. Also, there is a need for follow-up longer than 2 or 3 years for the estimation of cost versus benefit for this treatment.”
Dr. Bø disclosed receiving speaker fees from Novartis and consulting fees from Viatris. Dr. Nicholas disclosed speaker advisory board relationships with Roche and Novartis.
AT ECTRIMS 2023
MS-tailored weight loss program achieves meaningful results
MILAN – results of a new trial show.
Seventy patients with MS and a high body mass index (BMI) were randomized to receive a multifaceted weight loss program or treatment as usual, resulting in almost two-thirds of the intervention group patients losing at least 5% of their body weight.
“Our weight loss intervention achieved clinically significant weight loss and improved mental quality of life,” said study presenter Sharon G. Lynch, MD, professor in the department of neurology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.
The results also showed weight loss “was associated with improved mobility, reduced fatigability, and improved physical quality of life.”
The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Obesity linked to MS progression
Dr. Lynch noted that almost 40% of people with MS have comorbid obesity, and that obesity “is associated with developing MS in some studies, and also disease progression.” Moreover, MS and obesity share common chronic symptoms, particularly mobility problems, depression, fatigue, and reduced quality of life.
Despite this, no randomized controlled trials have been specifically designed to help people with MS lose weight, he noted.
The team therefore examined the efficacy of a behavioral weight loss program designed for patients with the disease, as well as the impact of weight loss on mobility and other chronic symptoms.
The participants were required to be English speaking, with access to a telephone and/or computer, and to have a confirmed diagnosis of MS. They also had to be aged 18-70 years, have a BMI of 29-50 kg/m2, and have a Patient-Determined Disease Steps (PDDS) score of less than 4.
The patients were randomly assigned to receive either a weight loss intervention or brief health education and treatment as usual. They were assessed at 6 months to measure their weight loss, mobility, and self-reported quality of life and perceived fatigability.
Dr. Lynch said the intervention was “fairly time intensive,” with an hour-long telehealth group weight loss session every week for 24 weeks, as well as monthly individual sessions for 6 months.
The participants were provided with a Fitbit activity tracker, a set of Bluetooth-enabled weighing scales, and access to the Lose It! weight loss app.
Caloric restriction was encouraged, with a focus on increasing intake of fruits and vegetables, alongside a target of 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity, in line with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and American Heart Association recommendations.
Significant loss in body weight
Seventy individuals with MS took part in the trial, of whom 83% were female and 88% were White, 9% African American, and 3% Hispanic or Latino. The mean age was 46.7 years, and the mean number of years in education was 11.8.
The vast majority (96%) of the participants had relapsing remitting MS, at a mean disease duration of 10.9 years, and 82% had a score of 0 or 1 on the PDDS.
Dr. Lynch showed that participants in the intervention group lost, over the course of the study, 8.6% of their total body weight, compared with a loss of 0.7% among controls (P < .001).
Moreover, 65% of the intervention group lost at least 5% of their body weight, whereas 41% lost at least 10% of their body weight, which again was significantly higher than that seen in the control group (P < .001).
There was also a significant increase in moderate to vigorous physical activity in the intervention group as measured by accelerometry (P < .05), although Dr. Lynch pointed out this “did not necessarily correlate with their weight loss.”
Dr. Lynch showed there were significant differences across a range of anthropometric measures from baseline to follow-up between the intervention and control groups.
The adjusted difference in weight loss between the intervention and control participants was 7.8 kg, whereas the difference in reduction of BMI was 2.7 (P = .001 for both).
There was also a significant difference in the reduction in waist-to-hip ratio between the groups, at 0.033 in favor of the intervention, as well as a difference in the reduction in fat tissue, at 3.1% (P = .001 for both).
Further analyses showed weight loss was associated with significant improvements on the 6-minute walk test, at an r value of 0.48 (P = .015), and in the 25-foot walk test (r = 0.42; P = .015). Weight loss was also linked to reductions in perceived fatigability (r = 0.48; P = .005).
Dr. Lynch also reported that a 5% reduction in body weight was associated with a “clinically meaningful” improvement of 50 meters on the 6-minute walk test.
Finally, it was found the intervention was associated with a significant improvement in mental quality of life (P = .01), whereas weight loss specifically was linked to improved physical quality of life (P = .02).
“We believe that future studies should examine weight loss in people with MS who have more advanced disability,” Dr. Lynch said, and “we should examine the effects of weight loss on the underlying disease processes.”
She added they also “need to follow the patient for longer and see if they can maintain their weight loss.”
Emphasizing the social side of interventions
Session cochair Brian M. Sandroff, PhD, director of the Exercise Neurorehabilitation Research Laboratory at the Kessler Foundation, East Hanover, N.J., commented that the results are “really exciting.”
He said that the improvements across the range of measures assessed in the study were not surprising, “considering the intervention was multicomponent, and so had the potential to affect a number of different physical and cognitive domains.”
One factor in managing MS that came up again and again during the discussion at the end of the session was the social aspect of interventions, with Dr. Lynch saying the group sessions in particular were appreciated by participants in her trial.
Dr. Sandroff, who was not involved in the study, said that it has been questioned whether the social side should be controlled for when assessing interventions, or “maybe it’s something we should promote within our studies.”
He explained that being social “overcomes a lot of isolation-related issues among people with MS who have comorbidities,” which can result in “reduced quality of life and differences in symptomatic manifestations.”
“Providing that group setting might have lots of outcomes besides just a biological loss of mass” because of the intervention itself, Dr. Sandroff said.
The study was supported by grants from the National MS Society. Dr. Lynch declares relationships with Biogen, Genzyme, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis, Celgene, Roche, Immunic, National Institutes of Health, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Anokion, TG Therapeutics, and Actelion. Other authors also declared relationships. Dr. Sandroff declared no relevant relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MILAN – results of a new trial show.
Seventy patients with MS and a high body mass index (BMI) were randomized to receive a multifaceted weight loss program or treatment as usual, resulting in almost two-thirds of the intervention group patients losing at least 5% of their body weight.
“Our weight loss intervention achieved clinically significant weight loss and improved mental quality of life,” said study presenter Sharon G. Lynch, MD, professor in the department of neurology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.
The results also showed weight loss “was associated with improved mobility, reduced fatigability, and improved physical quality of life.”
The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Obesity linked to MS progression
Dr. Lynch noted that almost 40% of people with MS have comorbid obesity, and that obesity “is associated with developing MS in some studies, and also disease progression.” Moreover, MS and obesity share common chronic symptoms, particularly mobility problems, depression, fatigue, and reduced quality of life.
Despite this, no randomized controlled trials have been specifically designed to help people with MS lose weight, he noted.
The team therefore examined the efficacy of a behavioral weight loss program designed for patients with the disease, as well as the impact of weight loss on mobility and other chronic symptoms.
The participants were required to be English speaking, with access to a telephone and/or computer, and to have a confirmed diagnosis of MS. They also had to be aged 18-70 years, have a BMI of 29-50 kg/m2, and have a Patient-Determined Disease Steps (PDDS) score of less than 4.
The patients were randomly assigned to receive either a weight loss intervention or brief health education and treatment as usual. They were assessed at 6 months to measure their weight loss, mobility, and self-reported quality of life and perceived fatigability.
Dr. Lynch said the intervention was “fairly time intensive,” with an hour-long telehealth group weight loss session every week for 24 weeks, as well as monthly individual sessions for 6 months.
The participants were provided with a Fitbit activity tracker, a set of Bluetooth-enabled weighing scales, and access to the Lose It! weight loss app.
Caloric restriction was encouraged, with a focus on increasing intake of fruits and vegetables, alongside a target of 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity, in line with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and American Heart Association recommendations.
Significant loss in body weight
Seventy individuals with MS took part in the trial, of whom 83% were female and 88% were White, 9% African American, and 3% Hispanic or Latino. The mean age was 46.7 years, and the mean number of years in education was 11.8.
The vast majority (96%) of the participants had relapsing remitting MS, at a mean disease duration of 10.9 years, and 82% had a score of 0 or 1 on the PDDS.
Dr. Lynch showed that participants in the intervention group lost, over the course of the study, 8.6% of their total body weight, compared with a loss of 0.7% among controls (P < .001).
Moreover, 65% of the intervention group lost at least 5% of their body weight, whereas 41% lost at least 10% of their body weight, which again was significantly higher than that seen in the control group (P < .001).
There was also a significant increase in moderate to vigorous physical activity in the intervention group as measured by accelerometry (P < .05), although Dr. Lynch pointed out this “did not necessarily correlate with their weight loss.”
Dr. Lynch showed there were significant differences across a range of anthropometric measures from baseline to follow-up between the intervention and control groups.
The adjusted difference in weight loss between the intervention and control participants was 7.8 kg, whereas the difference in reduction of BMI was 2.7 (P = .001 for both).
There was also a significant difference in the reduction in waist-to-hip ratio between the groups, at 0.033 in favor of the intervention, as well as a difference in the reduction in fat tissue, at 3.1% (P = .001 for both).
Further analyses showed weight loss was associated with significant improvements on the 6-minute walk test, at an r value of 0.48 (P = .015), and in the 25-foot walk test (r = 0.42; P = .015). Weight loss was also linked to reductions in perceived fatigability (r = 0.48; P = .005).
Dr. Lynch also reported that a 5% reduction in body weight was associated with a “clinically meaningful” improvement of 50 meters on the 6-minute walk test.
Finally, it was found the intervention was associated with a significant improvement in mental quality of life (P = .01), whereas weight loss specifically was linked to improved physical quality of life (P = .02).
“We believe that future studies should examine weight loss in people with MS who have more advanced disability,” Dr. Lynch said, and “we should examine the effects of weight loss on the underlying disease processes.”
She added they also “need to follow the patient for longer and see if they can maintain their weight loss.”
Emphasizing the social side of interventions
Session cochair Brian M. Sandroff, PhD, director of the Exercise Neurorehabilitation Research Laboratory at the Kessler Foundation, East Hanover, N.J., commented that the results are “really exciting.”
He said that the improvements across the range of measures assessed in the study were not surprising, “considering the intervention was multicomponent, and so had the potential to affect a number of different physical and cognitive domains.”
One factor in managing MS that came up again and again during the discussion at the end of the session was the social aspect of interventions, with Dr. Lynch saying the group sessions in particular were appreciated by participants in her trial.
Dr. Sandroff, who was not involved in the study, said that it has been questioned whether the social side should be controlled for when assessing interventions, or “maybe it’s something we should promote within our studies.”
He explained that being social “overcomes a lot of isolation-related issues among people with MS who have comorbidities,” which can result in “reduced quality of life and differences in symptomatic manifestations.”
“Providing that group setting might have lots of outcomes besides just a biological loss of mass” because of the intervention itself, Dr. Sandroff said.
The study was supported by grants from the National MS Society. Dr. Lynch declares relationships with Biogen, Genzyme, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis, Celgene, Roche, Immunic, National Institutes of Health, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Anokion, TG Therapeutics, and Actelion. Other authors also declared relationships. Dr. Sandroff declared no relevant relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MILAN – results of a new trial show.
Seventy patients with MS and a high body mass index (BMI) were randomized to receive a multifaceted weight loss program or treatment as usual, resulting in almost two-thirds of the intervention group patients losing at least 5% of their body weight.
“Our weight loss intervention achieved clinically significant weight loss and improved mental quality of life,” said study presenter Sharon G. Lynch, MD, professor in the department of neurology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.
The results also showed weight loss “was associated with improved mobility, reduced fatigability, and improved physical quality of life.”
The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Obesity linked to MS progression
Dr. Lynch noted that almost 40% of people with MS have comorbid obesity, and that obesity “is associated with developing MS in some studies, and also disease progression.” Moreover, MS and obesity share common chronic symptoms, particularly mobility problems, depression, fatigue, and reduced quality of life.
Despite this, no randomized controlled trials have been specifically designed to help people with MS lose weight, he noted.
The team therefore examined the efficacy of a behavioral weight loss program designed for patients with the disease, as well as the impact of weight loss on mobility and other chronic symptoms.
The participants were required to be English speaking, with access to a telephone and/or computer, and to have a confirmed diagnosis of MS. They also had to be aged 18-70 years, have a BMI of 29-50 kg/m2, and have a Patient-Determined Disease Steps (PDDS) score of less than 4.
The patients were randomly assigned to receive either a weight loss intervention or brief health education and treatment as usual. They were assessed at 6 months to measure their weight loss, mobility, and self-reported quality of life and perceived fatigability.
Dr. Lynch said the intervention was “fairly time intensive,” with an hour-long telehealth group weight loss session every week for 24 weeks, as well as monthly individual sessions for 6 months.
The participants were provided with a Fitbit activity tracker, a set of Bluetooth-enabled weighing scales, and access to the Lose It! weight loss app.
Caloric restriction was encouraged, with a focus on increasing intake of fruits and vegetables, alongside a target of 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity, in line with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and American Heart Association recommendations.
Significant loss in body weight
Seventy individuals with MS took part in the trial, of whom 83% were female and 88% were White, 9% African American, and 3% Hispanic or Latino. The mean age was 46.7 years, and the mean number of years in education was 11.8.
The vast majority (96%) of the participants had relapsing remitting MS, at a mean disease duration of 10.9 years, and 82% had a score of 0 or 1 on the PDDS.
Dr. Lynch showed that participants in the intervention group lost, over the course of the study, 8.6% of their total body weight, compared with a loss of 0.7% among controls (P < .001).
Moreover, 65% of the intervention group lost at least 5% of their body weight, whereas 41% lost at least 10% of their body weight, which again was significantly higher than that seen in the control group (P < .001).
There was also a significant increase in moderate to vigorous physical activity in the intervention group as measured by accelerometry (P < .05), although Dr. Lynch pointed out this “did not necessarily correlate with their weight loss.”
Dr. Lynch showed there were significant differences across a range of anthropometric measures from baseline to follow-up between the intervention and control groups.
The adjusted difference in weight loss between the intervention and control participants was 7.8 kg, whereas the difference in reduction of BMI was 2.7 (P = .001 for both).
There was also a significant difference in the reduction in waist-to-hip ratio between the groups, at 0.033 in favor of the intervention, as well as a difference in the reduction in fat tissue, at 3.1% (P = .001 for both).
Further analyses showed weight loss was associated with significant improvements on the 6-minute walk test, at an r value of 0.48 (P = .015), and in the 25-foot walk test (r = 0.42; P = .015). Weight loss was also linked to reductions in perceived fatigability (r = 0.48; P = .005).
Dr. Lynch also reported that a 5% reduction in body weight was associated with a “clinically meaningful” improvement of 50 meters on the 6-minute walk test.
Finally, it was found the intervention was associated with a significant improvement in mental quality of life (P = .01), whereas weight loss specifically was linked to improved physical quality of life (P = .02).
“We believe that future studies should examine weight loss in people with MS who have more advanced disability,” Dr. Lynch said, and “we should examine the effects of weight loss on the underlying disease processes.”
She added they also “need to follow the patient for longer and see if they can maintain their weight loss.”
Emphasizing the social side of interventions
Session cochair Brian M. Sandroff, PhD, director of the Exercise Neurorehabilitation Research Laboratory at the Kessler Foundation, East Hanover, N.J., commented that the results are “really exciting.”
He said that the improvements across the range of measures assessed in the study were not surprising, “considering the intervention was multicomponent, and so had the potential to affect a number of different physical and cognitive domains.”
One factor in managing MS that came up again and again during the discussion at the end of the session was the social aspect of interventions, with Dr. Lynch saying the group sessions in particular were appreciated by participants in her trial.
Dr. Sandroff, who was not involved in the study, said that it has been questioned whether the social side should be controlled for when assessing interventions, or “maybe it’s something we should promote within our studies.”
He explained that being social “overcomes a lot of isolation-related issues among people with MS who have comorbidities,” which can result in “reduced quality of life and differences in symptomatic manifestations.”
“Providing that group setting might have lots of outcomes besides just a biological loss of mass” because of the intervention itself, Dr. Sandroff said.
The study was supported by grants from the National MS Society. Dr. Lynch declares relationships with Biogen, Genzyme, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis, Celgene, Roche, Immunic, National Institutes of Health, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Anokion, TG Therapeutics, and Actelion. Other authors also declared relationships. Dr. Sandroff declared no relevant relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ECTRIMS 2023
Are migraine preventives underused in young adults?
, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.
“Approximately two-fifths of young adults with migraine were prescribed preventive medications, and this did not differ between pediatric and adult neurologists,” Hannah F. J. Shapiro MD, of the department of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and the UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospitals, and colleagues wrote in their study. “This finding suggests that pediatric neurologists are providing comparable care to adult neurologists for young adults with migraine; however, this may represent the underuse of preventive medications in this patient population.”
Dr. Shapiro and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 767 patients (mean age 20.3 years) at Mass General Brigham Hospital in Boston between 2017 and 2021 who received care from a pediatric or adult neurologist for episodic migraine. The majority of patients in the study were white (72.2%), non-Hispanic (82.1%) women (80.3%) with episodic migraine (72.8%), some of whom experienced a psychiatric comorbidity (12.7%), and had a 3.88 mean clinic visits for migraine. Researchers assessed prescription of migraine preventive medication as a primary outcome, with a secondary outcome of comparing the rate of migraine preventive prescriptions written by pediatric and adult neurologists.
Overall, 290 patients (37.8%) received care from a pediatric neurologist, and 131 of those 290 patients (45.2%) received preventive medications (95% confidence interval, 39.5%-51.0%). The remaining 477 patients received care from an adult neurologist; of these, 206 patients (43.2%) received preventive medications (95% CI, 39.0%-47.7%; P = .591). The most common preventive medication prescribed was topiramate, which was prescribed in 19.1% of cases by adult neurologists and 15.2% of cases by pediatric neurologists. Other preventive medications included tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline and nortriptyline; pediatric neurologists prescribed amitriptyline more often than adult neurologists (14.5% vs. 5.5%; P < .001), and adult neurologists prescribed nortriptyline more often than pediatric neurologists (12.8% vs. 2.4%; P < .001).
Dr. Shapiro and colleagues performed a mixed effects logistic regression analysis of potential confounders, and found no significant association between clinician specialty and use of preventive medication (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.62-2.31), while factors such as female sex (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.07-2.66) and number of visits (aOR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.49-1.80) carried associations with preventive medication use.
The finding that pediatric and adult neurologists use similar preventive medications is a positive one because “patients who continue care into adulthood with a pediatric neurologist should receive comparable care to the care they would receive with an adult neurologist,” Dr. Shapiro and colleagues said. “It is even more pertinent now for pediatric neurologists to have comfort prescribing preventive medication to young adults, as the newer calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway antagonists are currently only FDA approved for use in patients aged 18 years or older.”
Roadblocks may prevent adoption
M. Cristina Victorio, MD, a pediatric neurologist and director of the headache program at Akron (Ohio) Children’s, said in an interview that the study is well-designed, but the results cannot be generalized as the study is retrospective, was conducted at a single institution, and data about nutraceuticals and drug-free neuromodulation devices were excluded from the analysis.
Another aspect of the study to consider is that episodic migraine, defined as between 0 and 14 migraine days per month, comprised most of the diagnoses in this study, while preventive medication is usually considered in patients with migraines occurring at least 6 days per month. “[I]f migraine is only once every other month or once a month, preventive treatment may not be recommended,” she said.
There is also the element of patient preference, which is “difficult to obtain” in a retrospective study, she noted.
Citing the authors’ comments about pediatric neurologists’ comfortability prescribing preventive medications, including CGRP antagonists, Dr. Victorio said she offers CGRP antagonists to “young adult patients who have failed at least two of the guideline-recommended preventive medications.”
However, pediatric neurologists may encounter roadblocks to prescribing these medications. “A big challenge is access, as it requires prior authorization as well as writing a letter of appeal or medical necessity, which can be a nuisance for clinicians who are already inundated with clinical responsibilities,” she said.
More education is needed
“As a pediatric headache specialist and knowing the results of this study, my colleagues and I have a role in educating all clinicians as well as trainees on headache management to improve and provide optimal care for young adult patients with migraine,” Dr. Victorio said.
In her experience, more clinic visits usually mean a need for preventative medication, and psychiatric morbidities are common. “I differ in the sense that as a headache specialist I am comfortable offering various preventive treatment options when indicated, so I do not believe I am underutilizing,” she said.
Dr. Victorio said she prescribes topiramate, amitriptyline, and propranolol as migraine preventatives for adolescents and young adults, but recommends cyproheptadine for younger children “due to lesser side effects, tolerability, and convenience of formulation (both liquid and tablet forms are available), which can be challenging for younger children who are unable to swallow pills.”
“Cognizant that there are patients who are reluctant to take daily prescription medication and that consideration for preventive treatment includes patient’s preference, I include the use of nutraceuticals and drug-free neuromodulation devices when discussing preventive treatment options,” she added, noting that children and adolescents “[m]ore often than not” prefer nutraceuticals like magnesium and vitamin B2.
“I think the bottom line is that all clinicians managing young adults with migraine should know when to consider starting preventive migraine medication,” Dr. Victorio said. “Not offering preventive treatment to young adults specifically for those who have frequent migraine attacks, or those who have severe migraine despite adequate acute treatment, or those with significant adverse reactions to acute medications will only put these patients at risk to progression to chronic migraine (meaning having migraine more often than not – at least 15 days per month), and increases headache-related disability and reduces quality of life.”
The authors report no relevant financial disclosures. This study was supported by Harvard University and an award from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Victorio reports being on the advisory board for Theranica Bio-electronics, has received honorarium serving as an author of the Merck Manual, and is involved in industry-sponsored clinical trials through Akron Children’s Hospital.
, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.
“Approximately two-fifths of young adults with migraine were prescribed preventive medications, and this did not differ between pediatric and adult neurologists,” Hannah F. J. Shapiro MD, of the department of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and the UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospitals, and colleagues wrote in their study. “This finding suggests that pediatric neurologists are providing comparable care to adult neurologists for young adults with migraine; however, this may represent the underuse of preventive medications in this patient population.”
Dr. Shapiro and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 767 patients (mean age 20.3 years) at Mass General Brigham Hospital in Boston between 2017 and 2021 who received care from a pediatric or adult neurologist for episodic migraine. The majority of patients in the study were white (72.2%), non-Hispanic (82.1%) women (80.3%) with episodic migraine (72.8%), some of whom experienced a psychiatric comorbidity (12.7%), and had a 3.88 mean clinic visits for migraine. Researchers assessed prescription of migraine preventive medication as a primary outcome, with a secondary outcome of comparing the rate of migraine preventive prescriptions written by pediatric and adult neurologists.
Overall, 290 patients (37.8%) received care from a pediatric neurologist, and 131 of those 290 patients (45.2%) received preventive medications (95% confidence interval, 39.5%-51.0%). The remaining 477 patients received care from an adult neurologist; of these, 206 patients (43.2%) received preventive medications (95% CI, 39.0%-47.7%; P = .591). The most common preventive medication prescribed was topiramate, which was prescribed in 19.1% of cases by adult neurologists and 15.2% of cases by pediatric neurologists. Other preventive medications included tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline and nortriptyline; pediatric neurologists prescribed amitriptyline more often than adult neurologists (14.5% vs. 5.5%; P < .001), and adult neurologists prescribed nortriptyline more often than pediatric neurologists (12.8% vs. 2.4%; P < .001).
Dr. Shapiro and colleagues performed a mixed effects logistic regression analysis of potential confounders, and found no significant association between clinician specialty and use of preventive medication (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.62-2.31), while factors such as female sex (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.07-2.66) and number of visits (aOR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.49-1.80) carried associations with preventive medication use.
The finding that pediatric and adult neurologists use similar preventive medications is a positive one because “patients who continue care into adulthood with a pediatric neurologist should receive comparable care to the care they would receive with an adult neurologist,” Dr. Shapiro and colleagues said. “It is even more pertinent now for pediatric neurologists to have comfort prescribing preventive medication to young adults, as the newer calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway antagonists are currently only FDA approved for use in patients aged 18 years or older.”
Roadblocks may prevent adoption
M. Cristina Victorio, MD, a pediatric neurologist and director of the headache program at Akron (Ohio) Children’s, said in an interview that the study is well-designed, but the results cannot be generalized as the study is retrospective, was conducted at a single institution, and data about nutraceuticals and drug-free neuromodulation devices were excluded from the analysis.
Another aspect of the study to consider is that episodic migraine, defined as between 0 and 14 migraine days per month, comprised most of the diagnoses in this study, while preventive medication is usually considered in patients with migraines occurring at least 6 days per month. “[I]f migraine is only once every other month or once a month, preventive treatment may not be recommended,” she said.
There is also the element of patient preference, which is “difficult to obtain” in a retrospective study, she noted.
Citing the authors’ comments about pediatric neurologists’ comfortability prescribing preventive medications, including CGRP antagonists, Dr. Victorio said she offers CGRP antagonists to “young adult patients who have failed at least two of the guideline-recommended preventive medications.”
However, pediatric neurologists may encounter roadblocks to prescribing these medications. “A big challenge is access, as it requires prior authorization as well as writing a letter of appeal or medical necessity, which can be a nuisance for clinicians who are already inundated with clinical responsibilities,” she said.
More education is needed
“As a pediatric headache specialist and knowing the results of this study, my colleagues and I have a role in educating all clinicians as well as trainees on headache management to improve and provide optimal care for young adult patients with migraine,” Dr. Victorio said.
In her experience, more clinic visits usually mean a need for preventative medication, and psychiatric morbidities are common. “I differ in the sense that as a headache specialist I am comfortable offering various preventive treatment options when indicated, so I do not believe I am underutilizing,” she said.
Dr. Victorio said she prescribes topiramate, amitriptyline, and propranolol as migraine preventatives for adolescents and young adults, but recommends cyproheptadine for younger children “due to lesser side effects, tolerability, and convenience of formulation (both liquid and tablet forms are available), which can be challenging for younger children who are unable to swallow pills.”
“Cognizant that there are patients who are reluctant to take daily prescription medication and that consideration for preventive treatment includes patient’s preference, I include the use of nutraceuticals and drug-free neuromodulation devices when discussing preventive treatment options,” she added, noting that children and adolescents “[m]ore often than not” prefer nutraceuticals like magnesium and vitamin B2.
“I think the bottom line is that all clinicians managing young adults with migraine should know when to consider starting preventive migraine medication,” Dr. Victorio said. “Not offering preventive treatment to young adults specifically for those who have frequent migraine attacks, or those who have severe migraine despite adequate acute treatment, or those with significant adverse reactions to acute medications will only put these patients at risk to progression to chronic migraine (meaning having migraine more often than not – at least 15 days per month), and increases headache-related disability and reduces quality of life.”
The authors report no relevant financial disclosures. This study was supported by Harvard University and an award from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Victorio reports being on the advisory board for Theranica Bio-electronics, has received honorarium serving as an author of the Merck Manual, and is involved in industry-sponsored clinical trials through Akron Children’s Hospital.
, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.
“Approximately two-fifths of young adults with migraine were prescribed preventive medications, and this did not differ between pediatric and adult neurologists,” Hannah F. J. Shapiro MD, of the department of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and the UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospitals, and colleagues wrote in their study. “This finding suggests that pediatric neurologists are providing comparable care to adult neurologists for young adults with migraine; however, this may represent the underuse of preventive medications in this patient population.”
Dr. Shapiro and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 767 patients (mean age 20.3 years) at Mass General Brigham Hospital in Boston between 2017 and 2021 who received care from a pediatric or adult neurologist for episodic migraine. The majority of patients in the study were white (72.2%), non-Hispanic (82.1%) women (80.3%) with episodic migraine (72.8%), some of whom experienced a psychiatric comorbidity (12.7%), and had a 3.88 mean clinic visits for migraine. Researchers assessed prescription of migraine preventive medication as a primary outcome, with a secondary outcome of comparing the rate of migraine preventive prescriptions written by pediatric and adult neurologists.
Overall, 290 patients (37.8%) received care from a pediatric neurologist, and 131 of those 290 patients (45.2%) received preventive medications (95% confidence interval, 39.5%-51.0%). The remaining 477 patients received care from an adult neurologist; of these, 206 patients (43.2%) received preventive medications (95% CI, 39.0%-47.7%; P = .591). The most common preventive medication prescribed was topiramate, which was prescribed in 19.1% of cases by adult neurologists and 15.2% of cases by pediatric neurologists. Other preventive medications included tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline and nortriptyline; pediatric neurologists prescribed amitriptyline more often than adult neurologists (14.5% vs. 5.5%; P < .001), and adult neurologists prescribed nortriptyline more often than pediatric neurologists (12.8% vs. 2.4%; P < .001).
Dr. Shapiro and colleagues performed a mixed effects logistic regression analysis of potential confounders, and found no significant association between clinician specialty and use of preventive medication (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.62-2.31), while factors such as female sex (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.07-2.66) and number of visits (aOR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.49-1.80) carried associations with preventive medication use.
The finding that pediatric and adult neurologists use similar preventive medications is a positive one because “patients who continue care into adulthood with a pediatric neurologist should receive comparable care to the care they would receive with an adult neurologist,” Dr. Shapiro and colleagues said. “It is even more pertinent now for pediatric neurologists to have comfort prescribing preventive medication to young adults, as the newer calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway antagonists are currently only FDA approved for use in patients aged 18 years or older.”
Roadblocks may prevent adoption
M. Cristina Victorio, MD, a pediatric neurologist and director of the headache program at Akron (Ohio) Children’s, said in an interview that the study is well-designed, but the results cannot be generalized as the study is retrospective, was conducted at a single institution, and data about nutraceuticals and drug-free neuromodulation devices were excluded from the analysis.
Another aspect of the study to consider is that episodic migraine, defined as between 0 and 14 migraine days per month, comprised most of the diagnoses in this study, while preventive medication is usually considered in patients with migraines occurring at least 6 days per month. “[I]f migraine is only once every other month or once a month, preventive treatment may not be recommended,” she said.
There is also the element of patient preference, which is “difficult to obtain” in a retrospective study, she noted.
Citing the authors’ comments about pediatric neurologists’ comfortability prescribing preventive medications, including CGRP antagonists, Dr. Victorio said she offers CGRP antagonists to “young adult patients who have failed at least two of the guideline-recommended preventive medications.”
However, pediatric neurologists may encounter roadblocks to prescribing these medications. “A big challenge is access, as it requires prior authorization as well as writing a letter of appeal or medical necessity, which can be a nuisance for clinicians who are already inundated with clinical responsibilities,” she said.
More education is needed
“As a pediatric headache specialist and knowing the results of this study, my colleagues and I have a role in educating all clinicians as well as trainees on headache management to improve and provide optimal care for young adult patients with migraine,” Dr. Victorio said.
In her experience, more clinic visits usually mean a need for preventative medication, and psychiatric morbidities are common. “I differ in the sense that as a headache specialist I am comfortable offering various preventive treatment options when indicated, so I do not believe I am underutilizing,” she said.
Dr. Victorio said she prescribes topiramate, amitriptyline, and propranolol as migraine preventatives for adolescents and young adults, but recommends cyproheptadine for younger children “due to lesser side effects, tolerability, and convenience of formulation (both liquid and tablet forms are available), which can be challenging for younger children who are unable to swallow pills.”
“Cognizant that there are patients who are reluctant to take daily prescription medication and that consideration for preventive treatment includes patient’s preference, I include the use of nutraceuticals and drug-free neuromodulation devices when discussing preventive treatment options,” she added, noting that children and adolescents “[m]ore often than not” prefer nutraceuticals like magnesium and vitamin B2.
“I think the bottom line is that all clinicians managing young adults with migraine should know when to consider starting preventive migraine medication,” Dr. Victorio said. “Not offering preventive treatment to young adults specifically for those who have frequent migraine attacks, or those who have severe migraine despite adequate acute treatment, or those with significant adverse reactions to acute medications will only put these patients at risk to progression to chronic migraine (meaning having migraine more often than not – at least 15 days per month), and increases headache-related disability and reduces quality of life.”
The authors report no relevant financial disclosures. This study was supported by Harvard University and an award from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Victorio reports being on the advisory board for Theranica Bio-electronics, has received honorarium serving as an author of the Merck Manual, and is involved in industry-sponsored clinical trials through Akron Children’s Hospital.
FROM HEADACHE
From failure to hope: Tracking the changing landscape of Alzheimer’s therapies
In 2014 neurologist Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, startled the Alzheimer’s disease research world with a paper that laid bare the alarmingly high failure rate of Alzheimer’s disease therapies in development.
Publishing in the journal Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy, Dr. Cummings and his colleagues determined that 99.6% of all therapies tested between 2002 and 2012 had failed. Since downloaded some 75,000 times, Dr. Cumming’s “99% paper,” as it came to be nicknamed, led him to look more deeply and thoroughly at Alzheimer’s disease drugs in the pipeline, and describe them in a readable, user-friendly way.
His “Alzheimer’s Drug Development Pipeline” report, in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia, classifies therapies by their targets, their mechanisms of action, and where they stand in the development process.
Heavy on color-coded visuals, this snapshot of Alzheimer’s disease therapies is widely consulted by industry, researchers, and clinicians. Over time this report – which first documented a crisis – has come to show something more optimistic: an increasingly crowded pipeline reflecting a broad array of treatment approaches. Dr. Cummings wants more people to know that Alzheimer’s disease drug research, which now includes the first two Food and Drug Administration–approved monoclonal antibodies against amyloid-beta, is not the bleak landscape that it was in recent memory.
Lately, with the help of a grant from the National Institute on Aging, Dr. Cummings and his group have been working to expand on their reports to build an even more user-friendly database that can be searched by people in all corners of the neurodegenerative disease world. Dr. Cummings says he plans for this public-facing database to be up and running by year end.
Neurology Reviews spoke with Dr. Cummings, who is a member of the publication’s Editorial Advisory Board, about the genesis of his influential drug-tracking effort, how it has evolved, and what has been learned from it over the years.
How did all this begin?
Already in 2014 there was a dialogue going on was about the high failure rate for Alzheimer’s drugs. And I thought: “there’s probably a number that can be assigned to that.” And when it turned out to be 99.6%, that generated a huge amount of interest. That’s when I realized what interests me also interests the world. And that I was uniquely positioned after that point to do something annually.
How do you create your annual report, and how do you classify the drugs in it when some might act on little-understood pathways or mechanisms?
We capture information available on clinicaltrials.gov. We are notified immediately of any new Alzheimer-related trials, and we automate everything that is possible to automate. But there is still some human curation required. Most of that is around mechanisms. If it’s a monoclonal antibody directed at amyloid-beta, that’s not difficult to categorize. But with the small molecules especially, it can be more complicated.
We often look to see how the sponsor describes the drug and what their perception of the primary target is. A resource of great importance to us is CADRO, Common Alzheimer’s and Related Dementias Disease Research Ontology, which describes about 20 mechanisms that a group of scientists sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the Alzheimer’s Association have agreed on. Inflammation, epigenetics, and oxidation are just a few that most people know. CADRO is organized in a very specific way that allows us to go to the mechanism and relate it to the target. But we do try to be humble and acknowledge we probably make some errors in this.
Are you able to capture every Alzheimer’s drug in development globally?
If they’re on clinicaltrials.gov, they’re in our database. But we think there’s about 15% of drugs in the world that aren’t for some reason on clinicaltrials.gov – so we know we are comprehensive, but not quite exhaustive. I’m in kind of quandary about whether to search for that other 15%. But we do always acknowledge that we’re not 100% exhaustive.
Who are the report’s main readers?
Drug developers use it for investor discussions, and also to understand the competition and the landscape. The competition might be a drug with the same mechanism, and the landscape might be drugs coming into the Alzheimer’s disease world. So if someone is developing a PDE-5 inhibitor for mild dementia, for example, they can see that other people are working on a PDE-5 inhibitor for moderate dementia, and there’s no overlap. Investors use the report to make decisions about which horse in the race to bet on. And of course it’s used by academics and clinicians to learn which are the new drugs in the pipeline, which drugs have fallen out of the pipeline, how are biomarkers changing trials, what are the new outcomes.
It’s really become a community project. Investigators will email me and say “Jeff, we’re in phase 1, make sure it’s on your map.” Or, “you forgot our agent! We’re disappointed.” When that occurs it’s because they were not in a trial on the index date – the 1 day in our publication when everything we say in the paper is true. A trial initiated 1 day later won’t make the report for that year.
What about patients and families? Are they able to use the report as well?
One of the things we want to expand with the new database is its usefulness for patients. Among the new data display approaches that we have is a world map where you can go click on a dot near your home and find active trials. That’s something patients and families want to know, right? There’s 140 drugs in clinical trials, there must be one for me, how would I get to it? Soon we will have quite a good public portal so if you want to go in and see what new monoclonal antibodies are in phase 2, you can do that with drop-down menus. It’s a very easy to use site that anyone can explore.
Looking back at your last decade tracking drugs, what are some lessons learned and what are some of the more exciting drug categories to emerge?
My answer to this question is: Biologics rule. The main successes have been in biologics, in the monoclonal antibodies against amyloid, like the two FDA-approved agents lecanemab and aducanumab. But I think that the monoclonals, while I’m really happy to have them, are a first step. If you look back at tacrine, the first drug approved in 1993 for Alzheimer’s disease, it was a very difficult drug with lots of side effects. But then within 3 years we had donepezil, which was a very benign drug. I feel that a similar evolution is likely with regard to these antibodies. The first ones, we know, have big challenges, and you learn from those challenges and you just keep improving them. But you have to start somewhere, and you have to validate that target. Now I think that amyloid is validated.
What other approaches are interesting to you?
We have seen dramatic imaging results with marked reductions in neurofibrillary tangles from an antisense oligonucleotide aimed at tau protein. And there are two very active areas in the pipeline: inflammation and synaptic plasticity. Each has roughly 20 drugs apiece in development across all phases. And as you know, both synaptic plasticity and inflammation are represented across neurodegenerative conditions.
Your annual report has always focused on drugs to treat Alzheimer’s disease. Will the new database cover other types of dementia and neurodegenerative diseases?
That’s an obvious next step. I’m hoping that late this year we will have funding to expand the database into frontotemporal lobar degenerations, which will include all the tauopathies. And there’s also an overlap with TDP-43 diseases, so we’ll bring all of that in too. We have a new initiative on Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies that I hope will materialize by next year. My goal is that this will eventually become a neurodegenerative disease therapies database. The really interesting drugs right now are being tested in more than one neurodegenerative disease, and we should look at those more carefully. It will be more feasible to do that if they’re on the same data set.
What about other therapy classes?
We aim to be more serious about devices.
What will you call the database?
The Clinical Trial Observatory. We may start by calling it the Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trial Observatory. But the intention, obviously, is to go way beyond Alzheimer’s disease. The database is managed by a terrific team of data scientists at Cleveland Clinic, led by Feixiong Cheng, PhD.
The annual pipeline report is very much associated with you. Is the database going to be different?
Right now, I’m like the grandfather of this project. I won’t be around forever. This will have to pass on, and we’re already talking about succession. We’re thinking about how to make sure this community resource continues to be a community resource. Also, over all these years the annual report reflected my perspective. But with a database, many more people will be able to share their perspectives. I happen to think that “biologics rule,” but others might look at the data, see different scientific currents, and draw different conclusions. That will create a rich dialogue.
Do you think your reports have changed people’s perspectives on Alzheimer’s disease therapies? There’s a widely held idea that the field is exclusively focused on amyloid, or even dead-ended, but the papers seem to show something different.
We think this effort has helped, and will continue to help and foster investment and growth in treatments for our patients. It really does show how diverse the clinical trials landscape is now. People are surprised to learn of the number and diversity of approaches. Just last week I was presenting at the Center for Brain Health in Dallas and there was a doctor in the audience who was a caregiver to his wife with Alzheimer’s disease. He came up afterwards and said, “I had no idea there were so many drugs in clinical trials,” because there’s no way to find out if you don’t know about this resource.
Dr. Cummings discloses consulting for a range of companies working in Alzheimer’s therapies and diagnostics, including Acadia, Alkahest, AlphaCognition, AriBio, Avanir, Axsome, Behren, Biogen, Biohaven, Cassava, Cerecin, Cortexyme, Diadem, EIP Pharma, Eisai, GemVax, Genentech, Green Valley, Grifols, Janssen, LSP, Merck, NervGen, Novo Nordisk, Oligomerix, Ono, Otsuka, PRODEO, ReMYND, Renew, Resverlogix, Roche, Signant Health, Suven, United Neuroscience, and Unlearn AI. He has received several grants from the National Institute on Aging.
In 2014 neurologist Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, startled the Alzheimer’s disease research world with a paper that laid bare the alarmingly high failure rate of Alzheimer’s disease therapies in development.
Publishing in the journal Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy, Dr. Cummings and his colleagues determined that 99.6% of all therapies tested between 2002 and 2012 had failed. Since downloaded some 75,000 times, Dr. Cumming’s “99% paper,” as it came to be nicknamed, led him to look more deeply and thoroughly at Alzheimer’s disease drugs in the pipeline, and describe them in a readable, user-friendly way.
His “Alzheimer’s Drug Development Pipeline” report, in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia, classifies therapies by their targets, their mechanisms of action, and where they stand in the development process.
Heavy on color-coded visuals, this snapshot of Alzheimer’s disease therapies is widely consulted by industry, researchers, and clinicians. Over time this report – which first documented a crisis – has come to show something more optimistic: an increasingly crowded pipeline reflecting a broad array of treatment approaches. Dr. Cummings wants more people to know that Alzheimer’s disease drug research, which now includes the first two Food and Drug Administration–approved monoclonal antibodies against amyloid-beta, is not the bleak landscape that it was in recent memory.
Lately, with the help of a grant from the National Institute on Aging, Dr. Cummings and his group have been working to expand on their reports to build an even more user-friendly database that can be searched by people in all corners of the neurodegenerative disease world. Dr. Cummings says he plans for this public-facing database to be up and running by year end.
Neurology Reviews spoke with Dr. Cummings, who is a member of the publication’s Editorial Advisory Board, about the genesis of his influential drug-tracking effort, how it has evolved, and what has been learned from it over the years.
How did all this begin?
Already in 2014 there was a dialogue going on was about the high failure rate for Alzheimer’s drugs. And I thought: “there’s probably a number that can be assigned to that.” And when it turned out to be 99.6%, that generated a huge amount of interest. That’s when I realized what interests me also interests the world. And that I was uniquely positioned after that point to do something annually.
How do you create your annual report, and how do you classify the drugs in it when some might act on little-understood pathways or mechanisms?
We capture information available on clinicaltrials.gov. We are notified immediately of any new Alzheimer-related trials, and we automate everything that is possible to automate. But there is still some human curation required. Most of that is around mechanisms. If it’s a monoclonal antibody directed at amyloid-beta, that’s not difficult to categorize. But with the small molecules especially, it can be more complicated.
We often look to see how the sponsor describes the drug and what their perception of the primary target is. A resource of great importance to us is CADRO, Common Alzheimer’s and Related Dementias Disease Research Ontology, which describes about 20 mechanisms that a group of scientists sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the Alzheimer’s Association have agreed on. Inflammation, epigenetics, and oxidation are just a few that most people know. CADRO is organized in a very specific way that allows us to go to the mechanism and relate it to the target. But we do try to be humble and acknowledge we probably make some errors in this.
Are you able to capture every Alzheimer’s drug in development globally?
If they’re on clinicaltrials.gov, they’re in our database. But we think there’s about 15% of drugs in the world that aren’t for some reason on clinicaltrials.gov – so we know we are comprehensive, but not quite exhaustive. I’m in kind of quandary about whether to search for that other 15%. But we do always acknowledge that we’re not 100% exhaustive.
Who are the report’s main readers?
Drug developers use it for investor discussions, and also to understand the competition and the landscape. The competition might be a drug with the same mechanism, and the landscape might be drugs coming into the Alzheimer’s disease world. So if someone is developing a PDE-5 inhibitor for mild dementia, for example, they can see that other people are working on a PDE-5 inhibitor for moderate dementia, and there’s no overlap. Investors use the report to make decisions about which horse in the race to bet on. And of course it’s used by academics and clinicians to learn which are the new drugs in the pipeline, which drugs have fallen out of the pipeline, how are biomarkers changing trials, what are the new outcomes.
It’s really become a community project. Investigators will email me and say “Jeff, we’re in phase 1, make sure it’s on your map.” Or, “you forgot our agent! We’re disappointed.” When that occurs it’s because they were not in a trial on the index date – the 1 day in our publication when everything we say in the paper is true. A trial initiated 1 day later won’t make the report for that year.
What about patients and families? Are they able to use the report as well?
One of the things we want to expand with the new database is its usefulness for patients. Among the new data display approaches that we have is a world map where you can go click on a dot near your home and find active trials. That’s something patients and families want to know, right? There’s 140 drugs in clinical trials, there must be one for me, how would I get to it? Soon we will have quite a good public portal so if you want to go in and see what new monoclonal antibodies are in phase 2, you can do that with drop-down menus. It’s a very easy to use site that anyone can explore.
Looking back at your last decade tracking drugs, what are some lessons learned and what are some of the more exciting drug categories to emerge?
My answer to this question is: Biologics rule. The main successes have been in biologics, in the monoclonal antibodies against amyloid, like the two FDA-approved agents lecanemab and aducanumab. But I think that the monoclonals, while I’m really happy to have them, are a first step. If you look back at tacrine, the first drug approved in 1993 for Alzheimer’s disease, it was a very difficult drug with lots of side effects. But then within 3 years we had donepezil, which was a very benign drug. I feel that a similar evolution is likely with regard to these antibodies. The first ones, we know, have big challenges, and you learn from those challenges and you just keep improving them. But you have to start somewhere, and you have to validate that target. Now I think that amyloid is validated.
What other approaches are interesting to you?
We have seen dramatic imaging results with marked reductions in neurofibrillary tangles from an antisense oligonucleotide aimed at tau protein. And there are two very active areas in the pipeline: inflammation and synaptic plasticity. Each has roughly 20 drugs apiece in development across all phases. And as you know, both synaptic plasticity and inflammation are represented across neurodegenerative conditions.
Your annual report has always focused on drugs to treat Alzheimer’s disease. Will the new database cover other types of dementia and neurodegenerative diseases?
That’s an obvious next step. I’m hoping that late this year we will have funding to expand the database into frontotemporal lobar degenerations, which will include all the tauopathies. And there’s also an overlap with TDP-43 diseases, so we’ll bring all of that in too. We have a new initiative on Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies that I hope will materialize by next year. My goal is that this will eventually become a neurodegenerative disease therapies database. The really interesting drugs right now are being tested in more than one neurodegenerative disease, and we should look at those more carefully. It will be more feasible to do that if they’re on the same data set.
What about other therapy classes?
We aim to be more serious about devices.
What will you call the database?
The Clinical Trial Observatory. We may start by calling it the Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trial Observatory. But the intention, obviously, is to go way beyond Alzheimer’s disease. The database is managed by a terrific team of data scientists at Cleveland Clinic, led by Feixiong Cheng, PhD.
The annual pipeline report is very much associated with you. Is the database going to be different?
Right now, I’m like the grandfather of this project. I won’t be around forever. This will have to pass on, and we’re already talking about succession. We’re thinking about how to make sure this community resource continues to be a community resource. Also, over all these years the annual report reflected my perspective. But with a database, many more people will be able to share their perspectives. I happen to think that “biologics rule,” but others might look at the data, see different scientific currents, and draw different conclusions. That will create a rich dialogue.
Do you think your reports have changed people’s perspectives on Alzheimer’s disease therapies? There’s a widely held idea that the field is exclusively focused on amyloid, or even dead-ended, but the papers seem to show something different.
We think this effort has helped, and will continue to help and foster investment and growth in treatments for our patients. It really does show how diverse the clinical trials landscape is now. People are surprised to learn of the number and diversity of approaches. Just last week I was presenting at the Center for Brain Health in Dallas and there was a doctor in the audience who was a caregiver to his wife with Alzheimer’s disease. He came up afterwards and said, “I had no idea there were so many drugs in clinical trials,” because there’s no way to find out if you don’t know about this resource.
Dr. Cummings discloses consulting for a range of companies working in Alzheimer’s therapies and diagnostics, including Acadia, Alkahest, AlphaCognition, AriBio, Avanir, Axsome, Behren, Biogen, Biohaven, Cassava, Cerecin, Cortexyme, Diadem, EIP Pharma, Eisai, GemVax, Genentech, Green Valley, Grifols, Janssen, LSP, Merck, NervGen, Novo Nordisk, Oligomerix, Ono, Otsuka, PRODEO, ReMYND, Renew, Resverlogix, Roche, Signant Health, Suven, United Neuroscience, and Unlearn AI. He has received several grants from the National Institute on Aging.
In 2014 neurologist Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, startled the Alzheimer’s disease research world with a paper that laid bare the alarmingly high failure rate of Alzheimer’s disease therapies in development.
Publishing in the journal Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy, Dr. Cummings and his colleagues determined that 99.6% of all therapies tested between 2002 and 2012 had failed. Since downloaded some 75,000 times, Dr. Cumming’s “99% paper,” as it came to be nicknamed, led him to look more deeply and thoroughly at Alzheimer’s disease drugs in the pipeline, and describe them in a readable, user-friendly way.
His “Alzheimer’s Drug Development Pipeline” report, in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia, classifies therapies by their targets, their mechanisms of action, and where they stand in the development process.
Heavy on color-coded visuals, this snapshot of Alzheimer’s disease therapies is widely consulted by industry, researchers, and clinicians. Over time this report – which first documented a crisis – has come to show something more optimistic: an increasingly crowded pipeline reflecting a broad array of treatment approaches. Dr. Cummings wants more people to know that Alzheimer’s disease drug research, which now includes the first two Food and Drug Administration–approved monoclonal antibodies against amyloid-beta, is not the bleak landscape that it was in recent memory.
Lately, with the help of a grant from the National Institute on Aging, Dr. Cummings and his group have been working to expand on their reports to build an even more user-friendly database that can be searched by people in all corners of the neurodegenerative disease world. Dr. Cummings says he plans for this public-facing database to be up and running by year end.
Neurology Reviews spoke with Dr. Cummings, who is a member of the publication’s Editorial Advisory Board, about the genesis of his influential drug-tracking effort, how it has evolved, and what has been learned from it over the years.
How did all this begin?
Already in 2014 there was a dialogue going on was about the high failure rate for Alzheimer’s drugs. And I thought: “there’s probably a number that can be assigned to that.” And when it turned out to be 99.6%, that generated a huge amount of interest. That’s when I realized what interests me also interests the world. And that I was uniquely positioned after that point to do something annually.
How do you create your annual report, and how do you classify the drugs in it when some might act on little-understood pathways or mechanisms?
We capture information available on clinicaltrials.gov. We are notified immediately of any new Alzheimer-related trials, and we automate everything that is possible to automate. But there is still some human curation required. Most of that is around mechanisms. If it’s a monoclonal antibody directed at amyloid-beta, that’s not difficult to categorize. But with the small molecules especially, it can be more complicated.
We often look to see how the sponsor describes the drug and what their perception of the primary target is. A resource of great importance to us is CADRO, Common Alzheimer’s and Related Dementias Disease Research Ontology, which describes about 20 mechanisms that a group of scientists sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the Alzheimer’s Association have agreed on. Inflammation, epigenetics, and oxidation are just a few that most people know. CADRO is organized in a very specific way that allows us to go to the mechanism and relate it to the target. But we do try to be humble and acknowledge we probably make some errors in this.
Are you able to capture every Alzheimer’s drug in development globally?
If they’re on clinicaltrials.gov, they’re in our database. But we think there’s about 15% of drugs in the world that aren’t for some reason on clinicaltrials.gov – so we know we are comprehensive, but not quite exhaustive. I’m in kind of quandary about whether to search for that other 15%. But we do always acknowledge that we’re not 100% exhaustive.
Who are the report’s main readers?
Drug developers use it for investor discussions, and also to understand the competition and the landscape. The competition might be a drug with the same mechanism, and the landscape might be drugs coming into the Alzheimer’s disease world. So if someone is developing a PDE-5 inhibitor for mild dementia, for example, they can see that other people are working on a PDE-5 inhibitor for moderate dementia, and there’s no overlap. Investors use the report to make decisions about which horse in the race to bet on. And of course it’s used by academics and clinicians to learn which are the new drugs in the pipeline, which drugs have fallen out of the pipeline, how are biomarkers changing trials, what are the new outcomes.
It’s really become a community project. Investigators will email me and say “Jeff, we’re in phase 1, make sure it’s on your map.” Or, “you forgot our agent! We’re disappointed.” When that occurs it’s because they were not in a trial on the index date – the 1 day in our publication when everything we say in the paper is true. A trial initiated 1 day later won’t make the report for that year.
What about patients and families? Are they able to use the report as well?
One of the things we want to expand with the new database is its usefulness for patients. Among the new data display approaches that we have is a world map where you can go click on a dot near your home and find active trials. That’s something patients and families want to know, right? There’s 140 drugs in clinical trials, there must be one for me, how would I get to it? Soon we will have quite a good public portal so if you want to go in and see what new monoclonal antibodies are in phase 2, you can do that with drop-down menus. It’s a very easy to use site that anyone can explore.
Looking back at your last decade tracking drugs, what are some lessons learned and what are some of the more exciting drug categories to emerge?
My answer to this question is: Biologics rule. The main successes have been in biologics, in the monoclonal antibodies against amyloid, like the two FDA-approved agents lecanemab and aducanumab. But I think that the monoclonals, while I’m really happy to have them, are a first step. If you look back at tacrine, the first drug approved in 1993 for Alzheimer’s disease, it was a very difficult drug with lots of side effects. But then within 3 years we had donepezil, which was a very benign drug. I feel that a similar evolution is likely with regard to these antibodies. The first ones, we know, have big challenges, and you learn from those challenges and you just keep improving them. But you have to start somewhere, and you have to validate that target. Now I think that amyloid is validated.
What other approaches are interesting to you?
We have seen dramatic imaging results with marked reductions in neurofibrillary tangles from an antisense oligonucleotide aimed at tau protein. And there are two very active areas in the pipeline: inflammation and synaptic plasticity. Each has roughly 20 drugs apiece in development across all phases. And as you know, both synaptic plasticity and inflammation are represented across neurodegenerative conditions.
Your annual report has always focused on drugs to treat Alzheimer’s disease. Will the new database cover other types of dementia and neurodegenerative diseases?
That’s an obvious next step. I’m hoping that late this year we will have funding to expand the database into frontotemporal lobar degenerations, which will include all the tauopathies. And there’s also an overlap with TDP-43 diseases, so we’ll bring all of that in too. We have a new initiative on Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies that I hope will materialize by next year. My goal is that this will eventually become a neurodegenerative disease therapies database. The really interesting drugs right now are being tested in more than one neurodegenerative disease, and we should look at those more carefully. It will be more feasible to do that if they’re on the same data set.
What about other therapy classes?
We aim to be more serious about devices.
What will you call the database?
The Clinical Trial Observatory. We may start by calling it the Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trial Observatory. But the intention, obviously, is to go way beyond Alzheimer’s disease. The database is managed by a terrific team of data scientists at Cleveland Clinic, led by Feixiong Cheng, PhD.
The annual pipeline report is very much associated with you. Is the database going to be different?
Right now, I’m like the grandfather of this project. I won’t be around forever. This will have to pass on, and we’re already talking about succession. We’re thinking about how to make sure this community resource continues to be a community resource. Also, over all these years the annual report reflected my perspective. But with a database, many more people will be able to share their perspectives. I happen to think that “biologics rule,” but others might look at the data, see different scientific currents, and draw different conclusions. That will create a rich dialogue.
Do you think your reports have changed people’s perspectives on Alzheimer’s disease therapies? There’s a widely held idea that the field is exclusively focused on amyloid, or even dead-ended, but the papers seem to show something different.
We think this effort has helped, and will continue to help and foster investment and growth in treatments for our patients. It really does show how diverse the clinical trials landscape is now. People are surprised to learn of the number and diversity of approaches. Just last week I was presenting at the Center for Brain Health in Dallas and there was a doctor in the audience who was a caregiver to his wife with Alzheimer’s disease. He came up afterwards and said, “I had no idea there were so many drugs in clinical trials,” because there’s no way to find out if you don’t know about this resource.
Dr. Cummings discloses consulting for a range of companies working in Alzheimer’s therapies and diagnostics, including Acadia, Alkahest, AlphaCognition, AriBio, Avanir, Axsome, Behren, Biogen, Biohaven, Cassava, Cerecin, Cortexyme, Diadem, EIP Pharma, Eisai, GemVax, Genentech, Green Valley, Grifols, Janssen, LSP, Merck, NervGen, Novo Nordisk, Oligomerix, Ono, Otsuka, PRODEO, ReMYND, Renew, Resverlogix, Roche, Signant Health, Suven, United Neuroscience, and Unlearn AI. He has received several grants from the National Institute on Aging.
‘We’re halfway home’: UCSF’s Dr. Stephen Hauser sketches MS future
MILAN – University of California, San Francisco, neurology professor Stephen Hauser, MD, told colleagues in a highlighted lecture at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Going forward, the MS field should emphasize identifying early biomarkers of MS, Dr. Hauser said.
He noted that many experts had anticipated “that, if we could intervene early in the relapsing phase of the disease, we would stabilize neurodegeneration and patient disability. But one of the big surprises was that that was not the case. Instead, the observed course was that by silencing relapses and focal inflammation, a clinically silent, slow, insidious progression continues during the relapsing phase of disease in patients who are not having ongoing relapses.”
Even as focal activity detected via MRI is silenced, “progression continues” he said. “This remains the great unsolved challenge.”
Dr. Hauser asked colleagues to consider a three-stage model of MS that begins with benign autoimmunity followed by pathogenic autoimmunity with subclinical tissue damage. The third stage is clinical autoimmunity.
How can you determine who’s at risk? Genetics can only fill in part of the picture because they can’t pinpoint exactly who’s likely to develop the disease. “In other autoimmune diseases, serologic autoantibodies have been by far the most effective biomarkers,” he said. “There is real-world support – not only in mice – for the concept that autoimmunity begins as a highly focused immune response that then spreads over time.”
In systemic lupus erythematosus, the cascade toward disease begins about 9 years before clinical presentation, he said. It’s 7 months in type 1 diabetes, and 20 years in rheumatoid arthritis. “These have been enormously powerful in designing both observational and therapeutic studies to try to interrupt autoimmunity at the earliest possible stage.”
What can be done if a MS biomarker is developed and shows that a person is at risk? Dr. Hauser highlighted how the anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab has been developed – and Food and Drug Administration approved – to greatly reduce the risk of type 1 diabetes in high-risk patients. Per a 2021 study, a single-14-day course of the drug was linked to lowering the risk of disease over a median 923 days by more than 50% (hazard ratio, 0.457; P < 0.01). Half of those who received the drug were free of diabetes versus just 22% of those treated by placebo.
“We’ve not yet had those serologic biomarkers in MS. But I’d like to show you that maybe we are getting close to having them,” Dr. Hauser said. He pointed to new research into a U.S. Department of Defense serum repository that’s turned up “a pretty rock-solid prediagnostic biomarker specific to MS.”
Moving on to therapy, Dr. Hauser said it’s clear that “the earlier that we treat, the more likely we are to have a large response. Highly effective therapies delivered as first-line therapies have better long-term outcomes for disability then does a graded approach that doesn’t begin with high-efficacy therapy.”
What constitutes a cure?
What else needs to be done going forward? Dr. Hauser called for the MS field to develop a definition of cure. “We should take the lead from cancer therapeutics, where they define what a cure means.” In B-cell leukemia, for example, patients are considered cured “if they remain completely disease-free in terms of clinical symptoms and biomarkers of clonal proliferation for 4 years. They have less than a 1% lifetime risk of relapse. They’re essentially cured. Our equivalent could also be developed for MS.”
He highlighted the IMPACT MS phase 4 trial, a small single-center study of ocrelizumab, which just finished enrollment and will examine the effect of the drug on treatment-naive patients at the moment of their first-ever attack. The primary endpoint is oligoclonal bands in 3 years. “I think more of these studies will probably follow,” Dr. Hauser said.
Is intervention possible at the presymptomatic stage? Targets could be members of families with multiple affected relatives who test positive for the predictive antibody signature and who have a high genetic score, he said. “We could do perhaps an Epstein-Barr virus intervention trial in this population. Then, if we have the courage and are more confident in our biomarkers, perhaps even a therapeutic trial, as has been done in these other diseases.”
As for next-generation therapies, “we’ll need to neutralize multiple cell types, especially in later disease,” he said. Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors “seem to be a class of drugs that was designed for the MS patient because they not only hit B cells, but also the plasmablasts that CD20s don’t hit and are the main component of the humoral pathology in chronic MS lesions.”
Dr. Hauser discloses scientific board (Accure, Alector, Annexon), board of directors (Neurona), consulting (BD, Moderna, NGM Bio), and travel reimbursement/writing support (Roche and Novartis).
MILAN – University of California, San Francisco, neurology professor Stephen Hauser, MD, told colleagues in a highlighted lecture at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Going forward, the MS field should emphasize identifying early biomarkers of MS, Dr. Hauser said.
He noted that many experts had anticipated “that, if we could intervene early in the relapsing phase of the disease, we would stabilize neurodegeneration and patient disability. But one of the big surprises was that that was not the case. Instead, the observed course was that by silencing relapses and focal inflammation, a clinically silent, slow, insidious progression continues during the relapsing phase of disease in patients who are not having ongoing relapses.”
Even as focal activity detected via MRI is silenced, “progression continues” he said. “This remains the great unsolved challenge.”
Dr. Hauser asked colleagues to consider a three-stage model of MS that begins with benign autoimmunity followed by pathogenic autoimmunity with subclinical tissue damage. The third stage is clinical autoimmunity.
How can you determine who’s at risk? Genetics can only fill in part of the picture because they can’t pinpoint exactly who’s likely to develop the disease. “In other autoimmune diseases, serologic autoantibodies have been by far the most effective biomarkers,” he said. “There is real-world support – not only in mice – for the concept that autoimmunity begins as a highly focused immune response that then spreads over time.”
In systemic lupus erythematosus, the cascade toward disease begins about 9 years before clinical presentation, he said. It’s 7 months in type 1 diabetes, and 20 years in rheumatoid arthritis. “These have been enormously powerful in designing both observational and therapeutic studies to try to interrupt autoimmunity at the earliest possible stage.”
What can be done if a MS biomarker is developed and shows that a person is at risk? Dr. Hauser highlighted how the anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab has been developed – and Food and Drug Administration approved – to greatly reduce the risk of type 1 diabetes in high-risk patients. Per a 2021 study, a single-14-day course of the drug was linked to lowering the risk of disease over a median 923 days by more than 50% (hazard ratio, 0.457; P < 0.01). Half of those who received the drug were free of diabetes versus just 22% of those treated by placebo.
“We’ve not yet had those serologic biomarkers in MS. But I’d like to show you that maybe we are getting close to having them,” Dr. Hauser said. He pointed to new research into a U.S. Department of Defense serum repository that’s turned up “a pretty rock-solid prediagnostic biomarker specific to MS.”
Moving on to therapy, Dr. Hauser said it’s clear that “the earlier that we treat, the more likely we are to have a large response. Highly effective therapies delivered as first-line therapies have better long-term outcomes for disability then does a graded approach that doesn’t begin with high-efficacy therapy.”
What constitutes a cure?
What else needs to be done going forward? Dr. Hauser called for the MS field to develop a definition of cure. “We should take the lead from cancer therapeutics, where they define what a cure means.” In B-cell leukemia, for example, patients are considered cured “if they remain completely disease-free in terms of clinical symptoms and biomarkers of clonal proliferation for 4 years. They have less than a 1% lifetime risk of relapse. They’re essentially cured. Our equivalent could also be developed for MS.”
He highlighted the IMPACT MS phase 4 trial, a small single-center study of ocrelizumab, which just finished enrollment and will examine the effect of the drug on treatment-naive patients at the moment of their first-ever attack. The primary endpoint is oligoclonal bands in 3 years. “I think more of these studies will probably follow,” Dr. Hauser said.
Is intervention possible at the presymptomatic stage? Targets could be members of families with multiple affected relatives who test positive for the predictive antibody signature and who have a high genetic score, he said. “We could do perhaps an Epstein-Barr virus intervention trial in this population. Then, if we have the courage and are more confident in our biomarkers, perhaps even a therapeutic trial, as has been done in these other diseases.”
As for next-generation therapies, “we’ll need to neutralize multiple cell types, especially in later disease,” he said. Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors “seem to be a class of drugs that was designed for the MS patient because they not only hit B cells, but also the plasmablasts that CD20s don’t hit and are the main component of the humoral pathology in chronic MS lesions.”
Dr. Hauser discloses scientific board (Accure, Alector, Annexon), board of directors (Neurona), consulting (BD, Moderna, NGM Bio), and travel reimbursement/writing support (Roche and Novartis).
MILAN – University of California, San Francisco, neurology professor Stephen Hauser, MD, told colleagues in a highlighted lecture at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Going forward, the MS field should emphasize identifying early biomarkers of MS, Dr. Hauser said.
He noted that many experts had anticipated “that, if we could intervene early in the relapsing phase of the disease, we would stabilize neurodegeneration and patient disability. But one of the big surprises was that that was not the case. Instead, the observed course was that by silencing relapses and focal inflammation, a clinically silent, slow, insidious progression continues during the relapsing phase of disease in patients who are not having ongoing relapses.”
Even as focal activity detected via MRI is silenced, “progression continues” he said. “This remains the great unsolved challenge.”
Dr. Hauser asked colleagues to consider a three-stage model of MS that begins with benign autoimmunity followed by pathogenic autoimmunity with subclinical tissue damage. The third stage is clinical autoimmunity.
How can you determine who’s at risk? Genetics can only fill in part of the picture because they can’t pinpoint exactly who’s likely to develop the disease. “In other autoimmune diseases, serologic autoantibodies have been by far the most effective biomarkers,” he said. “There is real-world support – not only in mice – for the concept that autoimmunity begins as a highly focused immune response that then spreads over time.”
In systemic lupus erythematosus, the cascade toward disease begins about 9 years before clinical presentation, he said. It’s 7 months in type 1 diabetes, and 20 years in rheumatoid arthritis. “These have been enormously powerful in designing both observational and therapeutic studies to try to interrupt autoimmunity at the earliest possible stage.”
What can be done if a MS biomarker is developed and shows that a person is at risk? Dr. Hauser highlighted how the anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab has been developed – and Food and Drug Administration approved – to greatly reduce the risk of type 1 diabetes in high-risk patients. Per a 2021 study, a single-14-day course of the drug was linked to lowering the risk of disease over a median 923 days by more than 50% (hazard ratio, 0.457; P < 0.01). Half of those who received the drug were free of diabetes versus just 22% of those treated by placebo.
“We’ve not yet had those serologic biomarkers in MS. But I’d like to show you that maybe we are getting close to having them,” Dr. Hauser said. He pointed to new research into a U.S. Department of Defense serum repository that’s turned up “a pretty rock-solid prediagnostic biomarker specific to MS.”
Moving on to therapy, Dr. Hauser said it’s clear that “the earlier that we treat, the more likely we are to have a large response. Highly effective therapies delivered as first-line therapies have better long-term outcomes for disability then does a graded approach that doesn’t begin with high-efficacy therapy.”
What constitutes a cure?
What else needs to be done going forward? Dr. Hauser called for the MS field to develop a definition of cure. “We should take the lead from cancer therapeutics, where they define what a cure means.” In B-cell leukemia, for example, patients are considered cured “if they remain completely disease-free in terms of clinical symptoms and biomarkers of clonal proliferation for 4 years. They have less than a 1% lifetime risk of relapse. They’re essentially cured. Our equivalent could also be developed for MS.”
He highlighted the IMPACT MS phase 4 trial, a small single-center study of ocrelizumab, which just finished enrollment and will examine the effect of the drug on treatment-naive patients at the moment of their first-ever attack. The primary endpoint is oligoclonal bands in 3 years. “I think more of these studies will probably follow,” Dr. Hauser said.
Is intervention possible at the presymptomatic stage? Targets could be members of families with multiple affected relatives who test positive for the predictive antibody signature and who have a high genetic score, he said. “We could do perhaps an Epstein-Barr virus intervention trial in this population. Then, if we have the courage and are more confident in our biomarkers, perhaps even a therapeutic trial, as has been done in these other diseases.”
As for next-generation therapies, “we’ll need to neutralize multiple cell types, especially in later disease,” he said. Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors “seem to be a class of drugs that was designed for the MS patient because they not only hit B cells, but also the plasmablasts that CD20s don’t hit and are the main component of the humoral pathology in chronic MS lesions.”
Dr. Hauser discloses scientific board (Accure, Alector, Annexon), board of directors (Neurona), consulting (BD, Moderna, NGM Bio), and travel reimbursement/writing support (Roche and Novartis).
AT ECTRIMS 2023
Next up in MS trials: More insight into progressive disease
MILAN – , neurologist Jeremy Chataway, MD, PhD, of University College London and Queen Square Multiple Sclerosis Center told colleagues at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
“They’re all very different, and I think that’s exciting,” he said. “It’s a rich trial environment.”
The problem: At a median of almost 3 years in treatment for primary progressive MS, “we know that about a third of patients will progress despite on being on anti-inflammatory treatment. The same is true for secondary progressive MS. That is the hard core of what we have to think about. We want to improve the efficacy gap between control and active.”
First, Dr. Chataway highlighted the MS-STAT2 trial of simvastatin (Zocor), an inexpensive statin used to lower cholesterol. He is one of the leaders of the 3-year, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, which is testing whether 80-mg daily doses of simvastatin will slow MS progression.
As Dr. Chataway noted, an earlier study – MS-STAT1 – found less brain atrophy in patients who took a high dose of the drug, which was “well tolerated and safe.”
Vascular morbidity drives disability and mortality in MS. “This is low-hanging fruit because we have the tools to do something about it,” he said. “There’s an opportunity here to add into our treatment paradigms across people with MS by actively treating their vascular comorbidity. It will have an effect.”
Recruitment for a trial of this approach is complete, and study results are expected in 2024 and 2025, Dr. Chataway said.
Another new study is exploring the possible effects of the antioxidant lipoic acid, also known as alpha-lipoic acid. As Dr. Chataway noted, a 2017 single-center, randomized, double-blind pilot study of daily oral 1,200 mg lipoic acid versus placebo linked the intervention to a dramatic lowering of brain atrophy – by about 50%.
The new LAPMS study, sponsored by the Veterans Administration, will explore whether lipoic acid affects walking ability, clinical outcome, and brain atrophy, Dr. Chataway said. Results from phase 2 are expected in a year or two, he said.
Dr. Chataway also highlighted one of his own trials, the OCTOPUS study, a multiarm, multistage study that will examine multiple drugs to treat progressive MS. It’s starting with metformin and will look at lipoic acid too, he said.
He also noted the phase 2 CALLIPER trial, which has completed enrollment and expects to provide top-line data in 2025. The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled will test vidofludimus calcium in patients with progressive MS.
Finally, Dr. Chataway highlighted the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on phase 2 NACPMS trial of n-acetyl cysteine and the phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of SAR443820, a central nervous system penetrant oral RIPK1 inhibitor.
Dr. Chataway discloses grants (UK Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Board, Health Technology Assessment, Multiple Sclerosis Trials Collaboration, and Rosetrees Trust), advisory board service (Azadyne, Biogen, Lucid, Janssen, Merck, NervGen, Novartis, and Roche), other support (National Institute of Health Research Support, University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centers funding scheme), and serving as an trial investigator (Canadian MS Society, Ionis, Novartis, and Roche).
MILAN – , neurologist Jeremy Chataway, MD, PhD, of University College London and Queen Square Multiple Sclerosis Center told colleagues at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
“They’re all very different, and I think that’s exciting,” he said. “It’s a rich trial environment.”
The problem: At a median of almost 3 years in treatment for primary progressive MS, “we know that about a third of patients will progress despite on being on anti-inflammatory treatment. The same is true for secondary progressive MS. That is the hard core of what we have to think about. We want to improve the efficacy gap between control and active.”
First, Dr. Chataway highlighted the MS-STAT2 trial of simvastatin (Zocor), an inexpensive statin used to lower cholesterol. He is one of the leaders of the 3-year, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, which is testing whether 80-mg daily doses of simvastatin will slow MS progression.
As Dr. Chataway noted, an earlier study – MS-STAT1 – found less brain atrophy in patients who took a high dose of the drug, which was “well tolerated and safe.”
Vascular morbidity drives disability and mortality in MS. “This is low-hanging fruit because we have the tools to do something about it,” he said. “There’s an opportunity here to add into our treatment paradigms across people with MS by actively treating their vascular comorbidity. It will have an effect.”
Recruitment for a trial of this approach is complete, and study results are expected in 2024 and 2025, Dr. Chataway said.
Another new study is exploring the possible effects of the antioxidant lipoic acid, also known as alpha-lipoic acid. As Dr. Chataway noted, a 2017 single-center, randomized, double-blind pilot study of daily oral 1,200 mg lipoic acid versus placebo linked the intervention to a dramatic lowering of brain atrophy – by about 50%.
The new LAPMS study, sponsored by the Veterans Administration, will explore whether lipoic acid affects walking ability, clinical outcome, and brain atrophy, Dr. Chataway said. Results from phase 2 are expected in a year or two, he said.
Dr. Chataway also highlighted one of his own trials, the OCTOPUS study, a multiarm, multistage study that will examine multiple drugs to treat progressive MS. It’s starting with metformin and will look at lipoic acid too, he said.
He also noted the phase 2 CALLIPER trial, which has completed enrollment and expects to provide top-line data in 2025. The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled will test vidofludimus calcium in patients with progressive MS.
Finally, Dr. Chataway highlighted the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on phase 2 NACPMS trial of n-acetyl cysteine and the phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of SAR443820, a central nervous system penetrant oral RIPK1 inhibitor.
Dr. Chataway discloses grants (UK Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Board, Health Technology Assessment, Multiple Sclerosis Trials Collaboration, and Rosetrees Trust), advisory board service (Azadyne, Biogen, Lucid, Janssen, Merck, NervGen, Novartis, and Roche), other support (National Institute of Health Research Support, University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centers funding scheme), and serving as an trial investigator (Canadian MS Society, Ionis, Novartis, and Roche).
MILAN – , neurologist Jeremy Chataway, MD, PhD, of University College London and Queen Square Multiple Sclerosis Center told colleagues at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
“They’re all very different, and I think that’s exciting,” he said. “It’s a rich trial environment.”
The problem: At a median of almost 3 years in treatment for primary progressive MS, “we know that about a third of patients will progress despite on being on anti-inflammatory treatment. The same is true for secondary progressive MS. That is the hard core of what we have to think about. We want to improve the efficacy gap between control and active.”
First, Dr. Chataway highlighted the MS-STAT2 trial of simvastatin (Zocor), an inexpensive statin used to lower cholesterol. He is one of the leaders of the 3-year, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, which is testing whether 80-mg daily doses of simvastatin will slow MS progression.
As Dr. Chataway noted, an earlier study – MS-STAT1 – found less brain atrophy in patients who took a high dose of the drug, which was “well tolerated and safe.”
Vascular morbidity drives disability and mortality in MS. “This is low-hanging fruit because we have the tools to do something about it,” he said. “There’s an opportunity here to add into our treatment paradigms across people with MS by actively treating their vascular comorbidity. It will have an effect.”
Recruitment for a trial of this approach is complete, and study results are expected in 2024 and 2025, Dr. Chataway said.
Another new study is exploring the possible effects of the antioxidant lipoic acid, also known as alpha-lipoic acid. As Dr. Chataway noted, a 2017 single-center, randomized, double-blind pilot study of daily oral 1,200 mg lipoic acid versus placebo linked the intervention to a dramatic lowering of brain atrophy – by about 50%.
The new LAPMS study, sponsored by the Veterans Administration, will explore whether lipoic acid affects walking ability, clinical outcome, and brain atrophy, Dr. Chataway said. Results from phase 2 are expected in a year or two, he said.
Dr. Chataway also highlighted one of his own trials, the OCTOPUS study, a multiarm, multistage study that will examine multiple drugs to treat progressive MS. It’s starting with metformin and will look at lipoic acid too, he said.
He also noted the phase 2 CALLIPER trial, which has completed enrollment and expects to provide top-line data in 2025. The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled will test vidofludimus calcium in patients with progressive MS.
Finally, Dr. Chataway highlighted the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on phase 2 NACPMS trial of n-acetyl cysteine and the phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of SAR443820, a central nervous system penetrant oral RIPK1 inhibitor.
Dr. Chataway discloses grants (UK Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Board, Health Technology Assessment, Multiple Sclerosis Trials Collaboration, and Rosetrees Trust), advisory board service (Azadyne, Biogen, Lucid, Janssen, Merck, NervGen, Novartis, and Roche), other support (National Institute of Health Research Support, University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centers funding scheme), and serving as an trial investigator (Canadian MS Society, Ionis, Novartis, and Roche).
AT ECTRIMS 2023
AI tool reveals MS drug interactions, offers safer options
MILAN – , German researchers reported.
The team fed the medication plans of almost 630 patients into a deep neural network, which identified drug-drug interactions in more than 80% of cases, in particular when switching from one medication to another, alongside potential food interactions.
The tool was able to identify specific interactions that could be avoided if a drug was replaced with one with a similar pharmacologic profile, but a lower risk of adverse effects.
“Potential drug-drug interactions are a major safety concern in patients with MS,” said study presenter Michael Hecker, PhD, department of neurology, Rostock (Germany) University Medical Center.
Such deep learning–based methods are “useful” in screening for potential interactions both between drugs and with foods, they concluded.
The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting.
Unknown interactions
During his presentation, Dr. Hecker noted that most patients with MS take two or more drugs “to treat their disease and to mitigate their symptoms and comorbidities.” He pointed out, however, that patients who take multiple medications are at an increased risk for side effects, as one drug may affect the pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic properties of another.
“For instance, it may change its metabolism,” Dr. Hecker said, and therefore affect its mechanism of action and the response to the drug, with medications potentially having synergistic, antagonistic, or additive effects.
He explained that the online DrugBank database “provides a huge collection” of known drug-drug interactions for compounds that have a track record. “However, for other drugs, and especially those that are tested only in clinical trials, there’s no information about drug-drug and drug-food interactions,” Dr. Hecker said.
“Moreover, it is quite time-consuming to search a database for individual drug-drug interactions,” he added.
34 million parameters
Consequently, there is increasing interest in the use of deep neural networks to study drug-drug interactions, Dr. Hecker said. DeepDDI is the “state-of-the-art deep learning framework” for predicting interactions. It takes drug-drug or drug-food pairs and compares their structures to determine their similarity. This information is fed into a deep neural network with almost 34 million trainable parameters.
The framework then provides a prediction of any interactions in the same terms as the DrugBank, suggesting, for example, that Drug A may decrease the antihypertensive activities of Drug B.
For the current study, the researchers trained the deep neural network on the most recent release of the DrugBank database, finding it was able to replicate the drug-drug interactions in the database at an accuracy of 92.2% in the validation set and 92.1% in the testing set. They then put the medication plans of 627 patients with MS into the deep neural network.
The patients had a mean age of 48.6 years, 70.3% were women, and the median disease duration was 10 years. They were taking an average of 5.3 medications, and 62% were using disease-modifying therapies (DMT).
The team compared the structures of the drugs they were taking with those of 367 drugs used for the treatment of MS, as well as with structural data for 1,673 food compounds from the FooDB database.
Swapping drugs could reduce interactions
The overall prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions among the patients included in the study was 81.2%.
The researchers then determined the proportion of patients who would be at risk of additional drug-drug interaction if they switched from one DMT to another, or to a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, given all their other medications.
They found, for example, that more than 40% of patients who switched to the immunomodulator fingolimod (Gilenya) would be at increased risk for bradycardia.
Just under 40% of patients who changed their DMT to the purine analogue cladribine (Mavenclad) would have an increased risk, or worsening, of bleeding, as would approximately 25% of those who switched to the anthracenedione antineoplastic agent mitoxantrone (Novantrone).
Dr. Hecker also showed the deep neural network could make suggestions as to how critical drug-drug interactions could be avoided by replacing interacting drugs with alternatives that have similar pharmacological effects.
For example, carbamazepine (Tegretol, Equetro) could be replaced with topiramate (several brand names) to avoid hepatotoxicity in patients also taking acetaminophen, while liothyronine (Cytomel, Triostat) could replace levothyroxine in patients also taking teriflunomide (Aubagio).
Finally, Dr. Hecker reported there was a subset of 6,860 potential drug-food interactions with the patients’ medications, resulting in reduced or increased concentrations of the drugs, particularly with fish or mushroom consumption.
He conceded, however, there were several limitations to their study, including that it included only small-molecule drugs, and that they did not ask patients about their diet or if they had observed any undesired drug effects.
Furthermore, “only a small number” of the potential drug-drug or drug-food interactions they identified would be “clinically relevant.”
Dr. Hecker also pointed out that each drug has one record, but it is used for different indications, with different dosages, and has different side effects, depending how it is used. “The model does not distinguish this,” he said, and so some of the interactions it highlights could be related to other doses than the one used in MS, for example.
Promise for the future
Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, commented that, as with all AI tools, “it’s only as good as what we’re putting into it.”
Dr. Bhargava, who cochaired the session, said that “there’s limitations on the information in the databases” that are being fed into the deep neural network.
He also highlighted that, “at this point, it didn’t seem like it was coming up with much clinically useful information,” but noted that, “we may get to that point.”
“Right now, there’s promise,” Dr. Bhargava said, but “it’s still not quite there.”
No funding was declared. Dr. Hecker declares relationships with Bayer HealthCare, Biogen, Merck Healthcare, Novartis, and Teva. Several other coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MILAN – , German researchers reported.
The team fed the medication plans of almost 630 patients into a deep neural network, which identified drug-drug interactions in more than 80% of cases, in particular when switching from one medication to another, alongside potential food interactions.
The tool was able to identify specific interactions that could be avoided if a drug was replaced with one with a similar pharmacologic profile, but a lower risk of adverse effects.
“Potential drug-drug interactions are a major safety concern in patients with MS,” said study presenter Michael Hecker, PhD, department of neurology, Rostock (Germany) University Medical Center.
Such deep learning–based methods are “useful” in screening for potential interactions both between drugs and with foods, they concluded.
The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting.
Unknown interactions
During his presentation, Dr. Hecker noted that most patients with MS take two or more drugs “to treat their disease and to mitigate their symptoms and comorbidities.” He pointed out, however, that patients who take multiple medications are at an increased risk for side effects, as one drug may affect the pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic properties of another.
“For instance, it may change its metabolism,” Dr. Hecker said, and therefore affect its mechanism of action and the response to the drug, with medications potentially having synergistic, antagonistic, or additive effects.
He explained that the online DrugBank database “provides a huge collection” of known drug-drug interactions for compounds that have a track record. “However, for other drugs, and especially those that are tested only in clinical trials, there’s no information about drug-drug and drug-food interactions,” Dr. Hecker said.
“Moreover, it is quite time-consuming to search a database for individual drug-drug interactions,” he added.
34 million parameters
Consequently, there is increasing interest in the use of deep neural networks to study drug-drug interactions, Dr. Hecker said. DeepDDI is the “state-of-the-art deep learning framework” for predicting interactions. It takes drug-drug or drug-food pairs and compares their structures to determine their similarity. This information is fed into a deep neural network with almost 34 million trainable parameters.
The framework then provides a prediction of any interactions in the same terms as the DrugBank, suggesting, for example, that Drug A may decrease the antihypertensive activities of Drug B.
For the current study, the researchers trained the deep neural network on the most recent release of the DrugBank database, finding it was able to replicate the drug-drug interactions in the database at an accuracy of 92.2% in the validation set and 92.1% in the testing set. They then put the medication plans of 627 patients with MS into the deep neural network.
The patients had a mean age of 48.6 years, 70.3% were women, and the median disease duration was 10 years. They were taking an average of 5.3 medications, and 62% were using disease-modifying therapies (DMT).
The team compared the structures of the drugs they were taking with those of 367 drugs used for the treatment of MS, as well as with structural data for 1,673 food compounds from the FooDB database.
Swapping drugs could reduce interactions
The overall prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions among the patients included in the study was 81.2%.
The researchers then determined the proportion of patients who would be at risk of additional drug-drug interaction if they switched from one DMT to another, or to a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, given all their other medications.
They found, for example, that more than 40% of patients who switched to the immunomodulator fingolimod (Gilenya) would be at increased risk for bradycardia.
Just under 40% of patients who changed their DMT to the purine analogue cladribine (Mavenclad) would have an increased risk, or worsening, of bleeding, as would approximately 25% of those who switched to the anthracenedione antineoplastic agent mitoxantrone (Novantrone).
Dr. Hecker also showed the deep neural network could make suggestions as to how critical drug-drug interactions could be avoided by replacing interacting drugs with alternatives that have similar pharmacological effects.
For example, carbamazepine (Tegretol, Equetro) could be replaced with topiramate (several brand names) to avoid hepatotoxicity in patients also taking acetaminophen, while liothyronine (Cytomel, Triostat) could replace levothyroxine in patients also taking teriflunomide (Aubagio).
Finally, Dr. Hecker reported there was a subset of 6,860 potential drug-food interactions with the patients’ medications, resulting in reduced or increased concentrations of the drugs, particularly with fish or mushroom consumption.
He conceded, however, there were several limitations to their study, including that it included only small-molecule drugs, and that they did not ask patients about their diet or if they had observed any undesired drug effects.
Furthermore, “only a small number” of the potential drug-drug or drug-food interactions they identified would be “clinically relevant.”
Dr. Hecker also pointed out that each drug has one record, but it is used for different indications, with different dosages, and has different side effects, depending how it is used. “The model does not distinguish this,” he said, and so some of the interactions it highlights could be related to other doses than the one used in MS, for example.
Promise for the future
Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, commented that, as with all AI tools, “it’s only as good as what we’re putting into it.”
Dr. Bhargava, who cochaired the session, said that “there’s limitations on the information in the databases” that are being fed into the deep neural network.
He also highlighted that, “at this point, it didn’t seem like it was coming up with much clinically useful information,” but noted that, “we may get to that point.”
“Right now, there’s promise,” Dr. Bhargava said, but “it’s still not quite there.”
No funding was declared. Dr. Hecker declares relationships with Bayer HealthCare, Biogen, Merck Healthcare, Novartis, and Teva. Several other coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MILAN – , German researchers reported.
The team fed the medication plans of almost 630 patients into a deep neural network, which identified drug-drug interactions in more than 80% of cases, in particular when switching from one medication to another, alongside potential food interactions.
The tool was able to identify specific interactions that could be avoided if a drug was replaced with one with a similar pharmacologic profile, but a lower risk of adverse effects.
“Potential drug-drug interactions are a major safety concern in patients with MS,” said study presenter Michael Hecker, PhD, department of neurology, Rostock (Germany) University Medical Center.
Such deep learning–based methods are “useful” in screening for potential interactions both between drugs and with foods, they concluded.
The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting.
Unknown interactions
During his presentation, Dr. Hecker noted that most patients with MS take two or more drugs “to treat their disease and to mitigate their symptoms and comorbidities.” He pointed out, however, that patients who take multiple medications are at an increased risk for side effects, as one drug may affect the pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic properties of another.
“For instance, it may change its metabolism,” Dr. Hecker said, and therefore affect its mechanism of action and the response to the drug, with medications potentially having synergistic, antagonistic, or additive effects.
He explained that the online DrugBank database “provides a huge collection” of known drug-drug interactions for compounds that have a track record. “However, for other drugs, and especially those that are tested only in clinical trials, there’s no information about drug-drug and drug-food interactions,” Dr. Hecker said.
“Moreover, it is quite time-consuming to search a database for individual drug-drug interactions,” he added.
34 million parameters
Consequently, there is increasing interest in the use of deep neural networks to study drug-drug interactions, Dr. Hecker said. DeepDDI is the “state-of-the-art deep learning framework” for predicting interactions. It takes drug-drug or drug-food pairs and compares their structures to determine their similarity. This information is fed into a deep neural network with almost 34 million trainable parameters.
The framework then provides a prediction of any interactions in the same terms as the DrugBank, suggesting, for example, that Drug A may decrease the antihypertensive activities of Drug B.
For the current study, the researchers trained the deep neural network on the most recent release of the DrugBank database, finding it was able to replicate the drug-drug interactions in the database at an accuracy of 92.2% in the validation set and 92.1% in the testing set. They then put the medication plans of 627 patients with MS into the deep neural network.
The patients had a mean age of 48.6 years, 70.3% were women, and the median disease duration was 10 years. They were taking an average of 5.3 medications, and 62% were using disease-modifying therapies (DMT).
The team compared the structures of the drugs they were taking with those of 367 drugs used for the treatment of MS, as well as with structural data for 1,673 food compounds from the FooDB database.
Swapping drugs could reduce interactions
The overall prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions among the patients included in the study was 81.2%.
The researchers then determined the proportion of patients who would be at risk of additional drug-drug interaction if they switched from one DMT to another, or to a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, given all their other medications.
They found, for example, that more than 40% of patients who switched to the immunomodulator fingolimod (Gilenya) would be at increased risk for bradycardia.
Just under 40% of patients who changed their DMT to the purine analogue cladribine (Mavenclad) would have an increased risk, or worsening, of bleeding, as would approximately 25% of those who switched to the anthracenedione antineoplastic agent mitoxantrone (Novantrone).
Dr. Hecker also showed the deep neural network could make suggestions as to how critical drug-drug interactions could be avoided by replacing interacting drugs with alternatives that have similar pharmacological effects.
For example, carbamazepine (Tegretol, Equetro) could be replaced with topiramate (several brand names) to avoid hepatotoxicity in patients also taking acetaminophen, while liothyronine (Cytomel, Triostat) could replace levothyroxine in patients also taking teriflunomide (Aubagio).
Finally, Dr. Hecker reported there was a subset of 6,860 potential drug-food interactions with the patients’ medications, resulting in reduced or increased concentrations of the drugs, particularly with fish or mushroom consumption.
He conceded, however, there were several limitations to their study, including that it included only small-molecule drugs, and that they did not ask patients about their diet or if they had observed any undesired drug effects.
Furthermore, “only a small number” of the potential drug-drug or drug-food interactions they identified would be “clinically relevant.”
Dr. Hecker also pointed out that each drug has one record, but it is used for different indications, with different dosages, and has different side effects, depending how it is used. “The model does not distinguish this,” he said, and so some of the interactions it highlights could be related to other doses than the one used in MS, for example.
Promise for the future
Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, commented that, as with all AI tools, “it’s only as good as what we’re putting into it.”
Dr. Bhargava, who cochaired the session, said that “there’s limitations on the information in the databases” that are being fed into the deep neural network.
He also highlighted that, “at this point, it didn’t seem like it was coming up with much clinically useful information,” but noted that, “we may get to that point.”
“Right now, there’s promise,” Dr. Bhargava said, but “it’s still not quite there.”
No funding was declared. Dr. Hecker declares relationships with Bayer HealthCare, Biogen, Merck Healthcare, Novartis, and Teva. Several other coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ECTRIMS 2023
High and low HDL cholesterol levels linked to dementia risk
TOPLINE:
High and low levels of HDL cholesterol but not levels of LDL cholesterol are associated with an increased risk for dementia in older adults, a new study found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Electronic health record and survey data on 184,367 Kaiser Permanente Northern California participants (median age, 69.5 years) with no history of dementia were taken.
- Cholesterol levels were measured within 2 years of survey completion.
TAKEAWAY:
- There were 25,214 incident cases of dementia reported over an average follow-up of 8.77 years.
- Dementia risk was significantly higher in people with low HDL cholesterol (11-41 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11) and high HDL cholesterol (> 65 mg/dL; aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20).
- The study demonstrates an association between low and high levels of “good” cholesterol but not a causal link.
- There was no significant association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results support the conclusion that some lipoproteins may be modifiable risk factors for dementia, even in late life,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Erin L. Ferguson, MPH, department of epidemiology & biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was published online in Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
There were no adjustments for apo E status and confounding and selection bias.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors report no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
High and low levels of HDL cholesterol but not levels of LDL cholesterol are associated with an increased risk for dementia in older adults, a new study found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Electronic health record and survey data on 184,367 Kaiser Permanente Northern California participants (median age, 69.5 years) with no history of dementia were taken.
- Cholesterol levels were measured within 2 years of survey completion.
TAKEAWAY:
- There were 25,214 incident cases of dementia reported over an average follow-up of 8.77 years.
- Dementia risk was significantly higher in people with low HDL cholesterol (11-41 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11) and high HDL cholesterol (> 65 mg/dL; aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20).
- The study demonstrates an association between low and high levels of “good” cholesterol but not a causal link.
- There was no significant association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results support the conclusion that some lipoproteins may be modifiable risk factors for dementia, even in late life,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Erin L. Ferguson, MPH, department of epidemiology & biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was published online in Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
There were no adjustments for apo E status and confounding and selection bias.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors report no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
High and low levels of HDL cholesterol but not levels of LDL cholesterol are associated with an increased risk for dementia in older adults, a new study found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Electronic health record and survey data on 184,367 Kaiser Permanente Northern California participants (median age, 69.5 years) with no history of dementia were taken.
- Cholesterol levels were measured within 2 years of survey completion.
TAKEAWAY:
- There were 25,214 incident cases of dementia reported over an average follow-up of 8.77 years.
- Dementia risk was significantly higher in people with low HDL cholesterol (11-41 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11) and high HDL cholesterol (> 65 mg/dL; aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20).
- The study demonstrates an association between low and high levels of “good” cholesterol but not a causal link.
- There was no significant association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results support the conclusion that some lipoproteins may be modifiable risk factors for dementia, even in late life,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Erin L. Ferguson, MPH, department of epidemiology & biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was published online in Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
There were no adjustments for apo E status and confounding and selection bias.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors report no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ocrelizumab benefit confirmed in older patients with MS
MILAN – they say.
The researchers studied about 700 patients with MS aged 60 years and older from an international database, comparing outcomes with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab versus those for interferon/glatiramer acetate (BRACE). They found ocrelizumab significantly reduced the annual rate of relapses, although after adjustments, patients overall faced a relapse rate of less than 0.1 per year. There were also no significant differences in either disability progression or improvement between the two treatments.
“We believe this study is unique in that ocrelizumab demonstrates a very clear differential treatment benefit in this age group,” said study presenter Yi Chao Foong, MD, department of neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne. “However, this has to be balanced against the fact that overall relapse activity is extremely low in people with MS over the age of 60. We believe that this study adds valuable, real-world data for nuanced benefit versus risk DMT discussions with for older adults with MS.”
The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Lack of data in older patients
Dr. Fong explained the comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has not been demonstrated in older people with MS, as all landmark trials to date have excluded people older than age 60 years. He underlined, however, that the inflammatory aspect of MS reduces with age, when neurodegenerative processes begin to predominate.
“This, combined with increased risk of acute infections in older adults have raised concerns over the benefit ratios of DMTs in this age group,” Dr. Fong said.
This has led to several de-escalation studies in older patients already on treatment for MS, but with “varied results.”
One study, published earlier in 2023, was unable to conclude whether DMT discontinuation was noninferior to continuation in older patients with no recent relapse or new MRI activity.
To investigate further, the Australian team used the MSBase database to study patients with a confirmed MS diagnosis who had started or switched to ocrelizumab or BRACE when older than 60 years of age.
They were also required to have undergone an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessment around the time of the initiation of DMT. In all, 675 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 248 started with ocrelizumab and 427 with BRACE.
The treatment groups were well balanced, although baseline EDSS scores were higher in patients given ocrelizumab, at 5.22 versus 3.89 with BRACE (P = .05), and they had a lower relapse rate prior in the year (P = .01) and 2 years (P = .02) prior to baseline.
Only relapse rates reduced
With more than 571 patient-years of follow-up, there were eight relapses in patients treated with ocrelizumab, compared with 182 relapses during 2238 patient-years among those given BRACE.
The team then performed propensity matching based on patient age, disease duration, sex, baseline EDSS, prior relapses, and prior DMTs.
They found that, over a median follow-up of 2.47 years for ocrelizumab and 4.48 years for BRACE, there was a lower rate of relapse with ocrelizumab, at a weighted annualized relapse rate of 0.01 versus 0.08 (P < .0001). This, they calculated, equated to an ARR ratio in favor of ocrelizumab of 0.15 (P < .01).
The time to first relapse was also longer for ocrelizumab versus BRACE, at a weighted hazard ratio for relapse of 0.11 (P < .001) and with, as Dr. Fong highlighted, separation of the curves at 5 months.
Over a follow-up duration of 3.6 years, there was, however, no significant difference in confirmed disability progression between the two treatments (P = .31), with similar results seen for confirmed disability improvement (P = .92).
Dr. Fong noted the study was limited by an inherent treatment indication bias, affecting the sensitivity analysis and weighing, while assessment of confirmed disability progression and confirmed disability improvement was hampered by the relatively short follow-up period and the lack of data on comorbidities.
He also highlighted the lack of safety data for the study population, as well as the lack of MRI.
Muddling the data
Approached for comment, Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, pointed out the study is based on retrospective data.
“The main question that we normally come up against in clinical practice, once people are older, is: What do you do with their treatment?” he asked.
This, Dr. Bhargava said, was the question that was addressed in the previous de-escalation studies.
The current study “actually answered a completely different question: If you were starting or changing a treatment after 60, which one would be better to choose?” This is a “much rarer scenario,” he said.
The results nevertheless showed what is seen in younger patients; in other words, “a more efficacious treatment is more effective at reducing relapses than a less efficacious treatment, even though overall the number of relapses is quite low,” Dr. Bhargava said.
“The other problem,” he added, is the study included “not just relapsing but also progressive patients, so that kind of muddles the data a little bit.”
Consequently, “it’s hard to really make a definitive conclusion” from the results, Dr. Bhargava concluded.
No funding was declared. Dr. Fong declares relationships with Biogen, National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia, and the Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists. Several coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MILAN – they say.
The researchers studied about 700 patients with MS aged 60 years and older from an international database, comparing outcomes with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab versus those for interferon/glatiramer acetate (BRACE). They found ocrelizumab significantly reduced the annual rate of relapses, although after adjustments, patients overall faced a relapse rate of less than 0.1 per year. There were also no significant differences in either disability progression or improvement between the two treatments.
“We believe this study is unique in that ocrelizumab demonstrates a very clear differential treatment benefit in this age group,” said study presenter Yi Chao Foong, MD, department of neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne. “However, this has to be balanced against the fact that overall relapse activity is extremely low in people with MS over the age of 60. We believe that this study adds valuable, real-world data for nuanced benefit versus risk DMT discussions with for older adults with MS.”
The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Lack of data in older patients
Dr. Fong explained the comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has not been demonstrated in older people with MS, as all landmark trials to date have excluded people older than age 60 years. He underlined, however, that the inflammatory aspect of MS reduces with age, when neurodegenerative processes begin to predominate.
“This, combined with increased risk of acute infections in older adults have raised concerns over the benefit ratios of DMTs in this age group,” Dr. Fong said.
This has led to several de-escalation studies in older patients already on treatment for MS, but with “varied results.”
One study, published earlier in 2023, was unable to conclude whether DMT discontinuation was noninferior to continuation in older patients with no recent relapse or new MRI activity.
To investigate further, the Australian team used the MSBase database to study patients with a confirmed MS diagnosis who had started or switched to ocrelizumab or BRACE when older than 60 years of age.
They were also required to have undergone an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessment around the time of the initiation of DMT. In all, 675 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 248 started with ocrelizumab and 427 with BRACE.
The treatment groups were well balanced, although baseline EDSS scores were higher in patients given ocrelizumab, at 5.22 versus 3.89 with BRACE (P = .05), and they had a lower relapse rate prior in the year (P = .01) and 2 years (P = .02) prior to baseline.
Only relapse rates reduced
With more than 571 patient-years of follow-up, there were eight relapses in patients treated with ocrelizumab, compared with 182 relapses during 2238 patient-years among those given BRACE.
The team then performed propensity matching based on patient age, disease duration, sex, baseline EDSS, prior relapses, and prior DMTs.
They found that, over a median follow-up of 2.47 years for ocrelizumab and 4.48 years for BRACE, there was a lower rate of relapse with ocrelizumab, at a weighted annualized relapse rate of 0.01 versus 0.08 (P < .0001). This, they calculated, equated to an ARR ratio in favor of ocrelizumab of 0.15 (P < .01).
The time to first relapse was also longer for ocrelizumab versus BRACE, at a weighted hazard ratio for relapse of 0.11 (P < .001) and with, as Dr. Fong highlighted, separation of the curves at 5 months.
Over a follow-up duration of 3.6 years, there was, however, no significant difference in confirmed disability progression between the two treatments (P = .31), with similar results seen for confirmed disability improvement (P = .92).
Dr. Fong noted the study was limited by an inherent treatment indication bias, affecting the sensitivity analysis and weighing, while assessment of confirmed disability progression and confirmed disability improvement was hampered by the relatively short follow-up period and the lack of data on comorbidities.
He also highlighted the lack of safety data for the study population, as well as the lack of MRI.
Muddling the data
Approached for comment, Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, pointed out the study is based on retrospective data.
“The main question that we normally come up against in clinical practice, once people are older, is: What do you do with their treatment?” he asked.
This, Dr. Bhargava said, was the question that was addressed in the previous de-escalation studies.
The current study “actually answered a completely different question: If you were starting or changing a treatment after 60, which one would be better to choose?” This is a “much rarer scenario,” he said.
The results nevertheless showed what is seen in younger patients; in other words, “a more efficacious treatment is more effective at reducing relapses than a less efficacious treatment, even though overall the number of relapses is quite low,” Dr. Bhargava said.
“The other problem,” he added, is the study included “not just relapsing but also progressive patients, so that kind of muddles the data a little bit.”
Consequently, “it’s hard to really make a definitive conclusion” from the results, Dr. Bhargava concluded.
No funding was declared. Dr. Fong declares relationships with Biogen, National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia, and the Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists. Several coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MILAN – they say.
The researchers studied about 700 patients with MS aged 60 years and older from an international database, comparing outcomes with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab versus those for interferon/glatiramer acetate (BRACE). They found ocrelizumab significantly reduced the annual rate of relapses, although after adjustments, patients overall faced a relapse rate of less than 0.1 per year. There were also no significant differences in either disability progression or improvement between the two treatments.
“We believe this study is unique in that ocrelizumab demonstrates a very clear differential treatment benefit in this age group,” said study presenter Yi Chao Foong, MD, department of neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne. “However, this has to be balanced against the fact that overall relapse activity is extremely low in people with MS over the age of 60. We believe that this study adds valuable, real-world data for nuanced benefit versus risk DMT discussions with for older adults with MS.”
The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Lack of data in older patients
Dr. Fong explained the comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has not been demonstrated in older people with MS, as all landmark trials to date have excluded people older than age 60 years. He underlined, however, that the inflammatory aspect of MS reduces with age, when neurodegenerative processes begin to predominate.
“This, combined with increased risk of acute infections in older adults have raised concerns over the benefit ratios of DMTs in this age group,” Dr. Fong said.
This has led to several de-escalation studies in older patients already on treatment for MS, but with “varied results.”
One study, published earlier in 2023, was unable to conclude whether DMT discontinuation was noninferior to continuation in older patients with no recent relapse or new MRI activity.
To investigate further, the Australian team used the MSBase database to study patients with a confirmed MS diagnosis who had started or switched to ocrelizumab or BRACE when older than 60 years of age.
They were also required to have undergone an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessment around the time of the initiation of DMT. In all, 675 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 248 started with ocrelizumab and 427 with BRACE.
The treatment groups were well balanced, although baseline EDSS scores were higher in patients given ocrelizumab, at 5.22 versus 3.89 with BRACE (P = .05), and they had a lower relapse rate prior in the year (P = .01) and 2 years (P = .02) prior to baseline.
Only relapse rates reduced
With more than 571 patient-years of follow-up, there were eight relapses in patients treated with ocrelizumab, compared with 182 relapses during 2238 patient-years among those given BRACE.
The team then performed propensity matching based on patient age, disease duration, sex, baseline EDSS, prior relapses, and prior DMTs.
They found that, over a median follow-up of 2.47 years for ocrelizumab and 4.48 years for BRACE, there was a lower rate of relapse with ocrelizumab, at a weighted annualized relapse rate of 0.01 versus 0.08 (P < .0001). This, they calculated, equated to an ARR ratio in favor of ocrelizumab of 0.15 (P < .01).
The time to first relapse was also longer for ocrelizumab versus BRACE, at a weighted hazard ratio for relapse of 0.11 (P < .001) and with, as Dr. Fong highlighted, separation of the curves at 5 months.
Over a follow-up duration of 3.6 years, there was, however, no significant difference in confirmed disability progression between the two treatments (P = .31), with similar results seen for confirmed disability improvement (P = .92).
Dr. Fong noted the study was limited by an inherent treatment indication bias, affecting the sensitivity analysis and weighing, while assessment of confirmed disability progression and confirmed disability improvement was hampered by the relatively short follow-up period and the lack of data on comorbidities.
He also highlighted the lack of safety data for the study population, as well as the lack of MRI.
Muddling the data
Approached for comment, Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, pointed out the study is based on retrospective data.
“The main question that we normally come up against in clinical practice, once people are older, is: What do you do with their treatment?” he asked.
This, Dr. Bhargava said, was the question that was addressed in the previous de-escalation studies.
The current study “actually answered a completely different question: If you were starting or changing a treatment after 60, which one would be better to choose?” This is a “much rarer scenario,” he said.
The results nevertheless showed what is seen in younger patients; in other words, “a more efficacious treatment is more effective at reducing relapses than a less efficacious treatment, even though overall the number of relapses is quite low,” Dr. Bhargava said.
“The other problem,” he added, is the study included “not just relapsing but also progressive patients, so that kind of muddles the data a little bit.”
Consequently, “it’s hard to really make a definitive conclusion” from the results, Dr. Bhargava concluded.
No funding was declared. Dr. Fong declares relationships with Biogen, National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia, and the Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists. Several coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ECTRIMS 2023