User login
NMO: Study says double diagnoses with MS are common
MILAN – , according to a poster presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
“There is a lack of education in differentiating between MS and NMO even in the medical community, which may result in a high misdiagnosis rate,” said study lead author Ka-Ho Wong, MBA, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, in an interview.
“NMO was recognized in the late 1800s and was historically thought to be a variant of MS until 1999,” said Michael Levy, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, in an interview.
“They are both relapsing inflammatory disorders of the central nervous system with similarities in symptoms of weakness, numbness, mobility problem, vision defects, pain and fatigue,” said Dr. Levy, who did not take part in the new study. “A blood test for NMO was developed in 2004 and improved over time to the point that it can now reliably distinguish NMO from MS.”
As for therapy, “recent research has confirmed the two conditions are immunologically different and respond to different treatment,” Dr. Levy said. “The treatments developed for MS, especially from the 1990s, are harmful in NMO so it is important to make the diagnosis correctly.”
He added that “we do not recognize overlap between NMO or MS – it’s one or the other.”
Exploring the reasons for misdiagnosis
Mr. Wong, the present study’s lead author, said he and a research team launched the new study to better understand who gets misdiagnosed. “We know that almost 50% of the individuals get misdiagnosed at some point. However, what we don’t know yet is if the influencing factors are social determinants of health or if there are other causes.”
For the study, Mr. Wong and colleagues analyzed data from TriNetX, a health research network with access to medical records from 61 U.S. health care organizations. providing access to electronic medical records that includes sixty-one health care organizations (HCOs) in the United States.
ICD-10 coding statistics from 2008 to 2022 identified 7,657 patients with diagnoses for NMO. Of those, 4,040 (53%) only had diagnoses for NMO, and the rest (3,617, 47%) had diagnoses for both NMO and MS.
The researchers focused on 1,265 patients who had been coded for both diagnoses and had at least three clinical visits. They determined that a patient was misdiagnosed when they had three consecutive diagnoses of the same type. “For example, if they had MS but got misdiagnosed as NMO, once they are confirmed as MS they must have three or more consecutive diagnosis of MS to be considered as misdiagnosed,” Mr. Wong said.
Of the 1,265 subjects, the researchers determined that 308 (24%) had NMO but had been misdiagnosed as having MS, 189 (15%) had MS but were misdiagnosed as having NMO, and 768 (61%) were interchangeably diagnosed with the two conditions over time.
Among these three groups, 70.8%, 73.1%, and 78.4% were female, respectively; and 59.4%, 52.9%, and 53.0% were White, respectively. The percentages of Black patients were 17.2%, 24.3%, and 28.9%, respectively. Information about statistical significance was not provided in the poster.
Dr. Levy said he would “expect most NMO patients to initially be diagnosed with MS. It’s unusual to start with a diagnosis of NMO and then figure out it’s MS.”
As for the larger number of people with interchangeable diagnoses, Dr. Levy said that likely “reflects the messiness of billing codes.” For his part, Mr. Wong said there could be multiple causes for the interchangeable diagnoses: lack of disease knowledge, miscoding, lack of Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for NMO at the time, and potentially other factors.
What does it all mean?
As for the study’s significance, Mr. Wong said a full workup should be performed before diagnosis, “and a neurologist should never prescribe disease-modifying therapies prior to a confirmation of diagnosis.”
Indeed, some disease-modifying therapies for MS are inappropriate for patients with NMO, Dr. Levy said. “The older medications, including beta-interferons, are among the most harmful to NMO patients. But they are not commonly used as first line for MS as they used to be. In contrast, B cell–depleting medications like ocrelizumab may be helpful in NMO.”
In regards to diagnosis, Dr. Levy noted that the NMO aquaporin-4 (AQP4) antibody test is “extremely specific and reliable.”
“A positive test result in the context of a clinical presentation of central nervous system inflammation allows for the diagnosis of NMO,” he said. “A negative test result is more complicated and may require some expertise to sort out after a careful review of the history, neurological exam, MRI features, central nervous system testing and other blood test results.”
The study was funded by the Sumaira Foundation. The authors did not provide information about relevant disclosures. Dr. Levy reports personal compensation for advisory board activities from Roche, Genentech, Chugai, Horizon, Alexion and Mitsubishi and grant support from Genentech, Horizon, Alexion, Sanofi, and UCB.
MILAN – , according to a poster presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
“There is a lack of education in differentiating between MS and NMO even in the medical community, which may result in a high misdiagnosis rate,” said study lead author Ka-Ho Wong, MBA, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, in an interview.
“NMO was recognized in the late 1800s and was historically thought to be a variant of MS until 1999,” said Michael Levy, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, in an interview.
“They are both relapsing inflammatory disorders of the central nervous system with similarities in symptoms of weakness, numbness, mobility problem, vision defects, pain and fatigue,” said Dr. Levy, who did not take part in the new study. “A blood test for NMO was developed in 2004 and improved over time to the point that it can now reliably distinguish NMO from MS.”
As for therapy, “recent research has confirmed the two conditions are immunologically different and respond to different treatment,” Dr. Levy said. “The treatments developed for MS, especially from the 1990s, are harmful in NMO so it is important to make the diagnosis correctly.”
He added that “we do not recognize overlap between NMO or MS – it’s one or the other.”
Exploring the reasons for misdiagnosis
Mr. Wong, the present study’s lead author, said he and a research team launched the new study to better understand who gets misdiagnosed. “We know that almost 50% of the individuals get misdiagnosed at some point. However, what we don’t know yet is if the influencing factors are social determinants of health or if there are other causes.”
For the study, Mr. Wong and colleagues analyzed data from TriNetX, a health research network with access to medical records from 61 U.S. health care organizations. providing access to electronic medical records that includes sixty-one health care organizations (HCOs) in the United States.
ICD-10 coding statistics from 2008 to 2022 identified 7,657 patients with diagnoses for NMO. Of those, 4,040 (53%) only had diagnoses for NMO, and the rest (3,617, 47%) had diagnoses for both NMO and MS.
The researchers focused on 1,265 patients who had been coded for both diagnoses and had at least three clinical visits. They determined that a patient was misdiagnosed when they had three consecutive diagnoses of the same type. “For example, if they had MS but got misdiagnosed as NMO, once they are confirmed as MS they must have three or more consecutive diagnosis of MS to be considered as misdiagnosed,” Mr. Wong said.
Of the 1,265 subjects, the researchers determined that 308 (24%) had NMO but had been misdiagnosed as having MS, 189 (15%) had MS but were misdiagnosed as having NMO, and 768 (61%) were interchangeably diagnosed with the two conditions over time.
Among these three groups, 70.8%, 73.1%, and 78.4% were female, respectively; and 59.4%, 52.9%, and 53.0% were White, respectively. The percentages of Black patients were 17.2%, 24.3%, and 28.9%, respectively. Information about statistical significance was not provided in the poster.
Dr. Levy said he would “expect most NMO patients to initially be diagnosed with MS. It’s unusual to start with a diagnosis of NMO and then figure out it’s MS.”
As for the larger number of people with interchangeable diagnoses, Dr. Levy said that likely “reflects the messiness of billing codes.” For his part, Mr. Wong said there could be multiple causes for the interchangeable diagnoses: lack of disease knowledge, miscoding, lack of Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for NMO at the time, and potentially other factors.
What does it all mean?
As for the study’s significance, Mr. Wong said a full workup should be performed before diagnosis, “and a neurologist should never prescribe disease-modifying therapies prior to a confirmation of diagnosis.”
Indeed, some disease-modifying therapies for MS are inappropriate for patients with NMO, Dr. Levy said. “The older medications, including beta-interferons, are among the most harmful to NMO patients. But they are not commonly used as first line for MS as they used to be. In contrast, B cell–depleting medications like ocrelizumab may be helpful in NMO.”
In regards to diagnosis, Dr. Levy noted that the NMO aquaporin-4 (AQP4) antibody test is “extremely specific and reliable.”
“A positive test result in the context of a clinical presentation of central nervous system inflammation allows for the diagnosis of NMO,” he said. “A negative test result is more complicated and may require some expertise to sort out after a careful review of the history, neurological exam, MRI features, central nervous system testing and other blood test results.”
The study was funded by the Sumaira Foundation. The authors did not provide information about relevant disclosures. Dr. Levy reports personal compensation for advisory board activities from Roche, Genentech, Chugai, Horizon, Alexion and Mitsubishi and grant support from Genentech, Horizon, Alexion, Sanofi, and UCB.
MILAN – , according to a poster presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
“There is a lack of education in differentiating between MS and NMO even in the medical community, which may result in a high misdiagnosis rate,” said study lead author Ka-Ho Wong, MBA, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, in an interview.
“NMO was recognized in the late 1800s and was historically thought to be a variant of MS until 1999,” said Michael Levy, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, in an interview.
“They are both relapsing inflammatory disorders of the central nervous system with similarities in symptoms of weakness, numbness, mobility problem, vision defects, pain and fatigue,” said Dr. Levy, who did not take part in the new study. “A blood test for NMO was developed in 2004 and improved over time to the point that it can now reliably distinguish NMO from MS.”
As for therapy, “recent research has confirmed the two conditions are immunologically different and respond to different treatment,” Dr. Levy said. “The treatments developed for MS, especially from the 1990s, are harmful in NMO so it is important to make the diagnosis correctly.”
He added that “we do not recognize overlap between NMO or MS – it’s one or the other.”
Exploring the reasons for misdiagnosis
Mr. Wong, the present study’s lead author, said he and a research team launched the new study to better understand who gets misdiagnosed. “We know that almost 50% of the individuals get misdiagnosed at some point. However, what we don’t know yet is if the influencing factors are social determinants of health or if there are other causes.”
For the study, Mr. Wong and colleagues analyzed data from TriNetX, a health research network with access to medical records from 61 U.S. health care organizations. providing access to electronic medical records that includes sixty-one health care organizations (HCOs) in the United States.
ICD-10 coding statistics from 2008 to 2022 identified 7,657 patients with diagnoses for NMO. Of those, 4,040 (53%) only had diagnoses for NMO, and the rest (3,617, 47%) had diagnoses for both NMO and MS.
The researchers focused on 1,265 patients who had been coded for both diagnoses and had at least three clinical visits. They determined that a patient was misdiagnosed when they had three consecutive diagnoses of the same type. “For example, if they had MS but got misdiagnosed as NMO, once they are confirmed as MS they must have three or more consecutive diagnosis of MS to be considered as misdiagnosed,” Mr. Wong said.
Of the 1,265 subjects, the researchers determined that 308 (24%) had NMO but had been misdiagnosed as having MS, 189 (15%) had MS but were misdiagnosed as having NMO, and 768 (61%) were interchangeably diagnosed with the two conditions over time.
Among these three groups, 70.8%, 73.1%, and 78.4% were female, respectively; and 59.4%, 52.9%, and 53.0% were White, respectively. The percentages of Black patients were 17.2%, 24.3%, and 28.9%, respectively. Information about statistical significance was not provided in the poster.
Dr. Levy said he would “expect most NMO patients to initially be diagnosed with MS. It’s unusual to start with a diagnosis of NMO and then figure out it’s MS.”
As for the larger number of people with interchangeable diagnoses, Dr. Levy said that likely “reflects the messiness of billing codes.” For his part, Mr. Wong said there could be multiple causes for the interchangeable diagnoses: lack of disease knowledge, miscoding, lack of Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for NMO at the time, and potentially other factors.
What does it all mean?
As for the study’s significance, Mr. Wong said a full workup should be performed before diagnosis, “and a neurologist should never prescribe disease-modifying therapies prior to a confirmation of diagnosis.”
Indeed, some disease-modifying therapies for MS are inappropriate for patients with NMO, Dr. Levy said. “The older medications, including beta-interferons, are among the most harmful to NMO patients. But they are not commonly used as first line for MS as they used to be. In contrast, B cell–depleting medications like ocrelizumab may be helpful in NMO.”
In regards to diagnosis, Dr. Levy noted that the NMO aquaporin-4 (AQP4) antibody test is “extremely specific and reliable.”
“A positive test result in the context of a clinical presentation of central nervous system inflammation allows for the diagnosis of NMO,” he said. “A negative test result is more complicated and may require some expertise to sort out after a careful review of the history, neurological exam, MRI features, central nervous system testing and other blood test results.”
The study was funded by the Sumaira Foundation. The authors did not provide information about relevant disclosures. Dr. Levy reports personal compensation for advisory board activities from Roche, Genentech, Chugai, Horizon, Alexion and Mitsubishi and grant support from Genentech, Horizon, Alexion, Sanofi, and UCB.
AT ECTRIMS 2023
EBV and MS: Just how deep is the link?
MILAN – in a joint presentation at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Armed with the findings of his own landmark 2022 study into EBV and MS, Harvard Medical School, Boston, professor of medicine Alberto Ascherio, MD, DrPH, argued that they’re tightly connected. But rheumatologist William H. Robinson, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, said that while he also believes EBV plays a significant role in MS, “there’s likely a role for a second hit” – some other factor. “Why are 95% of us EBV-infected, but only a small subset ultimately develop MS or ... other autoimmune diseases?”
As a 2023 review noted, researchers have puzzled over the connection between EBV and MS since the early 1980s. “Until that point, EBV was primarily viewed as a cancer-causing agent, but the culmination of evidence now shows that EBV has a pivotal role in development of MS.” But it’s not clear how EBV – which strikes more than an estimated 95% of humans and causes mononucleosis – manages to trigger MS.
A rare complication of EBV infection
In the 2022 study, Dr. Ascherio aimed to understand exactly how deeply EBV and MS are connected by analyzing serum data gathered from more than 10 million active-duty members of the U.S. military. Of those, 955 were diagnosed with MS.
The researchers focused on 801 subjects with MS and matched them to 1,566 controls. Only 1 of the 801 subjects with MS had a negative EBV test prior to diagnosis, a fact that researchers believe could be due to a factor such as a failure to seroconvert during infection. “At baseline, 35 MS cases and 107 controls were EBV-negative,” the study reported. “All but one of these 35 EBV-negative MS cases became infected with EBV during the follow-up.”
Overall, subjects who were positive for EBV were 32.4 times to develop MS than those who weren’t (95% confidence interval, 4.3-245.3; P < 0.001).
Is it possible that immune dysregulation from MS precedes EBV infection? The researchers analyzed viruses in 30 subjects with MS – before and after MS onset – and in 30 controls. The findings suggested that EBV was the major player, Dr. Ascherio said.
Researchers also focused on cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, which is closely related to EBV and to the chicken pox virus. “CMV seroconversion is not associated with MS, and positivity for CMV at baseline was associated with a modestly lower risk of MS,” Dr. Ascherio said.
In the big picture, “this data establishes beyond reasonable doubt that MS is a rare complication of EBV infection,” Dr. Ascherio said. “The main question now is whether the virus triggers an immune process that then is self-maintained, or whether the presence of the infection keeps feeding the immune process.”
Inadequate evidence for causation
In his presentation, Dr. Robinson asked: “Does EBV cause MS? Really? All of MS? In humans [with MS], yes, we found monoclonal antibodies expressed by the B cells that bound to EBV. But we also found spinal fluid B cells and coding antibodies that bound to multiple other viruses, including rubella, VZV [varicella-zoster virus/chickenpox], CMV, and HSV [herpes simplex virus]. And there’s even a measles reactive antibody there.”
And there’s evidence that human herpes virus type 6 (HHV-6) and HHV-6A could be linked to MS: “Maybe HHV-6 or HHV-6A is the cause of MS in a subset of patients,” Dr. Robinson said. Research suggests that pox viruses could be another possible cause, he said.
He added: “I’m a rheumatologist, and I see patients in the clinic and in the hospital who have lupus, a disease highly associated with EBV infection. But they definitely do not have MS, nor do they have RA [rheumatoid arthritis], and likewise your MS patients don’t have lupus. What’s up with all these diseases potentially being linked to EBV?”
A missing piece of the puzzle?
In a discussion period, Dr. Ascherio responded to Dr. Robinson by saying he’s waiting to see evidence that patients with the other diseases linked to EBV don’t develop them if they’re EBV-negative. Dr. Ascherio added that it’s possible that there are different strains of EBV, and some may be more likely to cause MS.
What does this all mean for MS prevention? In a commentary published with Dr. Ascherio’s 2022 study, Dr. Robinson and a coauthor asked: “Would a vaccine against EBV protect against MS? Can the B cells that dwell in the CSF be killed or inactivated with therapeutics? Would antivirals that target EBV provide effective therapy, especially when given early in the course of disease? Now that the initial trigger for MS has been identified, perhaps MS could be eradicated.”
Dr. Ascherio discloses speaker/consultant relationships with Prada Foundation, WebMD, Biogen, Moderna, Merck, Roche, and GSK. Dr. Robinson discloses unspecified relationships with Altreca and Flatiron Bio, and he is a coinventor on a patent application filed by Stanford University that includes antibodies to EBV.
MILAN – in a joint presentation at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Armed with the findings of his own landmark 2022 study into EBV and MS, Harvard Medical School, Boston, professor of medicine Alberto Ascherio, MD, DrPH, argued that they’re tightly connected. But rheumatologist William H. Robinson, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, said that while he also believes EBV plays a significant role in MS, “there’s likely a role for a second hit” – some other factor. “Why are 95% of us EBV-infected, but only a small subset ultimately develop MS or ... other autoimmune diseases?”
As a 2023 review noted, researchers have puzzled over the connection between EBV and MS since the early 1980s. “Until that point, EBV was primarily viewed as a cancer-causing agent, but the culmination of evidence now shows that EBV has a pivotal role in development of MS.” But it’s not clear how EBV – which strikes more than an estimated 95% of humans and causes mononucleosis – manages to trigger MS.
A rare complication of EBV infection
In the 2022 study, Dr. Ascherio aimed to understand exactly how deeply EBV and MS are connected by analyzing serum data gathered from more than 10 million active-duty members of the U.S. military. Of those, 955 were diagnosed with MS.
The researchers focused on 801 subjects with MS and matched them to 1,566 controls. Only 1 of the 801 subjects with MS had a negative EBV test prior to diagnosis, a fact that researchers believe could be due to a factor such as a failure to seroconvert during infection. “At baseline, 35 MS cases and 107 controls were EBV-negative,” the study reported. “All but one of these 35 EBV-negative MS cases became infected with EBV during the follow-up.”
Overall, subjects who were positive for EBV were 32.4 times to develop MS than those who weren’t (95% confidence interval, 4.3-245.3; P < 0.001).
Is it possible that immune dysregulation from MS precedes EBV infection? The researchers analyzed viruses in 30 subjects with MS – before and after MS onset – and in 30 controls. The findings suggested that EBV was the major player, Dr. Ascherio said.
Researchers also focused on cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, which is closely related to EBV and to the chicken pox virus. “CMV seroconversion is not associated with MS, and positivity for CMV at baseline was associated with a modestly lower risk of MS,” Dr. Ascherio said.
In the big picture, “this data establishes beyond reasonable doubt that MS is a rare complication of EBV infection,” Dr. Ascherio said. “The main question now is whether the virus triggers an immune process that then is self-maintained, or whether the presence of the infection keeps feeding the immune process.”
Inadequate evidence for causation
In his presentation, Dr. Robinson asked: “Does EBV cause MS? Really? All of MS? In humans [with MS], yes, we found monoclonal antibodies expressed by the B cells that bound to EBV. But we also found spinal fluid B cells and coding antibodies that bound to multiple other viruses, including rubella, VZV [varicella-zoster virus/chickenpox], CMV, and HSV [herpes simplex virus]. And there’s even a measles reactive antibody there.”
And there’s evidence that human herpes virus type 6 (HHV-6) and HHV-6A could be linked to MS: “Maybe HHV-6 or HHV-6A is the cause of MS in a subset of patients,” Dr. Robinson said. Research suggests that pox viruses could be another possible cause, he said.
He added: “I’m a rheumatologist, and I see patients in the clinic and in the hospital who have lupus, a disease highly associated with EBV infection. But they definitely do not have MS, nor do they have RA [rheumatoid arthritis], and likewise your MS patients don’t have lupus. What’s up with all these diseases potentially being linked to EBV?”
A missing piece of the puzzle?
In a discussion period, Dr. Ascherio responded to Dr. Robinson by saying he’s waiting to see evidence that patients with the other diseases linked to EBV don’t develop them if they’re EBV-negative. Dr. Ascherio added that it’s possible that there are different strains of EBV, and some may be more likely to cause MS.
What does this all mean for MS prevention? In a commentary published with Dr. Ascherio’s 2022 study, Dr. Robinson and a coauthor asked: “Would a vaccine against EBV protect against MS? Can the B cells that dwell in the CSF be killed or inactivated with therapeutics? Would antivirals that target EBV provide effective therapy, especially when given early in the course of disease? Now that the initial trigger for MS has been identified, perhaps MS could be eradicated.”
Dr. Ascherio discloses speaker/consultant relationships with Prada Foundation, WebMD, Biogen, Moderna, Merck, Roche, and GSK. Dr. Robinson discloses unspecified relationships with Altreca and Flatiron Bio, and he is a coinventor on a patent application filed by Stanford University that includes antibodies to EBV.
MILAN – in a joint presentation at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Armed with the findings of his own landmark 2022 study into EBV and MS, Harvard Medical School, Boston, professor of medicine Alberto Ascherio, MD, DrPH, argued that they’re tightly connected. But rheumatologist William H. Robinson, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, said that while he also believes EBV plays a significant role in MS, “there’s likely a role for a second hit” – some other factor. “Why are 95% of us EBV-infected, but only a small subset ultimately develop MS or ... other autoimmune diseases?”
As a 2023 review noted, researchers have puzzled over the connection between EBV and MS since the early 1980s. “Until that point, EBV was primarily viewed as a cancer-causing agent, but the culmination of evidence now shows that EBV has a pivotal role in development of MS.” But it’s not clear how EBV – which strikes more than an estimated 95% of humans and causes mononucleosis – manages to trigger MS.
A rare complication of EBV infection
In the 2022 study, Dr. Ascherio aimed to understand exactly how deeply EBV and MS are connected by analyzing serum data gathered from more than 10 million active-duty members of the U.S. military. Of those, 955 were diagnosed with MS.
The researchers focused on 801 subjects with MS and matched them to 1,566 controls. Only 1 of the 801 subjects with MS had a negative EBV test prior to diagnosis, a fact that researchers believe could be due to a factor such as a failure to seroconvert during infection. “At baseline, 35 MS cases and 107 controls were EBV-negative,” the study reported. “All but one of these 35 EBV-negative MS cases became infected with EBV during the follow-up.”
Overall, subjects who were positive for EBV were 32.4 times to develop MS than those who weren’t (95% confidence interval, 4.3-245.3; P < 0.001).
Is it possible that immune dysregulation from MS precedes EBV infection? The researchers analyzed viruses in 30 subjects with MS – before and after MS onset – and in 30 controls. The findings suggested that EBV was the major player, Dr. Ascherio said.
Researchers also focused on cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, which is closely related to EBV and to the chicken pox virus. “CMV seroconversion is not associated with MS, and positivity for CMV at baseline was associated with a modestly lower risk of MS,” Dr. Ascherio said.
In the big picture, “this data establishes beyond reasonable doubt that MS is a rare complication of EBV infection,” Dr. Ascherio said. “The main question now is whether the virus triggers an immune process that then is self-maintained, or whether the presence of the infection keeps feeding the immune process.”
Inadequate evidence for causation
In his presentation, Dr. Robinson asked: “Does EBV cause MS? Really? All of MS? In humans [with MS], yes, we found monoclonal antibodies expressed by the B cells that bound to EBV. But we also found spinal fluid B cells and coding antibodies that bound to multiple other viruses, including rubella, VZV [varicella-zoster virus/chickenpox], CMV, and HSV [herpes simplex virus]. And there’s even a measles reactive antibody there.”
And there’s evidence that human herpes virus type 6 (HHV-6) and HHV-6A could be linked to MS: “Maybe HHV-6 or HHV-6A is the cause of MS in a subset of patients,” Dr. Robinson said. Research suggests that pox viruses could be another possible cause, he said.
He added: “I’m a rheumatologist, and I see patients in the clinic and in the hospital who have lupus, a disease highly associated with EBV infection. But they definitely do not have MS, nor do they have RA [rheumatoid arthritis], and likewise your MS patients don’t have lupus. What’s up with all these diseases potentially being linked to EBV?”
A missing piece of the puzzle?
In a discussion period, Dr. Ascherio responded to Dr. Robinson by saying he’s waiting to see evidence that patients with the other diseases linked to EBV don’t develop them if they’re EBV-negative. Dr. Ascherio added that it’s possible that there are different strains of EBV, and some may be more likely to cause MS.
What does this all mean for MS prevention? In a commentary published with Dr. Ascherio’s 2022 study, Dr. Robinson and a coauthor asked: “Would a vaccine against EBV protect against MS? Can the B cells that dwell in the CSF be killed or inactivated with therapeutics? Would antivirals that target EBV provide effective therapy, especially when given early in the course of disease? Now that the initial trigger for MS has been identified, perhaps MS could be eradicated.”
Dr. Ascherio discloses speaker/consultant relationships with Prada Foundation, WebMD, Biogen, Moderna, Merck, Roche, and GSK. Dr. Robinson discloses unspecified relationships with Altreca and Flatiron Bio, and he is a coinventor on a patent application filed by Stanford University that includes antibodies to EBV.
AT ECTRIMS 2023
Stem cell transplants in early MS: Who benefits most?
MILAN – researchers told colleagues at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting. But there’s no consensus over best practices.
“Is this a good alternative regarding treatment efficacy and risk? When should we switch from standard treatment? Should we switch from a low-efficacy treatment, from a previous high-efficacy treatment, or from two or more? There is no agreement on this at the moment,” said neurologist Lars Bø, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Bergen (Norway).
However, rapid conversion to efficient treatment in the early stages of disease is turning out to be crucial, Dr. Bø said. “Early inflammatory activity has lasting effects. A delay from less than 2 years to 4-6 years has implications for disability.”
Where does HSCT fit in? According to Dr. Bø, a 2017 study found that newer treatments bring up to 50% of patients to no evidence of disease activity at 2 years compared with 70%-90% for HSCT. That study reported that “optimal candidates ... are young, ambulatory, and have inflammatory-active relapsing remitting MS.”
But other research is presenting a different picture with “data that doesn’t show such a clear-cut difference.” Dr. Bø highlighted a study published earlier this year that found that HSCT was “considerably superior” to fingolimod and “marginally superior” to natalizumab, but was not superior to ocrelizumab over shorter periods of time. As a result, “there is a need for further randomized trials comparing [HSCT] with these newer medications.”
Would it make sense to treat all younger patients with highly active MS? Research does suggest that “there’s a significant benefit in what we describe as aggressive [disease], high-disability, young age, very short disease lengths,” said neurologist Richard Nicholas, MBBS, of Imperial College London, in a separate presentation.
However, he cautioned that not everyone with highly active MS may be appropriate for HSCT. “That number could be as high as 15%, and “that’s a rather large group of people who would be treated with this therapy.” He suggested focusing on “the most important features”: “two or more relapses and also rapid accrual of disabilities.”
Dr. Nicholas also noted the findings of a study that he coauthored into HSCT versus alemtuzumab and ocrelizumab. The findings of that study were released at ECTRIMS and presented by neurologist Antonio Scalfari, MD, PhD, of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust.
The researchers tracked 103 patients after stem cell transplants (median, 45 months), 204 patients on alemtuzumab (median, 45 months), and 314 patients on ocrelizumab (median, 35 months). Those who received transplants had a 74% lower risk of relapse versus alemtuzumab, and a 66% lower risk of new MS activity detected via MRI. Compared with ocrelizumab, patients who received stem cell transplants had a 60% lower risk of relapse but the same risk of MS activity detected via MRI.
The researchers noted that the patients who underwent stem cell transplantation had numerous adverse effects.
What happens now? “HSCT should be available for our MS patients when standard treatment is no longer effective,” Dr. Bø said. “When treatment options are limited, it is likely to have a good effect in younger patients with a shorter disease duration and a low disability.”
He added that “there is an increasing use of high-efficacy treatment early in RRMS [relapsing-remitting MS], and this may make the subgroup with indication for HSCT as a rescue therapy smaller.”
Meanwhile, he said, “demonstrating a higher efficacy may require larger studies and a combined analysis of data from the ongoing randomized trials. Also, there is a need for follow-up longer than 2 or 3 years for the estimation of cost versus benefit for this treatment.”
Dr. Bø disclosed receiving speaker fees from Novartis and consulting fees from Viatris. Dr. Nicholas disclosed speaker advisory board relationships with Roche and Novartis.
MILAN – researchers told colleagues at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting. But there’s no consensus over best practices.
“Is this a good alternative regarding treatment efficacy and risk? When should we switch from standard treatment? Should we switch from a low-efficacy treatment, from a previous high-efficacy treatment, or from two or more? There is no agreement on this at the moment,” said neurologist Lars Bø, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Bergen (Norway).
However, rapid conversion to efficient treatment in the early stages of disease is turning out to be crucial, Dr. Bø said. “Early inflammatory activity has lasting effects. A delay from less than 2 years to 4-6 years has implications for disability.”
Where does HSCT fit in? According to Dr. Bø, a 2017 study found that newer treatments bring up to 50% of patients to no evidence of disease activity at 2 years compared with 70%-90% for HSCT. That study reported that “optimal candidates ... are young, ambulatory, and have inflammatory-active relapsing remitting MS.”
But other research is presenting a different picture with “data that doesn’t show such a clear-cut difference.” Dr. Bø highlighted a study published earlier this year that found that HSCT was “considerably superior” to fingolimod and “marginally superior” to natalizumab, but was not superior to ocrelizumab over shorter periods of time. As a result, “there is a need for further randomized trials comparing [HSCT] with these newer medications.”
Would it make sense to treat all younger patients with highly active MS? Research does suggest that “there’s a significant benefit in what we describe as aggressive [disease], high-disability, young age, very short disease lengths,” said neurologist Richard Nicholas, MBBS, of Imperial College London, in a separate presentation.
However, he cautioned that not everyone with highly active MS may be appropriate for HSCT. “That number could be as high as 15%, and “that’s a rather large group of people who would be treated with this therapy.” He suggested focusing on “the most important features”: “two or more relapses and also rapid accrual of disabilities.”
Dr. Nicholas also noted the findings of a study that he coauthored into HSCT versus alemtuzumab and ocrelizumab. The findings of that study were released at ECTRIMS and presented by neurologist Antonio Scalfari, MD, PhD, of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust.
The researchers tracked 103 patients after stem cell transplants (median, 45 months), 204 patients on alemtuzumab (median, 45 months), and 314 patients on ocrelizumab (median, 35 months). Those who received transplants had a 74% lower risk of relapse versus alemtuzumab, and a 66% lower risk of new MS activity detected via MRI. Compared with ocrelizumab, patients who received stem cell transplants had a 60% lower risk of relapse but the same risk of MS activity detected via MRI.
The researchers noted that the patients who underwent stem cell transplantation had numerous adverse effects.
What happens now? “HSCT should be available for our MS patients when standard treatment is no longer effective,” Dr. Bø said. “When treatment options are limited, it is likely to have a good effect in younger patients with a shorter disease duration and a low disability.”
He added that “there is an increasing use of high-efficacy treatment early in RRMS [relapsing-remitting MS], and this may make the subgroup with indication for HSCT as a rescue therapy smaller.”
Meanwhile, he said, “demonstrating a higher efficacy may require larger studies and a combined analysis of data from the ongoing randomized trials. Also, there is a need for follow-up longer than 2 or 3 years for the estimation of cost versus benefit for this treatment.”
Dr. Bø disclosed receiving speaker fees from Novartis and consulting fees from Viatris. Dr. Nicholas disclosed speaker advisory board relationships with Roche and Novartis.
MILAN – researchers told colleagues at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting. But there’s no consensus over best practices.
“Is this a good alternative regarding treatment efficacy and risk? When should we switch from standard treatment? Should we switch from a low-efficacy treatment, from a previous high-efficacy treatment, or from two or more? There is no agreement on this at the moment,” said neurologist Lars Bø, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Bergen (Norway).
However, rapid conversion to efficient treatment in the early stages of disease is turning out to be crucial, Dr. Bø said. “Early inflammatory activity has lasting effects. A delay from less than 2 years to 4-6 years has implications for disability.”
Where does HSCT fit in? According to Dr. Bø, a 2017 study found that newer treatments bring up to 50% of patients to no evidence of disease activity at 2 years compared with 70%-90% for HSCT. That study reported that “optimal candidates ... are young, ambulatory, and have inflammatory-active relapsing remitting MS.”
But other research is presenting a different picture with “data that doesn’t show such a clear-cut difference.” Dr. Bø highlighted a study published earlier this year that found that HSCT was “considerably superior” to fingolimod and “marginally superior” to natalizumab, but was not superior to ocrelizumab over shorter periods of time. As a result, “there is a need for further randomized trials comparing [HSCT] with these newer medications.”
Would it make sense to treat all younger patients with highly active MS? Research does suggest that “there’s a significant benefit in what we describe as aggressive [disease], high-disability, young age, very short disease lengths,” said neurologist Richard Nicholas, MBBS, of Imperial College London, in a separate presentation.
However, he cautioned that not everyone with highly active MS may be appropriate for HSCT. “That number could be as high as 15%, and “that’s a rather large group of people who would be treated with this therapy.” He suggested focusing on “the most important features”: “two or more relapses and also rapid accrual of disabilities.”
Dr. Nicholas also noted the findings of a study that he coauthored into HSCT versus alemtuzumab and ocrelizumab. The findings of that study were released at ECTRIMS and presented by neurologist Antonio Scalfari, MD, PhD, of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust.
The researchers tracked 103 patients after stem cell transplants (median, 45 months), 204 patients on alemtuzumab (median, 45 months), and 314 patients on ocrelizumab (median, 35 months). Those who received transplants had a 74% lower risk of relapse versus alemtuzumab, and a 66% lower risk of new MS activity detected via MRI. Compared with ocrelizumab, patients who received stem cell transplants had a 60% lower risk of relapse but the same risk of MS activity detected via MRI.
The researchers noted that the patients who underwent stem cell transplantation had numerous adverse effects.
What happens now? “HSCT should be available for our MS patients when standard treatment is no longer effective,” Dr. Bø said. “When treatment options are limited, it is likely to have a good effect in younger patients with a shorter disease duration and a low disability.”
He added that “there is an increasing use of high-efficacy treatment early in RRMS [relapsing-remitting MS], and this may make the subgroup with indication for HSCT as a rescue therapy smaller.”
Meanwhile, he said, “demonstrating a higher efficacy may require larger studies and a combined analysis of data from the ongoing randomized trials. Also, there is a need for follow-up longer than 2 or 3 years for the estimation of cost versus benefit for this treatment.”
Dr. Bø disclosed receiving speaker fees from Novartis and consulting fees from Viatris. Dr. Nicholas disclosed speaker advisory board relationships with Roche and Novartis.
AT ECTRIMS 2023
MS-tailored weight loss program achieves meaningful results
MILAN – results of a new trial show.
Seventy patients with MS and a high body mass index (BMI) were randomized to receive a multifaceted weight loss program or treatment as usual, resulting in almost two-thirds of the intervention group patients losing at least 5% of their body weight.
“Our weight loss intervention achieved clinically significant weight loss and improved mental quality of life,” said study presenter Sharon G. Lynch, MD, professor in the department of neurology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.
The results also showed weight loss “was associated with improved mobility, reduced fatigability, and improved physical quality of life.”
The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Obesity linked to MS progression
Dr. Lynch noted that almost 40% of people with MS have comorbid obesity, and that obesity “is associated with developing MS in some studies, and also disease progression.” Moreover, MS and obesity share common chronic symptoms, particularly mobility problems, depression, fatigue, and reduced quality of life.
Despite this, no randomized controlled trials have been specifically designed to help people with MS lose weight, he noted.
The team therefore examined the efficacy of a behavioral weight loss program designed for patients with the disease, as well as the impact of weight loss on mobility and other chronic symptoms.
The participants were required to be English speaking, with access to a telephone and/or computer, and to have a confirmed diagnosis of MS. They also had to be aged 18-70 years, have a BMI of 29-50 kg/m2, and have a Patient-Determined Disease Steps (PDDS) score of less than 4.
The patients were randomly assigned to receive either a weight loss intervention or brief health education and treatment as usual. They were assessed at 6 months to measure their weight loss, mobility, and self-reported quality of life and perceived fatigability.
Dr. Lynch said the intervention was “fairly time intensive,” with an hour-long telehealth group weight loss session every week for 24 weeks, as well as monthly individual sessions for 6 months.
The participants were provided with a Fitbit activity tracker, a set of Bluetooth-enabled weighing scales, and access to the Lose It! weight loss app.
Caloric restriction was encouraged, with a focus on increasing intake of fruits and vegetables, alongside a target of 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity, in line with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and American Heart Association recommendations.
Significant loss in body weight
Seventy individuals with MS took part in the trial, of whom 83% were female and 88% were White, 9% African American, and 3% Hispanic or Latino. The mean age was 46.7 years, and the mean number of years in education was 11.8.
The vast majority (96%) of the participants had relapsing remitting MS, at a mean disease duration of 10.9 years, and 82% had a score of 0 or 1 on the PDDS.
Dr. Lynch showed that participants in the intervention group lost, over the course of the study, 8.6% of their total body weight, compared with a loss of 0.7% among controls (P < .001).
Moreover, 65% of the intervention group lost at least 5% of their body weight, whereas 41% lost at least 10% of their body weight, which again was significantly higher than that seen in the control group (P < .001).
There was also a significant increase in moderate to vigorous physical activity in the intervention group as measured by accelerometry (P < .05), although Dr. Lynch pointed out this “did not necessarily correlate with their weight loss.”
Dr. Lynch showed there were significant differences across a range of anthropometric measures from baseline to follow-up between the intervention and control groups.
The adjusted difference in weight loss between the intervention and control participants was 7.8 kg, whereas the difference in reduction of BMI was 2.7 (P = .001 for both).
There was also a significant difference in the reduction in waist-to-hip ratio between the groups, at 0.033 in favor of the intervention, as well as a difference in the reduction in fat tissue, at 3.1% (P = .001 for both).
Further analyses showed weight loss was associated with significant improvements on the 6-minute walk test, at an r value of 0.48 (P = .015), and in the 25-foot walk test (r = 0.42; P = .015). Weight loss was also linked to reductions in perceived fatigability (r = 0.48; P = .005).
Dr. Lynch also reported that a 5% reduction in body weight was associated with a “clinically meaningful” improvement of 50 meters on the 6-minute walk test.
Finally, it was found the intervention was associated with a significant improvement in mental quality of life (P = .01), whereas weight loss specifically was linked to improved physical quality of life (P = .02).
“We believe that future studies should examine weight loss in people with MS who have more advanced disability,” Dr. Lynch said, and “we should examine the effects of weight loss on the underlying disease processes.”
She added they also “need to follow the patient for longer and see if they can maintain their weight loss.”
Emphasizing the social side of interventions
Session cochair Brian M. Sandroff, PhD, director of the Exercise Neurorehabilitation Research Laboratory at the Kessler Foundation, East Hanover, N.J., commented that the results are “really exciting.”
He said that the improvements across the range of measures assessed in the study were not surprising, “considering the intervention was multicomponent, and so had the potential to affect a number of different physical and cognitive domains.”
One factor in managing MS that came up again and again during the discussion at the end of the session was the social aspect of interventions, with Dr. Lynch saying the group sessions in particular were appreciated by participants in her trial.
Dr. Sandroff, who was not involved in the study, said that it has been questioned whether the social side should be controlled for when assessing interventions, or “maybe it’s something we should promote within our studies.”
He explained that being social “overcomes a lot of isolation-related issues among people with MS who have comorbidities,” which can result in “reduced quality of life and differences in symptomatic manifestations.”
“Providing that group setting might have lots of outcomes besides just a biological loss of mass” because of the intervention itself, Dr. Sandroff said.
The study was supported by grants from the National MS Society. Dr. Lynch declares relationships with Biogen, Genzyme, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis, Celgene, Roche, Immunic, National Institutes of Health, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Anokion, TG Therapeutics, and Actelion. Other authors also declared relationships. Dr. Sandroff declared no relevant relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MILAN – results of a new trial show.
Seventy patients with MS and a high body mass index (BMI) were randomized to receive a multifaceted weight loss program or treatment as usual, resulting in almost two-thirds of the intervention group patients losing at least 5% of their body weight.
“Our weight loss intervention achieved clinically significant weight loss and improved mental quality of life,” said study presenter Sharon G. Lynch, MD, professor in the department of neurology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.
The results also showed weight loss “was associated with improved mobility, reduced fatigability, and improved physical quality of life.”
The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Obesity linked to MS progression
Dr. Lynch noted that almost 40% of people with MS have comorbid obesity, and that obesity “is associated with developing MS in some studies, and also disease progression.” Moreover, MS and obesity share common chronic symptoms, particularly mobility problems, depression, fatigue, and reduced quality of life.
Despite this, no randomized controlled trials have been specifically designed to help people with MS lose weight, he noted.
The team therefore examined the efficacy of a behavioral weight loss program designed for patients with the disease, as well as the impact of weight loss on mobility and other chronic symptoms.
The participants were required to be English speaking, with access to a telephone and/or computer, and to have a confirmed diagnosis of MS. They also had to be aged 18-70 years, have a BMI of 29-50 kg/m2, and have a Patient-Determined Disease Steps (PDDS) score of less than 4.
The patients were randomly assigned to receive either a weight loss intervention or brief health education and treatment as usual. They were assessed at 6 months to measure their weight loss, mobility, and self-reported quality of life and perceived fatigability.
Dr. Lynch said the intervention was “fairly time intensive,” with an hour-long telehealth group weight loss session every week for 24 weeks, as well as monthly individual sessions for 6 months.
The participants were provided with a Fitbit activity tracker, a set of Bluetooth-enabled weighing scales, and access to the Lose It! weight loss app.
Caloric restriction was encouraged, with a focus on increasing intake of fruits and vegetables, alongside a target of 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity, in line with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and American Heart Association recommendations.
Significant loss in body weight
Seventy individuals with MS took part in the trial, of whom 83% were female and 88% were White, 9% African American, and 3% Hispanic or Latino. The mean age was 46.7 years, and the mean number of years in education was 11.8.
The vast majority (96%) of the participants had relapsing remitting MS, at a mean disease duration of 10.9 years, and 82% had a score of 0 or 1 on the PDDS.
Dr. Lynch showed that participants in the intervention group lost, over the course of the study, 8.6% of their total body weight, compared with a loss of 0.7% among controls (P < .001).
Moreover, 65% of the intervention group lost at least 5% of their body weight, whereas 41% lost at least 10% of their body weight, which again was significantly higher than that seen in the control group (P < .001).
There was also a significant increase in moderate to vigorous physical activity in the intervention group as measured by accelerometry (P < .05), although Dr. Lynch pointed out this “did not necessarily correlate with their weight loss.”
Dr. Lynch showed there were significant differences across a range of anthropometric measures from baseline to follow-up between the intervention and control groups.
The adjusted difference in weight loss between the intervention and control participants was 7.8 kg, whereas the difference in reduction of BMI was 2.7 (P = .001 for both).
There was also a significant difference in the reduction in waist-to-hip ratio between the groups, at 0.033 in favor of the intervention, as well as a difference in the reduction in fat tissue, at 3.1% (P = .001 for both).
Further analyses showed weight loss was associated with significant improvements on the 6-minute walk test, at an r value of 0.48 (P = .015), and in the 25-foot walk test (r = 0.42; P = .015). Weight loss was also linked to reductions in perceived fatigability (r = 0.48; P = .005).
Dr. Lynch also reported that a 5% reduction in body weight was associated with a “clinically meaningful” improvement of 50 meters on the 6-minute walk test.
Finally, it was found the intervention was associated with a significant improvement in mental quality of life (P = .01), whereas weight loss specifically was linked to improved physical quality of life (P = .02).
“We believe that future studies should examine weight loss in people with MS who have more advanced disability,” Dr. Lynch said, and “we should examine the effects of weight loss on the underlying disease processes.”
She added they also “need to follow the patient for longer and see if they can maintain their weight loss.”
Emphasizing the social side of interventions
Session cochair Brian M. Sandroff, PhD, director of the Exercise Neurorehabilitation Research Laboratory at the Kessler Foundation, East Hanover, N.J., commented that the results are “really exciting.”
He said that the improvements across the range of measures assessed in the study were not surprising, “considering the intervention was multicomponent, and so had the potential to affect a number of different physical and cognitive domains.”
One factor in managing MS that came up again and again during the discussion at the end of the session was the social aspect of interventions, with Dr. Lynch saying the group sessions in particular were appreciated by participants in her trial.
Dr. Sandroff, who was not involved in the study, said that it has been questioned whether the social side should be controlled for when assessing interventions, or “maybe it’s something we should promote within our studies.”
He explained that being social “overcomes a lot of isolation-related issues among people with MS who have comorbidities,” which can result in “reduced quality of life and differences in symptomatic manifestations.”
“Providing that group setting might have lots of outcomes besides just a biological loss of mass” because of the intervention itself, Dr. Sandroff said.
The study was supported by grants from the National MS Society. Dr. Lynch declares relationships with Biogen, Genzyme, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis, Celgene, Roche, Immunic, National Institutes of Health, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Anokion, TG Therapeutics, and Actelion. Other authors also declared relationships. Dr. Sandroff declared no relevant relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MILAN – results of a new trial show.
Seventy patients with MS and a high body mass index (BMI) were randomized to receive a multifaceted weight loss program or treatment as usual, resulting in almost two-thirds of the intervention group patients losing at least 5% of their body weight.
“Our weight loss intervention achieved clinically significant weight loss and improved mental quality of life,” said study presenter Sharon G. Lynch, MD, professor in the department of neurology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.
The results also showed weight loss “was associated with improved mobility, reduced fatigability, and improved physical quality of life.”
The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Obesity linked to MS progression
Dr. Lynch noted that almost 40% of people with MS have comorbid obesity, and that obesity “is associated with developing MS in some studies, and also disease progression.” Moreover, MS and obesity share common chronic symptoms, particularly mobility problems, depression, fatigue, and reduced quality of life.
Despite this, no randomized controlled trials have been specifically designed to help people with MS lose weight, he noted.
The team therefore examined the efficacy of a behavioral weight loss program designed for patients with the disease, as well as the impact of weight loss on mobility and other chronic symptoms.
The participants were required to be English speaking, with access to a telephone and/or computer, and to have a confirmed diagnosis of MS. They also had to be aged 18-70 years, have a BMI of 29-50 kg/m2, and have a Patient-Determined Disease Steps (PDDS) score of less than 4.
The patients were randomly assigned to receive either a weight loss intervention or brief health education and treatment as usual. They were assessed at 6 months to measure their weight loss, mobility, and self-reported quality of life and perceived fatigability.
Dr. Lynch said the intervention was “fairly time intensive,” with an hour-long telehealth group weight loss session every week for 24 weeks, as well as monthly individual sessions for 6 months.
The participants were provided with a Fitbit activity tracker, a set of Bluetooth-enabled weighing scales, and access to the Lose It! weight loss app.
Caloric restriction was encouraged, with a focus on increasing intake of fruits and vegetables, alongside a target of 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity, in line with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and American Heart Association recommendations.
Significant loss in body weight
Seventy individuals with MS took part in the trial, of whom 83% were female and 88% were White, 9% African American, and 3% Hispanic or Latino. The mean age was 46.7 years, and the mean number of years in education was 11.8.
The vast majority (96%) of the participants had relapsing remitting MS, at a mean disease duration of 10.9 years, and 82% had a score of 0 or 1 on the PDDS.
Dr. Lynch showed that participants in the intervention group lost, over the course of the study, 8.6% of their total body weight, compared with a loss of 0.7% among controls (P < .001).
Moreover, 65% of the intervention group lost at least 5% of their body weight, whereas 41% lost at least 10% of their body weight, which again was significantly higher than that seen in the control group (P < .001).
There was also a significant increase in moderate to vigorous physical activity in the intervention group as measured by accelerometry (P < .05), although Dr. Lynch pointed out this “did not necessarily correlate with their weight loss.”
Dr. Lynch showed there were significant differences across a range of anthropometric measures from baseline to follow-up between the intervention and control groups.
The adjusted difference in weight loss between the intervention and control participants was 7.8 kg, whereas the difference in reduction of BMI was 2.7 (P = .001 for both).
There was also a significant difference in the reduction in waist-to-hip ratio between the groups, at 0.033 in favor of the intervention, as well as a difference in the reduction in fat tissue, at 3.1% (P = .001 for both).
Further analyses showed weight loss was associated with significant improvements on the 6-minute walk test, at an r value of 0.48 (P = .015), and in the 25-foot walk test (r = 0.42; P = .015). Weight loss was also linked to reductions in perceived fatigability (r = 0.48; P = .005).
Dr. Lynch also reported that a 5% reduction in body weight was associated with a “clinically meaningful” improvement of 50 meters on the 6-minute walk test.
Finally, it was found the intervention was associated with a significant improvement in mental quality of life (P = .01), whereas weight loss specifically was linked to improved physical quality of life (P = .02).
“We believe that future studies should examine weight loss in people with MS who have more advanced disability,” Dr. Lynch said, and “we should examine the effects of weight loss on the underlying disease processes.”
She added they also “need to follow the patient for longer and see if they can maintain their weight loss.”
Emphasizing the social side of interventions
Session cochair Brian M. Sandroff, PhD, director of the Exercise Neurorehabilitation Research Laboratory at the Kessler Foundation, East Hanover, N.J., commented that the results are “really exciting.”
He said that the improvements across the range of measures assessed in the study were not surprising, “considering the intervention was multicomponent, and so had the potential to affect a number of different physical and cognitive domains.”
One factor in managing MS that came up again and again during the discussion at the end of the session was the social aspect of interventions, with Dr. Lynch saying the group sessions in particular were appreciated by participants in her trial.
Dr. Sandroff, who was not involved in the study, said that it has been questioned whether the social side should be controlled for when assessing interventions, or “maybe it’s something we should promote within our studies.”
He explained that being social “overcomes a lot of isolation-related issues among people with MS who have comorbidities,” which can result in “reduced quality of life and differences in symptomatic manifestations.”
“Providing that group setting might have lots of outcomes besides just a biological loss of mass” because of the intervention itself, Dr. Sandroff said.
The study was supported by grants from the National MS Society. Dr. Lynch declares relationships with Biogen, Genzyme, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis, Celgene, Roche, Immunic, National Institutes of Health, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Anokion, TG Therapeutics, and Actelion. Other authors also declared relationships. Dr. Sandroff declared no relevant relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ECTRIMS 2023
‘We’re halfway home’: UCSF’s Dr. Stephen Hauser sketches MS future
MILAN – University of California, San Francisco, neurology professor Stephen Hauser, MD, told colleagues in a highlighted lecture at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Going forward, the MS field should emphasize identifying early biomarkers of MS, Dr. Hauser said.
He noted that many experts had anticipated “that, if we could intervene early in the relapsing phase of the disease, we would stabilize neurodegeneration and patient disability. But one of the big surprises was that that was not the case. Instead, the observed course was that by silencing relapses and focal inflammation, a clinically silent, slow, insidious progression continues during the relapsing phase of disease in patients who are not having ongoing relapses.”
Even as focal activity detected via MRI is silenced, “progression continues” he said. “This remains the great unsolved challenge.”
Dr. Hauser asked colleagues to consider a three-stage model of MS that begins with benign autoimmunity followed by pathogenic autoimmunity with subclinical tissue damage. The third stage is clinical autoimmunity.
How can you determine who’s at risk? Genetics can only fill in part of the picture because they can’t pinpoint exactly who’s likely to develop the disease. “In other autoimmune diseases, serologic autoantibodies have been by far the most effective biomarkers,” he said. “There is real-world support – not only in mice – for the concept that autoimmunity begins as a highly focused immune response that then spreads over time.”
In systemic lupus erythematosus, the cascade toward disease begins about 9 years before clinical presentation, he said. It’s 7 months in type 1 diabetes, and 20 years in rheumatoid arthritis. “These have been enormously powerful in designing both observational and therapeutic studies to try to interrupt autoimmunity at the earliest possible stage.”
What can be done if a MS biomarker is developed and shows that a person is at risk? Dr. Hauser highlighted how the anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab has been developed – and Food and Drug Administration approved – to greatly reduce the risk of type 1 diabetes in high-risk patients. Per a 2021 study, a single-14-day course of the drug was linked to lowering the risk of disease over a median 923 days by more than 50% (hazard ratio, 0.457; P < 0.01). Half of those who received the drug were free of diabetes versus just 22% of those treated by placebo.
“We’ve not yet had those serologic biomarkers in MS. But I’d like to show you that maybe we are getting close to having them,” Dr. Hauser said. He pointed to new research into a U.S. Department of Defense serum repository that’s turned up “a pretty rock-solid prediagnostic biomarker specific to MS.”
Moving on to therapy, Dr. Hauser said it’s clear that “the earlier that we treat, the more likely we are to have a large response. Highly effective therapies delivered as first-line therapies have better long-term outcomes for disability then does a graded approach that doesn’t begin with high-efficacy therapy.”
What constitutes a cure?
What else needs to be done going forward? Dr. Hauser called for the MS field to develop a definition of cure. “We should take the lead from cancer therapeutics, where they define what a cure means.” In B-cell leukemia, for example, patients are considered cured “if they remain completely disease-free in terms of clinical symptoms and biomarkers of clonal proliferation for 4 years. They have less than a 1% lifetime risk of relapse. They’re essentially cured. Our equivalent could also be developed for MS.”
He highlighted the IMPACT MS phase 4 trial, a small single-center study of ocrelizumab, which just finished enrollment and will examine the effect of the drug on treatment-naive patients at the moment of their first-ever attack. The primary endpoint is oligoclonal bands in 3 years. “I think more of these studies will probably follow,” Dr. Hauser said.
Is intervention possible at the presymptomatic stage? Targets could be members of families with multiple affected relatives who test positive for the predictive antibody signature and who have a high genetic score, he said. “We could do perhaps an Epstein-Barr virus intervention trial in this population. Then, if we have the courage and are more confident in our biomarkers, perhaps even a therapeutic trial, as has been done in these other diseases.”
As for next-generation therapies, “we’ll need to neutralize multiple cell types, especially in later disease,” he said. Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors “seem to be a class of drugs that was designed for the MS patient because they not only hit B cells, but also the plasmablasts that CD20s don’t hit and are the main component of the humoral pathology in chronic MS lesions.”
Dr. Hauser discloses scientific board (Accure, Alector, Annexon), board of directors (Neurona), consulting (BD, Moderna, NGM Bio), and travel reimbursement/writing support (Roche and Novartis).
MILAN – University of California, San Francisco, neurology professor Stephen Hauser, MD, told colleagues in a highlighted lecture at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Going forward, the MS field should emphasize identifying early biomarkers of MS, Dr. Hauser said.
He noted that many experts had anticipated “that, if we could intervene early in the relapsing phase of the disease, we would stabilize neurodegeneration and patient disability. But one of the big surprises was that that was not the case. Instead, the observed course was that by silencing relapses and focal inflammation, a clinically silent, slow, insidious progression continues during the relapsing phase of disease in patients who are not having ongoing relapses.”
Even as focal activity detected via MRI is silenced, “progression continues” he said. “This remains the great unsolved challenge.”
Dr. Hauser asked colleagues to consider a three-stage model of MS that begins with benign autoimmunity followed by pathogenic autoimmunity with subclinical tissue damage. The third stage is clinical autoimmunity.
How can you determine who’s at risk? Genetics can only fill in part of the picture because they can’t pinpoint exactly who’s likely to develop the disease. “In other autoimmune diseases, serologic autoantibodies have been by far the most effective biomarkers,” he said. “There is real-world support – not only in mice – for the concept that autoimmunity begins as a highly focused immune response that then spreads over time.”
In systemic lupus erythematosus, the cascade toward disease begins about 9 years before clinical presentation, he said. It’s 7 months in type 1 diabetes, and 20 years in rheumatoid arthritis. “These have been enormously powerful in designing both observational and therapeutic studies to try to interrupt autoimmunity at the earliest possible stage.”
What can be done if a MS biomarker is developed and shows that a person is at risk? Dr. Hauser highlighted how the anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab has been developed – and Food and Drug Administration approved – to greatly reduce the risk of type 1 diabetes in high-risk patients. Per a 2021 study, a single-14-day course of the drug was linked to lowering the risk of disease over a median 923 days by more than 50% (hazard ratio, 0.457; P < 0.01). Half of those who received the drug were free of diabetes versus just 22% of those treated by placebo.
“We’ve not yet had those serologic biomarkers in MS. But I’d like to show you that maybe we are getting close to having them,” Dr. Hauser said. He pointed to new research into a U.S. Department of Defense serum repository that’s turned up “a pretty rock-solid prediagnostic biomarker specific to MS.”
Moving on to therapy, Dr. Hauser said it’s clear that “the earlier that we treat, the more likely we are to have a large response. Highly effective therapies delivered as first-line therapies have better long-term outcomes for disability then does a graded approach that doesn’t begin with high-efficacy therapy.”
What constitutes a cure?
What else needs to be done going forward? Dr. Hauser called for the MS field to develop a definition of cure. “We should take the lead from cancer therapeutics, where they define what a cure means.” In B-cell leukemia, for example, patients are considered cured “if they remain completely disease-free in terms of clinical symptoms and biomarkers of clonal proliferation for 4 years. They have less than a 1% lifetime risk of relapse. They’re essentially cured. Our equivalent could also be developed for MS.”
He highlighted the IMPACT MS phase 4 trial, a small single-center study of ocrelizumab, which just finished enrollment and will examine the effect of the drug on treatment-naive patients at the moment of their first-ever attack. The primary endpoint is oligoclonal bands in 3 years. “I think more of these studies will probably follow,” Dr. Hauser said.
Is intervention possible at the presymptomatic stage? Targets could be members of families with multiple affected relatives who test positive for the predictive antibody signature and who have a high genetic score, he said. “We could do perhaps an Epstein-Barr virus intervention trial in this population. Then, if we have the courage and are more confident in our biomarkers, perhaps even a therapeutic trial, as has been done in these other diseases.”
As for next-generation therapies, “we’ll need to neutralize multiple cell types, especially in later disease,” he said. Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors “seem to be a class of drugs that was designed for the MS patient because they not only hit B cells, but also the plasmablasts that CD20s don’t hit and are the main component of the humoral pathology in chronic MS lesions.”
Dr. Hauser discloses scientific board (Accure, Alector, Annexon), board of directors (Neurona), consulting (BD, Moderna, NGM Bio), and travel reimbursement/writing support (Roche and Novartis).
MILAN – University of California, San Francisco, neurology professor Stephen Hauser, MD, told colleagues in a highlighted lecture at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Going forward, the MS field should emphasize identifying early biomarkers of MS, Dr. Hauser said.
He noted that many experts had anticipated “that, if we could intervene early in the relapsing phase of the disease, we would stabilize neurodegeneration and patient disability. But one of the big surprises was that that was not the case. Instead, the observed course was that by silencing relapses and focal inflammation, a clinically silent, slow, insidious progression continues during the relapsing phase of disease in patients who are not having ongoing relapses.”
Even as focal activity detected via MRI is silenced, “progression continues” he said. “This remains the great unsolved challenge.”
Dr. Hauser asked colleagues to consider a three-stage model of MS that begins with benign autoimmunity followed by pathogenic autoimmunity with subclinical tissue damage. The third stage is clinical autoimmunity.
How can you determine who’s at risk? Genetics can only fill in part of the picture because they can’t pinpoint exactly who’s likely to develop the disease. “In other autoimmune diseases, serologic autoantibodies have been by far the most effective biomarkers,” he said. “There is real-world support – not only in mice – for the concept that autoimmunity begins as a highly focused immune response that then spreads over time.”
In systemic lupus erythematosus, the cascade toward disease begins about 9 years before clinical presentation, he said. It’s 7 months in type 1 diabetes, and 20 years in rheumatoid arthritis. “These have been enormously powerful in designing both observational and therapeutic studies to try to interrupt autoimmunity at the earliest possible stage.”
What can be done if a MS biomarker is developed and shows that a person is at risk? Dr. Hauser highlighted how the anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab has been developed – and Food and Drug Administration approved – to greatly reduce the risk of type 1 diabetes in high-risk patients. Per a 2021 study, a single-14-day course of the drug was linked to lowering the risk of disease over a median 923 days by more than 50% (hazard ratio, 0.457; P < 0.01). Half of those who received the drug were free of diabetes versus just 22% of those treated by placebo.
“We’ve not yet had those serologic biomarkers in MS. But I’d like to show you that maybe we are getting close to having them,” Dr. Hauser said. He pointed to new research into a U.S. Department of Defense serum repository that’s turned up “a pretty rock-solid prediagnostic biomarker specific to MS.”
Moving on to therapy, Dr. Hauser said it’s clear that “the earlier that we treat, the more likely we are to have a large response. Highly effective therapies delivered as first-line therapies have better long-term outcomes for disability then does a graded approach that doesn’t begin with high-efficacy therapy.”
What constitutes a cure?
What else needs to be done going forward? Dr. Hauser called for the MS field to develop a definition of cure. “We should take the lead from cancer therapeutics, where they define what a cure means.” In B-cell leukemia, for example, patients are considered cured “if they remain completely disease-free in terms of clinical symptoms and biomarkers of clonal proliferation for 4 years. They have less than a 1% lifetime risk of relapse. They’re essentially cured. Our equivalent could also be developed for MS.”
He highlighted the IMPACT MS phase 4 trial, a small single-center study of ocrelizumab, which just finished enrollment and will examine the effect of the drug on treatment-naive patients at the moment of their first-ever attack. The primary endpoint is oligoclonal bands in 3 years. “I think more of these studies will probably follow,” Dr. Hauser said.
Is intervention possible at the presymptomatic stage? Targets could be members of families with multiple affected relatives who test positive for the predictive antibody signature and who have a high genetic score, he said. “We could do perhaps an Epstein-Barr virus intervention trial in this population. Then, if we have the courage and are more confident in our biomarkers, perhaps even a therapeutic trial, as has been done in these other diseases.”
As for next-generation therapies, “we’ll need to neutralize multiple cell types, especially in later disease,” he said. Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors “seem to be a class of drugs that was designed for the MS patient because they not only hit B cells, but also the plasmablasts that CD20s don’t hit and are the main component of the humoral pathology in chronic MS lesions.”
Dr. Hauser discloses scientific board (Accure, Alector, Annexon), board of directors (Neurona), consulting (BD, Moderna, NGM Bio), and travel reimbursement/writing support (Roche and Novartis).
AT ECTRIMS 2023
Next up in MS trials: More insight into progressive disease
MILAN – , neurologist Jeremy Chataway, MD, PhD, of University College London and Queen Square Multiple Sclerosis Center told colleagues at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
“They’re all very different, and I think that’s exciting,” he said. “It’s a rich trial environment.”
The problem: At a median of almost 3 years in treatment for primary progressive MS, “we know that about a third of patients will progress despite on being on anti-inflammatory treatment. The same is true for secondary progressive MS. That is the hard core of what we have to think about. We want to improve the efficacy gap between control and active.”
First, Dr. Chataway highlighted the MS-STAT2 trial of simvastatin (Zocor), an inexpensive statin used to lower cholesterol. He is one of the leaders of the 3-year, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, which is testing whether 80-mg daily doses of simvastatin will slow MS progression.
As Dr. Chataway noted, an earlier study – MS-STAT1 – found less brain atrophy in patients who took a high dose of the drug, which was “well tolerated and safe.”
Vascular morbidity drives disability and mortality in MS. “This is low-hanging fruit because we have the tools to do something about it,” he said. “There’s an opportunity here to add into our treatment paradigms across people with MS by actively treating their vascular comorbidity. It will have an effect.”
Recruitment for a trial of this approach is complete, and study results are expected in 2024 and 2025, Dr. Chataway said.
Another new study is exploring the possible effects of the antioxidant lipoic acid, also known as alpha-lipoic acid. As Dr. Chataway noted, a 2017 single-center, randomized, double-blind pilot study of daily oral 1,200 mg lipoic acid versus placebo linked the intervention to a dramatic lowering of brain atrophy – by about 50%.
The new LAPMS study, sponsored by the Veterans Administration, will explore whether lipoic acid affects walking ability, clinical outcome, and brain atrophy, Dr. Chataway said. Results from phase 2 are expected in a year or two, he said.
Dr. Chataway also highlighted one of his own trials, the OCTOPUS study, a multiarm, multistage study that will examine multiple drugs to treat progressive MS. It’s starting with metformin and will look at lipoic acid too, he said.
He also noted the phase 2 CALLIPER trial, which has completed enrollment and expects to provide top-line data in 2025. The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled will test vidofludimus calcium in patients with progressive MS.
Finally, Dr. Chataway highlighted the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on phase 2 NACPMS trial of n-acetyl cysteine and the phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of SAR443820, a central nervous system penetrant oral RIPK1 inhibitor.
Dr. Chataway discloses grants (UK Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Board, Health Technology Assessment, Multiple Sclerosis Trials Collaboration, and Rosetrees Trust), advisory board service (Azadyne, Biogen, Lucid, Janssen, Merck, NervGen, Novartis, and Roche), other support (National Institute of Health Research Support, University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centers funding scheme), and serving as an trial investigator (Canadian MS Society, Ionis, Novartis, and Roche).
MILAN – , neurologist Jeremy Chataway, MD, PhD, of University College London and Queen Square Multiple Sclerosis Center told colleagues at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
“They’re all very different, and I think that’s exciting,” he said. “It’s a rich trial environment.”
The problem: At a median of almost 3 years in treatment for primary progressive MS, “we know that about a third of patients will progress despite on being on anti-inflammatory treatment. The same is true for secondary progressive MS. That is the hard core of what we have to think about. We want to improve the efficacy gap between control and active.”
First, Dr. Chataway highlighted the MS-STAT2 trial of simvastatin (Zocor), an inexpensive statin used to lower cholesterol. He is one of the leaders of the 3-year, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, which is testing whether 80-mg daily doses of simvastatin will slow MS progression.
As Dr. Chataway noted, an earlier study – MS-STAT1 – found less brain atrophy in patients who took a high dose of the drug, which was “well tolerated and safe.”
Vascular morbidity drives disability and mortality in MS. “This is low-hanging fruit because we have the tools to do something about it,” he said. “There’s an opportunity here to add into our treatment paradigms across people with MS by actively treating their vascular comorbidity. It will have an effect.”
Recruitment for a trial of this approach is complete, and study results are expected in 2024 and 2025, Dr. Chataway said.
Another new study is exploring the possible effects of the antioxidant lipoic acid, also known as alpha-lipoic acid. As Dr. Chataway noted, a 2017 single-center, randomized, double-blind pilot study of daily oral 1,200 mg lipoic acid versus placebo linked the intervention to a dramatic lowering of brain atrophy – by about 50%.
The new LAPMS study, sponsored by the Veterans Administration, will explore whether lipoic acid affects walking ability, clinical outcome, and brain atrophy, Dr. Chataway said. Results from phase 2 are expected in a year or two, he said.
Dr. Chataway also highlighted one of his own trials, the OCTOPUS study, a multiarm, multistage study that will examine multiple drugs to treat progressive MS. It’s starting with metformin and will look at lipoic acid too, he said.
He also noted the phase 2 CALLIPER trial, which has completed enrollment and expects to provide top-line data in 2025. The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled will test vidofludimus calcium in patients with progressive MS.
Finally, Dr. Chataway highlighted the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on phase 2 NACPMS trial of n-acetyl cysteine and the phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of SAR443820, a central nervous system penetrant oral RIPK1 inhibitor.
Dr. Chataway discloses grants (UK Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Board, Health Technology Assessment, Multiple Sclerosis Trials Collaboration, and Rosetrees Trust), advisory board service (Azadyne, Biogen, Lucid, Janssen, Merck, NervGen, Novartis, and Roche), other support (National Institute of Health Research Support, University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centers funding scheme), and serving as an trial investigator (Canadian MS Society, Ionis, Novartis, and Roche).
MILAN – , neurologist Jeremy Chataway, MD, PhD, of University College London and Queen Square Multiple Sclerosis Center told colleagues at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
“They’re all very different, and I think that’s exciting,” he said. “It’s a rich trial environment.”
The problem: At a median of almost 3 years in treatment for primary progressive MS, “we know that about a third of patients will progress despite on being on anti-inflammatory treatment. The same is true for secondary progressive MS. That is the hard core of what we have to think about. We want to improve the efficacy gap between control and active.”
First, Dr. Chataway highlighted the MS-STAT2 trial of simvastatin (Zocor), an inexpensive statin used to lower cholesterol. He is one of the leaders of the 3-year, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, which is testing whether 80-mg daily doses of simvastatin will slow MS progression.
As Dr. Chataway noted, an earlier study – MS-STAT1 – found less brain atrophy in patients who took a high dose of the drug, which was “well tolerated and safe.”
Vascular morbidity drives disability and mortality in MS. “This is low-hanging fruit because we have the tools to do something about it,” he said. “There’s an opportunity here to add into our treatment paradigms across people with MS by actively treating their vascular comorbidity. It will have an effect.”
Recruitment for a trial of this approach is complete, and study results are expected in 2024 and 2025, Dr. Chataway said.
Another new study is exploring the possible effects of the antioxidant lipoic acid, also known as alpha-lipoic acid. As Dr. Chataway noted, a 2017 single-center, randomized, double-blind pilot study of daily oral 1,200 mg lipoic acid versus placebo linked the intervention to a dramatic lowering of brain atrophy – by about 50%.
The new LAPMS study, sponsored by the Veterans Administration, will explore whether lipoic acid affects walking ability, clinical outcome, and brain atrophy, Dr. Chataway said. Results from phase 2 are expected in a year or two, he said.
Dr. Chataway also highlighted one of his own trials, the OCTOPUS study, a multiarm, multistage study that will examine multiple drugs to treat progressive MS. It’s starting with metformin and will look at lipoic acid too, he said.
He also noted the phase 2 CALLIPER trial, which has completed enrollment and expects to provide top-line data in 2025. The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled will test vidofludimus calcium in patients with progressive MS.
Finally, Dr. Chataway highlighted the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on phase 2 NACPMS trial of n-acetyl cysteine and the phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of SAR443820, a central nervous system penetrant oral RIPK1 inhibitor.
Dr. Chataway discloses grants (UK Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Board, Health Technology Assessment, Multiple Sclerosis Trials Collaboration, and Rosetrees Trust), advisory board service (Azadyne, Biogen, Lucid, Janssen, Merck, NervGen, Novartis, and Roche), other support (National Institute of Health Research Support, University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centers funding scheme), and serving as an trial investigator (Canadian MS Society, Ionis, Novartis, and Roche).
AT ECTRIMS 2023
AI tool reveals MS drug interactions, offers safer options
MILAN – , German researchers reported.
The team fed the medication plans of almost 630 patients into a deep neural network, which identified drug-drug interactions in more than 80% of cases, in particular when switching from one medication to another, alongside potential food interactions.
The tool was able to identify specific interactions that could be avoided if a drug was replaced with one with a similar pharmacologic profile, but a lower risk of adverse effects.
“Potential drug-drug interactions are a major safety concern in patients with MS,” said study presenter Michael Hecker, PhD, department of neurology, Rostock (Germany) University Medical Center.
Such deep learning–based methods are “useful” in screening for potential interactions both between drugs and with foods, they concluded.
The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting.
Unknown interactions
During his presentation, Dr. Hecker noted that most patients with MS take two or more drugs “to treat their disease and to mitigate their symptoms and comorbidities.” He pointed out, however, that patients who take multiple medications are at an increased risk for side effects, as one drug may affect the pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic properties of another.
“For instance, it may change its metabolism,” Dr. Hecker said, and therefore affect its mechanism of action and the response to the drug, with medications potentially having synergistic, antagonistic, or additive effects.
He explained that the online DrugBank database “provides a huge collection” of known drug-drug interactions for compounds that have a track record. “However, for other drugs, and especially those that are tested only in clinical trials, there’s no information about drug-drug and drug-food interactions,” Dr. Hecker said.
“Moreover, it is quite time-consuming to search a database for individual drug-drug interactions,” he added.
34 million parameters
Consequently, there is increasing interest in the use of deep neural networks to study drug-drug interactions, Dr. Hecker said. DeepDDI is the “state-of-the-art deep learning framework” for predicting interactions. It takes drug-drug or drug-food pairs and compares their structures to determine their similarity. This information is fed into a deep neural network with almost 34 million trainable parameters.
The framework then provides a prediction of any interactions in the same terms as the DrugBank, suggesting, for example, that Drug A may decrease the antihypertensive activities of Drug B.
For the current study, the researchers trained the deep neural network on the most recent release of the DrugBank database, finding it was able to replicate the drug-drug interactions in the database at an accuracy of 92.2% in the validation set and 92.1% in the testing set. They then put the medication plans of 627 patients with MS into the deep neural network.
The patients had a mean age of 48.6 years, 70.3% were women, and the median disease duration was 10 years. They were taking an average of 5.3 medications, and 62% were using disease-modifying therapies (DMT).
The team compared the structures of the drugs they were taking with those of 367 drugs used for the treatment of MS, as well as with structural data for 1,673 food compounds from the FooDB database.
Swapping drugs could reduce interactions
The overall prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions among the patients included in the study was 81.2%.
The researchers then determined the proportion of patients who would be at risk of additional drug-drug interaction if they switched from one DMT to another, or to a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, given all their other medications.
They found, for example, that more than 40% of patients who switched to the immunomodulator fingolimod (Gilenya) would be at increased risk for bradycardia.
Just under 40% of patients who changed their DMT to the purine analogue cladribine (Mavenclad) would have an increased risk, or worsening, of bleeding, as would approximately 25% of those who switched to the anthracenedione antineoplastic agent mitoxantrone (Novantrone).
Dr. Hecker also showed the deep neural network could make suggestions as to how critical drug-drug interactions could be avoided by replacing interacting drugs with alternatives that have similar pharmacological effects.
For example, carbamazepine (Tegretol, Equetro) could be replaced with topiramate (several brand names) to avoid hepatotoxicity in patients also taking acetaminophen, while liothyronine (Cytomel, Triostat) could replace levothyroxine in patients also taking teriflunomide (Aubagio).
Finally, Dr. Hecker reported there was a subset of 6,860 potential drug-food interactions with the patients’ medications, resulting in reduced or increased concentrations of the drugs, particularly with fish or mushroom consumption.
He conceded, however, there were several limitations to their study, including that it included only small-molecule drugs, and that they did not ask patients about their diet or if they had observed any undesired drug effects.
Furthermore, “only a small number” of the potential drug-drug or drug-food interactions they identified would be “clinically relevant.”
Dr. Hecker also pointed out that each drug has one record, but it is used for different indications, with different dosages, and has different side effects, depending how it is used. “The model does not distinguish this,” he said, and so some of the interactions it highlights could be related to other doses than the one used in MS, for example.
Promise for the future
Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, commented that, as with all AI tools, “it’s only as good as what we’re putting into it.”
Dr. Bhargava, who cochaired the session, said that “there’s limitations on the information in the databases” that are being fed into the deep neural network.
He also highlighted that, “at this point, it didn’t seem like it was coming up with much clinically useful information,” but noted that, “we may get to that point.”
“Right now, there’s promise,” Dr. Bhargava said, but “it’s still not quite there.”
No funding was declared. Dr. Hecker declares relationships with Bayer HealthCare, Biogen, Merck Healthcare, Novartis, and Teva. Several other coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MILAN – , German researchers reported.
The team fed the medication plans of almost 630 patients into a deep neural network, which identified drug-drug interactions in more than 80% of cases, in particular when switching from one medication to another, alongside potential food interactions.
The tool was able to identify specific interactions that could be avoided if a drug was replaced with one with a similar pharmacologic profile, but a lower risk of adverse effects.
“Potential drug-drug interactions are a major safety concern in patients with MS,” said study presenter Michael Hecker, PhD, department of neurology, Rostock (Germany) University Medical Center.
Such deep learning–based methods are “useful” in screening for potential interactions both between drugs and with foods, they concluded.
The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting.
Unknown interactions
During his presentation, Dr. Hecker noted that most patients with MS take two or more drugs “to treat their disease and to mitigate their symptoms and comorbidities.” He pointed out, however, that patients who take multiple medications are at an increased risk for side effects, as one drug may affect the pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic properties of another.
“For instance, it may change its metabolism,” Dr. Hecker said, and therefore affect its mechanism of action and the response to the drug, with medications potentially having synergistic, antagonistic, or additive effects.
He explained that the online DrugBank database “provides a huge collection” of known drug-drug interactions for compounds that have a track record. “However, for other drugs, and especially those that are tested only in clinical trials, there’s no information about drug-drug and drug-food interactions,” Dr. Hecker said.
“Moreover, it is quite time-consuming to search a database for individual drug-drug interactions,” he added.
34 million parameters
Consequently, there is increasing interest in the use of deep neural networks to study drug-drug interactions, Dr. Hecker said. DeepDDI is the “state-of-the-art deep learning framework” for predicting interactions. It takes drug-drug or drug-food pairs and compares their structures to determine their similarity. This information is fed into a deep neural network with almost 34 million trainable parameters.
The framework then provides a prediction of any interactions in the same terms as the DrugBank, suggesting, for example, that Drug A may decrease the antihypertensive activities of Drug B.
For the current study, the researchers trained the deep neural network on the most recent release of the DrugBank database, finding it was able to replicate the drug-drug interactions in the database at an accuracy of 92.2% in the validation set and 92.1% in the testing set. They then put the medication plans of 627 patients with MS into the deep neural network.
The patients had a mean age of 48.6 years, 70.3% were women, and the median disease duration was 10 years. They were taking an average of 5.3 medications, and 62% were using disease-modifying therapies (DMT).
The team compared the structures of the drugs they were taking with those of 367 drugs used for the treatment of MS, as well as with structural data for 1,673 food compounds from the FooDB database.
Swapping drugs could reduce interactions
The overall prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions among the patients included in the study was 81.2%.
The researchers then determined the proportion of patients who would be at risk of additional drug-drug interaction if they switched from one DMT to another, or to a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, given all their other medications.
They found, for example, that more than 40% of patients who switched to the immunomodulator fingolimod (Gilenya) would be at increased risk for bradycardia.
Just under 40% of patients who changed their DMT to the purine analogue cladribine (Mavenclad) would have an increased risk, or worsening, of bleeding, as would approximately 25% of those who switched to the anthracenedione antineoplastic agent mitoxantrone (Novantrone).
Dr. Hecker also showed the deep neural network could make suggestions as to how critical drug-drug interactions could be avoided by replacing interacting drugs with alternatives that have similar pharmacological effects.
For example, carbamazepine (Tegretol, Equetro) could be replaced with topiramate (several brand names) to avoid hepatotoxicity in patients also taking acetaminophen, while liothyronine (Cytomel, Triostat) could replace levothyroxine in patients also taking teriflunomide (Aubagio).
Finally, Dr. Hecker reported there was a subset of 6,860 potential drug-food interactions with the patients’ medications, resulting in reduced or increased concentrations of the drugs, particularly with fish or mushroom consumption.
He conceded, however, there were several limitations to their study, including that it included only small-molecule drugs, and that they did not ask patients about their diet or if they had observed any undesired drug effects.
Furthermore, “only a small number” of the potential drug-drug or drug-food interactions they identified would be “clinically relevant.”
Dr. Hecker also pointed out that each drug has one record, but it is used for different indications, with different dosages, and has different side effects, depending how it is used. “The model does not distinguish this,” he said, and so some of the interactions it highlights could be related to other doses than the one used in MS, for example.
Promise for the future
Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, commented that, as with all AI tools, “it’s only as good as what we’re putting into it.”
Dr. Bhargava, who cochaired the session, said that “there’s limitations on the information in the databases” that are being fed into the deep neural network.
He also highlighted that, “at this point, it didn’t seem like it was coming up with much clinically useful information,” but noted that, “we may get to that point.”
“Right now, there’s promise,” Dr. Bhargava said, but “it’s still not quite there.”
No funding was declared. Dr. Hecker declares relationships with Bayer HealthCare, Biogen, Merck Healthcare, Novartis, and Teva. Several other coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MILAN – , German researchers reported.
The team fed the medication plans of almost 630 patients into a deep neural network, which identified drug-drug interactions in more than 80% of cases, in particular when switching from one medication to another, alongside potential food interactions.
The tool was able to identify specific interactions that could be avoided if a drug was replaced with one with a similar pharmacologic profile, but a lower risk of adverse effects.
“Potential drug-drug interactions are a major safety concern in patients with MS,” said study presenter Michael Hecker, PhD, department of neurology, Rostock (Germany) University Medical Center.
Such deep learning–based methods are “useful” in screening for potential interactions both between drugs and with foods, they concluded.
The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting.
Unknown interactions
During his presentation, Dr. Hecker noted that most patients with MS take two or more drugs “to treat their disease and to mitigate their symptoms and comorbidities.” He pointed out, however, that patients who take multiple medications are at an increased risk for side effects, as one drug may affect the pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic properties of another.
“For instance, it may change its metabolism,” Dr. Hecker said, and therefore affect its mechanism of action and the response to the drug, with medications potentially having synergistic, antagonistic, or additive effects.
He explained that the online DrugBank database “provides a huge collection” of known drug-drug interactions for compounds that have a track record. “However, for other drugs, and especially those that are tested only in clinical trials, there’s no information about drug-drug and drug-food interactions,” Dr. Hecker said.
“Moreover, it is quite time-consuming to search a database for individual drug-drug interactions,” he added.
34 million parameters
Consequently, there is increasing interest in the use of deep neural networks to study drug-drug interactions, Dr. Hecker said. DeepDDI is the “state-of-the-art deep learning framework” for predicting interactions. It takes drug-drug or drug-food pairs and compares their structures to determine their similarity. This information is fed into a deep neural network with almost 34 million trainable parameters.
The framework then provides a prediction of any interactions in the same terms as the DrugBank, suggesting, for example, that Drug A may decrease the antihypertensive activities of Drug B.
For the current study, the researchers trained the deep neural network on the most recent release of the DrugBank database, finding it was able to replicate the drug-drug interactions in the database at an accuracy of 92.2% in the validation set and 92.1% in the testing set. They then put the medication plans of 627 patients with MS into the deep neural network.
The patients had a mean age of 48.6 years, 70.3% were women, and the median disease duration was 10 years. They were taking an average of 5.3 medications, and 62% were using disease-modifying therapies (DMT).
The team compared the structures of the drugs they were taking with those of 367 drugs used for the treatment of MS, as well as with structural data for 1,673 food compounds from the FooDB database.
Swapping drugs could reduce interactions
The overall prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions among the patients included in the study was 81.2%.
The researchers then determined the proportion of patients who would be at risk of additional drug-drug interaction if they switched from one DMT to another, or to a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, given all their other medications.
They found, for example, that more than 40% of patients who switched to the immunomodulator fingolimod (Gilenya) would be at increased risk for bradycardia.
Just under 40% of patients who changed their DMT to the purine analogue cladribine (Mavenclad) would have an increased risk, or worsening, of bleeding, as would approximately 25% of those who switched to the anthracenedione antineoplastic agent mitoxantrone (Novantrone).
Dr. Hecker also showed the deep neural network could make suggestions as to how critical drug-drug interactions could be avoided by replacing interacting drugs with alternatives that have similar pharmacological effects.
For example, carbamazepine (Tegretol, Equetro) could be replaced with topiramate (several brand names) to avoid hepatotoxicity in patients also taking acetaminophen, while liothyronine (Cytomel, Triostat) could replace levothyroxine in patients also taking teriflunomide (Aubagio).
Finally, Dr. Hecker reported there was a subset of 6,860 potential drug-food interactions with the patients’ medications, resulting in reduced or increased concentrations of the drugs, particularly with fish or mushroom consumption.
He conceded, however, there were several limitations to their study, including that it included only small-molecule drugs, and that they did not ask patients about their diet or if they had observed any undesired drug effects.
Furthermore, “only a small number” of the potential drug-drug or drug-food interactions they identified would be “clinically relevant.”
Dr. Hecker also pointed out that each drug has one record, but it is used for different indications, with different dosages, and has different side effects, depending how it is used. “The model does not distinguish this,” he said, and so some of the interactions it highlights could be related to other doses than the one used in MS, for example.
Promise for the future
Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, commented that, as with all AI tools, “it’s only as good as what we’re putting into it.”
Dr. Bhargava, who cochaired the session, said that “there’s limitations on the information in the databases” that are being fed into the deep neural network.
He also highlighted that, “at this point, it didn’t seem like it was coming up with much clinically useful information,” but noted that, “we may get to that point.”
“Right now, there’s promise,” Dr. Bhargava said, but “it’s still not quite there.”
No funding was declared. Dr. Hecker declares relationships with Bayer HealthCare, Biogen, Merck Healthcare, Novartis, and Teva. Several other coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ECTRIMS 2023
Ocrelizumab benefit confirmed in older patients with MS
MILAN – they say.
The researchers studied about 700 patients with MS aged 60 years and older from an international database, comparing outcomes with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab versus those for interferon/glatiramer acetate (BRACE). They found ocrelizumab significantly reduced the annual rate of relapses, although after adjustments, patients overall faced a relapse rate of less than 0.1 per year. There were also no significant differences in either disability progression or improvement between the two treatments.
“We believe this study is unique in that ocrelizumab demonstrates a very clear differential treatment benefit in this age group,” said study presenter Yi Chao Foong, MD, department of neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne. “However, this has to be balanced against the fact that overall relapse activity is extremely low in people with MS over the age of 60. We believe that this study adds valuable, real-world data for nuanced benefit versus risk DMT discussions with for older adults with MS.”
The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Lack of data in older patients
Dr. Fong explained the comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has not been demonstrated in older people with MS, as all landmark trials to date have excluded people older than age 60 years. He underlined, however, that the inflammatory aspect of MS reduces with age, when neurodegenerative processes begin to predominate.
“This, combined with increased risk of acute infections in older adults have raised concerns over the benefit ratios of DMTs in this age group,” Dr. Fong said.
This has led to several de-escalation studies in older patients already on treatment for MS, but with “varied results.”
One study, published earlier in 2023, was unable to conclude whether DMT discontinuation was noninferior to continuation in older patients with no recent relapse or new MRI activity.
To investigate further, the Australian team used the MSBase database to study patients with a confirmed MS diagnosis who had started or switched to ocrelizumab or BRACE when older than 60 years of age.
They were also required to have undergone an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessment around the time of the initiation of DMT. In all, 675 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 248 started with ocrelizumab and 427 with BRACE.
The treatment groups were well balanced, although baseline EDSS scores were higher in patients given ocrelizumab, at 5.22 versus 3.89 with BRACE (P = .05), and they had a lower relapse rate prior in the year (P = .01) and 2 years (P = .02) prior to baseline.
Only relapse rates reduced
With more than 571 patient-years of follow-up, there were eight relapses in patients treated with ocrelizumab, compared with 182 relapses during 2238 patient-years among those given BRACE.
The team then performed propensity matching based on patient age, disease duration, sex, baseline EDSS, prior relapses, and prior DMTs.
They found that, over a median follow-up of 2.47 years for ocrelizumab and 4.48 years for BRACE, there was a lower rate of relapse with ocrelizumab, at a weighted annualized relapse rate of 0.01 versus 0.08 (P < .0001). This, they calculated, equated to an ARR ratio in favor of ocrelizumab of 0.15 (P < .01).
The time to first relapse was also longer for ocrelizumab versus BRACE, at a weighted hazard ratio for relapse of 0.11 (P < .001) and with, as Dr. Fong highlighted, separation of the curves at 5 months.
Over a follow-up duration of 3.6 years, there was, however, no significant difference in confirmed disability progression between the two treatments (P = .31), with similar results seen for confirmed disability improvement (P = .92).
Dr. Fong noted the study was limited by an inherent treatment indication bias, affecting the sensitivity analysis and weighing, while assessment of confirmed disability progression and confirmed disability improvement was hampered by the relatively short follow-up period and the lack of data on comorbidities.
He also highlighted the lack of safety data for the study population, as well as the lack of MRI.
Muddling the data
Approached for comment, Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, pointed out the study is based on retrospective data.
“The main question that we normally come up against in clinical practice, once people are older, is: What do you do with their treatment?” he asked.
This, Dr. Bhargava said, was the question that was addressed in the previous de-escalation studies.
The current study “actually answered a completely different question: If you were starting or changing a treatment after 60, which one would be better to choose?” This is a “much rarer scenario,” he said.
The results nevertheless showed what is seen in younger patients; in other words, “a more efficacious treatment is more effective at reducing relapses than a less efficacious treatment, even though overall the number of relapses is quite low,” Dr. Bhargava said.
“The other problem,” he added, is the study included “not just relapsing but also progressive patients, so that kind of muddles the data a little bit.”
Consequently, “it’s hard to really make a definitive conclusion” from the results, Dr. Bhargava concluded.
No funding was declared. Dr. Fong declares relationships with Biogen, National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia, and the Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists. Several coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MILAN – they say.
The researchers studied about 700 patients with MS aged 60 years and older from an international database, comparing outcomes with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab versus those for interferon/glatiramer acetate (BRACE). They found ocrelizumab significantly reduced the annual rate of relapses, although after adjustments, patients overall faced a relapse rate of less than 0.1 per year. There were also no significant differences in either disability progression or improvement between the two treatments.
“We believe this study is unique in that ocrelizumab demonstrates a very clear differential treatment benefit in this age group,” said study presenter Yi Chao Foong, MD, department of neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne. “However, this has to be balanced against the fact that overall relapse activity is extremely low in people with MS over the age of 60. We believe that this study adds valuable, real-world data for nuanced benefit versus risk DMT discussions with for older adults with MS.”
The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Lack of data in older patients
Dr. Fong explained the comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has not been demonstrated in older people with MS, as all landmark trials to date have excluded people older than age 60 years. He underlined, however, that the inflammatory aspect of MS reduces with age, when neurodegenerative processes begin to predominate.
“This, combined with increased risk of acute infections in older adults have raised concerns over the benefit ratios of DMTs in this age group,” Dr. Fong said.
This has led to several de-escalation studies in older patients already on treatment for MS, but with “varied results.”
One study, published earlier in 2023, was unable to conclude whether DMT discontinuation was noninferior to continuation in older patients with no recent relapse or new MRI activity.
To investigate further, the Australian team used the MSBase database to study patients with a confirmed MS diagnosis who had started or switched to ocrelizumab or BRACE when older than 60 years of age.
They were also required to have undergone an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessment around the time of the initiation of DMT. In all, 675 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 248 started with ocrelizumab and 427 with BRACE.
The treatment groups were well balanced, although baseline EDSS scores were higher in patients given ocrelizumab, at 5.22 versus 3.89 with BRACE (P = .05), and they had a lower relapse rate prior in the year (P = .01) and 2 years (P = .02) prior to baseline.
Only relapse rates reduced
With more than 571 patient-years of follow-up, there were eight relapses in patients treated with ocrelizumab, compared with 182 relapses during 2238 patient-years among those given BRACE.
The team then performed propensity matching based on patient age, disease duration, sex, baseline EDSS, prior relapses, and prior DMTs.
They found that, over a median follow-up of 2.47 years for ocrelizumab and 4.48 years for BRACE, there was a lower rate of relapse with ocrelizumab, at a weighted annualized relapse rate of 0.01 versus 0.08 (P < .0001). This, they calculated, equated to an ARR ratio in favor of ocrelizumab of 0.15 (P < .01).
The time to first relapse was also longer for ocrelizumab versus BRACE, at a weighted hazard ratio for relapse of 0.11 (P < .001) and with, as Dr. Fong highlighted, separation of the curves at 5 months.
Over a follow-up duration of 3.6 years, there was, however, no significant difference in confirmed disability progression between the two treatments (P = .31), with similar results seen for confirmed disability improvement (P = .92).
Dr. Fong noted the study was limited by an inherent treatment indication bias, affecting the sensitivity analysis and weighing, while assessment of confirmed disability progression and confirmed disability improvement was hampered by the relatively short follow-up period and the lack of data on comorbidities.
He also highlighted the lack of safety data for the study population, as well as the lack of MRI.
Muddling the data
Approached for comment, Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, pointed out the study is based on retrospective data.
“The main question that we normally come up against in clinical practice, once people are older, is: What do you do with their treatment?” he asked.
This, Dr. Bhargava said, was the question that was addressed in the previous de-escalation studies.
The current study “actually answered a completely different question: If you were starting or changing a treatment after 60, which one would be better to choose?” This is a “much rarer scenario,” he said.
The results nevertheless showed what is seen in younger patients; in other words, “a more efficacious treatment is more effective at reducing relapses than a less efficacious treatment, even though overall the number of relapses is quite low,” Dr. Bhargava said.
“The other problem,” he added, is the study included “not just relapsing but also progressive patients, so that kind of muddles the data a little bit.”
Consequently, “it’s hard to really make a definitive conclusion” from the results, Dr. Bhargava concluded.
No funding was declared. Dr. Fong declares relationships with Biogen, National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia, and the Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists. Several coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MILAN – they say.
The researchers studied about 700 patients with MS aged 60 years and older from an international database, comparing outcomes with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab versus those for interferon/glatiramer acetate (BRACE). They found ocrelizumab significantly reduced the annual rate of relapses, although after adjustments, patients overall faced a relapse rate of less than 0.1 per year. There were also no significant differences in either disability progression or improvement between the two treatments.
“We believe this study is unique in that ocrelizumab demonstrates a very clear differential treatment benefit in this age group,” said study presenter Yi Chao Foong, MD, department of neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne. “However, this has to be balanced against the fact that overall relapse activity is extremely low in people with MS over the age of 60. We believe that this study adds valuable, real-world data for nuanced benefit versus risk DMT discussions with for older adults with MS.”
The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Lack of data in older patients
Dr. Fong explained the comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has not been demonstrated in older people with MS, as all landmark trials to date have excluded people older than age 60 years. He underlined, however, that the inflammatory aspect of MS reduces with age, when neurodegenerative processes begin to predominate.
“This, combined with increased risk of acute infections in older adults have raised concerns over the benefit ratios of DMTs in this age group,” Dr. Fong said.
This has led to several de-escalation studies in older patients already on treatment for MS, but with “varied results.”
One study, published earlier in 2023, was unable to conclude whether DMT discontinuation was noninferior to continuation in older patients with no recent relapse or new MRI activity.
To investigate further, the Australian team used the MSBase database to study patients with a confirmed MS diagnosis who had started or switched to ocrelizumab or BRACE when older than 60 years of age.
They were also required to have undergone an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessment around the time of the initiation of DMT. In all, 675 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 248 started with ocrelizumab and 427 with BRACE.
The treatment groups were well balanced, although baseline EDSS scores were higher in patients given ocrelizumab, at 5.22 versus 3.89 with BRACE (P = .05), and they had a lower relapse rate prior in the year (P = .01) and 2 years (P = .02) prior to baseline.
Only relapse rates reduced
With more than 571 patient-years of follow-up, there were eight relapses in patients treated with ocrelizumab, compared with 182 relapses during 2238 patient-years among those given BRACE.
The team then performed propensity matching based on patient age, disease duration, sex, baseline EDSS, prior relapses, and prior DMTs.
They found that, over a median follow-up of 2.47 years for ocrelizumab and 4.48 years for BRACE, there was a lower rate of relapse with ocrelizumab, at a weighted annualized relapse rate of 0.01 versus 0.08 (P < .0001). This, they calculated, equated to an ARR ratio in favor of ocrelizumab of 0.15 (P < .01).
The time to first relapse was also longer for ocrelizumab versus BRACE, at a weighted hazard ratio for relapse of 0.11 (P < .001) and with, as Dr. Fong highlighted, separation of the curves at 5 months.
Over a follow-up duration of 3.6 years, there was, however, no significant difference in confirmed disability progression between the two treatments (P = .31), with similar results seen for confirmed disability improvement (P = .92).
Dr. Fong noted the study was limited by an inherent treatment indication bias, affecting the sensitivity analysis and weighing, while assessment of confirmed disability progression and confirmed disability improvement was hampered by the relatively short follow-up period and the lack of data on comorbidities.
He also highlighted the lack of safety data for the study population, as well as the lack of MRI.
Muddling the data
Approached for comment, Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, pointed out the study is based on retrospective data.
“The main question that we normally come up against in clinical practice, once people are older, is: What do you do with their treatment?” he asked.
This, Dr. Bhargava said, was the question that was addressed in the previous de-escalation studies.
The current study “actually answered a completely different question: If you were starting or changing a treatment after 60, which one would be better to choose?” This is a “much rarer scenario,” he said.
The results nevertheless showed what is seen in younger patients; in other words, “a more efficacious treatment is more effective at reducing relapses than a less efficacious treatment, even though overall the number of relapses is quite low,” Dr. Bhargava said.
“The other problem,” he added, is the study included “not just relapsing but also progressive patients, so that kind of muddles the data a little bit.”
Consequently, “it’s hard to really make a definitive conclusion” from the results, Dr. Bhargava concluded.
No funding was declared. Dr. Fong declares relationships with Biogen, National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia, and the Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists. Several coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ECTRIMS 2023
Obesity linked to multiple ills in MS study
MILAN – Swedish researchers reported at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
In a group of 3,249 subjects tracked for up to 5 years (74% female; mean age, 37.8 years), patients who were obese at diagnosis were 1.41 times more likely than normal-weight patients to reach an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 3. About 35% of 355 obese subjects (body mass index > 30 kg/m2) reached that level versus 29% of 713 overweight patients (BMI, 25-30) and 28% of 1,475 normal-weight patients (BMI, 18.5-24.99).
Among subjects whose BMI category didn’t change over follow-up, those who were obese at diagnosis were more likely to develop cognitive worsening than those who weren’t obese (hazard ratio, 1.47, 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.01).
Lars Alfredsson, PhD, a professor at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who presented the study findings, said in an interview that they fill a gap in knowledge about obesity and MS. “It is known that obesity around the age of 20 or in adolescence is a risk factor for developing MS. But much less is known in regard to progression, and the studies have been very inconclusive.”
The researchers tracked patients via the Swedish MS registry: 1,475 of normal weight, 713 overweight, and 355 obese. Before adjustment for factors such as age, gender, and baseline EDSS, obese subjects were 1.51 times more likely to reach EDSS score 3 than normal-weight subjects.
Obese subjects whose BMI level didn’t change over time were 1.70 times more likely than the nonobese to develop physical worsening as measured by an increased Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale physical score of 7.5 points or more, and they were 1.36 times more likely to have psychological worsening as measured by increased MSIS-28 psychological score of 7.5 points or more.
Also, among subjects whose BMI didn’t change over time, the likelihood of cognitive disability worsening was 1.47 times higher among obese participants versus nonobese participants. Worsening was defined as an increased Symbol Digit Modalities Test score of 8 points or more.
The level of excess cognitive decline “will affect people significantly,” Dr. Alfredsson said.
While obesity can counterintuitively provide a protective effect in some diseases, he said there’s no sign of such an effect in the subjects.
As for limitations, Dr. Alfredsson noted in his presentation that BMI data is self-reported, and it’s possible that the researchers didn’t adjust their statistics to reflect important confounders.
A 2023 German study of outcomes in MS patients with obesity came to similar conclusions. It tracked 1,066 subjects for up to 6 years and found that “median time to reach EDSS 3 was 0.99 years for patients with BMI of 30 or higher and 1.46 years for nonobese patients. Risk to reach EDSS 3 over 6 years was significantly increased in patients with BMI of at least 30, compared with patients with BMI less than 30 after adjustment for sex, age, smoking (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6; P < .001), and independent of disease-modifying therapies.”
However, the German researchers found no link between obesity and higher levels of relapse, contrast-enhancing MRI lesions, or MRI T2 lesion burden.
Interpretation and commentary
Could obesity be causing worse outcomes? The new study doesn’t provide insight into cause and effect. However, obesity may speed up progression via low-grade inflammation, Dr. Alfredsson said.
What can clinicians do with the information from the study? If patients are obese, it can be a good idea to more carefully monitor them and use reliable tools to improve their progression, Dr. Alfredsson said.
In an interview, Michael D. Kornberg, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved with the study, agreed with Dr. Alfredsson that other research has linked obesity early in life to higher rates of MS. He added that “a number of studies have shown that comorbidities in general are usually associated with a higher rate of disability.”
Dr. Kornberg said the new research is important, and he noted that it has a “robust” cohort because of its larger size.
Could patients with MS reverse the risk of progression and other poor outcomes by losing weight? “It’s hard to say,” Dr. Kornberg said. “We have to be cautious when we assume causation. There’s a plausible rationale that obesity might worsen progression in MS, but it could just be a marker of some other factor that reflects a different phenotype of MS.”
He doesn’t think it’s likely that weight loss would “dramatically reverse the biology of MS,” but he said reversing the obesity epidemic would still be a good thing. An interventional study could examine the effects of weight-loss intervention on disability measures, he said, “and that’s the next step.”
Also contacted for commentary, Adil Harroud, MD, a neurologist at McGill University who studies obesity in MS, said research suggests that “obesity seems to exacerbate MS disability. While some studies show no effect, the majority indicate a detrimental impact.”
However, “the effect of obesity on MS progression remains unclear. Animal studies suggest that shifts in immune cell subsets and functions may play a role, but the relevance to humans is yet to be determined,” he said.
Dr. Harroud, who did not take part in the new study, said it’s “one of the largest examining the impact of obesity on MS disability.” He added that “the cohort was relatively early in their disease course, suggesting that obesity impacts even the early stages of MS. This underscores the importance of obesity as a modifiable risk factor for disability accumulation.”
As for why obesity affects MS, he said one theory is that obesity plays a role through its impact on vitamin D levels. “However, using a genetic approach, we have demonstrated that, at least for MS risk, the effect of obesity is independent of vitamin D. This is also likely true for MS progression, as recent trials of vitamin D supplementation have not shown a meaningful impact on MS outcomes.”
According to Dr. Harroud, “other theories suggest that obesity leads to a pro-inflammatory immune shift. Additionally, it has been proposed that obesity may influence the response to disease-modifying therapy by reducing drug bioavailability, potentially necessitating weight-based dosing for some therapies.”
Dr. Alfredsson reported receiving grants from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Research Council for Health Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Brain Foundation and personal fees from Teva and Biogene Idec. Some of the other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Kornberg and Dr. Harroud reported no relevant disclosures.
This article was updated 10/20/23.
MILAN – Swedish researchers reported at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
In a group of 3,249 subjects tracked for up to 5 years (74% female; mean age, 37.8 years), patients who were obese at diagnosis were 1.41 times more likely than normal-weight patients to reach an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 3. About 35% of 355 obese subjects (body mass index > 30 kg/m2) reached that level versus 29% of 713 overweight patients (BMI, 25-30) and 28% of 1,475 normal-weight patients (BMI, 18.5-24.99).
Among subjects whose BMI category didn’t change over follow-up, those who were obese at diagnosis were more likely to develop cognitive worsening than those who weren’t obese (hazard ratio, 1.47, 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.01).
Lars Alfredsson, PhD, a professor at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who presented the study findings, said in an interview that they fill a gap in knowledge about obesity and MS. “It is known that obesity around the age of 20 or in adolescence is a risk factor for developing MS. But much less is known in regard to progression, and the studies have been very inconclusive.”
The researchers tracked patients via the Swedish MS registry: 1,475 of normal weight, 713 overweight, and 355 obese. Before adjustment for factors such as age, gender, and baseline EDSS, obese subjects were 1.51 times more likely to reach EDSS score 3 than normal-weight subjects.
Obese subjects whose BMI level didn’t change over time were 1.70 times more likely than the nonobese to develop physical worsening as measured by an increased Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale physical score of 7.5 points or more, and they were 1.36 times more likely to have psychological worsening as measured by increased MSIS-28 psychological score of 7.5 points or more.
Also, among subjects whose BMI didn’t change over time, the likelihood of cognitive disability worsening was 1.47 times higher among obese participants versus nonobese participants. Worsening was defined as an increased Symbol Digit Modalities Test score of 8 points or more.
The level of excess cognitive decline “will affect people significantly,” Dr. Alfredsson said.
While obesity can counterintuitively provide a protective effect in some diseases, he said there’s no sign of such an effect in the subjects.
As for limitations, Dr. Alfredsson noted in his presentation that BMI data is self-reported, and it’s possible that the researchers didn’t adjust their statistics to reflect important confounders.
A 2023 German study of outcomes in MS patients with obesity came to similar conclusions. It tracked 1,066 subjects for up to 6 years and found that “median time to reach EDSS 3 was 0.99 years for patients with BMI of 30 or higher and 1.46 years for nonobese patients. Risk to reach EDSS 3 over 6 years was significantly increased in patients with BMI of at least 30, compared with patients with BMI less than 30 after adjustment for sex, age, smoking (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6; P < .001), and independent of disease-modifying therapies.”
However, the German researchers found no link between obesity and higher levels of relapse, contrast-enhancing MRI lesions, or MRI T2 lesion burden.
Interpretation and commentary
Could obesity be causing worse outcomes? The new study doesn’t provide insight into cause and effect. However, obesity may speed up progression via low-grade inflammation, Dr. Alfredsson said.
What can clinicians do with the information from the study? If patients are obese, it can be a good idea to more carefully monitor them and use reliable tools to improve their progression, Dr. Alfredsson said.
In an interview, Michael D. Kornberg, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved with the study, agreed with Dr. Alfredsson that other research has linked obesity early in life to higher rates of MS. He added that “a number of studies have shown that comorbidities in general are usually associated with a higher rate of disability.”
Dr. Kornberg said the new research is important, and he noted that it has a “robust” cohort because of its larger size.
Could patients with MS reverse the risk of progression and other poor outcomes by losing weight? “It’s hard to say,” Dr. Kornberg said. “We have to be cautious when we assume causation. There’s a plausible rationale that obesity might worsen progression in MS, but it could just be a marker of some other factor that reflects a different phenotype of MS.”
He doesn’t think it’s likely that weight loss would “dramatically reverse the biology of MS,” but he said reversing the obesity epidemic would still be a good thing. An interventional study could examine the effects of weight-loss intervention on disability measures, he said, “and that’s the next step.”
Also contacted for commentary, Adil Harroud, MD, a neurologist at McGill University who studies obesity in MS, said research suggests that “obesity seems to exacerbate MS disability. While some studies show no effect, the majority indicate a detrimental impact.”
However, “the effect of obesity on MS progression remains unclear. Animal studies suggest that shifts in immune cell subsets and functions may play a role, but the relevance to humans is yet to be determined,” he said.
Dr. Harroud, who did not take part in the new study, said it’s “one of the largest examining the impact of obesity on MS disability.” He added that “the cohort was relatively early in their disease course, suggesting that obesity impacts even the early stages of MS. This underscores the importance of obesity as a modifiable risk factor for disability accumulation.”
As for why obesity affects MS, he said one theory is that obesity plays a role through its impact on vitamin D levels. “However, using a genetic approach, we have demonstrated that, at least for MS risk, the effect of obesity is independent of vitamin D. This is also likely true for MS progression, as recent trials of vitamin D supplementation have not shown a meaningful impact on MS outcomes.”
According to Dr. Harroud, “other theories suggest that obesity leads to a pro-inflammatory immune shift. Additionally, it has been proposed that obesity may influence the response to disease-modifying therapy by reducing drug bioavailability, potentially necessitating weight-based dosing for some therapies.”
Dr. Alfredsson reported receiving grants from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Research Council for Health Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Brain Foundation and personal fees from Teva and Biogene Idec. Some of the other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Kornberg and Dr. Harroud reported no relevant disclosures.
This article was updated 10/20/23.
MILAN – Swedish researchers reported at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
In a group of 3,249 subjects tracked for up to 5 years (74% female; mean age, 37.8 years), patients who were obese at diagnosis were 1.41 times more likely than normal-weight patients to reach an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 3. About 35% of 355 obese subjects (body mass index > 30 kg/m2) reached that level versus 29% of 713 overweight patients (BMI, 25-30) and 28% of 1,475 normal-weight patients (BMI, 18.5-24.99).
Among subjects whose BMI category didn’t change over follow-up, those who were obese at diagnosis were more likely to develop cognitive worsening than those who weren’t obese (hazard ratio, 1.47, 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.01).
Lars Alfredsson, PhD, a professor at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who presented the study findings, said in an interview that they fill a gap in knowledge about obesity and MS. “It is known that obesity around the age of 20 or in adolescence is a risk factor for developing MS. But much less is known in regard to progression, and the studies have been very inconclusive.”
The researchers tracked patients via the Swedish MS registry: 1,475 of normal weight, 713 overweight, and 355 obese. Before adjustment for factors such as age, gender, and baseline EDSS, obese subjects were 1.51 times more likely to reach EDSS score 3 than normal-weight subjects.
Obese subjects whose BMI level didn’t change over time were 1.70 times more likely than the nonobese to develop physical worsening as measured by an increased Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale physical score of 7.5 points or more, and they were 1.36 times more likely to have psychological worsening as measured by increased MSIS-28 psychological score of 7.5 points or more.
Also, among subjects whose BMI didn’t change over time, the likelihood of cognitive disability worsening was 1.47 times higher among obese participants versus nonobese participants. Worsening was defined as an increased Symbol Digit Modalities Test score of 8 points or more.
The level of excess cognitive decline “will affect people significantly,” Dr. Alfredsson said.
While obesity can counterintuitively provide a protective effect in some diseases, he said there’s no sign of such an effect in the subjects.
As for limitations, Dr. Alfredsson noted in his presentation that BMI data is self-reported, and it’s possible that the researchers didn’t adjust their statistics to reflect important confounders.
A 2023 German study of outcomes in MS patients with obesity came to similar conclusions. It tracked 1,066 subjects for up to 6 years and found that “median time to reach EDSS 3 was 0.99 years for patients with BMI of 30 or higher and 1.46 years for nonobese patients. Risk to reach EDSS 3 over 6 years was significantly increased in patients with BMI of at least 30, compared with patients with BMI less than 30 after adjustment for sex, age, smoking (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6; P < .001), and independent of disease-modifying therapies.”
However, the German researchers found no link between obesity and higher levels of relapse, contrast-enhancing MRI lesions, or MRI T2 lesion burden.
Interpretation and commentary
Could obesity be causing worse outcomes? The new study doesn’t provide insight into cause and effect. However, obesity may speed up progression via low-grade inflammation, Dr. Alfredsson said.
What can clinicians do with the information from the study? If patients are obese, it can be a good idea to more carefully monitor them and use reliable tools to improve their progression, Dr. Alfredsson said.
In an interview, Michael D. Kornberg, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved with the study, agreed with Dr. Alfredsson that other research has linked obesity early in life to higher rates of MS. He added that “a number of studies have shown that comorbidities in general are usually associated with a higher rate of disability.”
Dr. Kornberg said the new research is important, and he noted that it has a “robust” cohort because of its larger size.
Could patients with MS reverse the risk of progression and other poor outcomes by losing weight? “It’s hard to say,” Dr. Kornberg said. “We have to be cautious when we assume causation. There’s a plausible rationale that obesity might worsen progression in MS, but it could just be a marker of some other factor that reflects a different phenotype of MS.”
He doesn’t think it’s likely that weight loss would “dramatically reverse the biology of MS,” but he said reversing the obesity epidemic would still be a good thing. An interventional study could examine the effects of weight-loss intervention on disability measures, he said, “and that’s the next step.”
Also contacted for commentary, Adil Harroud, MD, a neurologist at McGill University who studies obesity in MS, said research suggests that “obesity seems to exacerbate MS disability. While some studies show no effect, the majority indicate a detrimental impact.”
However, “the effect of obesity on MS progression remains unclear. Animal studies suggest that shifts in immune cell subsets and functions may play a role, but the relevance to humans is yet to be determined,” he said.
Dr. Harroud, who did not take part in the new study, said it’s “one of the largest examining the impact of obesity on MS disability.” He added that “the cohort was relatively early in their disease course, suggesting that obesity impacts even the early stages of MS. This underscores the importance of obesity as a modifiable risk factor for disability accumulation.”
As for why obesity affects MS, he said one theory is that obesity plays a role through its impact on vitamin D levels. “However, using a genetic approach, we have demonstrated that, at least for MS risk, the effect of obesity is independent of vitamin D. This is also likely true for MS progression, as recent trials of vitamin D supplementation have not shown a meaningful impact on MS outcomes.”
According to Dr. Harroud, “other theories suggest that obesity leads to a pro-inflammatory immune shift. Additionally, it has been proposed that obesity may influence the response to disease-modifying therapy by reducing drug bioavailability, potentially necessitating weight-based dosing for some therapies.”
Dr. Alfredsson reported receiving grants from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Research Council for Health Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Brain Foundation and personal fees from Teva and Biogene Idec. Some of the other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Kornberg and Dr. Harroud reported no relevant disclosures.
This article was updated 10/20/23.
AT ECTRIMS 2023
DMT discontinuation trial halted; MS returned in 17.8%
MILAN –
In the multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferiority DOT-MS trial, inflammatory activity came back in 17.8% of 45 participants who discontinued DMT, researchers reported at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting.
“Because the number of participants with active disease – relapse or MRI activity – was higher in the discontinuation group, and this difference between the groups exceeded our predefined threshold, we prematurely terminated the trial in its current form,” said Eline Coerver, a graduate student with VU University Amsterdam, in an interview.
Previous studies have offered a mixed picture about whether stopping DMT is a good idea when patients with MS are doing well.
“Observational studies suggest that discontinuation of first-line DMTs, or platform therapies, might be safe in patients with MS who have been stable for a long period of time, meaning they did not have any clinical relapses or inflammatory MRI activity – new or contrast-enhancing lesions on MRI,” Ms. Coerver said. “These studies also suggest that patients with higher age have a lower risk of disease activity after DMT discontinuation.”
Discontinuation of DMTs can spare patients from side effects and the cost of the drugs. However, a phase 4 trial published earlier this year in The Lancet Neurology could not determine that stopping DMTs is noninferior to continuing treatment in patients with MS aged 55 and older.
“Six (4.7%) of 128 participants in the continue group and 16 (12.2%) of 131 in the discontinue group had a relapse or a new or expanding brain MRI lesion within 2 years,” the researchers reported.
For the new study, Ms. Coerver and colleagues recruited patients with relapse-onset MS aged 18 years or older who hadn’t had any relapses or substantial MRI activity in the last 5 years. The subjects were randomly assigned to discontinue DMT (interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, or dimethyl fumarate) or continue taking the therapy for 2 years.
At pre-set interim analyses, the researchers would look for signs of inflammatory disease activity, which they defined as a confirmed relapse or three or more new T2-lesions or two or more contrast-enhancing lesions detected via MRI.
At the time of cessation in March 2023 (median follow-up = 12.0 months, interquartile range 7.0-20.0), the study had recruited 89 subjects: 67.4% female, mean age 53 (SD, 7.8). Just over half (50.6%) were randomized to discontinue treatment. Of the 45 in the discontinuation group, 8 (17.8%) developed inflammatory activity (7 significant MRI activity, 2 relapses) versus none of the 44 who continued therapy.
Interpreting the results
Two MS clinicians who are familiar with the study findings but weren’t involved with the research were reached for comment.
Katherine Knox, MD, a physiatrist and associate professor who specializes in MS care at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, said in an interview that the new study is useful “because it affirms that an appropriate stopping recommendation cannot be made primarily on the basis of a standard number of years without disease activity.”
In regard to the percentage of patients who had a recurrence of inflammatory activity (17.8%), Dr. Knox said “ideally patients can be triaged for stopping therapy appropriately with a much lower risk for return of disease activity based on their individual risk factors – i.e., under 2%.”
Michael J. Olek, DO, associate professor of neurology at Touro University Nevada, Henderson, took a different view. He said he does not discontinue medication in patients with MS even if they’re stable for 5 years.
“I am waiting for trials that show that discontinuing medication is OK for the patient. To date, there are no studies showing that stopping medication is a good idea,” he said. “The immune systems slows as people age, so there may be a point in a person’s lifetime when medication used to slow the immune system is no longer needed. But until then I will continue medication for all multiple sclerosis patients.”
Moving forward, study lead author Ms. Coerver said “there are large differences between patients, and there is still room for discussion regarding what percentage of disease activity can be accepted after DMT discontinuation. The most important point is to inform patients about the risks of discontinuation so that each individual patient can make a well-informed decision.”
The study was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and Stichting MS Research. Ms. Coerver reports no disclosures; some other study authors report various disclosures. Dr. Olek reports no disclosures. Dr. Knox discloses research funding from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Health to evaluate and monitor long-term outcomes in MS.
MILAN –
In the multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferiority DOT-MS trial, inflammatory activity came back in 17.8% of 45 participants who discontinued DMT, researchers reported at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting.
“Because the number of participants with active disease – relapse or MRI activity – was higher in the discontinuation group, and this difference between the groups exceeded our predefined threshold, we prematurely terminated the trial in its current form,” said Eline Coerver, a graduate student with VU University Amsterdam, in an interview.
Previous studies have offered a mixed picture about whether stopping DMT is a good idea when patients with MS are doing well.
“Observational studies suggest that discontinuation of first-line DMTs, or platform therapies, might be safe in patients with MS who have been stable for a long period of time, meaning they did not have any clinical relapses or inflammatory MRI activity – new or contrast-enhancing lesions on MRI,” Ms. Coerver said. “These studies also suggest that patients with higher age have a lower risk of disease activity after DMT discontinuation.”
Discontinuation of DMTs can spare patients from side effects and the cost of the drugs. However, a phase 4 trial published earlier this year in The Lancet Neurology could not determine that stopping DMTs is noninferior to continuing treatment in patients with MS aged 55 and older.
“Six (4.7%) of 128 participants in the continue group and 16 (12.2%) of 131 in the discontinue group had a relapse or a new or expanding brain MRI lesion within 2 years,” the researchers reported.
For the new study, Ms. Coerver and colleagues recruited patients with relapse-onset MS aged 18 years or older who hadn’t had any relapses or substantial MRI activity in the last 5 years. The subjects were randomly assigned to discontinue DMT (interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, or dimethyl fumarate) or continue taking the therapy for 2 years.
At pre-set interim analyses, the researchers would look for signs of inflammatory disease activity, which they defined as a confirmed relapse or three or more new T2-lesions or two or more contrast-enhancing lesions detected via MRI.
At the time of cessation in March 2023 (median follow-up = 12.0 months, interquartile range 7.0-20.0), the study had recruited 89 subjects: 67.4% female, mean age 53 (SD, 7.8). Just over half (50.6%) were randomized to discontinue treatment. Of the 45 in the discontinuation group, 8 (17.8%) developed inflammatory activity (7 significant MRI activity, 2 relapses) versus none of the 44 who continued therapy.
Interpreting the results
Two MS clinicians who are familiar with the study findings but weren’t involved with the research were reached for comment.
Katherine Knox, MD, a physiatrist and associate professor who specializes in MS care at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, said in an interview that the new study is useful “because it affirms that an appropriate stopping recommendation cannot be made primarily on the basis of a standard number of years without disease activity.”
In regard to the percentage of patients who had a recurrence of inflammatory activity (17.8%), Dr. Knox said “ideally patients can be triaged for stopping therapy appropriately with a much lower risk for return of disease activity based on their individual risk factors – i.e., under 2%.”
Michael J. Olek, DO, associate professor of neurology at Touro University Nevada, Henderson, took a different view. He said he does not discontinue medication in patients with MS even if they’re stable for 5 years.
“I am waiting for trials that show that discontinuing medication is OK for the patient. To date, there are no studies showing that stopping medication is a good idea,” he said. “The immune systems slows as people age, so there may be a point in a person’s lifetime when medication used to slow the immune system is no longer needed. But until then I will continue medication for all multiple sclerosis patients.”
Moving forward, study lead author Ms. Coerver said “there are large differences between patients, and there is still room for discussion regarding what percentage of disease activity can be accepted after DMT discontinuation. The most important point is to inform patients about the risks of discontinuation so that each individual patient can make a well-informed decision.”
The study was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and Stichting MS Research. Ms. Coerver reports no disclosures; some other study authors report various disclosures. Dr. Olek reports no disclosures. Dr. Knox discloses research funding from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Health to evaluate and monitor long-term outcomes in MS.
MILAN –
In the multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferiority DOT-MS trial, inflammatory activity came back in 17.8% of 45 participants who discontinued DMT, researchers reported at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting.
“Because the number of participants with active disease – relapse or MRI activity – was higher in the discontinuation group, and this difference between the groups exceeded our predefined threshold, we prematurely terminated the trial in its current form,” said Eline Coerver, a graduate student with VU University Amsterdam, in an interview.
Previous studies have offered a mixed picture about whether stopping DMT is a good idea when patients with MS are doing well.
“Observational studies suggest that discontinuation of first-line DMTs, or platform therapies, might be safe in patients with MS who have been stable for a long period of time, meaning they did not have any clinical relapses or inflammatory MRI activity – new or contrast-enhancing lesions on MRI,” Ms. Coerver said. “These studies also suggest that patients with higher age have a lower risk of disease activity after DMT discontinuation.”
Discontinuation of DMTs can spare patients from side effects and the cost of the drugs. However, a phase 4 trial published earlier this year in The Lancet Neurology could not determine that stopping DMTs is noninferior to continuing treatment in patients with MS aged 55 and older.
“Six (4.7%) of 128 participants in the continue group and 16 (12.2%) of 131 in the discontinue group had a relapse or a new or expanding brain MRI lesion within 2 years,” the researchers reported.
For the new study, Ms. Coerver and colleagues recruited patients with relapse-onset MS aged 18 years or older who hadn’t had any relapses or substantial MRI activity in the last 5 years. The subjects were randomly assigned to discontinue DMT (interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, or dimethyl fumarate) or continue taking the therapy for 2 years.
At pre-set interim analyses, the researchers would look for signs of inflammatory disease activity, which they defined as a confirmed relapse or three or more new T2-lesions or two or more contrast-enhancing lesions detected via MRI.
At the time of cessation in March 2023 (median follow-up = 12.0 months, interquartile range 7.0-20.0), the study had recruited 89 subjects: 67.4% female, mean age 53 (SD, 7.8). Just over half (50.6%) were randomized to discontinue treatment. Of the 45 in the discontinuation group, 8 (17.8%) developed inflammatory activity (7 significant MRI activity, 2 relapses) versus none of the 44 who continued therapy.
Interpreting the results
Two MS clinicians who are familiar with the study findings but weren’t involved with the research were reached for comment.
Katherine Knox, MD, a physiatrist and associate professor who specializes in MS care at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, said in an interview that the new study is useful “because it affirms that an appropriate stopping recommendation cannot be made primarily on the basis of a standard number of years without disease activity.”
In regard to the percentage of patients who had a recurrence of inflammatory activity (17.8%), Dr. Knox said “ideally patients can be triaged for stopping therapy appropriately with a much lower risk for return of disease activity based on their individual risk factors – i.e., under 2%.”
Michael J. Olek, DO, associate professor of neurology at Touro University Nevada, Henderson, took a different view. He said he does not discontinue medication in patients with MS even if they’re stable for 5 years.
“I am waiting for trials that show that discontinuing medication is OK for the patient. To date, there are no studies showing that stopping medication is a good idea,” he said. “The immune systems slows as people age, so there may be a point in a person’s lifetime when medication used to slow the immune system is no longer needed. But until then I will continue medication for all multiple sclerosis patients.”
Moving forward, study lead author Ms. Coerver said “there are large differences between patients, and there is still room for discussion regarding what percentage of disease activity can be accepted after DMT discontinuation. The most important point is to inform patients about the risks of discontinuation so that each individual patient can make a well-informed decision.”
The study was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and Stichting MS Research. Ms. Coerver reports no disclosures; some other study authors report various disclosures. Dr. Olek reports no disclosures. Dr. Knox discloses research funding from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Health to evaluate and monitor long-term outcomes in MS.
FROM ECTRIMS 2023