TBD Meeting (5111-20)

The efficacy of the influenza vaccine when given to patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is similar to that in healthy controls, Jackie Nguyen reported at the virtual annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). She presented a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine published cohort studies including 417 MS patients and more than 500 healthy controls, all of whom received inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine.

The impetus for this project was a recognition that the great majority of the research on the impact of influenza vaccine in patients with MS has focused on safety and MS relapse rates. In contrast, the nine studies included in the meta-analysis contained data on influenza vaccine efficacy as reflected in the ability to mount an adequate immune response. This was defined in standard fashion either by seroconversion, which required at least a fourfold increase in antibody titers following vaccination, or seroprotection, with a postvaccination antihemagglutination immunoglobulin G titer of at least 40. The analysis included patients with MS irrespective of disease duration or severity or treatment regimen, noted Ms. Nguyen, a third-year medical student at Nova Southeastern University College of Allopathic Medicine in Davie, Fla.

The researchers found that there was no significant difference between patients with MS and healthy controls in the rates of an adequate immune response for influenza H1N1, H3N2, or influenza B virus. “The vaccine should thus continue to be recommended for MS patients, as the data shows it to be efficacious,” she said.

Her conclusion is consistent with guidance provided in the American Academy of Neurology’s 2019 practice guideline update on immunization in MS, highlighted elsewhere at CMSC 2020 in a presentation by Marijean Buhse, PhD, of Stony Brook University in New York.

The guideline, updated for the first time in 17 years, states that all MS patients should be advised to receive influenza vaccine annually: “With known risks of exacerbation and other morbidity with influenza infection and no identified risks of exacerbation with influenza vaccines, benefits of influenza vaccination outweigh the risks in most scenarios. The exception involves the relatively few MS patients having a specific contraindication to the influenza vaccine, such as a previous severe reaction, noted Dr. Buhse, who wasn’t involved in developing the evidence-based guidelines.

The available evidence indicates that some but not all disease-modifying therapies for MS reduce the effectiveness of vaccination against influenza.

According to the guideline, “it is possible” that persons with MS being treated with glatiramer acetate have a reduced likelihood of seroprotection from influenza vaccine, a conclusion the guidelines committee drew with “low confidence in the evidence.” Further, the guideline states that “it is probable” MS patients on fingolimod have a lower likelihood of obtaining seroprotection from influenza vaccine than patients not on the drug, with moderate confidence in the evidence. Also, it is deemed probable that patients with MS who are taking mitoxantrone have a reduced likelihood of response to influenza vaccination, compared with healthy controls. But it is probable that patients with MS who are receiving interferon-beta have no diminution in the likelihood of seroprotection. According to the guideline, there is insufficient evidence to say whether patients with MS who are on natalizumab, teriflunomide, or methotrexate have a diminished response to influenza vaccination.

Dr. Buhse noted that rituximab is off-label therapy for MS, so there are no data available regarding the likelihood of seroprotection in response to influenza vaccination in that setting. However, rituximab profoundly decreases the immunogenicity of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines in rheumatoid arthritis patients. It is therefore recommended that inactivated influenza vaccine be given to patients with MS at least 2 weeks prior to starting rituximab or 6 months after the last dose in order to optimize the humoral results. Ms. Nguyen reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation. Dr. Buhse reported having received honoraria from Genzyme and Biogen.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The efficacy of the influenza vaccine when given to patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is similar to that in healthy controls, Jackie Nguyen reported at the virtual annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). She presented a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine published cohort studies including 417 MS patients and more than 500 healthy controls, all of whom received inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine.

The impetus for this project was a recognition that the great majority of the research on the impact of influenza vaccine in patients with MS has focused on safety and MS relapse rates. In contrast, the nine studies included in the meta-analysis contained data on influenza vaccine efficacy as reflected in the ability to mount an adequate immune response. This was defined in standard fashion either by seroconversion, which required at least a fourfold increase in antibody titers following vaccination, or seroprotection, with a postvaccination antihemagglutination immunoglobulin G titer of at least 40. The analysis included patients with MS irrespective of disease duration or severity or treatment regimen, noted Ms. Nguyen, a third-year medical student at Nova Southeastern University College of Allopathic Medicine in Davie, Fla.

The researchers found that there was no significant difference between patients with MS and healthy controls in the rates of an adequate immune response for influenza H1N1, H3N2, or influenza B virus. “The vaccine should thus continue to be recommended for MS patients, as the data shows it to be efficacious,” she said.

Her conclusion is consistent with guidance provided in the American Academy of Neurology’s 2019 practice guideline update on immunization in MS, highlighted elsewhere at CMSC 2020 in a presentation by Marijean Buhse, PhD, of Stony Brook University in New York.

The guideline, updated for the first time in 17 years, states that all MS patients should be advised to receive influenza vaccine annually: “With known risks of exacerbation and other morbidity with influenza infection and no identified risks of exacerbation with influenza vaccines, benefits of influenza vaccination outweigh the risks in most scenarios. The exception involves the relatively few MS patients having a specific contraindication to the influenza vaccine, such as a previous severe reaction, noted Dr. Buhse, who wasn’t involved in developing the evidence-based guidelines.

The available evidence indicates that some but not all disease-modifying therapies for MS reduce the effectiveness of vaccination against influenza.

According to the guideline, “it is possible” that persons with MS being treated with glatiramer acetate have a reduced likelihood of seroprotection from influenza vaccine, a conclusion the guidelines committee drew with “low confidence in the evidence.” Further, the guideline states that “it is probable” MS patients on fingolimod have a lower likelihood of obtaining seroprotection from influenza vaccine than patients not on the drug, with moderate confidence in the evidence. Also, it is deemed probable that patients with MS who are taking mitoxantrone have a reduced likelihood of response to influenza vaccination, compared with healthy controls. But it is probable that patients with MS who are receiving interferon-beta have no diminution in the likelihood of seroprotection. According to the guideline, there is insufficient evidence to say whether patients with MS who are on natalizumab, teriflunomide, or methotrexate have a diminished response to influenza vaccination.

Dr. Buhse noted that rituximab is off-label therapy for MS, so there are no data available regarding the likelihood of seroprotection in response to influenza vaccination in that setting. However, rituximab profoundly decreases the immunogenicity of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines in rheumatoid arthritis patients. It is therefore recommended that inactivated influenza vaccine be given to patients with MS at least 2 weeks prior to starting rituximab or 6 months after the last dose in order to optimize the humoral results. Ms. Nguyen reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation. Dr. Buhse reported having received honoraria from Genzyme and Biogen.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The efficacy of the influenza vaccine when given to patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is similar to that in healthy controls, Jackie Nguyen reported at the virtual annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). She presented a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine published cohort studies including 417 MS patients and more than 500 healthy controls, all of whom received inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine.

The impetus for this project was a recognition that the great majority of the research on the impact of influenza vaccine in patients with MS has focused on safety and MS relapse rates. In contrast, the nine studies included in the meta-analysis contained data on influenza vaccine efficacy as reflected in the ability to mount an adequate immune response. This was defined in standard fashion either by seroconversion, which required at least a fourfold increase in antibody titers following vaccination, or seroprotection, with a postvaccination antihemagglutination immunoglobulin G titer of at least 40. The analysis included patients with MS irrespective of disease duration or severity or treatment regimen, noted Ms. Nguyen, a third-year medical student at Nova Southeastern University College of Allopathic Medicine in Davie, Fla.

The researchers found that there was no significant difference between patients with MS and healthy controls in the rates of an adequate immune response for influenza H1N1, H3N2, or influenza B virus. “The vaccine should thus continue to be recommended for MS patients, as the data shows it to be efficacious,” she said.

Her conclusion is consistent with guidance provided in the American Academy of Neurology’s 2019 practice guideline update on immunization in MS, highlighted elsewhere at CMSC 2020 in a presentation by Marijean Buhse, PhD, of Stony Brook University in New York.

The guideline, updated for the first time in 17 years, states that all MS patients should be advised to receive influenza vaccine annually: “With known risks of exacerbation and other morbidity with influenza infection and no identified risks of exacerbation with influenza vaccines, benefits of influenza vaccination outweigh the risks in most scenarios. The exception involves the relatively few MS patients having a specific contraindication to the influenza vaccine, such as a previous severe reaction, noted Dr. Buhse, who wasn’t involved in developing the evidence-based guidelines.

The available evidence indicates that some but not all disease-modifying therapies for MS reduce the effectiveness of vaccination against influenza.

According to the guideline, “it is possible” that persons with MS being treated with glatiramer acetate have a reduced likelihood of seroprotection from influenza vaccine, a conclusion the guidelines committee drew with “low confidence in the evidence.” Further, the guideline states that “it is probable” MS patients on fingolimod have a lower likelihood of obtaining seroprotection from influenza vaccine than patients not on the drug, with moderate confidence in the evidence. Also, it is deemed probable that patients with MS who are taking mitoxantrone have a reduced likelihood of response to influenza vaccination, compared with healthy controls. But it is probable that patients with MS who are receiving interferon-beta have no diminution in the likelihood of seroprotection. According to the guideline, there is insufficient evidence to say whether patients with MS who are on natalizumab, teriflunomide, or methotrexate have a diminished response to influenza vaccination.

Dr. Buhse noted that rituximab is off-label therapy for MS, so there are no data available regarding the likelihood of seroprotection in response to influenza vaccination in that setting. However, rituximab profoundly decreases the immunogenicity of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines in rheumatoid arthritis patients. It is therefore recommended that inactivated influenza vaccine be given to patients with MS at least 2 weeks prior to starting rituximab or 6 months after the last dose in order to optimize the humoral results. Ms. Nguyen reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation. Dr. Buhse reported having received honoraria from Genzyme and Biogen.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Proposed updates to guidelines for magnetic resonance imaging in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are in the works to make the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers protocol and other international guidelines more similar, with the hope that internationally accepted consensus guidelines will improve lagging conformity with the recommendations.

“We’ve always envisioned the guidelines as being international, but now we have harmony with the groups, so this is truly a global protocol,” Anthony Traboulsee, MD, a professor of neurology and director of the MS clinic and neuromyelitis optica clinic at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, said in presenting the proposed updates during the virtual meeting of the CMSC.

The updates reflect the input of an international expert panel convened by the CMSC in October 2019, made up of neurologists, radiologists, magnetic resonance technologists, and imaging scientists with expertise in MS. Attendees represented groups including the European-based Magnetic Resonance Imaging in MS (MAGNIMS), North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis Cooperative, National MS Society, Multiple Sclerosis Association of America, MRI manufacturers, and commercial image analysis.
 

Standardizing scans

While the mission was to review and update the current guidelines, an important overriding objective was to boost universal acceptance and improve the utilization of the protocol, which research shows is surprisingly low. According to one poster presented at the meeting, a real-world MRI dataset of 1,233 sessions showed only 8% satisfied criteria for the T1 sequence outlined in the 2018 guidelines, and only 7% satisfied criteria for the T2 sequence. “In a real-world MRI dataset of patients with MS, the conformance to the CMSC brain MRI guidelines was extremely low,” concluded the authors, who were with Icometrix, in Chicago and Belgium.

David Li, MD, also of the University of British Columbia and cochair of the MRI guideline committee, said the nonconformity has important implications. “Nonstandardized scans, with inconsistent slice thickness and gaps, nonstandardized slice acquisition (not in the subcallosal plane), and incomplete brain coverage, all contribute to scans that are difficult to compare,” he said. Those factors, “allow for assessment of new lesions and lesion activity that are invaluable for diagnosis as well as determining the effectiveness of therapy or the need for initiating/changing therapy.”

Dr. Traboulsee said the lack of adherence to guidelines may simply have to do with a mistaken perception of complexity. “Part of the challenge is MRI centers don’t realize how easy it is to implement these guidelines,” he said in presenting the proposed updates.

Dr. Traboulsee noted that the CMSC has been working with manufacturers to try to incorporate the protocol into the scanners “so that it’s just a button to press” for the MRI. “I think that will get us over a major hurdle of adaptation,” Dr. Traboulsee said. “Most radiologists said once they started using it they were really happy with it. They found they were using it beyond MS for other basic neurologic imaging, so just raising awareness and making things more of a one-step process for individuals to use will be helpful,” he said.
 

Repositioning consistency is key

Among key suggestions that the expert panel proposed for guideline updates include the use of the subcallosal plane for consistent repositioning, which should allow for more accuracy and consistency in the identification of lesions in MS, Dr. Traboulsee said. “A major change reflecting improvements in MRI technology is the ability to acquire high-resolution 3-D images and that’s particularly helpful with fluid attenuation inversion recovery (FLAIR) sequences, which is what we do to identify lesions,” he explained. “The repositioning along the subcallosal line is important because it allows us to easily compare studies over time. It takes very little time but allows us to prepare studies over time much more easily,” he said.

Central vein sign

Another update is the establishment of a new category of optimum plus sequences allowing for the monitoring of brain atrophy and identifying lesions with a central vein sign, which has gained high interest as a marker on 3T MRI of demyelinating plaques in MS. As described in recent research, the central vein sign shows high accuracy in differentiating between MS and non-MS lesions.

“Many people have a few white spots on neuroimaging, but with MRI so much more available around the world, many of them are being misdiagnosed with MS,” Dr. Traboulsee said. “But the central vein sign, using a very simple MRI technique, can identify lesions with a vein in the center that (distinguishes them as) MS lesions.”

Though the process is still several years from routine clinical use, the proposed update would better implement susceptibility weighted imaging, which has traditionally been used for functional MRI.
 

PML Surveillance

The updates also include recommendations to help in the detection of the rare but potentially serious complication of some disease-modifying therapies of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). “We need a very quick and comprehensive way to monitor patients for PML before symptoms develop,” Dr. Traboulsee said. “The sequences we recommended were based on expert opinion of people who have worked quite a bit with PML in MS, and if one wants to survey for PML it’s only about a 10-minute scan.”

International protocol

Corey Ford, MD, a professor of neurology and director of the MS Specialty Clinic at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center in Albuquerque, commented that, with imaging playing such an important role in MS, the lack of adherence to the protocol can be a significant hindrance. “MRI is the most important imaging tool we have in the diagnosing and management of MS, but ... it’s quite amazing how different the sequences that are used can be when imaging centers are asked to image someone with a diagnosis of MS, so it’s a problem,” he said.

Dr. Ford speculated that part of the problem is simply inertia at some imaging centers. “Practices will have been programmed into their protocol for a long time, so when a patient comes in for imaging regarding MS, they may [turn to] their typical sequence,” he said. “There is an inertial barrier to upgrading that sequence, which can involve testing it out on the machine, training the techs to do it that way, and interpreting it for the physician clients who requested the imaging.”

In addition, there is a lack of exposure of MS imaging guidelines in the radiology literature, Dr. Ford added. “Maybe it’s a matter of giving more presentations at meetings that include radiologists, or getting the information out through the manufacturers. I think at the end of the day it could be a combination of all of those things,” he said.

However, the CMSC collaboration could make a big difference, Dr. Ford noted. “This is where the international protocol could be important in terms of making all of this happen,” he said. “What we’re seeing is the confluence of representatives of the U.S. and European centers hash out a consensus, and if it’s international, I think that adds a lot of weight to an eventual implementation on a wider basis.”

“I think the group has done a stellar job, and we should not try to be too focused on adding everyone’s little tweak,” he noted. “If we can get a good baseline foundational imaging sequence that can be implemented worldwide, we would be much better off.”

The CMSC updated imaging guidelines are expected to be published in coming months. The most recent previous updates are available online.

Dr. Traboulsee disclosed relationships with Biogen, Chugai, Roche, Sanofi, and Teva. Dr. Ford and Dr. Li have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Proposed updates to guidelines for magnetic resonance imaging in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are in the works to make the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers protocol and other international guidelines more similar, with the hope that internationally accepted consensus guidelines will improve lagging conformity with the recommendations.

“We’ve always envisioned the guidelines as being international, but now we have harmony with the groups, so this is truly a global protocol,” Anthony Traboulsee, MD, a professor of neurology and director of the MS clinic and neuromyelitis optica clinic at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, said in presenting the proposed updates during the virtual meeting of the CMSC.

The updates reflect the input of an international expert panel convened by the CMSC in October 2019, made up of neurologists, radiologists, magnetic resonance technologists, and imaging scientists with expertise in MS. Attendees represented groups including the European-based Magnetic Resonance Imaging in MS (MAGNIMS), North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis Cooperative, National MS Society, Multiple Sclerosis Association of America, MRI manufacturers, and commercial image analysis.
 

Standardizing scans

While the mission was to review and update the current guidelines, an important overriding objective was to boost universal acceptance and improve the utilization of the protocol, which research shows is surprisingly low. According to one poster presented at the meeting, a real-world MRI dataset of 1,233 sessions showed only 8% satisfied criteria for the T1 sequence outlined in the 2018 guidelines, and only 7% satisfied criteria for the T2 sequence. “In a real-world MRI dataset of patients with MS, the conformance to the CMSC brain MRI guidelines was extremely low,” concluded the authors, who were with Icometrix, in Chicago and Belgium.

David Li, MD, also of the University of British Columbia and cochair of the MRI guideline committee, said the nonconformity has important implications. “Nonstandardized scans, with inconsistent slice thickness and gaps, nonstandardized slice acquisition (not in the subcallosal plane), and incomplete brain coverage, all contribute to scans that are difficult to compare,” he said. Those factors, “allow for assessment of new lesions and lesion activity that are invaluable for diagnosis as well as determining the effectiveness of therapy or the need for initiating/changing therapy.”

Dr. Traboulsee said the lack of adherence to guidelines may simply have to do with a mistaken perception of complexity. “Part of the challenge is MRI centers don’t realize how easy it is to implement these guidelines,” he said in presenting the proposed updates.

Dr. Traboulsee noted that the CMSC has been working with manufacturers to try to incorporate the protocol into the scanners “so that it’s just a button to press” for the MRI. “I think that will get us over a major hurdle of adaptation,” Dr. Traboulsee said. “Most radiologists said once they started using it they were really happy with it. They found they were using it beyond MS for other basic neurologic imaging, so just raising awareness and making things more of a one-step process for individuals to use will be helpful,” he said.
 

Repositioning consistency is key

Among key suggestions that the expert panel proposed for guideline updates include the use of the subcallosal plane for consistent repositioning, which should allow for more accuracy and consistency in the identification of lesions in MS, Dr. Traboulsee said. “A major change reflecting improvements in MRI technology is the ability to acquire high-resolution 3-D images and that’s particularly helpful with fluid attenuation inversion recovery (FLAIR) sequences, which is what we do to identify lesions,” he explained. “The repositioning along the subcallosal line is important because it allows us to easily compare studies over time. It takes very little time but allows us to prepare studies over time much more easily,” he said.

Central vein sign

Another update is the establishment of a new category of optimum plus sequences allowing for the monitoring of brain atrophy and identifying lesions with a central vein sign, which has gained high interest as a marker on 3T MRI of demyelinating plaques in MS. As described in recent research, the central vein sign shows high accuracy in differentiating between MS and non-MS lesions.

“Many people have a few white spots on neuroimaging, but with MRI so much more available around the world, many of them are being misdiagnosed with MS,” Dr. Traboulsee said. “But the central vein sign, using a very simple MRI technique, can identify lesions with a vein in the center that (distinguishes them as) MS lesions.”

Though the process is still several years from routine clinical use, the proposed update would better implement susceptibility weighted imaging, which has traditionally been used for functional MRI.
 

PML Surveillance

The updates also include recommendations to help in the detection of the rare but potentially serious complication of some disease-modifying therapies of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). “We need a very quick and comprehensive way to monitor patients for PML before symptoms develop,” Dr. Traboulsee said. “The sequences we recommended were based on expert opinion of people who have worked quite a bit with PML in MS, and if one wants to survey for PML it’s only about a 10-minute scan.”

International protocol

Corey Ford, MD, a professor of neurology and director of the MS Specialty Clinic at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center in Albuquerque, commented that, with imaging playing such an important role in MS, the lack of adherence to the protocol can be a significant hindrance. “MRI is the most important imaging tool we have in the diagnosing and management of MS, but ... it’s quite amazing how different the sequences that are used can be when imaging centers are asked to image someone with a diagnosis of MS, so it’s a problem,” he said.

Dr. Ford speculated that part of the problem is simply inertia at some imaging centers. “Practices will have been programmed into their protocol for a long time, so when a patient comes in for imaging regarding MS, they may [turn to] their typical sequence,” he said. “There is an inertial barrier to upgrading that sequence, which can involve testing it out on the machine, training the techs to do it that way, and interpreting it for the physician clients who requested the imaging.”

In addition, there is a lack of exposure of MS imaging guidelines in the radiology literature, Dr. Ford added. “Maybe it’s a matter of giving more presentations at meetings that include radiologists, or getting the information out through the manufacturers. I think at the end of the day it could be a combination of all of those things,” he said.

However, the CMSC collaboration could make a big difference, Dr. Ford noted. “This is where the international protocol could be important in terms of making all of this happen,” he said. “What we’re seeing is the confluence of representatives of the U.S. and European centers hash out a consensus, and if it’s international, I think that adds a lot of weight to an eventual implementation on a wider basis.”

“I think the group has done a stellar job, and we should not try to be too focused on adding everyone’s little tweak,” he noted. “If we can get a good baseline foundational imaging sequence that can be implemented worldwide, we would be much better off.”

The CMSC updated imaging guidelines are expected to be published in coming months. The most recent previous updates are available online.

Dr. Traboulsee disclosed relationships with Biogen, Chugai, Roche, Sanofi, and Teva. Dr. Ford and Dr. Li have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Proposed updates to guidelines for magnetic resonance imaging in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are in the works to make the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers protocol and other international guidelines more similar, with the hope that internationally accepted consensus guidelines will improve lagging conformity with the recommendations.

“We’ve always envisioned the guidelines as being international, but now we have harmony with the groups, so this is truly a global protocol,” Anthony Traboulsee, MD, a professor of neurology and director of the MS clinic and neuromyelitis optica clinic at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, said in presenting the proposed updates during the virtual meeting of the CMSC.

The updates reflect the input of an international expert panel convened by the CMSC in October 2019, made up of neurologists, radiologists, magnetic resonance technologists, and imaging scientists with expertise in MS. Attendees represented groups including the European-based Magnetic Resonance Imaging in MS (MAGNIMS), North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis Cooperative, National MS Society, Multiple Sclerosis Association of America, MRI manufacturers, and commercial image analysis.
 

Standardizing scans

While the mission was to review and update the current guidelines, an important overriding objective was to boost universal acceptance and improve the utilization of the protocol, which research shows is surprisingly low. According to one poster presented at the meeting, a real-world MRI dataset of 1,233 sessions showed only 8% satisfied criteria for the T1 sequence outlined in the 2018 guidelines, and only 7% satisfied criteria for the T2 sequence. “In a real-world MRI dataset of patients with MS, the conformance to the CMSC brain MRI guidelines was extremely low,” concluded the authors, who were with Icometrix, in Chicago and Belgium.

David Li, MD, also of the University of British Columbia and cochair of the MRI guideline committee, said the nonconformity has important implications. “Nonstandardized scans, with inconsistent slice thickness and gaps, nonstandardized slice acquisition (not in the subcallosal plane), and incomplete brain coverage, all contribute to scans that are difficult to compare,” he said. Those factors, “allow for assessment of new lesions and lesion activity that are invaluable for diagnosis as well as determining the effectiveness of therapy or the need for initiating/changing therapy.”

Dr. Traboulsee said the lack of adherence to guidelines may simply have to do with a mistaken perception of complexity. “Part of the challenge is MRI centers don’t realize how easy it is to implement these guidelines,” he said in presenting the proposed updates.

Dr. Traboulsee noted that the CMSC has been working with manufacturers to try to incorporate the protocol into the scanners “so that it’s just a button to press” for the MRI. “I think that will get us over a major hurdle of adaptation,” Dr. Traboulsee said. “Most radiologists said once they started using it they were really happy with it. They found they were using it beyond MS for other basic neurologic imaging, so just raising awareness and making things more of a one-step process for individuals to use will be helpful,” he said.
 

Repositioning consistency is key

Among key suggestions that the expert panel proposed for guideline updates include the use of the subcallosal plane for consistent repositioning, which should allow for more accuracy and consistency in the identification of lesions in MS, Dr. Traboulsee said. “A major change reflecting improvements in MRI technology is the ability to acquire high-resolution 3-D images and that’s particularly helpful with fluid attenuation inversion recovery (FLAIR) sequences, which is what we do to identify lesions,” he explained. “The repositioning along the subcallosal line is important because it allows us to easily compare studies over time. It takes very little time but allows us to prepare studies over time much more easily,” he said.

Central vein sign

Another update is the establishment of a new category of optimum plus sequences allowing for the monitoring of brain atrophy and identifying lesions with a central vein sign, which has gained high interest as a marker on 3T MRI of demyelinating plaques in MS. As described in recent research, the central vein sign shows high accuracy in differentiating between MS and non-MS lesions.

“Many people have a few white spots on neuroimaging, but with MRI so much more available around the world, many of them are being misdiagnosed with MS,” Dr. Traboulsee said. “But the central vein sign, using a very simple MRI technique, can identify lesions with a vein in the center that (distinguishes them as) MS lesions.”

Though the process is still several years from routine clinical use, the proposed update would better implement susceptibility weighted imaging, which has traditionally been used for functional MRI.
 

PML Surveillance

The updates also include recommendations to help in the detection of the rare but potentially serious complication of some disease-modifying therapies of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). “We need a very quick and comprehensive way to monitor patients for PML before symptoms develop,” Dr. Traboulsee said. “The sequences we recommended were based on expert opinion of people who have worked quite a bit with PML in MS, and if one wants to survey for PML it’s only about a 10-minute scan.”

International protocol

Corey Ford, MD, a professor of neurology and director of the MS Specialty Clinic at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center in Albuquerque, commented that, with imaging playing such an important role in MS, the lack of adherence to the protocol can be a significant hindrance. “MRI is the most important imaging tool we have in the diagnosing and management of MS, but ... it’s quite amazing how different the sequences that are used can be when imaging centers are asked to image someone with a diagnosis of MS, so it’s a problem,” he said.

Dr. Ford speculated that part of the problem is simply inertia at some imaging centers. “Practices will have been programmed into their protocol for a long time, so when a patient comes in for imaging regarding MS, they may [turn to] their typical sequence,” he said. “There is an inertial barrier to upgrading that sequence, which can involve testing it out on the machine, training the techs to do it that way, and interpreting it for the physician clients who requested the imaging.”

In addition, there is a lack of exposure of MS imaging guidelines in the radiology literature, Dr. Ford added. “Maybe it’s a matter of giving more presentations at meetings that include radiologists, or getting the information out through the manufacturers. I think at the end of the day it could be a combination of all of those things,” he said.

However, the CMSC collaboration could make a big difference, Dr. Ford noted. “This is where the international protocol could be important in terms of making all of this happen,” he said. “What we’re seeing is the confluence of representatives of the U.S. and European centers hash out a consensus, and if it’s international, I think that adds a lot of weight to an eventual implementation on a wider basis.”

“I think the group has done a stellar job, and we should not try to be too focused on adding everyone’s little tweak,” he noted. “If we can get a good baseline foundational imaging sequence that can be implemented worldwide, we would be much better off.”

The CMSC updated imaging guidelines are expected to be published in coming months. The most recent previous updates are available online.

Dr. Traboulsee disclosed relationships with Biogen, Chugai, Roche, Sanofi, and Teva. Dr. Ford and Dr. Li have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite the ever-increasing acceptance of medical cannabis and its notably common use in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), clinicians treating those patients still may be poorly informed about risks, benefits, regulations, and proper uses, experts say.

“There is evidence of a ‘clinical void,’ with clinicians on one side and people with MS and other conditions on the other that doesn’t usually exist regarding therapies that people with MS are using,” said Allen C. Bowling, MD, PhD, director of the NeuroHealth Institute and clinical professor of neurology at the University of Colorado, in Aurora. His presentation was part of the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

While approximately 8% of the general population uses cannabis, evidence shows that the proportion of people with MS who do so ranges from 9% to 38%, for an average of about 20%, Dr. Bowling noted. Yet, according to research, only about 20% of those actually discuss their cannabis use with their clinicians, which could have potentially adverse implications in the management of the disease.

As an example, Dr. Bowling described a case of his own involving a stroke syndrome associated with cannabis use – reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS), which he mistook for an MS flare-up. “I had a patient who developed RCVS, but because it appeared to be an MS attack, I was treating her with corticosteroids, and she kept getting worse,” he said. “It’s very important for MS clinicians to be aware of this stroke syndrome that can mimic an MS attack. The way to rule it out is with CT angiography.”
 

Misconceptions common among clinicians

Studies underscore that such misconceptions could be common. One recent study showed that as many as 90% of residents and fellows did not feel prepared to recommend or answer questions on cannabis use, and in fact, most states do not even require physicians to have training in medical uses of cannabis, Dr. Bowling noted.

Other research shows that the rates of clinicians with high knowledge in medical cannabis use are in the single digits, while many have no cannabis training at all.

In a survey of 556 physicians taken as recently as January 2020, 47% gave incorrect responses regarding tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), while 33% reported being familiar with “nano-cannabinoids” – which don’t even exist, and the term was created for the sake of the survey.

Clinicians’ misconceptions about the regulation of cannabis was especially eyebrow raising, Dr. Bowling indicated. “The part that concerns me the most is regarding dispensary cannabis products – 17% of respondents thought the products were Food and Drug Administration–controlled and 25% said they thought that dispensary products were FDA approved,” he said.

There are, meanwhile, no formal clinical studies evaluating the medical efficacy of any products sold in U.S. cannabis dispensaries, much less FDA regulation, Dr. Bowling said.

Among the most recent research of cannabis use among MS patients is a real-world study of more than 2,000 patients with MS in Denmark. Said to be the most comprehensive survey of cannabis use among MS patients to date, the researchers found that 21% of patients reported cannabis use in the past year, with only 21% of those having a prescription to use the drug legally because of strict regulations in Denmark.

Respondents reported that the primary reasons for use in MS were to alleviate pain (61%), spasticity (52%), and sleep disturbances (46%). The most common adverse effects were drowsiness (30%), feeling quiet/subdued (23%), and dizziness (13%), with effects that were mild to moderate.

And a 2019 study of electronic medical record data for 561 patients with multiple sclerosis in British Columbia, Canada, showed that 19% reported using cannabis, with 71% reporting use for alleviation of pain, 71% for sleep, 44% for mood, and 40% for spasticity.

Dr. Bowling said the findings are consistent with his clinical experience in treating patients in Colorado, where medical cannabis has been legal for about 2 decades. “It seems that people who benefit most are those who use small amounts and typically use it for alleviation of pain and/or spasticity that interferes with sleep,” he said.

However, with a lack of regulation about the true components in dispensary products, there are many uncertainties about what works or doesn’t. “Very anecdotally, preparations that are high in cannabidiol (CBD) and low in tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, the main psychoactive compound in cannabis) seem the most helpful. Pure CBD preparations (i.e., with no THC) seem less effective,” Dr. Bowling noted.

Other recent evidence on cannabis use in MS, however, suggests important benefits once patients abstain from its use.

However, the exceptionally wide array of components in unregulated cannabis accounts for substantial variety in potency, benefits, and side effects, Dr. Bowling said.

He pointed out one recent study looking mainly at patients with MS who regularly smoked cannabis and showed cognitive improvements upon abstaining. The study included 40 MS patients who reported smoking cannabis regularly – at least 4 days per week for multiple years – who were randomized to continue their cannabis use or withdraw.

While there were no cognitive differences among the patients at baseline, after 28 days, the abstinence group showed significant improvements on functional MRI in every cognitive index (P < .0001 for all). On the Symbol Digit Modalities Test at day 28, the withdrawal group completed more trials correctly (P < .012) and had a faster reaction time (P < .002) that was associated with significantly increased activation in brain regions known to be associated with performance of the test, including the bilateral inferior frontal gyri, caudate, and declive/cerebellum (P < .001 for all regions), the authors said.

“These results reveal that patients with multiple sclerosis who are frequent, long-term cannabis users can show significant improvements in memory, processing speed, and executive function after 28 days of drug abstinence,” the authors reported.
 

Addiction, distinguishing cannabis from MS symptoms

Dr. Bowling said that, while the findings are consistent with his own clinical observations, abstinence isn’t always easy. “I’ve seen patients with cognitive impairment whose cognition and overall day-to-day function have improved with discontinuation of cannabis,” he said. “For some of these patients, however, it was a long-term challenge to discontinue cannabis because they were addicted.”

Addiction to cannabis in MS in fact may be more common than many realize, and comes with a host of other adverse effects, Dr. Bowling said. “In my practice, I have definitely seen many cases of addiction. I think that it’s very underdiagnosed. In addition to cognitive dysfunction, it can worsen anxiety and depression and decrease balance, leading to falls.”

The RCVS risk is another concern, and changes in liver enzymes should also raise a red flag when MS patients are cannabis users, Bowling added.

“I’ve seen in multiple patients where the liver enzymes went up and I thought it was because of the disease-modifying therapy, but it turned out to have been because the patient had started CBD, so you need to be aware of potential hepatotoxicity.”

“The bottom line is that we don’t have strong data in this area and herbs are extremely complex with many unknown constituents.”

Dr. Bowling noted that pure CBD or CBD-enriched products would be expected to produce less cognitive dysfunction than does regular cannabis smoking, “however, it’s important to keep in mind that a ‘CBD-enriched’ product could have low but still significant THC content,” he said.

Dr. Bowling reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Genzyme, Greenwich Biosciences, and Novartis, and he received royalties from Springer Publishing.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite the ever-increasing acceptance of medical cannabis and its notably common use in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), clinicians treating those patients still may be poorly informed about risks, benefits, regulations, and proper uses, experts say.

“There is evidence of a ‘clinical void,’ with clinicians on one side and people with MS and other conditions on the other that doesn’t usually exist regarding therapies that people with MS are using,” said Allen C. Bowling, MD, PhD, director of the NeuroHealth Institute and clinical professor of neurology at the University of Colorado, in Aurora. His presentation was part of the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

While approximately 8% of the general population uses cannabis, evidence shows that the proportion of people with MS who do so ranges from 9% to 38%, for an average of about 20%, Dr. Bowling noted. Yet, according to research, only about 20% of those actually discuss their cannabis use with their clinicians, which could have potentially adverse implications in the management of the disease.

As an example, Dr. Bowling described a case of his own involving a stroke syndrome associated with cannabis use – reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS), which he mistook for an MS flare-up. “I had a patient who developed RCVS, but because it appeared to be an MS attack, I was treating her with corticosteroids, and she kept getting worse,” he said. “It’s very important for MS clinicians to be aware of this stroke syndrome that can mimic an MS attack. The way to rule it out is with CT angiography.”
 

Misconceptions common among clinicians

Studies underscore that such misconceptions could be common. One recent study showed that as many as 90% of residents and fellows did not feel prepared to recommend or answer questions on cannabis use, and in fact, most states do not even require physicians to have training in medical uses of cannabis, Dr. Bowling noted.

Other research shows that the rates of clinicians with high knowledge in medical cannabis use are in the single digits, while many have no cannabis training at all.

In a survey of 556 physicians taken as recently as January 2020, 47% gave incorrect responses regarding tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), while 33% reported being familiar with “nano-cannabinoids” – which don’t even exist, and the term was created for the sake of the survey.

Clinicians’ misconceptions about the regulation of cannabis was especially eyebrow raising, Dr. Bowling indicated. “The part that concerns me the most is regarding dispensary cannabis products – 17% of respondents thought the products were Food and Drug Administration–controlled and 25% said they thought that dispensary products were FDA approved,” he said.

There are, meanwhile, no formal clinical studies evaluating the medical efficacy of any products sold in U.S. cannabis dispensaries, much less FDA regulation, Dr. Bowling said.

Among the most recent research of cannabis use among MS patients is a real-world study of more than 2,000 patients with MS in Denmark. Said to be the most comprehensive survey of cannabis use among MS patients to date, the researchers found that 21% of patients reported cannabis use in the past year, with only 21% of those having a prescription to use the drug legally because of strict regulations in Denmark.

Respondents reported that the primary reasons for use in MS were to alleviate pain (61%), spasticity (52%), and sleep disturbances (46%). The most common adverse effects were drowsiness (30%), feeling quiet/subdued (23%), and dizziness (13%), with effects that were mild to moderate.

And a 2019 study of electronic medical record data for 561 patients with multiple sclerosis in British Columbia, Canada, showed that 19% reported using cannabis, with 71% reporting use for alleviation of pain, 71% for sleep, 44% for mood, and 40% for spasticity.

Dr. Bowling said the findings are consistent with his clinical experience in treating patients in Colorado, where medical cannabis has been legal for about 2 decades. “It seems that people who benefit most are those who use small amounts and typically use it for alleviation of pain and/or spasticity that interferes with sleep,” he said.

However, with a lack of regulation about the true components in dispensary products, there are many uncertainties about what works or doesn’t. “Very anecdotally, preparations that are high in cannabidiol (CBD) and low in tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, the main psychoactive compound in cannabis) seem the most helpful. Pure CBD preparations (i.e., with no THC) seem less effective,” Dr. Bowling noted.

Other recent evidence on cannabis use in MS, however, suggests important benefits once patients abstain from its use.

However, the exceptionally wide array of components in unregulated cannabis accounts for substantial variety in potency, benefits, and side effects, Dr. Bowling said.

He pointed out one recent study looking mainly at patients with MS who regularly smoked cannabis and showed cognitive improvements upon abstaining. The study included 40 MS patients who reported smoking cannabis regularly – at least 4 days per week for multiple years – who were randomized to continue their cannabis use or withdraw.

While there were no cognitive differences among the patients at baseline, after 28 days, the abstinence group showed significant improvements on functional MRI in every cognitive index (P < .0001 for all). On the Symbol Digit Modalities Test at day 28, the withdrawal group completed more trials correctly (P < .012) and had a faster reaction time (P < .002) that was associated with significantly increased activation in brain regions known to be associated with performance of the test, including the bilateral inferior frontal gyri, caudate, and declive/cerebellum (P < .001 for all regions), the authors said.

“These results reveal that patients with multiple sclerosis who are frequent, long-term cannabis users can show significant improvements in memory, processing speed, and executive function after 28 days of drug abstinence,” the authors reported.
 

Addiction, distinguishing cannabis from MS symptoms

Dr. Bowling said that, while the findings are consistent with his own clinical observations, abstinence isn’t always easy. “I’ve seen patients with cognitive impairment whose cognition and overall day-to-day function have improved with discontinuation of cannabis,” he said. “For some of these patients, however, it was a long-term challenge to discontinue cannabis because they were addicted.”

Addiction to cannabis in MS in fact may be more common than many realize, and comes with a host of other adverse effects, Dr. Bowling said. “In my practice, I have definitely seen many cases of addiction. I think that it’s very underdiagnosed. In addition to cognitive dysfunction, it can worsen anxiety and depression and decrease balance, leading to falls.”

The RCVS risk is another concern, and changes in liver enzymes should also raise a red flag when MS patients are cannabis users, Bowling added.

“I’ve seen in multiple patients where the liver enzymes went up and I thought it was because of the disease-modifying therapy, but it turned out to have been because the patient had started CBD, so you need to be aware of potential hepatotoxicity.”

“The bottom line is that we don’t have strong data in this area and herbs are extremely complex with many unknown constituents.”

Dr. Bowling noted that pure CBD or CBD-enriched products would be expected to produce less cognitive dysfunction than does regular cannabis smoking, “however, it’s important to keep in mind that a ‘CBD-enriched’ product could have low but still significant THC content,” he said.

Dr. Bowling reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Genzyme, Greenwich Biosciences, and Novartis, and he received royalties from Springer Publishing.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite the ever-increasing acceptance of medical cannabis and its notably common use in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), clinicians treating those patients still may be poorly informed about risks, benefits, regulations, and proper uses, experts say.

“There is evidence of a ‘clinical void,’ with clinicians on one side and people with MS and other conditions on the other that doesn’t usually exist regarding therapies that people with MS are using,” said Allen C. Bowling, MD, PhD, director of the NeuroHealth Institute and clinical professor of neurology at the University of Colorado, in Aurora. His presentation was part of the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

While approximately 8% of the general population uses cannabis, evidence shows that the proportion of people with MS who do so ranges from 9% to 38%, for an average of about 20%, Dr. Bowling noted. Yet, according to research, only about 20% of those actually discuss their cannabis use with their clinicians, which could have potentially adverse implications in the management of the disease.

As an example, Dr. Bowling described a case of his own involving a stroke syndrome associated with cannabis use – reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS), which he mistook for an MS flare-up. “I had a patient who developed RCVS, but because it appeared to be an MS attack, I was treating her with corticosteroids, and she kept getting worse,” he said. “It’s very important for MS clinicians to be aware of this stroke syndrome that can mimic an MS attack. The way to rule it out is with CT angiography.”
 

Misconceptions common among clinicians

Studies underscore that such misconceptions could be common. One recent study showed that as many as 90% of residents and fellows did not feel prepared to recommend or answer questions on cannabis use, and in fact, most states do not even require physicians to have training in medical uses of cannabis, Dr. Bowling noted.

Other research shows that the rates of clinicians with high knowledge in medical cannabis use are in the single digits, while many have no cannabis training at all.

In a survey of 556 physicians taken as recently as January 2020, 47% gave incorrect responses regarding tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), while 33% reported being familiar with “nano-cannabinoids” – which don’t even exist, and the term was created for the sake of the survey.

Clinicians’ misconceptions about the regulation of cannabis was especially eyebrow raising, Dr. Bowling indicated. “The part that concerns me the most is regarding dispensary cannabis products – 17% of respondents thought the products were Food and Drug Administration–controlled and 25% said they thought that dispensary products were FDA approved,” he said.

There are, meanwhile, no formal clinical studies evaluating the medical efficacy of any products sold in U.S. cannabis dispensaries, much less FDA regulation, Dr. Bowling said.

Among the most recent research of cannabis use among MS patients is a real-world study of more than 2,000 patients with MS in Denmark. Said to be the most comprehensive survey of cannabis use among MS patients to date, the researchers found that 21% of patients reported cannabis use in the past year, with only 21% of those having a prescription to use the drug legally because of strict regulations in Denmark.

Respondents reported that the primary reasons for use in MS were to alleviate pain (61%), spasticity (52%), and sleep disturbances (46%). The most common adverse effects were drowsiness (30%), feeling quiet/subdued (23%), and dizziness (13%), with effects that were mild to moderate.

And a 2019 study of electronic medical record data for 561 patients with multiple sclerosis in British Columbia, Canada, showed that 19% reported using cannabis, with 71% reporting use for alleviation of pain, 71% for sleep, 44% for mood, and 40% for spasticity.

Dr. Bowling said the findings are consistent with his clinical experience in treating patients in Colorado, where medical cannabis has been legal for about 2 decades. “It seems that people who benefit most are those who use small amounts and typically use it for alleviation of pain and/or spasticity that interferes with sleep,” he said.

However, with a lack of regulation about the true components in dispensary products, there are many uncertainties about what works or doesn’t. “Very anecdotally, preparations that are high in cannabidiol (CBD) and low in tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, the main psychoactive compound in cannabis) seem the most helpful. Pure CBD preparations (i.e., with no THC) seem less effective,” Dr. Bowling noted.

Other recent evidence on cannabis use in MS, however, suggests important benefits once patients abstain from its use.

However, the exceptionally wide array of components in unregulated cannabis accounts for substantial variety in potency, benefits, and side effects, Dr. Bowling said.

He pointed out one recent study looking mainly at patients with MS who regularly smoked cannabis and showed cognitive improvements upon abstaining. The study included 40 MS patients who reported smoking cannabis regularly – at least 4 days per week for multiple years – who were randomized to continue their cannabis use or withdraw.

While there were no cognitive differences among the patients at baseline, after 28 days, the abstinence group showed significant improvements on functional MRI in every cognitive index (P < .0001 for all). On the Symbol Digit Modalities Test at day 28, the withdrawal group completed more trials correctly (P < .012) and had a faster reaction time (P < .002) that was associated with significantly increased activation in brain regions known to be associated with performance of the test, including the bilateral inferior frontal gyri, caudate, and declive/cerebellum (P < .001 for all regions), the authors said.

“These results reveal that patients with multiple sclerosis who are frequent, long-term cannabis users can show significant improvements in memory, processing speed, and executive function after 28 days of drug abstinence,” the authors reported.
 

Addiction, distinguishing cannabis from MS symptoms

Dr. Bowling said that, while the findings are consistent with his own clinical observations, abstinence isn’t always easy. “I’ve seen patients with cognitive impairment whose cognition and overall day-to-day function have improved with discontinuation of cannabis,” he said. “For some of these patients, however, it was a long-term challenge to discontinue cannabis because they were addicted.”

Addiction to cannabis in MS in fact may be more common than many realize, and comes with a host of other adverse effects, Dr. Bowling said. “In my practice, I have definitely seen many cases of addiction. I think that it’s very underdiagnosed. In addition to cognitive dysfunction, it can worsen anxiety and depression and decrease balance, leading to falls.”

The RCVS risk is another concern, and changes in liver enzymes should also raise a red flag when MS patients are cannabis users, Bowling added.

“I’ve seen in multiple patients where the liver enzymes went up and I thought it was because of the disease-modifying therapy, but it turned out to have been because the patient had started CBD, so you need to be aware of potential hepatotoxicity.”

“The bottom line is that we don’t have strong data in this area and herbs are extremely complex with many unknown constituents.”

Dr. Bowling noted that pure CBD or CBD-enriched products would be expected to produce less cognitive dysfunction than does regular cannabis smoking, “however, it’s important to keep in mind that a ‘CBD-enriched’ product could have low but still significant THC content,” he said.

Dr. Bowling reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Genzyme, Greenwich Biosciences, and Novartis, and he received royalties from Springer Publishing.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The variability in functional performance within and between levels of disability measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) call into question the reliability of the EDSS itself, according to researchers.

Preferred walking speed, for example, may vary by as much as 20% among patients with the same EDSS score. “Even though it is considered a walking scale, your scale defined groups of homogeneous disability are not even homogeneous for quantified measurement of walking ability,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y. “That’s a problem.”

Dr. Gudesblatt’s study was presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

John F. Kurtzke, MD, developed the EDSS in 1967. The scale has become a standard outcome of clinical trials, alongside MRI measures and annualized relapse rates. More than 15 therapies for MS have received regulatory approval in part based on their effects on EDSS outcomes. Furthermore, the recently proposed treatment goal of no evidence of disease activity includes the EDSS among its criteria.

Functional ability, however, which the EDSS measures, depends on various factors such as cognitive function, manual dexterity, and ambulation. If the degree of variability of these factors is greater than 20% within groups defined as having similar disability, this scale would no longer be valid, according to Dr. Gudesblatt.

To analyze the variability in functional performance in groups of patients with similar disability, Dr. Gudesblatt and colleagues retrospectively reviewed data from a prospective MS registry. Participants underwent multidimensional computerized cognitive testing and digital gait analysis. They also submitted patient-reported outcomes for hand function while undergoing simultaneous measurements of Patient-Determined Disease Steps (PDDS) or EDSS. For the analysis, Dr. Gudesblatt and colleagues defined groups of “adjacent” EDSS scores as follows: from 0 to 2.5, from 3 to 4.5, from 5 to 6.5, and greater than 7.

In all, 258 patients with MS underwent cognitive testing. Of this group, 73% of patients were women, and mean age was 46 years. The proportion of overlap in multidomain computerized cognitive testing global summary score of 7 domains among patients with adjacent EDSS scores was 65%. The researchers found 42% overlap among patients at the extremes of the EDSS scale. The proportion of overlap in accumulative cognitive impairment (i.e., the number of cognitive domains impaired by greater than one standard deviation) was 72% across adjacent EDSS groups and 38% across extreme EDSS groups.

Among 254 patients with MS who underwent evaluation of walking, 72% were women, and mean age was 46 years. The mean normalized velocity of preferred walking speed varied by more than 20% within EDSS groups and overlapped by more than 20% between groups.

A total of 783 patients underwent evaluation of hand function and tremor. About 74% of these participants were women, and mean age was 49 years. The variability across all PDDS groups (i.e., 0 to 1, 2 to 4, and greater than 4) was greater than 50%. Adjacent PDDS groups had overlap of more than 50%, and the extremes had an overlap of greater than 32%.

“The criteria for the diagnosis [of MS] have undergone multiple revisions, but the scale to define the disability remains unchanged,” said Dr. Gudesblatt. “It’s all about trying to do the right thing for the right patient at the right time for the right reason. We cannot go by our own perceptions. You need to have objective not subjective information to appropriately improve measurements of disease trajectory. The neurologist must move beyond the hammer and tuning fork, must move to objective, quantitative, examiner-independent, multidimensional measures of important aspects of disease to enhance identification of critical disease impact along a continuum so as to improved shared decision making with patient centric objective data to improve outcomes and reduce disability.”

Dr. Gudesblatt has served on speakers bureaus for Acorda, Amgen, Medtronic, and Saol Therapeutics. He has performed contracted research for Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. The study was conducted without external funding.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Gudesblatt M et al. CMSC 2020. Abstract QOL15.

The variability in functional performance within and between levels of disability measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) call into question the reliability of the EDSS itself, according to researchers.

Preferred walking speed, for example, may vary by as much as 20% among patients with the same EDSS score. “Even though it is considered a walking scale, your scale defined groups of homogeneous disability are not even homogeneous for quantified measurement of walking ability,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y. “That’s a problem.”

Dr. Gudesblatt’s study was presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

John F. Kurtzke, MD, developed the EDSS in 1967. The scale has become a standard outcome of clinical trials, alongside MRI measures and annualized relapse rates. More than 15 therapies for MS have received regulatory approval in part based on their effects on EDSS outcomes. Furthermore, the recently proposed treatment goal of no evidence of disease activity includes the EDSS among its criteria.

Functional ability, however, which the EDSS measures, depends on various factors such as cognitive function, manual dexterity, and ambulation. If the degree of variability of these factors is greater than 20% within groups defined as having similar disability, this scale would no longer be valid, according to Dr. Gudesblatt.

To analyze the variability in functional performance in groups of patients with similar disability, Dr. Gudesblatt and colleagues retrospectively reviewed data from a prospective MS registry. Participants underwent multidimensional computerized cognitive testing and digital gait analysis. They also submitted patient-reported outcomes for hand function while undergoing simultaneous measurements of Patient-Determined Disease Steps (PDDS) or EDSS. For the analysis, Dr. Gudesblatt and colleagues defined groups of “adjacent” EDSS scores as follows: from 0 to 2.5, from 3 to 4.5, from 5 to 6.5, and greater than 7.

In all, 258 patients with MS underwent cognitive testing. Of this group, 73% of patients were women, and mean age was 46 years. The proportion of overlap in multidomain computerized cognitive testing global summary score of 7 domains among patients with adjacent EDSS scores was 65%. The researchers found 42% overlap among patients at the extremes of the EDSS scale. The proportion of overlap in accumulative cognitive impairment (i.e., the number of cognitive domains impaired by greater than one standard deviation) was 72% across adjacent EDSS groups and 38% across extreme EDSS groups.

Among 254 patients with MS who underwent evaluation of walking, 72% were women, and mean age was 46 years. The mean normalized velocity of preferred walking speed varied by more than 20% within EDSS groups and overlapped by more than 20% between groups.

A total of 783 patients underwent evaluation of hand function and tremor. About 74% of these participants were women, and mean age was 49 years. The variability across all PDDS groups (i.e., 0 to 1, 2 to 4, and greater than 4) was greater than 50%. Adjacent PDDS groups had overlap of more than 50%, and the extremes had an overlap of greater than 32%.

“The criteria for the diagnosis [of MS] have undergone multiple revisions, but the scale to define the disability remains unchanged,” said Dr. Gudesblatt. “It’s all about trying to do the right thing for the right patient at the right time for the right reason. We cannot go by our own perceptions. You need to have objective not subjective information to appropriately improve measurements of disease trajectory. The neurologist must move beyond the hammer and tuning fork, must move to objective, quantitative, examiner-independent, multidimensional measures of important aspects of disease to enhance identification of critical disease impact along a continuum so as to improved shared decision making with patient centric objective data to improve outcomes and reduce disability.”

Dr. Gudesblatt has served on speakers bureaus for Acorda, Amgen, Medtronic, and Saol Therapeutics. He has performed contracted research for Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. The study was conducted without external funding.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Gudesblatt M et al. CMSC 2020. Abstract QOL15.

The variability in functional performance within and between levels of disability measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) call into question the reliability of the EDSS itself, according to researchers.

Preferred walking speed, for example, may vary by as much as 20% among patients with the same EDSS score. “Even though it is considered a walking scale, your scale defined groups of homogeneous disability are not even homogeneous for quantified measurement of walking ability,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y. “That’s a problem.”

Dr. Gudesblatt’s study was presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

John F. Kurtzke, MD, developed the EDSS in 1967. The scale has become a standard outcome of clinical trials, alongside MRI measures and annualized relapse rates. More than 15 therapies for MS have received regulatory approval in part based on their effects on EDSS outcomes. Furthermore, the recently proposed treatment goal of no evidence of disease activity includes the EDSS among its criteria.

Functional ability, however, which the EDSS measures, depends on various factors such as cognitive function, manual dexterity, and ambulation. If the degree of variability of these factors is greater than 20% within groups defined as having similar disability, this scale would no longer be valid, according to Dr. Gudesblatt.

To analyze the variability in functional performance in groups of patients with similar disability, Dr. Gudesblatt and colleagues retrospectively reviewed data from a prospective MS registry. Participants underwent multidimensional computerized cognitive testing and digital gait analysis. They also submitted patient-reported outcomes for hand function while undergoing simultaneous measurements of Patient-Determined Disease Steps (PDDS) or EDSS. For the analysis, Dr. Gudesblatt and colleagues defined groups of “adjacent” EDSS scores as follows: from 0 to 2.5, from 3 to 4.5, from 5 to 6.5, and greater than 7.

In all, 258 patients with MS underwent cognitive testing. Of this group, 73% of patients were women, and mean age was 46 years. The proportion of overlap in multidomain computerized cognitive testing global summary score of 7 domains among patients with adjacent EDSS scores was 65%. The researchers found 42% overlap among patients at the extremes of the EDSS scale. The proportion of overlap in accumulative cognitive impairment (i.e., the number of cognitive domains impaired by greater than one standard deviation) was 72% across adjacent EDSS groups and 38% across extreme EDSS groups.

Among 254 patients with MS who underwent evaluation of walking, 72% were women, and mean age was 46 years. The mean normalized velocity of preferred walking speed varied by more than 20% within EDSS groups and overlapped by more than 20% between groups.

A total of 783 patients underwent evaluation of hand function and tremor. About 74% of these participants were women, and mean age was 49 years. The variability across all PDDS groups (i.e., 0 to 1, 2 to 4, and greater than 4) was greater than 50%. Adjacent PDDS groups had overlap of more than 50%, and the extremes had an overlap of greater than 32%.

“The criteria for the diagnosis [of MS] have undergone multiple revisions, but the scale to define the disability remains unchanged,” said Dr. Gudesblatt. “It’s all about trying to do the right thing for the right patient at the right time for the right reason. We cannot go by our own perceptions. You need to have objective not subjective information to appropriately improve measurements of disease trajectory. The neurologist must move beyond the hammer and tuning fork, must move to objective, quantitative, examiner-independent, multidimensional measures of important aspects of disease to enhance identification of critical disease impact along a continuum so as to improved shared decision making with patient centric objective data to improve outcomes and reduce disability.”

Dr. Gudesblatt has served on speakers bureaus for Acorda, Amgen, Medtronic, and Saol Therapeutics. He has performed contracted research for Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. The study was conducted without external funding.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Gudesblatt M et al. CMSC 2020. Abstract QOL15.

Reports of herpes zoster virus (HZV) among patients being treated with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) are nearly five times higher among women versus men and commonly occur in people under the age of 40, a new study of adverse event reports on a variety of DMTs suggests.

DMTs are known to be associated with a potentially increased risk of opportunistic infections, including HZV. However, data are lacking on issues such as the relative frequency of HZV and the distribution of cases among age and gender groups, said senior author Ahmed Zayed Obeidat, MD, PhD, assistant professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“In my practice, we noticed patients being treated with DMTs were developing shingles at much younger ages than would be typical, so we were interested in looking at the distribution of cases among people treated with DMTs,” he said.

For the study, which was presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Dr. Obeidat, first author Nicola Carlisle, MD, also of the Medical College of Wisconsin, and their colleagues turned to data from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System.

They analyzed reports on adverse events involving HZV and varicella among patients with MS received between January 1999 and June 2019. The reports involved a range of MS DMTs, including interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab, or ocrelizumab. Recently approved DMTs including cladribine and siponimod were excluded because of an insufficient number of reports.

Among 3,335 reports that were identified, they found highest mean annual report rates of HZV were for natalizumab, at 115.4, and lowest for glatiramer acetate, with just 5.3 reports. The mean annual report rates for HZV among the other DMTs were ocrelizumab, 88.3; dimethyl fumarate, 73.4; fingolimod, 72.9; interferon beta, 32.9; alemtuzumab, 21.7; and teriflunomide, 13.9.

Overall, the reports of HZV were 4.5 times more common among females, ranging from 2.1 times greater with alemtuzumab to 11.4 times greater for females with interferon-beta. The highest percentages of reports involved people in their 50s, with the exceptions of fingolimod, which had the highest rate of reports among patients in their 40s, and alemtuzumab, in which the highest percentage of reports involved patients in their 30s.

Meanwhile, as many as 25.7% of cases occurred in people under the age of 40 years, while 77.6% of total reports of HZV were in age groups between 31 years and 60 years.

“These rates are different than what is expected in the shingles population, which usually involves people over 60,” Dr. Obeidat said. He noted that, while MS is known to affect more women than men, the fivefold increase in HZV well exceeds the female-male ratio in MS, which is about 2.5:1.

Dr. Obeidat speculated that one factor explaining the higher reports of younger patients could be that fewer older patients are taking DMTs. “Many of our patients with MS may not be treated with DMTs when they are older or they may be on older DMTs that don’t have as much of a risk of opportunistic infections or activation, or some older patients may not be on medications anymore, so this may be why we are seeing this,” he said.

In commenting on the study, Joshua Katz, MD, codirector of the Elliot Lewis Center for Multiple Sclerosis Care, Wellesley, Mass., speculated that numerous factors could explain the higher rates of women developing HZV.

“One wonders, for instance, did pregnancy play a role, were some of the women on prior medications?”

The statistical difference is interesting, he said, “but it’s hard to see what the explanation could be.”

While DMTs typically can be effective in suppressing an MS flare even if a patient develops shingles, the risks of the shingles, itself, is a concern, Dr. Katz added. “Just about any infection that stimulates an inflammatory response has some risk of worsening symptoms with MS; however, the bigger risk is probably the shingles itself and getting postherpetic neuralgia,” he explained.

“Sometimes there can be independent neurological problems just from MS, and that’s probably a bigger risk than worsening the MS,” he said. Clinicians should therefore keep shingles on their radar before starting patients on DMTs, Dr. Katz added.

“For many of the medications that are immunosuppressive, you want to check patients’ baseline levels of antibodies for zoster and if they don’t have antibodies, then you do want to vaccinate them.”

He noted that the new HZV vaccine is not a live vaccine and has a high efficacy rate, “so we think we can safely administer it in most cases.

“A concern is whether some DMTs may render the vaccine less effective, and we are looking at studying that with ocrelizumab and maybe some other B-cell depleting treatments.”

Dr. Obeidat disclosed relationships with Alexion, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EMD Serono, Genentech, Sanofi and Novartis. Dr. Katz has been a speaker for Biogen, Genetech, Sanofi, and EMD Serono.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Reports of herpes zoster virus (HZV) among patients being treated with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) are nearly five times higher among women versus men and commonly occur in people under the age of 40, a new study of adverse event reports on a variety of DMTs suggests.

DMTs are known to be associated with a potentially increased risk of opportunistic infections, including HZV. However, data are lacking on issues such as the relative frequency of HZV and the distribution of cases among age and gender groups, said senior author Ahmed Zayed Obeidat, MD, PhD, assistant professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“In my practice, we noticed patients being treated with DMTs were developing shingles at much younger ages than would be typical, so we were interested in looking at the distribution of cases among people treated with DMTs,” he said.

For the study, which was presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Dr. Obeidat, first author Nicola Carlisle, MD, also of the Medical College of Wisconsin, and their colleagues turned to data from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System.

They analyzed reports on adverse events involving HZV and varicella among patients with MS received between January 1999 and June 2019. The reports involved a range of MS DMTs, including interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab, or ocrelizumab. Recently approved DMTs including cladribine and siponimod were excluded because of an insufficient number of reports.

Among 3,335 reports that were identified, they found highest mean annual report rates of HZV were for natalizumab, at 115.4, and lowest for glatiramer acetate, with just 5.3 reports. The mean annual report rates for HZV among the other DMTs were ocrelizumab, 88.3; dimethyl fumarate, 73.4; fingolimod, 72.9; interferon beta, 32.9; alemtuzumab, 21.7; and teriflunomide, 13.9.

Overall, the reports of HZV were 4.5 times more common among females, ranging from 2.1 times greater with alemtuzumab to 11.4 times greater for females with interferon-beta. The highest percentages of reports involved people in their 50s, with the exceptions of fingolimod, which had the highest rate of reports among patients in their 40s, and alemtuzumab, in which the highest percentage of reports involved patients in their 30s.

Meanwhile, as many as 25.7% of cases occurred in people under the age of 40 years, while 77.6% of total reports of HZV were in age groups between 31 years and 60 years.

“These rates are different than what is expected in the shingles population, which usually involves people over 60,” Dr. Obeidat said. He noted that, while MS is known to affect more women than men, the fivefold increase in HZV well exceeds the female-male ratio in MS, which is about 2.5:1.

Dr. Obeidat speculated that one factor explaining the higher reports of younger patients could be that fewer older patients are taking DMTs. “Many of our patients with MS may not be treated with DMTs when they are older or they may be on older DMTs that don’t have as much of a risk of opportunistic infections or activation, or some older patients may not be on medications anymore, so this may be why we are seeing this,” he said.

In commenting on the study, Joshua Katz, MD, codirector of the Elliot Lewis Center for Multiple Sclerosis Care, Wellesley, Mass., speculated that numerous factors could explain the higher rates of women developing HZV.

“One wonders, for instance, did pregnancy play a role, were some of the women on prior medications?”

The statistical difference is interesting, he said, “but it’s hard to see what the explanation could be.”

While DMTs typically can be effective in suppressing an MS flare even if a patient develops shingles, the risks of the shingles, itself, is a concern, Dr. Katz added. “Just about any infection that stimulates an inflammatory response has some risk of worsening symptoms with MS; however, the bigger risk is probably the shingles itself and getting postherpetic neuralgia,” he explained.

“Sometimes there can be independent neurological problems just from MS, and that’s probably a bigger risk than worsening the MS,” he said. Clinicians should therefore keep shingles on their radar before starting patients on DMTs, Dr. Katz added.

“For many of the medications that are immunosuppressive, you want to check patients’ baseline levels of antibodies for zoster and if they don’t have antibodies, then you do want to vaccinate them.”

He noted that the new HZV vaccine is not a live vaccine and has a high efficacy rate, “so we think we can safely administer it in most cases.

“A concern is whether some DMTs may render the vaccine less effective, and we are looking at studying that with ocrelizumab and maybe some other B-cell depleting treatments.”

Dr. Obeidat disclosed relationships with Alexion, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EMD Serono, Genentech, Sanofi and Novartis. Dr. Katz has been a speaker for Biogen, Genetech, Sanofi, and EMD Serono.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Reports of herpes zoster virus (HZV) among patients being treated with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) are nearly five times higher among women versus men and commonly occur in people under the age of 40, a new study of adverse event reports on a variety of DMTs suggests.

DMTs are known to be associated with a potentially increased risk of opportunistic infections, including HZV. However, data are lacking on issues such as the relative frequency of HZV and the distribution of cases among age and gender groups, said senior author Ahmed Zayed Obeidat, MD, PhD, assistant professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“In my practice, we noticed patients being treated with DMTs were developing shingles at much younger ages than would be typical, so we were interested in looking at the distribution of cases among people treated with DMTs,” he said.

For the study, which was presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Dr. Obeidat, first author Nicola Carlisle, MD, also of the Medical College of Wisconsin, and their colleagues turned to data from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System.

They analyzed reports on adverse events involving HZV and varicella among patients with MS received between January 1999 and June 2019. The reports involved a range of MS DMTs, including interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab, or ocrelizumab. Recently approved DMTs including cladribine and siponimod were excluded because of an insufficient number of reports.

Among 3,335 reports that were identified, they found highest mean annual report rates of HZV were for natalizumab, at 115.4, and lowest for glatiramer acetate, with just 5.3 reports. The mean annual report rates for HZV among the other DMTs were ocrelizumab, 88.3; dimethyl fumarate, 73.4; fingolimod, 72.9; interferon beta, 32.9; alemtuzumab, 21.7; and teriflunomide, 13.9.

Overall, the reports of HZV were 4.5 times more common among females, ranging from 2.1 times greater with alemtuzumab to 11.4 times greater for females with interferon-beta. The highest percentages of reports involved people in their 50s, with the exceptions of fingolimod, which had the highest rate of reports among patients in their 40s, and alemtuzumab, in which the highest percentage of reports involved patients in their 30s.

Meanwhile, as many as 25.7% of cases occurred in people under the age of 40 years, while 77.6% of total reports of HZV were in age groups between 31 years and 60 years.

“These rates are different than what is expected in the shingles population, which usually involves people over 60,” Dr. Obeidat said. He noted that, while MS is known to affect more women than men, the fivefold increase in HZV well exceeds the female-male ratio in MS, which is about 2.5:1.

Dr. Obeidat speculated that one factor explaining the higher reports of younger patients could be that fewer older patients are taking DMTs. “Many of our patients with MS may not be treated with DMTs when they are older or they may be on older DMTs that don’t have as much of a risk of opportunistic infections or activation, or some older patients may not be on medications anymore, so this may be why we are seeing this,” he said.

In commenting on the study, Joshua Katz, MD, codirector of the Elliot Lewis Center for Multiple Sclerosis Care, Wellesley, Mass., speculated that numerous factors could explain the higher rates of women developing HZV.

“One wonders, for instance, did pregnancy play a role, were some of the women on prior medications?”

The statistical difference is interesting, he said, “but it’s hard to see what the explanation could be.”

While DMTs typically can be effective in suppressing an MS flare even if a patient develops shingles, the risks of the shingles, itself, is a concern, Dr. Katz added. “Just about any infection that stimulates an inflammatory response has some risk of worsening symptoms with MS; however, the bigger risk is probably the shingles itself and getting postherpetic neuralgia,” he explained.

“Sometimes there can be independent neurological problems just from MS, and that’s probably a bigger risk than worsening the MS,” he said. Clinicians should therefore keep shingles on their radar before starting patients on DMTs, Dr. Katz added.

“For many of the medications that are immunosuppressive, you want to check patients’ baseline levels of antibodies for zoster and if they don’t have antibodies, then you do want to vaccinate them.”

He noted that the new HZV vaccine is not a live vaccine and has a high efficacy rate, “so we think we can safely administer it in most cases.

“A concern is whether some DMTs may render the vaccine less effective, and we are looking at studying that with ocrelizumab and maybe some other B-cell depleting treatments.”

Dr. Obeidat disclosed relationships with Alexion, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EMD Serono, Genentech, Sanofi and Novartis. Dr. Katz has been a speaker for Biogen, Genetech, Sanofi, and EMD Serono.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The three oral disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) approved last year in the United States haven’t made a big splash in the marketplace. So far, it’s more like a ripple, according to a study of neurologists’ prescribing patterns. “The recently approved therapies will initially be niched as later-line options,” predicted Virginia R. Schobel, MSc, nephrology franchise head at Spherix Global Insights, an independent market intelligence firm in Exton, Pa.

At the virtual annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Ms. Schobel presented the results of a retrospective chart audit Spherix conducted in February 2020 of 1,006 patients with MS who were switched to a new DMT by 199 U.S. participating neurologists within the previous 3 months. About 72% of the switchers had relapsing remitting MS (RRMS).
 

Assessing the three new oral DMTs

The purpose of the study was to gain an understanding of the early adoption patterns for the three recently approved oral DMTs: siponimod (Mayzent), cladribine (Mavenclad), and diroximel fumarate (Vumerity).

The first surprise was that only 41% of medication switches to a new DMT among the RRMS group were to oral DMTs; that’s a substantially lower proportion than in prior Spherix chart audits. Instead, the most popular switch was to ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), a monoclonal antibody.

“Things to keep in mind when we see the switch shares for the newer products are just how crowded this market has become and how much Ocrevus has really changed the market,” Ms. Schobel explained in an interview. “Ocrevus has become increasingly dominant in the RRMS segment, so that now there are six oral DMTs competing among themselves for a relatively limited pool of patients.”

Because of grandfathering by the Food and Drug Administration, most of the oral DMTs now share identical indications for clinically isolated syndrome, RRMS, and active secondary progressive MS. Ocrevus, she noted, has the same indications.

Only 1% of MS patients who switched to a different DMT in late 2019 or early 2020 moved to diroximel fumarate. Three percent switched to siponimod, and another 3% switched to cladribine. Switches to the three older, established oral DMTs were collectively five times more common, with 15% of patients moving to dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), 11% to fingolimod (Gilenya), and 9% to teriflunomide (Aubagio).

Ms. Schobel said that the three latest oral DMTs offer advantages over the older ones in terms of various combinations of efficacy, dosing schedule, and/or tolerability, which may make them attractive options as first-line therapy. She predicted that, over time as neurologists gain increasing familiarity with these drugs as first line, they will also gradually become more comfortable in turning to them as switch options.

First-time switches to an oral DMT among patients with RRMS were most often made in search of improved efficacy. Neurologists cited this as their main reason for 73% of switches to cladribine and 36% of switches to teriflunomide, with the other oral agents falling at various points in between. A switch to fingolimod was most often driven by a wish for a high-efficacy DMT with once-daily oral dosing. Improved tolerability figured prominently in switches to teriflunomide, and even more so in the relatively few changes to diroximel fumarate.
 

Drug switching in the pandemic era

Ms. Schobel said Spherix has been serially tracking neurologists’ prescribing for MS during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has clearly had an enormous dampening effect on medication switching. In mid-April, neurologists’ switching volume was down by 70%, compared with prepandemic figures. A slow recovery began in May, but by the end of the month prescription-switching volume was still down by 52%.

Of the neurologist prescriptions that are being run for switching thus far during the pandemic, 82% are being done via telemedicine. Therein hangs a tale, since neurology doesn’t readily lend itself to practice by telemedicine. Indeed, neurologists are using telemedicine to a lesser extent than physicians in the other specialties that Spherix monitors, according to Ms. Schobel. “COVID is definitely changing the MS world. Within MS, drug switching is now much more likely to involve a switch to a DMT that doesn’t impact the immune response and is not immunosuppressant, such as an injectable interferon or glatiramer acetate,” she said. “In this COVID world, safety and conservatism may end up trumping the move toward ‘time is brain’ which we’ve been talking so much about in recent years: the importance of getting patients on high-efficacy DMTs from the start in order to give them the best chance for positive outcomes.”

Ms. Schobel noted that Spherix received no industry funding to conduct these studies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The three oral disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) approved last year in the United States haven’t made a big splash in the marketplace. So far, it’s more like a ripple, according to a study of neurologists’ prescribing patterns. “The recently approved therapies will initially be niched as later-line options,” predicted Virginia R. Schobel, MSc, nephrology franchise head at Spherix Global Insights, an independent market intelligence firm in Exton, Pa.

At the virtual annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Ms. Schobel presented the results of a retrospective chart audit Spherix conducted in February 2020 of 1,006 patients with MS who were switched to a new DMT by 199 U.S. participating neurologists within the previous 3 months. About 72% of the switchers had relapsing remitting MS (RRMS).
 

Assessing the three new oral DMTs

The purpose of the study was to gain an understanding of the early adoption patterns for the three recently approved oral DMTs: siponimod (Mayzent), cladribine (Mavenclad), and diroximel fumarate (Vumerity).

The first surprise was that only 41% of medication switches to a new DMT among the RRMS group were to oral DMTs; that’s a substantially lower proportion than in prior Spherix chart audits. Instead, the most popular switch was to ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), a monoclonal antibody.

“Things to keep in mind when we see the switch shares for the newer products are just how crowded this market has become and how much Ocrevus has really changed the market,” Ms. Schobel explained in an interview. “Ocrevus has become increasingly dominant in the RRMS segment, so that now there are six oral DMTs competing among themselves for a relatively limited pool of patients.”

Because of grandfathering by the Food and Drug Administration, most of the oral DMTs now share identical indications for clinically isolated syndrome, RRMS, and active secondary progressive MS. Ocrevus, she noted, has the same indications.

Only 1% of MS patients who switched to a different DMT in late 2019 or early 2020 moved to diroximel fumarate. Three percent switched to siponimod, and another 3% switched to cladribine. Switches to the three older, established oral DMTs were collectively five times more common, with 15% of patients moving to dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), 11% to fingolimod (Gilenya), and 9% to teriflunomide (Aubagio).

Ms. Schobel said that the three latest oral DMTs offer advantages over the older ones in terms of various combinations of efficacy, dosing schedule, and/or tolerability, which may make them attractive options as first-line therapy. She predicted that, over time as neurologists gain increasing familiarity with these drugs as first line, they will also gradually become more comfortable in turning to them as switch options.

First-time switches to an oral DMT among patients with RRMS were most often made in search of improved efficacy. Neurologists cited this as their main reason for 73% of switches to cladribine and 36% of switches to teriflunomide, with the other oral agents falling at various points in between. A switch to fingolimod was most often driven by a wish for a high-efficacy DMT with once-daily oral dosing. Improved tolerability figured prominently in switches to teriflunomide, and even more so in the relatively few changes to diroximel fumarate.
 

Drug switching in the pandemic era

Ms. Schobel said Spherix has been serially tracking neurologists’ prescribing for MS during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has clearly had an enormous dampening effect on medication switching. In mid-April, neurologists’ switching volume was down by 70%, compared with prepandemic figures. A slow recovery began in May, but by the end of the month prescription-switching volume was still down by 52%.

Of the neurologist prescriptions that are being run for switching thus far during the pandemic, 82% are being done via telemedicine. Therein hangs a tale, since neurology doesn’t readily lend itself to practice by telemedicine. Indeed, neurologists are using telemedicine to a lesser extent than physicians in the other specialties that Spherix monitors, according to Ms. Schobel. “COVID is definitely changing the MS world. Within MS, drug switching is now much more likely to involve a switch to a DMT that doesn’t impact the immune response and is not immunosuppressant, such as an injectable interferon or glatiramer acetate,” she said. “In this COVID world, safety and conservatism may end up trumping the move toward ‘time is brain’ which we’ve been talking so much about in recent years: the importance of getting patients on high-efficacy DMTs from the start in order to give them the best chance for positive outcomes.”

Ms. Schobel noted that Spherix received no industry funding to conduct these studies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The three oral disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) approved last year in the United States haven’t made a big splash in the marketplace. So far, it’s more like a ripple, according to a study of neurologists’ prescribing patterns. “The recently approved therapies will initially be niched as later-line options,” predicted Virginia R. Schobel, MSc, nephrology franchise head at Spherix Global Insights, an independent market intelligence firm in Exton, Pa.

At the virtual annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Ms. Schobel presented the results of a retrospective chart audit Spherix conducted in February 2020 of 1,006 patients with MS who were switched to a new DMT by 199 U.S. participating neurologists within the previous 3 months. About 72% of the switchers had relapsing remitting MS (RRMS).
 

Assessing the three new oral DMTs

The purpose of the study was to gain an understanding of the early adoption patterns for the three recently approved oral DMTs: siponimod (Mayzent), cladribine (Mavenclad), and diroximel fumarate (Vumerity).

The first surprise was that only 41% of medication switches to a new DMT among the RRMS group were to oral DMTs; that’s a substantially lower proportion than in prior Spherix chart audits. Instead, the most popular switch was to ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), a monoclonal antibody.

“Things to keep in mind when we see the switch shares for the newer products are just how crowded this market has become and how much Ocrevus has really changed the market,” Ms. Schobel explained in an interview. “Ocrevus has become increasingly dominant in the RRMS segment, so that now there are six oral DMTs competing among themselves for a relatively limited pool of patients.”

Because of grandfathering by the Food and Drug Administration, most of the oral DMTs now share identical indications for clinically isolated syndrome, RRMS, and active secondary progressive MS. Ocrevus, she noted, has the same indications.

Only 1% of MS patients who switched to a different DMT in late 2019 or early 2020 moved to diroximel fumarate. Three percent switched to siponimod, and another 3% switched to cladribine. Switches to the three older, established oral DMTs were collectively five times more common, with 15% of patients moving to dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), 11% to fingolimod (Gilenya), and 9% to teriflunomide (Aubagio).

Ms. Schobel said that the three latest oral DMTs offer advantages over the older ones in terms of various combinations of efficacy, dosing schedule, and/or tolerability, which may make them attractive options as first-line therapy. She predicted that, over time as neurologists gain increasing familiarity with these drugs as first line, they will also gradually become more comfortable in turning to them as switch options.

First-time switches to an oral DMT among patients with RRMS were most often made in search of improved efficacy. Neurologists cited this as their main reason for 73% of switches to cladribine and 36% of switches to teriflunomide, with the other oral agents falling at various points in between. A switch to fingolimod was most often driven by a wish for a high-efficacy DMT with once-daily oral dosing. Improved tolerability figured prominently in switches to teriflunomide, and even more so in the relatively few changes to diroximel fumarate.
 

Drug switching in the pandemic era

Ms. Schobel said Spherix has been serially tracking neurologists’ prescribing for MS during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has clearly had an enormous dampening effect on medication switching. In mid-April, neurologists’ switching volume was down by 70%, compared with prepandemic figures. A slow recovery began in May, but by the end of the month prescription-switching volume was still down by 52%.

Of the neurologist prescriptions that are being run for switching thus far during the pandemic, 82% are being done via telemedicine. Therein hangs a tale, since neurology doesn’t readily lend itself to practice by telemedicine. Indeed, neurologists are using telemedicine to a lesser extent than physicians in the other specialties that Spherix monitors, according to Ms. Schobel. “COVID is definitely changing the MS world. Within MS, drug switching is now much more likely to involve a switch to a DMT that doesn’t impact the immune response and is not immunosuppressant, such as an injectable interferon or glatiramer acetate,” she said. “In this COVID world, safety and conservatism may end up trumping the move toward ‘time is brain’ which we’ve been talking so much about in recent years: the importance of getting patients on high-efficacy DMTs from the start in order to give them the best chance for positive outcomes.”

Ms. Schobel noted that Spherix received no industry funding to conduct these studies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Neuroimaging of patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) shows that physical behavioral change therapy, specifically, constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT), leads to improvement in neuroplasticity, compared with alternative interventions with medicines. “The findings suggest for the first time that physical behavioral change therapy can significantly stimulate cortical neuroplasticity in a degenerative central nervous system disorder,” said the authors of research presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

CIMT, an intervention involving 3.5 hours/day of therapist-supervised treatment over 10 consecutive weekdays, has been shown to significantly improve paretic limb use for patients with progressive MS, and the effects are long lasting.

For patients with asymmetric upper limb nonuse, the treatment “is highly successful for promoting increased use by the more-affected arm for everyday activities,” said lead author Victor W. Mark, MD, an associate professor and medical director of the Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy Research Programs at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “The improvements after CIMT can be found to remain as much as 1 year after the completion of the treatment, and even later. That by itself is novel for MS,” he said.

The team’s previous research in Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair showed that the CIMT intervention is associated with statistically significant changes in white matter integrity in the brain. In this new study, Dr. Mark and colleagues sought to determine whether the effects would also translate to improvements in cortical gray matter.
 

Promoting neuroplasticity, improving motor function

For their study, they enrolled 20 adults with chronic MS who were matched with respect to unilateral arm disability. The participants were randomly assigned to receive 35 hours of either CIMT or a holistic complementary alternative medicine program, which included yoga, aquatic therapy, massage, and/or relaxation techniques, over the course of 2 weeks.

Both groups expressed the same degree of expectancy of benefits from the intervention. Those who received CIMT showed a significantly larger effect size on the Motor Activity Log, a measure that has been validated against real-world upper-limb accelerometry, compared with the control group (d = 3.2, vs. d = 0.7).

Imaging with tensor-based morphometry showed an increase in the thickness of the primary motor cortex in patients who underwent CIMT but not those who received the alternative medicine treatment. Furthermore, a change in the primary motor cortex was observed in the CIMT group on voxel-based morphometry, suggesting an increase in cortical density or volume, or both. Similar changes were not seen in the alternative medicine group.

“We evaluated the density of the brain cortical gray area before and after treatment, and we found increased gray matter in the area of the brain that is concentrated with voluntary limb movement (the motor cortex),” Dr. Mark said. “As in (previous) studies, we did not find such changes, or any changes, after the other form of treatment,” he said.

The results are important, Dr. Mark noted, “because CIMT seems to specifically promote neuroplasticity changes that appear to be healthy, for what is otherwise a chronically progressive degenerative neurological disorder.”

In addition to the improvements in MS, CIMT has led to improvement in motor function for patients who have experienced other central nervous system injuries, including stroke, traumatic brain injury, cerebral palsy, and, in musicians, focal hand dystonia.

The new findings offer intriguing insights into the effects in progressive MS, commented rehabilitation specialist Patricia Bobryk, MHS, a physical therapist with the UCHealth Yampa Valley Medical Center, in Colorado Springs.

“There is more evidence for CIMT in the area of stroke, which is more acute onset and with more potential recovery, especially early on, so this is exciting initial work in terms of MS,” she said.

“If we’re trying to find new avenues in the brain for better pathways, rather than using something that’s damaged in MS, it makes perfect sense that CIMT really forces and drives those connections, because you’re doing a repetitive, high-intensity patterning throughout the day, so you set up that environment for things to progress, especially in motor functioning,” she said.
 

Repetition, ‘prevention of compensation’

CIMT was developed at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, 30 years ago and involves four components. The first, described as “massed practice,” involves intensive, repetitive arm movements of the affected arm. The second component involves “shaping,” in which the patient is encouraged to perform his or her best attempts at the movements.

For the third component, described as “prevention of compensation,” the patient’s more-functional arm is inhibited from being used in everyday activities by wearing a padded mitt.

“This permits the patient to brace him- or herself whenever needed, but the better hand nonetheless lacks the dexterity to take over the activities that should be performed by the worse arm,” Dr. Mark explained.

“The patient wears the padded mitt after hours, too, except when using water or when sleeping,” he said.

The fourth component is a set of behavioral enforcement techniques involving goal-setting; daily interviews and discussion of progress and challenges; nightly homework; diary keeping; and telephone follow-up.

Dr. Mark noted that the intervention could have benefits that are secondary to motor and movement function. “We consider that the improvement of limb activity in a motor-challenged person with MS could afford a way to offset the deleterious effects of inactivity that can occur, such as weight gain, diabetes, osteoporosis, cardiac disease, and other conditions associated with prolonged inactivity,” he said.

Although it was developed at the University of Alabama, CIMT is currently more widely practiced in Europe than the United States, likely because of differences in care support, which in Europe is provided through socialized medicine, Dr. Mark pointed out.

Although the detailed methods for conducting CIMT are published in peer-reviewed journals, Dr. Mark recommends hands-on and interactive teaching. Such training is offered to clinicians and affiliated physical therapists and occupational therapists through Mark’s program at the University of Alabama in a semiannual, week-long training course, which includes hands-on treatment practice with actual patients.
 

Proof of principle

In further commenting on the study, Kathy M. Zackowski, PhD, of the National MS Society, said the findings provide an intriguing proof of concept that should be tested in a larger cohort. “The question of how much a behavioral (therapy) can impact true brain structural change or change in the pathologic mechanism is intriguing and of high importance,” she said.

“It is important to take this information as ‘proof of principle’ of the importance of CIMT for improving upper limb activity,” according to Dr. Zackowski, senior director, patient management, care and rehabilitation research at the society.

“Importantly, this team needs to move forward testing their hypothesis in a larger randomized, clinical trial with a full control group in order to show causal evidence that one intervention caused the structural brain changes seen,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Zackowski added that a caveat of CIMT is that the approach assumes one limb is more impaired than the other, which is always the case in stroke but is true only in some cases of MS. “Therefore, this method may not be effective for everyone with MS, but offers another option for tailoring an intervention to a person’s abilities and interests,” she said.

“Another important detail is that CIMT is also being explored for lower extremity use,” she added. “This is exciting, as lower extremity dysfunction is a very common problem in MS, and may be useful in treating walking disability.”

The authors, Ms. Bobryk, and Dr. Zackowski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Neuroimaging of patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) shows that physical behavioral change therapy, specifically, constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT), leads to improvement in neuroplasticity, compared with alternative interventions with medicines. “The findings suggest for the first time that physical behavioral change therapy can significantly stimulate cortical neuroplasticity in a degenerative central nervous system disorder,” said the authors of research presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

CIMT, an intervention involving 3.5 hours/day of therapist-supervised treatment over 10 consecutive weekdays, has been shown to significantly improve paretic limb use for patients with progressive MS, and the effects are long lasting.

For patients with asymmetric upper limb nonuse, the treatment “is highly successful for promoting increased use by the more-affected arm for everyday activities,” said lead author Victor W. Mark, MD, an associate professor and medical director of the Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy Research Programs at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “The improvements after CIMT can be found to remain as much as 1 year after the completion of the treatment, and even later. That by itself is novel for MS,” he said.

The team’s previous research in Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair showed that the CIMT intervention is associated with statistically significant changes in white matter integrity in the brain. In this new study, Dr. Mark and colleagues sought to determine whether the effects would also translate to improvements in cortical gray matter.
 

Promoting neuroplasticity, improving motor function

For their study, they enrolled 20 adults with chronic MS who were matched with respect to unilateral arm disability. The participants were randomly assigned to receive 35 hours of either CIMT or a holistic complementary alternative medicine program, which included yoga, aquatic therapy, massage, and/or relaxation techniques, over the course of 2 weeks.

Both groups expressed the same degree of expectancy of benefits from the intervention. Those who received CIMT showed a significantly larger effect size on the Motor Activity Log, a measure that has been validated against real-world upper-limb accelerometry, compared with the control group (d = 3.2, vs. d = 0.7).

Imaging with tensor-based morphometry showed an increase in the thickness of the primary motor cortex in patients who underwent CIMT but not those who received the alternative medicine treatment. Furthermore, a change in the primary motor cortex was observed in the CIMT group on voxel-based morphometry, suggesting an increase in cortical density or volume, or both. Similar changes were not seen in the alternative medicine group.

“We evaluated the density of the brain cortical gray area before and after treatment, and we found increased gray matter in the area of the brain that is concentrated with voluntary limb movement (the motor cortex),” Dr. Mark said. “As in (previous) studies, we did not find such changes, or any changes, after the other form of treatment,” he said.

The results are important, Dr. Mark noted, “because CIMT seems to specifically promote neuroplasticity changes that appear to be healthy, for what is otherwise a chronically progressive degenerative neurological disorder.”

In addition to the improvements in MS, CIMT has led to improvement in motor function for patients who have experienced other central nervous system injuries, including stroke, traumatic brain injury, cerebral palsy, and, in musicians, focal hand dystonia.

The new findings offer intriguing insights into the effects in progressive MS, commented rehabilitation specialist Patricia Bobryk, MHS, a physical therapist with the UCHealth Yampa Valley Medical Center, in Colorado Springs.

“There is more evidence for CIMT in the area of stroke, which is more acute onset and with more potential recovery, especially early on, so this is exciting initial work in terms of MS,” she said.

“If we’re trying to find new avenues in the brain for better pathways, rather than using something that’s damaged in MS, it makes perfect sense that CIMT really forces and drives those connections, because you’re doing a repetitive, high-intensity patterning throughout the day, so you set up that environment for things to progress, especially in motor functioning,” she said.
 

Repetition, ‘prevention of compensation’

CIMT was developed at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, 30 years ago and involves four components. The first, described as “massed practice,” involves intensive, repetitive arm movements of the affected arm. The second component involves “shaping,” in which the patient is encouraged to perform his or her best attempts at the movements.

For the third component, described as “prevention of compensation,” the patient’s more-functional arm is inhibited from being used in everyday activities by wearing a padded mitt.

“This permits the patient to brace him- or herself whenever needed, but the better hand nonetheless lacks the dexterity to take over the activities that should be performed by the worse arm,” Dr. Mark explained.

“The patient wears the padded mitt after hours, too, except when using water or when sleeping,” he said.

The fourth component is a set of behavioral enforcement techniques involving goal-setting; daily interviews and discussion of progress and challenges; nightly homework; diary keeping; and telephone follow-up.

Dr. Mark noted that the intervention could have benefits that are secondary to motor and movement function. “We consider that the improvement of limb activity in a motor-challenged person with MS could afford a way to offset the deleterious effects of inactivity that can occur, such as weight gain, diabetes, osteoporosis, cardiac disease, and other conditions associated with prolonged inactivity,” he said.

Although it was developed at the University of Alabama, CIMT is currently more widely practiced in Europe than the United States, likely because of differences in care support, which in Europe is provided through socialized medicine, Dr. Mark pointed out.

Although the detailed methods for conducting CIMT are published in peer-reviewed journals, Dr. Mark recommends hands-on and interactive teaching. Such training is offered to clinicians and affiliated physical therapists and occupational therapists through Mark’s program at the University of Alabama in a semiannual, week-long training course, which includes hands-on treatment practice with actual patients.
 

Proof of principle

In further commenting on the study, Kathy M. Zackowski, PhD, of the National MS Society, said the findings provide an intriguing proof of concept that should be tested in a larger cohort. “The question of how much a behavioral (therapy) can impact true brain structural change or change in the pathologic mechanism is intriguing and of high importance,” she said.

“It is important to take this information as ‘proof of principle’ of the importance of CIMT for improving upper limb activity,” according to Dr. Zackowski, senior director, patient management, care and rehabilitation research at the society.

“Importantly, this team needs to move forward testing their hypothesis in a larger randomized, clinical trial with a full control group in order to show causal evidence that one intervention caused the structural brain changes seen,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Zackowski added that a caveat of CIMT is that the approach assumes one limb is more impaired than the other, which is always the case in stroke but is true only in some cases of MS. “Therefore, this method may not be effective for everyone with MS, but offers another option for tailoring an intervention to a person’s abilities and interests,” she said.

“Another important detail is that CIMT is also being explored for lower extremity use,” she added. “This is exciting, as lower extremity dysfunction is a very common problem in MS, and may be useful in treating walking disability.”

The authors, Ms. Bobryk, and Dr. Zackowski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Neuroimaging of patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) shows that physical behavioral change therapy, specifically, constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT), leads to improvement in neuroplasticity, compared with alternative interventions with medicines. “The findings suggest for the first time that physical behavioral change therapy can significantly stimulate cortical neuroplasticity in a degenerative central nervous system disorder,” said the authors of research presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

CIMT, an intervention involving 3.5 hours/day of therapist-supervised treatment over 10 consecutive weekdays, has been shown to significantly improve paretic limb use for patients with progressive MS, and the effects are long lasting.

For patients with asymmetric upper limb nonuse, the treatment “is highly successful for promoting increased use by the more-affected arm for everyday activities,” said lead author Victor W. Mark, MD, an associate professor and medical director of the Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy Research Programs at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “The improvements after CIMT can be found to remain as much as 1 year after the completion of the treatment, and even later. That by itself is novel for MS,” he said.

The team’s previous research in Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair showed that the CIMT intervention is associated with statistically significant changes in white matter integrity in the brain. In this new study, Dr. Mark and colleagues sought to determine whether the effects would also translate to improvements in cortical gray matter.
 

Promoting neuroplasticity, improving motor function

For their study, they enrolled 20 adults with chronic MS who were matched with respect to unilateral arm disability. The participants were randomly assigned to receive 35 hours of either CIMT or a holistic complementary alternative medicine program, which included yoga, aquatic therapy, massage, and/or relaxation techniques, over the course of 2 weeks.

Both groups expressed the same degree of expectancy of benefits from the intervention. Those who received CIMT showed a significantly larger effect size on the Motor Activity Log, a measure that has been validated against real-world upper-limb accelerometry, compared with the control group (d = 3.2, vs. d = 0.7).

Imaging with tensor-based morphometry showed an increase in the thickness of the primary motor cortex in patients who underwent CIMT but not those who received the alternative medicine treatment. Furthermore, a change in the primary motor cortex was observed in the CIMT group on voxel-based morphometry, suggesting an increase in cortical density or volume, or both. Similar changes were not seen in the alternative medicine group.

“We evaluated the density of the brain cortical gray area before and after treatment, and we found increased gray matter in the area of the brain that is concentrated with voluntary limb movement (the motor cortex),” Dr. Mark said. “As in (previous) studies, we did not find such changes, or any changes, after the other form of treatment,” he said.

The results are important, Dr. Mark noted, “because CIMT seems to specifically promote neuroplasticity changes that appear to be healthy, for what is otherwise a chronically progressive degenerative neurological disorder.”

In addition to the improvements in MS, CIMT has led to improvement in motor function for patients who have experienced other central nervous system injuries, including stroke, traumatic brain injury, cerebral palsy, and, in musicians, focal hand dystonia.

The new findings offer intriguing insights into the effects in progressive MS, commented rehabilitation specialist Patricia Bobryk, MHS, a physical therapist with the UCHealth Yampa Valley Medical Center, in Colorado Springs.

“There is more evidence for CIMT in the area of stroke, which is more acute onset and with more potential recovery, especially early on, so this is exciting initial work in terms of MS,” she said.

“If we’re trying to find new avenues in the brain for better pathways, rather than using something that’s damaged in MS, it makes perfect sense that CIMT really forces and drives those connections, because you’re doing a repetitive, high-intensity patterning throughout the day, so you set up that environment for things to progress, especially in motor functioning,” she said.
 

Repetition, ‘prevention of compensation’

CIMT was developed at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, 30 years ago and involves four components. The first, described as “massed practice,” involves intensive, repetitive arm movements of the affected arm. The second component involves “shaping,” in which the patient is encouraged to perform his or her best attempts at the movements.

For the third component, described as “prevention of compensation,” the patient’s more-functional arm is inhibited from being used in everyday activities by wearing a padded mitt.

“This permits the patient to brace him- or herself whenever needed, but the better hand nonetheless lacks the dexterity to take over the activities that should be performed by the worse arm,” Dr. Mark explained.

“The patient wears the padded mitt after hours, too, except when using water or when sleeping,” he said.

The fourth component is a set of behavioral enforcement techniques involving goal-setting; daily interviews and discussion of progress and challenges; nightly homework; diary keeping; and telephone follow-up.

Dr. Mark noted that the intervention could have benefits that are secondary to motor and movement function. “We consider that the improvement of limb activity in a motor-challenged person with MS could afford a way to offset the deleterious effects of inactivity that can occur, such as weight gain, diabetes, osteoporosis, cardiac disease, and other conditions associated with prolonged inactivity,” he said.

Although it was developed at the University of Alabama, CIMT is currently more widely practiced in Europe than the United States, likely because of differences in care support, which in Europe is provided through socialized medicine, Dr. Mark pointed out.

Although the detailed methods for conducting CIMT are published in peer-reviewed journals, Dr. Mark recommends hands-on and interactive teaching. Such training is offered to clinicians and affiliated physical therapists and occupational therapists through Mark’s program at the University of Alabama in a semiannual, week-long training course, which includes hands-on treatment practice with actual patients.
 

Proof of principle

In further commenting on the study, Kathy M. Zackowski, PhD, of the National MS Society, said the findings provide an intriguing proof of concept that should be tested in a larger cohort. “The question of how much a behavioral (therapy) can impact true brain structural change or change in the pathologic mechanism is intriguing and of high importance,” she said.

“It is important to take this information as ‘proof of principle’ of the importance of CIMT for improving upper limb activity,” according to Dr. Zackowski, senior director, patient management, care and rehabilitation research at the society.

“Importantly, this team needs to move forward testing their hypothesis in a larger randomized, clinical trial with a full control group in order to show causal evidence that one intervention caused the structural brain changes seen,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Zackowski added that a caveat of CIMT is that the approach assumes one limb is more impaired than the other, which is always the case in stroke but is true only in some cases of MS. “Therefore, this method may not be effective for everyone with MS, but offers another option for tailoring an intervention to a person’s abilities and interests,” she said.

“Another important detail is that CIMT is also being explored for lower extremity use,” she added. “This is exciting, as lower extremity dysfunction is a very common problem in MS, and may be useful in treating walking disability.”

The authors, Ms. Bobryk, and Dr. Zackowski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Telerehabilitation is safe and may offer functional benefits comparable to those of outpatient rehabilitation for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and impaired mobility. Telerehabilitation also saves time and travel cost, compared with outpatient rehabilitation.

“This model of home-based telerehabilitation offers a safe and cost-effective method for improving function and quality of life for MS patients with mobility deficits,” said Heather Barksdale, DPT, a neurological clinical specialist at UF Health Jacksonville (Florida).

The study was presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services do not reimburse for telerehabilitation services. Patients with MS have difficulty accessing rehabilitation specialists because of impaired mobility and lack of access to transportation. “We are based in Jacksonville, Fla., and often have patients who have to travel from Tallahassee, Panama City, Daytona Beach, and Brunswick, Ga., to receive specialty services,” said Dr. Barksdale. “Telerehabilitation would allow these patients to get access to high-quality rehab services with clinicians that specialize in MS.”

Dr. Barksdale and colleagues conducted a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of a physical therapy–guided telerehabilitation program for people with mobility impairments resulting from confirmed MS. The investigators enrolled patients at the MS Center of Excellence at University of Florida Health Jacksonville into a telerehabilitation group. A board-certified neurologist and a physical therapist specializing in MS examined participants in person at baseline. The latter underwent an 8-week program of physical therapy–guided telerehabilitation that used the Jintronix software platform and a kinetic tracking system.

By reviewing charts during January 2018–September 2019, Dr. Barksdale and colleagues selected patients with MS who were seen on an outpatient basis by the same physical therapists who were administering telerehabilitation. This outpatient comparison group was matched to the telerehabilitation group on duration of treatment and outcome measures completed. Dr. Barksdale and colleagues reviewed the data for the effects of the two interventions on mobility and travel.

Eight patients completed the telerehabilitation program, and all had improvements in fatigue, quality of life, or mobility measures. The investigators did not observe any adverse events during or after the intervention. The total savings in projected travel costs for all eight participants was $8,487.23, compared with the outpatient group. Participants in the telerehabilitation and outpatient groups achieved minimal detectable changes in the outcome measures examined at equivalent rates.

“The game-based model with virtual visits by a physical therapist can be modified to include exercises specific for other motor, coordination, spasticity, and movement dysfunctions and may be useful for other chronic and progressive dysfunction seen in Parkinson’s disease, stroke, and other movement and neuromuscular disorders,” said Dr. Barksdale.

“Future studies are needed to further establish guidelines for patient selection and mode of delivery, as well as design of future telerehabilitation programs,” she added. “Duration of treatment and types of exercises to be included should also be examined. Further research into use of telerehabilitation for the treatment of upper-extremity, cognitive, speech, and swallowing dysfunction should also be examined.”

The investigators conducted their study without outside funding and reported no disclosures.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Barksdale H et al. CMSC 2020. Abstract REH11.

Telerehabilitation is safe and may offer functional benefits comparable to those of outpatient rehabilitation for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and impaired mobility. Telerehabilitation also saves time and travel cost, compared with outpatient rehabilitation.

“This model of home-based telerehabilitation offers a safe and cost-effective method for improving function and quality of life for MS patients with mobility deficits,” said Heather Barksdale, DPT, a neurological clinical specialist at UF Health Jacksonville (Florida).

The study was presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services do not reimburse for telerehabilitation services. Patients with MS have difficulty accessing rehabilitation specialists because of impaired mobility and lack of access to transportation. “We are based in Jacksonville, Fla., and often have patients who have to travel from Tallahassee, Panama City, Daytona Beach, and Brunswick, Ga., to receive specialty services,” said Dr. Barksdale. “Telerehabilitation would allow these patients to get access to high-quality rehab services with clinicians that specialize in MS.”

Dr. Barksdale and colleagues conducted a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of a physical therapy–guided telerehabilitation program for people with mobility impairments resulting from confirmed MS. The investigators enrolled patients at the MS Center of Excellence at University of Florida Health Jacksonville into a telerehabilitation group. A board-certified neurologist and a physical therapist specializing in MS examined participants in person at baseline. The latter underwent an 8-week program of physical therapy–guided telerehabilitation that used the Jintronix software platform and a kinetic tracking system.

By reviewing charts during January 2018–September 2019, Dr. Barksdale and colleagues selected patients with MS who were seen on an outpatient basis by the same physical therapists who were administering telerehabilitation. This outpatient comparison group was matched to the telerehabilitation group on duration of treatment and outcome measures completed. Dr. Barksdale and colleagues reviewed the data for the effects of the two interventions on mobility and travel.

Eight patients completed the telerehabilitation program, and all had improvements in fatigue, quality of life, or mobility measures. The investigators did not observe any adverse events during or after the intervention. The total savings in projected travel costs for all eight participants was $8,487.23, compared with the outpatient group. Participants in the telerehabilitation and outpatient groups achieved minimal detectable changes in the outcome measures examined at equivalent rates.

“The game-based model with virtual visits by a physical therapist can be modified to include exercises specific for other motor, coordination, spasticity, and movement dysfunctions and may be useful for other chronic and progressive dysfunction seen in Parkinson’s disease, stroke, and other movement and neuromuscular disorders,” said Dr. Barksdale.

“Future studies are needed to further establish guidelines for patient selection and mode of delivery, as well as design of future telerehabilitation programs,” she added. “Duration of treatment and types of exercises to be included should also be examined. Further research into use of telerehabilitation for the treatment of upper-extremity, cognitive, speech, and swallowing dysfunction should also be examined.”

The investigators conducted their study without outside funding and reported no disclosures.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Barksdale H et al. CMSC 2020. Abstract REH11.

Telerehabilitation is safe and may offer functional benefits comparable to those of outpatient rehabilitation for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and impaired mobility. Telerehabilitation also saves time and travel cost, compared with outpatient rehabilitation.

“This model of home-based telerehabilitation offers a safe and cost-effective method for improving function and quality of life for MS patients with mobility deficits,” said Heather Barksdale, DPT, a neurological clinical specialist at UF Health Jacksonville (Florida).

The study was presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services do not reimburse for telerehabilitation services. Patients with MS have difficulty accessing rehabilitation specialists because of impaired mobility and lack of access to transportation. “We are based in Jacksonville, Fla., and often have patients who have to travel from Tallahassee, Panama City, Daytona Beach, and Brunswick, Ga., to receive specialty services,” said Dr. Barksdale. “Telerehabilitation would allow these patients to get access to high-quality rehab services with clinicians that specialize in MS.”

Dr. Barksdale and colleagues conducted a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of a physical therapy–guided telerehabilitation program for people with mobility impairments resulting from confirmed MS. The investigators enrolled patients at the MS Center of Excellence at University of Florida Health Jacksonville into a telerehabilitation group. A board-certified neurologist and a physical therapist specializing in MS examined participants in person at baseline. The latter underwent an 8-week program of physical therapy–guided telerehabilitation that used the Jintronix software platform and a kinetic tracking system.

By reviewing charts during January 2018–September 2019, Dr. Barksdale and colleagues selected patients with MS who were seen on an outpatient basis by the same physical therapists who were administering telerehabilitation. This outpatient comparison group was matched to the telerehabilitation group on duration of treatment and outcome measures completed. Dr. Barksdale and colleagues reviewed the data for the effects of the two interventions on mobility and travel.

Eight patients completed the telerehabilitation program, and all had improvements in fatigue, quality of life, or mobility measures. The investigators did not observe any adverse events during or after the intervention. The total savings in projected travel costs for all eight participants was $8,487.23, compared with the outpatient group. Participants in the telerehabilitation and outpatient groups achieved minimal detectable changes in the outcome measures examined at equivalent rates.

“The game-based model with virtual visits by a physical therapist can be modified to include exercises specific for other motor, coordination, spasticity, and movement dysfunctions and may be useful for other chronic and progressive dysfunction seen in Parkinson’s disease, stroke, and other movement and neuromuscular disorders,” said Dr. Barksdale.

“Future studies are needed to further establish guidelines for patient selection and mode of delivery, as well as design of future telerehabilitation programs,” she added. “Duration of treatment and types of exercises to be included should also be examined. Further research into use of telerehabilitation for the treatment of upper-extremity, cognitive, speech, and swallowing dysfunction should also be examined.”

The investigators conducted their study without outside funding and reported no disclosures.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Barksdale H et al. CMSC 2020. Abstract REH11.

With ofatumumab (Arzerra, Novartis), a fully human anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, there is a greater likelihood of there being no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) compared with the disease-modifying therapy (DMT) teriflunomide, a new study shows.

The drug, which is already approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, is currently under review for relapsing MS as a once-per-month self-injected therapy that could offer a convenient alternative to DMTs that require in-office infusion.

The new findings are from a pooled analysis from the phase 3 ASCLEPIOS I/II trials of the use of ofatumumab for patients with relapsing MS. There were 927 patients in the ASCLEPIOS I trial and 955 in the ASCLEPIOS II trial. The trials were conducted in 37 countries and involved patients aged 18-55 years.

The late-breaking research was presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

The studies compared patients who were treated with subcutaneous ofatumumab 20 mg with patients treated with oral teriflunomide 14 mg once daily for up to 30 months. The average duration of follow-up was 18 months.

NEDA-3, commonly used to determine treatment outcomes for patients with relapsing MS, was defined as a composite of having no worsening of disability over a 6-month period (6mCDW), no confirmed MS relapse, no new/enlarging T2 lesions, and no gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions.

The pooled results showed that the odds of achieving NEDA-3 during the first 12 months were three times greater with ofatumumab than with teriflunomide (47.0% vs. 24.5%; odds ratio [OR], 3.36; P < .001) and were more than eight times greater from months 12 to 24 (87.8% vs. 48.2%; OR, 8.09; P < .001).

In addition, compared with patients who received teriflunomide, a higher proportion of patients who received ofatumumab were free from 6mCDW over 2 years (91.9% vs. 88.9%), as well as from relapses (82.3% vs 69.2%) and lesion activity (54.1% vs. 27.5%).

There was a significantly greater reduction in annualized relapse rate with ofatumumab compared with teriflunomide at all cumulative time intervals, including months 0 to 3 (P = .011), and at all subsequent time intervals from month 0 to 27 (P < .001).

The pooled findings further showed that ofatumumab reduced the mean number of gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions per scan by 95.9% compared with teriflunomide (P < .001).

“Ofatumumab increased the probability of achieving NEDA-3 and demonstrated superior efficacy vs teriflunomide in patients with relapsing MS,” said the authors, led by Stephen L. Hauser, MD, of the department of neurology, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco.

Ofatumumab superior in primary, secondary outcomes

As previously reported, subcutaneous ofatumumab also demonstrated superior efficacy over oral teriflunomide in the primary and secondary endpoints in the ASCLEPIOS I/II trials. The annualized relapse rate was reduced by 0.22 in the teriflunomide group, vs 0.11 in the ofatumumab group (50.5% relative reduction; P < .001) in the ASCLEPIOS I trial, and by 0.25 vs. 0.10 (58.5% relative reduction P < .001) in ASCLEPIOS II.

Ofatumumab also reduced the number of gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions and new or enlarging T2 lesions compared with teriflunomide (all P < .001). It reduced the risk for disability progression by 34.4% over 3 months and by 32.5% over 6 months.

In the studies, the rate of serious infection with ofatumumab was 2.5%, compared with 1.8% with teriflunomide. Rates of malignancies were 0.5% and 0.3%, respectively.

“Ofatumumab demonstrated superior efficacy versus teriflunomide, with an acceptable safety profile, in patients with relapsing MS,” the authors reported.

Adherence rates with self-injection encouraging

An additional analysis from the two trials presented virtually in a separate abstract at the CMSC showed greater adherence to the self-administered regimen.

The analysis shows that in the ASCLEPIOS I study, 86.0% patients who were randomly assigned to receive ofatumumab and 77.7% who received teriflunomide completed the study on the assigned study drug. The proportion of patients who received ofatumumab and who discontinued treatment was 14.0%, versus 21.2% for those in the teriflunomide group. The most common reasons for discontinuation were patient/guardian decision (ofatumumab, 4.9%; teriflunomide, 8.2%), adverse event (ofatumumab, 5.2%; teriflunomide, 5.0%), and physician decision (ofatumumab, 2.2%; teriflunomide, 6.5%).

In the ASCLEPIOS II study, the rates were similar in all measures.

“In ASCLEPIOS trials, compliance with home-administered subcutaneous ofatumumab was high, and fewer patients discontinued ofatumumab as compared to teriflunomide,” the authors concluded.

Comparator drug a weak choice?

In commenting on the research, Stephen Kamin, MD, professor, vice chair, and chief of service, department of neurology, New Jersey Medical School, in Newark, noted that a limitation of the ASCLEPIOS trials is the comparison with teriflunomide.

“The comparator drug, teriflunomide, is one of the least effective DMTs, and one that some clinicians, including myself, don’t use,” he said.

Previously, when asked in an interview about the choice of teriflunomide as the comparator, Dr. Hauser noted that considerable discussion had gone into the decision. “The rationale was that we wanted to have a comparator that would be present not only against focal disease activity but also potentially against progression, and we were also able to blind the study successfully,” he said at the time.

Dr. Kamin said that ofatumumab will nevertheless likely represent a welcome addition to the tool kit of treatment options for MS. “Any new drug is helpful in adding to our choices as a general rule,” he said. “Subcutaneous injection does have increased convenience.”

It is not likely that the drug will be a game changer, he added, although the treatment’s efficacy compared with other drugs remains to be seen. “It all depends upon the relative efficacy of ofatumumab versus ocrelizumab or siponimod,” Dr. Kamin said.

“There has been another subcutaneous monoclonal for MS, daclizumab, although this was withdrawn from the market due to severe adverse effects not related to route of administration,” he added.

Dr. Hauser has relationships with Alector, Annexon, Bionure, Molecular Stethoscope, Symbiotix, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Kamin has received research support from Biogen, Novartis and CMSC.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

With ofatumumab (Arzerra, Novartis), a fully human anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, there is a greater likelihood of there being no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) compared with the disease-modifying therapy (DMT) teriflunomide, a new study shows.

The drug, which is already approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, is currently under review for relapsing MS as a once-per-month self-injected therapy that could offer a convenient alternative to DMTs that require in-office infusion.

The new findings are from a pooled analysis from the phase 3 ASCLEPIOS I/II trials of the use of ofatumumab for patients with relapsing MS. There were 927 patients in the ASCLEPIOS I trial and 955 in the ASCLEPIOS II trial. The trials were conducted in 37 countries and involved patients aged 18-55 years.

The late-breaking research was presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

The studies compared patients who were treated with subcutaneous ofatumumab 20 mg with patients treated with oral teriflunomide 14 mg once daily for up to 30 months. The average duration of follow-up was 18 months.

NEDA-3, commonly used to determine treatment outcomes for patients with relapsing MS, was defined as a composite of having no worsening of disability over a 6-month period (6mCDW), no confirmed MS relapse, no new/enlarging T2 lesions, and no gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions.

The pooled results showed that the odds of achieving NEDA-3 during the first 12 months were three times greater with ofatumumab than with teriflunomide (47.0% vs. 24.5%; odds ratio [OR], 3.36; P < .001) and were more than eight times greater from months 12 to 24 (87.8% vs. 48.2%; OR, 8.09; P < .001).

In addition, compared with patients who received teriflunomide, a higher proportion of patients who received ofatumumab were free from 6mCDW over 2 years (91.9% vs. 88.9%), as well as from relapses (82.3% vs 69.2%) and lesion activity (54.1% vs. 27.5%).

There was a significantly greater reduction in annualized relapse rate with ofatumumab compared with teriflunomide at all cumulative time intervals, including months 0 to 3 (P = .011), and at all subsequent time intervals from month 0 to 27 (P < .001).

The pooled findings further showed that ofatumumab reduced the mean number of gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions per scan by 95.9% compared with teriflunomide (P < .001).

“Ofatumumab increased the probability of achieving NEDA-3 and demonstrated superior efficacy vs teriflunomide in patients with relapsing MS,” said the authors, led by Stephen L. Hauser, MD, of the department of neurology, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco.

Ofatumumab superior in primary, secondary outcomes

As previously reported, subcutaneous ofatumumab also demonstrated superior efficacy over oral teriflunomide in the primary and secondary endpoints in the ASCLEPIOS I/II trials. The annualized relapse rate was reduced by 0.22 in the teriflunomide group, vs 0.11 in the ofatumumab group (50.5% relative reduction; P < .001) in the ASCLEPIOS I trial, and by 0.25 vs. 0.10 (58.5% relative reduction P < .001) in ASCLEPIOS II.

Ofatumumab also reduced the number of gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions and new or enlarging T2 lesions compared with teriflunomide (all P < .001). It reduced the risk for disability progression by 34.4% over 3 months and by 32.5% over 6 months.

In the studies, the rate of serious infection with ofatumumab was 2.5%, compared with 1.8% with teriflunomide. Rates of malignancies were 0.5% and 0.3%, respectively.

“Ofatumumab demonstrated superior efficacy versus teriflunomide, with an acceptable safety profile, in patients with relapsing MS,” the authors reported.

Adherence rates with self-injection encouraging

An additional analysis from the two trials presented virtually in a separate abstract at the CMSC showed greater adherence to the self-administered regimen.

The analysis shows that in the ASCLEPIOS I study, 86.0% patients who were randomly assigned to receive ofatumumab and 77.7% who received teriflunomide completed the study on the assigned study drug. The proportion of patients who received ofatumumab and who discontinued treatment was 14.0%, versus 21.2% for those in the teriflunomide group. The most common reasons for discontinuation were patient/guardian decision (ofatumumab, 4.9%; teriflunomide, 8.2%), adverse event (ofatumumab, 5.2%; teriflunomide, 5.0%), and physician decision (ofatumumab, 2.2%; teriflunomide, 6.5%).

In the ASCLEPIOS II study, the rates were similar in all measures.

“In ASCLEPIOS trials, compliance with home-administered subcutaneous ofatumumab was high, and fewer patients discontinued ofatumumab as compared to teriflunomide,” the authors concluded.

Comparator drug a weak choice?

In commenting on the research, Stephen Kamin, MD, professor, vice chair, and chief of service, department of neurology, New Jersey Medical School, in Newark, noted that a limitation of the ASCLEPIOS trials is the comparison with teriflunomide.

“The comparator drug, teriflunomide, is one of the least effective DMTs, and one that some clinicians, including myself, don’t use,” he said.

Previously, when asked in an interview about the choice of teriflunomide as the comparator, Dr. Hauser noted that considerable discussion had gone into the decision. “The rationale was that we wanted to have a comparator that would be present not only against focal disease activity but also potentially against progression, and we were also able to blind the study successfully,” he said at the time.

Dr. Kamin said that ofatumumab will nevertheless likely represent a welcome addition to the tool kit of treatment options for MS. “Any new drug is helpful in adding to our choices as a general rule,” he said. “Subcutaneous injection does have increased convenience.”

It is not likely that the drug will be a game changer, he added, although the treatment’s efficacy compared with other drugs remains to be seen. “It all depends upon the relative efficacy of ofatumumab versus ocrelizumab or siponimod,” Dr. Kamin said.

“There has been another subcutaneous monoclonal for MS, daclizumab, although this was withdrawn from the market due to severe adverse effects not related to route of administration,” he added.

Dr. Hauser has relationships with Alector, Annexon, Bionure, Molecular Stethoscope, Symbiotix, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Kamin has received research support from Biogen, Novartis and CMSC.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

With ofatumumab (Arzerra, Novartis), a fully human anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, there is a greater likelihood of there being no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) compared with the disease-modifying therapy (DMT) teriflunomide, a new study shows.

The drug, which is already approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, is currently under review for relapsing MS as a once-per-month self-injected therapy that could offer a convenient alternative to DMTs that require in-office infusion.

The new findings are from a pooled analysis from the phase 3 ASCLEPIOS I/II trials of the use of ofatumumab for patients with relapsing MS. There were 927 patients in the ASCLEPIOS I trial and 955 in the ASCLEPIOS II trial. The trials were conducted in 37 countries and involved patients aged 18-55 years.

The late-breaking research was presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

The studies compared patients who were treated with subcutaneous ofatumumab 20 mg with patients treated with oral teriflunomide 14 mg once daily for up to 30 months. The average duration of follow-up was 18 months.

NEDA-3, commonly used to determine treatment outcomes for patients with relapsing MS, was defined as a composite of having no worsening of disability over a 6-month period (6mCDW), no confirmed MS relapse, no new/enlarging T2 lesions, and no gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions.

The pooled results showed that the odds of achieving NEDA-3 during the first 12 months were three times greater with ofatumumab than with teriflunomide (47.0% vs. 24.5%; odds ratio [OR], 3.36; P < .001) and were more than eight times greater from months 12 to 24 (87.8% vs. 48.2%; OR, 8.09; P < .001).

In addition, compared with patients who received teriflunomide, a higher proportion of patients who received ofatumumab were free from 6mCDW over 2 years (91.9% vs. 88.9%), as well as from relapses (82.3% vs 69.2%) and lesion activity (54.1% vs. 27.5%).

There was a significantly greater reduction in annualized relapse rate with ofatumumab compared with teriflunomide at all cumulative time intervals, including months 0 to 3 (P = .011), and at all subsequent time intervals from month 0 to 27 (P < .001).

The pooled findings further showed that ofatumumab reduced the mean number of gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions per scan by 95.9% compared with teriflunomide (P < .001).

“Ofatumumab increased the probability of achieving NEDA-3 and demonstrated superior efficacy vs teriflunomide in patients with relapsing MS,” said the authors, led by Stephen L. Hauser, MD, of the department of neurology, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco.

Ofatumumab superior in primary, secondary outcomes

As previously reported, subcutaneous ofatumumab also demonstrated superior efficacy over oral teriflunomide in the primary and secondary endpoints in the ASCLEPIOS I/II trials. The annualized relapse rate was reduced by 0.22 in the teriflunomide group, vs 0.11 in the ofatumumab group (50.5% relative reduction; P < .001) in the ASCLEPIOS I trial, and by 0.25 vs. 0.10 (58.5% relative reduction P < .001) in ASCLEPIOS II.

Ofatumumab also reduced the number of gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions and new or enlarging T2 lesions compared with teriflunomide (all P < .001). It reduced the risk for disability progression by 34.4% over 3 months and by 32.5% over 6 months.

In the studies, the rate of serious infection with ofatumumab was 2.5%, compared with 1.8% with teriflunomide. Rates of malignancies were 0.5% and 0.3%, respectively.

“Ofatumumab demonstrated superior efficacy versus teriflunomide, with an acceptable safety profile, in patients with relapsing MS,” the authors reported.

Adherence rates with self-injection encouraging

An additional analysis from the two trials presented virtually in a separate abstract at the CMSC showed greater adherence to the self-administered regimen.

The analysis shows that in the ASCLEPIOS I study, 86.0% patients who were randomly assigned to receive ofatumumab and 77.7% who received teriflunomide completed the study on the assigned study drug. The proportion of patients who received ofatumumab and who discontinued treatment was 14.0%, versus 21.2% for those in the teriflunomide group. The most common reasons for discontinuation were patient/guardian decision (ofatumumab, 4.9%; teriflunomide, 8.2%), adverse event (ofatumumab, 5.2%; teriflunomide, 5.0%), and physician decision (ofatumumab, 2.2%; teriflunomide, 6.5%).

In the ASCLEPIOS II study, the rates were similar in all measures.

“In ASCLEPIOS trials, compliance with home-administered subcutaneous ofatumumab was high, and fewer patients discontinued ofatumumab as compared to teriflunomide,” the authors concluded.

Comparator drug a weak choice?

In commenting on the research, Stephen Kamin, MD, professor, vice chair, and chief of service, department of neurology, New Jersey Medical School, in Newark, noted that a limitation of the ASCLEPIOS trials is the comparison with teriflunomide.

“The comparator drug, teriflunomide, is one of the least effective DMTs, and one that some clinicians, including myself, don’t use,” he said.

Previously, when asked in an interview about the choice of teriflunomide as the comparator, Dr. Hauser noted that considerable discussion had gone into the decision. “The rationale was that we wanted to have a comparator that would be present not only against focal disease activity but also potentially against progression, and we were also able to blind the study successfully,” he said at the time.

Dr. Kamin said that ofatumumab will nevertheless likely represent a welcome addition to the tool kit of treatment options for MS. “Any new drug is helpful in adding to our choices as a general rule,” he said. “Subcutaneous injection does have increased convenience.”

It is not likely that the drug will be a game changer, he added, although the treatment’s efficacy compared with other drugs remains to be seen. “It all depends upon the relative efficacy of ofatumumab versus ocrelizumab or siponimod,” Dr. Kamin said.

“There has been another subcutaneous monoclonal for MS, daclizumab, although this was withdrawn from the market due to severe adverse effects not related to route of administration,” he added.

Dr. Hauser has relationships with Alector, Annexon, Bionure, Molecular Stethoscope, Symbiotix, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Kamin has received research support from Biogen, Novartis and CMSC.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) who switch from treatment with the highly effective disease-modifying therapy natalizumab to a moderate-efficacy DMT show an increased risk of disability accumulation and disease activity over 2 years compared with switching to another highly effective DMT, new research shows.

“Owing to the vast number of available DMTs, not only understanding DMT performance but answering the question of what can come next if a patient needs to discontinue treatment due to safety or breakthrough disease is important,” said lead author Carrie M. Hersh, DO, of the Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Cleveland Clinic, Las Vegas.

The study shows that, “patients transitioning from natalizumab to another high-efficacy therapy have better inflammatory and disability outcomes compared with those who de-escalate their therapy to a moderate-efficacy DMT,” she said.

Natalizumab (Tysabri) offers significant benefits in the treatment of relapsing forms of MS, however, its long-term use is associated with safety concerns, notably an increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Although the risk can be reduced with a switch to a different DMT, the transition can have risks of its own, including a rebound of disease activity that could prove to be worse than the pre-natalizumab treatment period, and there is a lack of consensus on the safest avenues for switching to another DMT following discontinuation of natalizumab.

In research presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Dr. Hersh and colleagues explored the issue in a real-world population of 556 patients discontinuing natalizumab at two MS centers. Of these, 270 switched to a moderate DMT (dimethyl fumarate, n = 130; or fingolimod, n = 140) and 130 switched to a highly effective DMT (ocrelizumab, n = 106; rituximab, n = 17; or alemtuzumab, n = 7).

Reasons for switching included a PML risk for 54.9%, breakthrough disease for 15.3%, and adverse effects for 17.3%.

At 24-month follow-up after the switch and after adjustment for propensity score matching, no differences were seen between the moderate and highly effective DMT groups in terms of the annualized relapse rate (ARR; P = 0.33) or the time to first relapse (P = 0.09).

However, significantly higher proportions of patients switching to moderate DMTs showed new T2 lesions (odds ratio, 2.15; P = .01), as well as new gadolinium-enhancing lesions (OR, 1.99; P = .02), and a 20% worsening of the timed 25-foot walk test (T25FW; OR, 1.83; P = .04) and 9-hole peg test (9-HPT; OR, 1.81; P = .04)

Those switching to moderate DMTs also had significantly lower rates of absence of disease activity over the 24 months (OR, 0.41, P = .004), and they had a higher risk of earlier time-to-first gadolinium-enhancing lesion (hazard ratio, 6.67, P = .002), compared with those switching to a high-efficacy DMT.

Other factors that have previously been shown to be associated with rebounds that are worse than pre-natalizumab treatment include washout periods that are longer than 3 months.

The authors noted that there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of mean washout duration, which were relatively short (moderate DMT, 1.4 months; highly effective treatment, 1.8 months; P = .34), In addition, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the average duration of natalizumab treatment.

Dr. Hersh speculated that the lack of ARR differences may reflect that the measure is not as objective as the more specific determinants of performance. “One could consider the comparable ARR as a little surprising, but relapse evaluation in a retrospective manner is limited,” she explained.

“Historically, radiographic markers of new inflammation via brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and neuroperformance measures (T25FW and 9-HPT) are more objective compared to assessing clinical relapses, especially in a retrospective cohort where relapses cannot be validated by a central agency or the principal investigator. Therefore, one can surmise that patients transitioning from natalizumab to another high-efficacy DMT fare better than de-escalating treatment to a moderate-efficacy DMT.”

Dr. Hersh and team plan a larger, multicenter study to investigate the short- and long-term effects of post-natalizumab DMT sequencing to help validate the current findings.

Commenting on the research, Stephen Kamin, MD, professor, vice chair and chief of service, department of neurology, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said the results are consistent with natalizumab’s general profile.

“In general, natalizumab has been used in patients with highly active disease, so I would expect fewer patients with no evidence of disease activity when switched to a moderately active drug rather than a highly active one,” he said in an interview.

Caveats of the findings include the trial’s observational nature, meaning potential confounding factors of baseline characteristics among patients who switched regimens are not known, noted Dr. Kamin, who was not involved with the study.

“Also, the patients were switched to a variety of drugs and even within a class there may be differences in outcome,” he explained.

Dr. Hersh reported consulting or research relationships with Biogen, Genentech, EMD Serono, Genzyme, Novartis, and PCORI. Dr. Kamin has received research support from Biogen, Novartis, and the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) who switch from treatment with the highly effective disease-modifying therapy natalizumab to a moderate-efficacy DMT show an increased risk of disability accumulation and disease activity over 2 years compared with switching to another highly effective DMT, new research shows.

“Owing to the vast number of available DMTs, not only understanding DMT performance but answering the question of what can come next if a patient needs to discontinue treatment due to safety or breakthrough disease is important,” said lead author Carrie M. Hersh, DO, of the Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Cleveland Clinic, Las Vegas.

The study shows that, “patients transitioning from natalizumab to another high-efficacy therapy have better inflammatory and disability outcomes compared with those who de-escalate their therapy to a moderate-efficacy DMT,” she said.

Natalizumab (Tysabri) offers significant benefits in the treatment of relapsing forms of MS, however, its long-term use is associated with safety concerns, notably an increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Although the risk can be reduced with a switch to a different DMT, the transition can have risks of its own, including a rebound of disease activity that could prove to be worse than the pre-natalizumab treatment period, and there is a lack of consensus on the safest avenues for switching to another DMT following discontinuation of natalizumab.

In research presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Dr. Hersh and colleagues explored the issue in a real-world population of 556 patients discontinuing natalizumab at two MS centers. Of these, 270 switched to a moderate DMT (dimethyl fumarate, n = 130; or fingolimod, n = 140) and 130 switched to a highly effective DMT (ocrelizumab, n = 106; rituximab, n = 17; or alemtuzumab, n = 7).

Reasons for switching included a PML risk for 54.9%, breakthrough disease for 15.3%, and adverse effects for 17.3%.

At 24-month follow-up after the switch and after adjustment for propensity score matching, no differences were seen between the moderate and highly effective DMT groups in terms of the annualized relapse rate (ARR; P = 0.33) or the time to first relapse (P = 0.09).

However, significantly higher proportions of patients switching to moderate DMTs showed new T2 lesions (odds ratio, 2.15; P = .01), as well as new gadolinium-enhancing lesions (OR, 1.99; P = .02), and a 20% worsening of the timed 25-foot walk test (T25FW; OR, 1.83; P = .04) and 9-hole peg test (9-HPT; OR, 1.81; P = .04)

Those switching to moderate DMTs also had significantly lower rates of absence of disease activity over the 24 months (OR, 0.41, P = .004), and they had a higher risk of earlier time-to-first gadolinium-enhancing lesion (hazard ratio, 6.67, P = .002), compared with those switching to a high-efficacy DMT.

Other factors that have previously been shown to be associated with rebounds that are worse than pre-natalizumab treatment include washout periods that are longer than 3 months.

The authors noted that there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of mean washout duration, which were relatively short (moderate DMT, 1.4 months; highly effective treatment, 1.8 months; P = .34), In addition, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the average duration of natalizumab treatment.

Dr. Hersh speculated that the lack of ARR differences may reflect that the measure is not as objective as the more specific determinants of performance. “One could consider the comparable ARR as a little surprising, but relapse evaluation in a retrospective manner is limited,” she explained.

“Historically, radiographic markers of new inflammation via brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and neuroperformance measures (T25FW and 9-HPT) are more objective compared to assessing clinical relapses, especially in a retrospective cohort where relapses cannot be validated by a central agency or the principal investigator. Therefore, one can surmise that patients transitioning from natalizumab to another high-efficacy DMT fare better than de-escalating treatment to a moderate-efficacy DMT.”

Dr. Hersh and team plan a larger, multicenter study to investigate the short- and long-term effects of post-natalizumab DMT sequencing to help validate the current findings.

Commenting on the research, Stephen Kamin, MD, professor, vice chair and chief of service, department of neurology, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said the results are consistent with natalizumab’s general profile.

“In general, natalizumab has been used in patients with highly active disease, so I would expect fewer patients with no evidence of disease activity when switched to a moderately active drug rather than a highly active one,” he said in an interview.

Caveats of the findings include the trial’s observational nature, meaning potential confounding factors of baseline characteristics among patients who switched regimens are not known, noted Dr. Kamin, who was not involved with the study.

“Also, the patients were switched to a variety of drugs and even within a class there may be differences in outcome,” he explained.

Dr. Hersh reported consulting or research relationships with Biogen, Genentech, EMD Serono, Genzyme, Novartis, and PCORI. Dr. Kamin has received research support from Biogen, Novartis, and the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) who switch from treatment with the highly effective disease-modifying therapy natalizumab to a moderate-efficacy DMT show an increased risk of disability accumulation and disease activity over 2 years compared with switching to another highly effective DMT, new research shows.

“Owing to the vast number of available DMTs, not only understanding DMT performance but answering the question of what can come next if a patient needs to discontinue treatment due to safety or breakthrough disease is important,” said lead author Carrie M. Hersh, DO, of the Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Cleveland Clinic, Las Vegas.

The study shows that, “patients transitioning from natalizumab to another high-efficacy therapy have better inflammatory and disability outcomes compared with those who de-escalate their therapy to a moderate-efficacy DMT,” she said.

Natalizumab (Tysabri) offers significant benefits in the treatment of relapsing forms of MS, however, its long-term use is associated with safety concerns, notably an increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Although the risk can be reduced with a switch to a different DMT, the transition can have risks of its own, including a rebound of disease activity that could prove to be worse than the pre-natalizumab treatment period, and there is a lack of consensus on the safest avenues for switching to another DMT following discontinuation of natalizumab.

In research presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Dr. Hersh and colleagues explored the issue in a real-world population of 556 patients discontinuing natalizumab at two MS centers. Of these, 270 switched to a moderate DMT (dimethyl fumarate, n = 130; or fingolimod, n = 140) and 130 switched to a highly effective DMT (ocrelizumab, n = 106; rituximab, n = 17; or alemtuzumab, n = 7).

Reasons for switching included a PML risk for 54.9%, breakthrough disease for 15.3%, and adverse effects for 17.3%.

At 24-month follow-up after the switch and after adjustment for propensity score matching, no differences were seen between the moderate and highly effective DMT groups in terms of the annualized relapse rate (ARR; P = 0.33) or the time to first relapse (P = 0.09).

However, significantly higher proportions of patients switching to moderate DMTs showed new T2 lesions (odds ratio, 2.15; P = .01), as well as new gadolinium-enhancing lesions (OR, 1.99; P = .02), and a 20% worsening of the timed 25-foot walk test (T25FW; OR, 1.83; P = .04) and 9-hole peg test (9-HPT; OR, 1.81; P = .04)

Those switching to moderate DMTs also had significantly lower rates of absence of disease activity over the 24 months (OR, 0.41, P = .004), and they had a higher risk of earlier time-to-first gadolinium-enhancing lesion (hazard ratio, 6.67, P = .002), compared with those switching to a high-efficacy DMT.

Other factors that have previously been shown to be associated with rebounds that are worse than pre-natalizumab treatment include washout periods that are longer than 3 months.

The authors noted that there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of mean washout duration, which were relatively short (moderate DMT, 1.4 months; highly effective treatment, 1.8 months; P = .34), In addition, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the average duration of natalizumab treatment.

Dr. Hersh speculated that the lack of ARR differences may reflect that the measure is not as objective as the more specific determinants of performance. “One could consider the comparable ARR as a little surprising, but relapse evaluation in a retrospective manner is limited,” she explained.

“Historically, radiographic markers of new inflammation via brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and neuroperformance measures (T25FW and 9-HPT) are more objective compared to assessing clinical relapses, especially in a retrospective cohort where relapses cannot be validated by a central agency or the principal investigator. Therefore, one can surmise that patients transitioning from natalizumab to another high-efficacy DMT fare better than de-escalating treatment to a moderate-efficacy DMT.”

Dr. Hersh and team plan a larger, multicenter study to investigate the short- and long-term effects of post-natalizumab DMT sequencing to help validate the current findings.

Commenting on the research, Stephen Kamin, MD, professor, vice chair and chief of service, department of neurology, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said the results are consistent with natalizumab’s general profile.

“In general, natalizumab has been used in patients with highly active disease, so I would expect fewer patients with no evidence of disease activity when switched to a moderately active drug rather than a highly active one,” he said in an interview.

Caveats of the findings include the trial’s observational nature, meaning potential confounding factors of baseline characteristics among patients who switched regimens are not known, noted Dr. Kamin, who was not involved with the study.

“Also, the patients were switched to a variety of drugs and even within a class there may be differences in outcome,” he explained.

Dr. Hersh reported consulting or research relationships with Biogen, Genentech, EMD Serono, Genzyme, Novartis, and PCORI. Dr. Kamin has received research support from Biogen, Novartis, and the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.