User login
Cancer Mortality Not Higher for Patients With Autoimmune Disease on Checkpoint Inhibitors
WASHINGTON — Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase mortality in people with preexisting autoimmune diseases, new research has found.
Results from a large database analysis of patients with and without autoimmune diseases suggest it is safe to treat them with ICI if they develop a cancer for which it is indicated, Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the American College of Rheumatology 2024 Annual Meeting.
“One message is that, when rheumatologists are asked by oncologists about patients with rheumatoid arthritis or vasculitis or other autoimmune diseases and whether it’s safe to treat them with immune checkpoint inhibitors, this result provides some evidence that it probably is safe…. Checkpoint inhibitors are really incredible drugs, and they’ve improved mortality for a lot of cancers, particularly melanoma, and so I think there should be a pretty high threshold for us to say a patient shouldn’t receive them because of an autoimmune condition,” he told this news organization.
Another implication, Challener said, is that people with autoimmune diseases shouldn’t routinely be excluded from clinical trials of ICIs. Currently they are excluded because of concerns about exacerbation of underlying autoimmunity, possible interference between the ICI and the immunosuppressive drugs used to treat the autoimmune condition, and a theoretical risk for serious adverse events.
“Clinical trials are continuing to exclude these patients, and they paint with a very broad brush anyone with underlying autoimmunity ... I’m hoping that that changes. I don’t think there’s a great evidence base to support that practice, and it’s unfortunate that patients with underlying autoimmune diseases are excluded from important studies,” Challener said.
Asked to comment, session moderator Matlock Jeffries, MD, director of the Arthritis Research Unit at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, told this news organization that he agrees the data are generally reassuring. “If one of our patients gets cancer and their oncologist wants to use a checkpoint inhibitor, we’d obviously still monitor them for complications, but we wouldn’t automatically assume the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and autoimmune disease would increase their mortality.”
No Difference in Mortality for Those With and Without Autoimmune Disease
Challener and colleagues used administrative health data from the TriNetX Diamond network of 92 US healthcare sites with 212 million patients. All patients included in the study were receiving anti-programmed death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 to treat malignancies involving the skin, lung/bronchus, digestive organs, or urinary tract. The study population also had at least one rheumatologic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, dermatologic, or endocrine autoimmune disease.
Propensity score matching between those with and without autoimmune disease was performed for about 100 covariates. Prior to the matching, the autoimmune disease group had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular and other comorbidities. The matching yielded 23,714 individuals with autoimmune disease and the same number without who had similar demographics and comorbidity rates, as well as malignancy type, alcohol/tobacco use, and medication use.
At a median follow-up of 250 days, the risk for mortality prior to propensity matching was 40.0% in the autoimmune disease group and 38.1% for those without, a significant difference with hazard ratio 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.10). But after the matching, the difference was no longer significant: 39.8% vs 40.2%, respectively (0.97, 0.94-1.00).
The Kaplan-Meier curves for survival probability for those with or without autoimmune disease were nearly superimposed, showing no difference up to 1600 days. An analysis of just the patients with rheumatic diseases yielded similar results, Challener said.
Some Caveats About the Data
Jeffries, who is also an associate professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and the Oklahoma VA, said he would like to see additional data on outcomes, both for the autoimmune conditions and the cancers. Challener said there are plans to look at other hard endpoints such as myocardial infarction and end-stage renal disease, but that the database is limited.
Both Challener and Jeffries also cautioned that the reassurance may not apply to patients with active disease.
“One thing this research doesn’t address is whether active autoimmune disease might have a different outcome compared to more kind of quiet disease…. If you have a patient who has extremely active rheumatoid arthritis or extremely active giant cell arthritis, for instance, I think that could be more challenging. I would be frightened to put a patient with really active GCA on pembrolizumab or say that it’s safe without their disease being controlled. But for someone who has well-controlled disease or minimally active disease, this is very reassuring,” Challener told this news organization.
“I think this may also be important in that it’s a good argument to tell the drug companies to include autoimmune patients in these trials so we can get better data,” Jeffries said.
Challener and Jeffries had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON — Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase mortality in people with preexisting autoimmune diseases, new research has found.
Results from a large database analysis of patients with and without autoimmune diseases suggest it is safe to treat them with ICI if they develop a cancer for which it is indicated, Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the American College of Rheumatology 2024 Annual Meeting.
“One message is that, when rheumatologists are asked by oncologists about patients with rheumatoid arthritis or vasculitis or other autoimmune diseases and whether it’s safe to treat them with immune checkpoint inhibitors, this result provides some evidence that it probably is safe…. Checkpoint inhibitors are really incredible drugs, and they’ve improved mortality for a lot of cancers, particularly melanoma, and so I think there should be a pretty high threshold for us to say a patient shouldn’t receive them because of an autoimmune condition,” he told this news organization.
Another implication, Challener said, is that people with autoimmune diseases shouldn’t routinely be excluded from clinical trials of ICIs. Currently they are excluded because of concerns about exacerbation of underlying autoimmunity, possible interference between the ICI and the immunosuppressive drugs used to treat the autoimmune condition, and a theoretical risk for serious adverse events.
“Clinical trials are continuing to exclude these patients, and they paint with a very broad brush anyone with underlying autoimmunity ... I’m hoping that that changes. I don’t think there’s a great evidence base to support that practice, and it’s unfortunate that patients with underlying autoimmune diseases are excluded from important studies,” Challener said.
Asked to comment, session moderator Matlock Jeffries, MD, director of the Arthritis Research Unit at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, told this news organization that he agrees the data are generally reassuring. “If one of our patients gets cancer and their oncologist wants to use a checkpoint inhibitor, we’d obviously still monitor them for complications, but we wouldn’t automatically assume the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and autoimmune disease would increase their mortality.”
No Difference in Mortality for Those With and Without Autoimmune Disease
Challener and colleagues used administrative health data from the TriNetX Diamond network of 92 US healthcare sites with 212 million patients. All patients included in the study were receiving anti-programmed death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 to treat malignancies involving the skin, lung/bronchus, digestive organs, or urinary tract. The study population also had at least one rheumatologic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, dermatologic, or endocrine autoimmune disease.
Propensity score matching between those with and without autoimmune disease was performed for about 100 covariates. Prior to the matching, the autoimmune disease group had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular and other comorbidities. The matching yielded 23,714 individuals with autoimmune disease and the same number without who had similar demographics and comorbidity rates, as well as malignancy type, alcohol/tobacco use, and medication use.
At a median follow-up of 250 days, the risk for mortality prior to propensity matching was 40.0% in the autoimmune disease group and 38.1% for those without, a significant difference with hazard ratio 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.10). But after the matching, the difference was no longer significant: 39.8% vs 40.2%, respectively (0.97, 0.94-1.00).
The Kaplan-Meier curves for survival probability for those with or without autoimmune disease were nearly superimposed, showing no difference up to 1600 days. An analysis of just the patients with rheumatic diseases yielded similar results, Challener said.
Some Caveats About the Data
Jeffries, who is also an associate professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and the Oklahoma VA, said he would like to see additional data on outcomes, both for the autoimmune conditions and the cancers. Challener said there are plans to look at other hard endpoints such as myocardial infarction and end-stage renal disease, but that the database is limited.
Both Challener and Jeffries also cautioned that the reassurance may not apply to patients with active disease.
“One thing this research doesn’t address is whether active autoimmune disease might have a different outcome compared to more kind of quiet disease…. If you have a patient who has extremely active rheumatoid arthritis or extremely active giant cell arthritis, for instance, I think that could be more challenging. I would be frightened to put a patient with really active GCA on pembrolizumab or say that it’s safe without their disease being controlled. But for someone who has well-controlled disease or minimally active disease, this is very reassuring,” Challener told this news organization.
“I think this may also be important in that it’s a good argument to tell the drug companies to include autoimmune patients in these trials so we can get better data,” Jeffries said.
Challener and Jeffries had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON — Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase mortality in people with preexisting autoimmune diseases, new research has found.
Results from a large database analysis of patients with and without autoimmune diseases suggest it is safe to treat them with ICI if they develop a cancer for which it is indicated, Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the American College of Rheumatology 2024 Annual Meeting.
“One message is that, when rheumatologists are asked by oncologists about patients with rheumatoid arthritis or vasculitis or other autoimmune diseases and whether it’s safe to treat them with immune checkpoint inhibitors, this result provides some evidence that it probably is safe…. Checkpoint inhibitors are really incredible drugs, and they’ve improved mortality for a lot of cancers, particularly melanoma, and so I think there should be a pretty high threshold for us to say a patient shouldn’t receive them because of an autoimmune condition,” he told this news organization.
Another implication, Challener said, is that people with autoimmune diseases shouldn’t routinely be excluded from clinical trials of ICIs. Currently they are excluded because of concerns about exacerbation of underlying autoimmunity, possible interference between the ICI and the immunosuppressive drugs used to treat the autoimmune condition, and a theoretical risk for serious adverse events.
“Clinical trials are continuing to exclude these patients, and they paint with a very broad brush anyone with underlying autoimmunity ... I’m hoping that that changes. I don’t think there’s a great evidence base to support that practice, and it’s unfortunate that patients with underlying autoimmune diseases are excluded from important studies,” Challener said.
Asked to comment, session moderator Matlock Jeffries, MD, director of the Arthritis Research Unit at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, told this news organization that he agrees the data are generally reassuring. “If one of our patients gets cancer and their oncologist wants to use a checkpoint inhibitor, we’d obviously still monitor them for complications, but we wouldn’t automatically assume the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and autoimmune disease would increase their mortality.”
No Difference in Mortality for Those With and Without Autoimmune Disease
Challener and colleagues used administrative health data from the TriNetX Diamond network of 92 US healthcare sites with 212 million patients. All patients included in the study were receiving anti-programmed death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 to treat malignancies involving the skin, lung/bronchus, digestive organs, or urinary tract. The study population also had at least one rheumatologic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, dermatologic, or endocrine autoimmune disease.
Propensity score matching between those with and without autoimmune disease was performed for about 100 covariates. Prior to the matching, the autoimmune disease group had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular and other comorbidities. The matching yielded 23,714 individuals with autoimmune disease and the same number without who had similar demographics and comorbidity rates, as well as malignancy type, alcohol/tobacco use, and medication use.
At a median follow-up of 250 days, the risk for mortality prior to propensity matching was 40.0% in the autoimmune disease group and 38.1% for those without, a significant difference with hazard ratio 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.10). But after the matching, the difference was no longer significant: 39.8% vs 40.2%, respectively (0.97, 0.94-1.00).
The Kaplan-Meier curves for survival probability for those with or without autoimmune disease were nearly superimposed, showing no difference up to 1600 days. An analysis of just the patients with rheumatic diseases yielded similar results, Challener said.
Some Caveats About the Data
Jeffries, who is also an associate professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and the Oklahoma VA, said he would like to see additional data on outcomes, both for the autoimmune conditions and the cancers. Challener said there are plans to look at other hard endpoints such as myocardial infarction and end-stage renal disease, but that the database is limited.
Both Challener and Jeffries also cautioned that the reassurance may not apply to patients with active disease.
“One thing this research doesn’t address is whether active autoimmune disease might have a different outcome compared to more kind of quiet disease…. If you have a patient who has extremely active rheumatoid arthritis or extremely active giant cell arthritis, for instance, I think that could be more challenging. I would be frightened to put a patient with really active GCA on pembrolizumab or say that it’s safe without their disease being controlled. But for someone who has well-controlled disease or minimally active disease, this is very reassuring,” Challener told this news organization.
“I think this may also be important in that it’s a good argument to tell the drug companies to include autoimmune patients in these trials so we can get better data,” Jeffries said.
Challener and Jeffries had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACR 2024
Smoldering MS May Warrant Unique Diagnosis, Treatment, and Research Strategies
Smoldering-associated worsening (SAW) of multiple sclerosis (MS) deserves a broader, more comprehensive approach to diagnosis, treatment, and research that goes beyond neurologists’ understanding of progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA), according to a recently published international consensus. However, an outside expert said that promulgating the “smoldering” concept may stoke patient and provider confusion.
Although current disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS exclusively target focal white matter (WM) inflammation, wrote authors lead by Antonio Scalfari, MD, PhD, of Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College London in England, many people with MS experience worsening disability in a more indolent fashion — despite stable inflammatory markers.
“The gradual accumulation of physical and cognitive disability is driven by smoldering pathological processes via biological substrates, which are different from those of acute focal damage, remain an important unmet therapeutic target,” they wrote.
The same research team first described smoldering MS in a 2022 publication. In the present paper, Scalfari and colleagues reviewed emerging clinical, radiological, and pathological evidence and presented 29 consensus statements in areas ranging from the definition, pathology, and clinical manifestations of smoldering MS to appropriate biomarkers and best clinical practices.
Definition
By definition, the authors wrote, SAW encompasses PIRA but also includes a range of gradually worsening, relapse-independent symptoms that remain undetectable on standard assessments, including the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) or EDSS-Plus, especially in early disease. To capture symptoms such as subtle motor impairment, cognitive slowing, and fatigue, Scalfari and colleagues recommend tools such as neurological stress tests, fatigue/mood scales, wearable devices, and patient reported outcomes.
Disease Mechanisms
Pathologically, the authors wrote, smoldering MS may stem from intrinsic central nervous system processes that likely incorporate various glial, immune, and neural cells. Smoldering MS also could contribute to aging, and vice versa, the latter possibly through dynamics such as age-related exhaustion of compensatory mechanisms, reduction in remyelination efficiency, and telomere shortening, they added.
Clinical Implementation
Current MS management rests on crude estimates of physical disability and overemphasizes identifying relapses and new MRI lesions as the principal markers of disease activity, wrote Scalfari and colleagues. Instead, they suggested combining motor-associated assessments such as EDSS-Plus with cognitive gauges such as the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis.
Providers are uncomfortable identifying and discussing smoldering MS, authors allowed, because no licensed treatments target SAW. However, the authors wrote, a principal reason for discussing smoldering MS with patients is to help manage their expectations of current DMTs, which may have little effect on SAW.
‘More Than Lesions’
Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, MAS, professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said that it is extremely important to raise awareness of physicians’ emerging understanding that “there is more going on in MS than lesions and relapses,” a concept that has been a work in progress for several years. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.
A 2019 report on the EPIC cohort coauthored by Cree labeled the disconnect between disability accumulation and relapse occurrence “silent progression.” The observation that disability accumulates in early relapsing MS independent of relapsing activity has been replicated in virtually every dataset worldwide, he added.
“What I don’t like about this article is the reliance on the term ‘smoldering’ and the acceptance that this is an actual phenomenon supported by data.” And authors’ leveraging “smoldering” into additional acronyms such as SAW likely will confuse rather than clarify physicians’ and patients’ understanding of the situation, Cree added. “Clinicians don’t need yet another snappy acronym.” Many are still trying to grasp the PIRA concept in relapsing MS, he said.
“One of the reasons this topic has become so important is that we recognize that even when we have very good control of relapsing disease activity — clinical relapses as well as radiographic large lesion formation on MRI — some patients still develop insidious worsening of disability. And the reasons for that are not well understood,” said Cree.
Accumulating disability absent relapse activity could stem from any number of microscopic inflammatory processes, possibly involving abnormal microglial activation, fibrinogen deposition, microscopic inflammatory infiltrates of CD8-positive T cells, or mitochondrial damage from iron deposition, he said. Or the processes driving PIRA may not even involve inflammation, he added. “We still don’t have a unifying way of understanding how these processes work.”
Cree suspects that, despite investigators’ good intentions, the study’s sponsor, Sanofi, may have influenced the resultant messaging. The company’s tolebrutinib recently completed phase 3 trials in secondary progressive MS and relapsing MS, and a phase 3 trial in primary progressive MS is scheduled for completion in 2025. “A hallmark of Sanofi’s messaging has been this idea that there is smoldering inflammation occurring in MS that tolebrutinib is going to address,” he said.
If clinicians really knew what drove progressive MS, said Cree, “we would be keen on developing therapies targeting that fundamental process. But because we don’t know what’s driving it, we don’t know what to go after.”
The study was supported by Sanofi. Cree is a coauthor of the GEMINI 1 and GEMINI 2 tolebrutinib studies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Smoldering-associated worsening (SAW) of multiple sclerosis (MS) deserves a broader, more comprehensive approach to diagnosis, treatment, and research that goes beyond neurologists’ understanding of progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA), according to a recently published international consensus. However, an outside expert said that promulgating the “smoldering” concept may stoke patient and provider confusion.
Although current disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS exclusively target focal white matter (WM) inflammation, wrote authors lead by Antonio Scalfari, MD, PhD, of Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College London in England, many people with MS experience worsening disability in a more indolent fashion — despite stable inflammatory markers.
“The gradual accumulation of physical and cognitive disability is driven by smoldering pathological processes via biological substrates, which are different from those of acute focal damage, remain an important unmet therapeutic target,” they wrote.
The same research team first described smoldering MS in a 2022 publication. In the present paper, Scalfari and colleagues reviewed emerging clinical, radiological, and pathological evidence and presented 29 consensus statements in areas ranging from the definition, pathology, and clinical manifestations of smoldering MS to appropriate biomarkers and best clinical practices.
Definition
By definition, the authors wrote, SAW encompasses PIRA but also includes a range of gradually worsening, relapse-independent symptoms that remain undetectable on standard assessments, including the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) or EDSS-Plus, especially in early disease. To capture symptoms such as subtle motor impairment, cognitive slowing, and fatigue, Scalfari and colleagues recommend tools such as neurological stress tests, fatigue/mood scales, wearable devices, and patient reported outcomes.
Disease Mechanisms
Pathologically, the authors wrote, smoldering MS may stem from intrinsic central nervous system processes that likely incorporate various glial, immune, and neural cells. Smoldering MS also could contribute to aging, and vice versa, the latter possibly through dynamics such as age-related exhaustion of compensatory mechanisms, reduction in remyelination efficiency, and telomere shortening, they added.
Clinical Implementation
Current MS management rests on crude estimates of physical disability and overemphasizes identifying relapses and new MRI lesions as the principal markers of disease activity, wrote Scalfari and colleagues. Instead, they suggested combining motor-associated assessments such as EDSS-Plus with cognitive gauges such as the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis.
Providers are uncomfortable identifying and discussing smoldering MS, authors allowed, because no licensed treatments target SAW. However, the authors wrote, a principal reason for discussing smoldering MS with patients is to help manage their expectations of current DMTs, which may have little effect on SAW.
‘More Than Lesions’
Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, MAS, professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said that it is extremely important to raise awareness of physicians’ emerging understanding that “there is more going on in MS than lesions and relapses,” a concept that has been a work in progress for several years. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.
A 2019 report on the EPIC cohort coauthored by Cree labeled the disconnect between disability accumulation and relapse occurrence “silent progression.” The observation that disability accumulates in early relapsing MS independent of relapsing activity has been replicated in virtually every dataset worldwide, he added.
“What I don’t like about this article is the reliance on the term ‘smoldering’ and the acceptance that this is an actual phenomenon supported by data.” And authors’ leveraging “smoldering” into additional acronyms such as SAW likely will confuse rather than clarify physicians’ and patients’ understanding of the situation, Cree added. “Clinicians don’t need yet another snappy acronym.” Many are still trying to grasp the PIRA concept in relapsing MS, he said.
“One of the reasons this topic has become so important is that we recognize that even when we have very good control of relapsing disease activity — clinical relapses as well as radiographic large lesion formation on MRI — some patients still develop insidious worsening of disability. And the reasons for that are not well understood,” said Cree.
Accumulating disability absent relapse activity could stem from any number of microscopic inflammatory processes, possibly involving abnormal microglial activation, fibrinogen deposition, microscopic inflammatory infiltrates of CD8-positive T cells, or mitochondrial damage from iron deposition, he said. Or the processes driving PIRA may not even involve inflammation, he added. “We still don’t have a unifying way of understanding how these processes work.”
Cree suspects that, despite investigators’ good intentions, the study’s sponsor, Sanofi, may have influenced the resultant messaging. The company’s tolebrutinib recently completed phase 3 trials in secondary progressive MS and relapsing MS, and a phase 3 trial in primary progressive MS is scheduled for completion in 2025. “A hallmark of Sanofi’s messaging has been this idea that there is smoldering inflammation occurring in MS that tolebrutinib is going to address,” he said.
If clinicians really knew what drove progressive MS, said Cree, “we would be keen on developing therapies targeting that fundamental process. But because we don’t know what’s driving it, we don’t know what to go after.”
The study was supported by Sanofi. Cree is a coauthor of the GEMINI 1 and GEMINI 2 tolebrutinib studies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Smoldering-associated worsening (SAW) of multiple sclerosis (MS) deserves a broader, more comprehensive approach to diagnosis, treatment, and research that goes beyond neurologists’ understanding of progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA), according to a recently published international consensus. However, an outside expert said that promulgating the “smoldering” concept may stoke patient and provider confusion.
Although current disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS exclusively target focal white matter (WM) inflammation, wrote authors lead by Antonio Scalfari, MD, PhD, of Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College London in England, many people with MS experience worsening disability in a more indolent fashion — despite stable inflammatory markers.
“The gradual accumulation of physical and cognitive disability is driven by smoldering pathological processes via biological substrates, which are different from those of acute focal damage, remain an important unmet therapeutic target,” they wrote.
The same research team first described smoldering MS in a 2022 publication. In the present paper, Scalfari and colleagues reviewed emerging clinical, radiological, and pathological evidence and presented 29 consensus statements in areas ranging from the definition, pathology, and clinical manifestations of smoldering MS to appropriate biomarkers and best clinical practices.
Definition
By definition, the authors wrote, SAW encompasses PIRA but also includes a range of gradually worsening, relapse-independent symptoms that remain undetectable on standard assessments, including the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) or EDSS-Plus, especially in early disease. To capture symptoms such as subtle motor impairment, cognitive slowing, and fatigue, Scalfari and colleagues recommend tools such as neurological stress tests, fatigue/mood scales, wearable devices, and patient reported outcomes.
Disease Mechanisms
Pathologically, the authors wrote, smoldering MS may stem from intrinsic central nervous system processes that likely incorporate various glial, immune, and neural cells. Smoldering MS also could contribute to aging, and vice versa, the latter possibly through dynamics such as age-related exhaustion of compensatory mechanisms, reduction in remyelination efficiency, and telomere shortening, they added.
Clinical Implementation
Current MS management rests on crude estimates of physical disability and overemphasizes identifying relapses and new MRI lesions as the principal markers of disease activity, wrote Scalfari and colleagues. Instead, they suggested combining motor-associated assessments such as EDSS-Plus with cognitive gauges such as the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis.
Providers are uncomfortable identifying and discussing smoldering MS, authors allowed, because no licensed treatments target SAW. However, the authors wrote, a principal reason for discussing smoldering MS with patients is to help manage their expectations of current DMTs, which may have little effect on SAW.
‘More Than Lesions’
Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, MAS, professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said that it is extremely important to raise awareness of physicians’ emerging understanding that “there is more going on in MS than lesions and relapses,” a concept that has been a work in progress for several years. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.
A 2019 report on the EPIC cohort coauthored by Cree labeled the disconnect between disability accumulation and relapse occurrence “silent progression.” The observation that disability accumulates in early relapsing MS independent of relapsing activity has been replicated in virtually every dataset worldwide, he added.
“What I don’t like about this article is the reliance on the term ‘smoldering’ and the acceptance that this is an actual phenomenon supported by data.” And authors’ leveraging “smoldering” into additional acronyms such as SAW likely will confuse rather than clarify physicians’ and patients’ understanding of the situation, Cree added. “Clinicians don’t need yet another snappy acronym.” Many are still trying to grasp the PIRA concept in relapsing MS, he said.
“One of the reasons this topic has become so important is that we recognize that even when we have very good control of relapsing disease activity — clinical relapses as well as radiographic large lesion formation on MRI — some patients still develop insidious worsening of disability. And the reasons for that are not well understood,” said Cree.
Accumulating disability absent relapse activity could stem from any number of microscopic inflammatory processes, possibly involving abnormal microglial activation, fibrinogen deposition, microscopic inflammatory infiltrates of CD8-positive T cells, or mitochondrial damage from iron deposition, he said. Or the processes driving PIRA may not even involve inflammation, he added. “We still don’t have a unifying way of understanding how these processes work.”
Cree suspects that, despite investigators’ good intentions, the study’s sponsor, Sanofi, may have influenced the resultant messaging. The company’s tolebrutinib recently completed phase 3 trials in secondary progressive MS and relapsing MS, and a phase 3 trial in primary progressive MS is scheduled for completion in 2025. “A hallmark of Sanofi’s messaging has been this idea that there is smoldering inflammation occurring in MS that tolebrutinib is going to address,” he said.
If clinicians really knew what drove progressive MS, said Cree, “we would be keen on developing therapies targeting that fundamental process. But because we don’t know what’s driving it, we don’t know what to go after.”
The study was supported by Sanofi. Cree is a coauthor of the GEMINI 1 and GEMINI 2 tolebrutinib studies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY
Multiple Sclerosis Highlights From ECTRIMS 2024
The latest research on therapeutic management of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) presented at the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis 2024 Congress is reported by Dr Patricia Coyle from Stony Brook University Hospital, in Stony Brook, New York.
Dr Coyle first discusses a registry study looking at initiation of monoclonal antibody therapy for patients with pediatric-onset MS. Results showed a significant reduction in disability at age 23 and beyond when therapy was initiated in childhood.
Next, Dr Coyle discusses a trial examining the safety and efficacy of frexalimab, a second-generation anti-CD40L antibody. In an open-label extension trial through 72 weeks, frexalimab provided a sustained reduction of disease activity, as measured by MRI, and was well tolerated.
She then details a study looking at the effects of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) on pregnancy outcomes in patients with MS. Using a German MS registry, researchers looked at 3722 pregnancies, 2885 with DMT exposure, and concluded that most pregnancy outcomes are unaffected by DMT exposure; however, the data showed the potential risk for reduced birth rates.
Finally, Dr Coyle examines the efficacy of the Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor tolebrutinib, as evidenced by the HERCULES trial and the two GEMINI trials. In HERCULES, the BTK inhibitor reduced 6-month disability progression by a significant 31% compared with placebo.
--
Patricia K. Coyle, MD, Professor and Interim Chair, Department of Neurology; Director, MS Comprehensive Care Center, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York
Patricia K. Coyle, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Accordant; Amgen; Biogen; Bristol Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Company; EMD Serono; GSK; Genentech; Horizon; LabCorp; Mylan; Novartis; Sanofi Genzyme; Viatris
Received research grant from: Celgene; CorEvitas LLC; Genentech/Roche; National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Sanofi Genzyme
The latest research on therapeutic management of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) presented at the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis 2024 Congress is reported by Dr Patricia Coyle from Stony Brook University Hospital, in Stony Brook, New York.
Dr Coyle first discusses a registry study looking at initiation of monoclonal antibody therapy for patients with pediatric-onset MS. Results showed a significant reduction in disability at age 23 and beyond when therapy was initiated in childhood.
Next, Dr Coyle discusses a trial examining the safety and efficacy of frexalimab, a second-generation anti-CD40L antibody. In an open-label extension trial through 72 weeks, frexalimab provided a sustained reduction of disease activity, as measured by MRI, and was well tolerated.
She then details a study looking at the effects of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) on pregnancy outcomes in patients with MS. Using a German MS registry, researchers looked at 3722 pregnancies, 2885 with DMT exposure, and concluded that most pregnancy outcomes are unaffected by DMT exposure; however, the data showed the potential risk for reduced birth rates.
Finally, Dr Coyle examines the efficacy of the Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor tolebrutinib, as evidenced by the HERCULES trial and the two GEMINI trials. In HERCULES, the BTK inhibitor reduced 6-month disability progression by a significant 31% compared with placebo.
--
Patricia K. Coyle, MD, Professor and Interim Chair, Department of Neurology; Director, MS Comprehensive Care Center, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York
Patricia K. Coyle, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Accordant; Amgen; Biogen; Bristol Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Company; EMD Serono; GSK; Genentech; Horizon; LabCorp; Mylan; Novartis; Sanofi Genzyme; Viatris
Received research grant from: Celgene; CorEvitas LLC; Genentech/Roche; National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Sanofi Genzyme
The latest research on therapeutic management of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) presented at the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis 2024 Congress is reported by Dr Patricia Coyle from Stony Brook University Hospital, in Stony Brook, New York.
Dr Coyle first discusses a registry study looking at initiation of monoclonal antibody therapy for patients with pediatric-onset MS. Results showed a significant reduction in disability at age 23 and beyond when therapy was initiated in childhood.
Next, Dr Coyle discusses a trial examining the safety and efficacy of frexalimab, a second-generation anti-CD40L antibody. In an open-label extension trial through 72 weeks, frexalimab provided a sustained reduction of disease activity, as measured by MRI, and was well tolerated.
She then details a study looking at the effects of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) on pregnancy outcomes in patients with MS. Using a German MS registry, researchers looked at 3722 pregnancies, 2885 with DMT exposure, and concluded that most pregnancy outcomes are unaffected by DMT exposure; however, the data showed the potential risk for reduced birth rates.
Finally, Dr Coyle examines the efficacy of the Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor tolebrutinib, as evidenced by the HERCULES trial and the two GEMINI trials. In HERCULES, the BTK inhibitor reduced 6-month disability progression by a significant 31% compared with placebo.
--
Patricia K. Coyle, MD, Professor and Interim Chair, Department of Neurology; Director, MS Comprehensive Care Center, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York
Patricia K. Coyle, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Accordant; Amgen; Biogen; Bristol Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Company; EMD Serono; GSK; Genentech; Horizon; LabCorp; Mylan; Novartis; Sanofi Genzyme; Viatris
Received research grant from: Celgene; CorEvitas LLC; Genentech/Roche; National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Sanofi Genzyme
Statins for MS (Not)
Hidden behind all of the new drugs and breakthroughs reported at the 2024 ECTRIMS meetings was one paper that caught my attention.
It was that, after several years of study, simvastatin had no benefit for multiple sclerosis.
Statins for MS (and for Alzheimer’s disease) have been bandied about for some time, with arguments based on theoretical ideas, and small studies, that they’d have a beneficial effect on the disease – maybe from anti-inflammatory and other properties. In addition, they offered the benefit of being widely available and comparatively inexpensive.
Because of those studies, 15-20 years ago I used them off label for MS in a handful of patients – sometimes as an adjunct to their current treatment (limited at that point to interferons and Copaxone), or in patients who couldn’t afford the FDA-approved drugs. Although not without their drawbacks, the statins are relatively well understood and tolerated.
At some point, for reasons I’ve long forgotten, they all came off of them (at least for MS purposes). Maybe for side effects, or lack of benefit, or because new medications, with much clearer efficacies, were rolling out.
Now it seems pretty clear that statins don’t work for MS.
So was it a bad idea to try? No. Without asking questions we don’t find answers. If they’d worked out it would have been great, another tool on the neurology workbench to reach for in the right situation. It might also have led us to new avenues in MS treatment.
But it didn’t, and that’s fine. Although they don’t get the attention, we learn as much (sometimes more) from negative studies as we do from positive ones. If we put people on every drug that initially showed promise for their conditions, my patients would have a pretty huge medication list. For Alzheimer’s disease alone I remember studies that once suggested ibuprofen, statins, estrogen, nicotine, and several vitamins might be effective (“might” being the key word). Today we’re looking at the PDE5 inhibitors and semaglutide. The jury is still out on them, but whichever way it goes we’ll still learn something.
The statins are good drugs. Their benefits in cardiac and cerebrovascular disease can’t be disputed (I’m sure someone would, but that’s not the point of this piece). But, like all drugs, they don’t work for everything.
We learn from both and keep moving forward.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Hidden behind all of the new drugs and breakthroughs reported at the 2024 ECTRIMS meetings was one paper that caught my attention.
It was that, after several years of study, simvastatin had no benefit for multiple sclerosis.
Statins for MS (and for Alzheimer’s disease) have been bandied about for some time, with arguments based on theoretical ideas, and small studies, that they’d have a beneficial effect on the disease – maybe from anti-inflammatory and other properties. In addition, they offered the benefit of being widely available and comparatively inexpensive.
Because of those studies, 15-20 years ago I used them off label for MS in a handful of patients – sometimes as an adjunct to their current treatment (limited at that point to interferons and Copaxone), or in patients who couldn’t afford the FDA-approved drugs. Although not without their drawbacks, the statins are relatively well understood and tolerated.
At some point, for reasons I’ve long forgotten, they all came off of them (at least for MS purposes). Maybe for side effects, or lack of benefit, or because new medications, with much clearer efficacies, were rolling out.
Now it seems pretty clear that statins don’t work for MS.
So was it a bad idea to try? No. Without asking questions we don’t find answers. If they’d worked out it would have been great, another tool on the neurology workbench to reach for in the right situation. It might also have led us to new avenues in MS treatment.
But it didn’t, and that’s fine. Although they don’t get the attention, we learn as much (sometimes more) from negative studies as we do from positive ones. If we put people on every drug that initially showed promise for their conditions, my patients would have a pretty huge medication list. For Alzheimer’s disease alone I remember studies that once suggested ibuprofen, statins, estrogen, nicotine, and several vitamins might be effective (“might” being the key word). Today we’re looking at the PDE5 inhibitors and semaglutide. The jury is still out on them, but whichever way it goes we’ll still learn something.
The statins are good drugs. Their benefits in cardiac and cerebrovascular disease can’t be disputed (I’m sure someone would, but that’s not the point of this piece). But, like all drugs, they don’t work for everything.
We learn from both and keep moving forward.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Hidden behind all of the new drugs and breakthroughs reported at the 2024 ECTRIMS meetings was one paper that caught my attention.
It was that, after several years of study, simvastatin had no benefit for multiple sclerosis.
Statins for MS (and for Alzheimer’s disease) have been bandied about for some time, with arguments based on theoretical ideas, and small studies, that they’d have a beneficial effect on the disease – maybe from anti-inflammatory and other properties. In addition, they offered the benefit of being widely available and comparatively inexpensive.
Because of those studies, 15-20 years ago I used them off label for MS in a handful of patients – sometimes as an adjunct to their current treatment (limited at that point to interferons and Copaxone), or in patients who couldn’t afford the FDA-approved drugs. Although not without their drawbacks, the statins are relatively well understood and tolerated.
At some point, for reasons I’ve long forgotten, they all came off of them (at least for MS purposes). Maybe for side effects, or lack of benefit, or because new medications, with much clearer efficacies, were rolling out.
Now it seems pretty clear that statins don’t work for MS.
So was it a bad idea to try? No. Without asking questions we don’t find answers. If they’d worked out it would have been great, another tool on the neurology workbench to reach for in the right situation. It might also have led us to new avenues in MS treatment.
But it didn’t, and that’s fine. Although they don’t get the attention, we learn as much (sometimes more) from negative studies as we do from positive ones. If we put people on every drug that initially showed promise for their conditions, my patients would have a pretty huge medication list. For Alzheimer’s disease alone I remember studies that once suggested ibuprofen, statins, estrogen, nicotine, and several vitamins might be effective (“might” being the key word). Today we’re looking at the PDE5 inhibitors and semaglutide. The jury is still out on them, but whichever way it goes we’ll still learn something.
The statins are good drugs. Their benefits in cardiac and cerebrovascular disease can’t be disputed (I’m sure someone would, but that’s not the point of this piece). But, like all drugs, they don’t work for everything.
We learn from both and keep moving forward.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
sNFl and sGFAP Predict MS Disability in Unique Ways
COPENHAGEN — , according to multiple independent studies.
The basic consensus is that “elevated sNFl levels predict inflammatory-associated worsening, while sGFAP values correlate with progression independent of inflammation,” said Enric Monreal, MD, Immunology Department, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
This key message was repeated by several researchers presenting data at the 2024 ECTRIMS 2004 meeting, including one delivered as a latebreaker. There was also general agreement that sGFAP will eventually be a routine prognostic tool even if more data are needed to validate how it will be used in routine MS management.
A New Biomarker for MS Disability Progression
Although apparently reliable for predicting MS disability, “sGFAP is about 5 years behind where we are with sNFl,” said Evan Madill, MD, a clinical research fellow at the Brigham Multiple Sclerosis Research Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston. He does think, however, that it is coming to clinical practice.
In the study he presented, 744 patients from the Brigham MS Research Center database were evaluated retrospectively for sGFAP levels and subsequent disability progression. Among this cohort, for which sGFAP levels were collected at baseline and over time, 46.5% had 6-month confirmed disability progression (CDP) over follow-up.
On univariate analysis, sGFAP levels correlated with and predicted CDP, need for a new ambulatory aid, and conversion to secondary progressive MS (SPMS). For patients less than 60 years of age, all of these correlations were highly significant (P ≤ .002). On multivariate analysis, the significance was preserved for CDP (P = .032) and for need of a new ambulatory aid (P = .007), but it was lost for SPMS conversion.
Notably, his data suggest that a one-time baseline measurement of sGFAP was more useful than change in sGFAP as a predictor.
It is unclear why sGFAP is less predictive in older individuals, but Dr. Madill speculated that non-MS phenomena might play a role at older ages. Treatment did not influence sGFAP levels in this study, but Dr. Madill said most of the data were collected before anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies were widely available.
The observational study data presented by Dr. Monreal involved 725 patients drawn from 13 European hospitals. sGFAP and sNFl levels were evaluated from blood drawn within 12 months of MS onset. Over time these biomarkers had overlapping but different predictive strengths.
Consistent with previously published studies, which link elevations in sNFl to neuronal damage and elevations in sGFAP to astrogliosis, sGFAP was found to be more useful for predicting progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA), particularly in patients with low sNFl levels.
Increases in sNFl were associated with an increased risk of both PIRA and relapse-associated worsening (RAW), but sNFl was more closely associated with RAW in untreated patients. The risk of PIRA and RAW were similar across GFAP and sNFl levels in those patients treated with high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMT).
Overall, when stratifying the cohort into three groups, those with both low sNFl and low GFAP, those with high sNFl with low GFAP, and those with high GFAP and low sNFl, the relative risks of disability associated with PIRA and RAW diverged, suggesting these biomarkers correlate with different processes of progression.
Comparing sGFAP and sNFl
This same principle was explored further in the latebreaking presentation by Ahmed Abdelhak, MD, a clinical instructor, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco. The objective of his study was to compare sGFAP and sNFl for predicting PIRA in patients on treatment.
The study included 212 patients from the Swiss Multiple Sclerosis Cohort who were started on fingolimod or on B-cell depleting therapies like rituximab. After correcting for sex, age at onset, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, and other variables, Dr. Abdelhak also reported that the predictive values for PIRA were different for sGFAP relative to sNFl at least on the group level.
However, in this study, unlike the analysis of the Brigham MS Research Center data, changes in sGFAP over time when on treatment did have prognostic value, and there was a relationship between sGFAP levels and treatment. Although reductions in GFAP predicted less disability progression whether patients were treated with fingolimod B-cell depleting therapies, that patterns were different. Dr. Abdelhak, like the other investigators speaking at ECTRIMS, also said the data so far favor sGFAP over sNFl for predicting PIRA.
Each z-score unit change in sGFAP corresponded to a 47% lower risk of PIRA in follow-up over 6.8 years, Dr. Abdelhak reported, adding that the predictive value of sGFAP was “numerically stronger than the corresponding relation for sNFl.”
So far, clinical utility of sGFAP remains speculative. Most of the correlations he presented were on a group rather than the individual level. Moreover, Dr. Abdelhak cautioned that these correlations, based on observational data, do not necessarily reflect causation.
Nonetheless, remarking on the parallels of his data on sGFAP and sNFl with other studies presented at the ECTRIMS meeting, Dr. Abdelhak foresees a time when GFAP will be a prognostic tool, offering relative simplicity and lower cost than the current standard of imaging. He also sees a role in clinical research.
“Monitoring of sGFAP dynamics following DMT initiation could be used to prognosticate long-term PIRA risk and provide insights valuable for design and interpretation of trial outcomes,” he said.
Dr. Monreal reported financial relationships with Almirall, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Madill and Dr. Abdelhak reported no potential conflicts of interest.
COPENHAGEN — , according to multiple independent studies.
The basic consensus is that “elevated sNFl levels predict inflammatory-associated worsening, while sGFAP values correlate with progression independent of inflammation,” said Enric Monreal, MD, Immunology Department, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
This key message was repeated by several researchers presenting data at the 2024 ECTRIMS 2004 meeting, including one delivered as a latebreaker. There was also general agreement that sGFAP will eventually be a routine prognostic tool even if more data are needed to validate how it will be used in routine MS management.
A New Biomarker for MS Disability Progression
Although apparently reliable for predicting MS disability, “sGFAP is about 5 years behind where we are with sNFl,” said Evan Madill, MD, a clinical research fellow at the Brigham Multiple Sclerosis Research Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston. He does think, however, that it is coming to clinical practice.
In the study he presented, 744 patients from the Brigham MS Research Center database were evaluated retrospectively for sGFAP levels and subsequent disability progression. Among this cohort, for which sGFAP levels were collected at baseline and over time, 46.5% had 6-month confirmed disability progression (CDP) over follow-up.
On univariate analysis, sGFAP levels correlated with and predicted CDP, need for a new ambulatory aid, and conversion to secondary progressive MS (SPMS). For patients less than 60 years of age, all of these correlations were highly significant (P ≤ .002). On multivariate analysis, the significance was preserved for CDP (P = .032) and for need of a new ambulatory aid (P = .007), but it was lost for SPMS conversion.
Notably, his data suggest that a one-time baseline measurement of sGFAP was more useful than change in sGFAP as a predictor.
It is unclear why sGFAP is less predictive in older individuals, but Dr. Madill speculated that non-MS phenomena might play a role at older ages. Treatment did not influence sGFAP levels in this study, but Dr. Madill said most of the data were collected before anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies were widely available.
The observational study data presented by Dr. Monreal involved 725 patients drawn from 13 European hospitals. sGFAP and sNFl levels were evaluated from blood drawn within 12 months of MS onset. Over time these biomarkers had overlapping but different predictive strengths.
Consistent with previously published studies, which link elevations in sNFl to neuronal damage and elevations in sGFAP to astrogliosis, sGFAP was found to be more useful for predicting progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA), particularly in patients with low sNFl levels.
Increases in sNFl were associated with an increased risk of both PIRA and relapse-associated worsening (RAW), but sNFl was more closely associated with RAW in untreated patients. The risk of PIRA and RAW were similar across GFAP and sNFl levels in those patients treated with high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMT).
Overall, when stratifying the cohort into three groups, those with both low sNFl and low GFAP, those with high sNFl with low GFAP, and those with high GFAP and low sNFl, the relative risks of disability associated with PIRA and RAW diverged, suggesting these biomarkers correlate with different processes of progression.
Comparing sGFAP and sNFl
This same principle was explored further in the latebreaking presentation by Ahmed Abdelhak, MD, a clinical instructor, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco. The objective of his study was to compare sGFAP and sNFl for predicting PIRA in patients on treatment.
The study included 212 patients from the Swiss Multiple Sclerosis Cohort who were started on fingolimod or on B-cell depleting therapies like rituximab. After correcting for sex, age at onset, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, and other variables, Dr. Abdelhak also reported that the predictive values for PIRA were different for sGFAP relative to sNFl at least on the group level.
However, in this study, unlike the analysis of the Brigham MS Research Center data, changes in sGFAP over time when on treatment did have prognostic value, and there was a relationship between sGFAP levels and treatment. Although reductions in GFAP predicted less disability progression whether patients were treated with fingolimod B-cell depleting therapies, that patterns were different. Dr. Abdelhak, like the other investigators speaking at ECTRIMS, also said the data so far favor sGFAP over sNFl for predicting PIRA.
Each z-score unit change in sGFAP corresponded to a 47% lower risk of PIRA in follow-up over 6.8 years, Dr. Abdelhak reported, adding that the predictive value of sGFAP was “numerically stronger than the corresponding relation for sNFl.”
So far, clinical utility of sGFAP remains speculative. Most of the correlations he presented were on a group rather than the individual level. Moreover, Dr. Abdelhak cautioned that these correlations, based on observational data, do not necessarily reflect causation.
Nonetheless, remarking on the parallels of his data on sGFAP and sNFl with other studies presented at the ECTRIMS meeting, Dr. Abdelhak foresees a time when GFAP will be a prognostic tool, offering relative simplicity and lower cost than the current standard of imaging. He also sees a role in clinical research.
“Monitoring of sGFAP dynamics following DMT initiation could be used to prognosticate long-term PIRA risk and provide insights valuable for design and interpretation of trial outcomes,” he said.
Dr. Monreal reported financial relationships with Almirall, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Madill and Dr. Abdelhak reported no potential conflicts of interest.
COPENHAGEN — , according to multiple independent studies.
The basic consensus is that “elevated sNFl levels predict inflammatory-associated worsening, while sGFAP values correlate with progression independent of inflammation,” said Enric Monreal, MD, Immunology Department, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
This key message was repeated by several researchers presenting data at the 2024 ECTRIMS 2004 meeting, including one delivered as a latebreaker. There was also general agreement that sGFAP will eventually be a routine prognostic tool even if more data are needed to validate how it will be used in routine MS management.
A New Biomarker for MS Disability Progression
Although apparently reliable for predicting MS disability, “sGFAP is about 5 years behind where we are with sNFl,” said Evan Madill, MD, a clinical research fellow at the Brigham Multiple Sclerosis Research Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston. He does think, however, that it is coming to clinical practice.
In the study he presented, 744 patients from the Brigham MS Research Center database were evaluated retrospectively for sGFAP levels and subsequent disability progression. Among this cohort, for which sGFAP levels were collected at baseline and over time, 46.5% had 6-month confirmed disability progression (CDP) over follow-up.
On univariate analysis, sGFAP levels correlated with and predicted CDP, need for a new ambulatory aid, and conversion to secondary progressive MS (SPMS). For patients less than 60 years of age, all of these correlations were highly significant (P ≤ .002). On multivariate analysis, the significance was preserved for CDP (P = .032) and for need of a new ambulatory aid (P = .007), but it was lost for SPMS conversion.
Notably, his data suggest that a one-time baseline measurement of sGFAP was more useful than change in sGFAP as a predictor.
It is unclear why sGFAP is less predictive in older individuals, but Dr. Madill speculated that non-MS phenomena might play a role at older ages. Treatment did not influence sGFAP levels in this study, but Dr. Madill said most of the data were collected before anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies were widely available.
The observational study data presented by Dr. Monreal involved 725 patients drawn from 13 European hospitals. sGFAP and sNFl levels were evaluated from blood drawn within 12 months of MS onset. Over time these biomarkers had overlapping but different predictive strengths.
Consistent with previously published studies, which link elevations in sNFl to neuronal damage and elevations in sGFAP to astrogliosis, sGFAP was found to be more useful for predicting progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA), particularly in patients with low sNFl levels.
Increases in sNFl were associated with an increased risk of both PIRA and relapse-associated worsening (RAW), but sNFl was more closely associated with RAW in untreated patients. The risk of PIRA and RAW were similar across GFAP and sNFl levels in those patients treated with high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMT).
Overall, when stratifying the cohort into three groups, those with both low sNFl and low GFAP, those with high sNFl with low GFAP, and those with high GFAP and low sNFl, the relative risks of disability associated with PIRA and RAW diverged, suggesting these biomarkers correlate with different processes of progression.
Comparing sGFAP and sNFl
This same principle was explored further in the latebreaking presentation by Ahmed Abdelhak, MD, a clinical instructor, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco. The objective of his study was to compare sGFAP and sNFl for predicting PIRA in patients on treatment.
The study included 212 patients from the Swiss Multiple Sclerosis Cohort who were started on fingolimod or on B-cell depleting therapies like rituximab. After correcting for sex, age at onset, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, and other variables, Dr. Abdelhak also reported that the predictive values for PIRA were different for sGFAP relative to sNFl at least on the group level.
However, in this study, unlike the analysis of the Brigham MS Research Center data, changes in sGFAP over time when on treatment did have prognostic value, and there was a relationship between sGFAP levels and treatment. Although reductions in GFAP predicted less disability progression whether patients were treated with fingolimod B-cell depleting therapies, that patterns were different. Dr. Abdelhak, like the other investigators speaking at ECTRIMS, also said the data so far favor sGFAP over sNFl for predicting PIRA.
Each z-score unit change in sGFAP corresponded to a 47% lower risk of PIRA in follow-up over 6.8 years, Dr. Abdelhak reported, adding that the predictive value of sGFAP was “numerically stronger than the corresponding relation for sNFl.”
So far, clinical utility of sGFAP remains speculative. Most of the correlations he presented were on a group rather than the individual level. Moreover, Dr. Abdelhak cautioned that these correlations, based on observational data, do not necessarily reflect causation.
Nonetheless, remarking on the parallels of his data on sGFAP and sNFl with other studies presented at the ECTRIMS meeting, Dr. Abdelhak foresees a time when GFAP will be a prognostic tool, offering relative simplicity and lower cost than the current standard of imaging. He also sees a role in clinical research.
“Monitoring of sGFAP dynamics following DMT initiation could be used to prognosticate long-term PIRA risk and provide insights valuable for design and interpretation of trial outcomes,” he said.
Dr. Monreal reported financial relationships with Almirall, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Madill and Dr. Abdelhak reported no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM ECTRIMS 2024
Time to Revisit the Standard Treatment Approach in Children With MS?
COPENHAGEN — However, only few of these medications are licensed for pediatric use, indicating it may be time to reconsider the standard treatment approach for this patient population.
Treatments for pediatric-onset MS have mostly been used off-label until the recent approvals of fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, and teriflunomide. Typically, children with MS start with moderately effective therapies, while more potent options are reserved for those who don’t respond.
However, recent research suggests this may not be the most effective treatment strategy for this patient population. Several studies suggesting impressive treatment responses to highly effective therapies (HETs) in children were presented at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.
In one study, initiating monoclonal antibody treatment during childhood was associated with reduced disability into early adulthood and beyond.
“Our findings are a strong argument for rethinking current treatment guidelines,” said study investigator Sifat Sharmin, PhD, The University of Melbourne, Australia.
“By allowing earlier access to highly effective treatments, we can significantly enhance the quality of life for children with MS and reduce the burden of long-term disability,” she added.
In another presentation, Yael Hacohen, MD, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, England, noted that the use of these more effective monoclonal antibody therapies in children with MS has been associated with some improvements in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores after 2 or 3 years of treatment.
Maybe this is a sign that “this is a population that can repair, in contrast to adult patients,” she wondered.
MS is primarily a disease of adults, but pediatric MS accounts for up to 5% of all cases. Children with MS tend to have much more active disease than adults, Dr. Hacohen explained. However, they also tend to recover from attacks more quickly with little disability, which sometimes causes diagnostic delays.
A pediatrician or family doctor will often dismiss pins and needles or blurred vision that only lasts a couple of days and won’t send the patient for an MRI, she said. But on MRI, pediatric patients with MS often have multiple lesions, even though they may have had very few symptoms. The EDSS may not change very much, but there can still be significant brain atrophy.
Over the past 20 years, there’s been an explosion of new disease-modifying treatments for MS, but these high-efficacy treatments, such as antibody therapies, are often not prescribed until the patient reaches the age of 18 years, both Dr. Sharmin and Dr. Hacohen pointed out.
“We need to get some of these medications approved for use in children,” Dr. Hacohen said.
Slowed Disability
In her presentation, Dr. Sharmin reported an observational study that included 282 patients younger than 18 years at MS onset identified from the French MS Registry, the Italian MS Register, and the Global MSBase Registry.
Of these, 110 (39%) had initiated therapy with ocrelizumab, rituximab, or natalizumab early in the disease course between ages 12 and 17 years and 172 (61%) had initiated treatment with one of these agents at ages 20-22 years.
The primary outcome was the difference in EDSS scores from baseline (at age 18 years) to ages 23-27 years between those who had started treatment with one of these agents early and those who had started late.
At the baseline of age 18 years, the median EDSS score was 1.5 in the early group and 1.3 in the late group. Median follow-up time was 10.8 years.
The data were adjusted for baseline differences in factors such as sex, age at symptom onset, time from onset to clinically definite MS, and the number of relapses (using inverse probability treatment weighting based on propensity scores).
Results showed that between ages 23 and 27 years, disability was a 0.57 step lower in the early group than in the late group. The mean absolute differences in EDSS from baseline were 0.40 in the early group and 0.95 in the late group. This benefit of early treatment persisted throughout the rest of the follow-up period.
The substantially lower risk of progressing to higher disability levels in the early treatment group was particularly evident in the moderate disability range, where further progression was reduced by up to 97%, Dr. Sharmin noted.
“Starting these highly effective therapies, before the onset of significant neurological impairments, appears crucial for preserving neurological function in children with relapsing-remitting MS over the long term,” she said.
These findings highlight the critical importance of early intervention in pediatric-onset MS, she concluded.
The researchers are planning further work to generate more evidence to support the proactive treatment of pediatric-onset MS, with a particular focus on assessing the long-term risks for immunosuppressive therapies in this population.
Ocrelizumab Experience in Children
Dr. Hacohen reported on a UK cohort of children with MS treated with ocrelizumab, with 66 patients having more than 12 months of follow-up. Of these, only four patients had relapses, and there was no evidence of disease activity in 94% patients.
“We’ve stopped doing relapse clinic because they really don’t relapse,” Dr. Hacohen reported.
“This has completely changed our practice in pediatric MS,” she said. Twice a year, patients come in to have pre-infusion bloods and clinical assessments and then return a month later for treatment.
“They only have to come to the hospital for 4 days a year, and the rest of the time, they can forget they have MS,” said Dr. Hacohen.
In terms of complications, one patient in the UK cohort developed enterovirus meningitis but recovered completely, and two patients had hypogammaglobulinemia and were changed to an extended interval or to a different agent.
Dr. Hacohen cautioned that hypogammaglobulinemia — a condition in which immunoglobulin levels are below normal — is “something that hypothetically we should maybe be more worried about in the pediatric population, particularly as these patients are more likely to be on anti-CD20 therapies for a much longer time.”
She said this complication tends to happen after about 4 or 5 years of treatment. “If we start seeing IgG levels dropping, we need to come up with a plan about extending the dosing interval. We need clinical trials to look at this.”
Dr. Hacohen also drew attention to the issue of vaccinations not being effective in patients on anti-CD20 antibody therapy, which could be a particular problem in children.
However, given that vaccinations do seem to be effective in patients taking natalizumab, pediatric patients with highly active disease could receive the drug for 3-6 months while receiving vaccines and then switched over to ocrelizumab, she said.
Giving natalizumab for such a short period is not believed to have a high risk of developing JCV antibodies, she added.
In another presentation, Brenda Banwell, MD, Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, Baltimore, reported new data from an early study (OPERETTA 1) with ocrelizumab in pediatric relapsing-remitting MS showing a safety profile similar to that observed in adults. The suggested dose is 300 mg for children under 35 kg and 600 mg for adults over 35 kg, administered every 24 weeks. These doses will be further investigated in the ongoing phase III OPERETTA 2 trial.
Dr. Sharmin received a postdoctoral fellowship from MS Australia. The OPERETTA studies were sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Banwell served as a consultant to Roche. Dr. Hacohen reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN — However, only few of these medications are licensed for pediatric use, indicating it may be time to reconsider the standard treatment approach for this patient population.
Treatments for pediatric-onset MS have mostly been used off-label until the recent approvals of fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, and teriflunomide. Typically, children with MS start with moderately effective therapies, while more potent options are reserved for those who don’t respond.
However, recent research suggests this may not be the most effective treatment strategy for this patient population. Several studies suggesting impressive treatment responses to highly effective therapies (HETs) in children were presented at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.
In one study, initiating monoclonal antibody treatment during childhood was associated with reduced disability into early adulthood and beyond.
“Our findings are a strong argument for rethinking current treatment guidelines,” said study investigator Sifat Sharmin, PhD, The University of Melbourne, Australia.
“By allowing earlier access to highly effective treatments, we can significantly enhance the quality of life for children with MS and reduce the burden of long-term disability,” she added.
In another presentation, Yael Hacohen, MD, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, England, noted that the use of these more effective monoclonal antibody therapies in children with MS has been associated with some improvements in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores after 2 or 3 years of treatment.
Maybe this is a sign that “this is a population that can repair, in contrast to adult patients,” she wondered.
MS is primarily a disease of adults, but pediatric MS accounts for up to 5% of all cases. Children with MS tend to have much more active disease than adults, Dr. Hacohen explained. However, they also tend to recover from attacks more quickly with little disability, which sometimes causes diagnostic delays.
A pediatrician or family doctor will often dismiss pins and needles or blurred vision that only lasts a couple of days and won’t send the patient for an MRI, she said. But on MRI, pediatric patients with MS often have multiple lesions, even though they may have had very few symptoms. The EDSS may not change very much, but there can still be significant brain atrophy.
Over the past 20 years, there’s been an explosion of new disease-modifying treatments for MS, but these high-efficacy treatments, such as antibody therapies, are often not prescribed until the patient reaches the age of 18 years, both Dr. Sharmin and Dr. Hacohen pointed out.
“We need to get some of these medications approved for use in children,” Dr. Hacohen said.
Slowed Disability
In her presentation, Dr. Sharmin reported an observational study that included 282 patients younger than 18 years at MS onset identified from the French MS Registry, the Italian MS Register, and the Global MSBase Registry.
Of these, 110 (39%) had initiated therapy with ocrelizumab, rituximab, or natalizumab early in the disease course between ages 12 and 17 years and 172 (61%) had initiated treatment with one of these agents at ages 20-22 years.
The primary outcome was the difference in EDSS scores from baseline (at age 18 years) to ages 23-27 years between those who had started treatment with one of these agents early and those who had started late.
At the baseline of age 18 years, the median EDSS score was 1.5 in the early group and 1.3 in the late group. Median follow-up time was 10.8 years.
The data were adjusted for baseline differences in factors such as sex, age at symptom onset, time from onset to clinically definite MS, and the number of relapses (using inverse probability treatment weighting based on propensity scores).
Results showed that between ages 23 and 27 years, disability was a 0.57 step lower in the early group than in the late group. The mean absolute differences in EDSS from baseline were 0.40 in the early group and 0.95 in the late group. This benefit of early treatment persisted throughout the rest of the follow-up period.
The substantially lower risk of progressing to higher disability levels in the early treatment group was particularly evident in the moderate disability range, where further progression was reduced by up to 97%, Dr. Sharmin noted.
“Starting these highly effective therapies, before the onset of significant neurological impairments, appears crucial for preserving neurological function in children with relapsing-remitting MS over the long term,” she said.
These findings highlight the critical importance of early intervention in pediatric-onset MS, she concluded.
The researchers are planning further work to generate more evidence to support the proactive treatment of pediatric-onset MS, with a particular focus on assessing the long-term risks for immunosuppressive therapies in this population.
Ocrelizumab Experience in Children
Dr. Hacohen reported on a UK cohort of children with MS treated with ocrelizumab, with 66 patients having more than 12 months of follow-up. Of these, only four patients had relapses, and there was no evidence of disease activity in 94% patients.
“We’ve stopped doing relapse clinic because they really don’t relapse,” Dr. Hacohen reported.
“This has completely changed our practice in pediatric MS,” she said. Twice a year, patients come in to have pre-infusion bloods and clinical assessments and then return a month later for treatment.
“They only have to come to the hospital for 4 days a year, and the rest of the time, they can forget they have MS,” said Dr. Hacohen.
In terms of complications, one patient in the UK cohort developed enterovirus meningitis but recovered completely, and two patients had hypogammaglobulinemia and were changed to an extended interval or to a different agent.
Dr. Hacohen cautioned that hypogammaglobulinemia — a condition in which immunoglobulin levels are below normal — is “something that hypothetically we should maybe be more worried about in the pediatric population, particularly as these patients are more likely to be on anti-CD20 therapies for a much longer time.”
She said this complication tends to happen after about 4 or 5 years of treatment. “If we start seeing IgG levels dropping, we need to come up with a plan about extending the dosing interval. We need clinical trials to look at this.”
Dr. Hacohen also drew attention to the issue of vaccinations not being effective in patients on anti-CD20 antibody therapy, which could be a particular problem in children.
However, given that vaccinations do seem to be effective in patients taking natalizumab, pediatric patients with highly active disease could receive the drug for 3-6 months while receiving vaccines and then switched over to ocrelizumab, she said.
Giving natalizumab for such a short period is not believed to have a high risk of developing JCV antibodies, she added.
In another presentation, Brenda Banwell, MD, Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, Baltimore, reported new data from an early study (OPERETTA 1) with ocrelizumab in pediatric relapsing-remitting MS showing a safety profile similar to that observed in adults. The suggested dose is 300 mg for children under 35 kg and 600 mg for adults over 35 kg, administered every 24 weeks. These doses will be further investigated in the ongoing phase III OPERETTA 2 trial.
Dr. Sharmin received a postdoctoral fellowship from MS Australia. The OPERETTA studies were sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Banwell served as a consultant to Roche. Dr. Hacohen reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN — However, only few of these medications are licensed for pediatric use, indicating it may be time to reconsider the standard treatment approach for this patient population.
Treatments for pediatric-onset MS have mostly been used off-label until the recent approvals of fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, and teriflunomide. Typically, children with MS start with moderately effective therapies, while more potent options are reserved for those who don’t respond.
However, recent research suggests this may not be the most effective treatment strategy for this patient population. Several studies suggesting impressive treatment responses to highly effective therapies (HETs) in children were presented at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.
In one study, initiating monoclonal antibody treatment during childhood was associated with reduced disability into early adulthood and beyond.
“Our findings are a strong argument for rethinking current treatment guidelines,” said study investigator Sifat Sharmin, PhD, The University of Melbourne, Australia.
“By allowing earlier access to highly effective treatments, we can significantly enhance the quality of life for children with MS and reduce the burden of long-term disability,” she added.
In another presentation, Yael Hacohen, MD, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, England, noted that the use of these more effective monoclonal antibody therapies in children with MS has been associated with some improvements in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores after 2 or 3 years of treatment.
Maybe this is a sign that “this is a population that can repair, in contrast to adult patients,” she wondered.
MS is primarily a disease of adults, but pediatric MS accounts for up to 5% of all cases. Children with MS tend to have much more active disease than adults, Dr. Hacohen explained. However, they also tend to recover from attacks more quickly with little disability, which sometimes causes diagnostic delays.
A pediatrician or family doctor will often dismiss pins and needles or blurred vision that only lasts a couple of days and won’t send the patient for an MRI, she said. But on MRI, pediatric patients with MS often have multiple lesions, even though they may have had very few symptoms. The EDSS may not change very much, but there can still be significant brain atrophy.
Over the past 20 years, there’s been an explosion of new disease-modifying treatments for MS, but these high-efficacy treatments, such as antibody therapies, are often not prescribed until the patient reaches the age of 18 years, both Dr. Sharmin and Dr. Hacohen pointed out.
“We need to get some of these medications approved for use in children,” Dr. Hacohen said.
Slowed Disability
In her presentation, Dr. Sharmin reported an observational study that included 282 patients younger than 18 years at MS onset identified from the French MS Registry, the Italian MS Register, and the Global MSBase Registry.
Of these, 110 (39%) had initiated therapy with ocrelizumab, rituximab, or natalizumab early in the disease course between ages 12 and 17 years and 172 (61%) had initiated treatment with one of these agents at ages 20-22 years.
The primary outcome was the difference in EDSS scores from baseline (at age 18 years) to ages 23-27 years between those who had started treatment with one of these agents early and those who had started late.
At the baseline of age 18 years, the median EDSS score was 1.5 in the early group and 1.3 in the late group. Median follow-up time was 10.8 years.
The data were adjusted for baseline differences in factors such as sex, age at symptom onset, time from onset to clinically definite MS, and the number of relapses (using inverse probability treatment weighting based on propensity scores).
Results showed that between ages 23 and 27 years, disability was a 0.57 step lower in the early group than in the late group. The mean absolute differences in EDSS from baseline were 0.40 in the early group and 0.95 in the late group. This benefit of early treatment persisted throughout the rest of the follow-up period.
The substantially lower risk of progressing to higher disability levels in the early treatment group was particularly evident in the moderate disability range, where further progression was reduced by up to 97%, Dr. Sharmin noted.
“Starting these highly effective therapies, before the onset of significant neurological impairments, appears crucial for preserving neurological function in children with relapsing-remitting MS over the long term,” she said.
These findings highlight the critical importance of early intervention in pediatric-onset MS, she concluded.
The researchers are planning further work to generate more evidence to support the proactive treatment of pediatric-onset MS, with a particular focus on assessing the long-term risks for immunosuppressive therapies in this population.
Ocrelizumab Experience in Children
Dr. Hacohen reported on a UK cohort of children with MS treated with ocrelizumab, with 66 patients having more than 12 months of follow-up. Of these, only four patients had relapses, and there was no evidence of disease activity in 94% patients.
“We’ve stopped doing relapse clinic because they really don’t relapse,” Dr. Hacohen reported.
“This has completely changed our practice in pediatric MS,” she said. Twice a year, patients come in to have pre-infusion bloods and clinical assessments and then return a month later for treatment.
“They only have to come to the hospital for 4 days a year, and the rest of the time, they can forget they have MS,” said Dr. Hacohen.
In terms of complications, one patient in the UK cohort developed enterovirus meningitis but recovered completely, and two patients had hypogammaglobulinemia and were changed to an extended interval or to a different agent.
Dr. Hacohen cautioned that hypogammaglobulinemia — a condition in which immunoglobulin levels are below normal — is “something that hypothetically we should maybe be more worried about in the pediatric population, particularly as these patients are more likely to be on anti-CD20 therapies for a much longer time.”
She said this complication tends to happen after about 4 or 5 years of treatment. “If we start seeing IgG levels dropping, we need to come up with a plan about extending the dosing interval. We need clinical trials to look at this.”
Dr. Hacohen also drew attention to the issue of vaccinations not being effective in patients on anti-CD20 antibody therapy, which could be a particular problem in children.
However, given that vaccinations do seem to be effective in patients taking natalizumab, pediatric patients with highly active disease could receive the drug for 3-6 months while receiving vaccines and then switched over to ocrelizumab, she said.
Giving natalizumab for such a short period is not believed to have a high risk of developing JCV antibodies, she added.
In another presentation, Brenda Banwell, MD, Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, Baltimore, reported new data from an early study (OPERETTA 1) with ocrelizumab in pediatric relapsing-remitting MS showing a safety profile similar to that observed in adults. The suggested dose is 300 mg for children under 35 kg and 600 mg for adults over 35 kg, administered every 24 weeks. These doses will be further investigated in the ongoing phase III OPERETTA 2 trial.
Dr. Sharmin received a postdoctoral fellowship from MS Australia. The OPERETTA studies were sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Banwell served as a consultant to Roche. Dr. Hacohen reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ECTRIMS 2024
Undertreatment of Women With MS Unjustified
COPENHAGEN — , even after accounting for treatment discontinuations during pregnancy and the postpartum period, new research suggested.
“We believe that pregnancy-related considerations probably still explain the major part of this gap,” said Antoine Gavoille, MD, University of Lyon, France, who presented the study at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.
This is likely due to “factors such as anticipation of pregnancy long before it occurs and fear of exposing women of childbearing age to certain treatments even in the absence of planned pregnancy,” he added.
Caution is warranted when medications are first marketed because there are no data on safety in pregnancy. However, in 2024, “this lesser treatment in women is unacceptable,” said Dr. Gavoille. “We now have several highly effective treatment options which are compatible with pregnancy,” he noted.
The researchers analyzed the French MS registry of 22,657 patients with relapsing MS (74.2% women) between 1997 and 2022 for treatment differences between women and their male counterparts. The results were adjusted for multiple factors including educational level, disease activity, disability levels, and discontinuation of drugs during pregnancy.
They found that over a median follow-up of 11.6 years, women had a significantly lower probability of receiving any disease-modifying treatment (odds ratio [OR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97).
In addition, women were even less likely to receive high-efficacy treatments such as natalizumab, anti-CD20 antibodies, or S1P modulators such as fingolimod (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.86).
The difference in disease-modifying treatment usage varied across different treatments and over time. Teriflunomide, fingolimod, and anti-CD20 therapies were significantly underused throughout their entire availability (OR, 0.87, 0.78, and 0.80, respectively).
Interferon and natalizumab were initially used less frequently in women, but the use of these medications equalized over time.
In contrast, glatiramer acetate and dimethyl fumarate were initially used equally between genders but eventually became more commonly prescribed to women (OR, 1.27 and 1.17, respectively).
The disparity in treatment emerged after 2 years of disease duration for disease-modifying treatments in general and as early as 1 year for highly effective treatments.
The gender-based treatment gap did not significantly vary with patient age, indicating that therapeutic inertia may persist regardless of a woman’s age.
“Women may not be receiving the most effective therapies at the optimal time, often due to concerns about pregnancy risks that may never materialize,” said the study’s lead investigator Sandra Vukusic, MD, Lyon University Hospital, France.
“The main impact of this therapeutic inertia in women is the less effective control of disease activity, leading to the accumulation of lesions and an increased risk of long-term disability. This represents a real loss of opportunity for women, especially in an era where disease-modifying treatments so effective when used early,” she added.
Dr. Gavoille said that recommendations in France allow the use of moderately active drugs, including interferon and glatiramer acetate, during pregnancy or in women planning a pregnancy. More recently there has been enough data to allow the use of natalizumab up until the second trimester.
In addition, although not in the guidelines, it is thought that the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab or ocrelizumab, may be safe as they are very long acting. Women can be dosed before pregnancy and be covered for the whole pregnancy period without exposing the fetus to the drug, he explained.
“The message is that now we have both moderately and highly effective treatments that are compatible with a pregnancy plan,” Dr. Gavoille said.
First, clinicians have to select a level of treatment based on disease activity and then choose the best option, depending on the woman’s plans with respect to pregnancy.
Drugs that are contraindicated in pregnancy include teriflunomide and S1P modulators such as fingolimod, which have been shown to be harmful to the fetus.
“But they could still be used in women of childbearing years as long as they are not planning a pregnancy and understand the need for contraception,” Dr. Gavoille noted.
He believes both neurologists and patients are afraid of using drugs in pregnancy. “It is, of course, important to be cautious on this issue, but we should not let fear stop these women receiving the best treatments available.”
However, he added, clinical practice is changing, and confidence is gradually building around using highly effective treatments in women of childbearing age.
Dr. Gavoille also called for more research to collate data in pregnant women with MS who are exposed to various treatments, starting with case reports and then academic registries, which he described as “difficult but important work.”
Commenting on the study, Robert Hoepner, MD, University Hospital of Bern, Switzerland, agreed that this treatment disparity between men and women is “unacceptable.”
Dr. Hoepner noted that a recent study showed that women have different relapse symptoms than men, which may also affect treatment choice.
Dr. Gavoille responded that other research has shown that women are less likely to have treatment escalation post-relapse. “This could be because of a difference in symptoms. But this is something we haven’t looked at yet.”
Also commenting on the research, Frauke Zipp, MD, University Medical Center Mainz in Germany, said it would be interesting to follow this cohort over the long term to see if the women do less well several years down the line.
The study authors and commentators reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN — , even after accounting for treatment discontinuations during pregnancy and the postpartum period, new research suggested.
“We believe that pregnancy-related considerations probably still explain the major part of this gap,” said Antoine Gavoille, MD, University of Lyon, France, who presented the study at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.
This is likely due to “factors such as anticipation of pregnancy long before it occurs and fear of exposing women of childbearing age to certain treatments even in the absence of planned pregnancy,” he added.
Caution is warranted when medications are first marketed because there are no data on safety in pregnancy. However, in 2024, “this lesser treatment in women is unacceptable,” said Dr. Gavoille. “We now have several highly effective treatment options which are compatible with pregnancy,” he noted.
The researchers analyzed the French MS registry of 22,657 patients with relapsing MS (74.2% women) between 1997 and 2022 for treatment differences between women and their male counterparts. The results were adjusted for multiple factors including educational level, disease activity, disability levels, and discontinuation of drugs during pregnancy.
They found that over a median follow-up of 11.6 years, women had a significantly lower probability of receiving any disease-modifying treatment (odds ratio [OR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97).
In addition, women were even less likely to receive high-efficacy treatments such as natalizumab, anti-CD20 antibodies, or S1P modulators such as fingolimod (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.86).
The difference in disease-modifying treatment usage varied across different treatments and over time. Teriflunomide, fingolimod, and anti-CD20 therapies were significantly underused throughout their entire availability (OR, 0.87, 0.78, and 0.80, respectively).
Interferon and natalizumab were initially used less frequently in women, but the use of these medications equalized over time.
In contrast, glatiramer acetate and dimethyl fumarate were initially used equally between genders but eventually became more commonly prescribed to women (OR, 1.27 and 1.17, respectively).
The disparity in treatment emerged after 2 years of disease duration for disease-modifying treatments in general and as early as 1 year for highly effective treatments.
The gender-based treatment gap did not significantly vary with patient age, indicating that therapeutic inertia may persist regardless of a woman’s age.
“Women may not be receiving the most effective therapies at the optimal time, often due to concerns about pregnancy risks that may never materialize,” said the study’s lead investigator Sandra Vukusic, MD, Lyon University Hospital, France.
“The main impact of this therapeutic inertia in women is the less effective control of disease activity, leading to the accumulation of lesions and an increased risk of long-term disability. This represents a real loss of opportunity for women, especially in an era where disease-modifying treatments so effective when used early,” she added.
Dr. Gavoille said that recommendations in France allow the use of moderately active drugs, including interferon and glatiramer acetate, during pregnancy or in women planning a pregnancy. More recently there has been enough data to allow the use of natalizumab up until the second trimester.
In addition, although not in the guidelines, it is thought that the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab or ocrelizumab, may be safe as they are very long acting. Women can be dosed before pregnancy and be covered for the whole pregnancy period without exposing the fetus to the drug, he explained.
“The message is that now we have both moderately and highly effective treatments that are compatible with a pregnancy plan,” Dr. Gavoille said.
First, clinicians have to select a level of treatment based on disease activity and then choose the best option, depending on the woman’s plans with respect to pregnancy.
Drugs that are contraindicated in pregnancy include teriflunomide and S1P modulators such as fingolimod, which have been shown to be harmful to the fetus.
“But they could still be used in women of childbearing years as long as they are not planning a pregnancy and understand the need for contraception,” Dr. Gavoille noted.
He believes both neurologists and patients are afraid of using drugs in pregnancy. “It is, of course, important to be cautious on this issue, but we should not let fear stop these women receiving the best treatments available.”
However, he added, clinical practice is changing, and confidence is gradually building around using highly effective treatments in women of childbearing age.
Dr. Gavoille also called for more research to collate data in pregnant women with MS who are exposed to various treatments, starting with case reports and then academic registries, which he described as “difficult but important work.”
Commenting on the study, Robert Hoepner, MD, University Hospital of Bern, Switzerland, agreed that this treatment disparity between men and women is “unacceptable.”
Dr. Hoepner noted that a recent study showed that women have different relapse symptoms than men, which may also affect treatment choice.
Dr. Gavoille responded that other research has shown that women are less likely to have treatment escalation post-relapse. “This could be because of a difference in symptoms. But this is something we haven’t looked at yet.”
Also commenting on the research, Frauke Zipp, MD, University Medical Center Mainz in Germany, said it would be interesting to follow this cohort over the long term to see if the women do less well several years down the line.
The study authors and commentators reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN — , even after accounting for treatment discontinuations during pregnancy and the postpartum period, new research suggested.
“We believe that pregnancy-related considerations probably still explain the major part of this gap,” said Antoine Gavoille, MD, University of Lyon, France, who presented the study at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.
This is likely due to “factors such as anticipation of pregnancy long before it occurs and fear of exposing women of childbearing age to certain treatments even in the absence of planned pregnancy,” he added.
Caution is warranted when medications are first marketed because there are no data on safety in pregnancy. However, in 2024, “this lesser treatment in women is unacceptable,” said Dr. Gavoille. “We now have several highly effective treatment options which are compatible with pregnancy,” he noted.
The researchers analyzed the French MS registry of 22,657 patients with relapsing MS (74.2% women) between 1997 and 2022 for treatment differences between women and their male counterparts. The results were adjusted for multiple factors including educational level, disease activity, disability levels, and discontinuation of drugs during pregnancy.
They found that over a median follow-up of 11.6 years, women had a significantly lower probability of receiving any disease-modifying treatment (odds ratio [OR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97).
In addition, women were even less likely to receive high-efficacy treatments such as natalizumab, anti-CD20 antibodies, or S1P modulators such as fingolimod (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.86).
The difference in disease-modifying treatment usage varied across different treatments and over time. Teriflunomide, fingolimod, and anti-CD20 therapies were significantly underused throughout their entire availability (OR, 0.87, 0.78, and 0.80, respectively).
Interferon and natalizumab were initially used less frequently in women, but the use of these medications equalized over time.
In contrast, glatiramer acetate and dimethyl fumarate were initially used equally between genders but eventually became more commonly prescribed to women (OR, 1.27 and 1.17, respectively).
The disparity in treatment emerged after 2 years of disease duration for disease-modifying treatments in general and as early as 1 year for highly effective treatments.
The gender-based treatment gap did not significantly vary with patient age, indicating that therapeutic inertia may persist regardless of a woman’s age.
“Women may not be receiving the most effective therapies at the optimal time, often due to concerns about pregnancy risks that may never materialize,” said the study’s lead investigator Sandra Vukusic, MD, Lyon University Hospital, France.
“The main impact of this therapeutic inertia in women is the less effective control of disease activity, leading to the accumulation of lesions and an increased risk of long-term disability. This represents a real loss of opportunity for women, especially in an era where disease-modifying treatments so effective when used early,” she added.
Dr. Gavoille said that recommendations in France allow the use of moderately active drugs, including interferon and glatiramer acetate, during pregnancy or in women planning a pregnancy. More recently there has been enough data to allow the use of natalizumab up until the second trimester.
In addition, although not in the guidelines, it is thought that the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab or ocrelizumab, may be safe as they are very long acting. Women can be dosed before pregnancy and be covered for the whole pregnancy period without exposing the fetus to the drug, he explained.
“The message is that now we have both moderately and highly effective treatments that are compatible with a pregnancy plan,” Dr. Gavoille said.
First, clinicians have to select a level of treatment based on disease activity and then choose the best option, depending on the woman’s plans with respect to pregnancy.
Drugs that are contraindicated in pregnancy include teriflunomide and S1P modulators such as fingolimod, which have been shown to be harmful to the fetus.
“But they could still be used in women of childbearing years as long as they are not planning a pregnancy and understand the need for contraception,” Dr. Gavoille noted.
He believes both neurologists and patients are afraid of using drugs in pregnancy. “It is, of course, important to be cautious on this issue, but we should not let fear stop these women receiving the best treatments available.”
However, he added, clinical practice is changing, and confidence is gradually building around using highly effective treatments in women of childbearing age.
Dr. Gavoille also called for more research to collate data in pregnant women with MS who are exposed to various treatments, starting with case reports and then academic registries, which he described as “difficult but important work.”
Commenting on the study, Robert Hoepner, MD, University Hospital of Bern, Switzerland, agreed that this treatment disparity between men and women is “unacceptable.”
Dr. Hoepner noted that a recent study showed that women have different relapse symptoms than men, which may also affect treatment choice.
Dr. Gavoille responded that other research has shown that women are less likely to have treatment escalation post-relapse. “This could be because of a difference in symptoms. But this is something we haven’t looked at yet.”
Also commenting on the research, Frauke Zipp, MD, University Medical Center Mainz in Germany, said it would be interesting to follow this cohort over the long term to see if the women do less well several years down the line.
The study authors and commentators reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ECTRIMS 2024
McDonald Criteria Update Aims to Simplify, Speed MS Diagnosis
COPENHAGEN —
Among its recommendations, the expert panel advises incorporating optic nerve imaging for diagnosis and applying stricter criteria for older patients. In addition, it proposes that radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS) may be diagnosed as MS in certain cases and that disease dissemination in time (DIT) should no longer be required.
The proposed criteria changes were presented at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.
Committee member Xavier Montalban, MD, PhD, from the Department of Neurology and the MS Centre of Catalonia at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona, Spain, told conference attendees that MS is a diagnosis of exclusion.
Brain and spinal cord MRI remains the most useful paraclinical test to diagnose the disease, he said, and an abnormal MRI showing typical lesions is required.
Dr. Montalban noted that optic neuritis is the first manifestation of MS in 25%-35% of cases with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) — one of the four MS disease courses.
Therefore, he said, the panel is recommending that the optic nerve serve as the “fifth topography” or a fifth anatomical location to demonstrate dissemination in space (DIS) if there’s no better explanation for optic nerve pathology, he said.
Considerable evidence supports the minimal threshold of at least one lesion in at least two of the five topographies after including the optic nerve, he added.
DIS Alone Sufficient?
The panel also concluded that demonstrating DIS alone, without the need for DIT or positive cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), may be sufficient for an MS diagnosis. Currently, both DIS and DIT are required.
The committee broached the topic of RIS, which is identified by the incidental discovery of central nervous system (CNS) white matter T2-weighted hyperintense foci on MRI. These hyperintense foci demonstrate morphological and spatial characteristics highly typical of MS but without clinical symptomatology related to inflammatory demyelination.
Dr. Montalban noted that most patients with RIS will develop MS within 10 years. For these individuals, the panel concluded that the following criteria are sufficient for an MS diagnosis: fulfilling both DIS and DIT; fulfilling DIS and the presence of oligoclonal bands (OCBs) in the cerebrospinal fluid; or fulfilling DIS along with six or more central vein signs (CVS).
The panel proposes the addition of CVS and paramagnetic rim lesions, which are MRI markers of chronic active lesions, as optional tools for MS diagnosis in certain situations. Demonstration of CVS by MRI can increase specificity, said Dr. Montalban.
Evidence also suggests that kappa free light chains (KFLCs) could serve as a valid, simpler, and rater-independent alternative to detecting OCBs, he added. Because KFLCs are interchangeable with OCBs, they can be used in place of OCBs for diagnosing MS through CSF analysis.
Stricter Criteria
The panel is also calling for stricter criteria for confirming an MS diagnosis in those over age 50 or individuals with headache or vascular disorders. In such patients, they strongly recommend additional features such as a spinal cord lesion, positive CSF, and CVS select 6 (six positive lesions).
The panel is also recommending laboratory tests (MOG-IgG Ab) to confirm a diagnosis in children and adolescents. Dr. Montalban noted the presence of CVS in about 50% of T2 lesions strongly suggests MS in this population.
Primary progressive MS (PPMS) requires evidence of clinical progression over at least 12 months. The committee determined that the same criteria for relapsing-remitting MS could be used for PPMS.
Having a single, unified framework of diagnostic criteria will be “very useful,” said Dr. Montalban.
During the same meeting session, Marcello Moccia, MD, PhD, University College London (UCL) Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Faculty of Brain Sciences, London, England, presented examples of patients for whom the revised criteria could be beneficial.
These examples help illustrate how using the new criteria, for example optic nerve imaging, could lead to earlier diagnoses, and, in some cases, easier diagnoses, possibly with less CSF, he said. It could also lead to fewer misdiagnoses, he added, thanks to high-specificity tools.
Implementing the new criteria could offer greater flexibility and reduce complexity, Dr. Moccia concluded, adding that not every patient with suspected MS requires exhaustive testing.
The committee’s next steps will include consulting with the wider MS community and preparing the information for publication, said Dr. Montalban.
Commenting on the proposals, Bruce Bebo, executive vice president of research, National MS Society, agreed the proposed changes to the McDonald Criteria will make diagnosing MS “faster and easier.”
“Importantly, we are providing guidance that is inclusive — how to confirm diagnoses in children, or in people over the age of 50,” said Dr. Bebo. “We’re bringing the latest research and imaging technology to the forefront, to help people with MS get treatment faster, so they can live their best lives.”
Dr. Montalban’s institution has received compensation for lecture honoraria and travel expenses, participation in scientific meetings, clinical trial steering committee membership, or clinical advisory board participation in recent years from AbbVie, Actelion, Alexion, Bial PD, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, EMD Serona, Genzyme, Hoffmann-La Roche, Immunic Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, MedDay, Merck, Mylan, Nervgen, Neuraxpharm, Novartis, PeerVoice, Samsung-Biosys Sandoz Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, TG Therapeutics, EXCEMED, ECTRIMS, MSIF, and NMSS or any of their affiliates. Dr. Moccia reports receiving a salary from University of Naples, Policlinico University Hospital (Naples) and Neurology (US); research grants from MUR PNRR Extended Partnership, ECTRIMS-MAGNIMS, UK MS Society, and Merck; honoraria from AbbVie, Biogen, BMS Celgene, Ipsen, Jansen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN —
Among its recommendations, the expert panel advises incorporating optic nerve imaging for diagnosis and applying stricter criteria for older patients. In addition, it proposes that radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS) may be diagnosed as MS in certain cases and that disease dissemination in time (DIT) should no longer be required.
The proposed criteria changes were presented at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.
Committee member Xavier Montalban, MD, PhD, from the Department of Neurology and the MS Centre of Catalonia at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona, Spain, told conference attendees that MS is a diagnosis of exclusion.
Brain and spinal cord MRI remains the most useful paraclinical test to diagnose the disease, he said, and an abnormal MRI showing typical lesions is required.
Dr. Montalban noted that optic neuritis is the first manifestation of MS in 25%-35% of cases with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) — one of the four MS disease courses.
Therefore, he said, the panel is recommending that the optic nerve serve as the “fifth topography” or a fifth anatomical location to demonstrate dissemination in space (DIS) if there’s no better explanation for optic nerve pathology, he said.
Considerable evidence supports the minimal threshold of at least one lesion in at least two of the five topographies after including the optic nerve, he added.
DIS Alone Sufficient?
The panel also concluded that demonstrating DIS alone, without the need for DIT or positive cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), may be sufficient for an MS diagnosis. Currently, both DIS and DIT are required.
The committee broached the topic of RIS, which is identified by the incidental discovery of central nervous system (CNS) white matter T2-weighted hyperintense foci on MRI. These hyperintense foci demonstrate morphological and spatial characteristics highly typical of MS but without clinical symptomatology related to inflammatory demyelination.
Dr. Montalban noted that most patients with RIS will develop MS within 10 years. For these individuals, the panel concluded that the following criteria are sufficient for an MS diagnosis: fulfilling both DIS and DIT; fulfilling DIS and the presence of oligoclonal bands (OCBs) in the cerebrospinal fluid; or fulfilling DIS along with six or more central vein signs (CVS).
The panel proposes the addition of CVS and paramagnetic rim lesions, which are MRI markers of chronic active lesions, as optional tools for MS diagnosis in certain situations. Demonstration of CVS by MRI can increase specificity, said Dr. Montalban.
Evidence also suggests that kappa free light chains (KFLCs) could serve as a valid, simpler, and rater-independent alternative to detecting OCBs, he added. Because KFLCs are interchangeable with OCBs, they can be used in place of OCBs for diagnosing MS through CSF analysis.
Stricter Criteria
The panel is also calling for stricter criteria for confirming an MS diagnosis in those over age 50 or individuals with headache or vascular disorders. In such patients, they strongly recommend additional features such as a spinal cord lesion, positive CSF, and CVS select 6 (six positive lesions).
The panel is also recommending laboratory tests (MOG-IgG Ab) to confirm a diagnosis in children and adolescents. Dr. Montalban noted the presence of CVS in about 50% of T2 lesions strongly suggests MS in this population.
Primary progressive MS (PPMS) requires evidence of clinical progression over at least 12 months. The committee determined that the same criteria for relapsing-remitting MS could be used for PPMS.
Having a single, unified framework of diagnostic criteria will be “very useful,” said Dr. Montalban.
During the same meeting session, Marcello Moccia, MD, PhD, University College London (UCL) Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Faculty of Brain Sciences, London, England, presented examples of patients for whom the revised criteria could be beneficial.
These examples help illustrate how using the new criteria, for example optic nerve imaging, could lead to earlier diagnoses, and, in some cases, easier diagnoses, possibly with less CSF, he said. It could also lead to fewer misdiagnoses, he added, thanks to high-specificity tools.
Implementing the new criteria could offer greater flexibility and reduce complexity, Dr. Moccia concluded, adding that not every patient with suspected MS requires exhaustive testing.
The committee’s next steps will include consulting with the wider MS community and preparing the information for publication, said Dr. Montalban.
Commenting on the proposals, Bruce Bebo, executive vice president of research, National MS Society, agreed the proposed changes to the McDonald Criteria will make diagnosing MS “faster and easier.”
“Importantly, we are providing guidance that is inclusive — how to confirm diagnoses in children, or in people over the age of 50,” said Dr. Bebo. “We’re bringing the latest research and imaging technology to the forefront, to help people with MS get treatment faster, so they can live their best lives.”
Dr. Montalban’s institution has received compensation for lecture honoraria and travel expenses, participation in scientific meetings, clinical trial steering committee membership, or clinical advisory board participation in recent years from AbbVie, Actelion, Alexion, Bial PD, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, EMD Serona, Genzyme, Hoffmann-La Roche, Immunic Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, MedDay, Merck, Mylan, Nervgen, Neuraxpharm, Novartis, PeerVoice, Samsung-Biosys Sandoz Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, TG Therapeutics, EXCEMED, ECTRIMS, MSIF, and NMSS or any of their affiliates. Dr. Moccia reports receiving a salary from University of Naples, Policlinico University Hospital (Naples) and Neurology (US); research grants from MUR PNRR Extended Partnership, ECTRIMS-MAGNIMS, UK MS Society, and Merck; honoraria from AbbVie, Biogen, BMS Celgene, Ipsen, Jansen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN —
Among its recommendations, the expert panel advises incorporating optic nerve imaging for diagnosis and applying stricter criteria for older patients. In addition, it proposes that radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS) may be diagnosed as MS in certain cases and that disease dissemination in time (DIT) should no longer be required.
The proposed criteria changes were presented at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.
Committee member Xavier Montalban, MD, PhD, from the Department of Neurology and the MS Centre of Catalonia at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona, Spain, told conference attendees that MS is a diagnosis of exclusion.
Brain and spinal cord MRI remains the most useful paraclinical test to diagnose the disease, he said, and an abnormal MRI showing typical lesions is required.
Dr. Montalban noted that optic neuritis is the first manifestation of MS in 25%-35% of cases with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) — one of the four MS disease courses.
Therefore, he said, the panel is recommending that the optic nerve serve as the “fifth topography” or a fifth anatomical location to demonstrate dissemination in space (DIS) if there’s no better explanation for optic nerve pathology, he said.
Considerable evidence supports the minimal threshold of at least one lesion in at least two of the five topographies after including the optic nerve, he added.
DIS Alone Sufficient?
The panel also concluded that demonstrating DIS alone, without the need for DIT or positive cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), may be sufficient for an MS diagnosis. Currently, both DIS and DIT are required.
The committee broached the topic of RIS, which is identified by the incidental discovery of central nervous system (CNS) white matter T2-weighted hyperintense foci on MRI. These hyperintense foci demonstrate morphological and spatial characteristics highly typical of MS but without clinical symptomatology related to inflammatory demyelination.
Dr. Montalban noted that most patients with RIS will develop MS within 10 years. For these individuals, the panel concluded that the following criteria are sufficient for an MS diagnosis: fulfilling both DIS and DIT; fulfilling DIS and the presence of oligoclonal bands (OCBs) in the cerebrospinal fluid; or fulfilling DIS along with six or more central vein signs (CVS).
The panel proposes the addition of CVS and paramagnetic rim lesions, which are MRI markers of chronic active lesions, as optional tools for MS diagnosis in certain situations. Demonstration of CVS by MRI can increase specificity, said Dr. Montalban.
Evidence also suggests that kappa free light chains (KFLCs) could serve as a valid, simpler, and rater-independent alternative to detecting OCBs, he added. Because KFLCs are interchangeable with OCBs, they can be used in place of OCBs for diagnosing MS through CSF analysis.
Stricter Criteria
The panel is also calling for stricter criteria for confirming an MS diagnosis in those over age 50 or individuals with headache or vascular disorders. In such patients, they strongly recommend additional features such as a spinal cord lesion, positive CSF, and CVS select 6 (six positive lesions).
The panel is also recommending laboratory tests (MOG-IgG Ab) to confirm a diagnosis in children and adolescents. Dr. Montalban noted the presence of CVS in about 50% of T2 lesions strongly suggests MS in this population.
Primary progressive MS (PPMS) requires evidence of clinical progression over at least 12 months. The committee determined that the same criteria for relapsing-remitting MS could be used for PPMS.
Having a single, unified framework of diagnostic criteria will be “very useful,” said Dr. Montalban.
During the same meeting session, Marcello Moccia, MD, PhD, University College London (UCL) Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Faculty of Brain Sciences, London, England, presented examples of patients for whom the revised criteria could be beneficial.
These examples help illustrate how using the new criteria, for example optic nerve imaging, could lead to earlier diagnoses, and, in some cases, easier diagnoses, possibly with less CSF, he said. It could also lead to fewer misdiagnoses, he added, thanks to high-specificity tools.
Implementing the new criteria could offer greater flexibility and reduce complexity, Dr. Moccia concluded, adding that not every patient with suspected MS requires exhaustive testing.
The committee’s next steps will include consulting with the wider MS community and preparing the information for publication, said Dr. Montalban.
Commenting on the proposals, Bruce Bebo, executive vice president of research, National MS Society, agreed the proposed changes to the McDonald Criteria will make diagnosing MS “faster and easier.”
“Importantly, we are providing guidance that is inclusive — how to confirm diagnoses in children, or in people over the age of 50,” said Dr. Bebo. “We’re bringing the latest research and imaging technology to the forefront, to help people with MS get treatment faster, so they can live their best lives.”
Dr. Montalban’s institution has received compensation for lecture honoraria and travel expenses, participation in scientific meetings, clinical trial steering committee membership, or clinical advisory board participation in recent years from AbbVie, Actelion, Alexion, Bial PD, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, EMD Serona, Genzyme, Hoffmann-La Roche, Immunic Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, MedDay, Merck, Mylan, Nervgen, Neuraxpharm, Novartis, PeerVoice, Samsung-Biosys Sandoz Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, TG Therapeutics, EXCEMED, ECTRIMS, MSIF, and NMSS or any of their affiliates. Dr. Moccia reports receiving a salary from University of Naples, Policlinico University Hospital (Naples) and Neurology (US); research grants from MUR PNRR Extended Partnership, ECTRIMS-MAGNIMS, UK MS Society, and Merck; honoraria from AbbVie, Biogen, BMS Celgene, Ipsen, Jansen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ECTRIMS 2024
Genetically Driven Depression Tied to Increased MS Disease Activity
COPENHAGEN — , early results of a new study showed.
Unlike the previous research, the current analysis used polygenic risk scores for depression, which summarize the estimated effect of genetic variants to determine the potential association with MS disease activity, so results are less likely to be explained by reverse causality.
This study increases awareness of the link between depression and MS, said study investigator Kaarina Kowalec, PhD, assistant professor, College of Pharmacy, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. “We’re starting to understand how depression affects relapses and disability progression in MS,” she said.
The findings were presented at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.
Common Comorbidity
Depression is a common comorbidity in patients with MS and is associated with increased relapse and disability progression. Depression risk is partly polygenic in nature, involving numerous common genetic variants, said Dr. Kowalec.
The case-control study included 3420 relapsing-onset MS cases of European ancestry from four existing cohorts in three countries.
The Canadian cohort included those enrolled in a prospective longitudinal study of psychiatric comorbidity in chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID), including MS; the Swedish cohort was an MS registry (SSReg) that encompasses 64 MS clinics (the cohort was split into two groups); and the US cohort was enrolled in a clinical trial of combined therapy with interferon and glatiramer acetate (CombiRx) in patients with MS.
The median follow-up in these cohorts ranged from 3 to 5 years.
Not surprisingly, most participants were women (from 71% in one of the Swedish cohorts to 83% in the Canadian cohort), and the age at MS onset ranged from 29 years in the Canadian cohort to 35 years in one of the Swedish cohorts.
The median baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was higher in the Canadian cohort (3.5) than in the Swedish (1.5) and US (2.0) cohorts, “reflective of the Canadian cohort being slightly more progressed,” said Dr. Kowalec.
Inherited Variants
To measure depression heritability, researchers generated a polygenic risk score in whole-genome imputed genotypes. The score reflects the number of inherited common genetic variants, weighted by effect sizes.
Researchers investigated the association between depression polygenic risk scores (top 20% vs. bottom 80%) with annualized relapse rate and worsening disability in MS measured by the rate of change in EDSS score. In the US cohort, they also explored the association between depression polygenic risk scores and time to relapse and confirmed EDSS worsening.
Covariates included use of disease-modifying therapy, age, sex, and the first five genetic ancestry principal components. The latter was done to capture residual stratification by genetic ancestry, although Dr. Kowalec stressed analyses were done only in those of European ancestry.
Investigators found a higher depression polygenic risk score was associated with relapse risk (incident rate ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01-1.49).
“Essentially, for every one standard deviation increase in the depression polygenic score, we found a significant increased hazard of 23% for experiencing a relapse over the follow-up period,” said Dr. Kowalec, who is also affiliated with the Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
She noted the Canadian cohort did not have many relapses, while the US and Swedish cohorts “had an increased rate.”
Other analyses examined the risk of having a relapse or worsening disability. Every one SD increase in the depression polygenic risk score was significantly associated with a 2.2 greater risk of experiencing relapse (hazard ratio [HR], 2.20; 95% CI, 1.35-3.60) and a 51% increased risk for confirmed EDSS progression (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.03-2.22).
‘An Ideal Marker’
Use of polygenetic risk scores reduces the possibility of reverse causation, noted Dr. Kowalec. “These markers are fixed at birth and don’t change over your lifespan, so they’re really an ideal marker.”
The results suggest polygenetic risk scores represent a potential biomarker for risk stratification in people with MS, said Dr. Kowalec. Although depression polygenic risk scores are not currently available in clinical practice, “I would hope this would change in the next 3-4 years,” she said.
Asked by a delegate if confounding by a third variable is possible, Dr. Kowalec said because genetic markers don’t change over time, there is a hint that the direction is causal and that depression is driving the outcome. However, she added, further confirmation is needed.
Dr. Kowalec noted that there were no data on antidepressant use but noted that about half of the Canadian and US cohorts — and likely the same number in the Swedish cohorts — self-reported depression.
A limitation of the study was that it included only participants of European ancestry.
Clinical Implications Unclear
Commenting on the research, Lauren Gluck, MD, program director, Montefiore Multiple Sclerosis Center, Bronx, New York, described the study as “fascinating” but noted that it’s unclear how to use this new information in clinical practice.
“Clinicians frequently ask people with MS about mood symptoms and offer interventions like antidepressants and referrals to therapists. However, genetic testing is not routine, so we don’t yet know who to target based on these data.”
Preexisting depression or more severe depression could be viewed as a “red flag” for risk for more disease activity in the future, she said.
“This could encourage clinicians to use more highly effective therapy in these patients, similar to our strategies for people with MS with frequent attacks and more disease burden on MRIs.”
The study received support from the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs, Department of Defense.
Dr. Kowalec reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN — , early results of a new study showed.
Unlike the previous research, the current analysis used polygenic risk scores for depression, which summarize the estimated effect of genetic variants to determine the potential association with MS disease activity, so results are less likely to be explained by reverse causality.
This study increases awareness of the link between depression and MS, said study investigator Kaarina Kowalec, PhD, assistant professor, College of Pharmacy, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. “We’re starting to understand how depression affects relapses and disability progression in MS,” she said.
The findings were presented at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.
Common Comorbidity
Depression is a common comorbidity in patients with MS and is associated with increased relapse and disability progression. Depression risk is partly polygenic in nature, involving numerous common genetic variants, said Dr. Kowalec.
The case-control study included 3420 relapsing-onset MS cases of European ancestry from four existing cohorts in three countries.
The Canadian cohort included those enrolled in a prospective longitudinal study of psychiatric comorbidity in chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID), including MS; the Swedish cohort was an MS registry (SSReg) that encompasses 64 MS clinics (the cohort was split into two groups); and the US cohort was enrolled in a clinical trial of combined therapy with interferon and glatiramer acetate (CombiRx) in patients with MS.
The median follow-up in these cohorts ranged from 3 to 5 years.
Not surprisingly, most participants were women (from 71% in one of the Swedish cohorts to 83% in the Canadian cohort), and the age at MS onset ranged from 29 years in the Canadian cohort to 35 years in one of the Swedish cohorts.
The median baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was higher in the Canadian cohort (3.5) than in the Swedish (1.5) and US (2.0) cohorts, “reflective of the Canadian cohort being slightly more progressed,” said Dr. Kowalec.
Inherited Variants
To measure depression heritability, researchers generated a polygenic risk score in whole-genome imputed genotypes. The score reflects the number of inherited common genetic variants, weighted by effect sizes.
Researchers investigated the association between depression polygenic risk scores (top 20% vs. bottom 80%) with annualized relapse rate and worsening disability in MS measured by the rate of change in EDSS score. In the US cohort, they also explored the association between depression polygenic risk scores and time to relapse and confirmed EDSS worsening.
Covariates included use of disease-modifying therapy, age, sex, and the first five genetic ancestry principal components. The latter was done to capture residual stratification by genetic ancestry, although Dr. Kowalec stressed analyses were done only in those of European ancestry.
Investigators found a higher depression polygenic risk score was associated with relapse risk (incident rate ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01-1.49).
“Essentially, for every one standard deviation increase in the depression polygenic score, we found a significant increased hazard of 23% for experiencing a relapse over the follow-up period,” said Dr. Kowalec, who is also affiliated with the Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
She noted the Canadian cohort did not have many relapses, while the US and Swedish cohorts “had an increased rate.”
Other analyses examined the risk of having a relapse or worsening disability. Every one SD increase in the depression polygenic risk score was significantly associated with a 2.2 greater risk of experiencing relapse (hazard ratio [HR], 2.20; 95% CI, 1.35-3.60) and a 51% increased risk for confirmed EDSS progression (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.03-2.22).
‘An Ideal Marker’
Use of polygenetic risk scores reduces the possibility of reverse causation, noted Dr. Kowalec. “These markers are fixed at birth and don’t change over your lifespan, so they’re really an ideal marker.”
The results suggest polygenetic risk scores represent a potential biomarker for risk stratification in people with MS, said Dr. Kowalec. Although depression polygenic risk scores are not currently available in clinical practice, “I would hope this would change in the next 3-4 years,” she said.
Asked by a delegate if confounding by a third variable is possible, Dr. Kowalec said because genetic markers don’t change over time, there is a hint that the direction is causal and that depression is driving the outcome. However, she added, further confirmation is needed.
Dr. Kowalec noted that there were no data on antidepressant use but noted that about half of the Canadian and US cohorts — and likely the same number in the Swedish cohorts — self-reported depression.
A limitation of the study was that it included only participants of European ancestry.
Clinical Implications Unclear
Commenting on the research, Lauren Gluck, MD, program director, Montefiore Multiple Sclerosis Center, Bronx, New York, described the study as “fascinating” but noted that it’s unclear how to use this new information in clinical practice.
“Clinicians frequently ask people with MS about mood symptoms and offer interventions like antidepressants and referrals to therapists. However, genetic testing is not routine, so we don’t yet know who to target based on these data.”
Preexisting depression or more severe depression could be viewed as a “red flag” for risk for more disease activity in the future, she said.
“This could encourage clinicians to use more highly effective therapy in these patients, similar to our strategies for people with MS with frequent attacks and more disease burden on MRIs.”
The study received support from the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs, Department of Defense.
Dr. Kowalec reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN — , early results of a new study showed.
Unlike the previous research, the current analysis used polygenic risk scores for depression, which summarize the estimated effect of genetic variants to determine the potential association with MS disease activity, so results are less likely to be explained by reverse causality.
This study increases awareness of the link between depression and MS, said study investigator Kaarina Kowalec, PhD, assistant professor, College of Pharmacy, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. “We’re starting to understand how depression affects relapses and disability progression in MS,” she said.
The findings were presented at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.
Common Comorbidity
Depression is a common comorbidity in patients with MS and is associated with increased relapse and disability progression. Depression risk is partly polygenic in nature, involving numerous common genetic variants, said Dr. Kowalec.
The case-control study included 3420 relapsing-onset MS cases of European ancestry from four existing cohorts in three countries.
The Canadian cohort included those enrolled in a prospective longitudinal study of psychiatric comorbidity in chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID), including MS; the Swedish cohort was an MS registry (SSReg) that encompasses 64 MS clinics (the cohort was split into two groups); and the US cohort was enrolled in a clinical trial of combined therapy with interferon and glatiramer acetate (CombiRx) in patients with MS.
The median follow-up in these cohorts ranged from 3 to 5 years.
Not surprisingly, most participants were women (from 71% in one of the Swedish cohorts to 83% in the Canadian cohort), and the age at MS onset ranged from 29 years in the Canadian cohort to 35 years in one of the Swedish cohorts.
The median baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was higher in the Canadian cohort (3.5) than in the Swedish (1.5) and US (2.0) cohorts, “reflective of the Canadian cohort being slightly more progressed,” said Dr. Kowalec.
Inherited Variants
To measure depression heritability, researchers generated a polygenic risk score in whole-genome imputed genotypes. The score reflects the number of inherited common genetic variants, weighted by effect sizes.
Researchers investigated the association between depression polygenic risk scores (top 20% vs. bottom 80%) with annualized relapse rate and worsening disability in MS measured by the rate of change in EDSS score. In the US cohort, they also explored the association between depression polygenic risk scores and time to relapse and confirmed EDSS worsening.
Covariates included use of disease-modifying therapy, age, sex, and the first five genetic ancestry principal components. The latter was done to capture residual stratification by genetic ancestry, although Dr. Kowalec stressed analyses were done only in those of European ancestry.
Investigators found a higher depression polygenic risk score was associated with relapse risk (incident rate ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01-1.49).
“Essentially, for every one standard deviation increase in the depression polygenic score, we found a significant increased hazard of 23% for experiencing a relapse over the follow-up period,” said Dr. Kowalec, who is also affiliated with the Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
She noted the Canadian cohort did not have many relapses, while the US and Swedish cohorts “had an increased rate.”
Other analyses examined the risk of having a relapse or worsening disability. Every one SD increase in the depression polygenic risk score was significantly associated with a 2.2 greater risk of experiencing relapse (hazard ratio [HR], 2.20; 95% CI, 1.35-3.60) and a 51% increased risk for confirmed EDSS progression (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.03-2.22).
‘An Ideal Marker’
Use of polygenetic risk scores reduces the possibility of reverse causation, noted Dr. Kowalec. “These markers are fixed at birth and don’t change over your lifespan, so they’re really an ideal marker.”
The results suggest polygenetic risk scores represent a potential biomarker for risk stratification in people with MS, said Dr. Kowalec. Although depression polygenic risk scores are not currently available in clinical practice, “I would hope this would change in the next 3-4 years,” she said.
Asked by a delegate if confounding by a third variable is possible, Dr. Kowalec said because genetic markers don’t change over time, there is a hint that the direction is causal and that depression is driving the outcome. However, she added, further confirmation is needed.
Dr. Kowalec noted that there were no data on antidepressant use but noted that about half of the Canadian and US cohorts — and likely the same number in the Swedish cohorts — self-reported depression.
A limitation of the study was that it included only participants of European ancestry.
Clinical Implications Unclear
Commenting on the research, Lauren Gluck, MD, program director, Montefiore Multiple Sclerosis Center, Bronx, New York, described the study as “fascinating” but noted that it’s unclear how to use this new information in clinical practice.
“Clinicians frequently ask people with MS about mood symptoms and offer interventions like antidepressants and referrals to therapists. However, genetic testing is not routine, so we don’t yet know who to target based on these data.”
Preexisting depression or more severe depression could be viewed as a “red flag” for risk for more disease activity in the future, she said.
“This could encourage clinicians to use more highly effective therapy in these patients, similar to our strategies for people with MS with frequent attacks and more disease burden on MRIs.”
The study received support from the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs, Department of Defense.
Dr. Kowalec reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ECTRIMS 2024
Ofatumumab MS Study Supports Early Start Over Switch
COPENHAGEN — according to extension data out to 6 years.
By the most recent analysis of a phase 3 extension study, there were “fewer disability worsening events and greater likelihood of being progression free among those started on ofatumumab than those started on teriflunomide and switched,” reported Amit Bar-Or, MD, director of the Center of Neuroinflammation and Neurotherapeutics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Stated differently, if ofatumumab is delayed, it never fully compensates for the advantage of better early MS control in treatment-naïve patients, according to Dr. Bar-Or, who presented these data at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.
Anti-CD20 Disability Protection Already Seen in Pivotal Trial
In two phase 3 trials called ASCLEPIOS I and II that were published together several years ago in The New England Journal of Medicine, the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ofatumumab reduced the annualized relapse rate (ARR) by half (0.11 vs. 0.22). While ARR was the primary endpoint, ofatumumab was also associated with a 34% reduction (P = .002) in risk of confirmed disability worsening at 3 months (3mCDW) at a medium follow-up of 1.6 years.
After the completion of ASCLEPIOS I and II, the majority of both arms of the study were enrolled in the ALITHIOS extension study. Patients in ofatumumab arm have remained on their initially assigned drug. Patients in the teriflunomide group were switched. Characterized as the delayed ofatumumab group, they have been receiving the same 20-mg, once-monthly subcutaneous (SQ) dose of ofatumumab as those initially assigned to this drug. ALITHIOS will continue to follow both groups until 2028.
Patients have now been followed for up to 6 years. In the latest results presented at ECTRIMS, data were available for 690 patients on continuous treatment and 677 switch patients. Baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. About half of each group were treatment naive when enrolled in the ASCLEPIOS trials.
Whether compared for 6-month confirmed disability worsening (6mCDW), 6-month progression independent of relapse activity (6mPIRA) or 6-month relapse-associated worsening (6mRAW), disease progression was consistently worse for those with delayed ofatumumab. The differences were most pronounced in those who were treatment naive when started on therapy.
Anti-CD20 MAB sustains Disability Protection for up to Years
For those who were treatment naive, the rates of 6mCDW at the most recent follow-up were 16.61% vs 23.74% (P = .033) for continuous and delayed ofatumumab, respectively. For the entire study, these rates were 21.09% versus 24.77%, respectively, which represented a strong trend (P = .063).
The relative rates for 6mPIRA (11.12% vs 16.75%) and 6mRAW (4.26% vs 4.82%) in treatment-naive patients also favored continuous over delayed ofatumumab, and the numerical advantage was also seen with up to 6 years of follow-up in the overall study population for 6mPIRA (15.45% vs 16.56%) and 6mRAW (5.24% vs 5.81%).
Translating these into freedom from disability, Dr. Bar-Or reported that more than 80% (83.4%) of patients on continuous ofatumumab were progression free for up to 6 years, a figure that exceeded the 76.3% free of progression in the delayed ofatumumab group.
On the basis of 6mPIRA, that absence of disability progression neared 90% (88.9%) on continuous ofatumumab relative to 83.3% for delayed ofatumumab.
An advantage for a reduction in disability accumulation for ofatumumab relative to teriflunomide was established at the end of the ASCLEPIOS I and II trial, but the latest follow-up shows that it is “sustained out to 6 years.” The advantage is achieved with no greater cost in adverse events during the early treatment period, according to Dr. Bar-Or, who noted that ofatumumab and teriflunomide were similarly well tolerated in ASCLEPIOS I and II.
No New Gd T1 Lesions Observed Over 12 Months
Although other anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies have also been shown to be highly effective and often more effective than immunomodulators in the first- and second-line treatment of relapsing remitting MS (RRMS), another set of data presented at ECTRIMS 2024 looked specifically at transitioning from intravenous (IV) anti-CD20 drugs to SQ ofatumumab.
In this study, called OLIKOS, 102 RRMS patients who had received either IV ocrelizumab or IV rituximab were followed after transitioning to ofatumumab administered SQ with an autoinjector pen. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with no change or a reduction gadolinium-enhancing (Gd) T1 lesions over 12 months of follow-up.
“At month 12, 84 of 84 evaluable patients with evaluable MRI assessments met the primary endpoint,” reported the principal investigator Le Hua, MD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Program, Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.
At 12 months, there were also no new or enlarging T2 lesions in 98% of patients receiving SQ ofatumumab following the transition from one of the other anti-CD20 IV drugs, but Dr. Hua characterized this as an exploratory endpoint.
The safety and tolerability data during the OLIKOS study was also reassuring with no new or unexpected safety signals for SQ ofatumumab, which has been well tolerated in the phase 3 development program. IgM and IgG levels remained stable over the course of follow-up.
High-efficacy anti-CD20 drugs were once reserved for RRMS patients with highly active disease, but long-term data, such as those generated by the ALITHIOS extension study, suggest greater efficacy with acceptable safety of these agents relative to conventional first-line RRMS therapies. Based on ALITHIOS data, Dr. Bar-Or suggested that early use of the most effective therapy appears to lead to better long-term protection from increased cumulative disability.
Dr. Bar-Or reported financial relationships with Accure, Atara, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer, Janssen/Actelion, Medimmune, Merck/EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr. Hua reported financial relationships with Alexion, EMD Serono, Genentech, Horizon, Novartis, and TG Therapeutics.
COPENHAGEN — according to extension data out to 6 years.
By the most recent analysis of a phase 3 extension study, there were “fewer disability worsening events and greater likelihood of being progression free among those started on ofatumumab than those started on teriflunomide and switched,” reported Amit Bar-Or, MD, director of the Center of Neuroinflammation and Neurotherapeutics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Stated differently, if ofatumumab is delayed, it never fully compensates for the advantage of better early MS control in treatment-naïve patients, according to Dr. Bar-Or, who presented these data at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.
Anti-CD20 Disability Protection Already Seen in Pivotal Trial
In two phase 3 trials called ASCLEPIOS I and II that were published together several years ago in The New England Journal of Medicine, the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ofatumumab reduced the annualized relapse rate (ARR) by half (0.11 vs. 0.22). While ARR was the primary endpoint, ofatumumab was also associated with a 34% reduction (P = .002) in risk of confirmed disability worsening at 3 months (3mCDW) at a medium follow-up of 1.6 years.
After the completion of ASCLEPIOS I and II, the majority of both arms of the study were enrolled in the ALITHIOS extension study. Patients in ofatumumab arm have remained on their initially assigned drug. Patients in the teriflunomide group were switched. Characterized as the delayed ofatumumab group, they have been receiving the same 20-mg, once-monthly subcutaneous (SQ) dose of ofatumumab as those initially assigned to this drug. ALITHIOS will continue to follow both groups until 2028.
Patients have now been followed for up to 6 years. In the latest results presented at ECTRIMS, data were available for 690 patients on continuous treatment and 677 switch patients. Baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. About half of each group were treatment naive when enrolled in the ASCLEPIOS trials.
Whether compared for 6-month confirmed disability worsening (6mCDW), 6-month progression independent of relapse activity (6mPIRA) or 6-month relapse-associated worsening (6mRAW), disease progression was consistently worse for those with delayed ofatumumab. The differences were most pronounced in those who were treatment naive when started on therapy.
Anti-CD20 MAB sustains Disability Protection for up to Years
For those who were treatment naive, the rates of 6mCDW at the most recent follow-up were 16.61% vs 23.74% (P = .033) for continuous and delayed ofatumumab, respectively. For the entire study, these rates were 21.09% versus 24.77%, respectively, which represented a strong trend (P = .063).
The relative rates for 6mPIRA (11.12% vs 16.75%) and 6mRAW (4.26% vs 4.82%) in treatment-naive patients also favored continuous over delayed ofatumumab, and the numerical advantage was also seen with up to 6 years of follow-up in the overall study population for 6mPIRA (15.45% vs 16.56%) and 6mRAW (5.24% vs 5.81%).
Translating these into freedom from disability, Dr. Bar-Or reported that more than 80% (83.4%) of patients on continuous ofatumumab were progression free for up to 6 years, a figure that exceeded the 76.3% free of progression in the delayed ofatumumab group.
On the basis of 6mPIRA, that absence of disability progression neared 90% (88.9%) on continuous ofatumumab relative to 83.3% for delayed ofatumumab.
An advantage for a reduction in disability accumulation for ofatumumab relative to teriflunomide was established at the end of the ASCLEPIOS I and II trial, but the latest follow-up shows that it is “sustained out to 6 years.” The advantage is achieved with no greater cost in adverse events during the early treatment period, according to Dr. Bar-Or, who noted that ofatumumab and teriflunomide were similarly well tolerated in ASCLEPIOS I and II.
No New Gd T1 Lesions Observed Over 12 Months
Although other anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies have also been shown to be highly effective and often more effective than immunomodulators in the first- and second-line treatment of relapsing remitting MS (RRMS), another set of data presented at ECTRIMS 2024 looked specifically at transitioning from intravenous (IV) anti-CD20 drugs to SQ ofatumumab.
In this study, called OLIKOS, 102 RRMS patients who had received either IV ocrelizumab or IV rituximab were followed after transitioning to ofatumumab administered SQ with an autoinjector pen. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with no change or a reduction gadolinium-enhancing (Gd) T1 lesions over 12 months of follow-up.
“At month 12, 84 of 84 evaluable patients with evaluable MRI assessments met the primary endpoint,” reported the principal investigator Le Hua, MD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Program, Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.
At 12 months, there were also no new or enlarging T2 lesions in 98% of patients receiving SQ ofatumumab following the transition from one of the other anti-CD20 IV drugs, but Dr. Hua characterized this as an exploratory endpoint.
The safety and tolerability data during the OLIKOS study was also reassuring with no new or unexpected safety signals for SQ ofatumumab, which has been well tolerated in the phase 3 development program. IgM and IgG levels remained stable over the course of follow-up.
High-efficacy anti-CD20 drugs were once reserved for RRMS patients with highly active disease, but long-term data, such as those generated by the ALITHIOS extension study, suggest greater efficacy with acceptable safety of these agents relative to conventional first-line RRMS therapies. Based on ALITHIOS data, Dr. Bar-Or suggested that early use of the most effective therapy appears to lead to better long-term protection from increased cumulative disability.
Dr. Bar-Or reported financial relationships with Accure, Atara, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer, Janssen/Actelion, Medimmune, Merck/EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr. Hua reported financial relationships with Alexion, EMD Serono, Genentech, Horizon, Novartis, and TG Therapeutics.
COPENHAGEN — according to extension data out to 6 years.
By the most recent analysis of a phase 3 extension study, there were “fewer disability worsening events and greater likelihood of being progression free among those started on ofatumumab than those started on teriflunomide and switched,” reported Amit Bar-Or, MD, director of the Center of Neuroinflammation and Neurotherapeutics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Stated differently, if ofatumumab is delayed, it never fully compensates for the advantage of better early MS control in treatment-naïve patients, according to Dr. Bar-Or, who presented these data at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.
Anti-CD20 Disability Protection Already Seen in Pivotal Trial
In two phase 3 trials called ASCLEPIOS I and II that were published together several years ago in The New England Journal of Medicine, the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ofatumumab reduced the annualized relapse rate (ARR) by half (0.11 vs. 0.22). While ARR was the primary endpoint, ofatumumab was also associated with a 34% reduction (P = .002) in risk of confirmed disability worsening at 3 months (3mCDW) at a medium follow-up of 1.6 years.
After the completion of ASCLEPIOS I and II, the majority of both arms of the study were enrolled in the ALITHIOS extension study. Patients in ofatumumab arm have remained on their initially assigned drug. Patients in the teriflunomide group were switched. Characterized as the delayed ofatumumab group, they have been receiving the same 20-mg, once-monthly subcutaneous (SQ) dose of ofatumumab as those initially assigned to this drug. ALITHIOS will continue to follow both groups until 2028.
Patients have now been followed for up to 6 years. In the latest results presented at ECTRIMS, data were available for 690 patients on continuous treatment and 677 switch patients. Baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. About half of each group were treatment naive when enrolled in the ASCLEPIOS trials.
Whether compared for 6-month confirmed disability worsening (6mCDW), 6-month progression independent of relapse activity (6mPIRA) or 6-month relapse-associated worsening (6mRAW), disease progression was consistently worse for those with delayed ofatumumab. The differences were most pronounced in those who were treatment naive when started on therapy.
Anti-CD20 MAB sustains Disability Protection for up to Years
For those who were treatment naive, the rates of 6mCDW at the most recent follow-up were 16.61% vs 23.74% (P = .033) for continuous and delayed ofatumumab, respectively. For the entire study, these rates were 21.09% versus 24.77%, respectively, which represented a strong trend (P = .063).
The relative rates for 6mPIRA (11.12% vs 16.75%) and 6mRAW (4.26% vs 4.82%) in treatment-naive patients also favored continuous over delayed ofatumumab, and the numerical advantage was also seen with up to 6 years of follow-up in the overall study population for 6mPIRA (15.45% vs 16.56%) and 6mRAW (5.24% vs 5.81%).
Translating these into freedom from disability, Dr. Bar-Or reported that more than 80% (83.4%) of patients on continuous ofatumumab were progression free for up to 6 years, a figure that exceeded the 76.3% free of progression in the delayed ofatumumab group.
On the basis of 6mPIRA, that absence of disability progression neared 90% (88.9%) on continuous ofatumumab relative to 83.3% for delayed ofatumumab.
An advantage for a reduction in disability accumulation for ofatumumab relative to teriflunomide was established at the end of the ASCLEPIOS I and II trial, but the latest follow-up shows that it is “sustained out to 6 years.” The advantage is achieved with no greater cost in adverse events during the early treatment period, according to Dr. Bar-Or, who noted that ofatumumab and teriflunomide were similarly well tolerated in ASCLEPIOS I and II.
No New Gd T1 Lesions Observed Over 12 Months
Although other anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies have also been shown to be highly effective and often more effective than immunomodulators in the first- and second-line treatment of relapsing remitting MS (RRMS), another set of data presented at ECTRIMS 2024 looked specifically at transitioning from intravenous (IV) anti-CD20 drugs to SQ ofatumumab.
In this study, called OLIKOS, 102 RRMS patients who had received either IV ocrelizumab or IV rituximab were followed after transitioning to ofatumumab administered SQ with an autoinjector pen. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with no change or a reduction gadolinium-enhancing (Gd) T1 lesions over 12 months of follow-up.
“At month 12, 84 of 84 evaluable patients with evaluable MRI assessments met the primary endpoint,” reported the principal investigator Le Hua, MD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Program, Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.
At 12 months, there were also no new or enlarging T2 lesions in 98% of patients receiving SQ ofatumumab following the transition from one of the other anti-CD20 IV drugs, but Dr. Hua characterized this as an exploratory endpoint.
The safety and tolerability data during the OLIKOS study was also reassuring with no new or unexpected safety signals for SQ ofatumumab, which has been well tolerated in the phase 3 development program. IgM and IgG levels remained stable over the course of follow-up.
High-efficacy anti-CD20 drugs were once reserved for RRMS patients with highly active disease, but long-term data, such as those generated by the ALITHIOS extension study, suggest greater efficacy with acceptable safety of these agents relative to conventional first-line RRMS therapies. Based on ALITHIOS data, Dr. Bar-Or suggested that early use of the most effective therapy appears to lead to better long-term protection from increased cumulative disability.
Dr. Bar-Or reported financial relationships with Accure, Atara, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer, Janssen/Actelion, Medimmune, Merck/EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr. Hua reported financial relationships with Alexion, EMD Serono, Genentech, Horizon, Novartis, and TG Therapeutics.
FROM ECTRIMS 2024