TBD Meeting (5317-22)

The McDonald criteria for diagnosing multiple sclerosis (MS) has been around since 2001, with revisions in 2005, 2010, and 2017. They focus on lesions disseminated in space (DIS) and disseminated in time (DIT). As with any diagnostic, new science and methods inform changes. Although optic nerve lesions (ONL) have been considered in past revisions, they have yet to be adopted as a key diagnostic measure of MS.

At the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS), several speakers made the case for the addition of ONL to the next McDonald revision. Arguments ranged from the inherent injustice that patients with a diagnosis of optic lesions should have to meet three symptoms of MS to get a diagnosis, while other patients require only two, to the possibility that early presentation with ocular symptoms could be an indicator of a more severe prognosis.

Still, many conditions can mimic the symptoms of ONL, so it is critical to be sure of the diagnosis before considering it a symptom of MS. For example, central serious maculopathy in young to middle-aged patients is often painless and could lead to an inadvertent MS diagnosis if it were added to the criteria. However, treatment with steroids can make it worse, according to Laura Balcer, MD, who spoke at the session. Dr. Balcer is a neuro-ophthalmologist at NYU Langone Health.
 

Adding ONL to McDonald

In the first talk of the session, Frederik Barkhof, MD, PhD, discussed some of the history of the McDonald criteria and laid a groundwork for why it should be updated. He began by pointing out that the latest criteria require either symptomatic or asymptomatic MRI lesions to determine DIS or DIT.

Dr. Barkhof has led the Magnetic Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis (MAGNIMS) group, which had some doubts about the 2017 revision to the McDonald criteria. “We discussed this and said, ‘Well, that is interesting. So you can have a brainstem lesion, which can be the symptomatic lesion and then you need one further region, so you have two regions, and then you have MS. But now if you have an optic nerve presentation, and you can find the optic nerve, it doesn’t count, and then you need two more regions. So there’s a bit of an imbalance. Why would you need three regions if you have an optic nerve, and only two if you have a spinal cord or a brainstem presentation?” recalled Dr. Barkhof, professor of radiology and neuroscience at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Identifying optic nerve lesions requires a good MRI that should use fat-saturation techniques.

Dr. Barkhof pointed out that the ONLs are a common presentation among MS patients. “We’re now preparing for the next revisions of the McDonnell criteria, and I’m confident and hopeful that we’ll make it this time,” said Dr. Barkhof.
 

Confirm the MS diagnosis

In the second talk, Angela Vidal-Jordana, MD, PhD, discussed ways to implement ONLs in the clinic. She emphasized the importance of ruling out other causes. “Even when a patient comes to us with a diagnosis of optic neuritis, we should question that. Different studies have shown that the optic neuritis overdiagnosis rate at referral might be as high as 60% of the cases,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana, a neurologist at Centre d’Esclerosi Multiple de Catalunya in Barcelona. Studies show that about half of those are due to misinterpretation of the clinical history and examination, she said.

“So when presenting new visual symptoms, we should ask whether this is suggestive of an inflammatory etiology or not, and whether they are typical for MS or not. If both answers to these questions are yes, then we should apply the diagnostic criteria,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana.

She presented results from a longitudinal, prospective study conducted within the MAGNIMS network supporting the inclusion of ONL into DIS criteria for MS. It included use of optic nerve MRI, OCT, and VEP [visual evoked potential]. “All of the modified DIS criteria, that is including one of the tests at each time, or a combination of them, led to a higher sensitivity of the diagnostic criteria (when optic nerve involvement was included), albeit with a small decrease in specificity which mainly was due to the fact that we only had 3 years of follow-up. The same held true when analyzing the secondary outcome of new T2 lesions or second relapse during the follow up,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana.

“As a summary, I would say for sure we will need first of all an MRI, and we need to know if we can evaluate the optic nerve by MRI or not. If not, and we still do not have a diagnosis of a MS, maybe we can order VEP or OCT and then the test selection should be based on the time elapsed since first CIS [clinically isolated syndrome]. If it’s less than 3 months, I would go for a VEP. If it’s more than 3 months, then I probably want to go for OCT,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana.
 

An aid to earlier diagnosis

In the last talk, Dr. Balcer discussed non-MRI methods for assessing ONLs. She noted that in about 25% of MS patients, ONLs are the first clinical demyelinating event. “Adding the optic nerve to the MS diagnostic criteria will allow us to diagnose our patients even earlier, (it) may help their vision, and could also help us to reduce the overall burden of MS disability over a lifetime. Importantly, entry into MS diagnosis can be delayed among patients for whom optic neuritis or even asymptomatic optic nerve lesions are noted at presentation, and there has been an enormous amount of data that have emerged over the past 5 years demonstrating the importance of the optic nerve in the MS diagnosis with implications for early therapy,” said Dr. Balcer.

She discussed optical coherence tomography (OCT), which is a key technique for diagnosing optic neuropathy. It measures the thickness of the retinal nerve fiber and ganglion cell layers, which have been associated with vision impairment and can reveal asymptomatic involvement of optic nerves in MS.
 

Beware of misdiagnosis

In the Q&A period following the talks, much of the discussion turned to reliability of ONL diagnoses.

“Misdiagnosis is a huge problem. That’s my experience: People who are referred to me with optic neuritis often don’t have optic neuritis,” said comoderator Wallace Brownlee, MBChB, PhD, a consultant neurologist at Cleveland Clinic London. Misha Pless, MD, spoke up from the audience to second that. “I’m delighted that the optic nerve will finally get a place at the table. I’ve been practicing neuro-ophthalmology and I have also [been] an MS doctor for about 25 years. What I see here in this fantastic discussion is that a lot of neurologists are going to be – I hate to use the word ‘misled’ – into relying on technology like OCT, VEP, and MRI to make the diagnosis. I will submit to this panel that that will lead to a number of MS misdiagnoses because I have been doing this for 25 years and the number of patients that I’ve received with rule-out optic neuritis that had macular disease, optical changes, or corneal abrasions are too numerous to count. If you’re going to add optic neuritis in the list of criteria [for MS], you definitely have to have a little asterisk in my opinion and say, ‘with prior blessing from an ophthalmologist to rule out ocular disease,’ because I don’t know any neurologist that knows how to look in the back of the eye, and I don’t know any neurologist that has an OCT in their office,” said Dr. Pless, professor of ophthalmology and a neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

The panelists generally agreed with his point, although the hot mic picked up when one panelist whispered to another, ‘I have one,’ referring to an office OCT. “Using OCT in that regard, but also collaborating with your neuro-ophthalmologist and ophthalmologist is critical,” said Dr. Balcer.

Dr. Barkhof has financial relationships with Biogen, Merck, Roche, EISAI, Prothena, IXICO, Jansen, Combinostics, Novartis, GE, Queen Square, and Analytics. Dr. Vidal-Jordana has financial relationships with Roche, Novartis, Merck, and Sanofi. Dr. Balcer has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Brownlee has financial relationships with Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Mylan, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi.

The McDonald criteria for diagnosing multiple sclerosis (MS) has been around since 2001, with revisions in 2005, 2010, and 2017. They focus on lesions disseminated in space (DIS) and disseminated in time (DIT). As with any diagnostic, new science and methods inform changes. Although optic nerve lesions (ONL) have been considered in past revisions, they have yet to be adopted as a key diagnostic measure of MS.

At the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS), several speakers made the case for the addition of ONL to the next McDonald revision. Arguments ranged from the inherent injustice that patients with a diagnosis of optic lesions should have to meet three symptoms of MS to get a diagnosis, while other patients require only two, to the possibility that early presentation with ocular symptoms could be an indicator of a more severe prognosis.

Still, many conditions can mimic the symptoms of ONL, so it is critical to be sure of the diagnosis before considering it a symptom of MS. For example, central serious maculopathy in young to middle-aged patients is often painless and could lead to an inadvertent MS diagnosis if it were added to the criteria. However, treatment with steroids can make it worse, according to Laura Balcer, MD, who spoke at the session. Dr. Balcer is a neuro-ophthalmologist at NYU Langone Health.
 

Adding ONL to McDonald

In the first talk of the session, Frederik Barkhof, MD, PhD, discussed some of the history of the McDonald criteria and laid a groundwork for why it should be updated. He began by pointing out that the latest criteria require either symptomatic or asymptomatic MRI lesions to determine DIS or DIT.

Dr. Barkhof has led the Magnetic Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis (MAGNIMS) group, which had some doubts about the 2017 revision to the McDonald criteria. “We discussed this and said, ‘Well, that is interesting. So you can have a brainstem lesion, which can be the symptomatic lesion and then you need one further region, so you have two regions, and then you have MS. But now if you have an optic nerve presentation, and you can find the optic nerve, it doesn’t count, and then you need two more regions. So there’s a bit of an imbalance. Why would you need three regions if you have an optic nerve, and only two if you have a spinal cord or a brainstem presentation?” recalled Dr. Barkhof, professor of radiology and neuroscience at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Identifying optic nerve lesions requires a good MRI that should use fat-saturation techniques.

Dr. Barkhof pointed out that the ONLs are a common presentation among MS patients. “We’re now preparing for the next revisions of the McDonnell criteria, and I’m confident and hopeful that we’ll make it this time,” said Dr. Barkhof.
 

Confirm the MS diagnosis

In the second talk, Angela Vidal-Jordana, MD, PhD, discussed ways to implement ONLs in the clinic. She emphasized the importance of ruling out other causes. “Even when a patient comes to us with a diagnosis of optic neuritis, we should question that. Different studies have shown that the optic neuritis overdiagnosis rate at referral might be as high as 60% of the cases,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana, a neurologist at Centre d’Esclerosi Multiple de Catalunya in Barcelona. Studies show that about half of those are due to misinterpretation of the clinical history and examination, she said.

“So when presenting new visual symptoms, we should ask whether this is suggestive of an inflammatory etiology or not, and whether they are typical for MS or not. If both answers to these questions are yes, then we should apply the diagnostic criteria,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana.

She presented results from a longitudinal, prospective study conducted within the MAGNIMS network supporting the inclusion of ONL into DIS criteria for MS. It included use of optic nerve MRI, OCT, and VEP [visual evoked potential]. “All of the modified DIS criteria, that is including one of the tests at each time, or a combination of them, led to a higher sensitivity of the diagnostic criteria (when optic nerve involvement was included), albeit with a small decrease in specificity which mainly was due to the fact that we only had 3 years of follow-up. The same held true when analyzing the secondary outcome of new T2 lesions or second relapse during the follow up,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana.

“As a summary, I would say for sure we will need first of all an MRI, and we need to know if we can evaluate the optic nerve by MRI or not. If not, and we still do not have a diagnosis of a MS, maybe we can order VEP or OCT and then the test selection should be based on the time elapsed since first CIS [clinically isolated syndrome]. If it’s less than 3 months, I would go for a VEP. If it’s more than 3 months, then I probably want to go for OCT,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana.
 

An aid to earlier diagnosis

In the last talk, Dr. Balcer discussed non-MRI methods for assessing ONLs. She noted that in about 25% of MS patients, ONLs are the first clinical demyelinating event. “Adding the optic nerve to the MS diagnostic criteria will allow us to diagnose our patients even earlier, (it) may help their vision, and could also help us to reduce the overall burden of MS disability over a lifetime. Importantly, entry into MS diagnosis can be delayed among patients for whom optic neuritis or even asymptomatic optic nerve lesions are noted at presentation, and there has been an enormous amount of data that have emerged over the past 5 years demonstrating the importance of the optic nerve in the MS diagnosis with implications for early therapy,” said Dr. Balcer.

She discussed optical coherence tomography (OCT), which is a key technique for diagnosing optic neuropathy. It measures the thickness of the retinal nerve fiber and ganglion cell layers, which have been associated with vision impairment and can reveal asymptomatic involvement of optic nerves in MS.
 

Beware of misdiagnosis

In the Q&A period following the talks, much of the discussion turned to reliability of ONL diagnoses.

“Misdiagnosis is a huge problem. That’s my experience: People who are referred to me with optic neuritis often don’t have optic neuritis,” said comoderator Wallace Brownlee, MBChB, PhD, a consultant neurologist at Cleveland Clinic London. Misha Pless, MD, spoke up from the audience to second that. “I’m delighted that the optic nerve will finally get a place at the table. I’ve been practicing neuro-ophthalmology and I have also [been] an MS doctor for about 25 years. What I see here in this fantastic discussion is that a lot of neurologists are going to be – I hate to use the word ‘misled’ – into relying on technology like OCT, VEP, and MRI to make the diagnosis. I will submit to this panel that that will lead to a number of MS misdiagnoses because I have been doing this for 25 years and the number of patients that I’ve received with rule-out optic neuritis that had macular disease, optical changes, or corneal abrasions are too numerous to count. If you’re going to add optic neuritis in the list of criteria [for MS], you definitely have to have a little asterisk in my opinion and say, ‘with prior blessing from an ophthalmologist to rule out ocular disease,’ because I don’t know any neurologist that knows how to look in the back of the eye, and I don’t know any neurologist that has an OCT in their office,” said Dr. Pless, professor of ophthalmology and a neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

The panelists generally agreed with his point, although the hot mic picked up when one panelist whispered to another, ‘I have one,’ referring to an office OCT. “Using OCT in that regard, but also collaborating with your neuro-ophthalmologist and ophthalmologist is critical,” said Dr. Balcer.

Dr. Barkhof has financial relationships with Biogen, Merck, Roche, EISAI, Prothena, IXICO, Jansen, Combinostics, Novartis, GE, Queen Square, and Analytics. Dr. Vidal-Jordana has financial relationships with Roche, Novartis, Merck, and Sanofi. Dr. Balcer has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Brownlee has financial relationships with Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Mylan, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi.

The McDonald criteria for diagnosing multiple sclerosis (MS) has been around since 2001, with revisions in 2005, 2010, and 2017. They focus on lesions disseminated in space (DIS) and disseminated in time (DIT). As with any diagnostic, new science and methods inform changes. Although optic nerve lesions (ONL) have been considered in past revisions, they have yet to be adopted as a key diagnostic measure of MS.

At the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS), several speakers made the case for the addition of ONL to the next McDonald revision. Arguments ranged from the inherent injustice that patients with a diagnosis of optic lesions should have to meet three symptoms of MS to get a diagnosis, while other patients require only two, to the possibility that early presentation with ocular symptoms could be an indicator of a more severe prognosis.

Still, many conditions can mimic the symptoms of ONL, so it is critical to be sure of the diagnosis before considering it a symptom of MS. For example, central serious maculopathy in young to middle-aged patients is often painless and could lead to an inadvertent MS diagnosis if it were added to the criteria. However, treatment with steroids can make it worse, according to Laura Balcer, MD, who spoke at the session. Dr. Balcer is a neuro-ophthalmologist at NYU Langone Health.
 

Adding ONL to McDonald

In the first talk of the session, Frederik Barkhof, MD, PhD, discussed some of the history of the McDonald criteria and laid a groundwork for why it should be updated. He began by pointing out that the latest criteria require either symptomatic or asymptomatic MRI lesions to determine DIS or DIT.

Dr. Barkhof has led the Magnetic Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis (MAGNIMS) group, which had some doubts about the 2017 revision to the McDonald criteria. “We discussed this and said, ‘Well, that is interesting. So you can have a brainstem lesion, which can be the symptomatic lesion and then you need one further region, so you have two regions, and then you have MS. But now if you have an optic nerve presentation, and you can find the optic nerve, it doesn’t count, and then you need two more regions. So there’s a bit of an imbalance. Why would you need three regions if you have an optic nerve, and only two if you have a spinal cord or a brainstem presentation?” recalled Dr. Barkhof, professor of radiology and neuroscience at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Identifying optic nerve lesions requires a good MRI that should use fat-saturation techniques.

Dr. Barkhof pointed out that the ONLs are a common presentation among MS patients. “We’re now preparing for the next revisions of the McDonnell criteria, and I’m confident and hopeful that we’ll make it this time,” said Dr. Barkhof.
 

Confirm the MS diagnosis

In the second talk, Angela Vidal-Jordana, MD, PhD, discussed ways to implement ONLs in the clinic. She emphasized the importance of ruling out other causes. “Even when a patient comes to us with a diagnosis of optic neuritis, we should question that. Different studies have shown that the optic neuritis overdiagnosis rate at referral might be as high as 60% of the cases,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana, a neurologist at Centre d’Esclerosi Multiple de Catalunya in Barcelona. Studies show that about half of those are due to misinterpretation of the clinical history and examination, she said.

“So when presenting new visual symptoms, we should ask whether this is suggestive of an inflammatory etiology or not, and whether they are typical for MS or not. If both answers to these questions are yes, then we should apply the diagnostic criteria,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana.

She presented results from a longitudinal, prospective study conducted within the MAGNIMS network supporting the inclusion of ONL into DIS criteria for MS. It included use of optic nerve MRI, OCT, and VEP [visual evoked potential]. “All of the modified DIS criteria, that is including one of the tests at each time, or a combination of them, led to a higher sensitivity of the diagnostic criteria (when optic nerve involvement was included), albeit with a small decrease in specificity which mainly was due to the fact that we only had 3 years of follow-up. The same held true when analyzing the secondary outcome of new T2 lesions or second relapse during the follow up,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana.

“As a summary, I would say for sure we will need first of all an MRI, and we need to know if we can evaluate the optic nerve by MRI or not. If not, and we still do not have a diagnosis of a MS, maybe we can order VEP or OCT and then the test selection should be based on the time elapsed since first CIS [clinically isolated syndrome]. If it’s less than 3 months, I would go for a VEP. If it’s more than 3 months, then I probably want to go for OCT,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana.
 

An aid to earlier diagnosis

In the last talk, Dr. Balcer discussed non-MRI methods for assessing ONLs. She noted that in about 25% of MS patients, ONLs are the first clinical demyelinating event. “Adding the optic nerve to the MS diagnostic criteria will allow us to diagnose our patients even earlier, (it) may help their vision, and could also help us to reduce the overall burden of MS disability over a lifetime. Importantly, entry into MS diagnosis can be delayed among patients for whom optic neuritis or even asymptomatic optic nerve lesions are noted at presentation, and there has been an enormous amount of data that have emerged over the past 5 years demonstrating the importance of the optic nerve in the MS diagnosis with implications for early therapy,” said Dr. Balcer.

She discussed optical coherence tomography (OCT), which is a key technique for diagnosing optic neuropathy. It measures the thickness of the retinal nerve fiber and ganglion cell layers, which have been associated with vision impairment and can reveal asymptomatic involvement of optic nerves in MS.
 

Beware of misdiagnosis

In the Q&A period following the talks, much of the discussion turned to reliability of ONL diagnoses.

“Misdiagnosis is a huge problem. That’s my experience: People who are referred to me with optic neuritis often don’t have optic neuritis,” said comoderator Wallace Brownlee, MBChB, PhD, a consultant neurologist at Cleveland Clinic London. Misha Pless, MD, spoke up from the audience to second that. “I’m delighted that the optic nerve will finally get a place at the table. I’ve been practicing neuro-ophthalmology and I have also [been] an MS doctor for about 25 years. What I see here in this fantastic discussion is that a lot of neurologists are going to be – I hate to use the word ‘misled’ – into relying on technology like OCT, VEP, and MRI to make the diagnosis. I will submit to this panel that that will lead to a number of MS misdiagnoses because I have been doing this for 25 years and the number of patients that I’ve received with rule-out optic neuritis that had macular disease, optical changes, or corneal abrasions are too numerous to count. If you’re going to add optic neuritis in the list of criteria [for MS], you definitely have to have a little asterisk in my opinion and say, ‘with prior blessing from an ophthalmologist to rule out ocular disease,’ because I don’t know any neurologist that knows how to look in the back of the eye, and I don’t know any neurologist that has an OCT in their office,” said Dr. Pless, professor of ophthalmology and a neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

The panelists generally agreed with his point, although the hot mic picked up when one panelist whispered to another, ‘I have one,’ referring to an office OCT. “Using OCT in that regard, but also collaborating with your neuro-ophthalmologist and ophthalmologist is critical,” said Dr. Balcer.

Dr. Barkhof has financial relationships with Biogen, Merck, Roche, EISAI, Prothena, IXICO, Jansen, Combinostics, Novartis, GE, Queen Square, and Analytics. Dr. Vidal-Jordana has financial relationships with Roche, Novartis, Merck, and Sanofi. Dr. Balcer has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Brownlee has financial relationships with Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Mylan, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi.

Patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) were 74% more likely than were those taking fingolimod to be relapse free 1 year after treatment, a new study suggests.

The multicenter observational study showed that AHSCT was associated with a better overall annual relapse rate and significantly greater disability improvement versus fingolimod. Stem cell transplantation also offered a slight advantage compared with natalizumab but showed no benefit over ocrelizumab.

“Based on these results, we can conclude that in this observational study AHSCT is substantially superior to fingolimod and marginally superior to natalizumab in reducing the risk of posttreatment relapses,” study investigator Tomas Kalincik, MD, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).
 

Research gap

Prior studies have suggested that AHSCT is associated with better disability outcomes than other immunotherapies in patients with active secondary progressive MS. Findings from another study on long-term efficacy in relapse prevention are also promising.

“The information that we are still lacking is the head-to-head comparison of the effectiveness of AHSCT in relapsing-remitting disease to concrete, highly effective therapies, which is the aim of this current study,” said Dr. Kalincik, professor of neurology at the University of Melbourne and head of the Multiple Sclerosis and Neuroimmunology Service at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia.

The study included 167 patients with relapsing-remitting MS from six centers in Ottawa, Uppsala, Sheffield, Bergen, Sydney, and Melbourne, combined with 1,675 patients from MSBase. Patients were included if they were treated with AHSCT or fingolimod (n = 769), natalizumab (n = 730) or ocrelizumab (n = 343).

Researchers used propensity matching to ensure the AHSCT and disease-modifying therapy (DMT) groups had similar relapse rates and disability scores at baseline. At 1 year, patients who underwent AHSCT were 74% more likely than were those on fingolimod to be relapse free (hazard ratio [HR], 0.26; P < .0001).

The AHSCT group had a lower overall annualized relapse rate (0.09 vs. 0.19, respectively; P < .0001) and a higher cumulative probability of remaining relapse free at 2 years (90% vs. 68%, respectively) and 5 years (85% vs. 54%, respectively). AHSCT was associated with significantly better confirmed disability improvement at 6 months compared with fingolimod (HR, 2.70; P < .0001).

The researchers found better outcomes with AHSCT compared with natalizumab, but the results weren’t as promising. The annual relapse rate with AHSCT was statistically significant (P = .03) but the clinical benefit was marginal, Dr. Kalincik said. However, the confirmed disability improvement was significantly better with AHSCT (HR, 2.68; P < .0001).

There was no significant difference in outcomes with AHSCT compared to ocrelizumab.

Adverse events were common with stem cell transplantation, a sticking point for at least one conference attendee who raised safety concerns. Among those treated with AHSCT, 23% had febrile neutropenia, 11% had serum sickness, and 36% experienced complications after discharge, mostly infection. There was one AHSCT treatment-related death.

“We’re showing that AHSCT is a highly potent therapy that definitely is competitive vis a vis the most potent standard conventional disease modifying therapies,” said Dr. Kalincik, who noted the high rate of adverse events. Still, treatment-related mortality from AHSCT has improved since the therapy was first used in MS patients, he added.

“I’m hoping the data provides some evidence to convince you that this treatment still has a place in our armamentarium,” Dr. Kalincik said.
 

Questions remain

Eva Kubala Havrdová, MD, PhD, professor of neurology in the Multiple Sclerosis Center at Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic, said the results add to a growing body of data on the efficacy of AHSCT in patients with highly active relapsing-remitting MS, but questions remain.

“It is important to understand that AHSCT provides advantage in terms of effectiveness compared with most of the DMTs,” Dr. Kubala Havrdová said. “However, it is a therapy associated with high risk of adverse events and this needs to be considered when one decides whether other, less invasive options have been exploited.”

Study funding was not reported. Dr. Kalincik disclosed ties with BioCSL, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva, and WebMD Global. Dr. Kubala Havrdová reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) were 74% more likely than were those taking fingolimod to be relapse free 1 year after treatment, a new study suggests.

The multicenter observational study showed that AHSCT was associated with a better overall annual relapse rate and significantly greater disability improvement versus fingolimod. Stem cell transplantation also offered a slight advantage compared with natalizumab but showed no benefit over ocrelizumab.

“Based on these results, we can conclude that in this observational study AHSCT is substantially superior to fingolimod and marginally superior to natalizumab in reducing the risk of posttreatment relapses,” study investigator Tomas Kalincik, MD, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).
 

Research gap

Prior studies have suggested that AHSCT is associated with better disability outcomes than other immunotherapies in patients with active secondary progressive MS. Findings from another study on long-term efficacy in relapse prevention are also promising.

“The information that we are still lacking is the head-to-head comparison of the effectiveness of AHSCT in relapsing-remitting disease to concrete, highly effective therapies, which is the aim of this current study,” said Dr. Kalincik, professor of neurology at the University of Melbourne and head of the Multiple Sclerosis and Neuroimmunology Service at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia.

The study included 167 patients with relapsing-remitting MS from six centers in Ottawa, Uppsala, Sheffield, Bergen, Sydney, and Melbourne, combined with 1,675 patients from MSBase. Patients were included if they were treated with AHSCT or fingolimod (n = 769), natalizumab (n = 730) or ocrelizumab (n = 343).

Researchers used propensity matching to ensure the AHSCT and disease-modifying therapy (DMT) groups had similar relapse rates and disability scores at baseline. At 1 year, patients who underwent AHSCT were 74% more likely than were those on fingolimod to be relapse free (hazard ratio [HR], 0.26; P < .0001).

The AHSCT group had a lower overall annualized relapse rate (0.09 vs. 0.19, respectively; P < .0001) and a higher cumulative probability of remaining relapse free at 2 years (90% vs. 68%, respectively) and 5 years (85% vs. 54%, respectively). AHSCT was associated with significantly better confirmed disability improvement at 6 months compared with fingolimod (HR, 2.70; P < .0001).

The researchers found better outcomes with AHSCT compared with natalizumab, but the results weren’t as promising. The annual relapse rate with AHSCT was statistically significant (P = .03) but the clinical benefit was marginal, Dr. Kalincik said. However, the confirmed disability improvement was significantly better with AHSCT (HR, 2.68; P < .0001).

There was no significant difference in outcomes with AHSCT compared to ocrelizumab.

Adverse events were common with stem cell transplantation, a sticking point for at least one conference attendee who raised safety concerns. Among those treated with AHSCT, 23% had febrile neutropenia, 11% had serum sickness, and 36% experienced complications after discharge, mostly infection. There was one AHSCT treatment-related death.

“We’re showing that AHSCT is a highly potent therapy that definitely is competitive vis a vis the most potent standard conventional disease modifying therapies,” said Dr. Kalincik, who noted the high rate of adverse events. Still, treatment-related mortality from AHSCT has improved since the therapy was first used in MS patients, he added.

“I’m hoping the data provides some evidence to convince you that this treatment still has a place in our armamentarium,” Dr. Kalincik said.
 

Questions remain

Eva Kubala Havrdová, MD, PhD, professor of neurology in the Multiple Sclerosis Center at Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic, said the results add to a growing body of data on the efficacy of AHSCT in patients with highly active relapsing-remitting MS, but questions remain.

“It is important to understand that AHSCT provides advantage in terms of effectiveness compared with most of the DMTs,” Dr. Kubala Havrdová said. “However, it is a therapy associated with high risk of adverse events and this needs to be considered when one decides whether other, less invasive options have been exploited.”

Study funding was not reported. Dr. Kalincik disclosed ties with BioCSL, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva, and WebMD Global. Dr. Kubala Havrdová reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) were 74% more likely than were those taking fingolimod to be relapse free 1 year after treatment, a new study suggests.

The multicenter observational study showed that AHSCT was associated with a better overall annual relapse rate and significantly greater disability improvement versus fingolimod. Stem cell transplantation also offered a slight advantage compared with natalizumab but showed no benefit over ocrelizumab.

“Based on these results, we can conclude that in this observational study AHSCT is substantially superior to fingolimod and marginally superior to natalizumab in reducing the risk of posttreatment relapses,” study investigator Tomas Kalincik, MD, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).
 

Research gap

Prior studies have suggested that AHSCT is associated with better disability outcomes than other immunotherapies in patients with active secondary progressive MS. Findings from another study on long-term efficacy in relapse prevention are also promising.

“The information that we are still lacking is the head-to-head comparison of the effectiveness of AHSCT in relapsing-remitting disease to concrete, highly effective therapies, which is the aim of this current study,” said Dr. Kalincik, professor of neurology at the University of Melbourne and head of the Multiple Sclerosis and Neuroimmunology Service at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia.

The study included 167 patients with relapsing-remitting MS from six centers in Ottawa, Uppsala, Sheffield, Bergen, Sydney, and Melbourne, combined with 1,675 patients from MSBase. Patients were included if they were treated with AHSCT or fingolimod (n = 769), natalizumab (n = 730) or ocrelizumab (n = 343).

Researchers used propensity matching to ensure the AHSCT and disease-modifying therapy (DMT) groups had similar relapse rates and disability scores at baseline. At 1 year, patients who underwent AHSCT were 74% more likely than were those on fingolimod to be relapse free (hazard ratio [HR], 0.26; P < .0001).

The AHSCT group had a lower overall annualized relapse rate (0.09 vs. 0.19, respectively; P < .0001) and a higher cumulative probability of remaining relapse free at 2 years (90% vs. 68%, respectively) and 5 years (85% vs. 54%, respectively). AHSCT was associated with significantly better confirmed disability improvement at 6 months compared with fingolimod (HR, 2.70; P < .0001).

The researchers found better outcomes with AHSCT compared with natalizumab, but the results weren’t as promising. The annual relapse rate with AHSCT was statistically significant (P = .03) but the clinical benefit was marginal, Dr. Kalincik said. However, the confirmed disability improvement was significantly better with AHSCT (HR, 2.68; P < .0001).

There was no significant difference in outcomes with AHSCT compared to ocrelizumab.

Adverse events were common with stem cell transplantation, a sticking point for at least one conference attendee who raised safety concerns. Among those treated with AHSCT, 23% had febrile neutropenia, 11% had serum sickness, and 36% experienced complications after discharge, mostly infection. There was one AHSCT treatment-related death.

“We’re showing that AHSCT is a highly potent therapy that definitely is competitive vis a vis the most potent standard conventional disease modifying therapies,” said Dr. Kalincik, who noted the high rate of adverse events. Still, treatment-related mortality from AHSCT has improved since the therapy was first used in MS patients, he added.

“I’m hoping the data provides some evidence to convince you that this treatment still has a place in our armamentarium,” Dr. Kalincik said.
 

Questions remain

Eva Kubala Havrdová, MD, PhD, professor of neurology in the Multiple Sclerosis Center at Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic, said the results add to a growing body of data on the efficacy of AHSCT in patients with highly active relapsing-remitting MS, but questions remain.

“It is important to understand that AHSCT provides advantage in terms of effectiveness compared with most of the DMTs,” Dr. Kubala Havrdová said. “However, it is a therapy associated with high risk of adverse events and this needs to be considered when one decides whether other, less invasive options have been exploited.”

Study funding was not reported. Dr. Kalincik disclosed ties with BioCSL, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva, and WebMD Global. Dr. Kubala Havrdová reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiorespiratory fitness protects against declines in gait quality in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), new research shows. Investigators found that over time, lower cardiorespiratory fitness predicts increased variability in stride time and could represent a biomarker for subtle neuromuscular decline in patients with MS.

Cardiorespiratory fitness “may exert neuroprotective effects on the central nervous system,” study investigator Syamala Buragadda, neurophysical therapist and PhD candidate, Memorial University, St. John’s, Nfld..

She reported her research at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).
 

Gait changes

Gait is a complicated process involving coordination of multiple systems, but steps are almost always consistent and symmetric, said Ms. Buragadda. Patients with MS can experience subtle declines in gait quality even without relapses. Considering the neuroprotective properties of exercise, having higher fitness levels could prevent brain atrophy and protect against subtle gait changes.

Calculating stride time variability is a sensitive method to map changes in gait quality.

Ms. Buragadda, with co-investigator Michelle Ploughman, PhD, also with Memorial University, evaluated stride time variability over time in people with MS and explored whether cardiorespiratory fitness predicts stride time variability.

They recruited 49 adults with relapsing-remitting MS (63% women) and mild disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] score < 4; median, 2.0) from MS clinics in Canada. None required walking aids, and none had experienced relapses in the prior 3 months.

Gait quality was assessed on an instrumented walkway, and variability was measured as the coefficient of variation of stride time. Cardiorespiratory fitness was measured as maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max) during a graded exercise test using recumbent stepper. Tests were conducted 2 years apart.

There were no significant changes in EDSS scores over the study period. However, stride time variability increased from 7.3% at baseline to 8.3% at 2 years.

Cardiorespiratory fitness at baseline significantly correlated with stride time variability 2 years later (P = .016) and was a significant predictor of stride time variability at 2 years, accounting for 10% of its variance, Ms. Buragadda reported.

Stride time variability, measured on an instrumented walkway, could be a biomarker for subtle changes to walking and balance, she said.

Limitations of the study include a convenience sample that may not represent the diversity of MS. Also, assessments were made at only two time points, and more time points would likely yield better predictive power. In addition, the lack of MRI images limits correlating structural changes with clinical observations of gait changes.
 

A buffer against disability?

In a comment, Valerie Block, physical therapist and adjunct instructor, department of physical therapy and rehabilitation science, University of California, San Francisco, and UCSF Weill Institute for Neuroscience, said the findings in this study are not surprising and align with what she has observed, subjectively, in her work.

“In the general population, cardiovascular fitness has a wide array of benefits. Depending on what means the person uses to maintain or improve cardiovascular fitness (that is, running, walking, swimming, etc.), this would have the potential for neuroplastic effects on gait – even in MS and other neurological disorders,” Ms. Block said.

Also offering perspective, Brain Sandroff, PhD, senior research scientist, Kessler Foundation, West Orange, N.J., said the study provides “more evidence on the multisystemic benefits of exercise training and having better physical fitness in persons with MS. The evidence seems to be converging more and more on this, as research groups across countries and continents are reporting on similar themes,” said Dr. Sandroff.

He noted that the findings from this study coincide with some other data that showed that premorbid physical activity is associated with reduced mobility decline over time in persons with MS.

“Collectively, the data suggest that perhaps engaging in exercise training early in the disease (or having better cardiorespiratory fitness at diagnosis) provides a buffer against disability progression over time,” Dr. Sandroff said.

He said it would be interesting to see whether “physical fitness/premorbid physical activity provides such a buffer in those who already demonstrate mobility problems.”

The study had no specific funding. Ms. Buragadda, Dr. Ploughman, Ms. Block, and Dr. Sandroff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiorespiratory fitness protects against declines in gait quality in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), new research shows. Investigators found that over time, lower cardiorespiratory fitness predicts increased variability in stride time and could represent a biomarker for subtle neuromuscular decline in patients with MS.

Cardiorespiratory fitness “may exert neuroprotective effects on the central nervous system,” study investigator Syamala Buragadda, neurophysical therapist and PhD candidate, Memorial University, St. John’s, Nfld..

She reported her research at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).
 

Gait changes

Gait is a complicated process involving coordination of multiple systems, but steps are almost always consistent and symmetric, said Ms. Buragadda. Patients with MS can experience subtle declines in gait quality even without relapses. Considering the neuroprotective properties of exercise, having higher fitness levels could prevent brain atrophy and protect against subtle gait changes.

Calculating stride time variability is a sensitive method to map changes in gait quality.

Ms. Buragadda, with co-investigator Michelle Ploughman, PhD, also with Memorial University, evaluated stride time variability over time in people with MS and explored whether cardiorespiratory fitness predicts stride time variability.

They recruited 49 adults with relapsing-remitting MS (63% women) and mild disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] score < 4; median, 2.0) from MS clinics in Canada. None required walking aids, and none had experienced relapses in the prior 3 months.

Gait quality was assessed on an instrumented walkway, and variability was measured as the coefficient of variation of stride time. Cardiorespiratory fitness was measured as maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max) during a graded exercise test using recumbent stepper. Tests were conducted 2 years apart.

There were no significant changes in EDSS scores over the study period. However, stride time variability increased from 7.3% at baseline to 8.3% at 2 years.

Cardiorespiratory fitness at baseline significantly correlated with stride time variability 2 years later (P = .016) and was a significant predictor of stride time variability at 2 years, accounting for 10% of its variance, Ms. Buragadda reported.

Stride time variability, measured on an instrumented walkway, could be a biomarker for subtle changes to walking and balance, she said.

Limitations of the study include a convenience sample that may not represent the diversity of MS. Also, assessments were made at only two time points, and more time points would likely yield better predictive power. In addition, the lack of MRI images limits correlating structural changes with clinical observations of gait changes.
 

A buffer against disability?

In a comment, Valerie Block, physical therapist and adjunct instructor, department of physical therapy and rehabilitation science, University of California, San Francisco, and UCSF Weill Institute for Neuroscience, said the findings in this study are not surprising and align with what she has observed, subjectively, in her work.

“In the general population, cardiovascular fitness has a wide array of benefits. Depending on what means the person uses to maintain or improve cardiovascular fitness (that is, running, walking, swimming, etc.), this would have the potential for neuroplastic effects on gait – even in MS and other neurological disorders,” Ms. Block said.

Also offering perspective, Brain Sandroff, PhD, senior research scientist, Kessler Foundation, West Orange, N.J., said the study provides “more evidence on the multisystemic benefits of exercise training and having better physical fitness in persons with MS. The evidence seems to be converging more and more on this, as research groups across countries and continents are reporting on similar themes,” said Dr. Sandroff.

He noted that the findings from this study coincide with some other data that showed that premorbid physical activity is associated with reduced mobility decline over time in persons with MS.

“Collectively, the data suggest that perhaps engaging in exercise training early in the disease (or having better cardiorespiratory fitness at diagnosis) provides a buffer against disability progression over time,” Dr. Sandroff said.

He said it would be interesting to see whether “physical fitness/premorbid physical activity provides such a buffer in those who already demonstrate mobility problems.”

The study had no specific funding. Ms. Buragadda, Dr. Ploughman, Ms. Block, and Dr. Sandroff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiorespiratory fitness protects against declines in gait quality in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), new research shows. Investigators found that over time, lower cardiorespiratory fitness predicts increased variability in stride time and could represent a biomarker for subtle neuromuscular decline in patients with MS.

Cardiorespiratory fitness “may exert neuroprotective effects on the central nervous system,” study investigator Syamala Buragadda, neurophysical therapist and PhD candidate, Memorial University, St. John’s, Nfld..

She reported her research at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).
 

Gait changes

Gait is a complicated process involving coordination of multiple systems, but steps are almost always consistent and symmetric, said Ms. Buragadda. Patients with MS can experience subtle declines in gait quality even without relapses. Considering the neuroprotective properties of exercise, having higher fitness levels could prevent brain atrophy and protect against subtle gait changes.

Calculating stride time variability is a sensitive method to map changes in gait quality.

Ms. Buragadda, with co-investigator Michelle Ploughman, PhD, also with Memorial University, evaluated stride time variability over time in people with MS and explored whether cardiorespiratory fitness predicts stride time variability.

They recruited 49 adults with relapsing-remitting MS (63% women) and mild disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] score < 4; median, 2.0) from MS clinics in Canada. None required walking aids, and none had experienced relapses in the prior 3 months.

Gait quality was assessed on an instrumented walkway, and variability was measured as the coefficient of variation of stride time. Cardiorespiratory fitness was measured as maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max) during a graded exercise test using recumbent stepper. Tests were conducted 2 years apart.

There were no significant changes in EDSS scores over the study period. However, stride time variability increased from 7.3% at baseline to 8.3% at 2 years.

Cardiorespiratory fitness at baseline significantly correlated with stride time variability 2 years later (P = .016) and was a significant predictor of stride time variability at 2 years, accounting for 10% of its variance, Ms. Buragadda reported.

Stride time variability, measured on an instrumented walkway, could be a biomarker for subtle changes to walking and balance, she said.

Limitations of the study include a convenience sample that may not represent the diversity of MS. Also, assessments were made at only two time points, and more time points would likely yield better predictive power. In addition, the lack of MRI images limits correlating structural changes with clinical observations of gait changes.
 

A buffer against disability?

In a comment, Valerie Block, physical therapist and adjunct instructor, department of physical therapy and rehabilitation science, University of California, San Francisco, and UCSF Weill Institute for Neuroscience, said the findings in this study are not surprising and align with what she has observed, subjectively, in her work.

“In the general population, cardiovascular fitness has a wide array of benefits. Depending on what means the person uses to maintain or improve cardiovascular fitness (that is, running, walking, swimming, etc.), this would have the potential for neuroplastic effects on gait – even in MS and other neurological disorders,” Ms. Block said.

Also offering perspective, Brain Sandroff, PhD, senior research scientist, Kessler Foundation, West Orange, N.J., said the study provides “more evidence on the multisystemic benefits of exercise training and having better physical fitness in persons with MS. The evidence seems to be converging more and more on this, as research groups across countries and continents are reporting on similar themes,” said Dr. Sandroff.

He noted that the findings from this study coincide with some other data that showed that premorbid physical activity is associated with reduced mobility decline over time in persons with MS.

“Collectively, the data suggest that perhaps engaging in exercise training early in the disease (or having better cardiorespiratory fitness at diagnosis) provides a buffer against disability progression over time,” Dr. Sandroff said.

He said it would be interesting to see whether “physical fitness/premorbid physical activity provides such a buffer in those who already demonstrate mobility problems.”

The study had no specific funding. Ms. Buragadda, Dr. Ploughman, Ms. Block, and Dr. Sandroff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

High-efficacy therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS) have improved disease outcomes for many patients, but physicians are uncertain when to use them. Despite better long-term disease outcomes, there are concerns over long-term safety, and some physicians and patients remain wary of these medications.

High-efficacy therapies were the subject of a session at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). Key topics included patient selection, timing of escalation to high-efficacy therapies, and initial use of high-efficacy therapies. The session produced a compelling message, according to moderator Patricia Coyle, MD. “I think [the speakers provided] accumulating data that this is a smart thing to do: Use high-efficacy therapies early to get the maximum bang for the buck,” Dr. Coyle said in an interview. She is professor of neurology and director of the MS Comprehensive Care Center at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University.
 

Consider baseline characteristics

In the first talk, Xavier Montalban, MD, PhD, noted that a statement from the ECTRIMS/EAN (European Academy of Neurology) guideline update in 2021 said that a high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy (DMT) should be considered early in the disease course. A key question is whether any baseline characteristics can be used to select patients, and studies have shown worse prognosis with older age, male sex, low levels of vitamin D, and smoking status, among various other factors.

He presented subgroup analyses from trials of fingolimod and ozanimod, which showed that the drugs did not work as well in patients with poor prognostic factors such as an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 4 or above and age over 40 years. Lower doses also tend to have less efficacy in males. “If you have [a patient with] bad baseline prognostic factors, you need high-efficacy medication at the right dose, because a lower dose will not work well. It is the same phenomenon for age,” Dr. Montalban said in his talk. On the other hand, he showed the results of a study of ofatumumab and ocrelizumab, both of which showed high efficacy even in patients with poor prognostic factors.

Among patients with secondary progressive MS, clinical or MRI evidence of inflammatory activity is the only poor prognostic factor that appears to be a good predictor of treatment response.

Dr. Montalban also addressed the timing of intervention with DMTs. A study from his group prospectively followed 1,015 patients treated with DMTs. “Interestingly, what we observed is that patients who were treated with DMTs just after the first attack did better than those who were treated after the second attack, and you have to take into consideration that we treat those patients after the first attack, those who had the worst prognostic factors, so treatment was very effective in that sense,” said Dr. Montalban, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.
 

Switching DMTs

In the second presentation, Dalia Rotstein, MD, discussed how to incorporate prognostic factors when switching a patient to high-efficacy therapies as a result of new disease activity while on another therapy.

Patients with favorable prognostic factors at baseline may be started out on immunomodulatory therapy. “Essentially, we want to match the intensity of the therapy to the intensity of the disease of the patient in front of us,” Dr. Rotstein said in her talk. Nevertheless, the course of MS is unpredictable, and the first year or two of immunomodulatory therapy can give physicians clues about the longer-term course of the disease. “We need to observe closely for disease activity in the first year, but even up to 2 years on therapy to determine a need for early escalation,” said Dr. Rotstein, assistant professor of medicine at University of Toronto.

For switching to high-efficacy therapies, any relapse, disability progression, or an EDSS change of 1 point or more could be a consideration. MRI indicators are more controversial, but one to three new T2 lesions also could prompt a switch.

Serum neural filament light chain (sNFL) is a useful biomarker for monitoring disease activity as it correlates well with new disease activity within the next year. It can be monitored every 3-4 months and adjusted for clinical factors and monitored for changing levels. A concerning finding can be followed up with an MRI or in-person visit.

When switching to a high-efficacy therapy, it’s important to administer any vaccines well in advance to ensure a good immune response.

When it comes to a washout period, physicians need to consider both the risk of immunosuppression and breakthrough disease activity. “But in general, we’ve observed that we can minimize the duration of the washout when stopping initial immunomodulator therapy to reduce the risk of breakthrough disease activity. We need to pay particular attention to the risk of rebound activity with longer washouts after stopping sphingosine-1 phosphate (S1P) receptor modulators because the rebound activity can be devastating,” said Dr. Rotstein.

A study of timing of relapses after fingolimod washout, carried out by Dr. Rotstein’s group, found a stark signal. “We observed that when the washout after fingolimod discontinuation was 30 days or more, there is a very high risk of early relapse,” she said.
 

The case for induction therapy

In the third talk, Gavin Giovannoni, MBBCh, PhD, discussed “flipping the pyramid” – that is, starting patients off immediately with high-efficacy therapies rather than waiting until they progress on other therapies. He likened such a decision to a gambler, because MS patients on less-effective therapy can suffer irreversible, long-term physical consequences, as well as social consequences such as unemployment due to cognitive effects.

“We always tend to put up a graph about the risks and benefits of a specific treatment, and we forget about the risks of untreated or undertreated MS. Keep that in mind when making decisions about high-efficacy therapies,” said Dr. Giovannoni, professor of neurology at Queen Mary University of London.

About 80% of patients on tier 1, or low-efficacy therapies, will have breakthrough activity on MRI within 4 years. Moving up a tier gets to about a 60% rate of breakthrough activity. High-efficacy therapies attain an efficacy of about 80% at 6 months. “If you have MS, you’ve got to realize that if you had to roll the dice, which tier would you want to be in? By putting all of them [on high-efficacy therapies], you’re going to get the majority responding and a few of them will break through,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

He presented some real-world evidence to back up the argument: A study comparing outcomes in Sweden and Denmark, which have similar demographics. In Denmark, 7.6% of patients with MS received high-efficacy therapies initially, while in Sweden the proportion was 34.5%. Patients with MS treated in Sweden had a 29% lower probability of progressing to disability (P = .004) and there were 22% fewer discontinuations of DMTs (P < .001). Since that study, the proportion of patients receiving high-efficacy therapies to begin with is closer to 70%. “This is compelling evidence that you want to be on a [high-efficacy therapy] early. If I had MS, I would want to live in Sweden,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

Historical treatments focused on reducing relapses, and more recently on eliminating evidence of inflammatory disease. He said that physicians are prioritizing brain volume loss to improve long-term outcomes in MS, and some are studying long-term disability. “We know that brain volume loss in MS is a prognostic sign both at baseline and at follow-up. It predicts poor outcome, poor cognition and employment, poor quality of life, et cetera,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

He cited data from studies of alemtuzumab that showed a significant reduction in brain volume loss. “The rate is about 0.2% per annum, which is kind of getting into the normal range for age-matched controls. Those people who were started off on interferons in the study lost a lot of brain volume in those first 2 years, and that’s irreversible,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

He pointed out that studies of hematopoietic stem cell therapy showed similar brain-volume outcomes. “So flipping the pyramid with the two most highly effective therapies almost normalizes brain volume loss in people with MS,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

There is also evidence in other autoimmune diseases that early use of high-efficacy therapies improves outcomes. More aggressive therapy in rheumatoid arthritis has reduced joint replacements by 90%.

“I think you really, really need to give your patients the opportunity of flipping the pyramid. You shouldn’t decide that for them,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

Dr. Coyle has consulted for nearly all pharmaceutical companies developing drugs in the MS space. Dr. Montalban has financial relationships with Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Genentech, Genzyme, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, Roche, Celgene, Actelion, Mylan, BMS, and Sandoz. Dr. Rotstein has financial ties with Roche Canada, Alexion, Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi Aventis. Dr. Giovannoni has financial ties with AbbVie, Aslan, Atara Bio, Biogen, BMS-Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, GW Pharma, Janssen/J&J, Japanese Tobacco, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, LifNano, Merck & Co., Merck KGaA/EMD Serono, Moderna, Novartis, Sanofi, Roche/Genentech, and Teva.

High-efficacy therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS) have improved disease outcomes for many patients, but physicians are uncertain when to use them. Despite better long-term disease outcomes, there are concerns over long-term safety, and some physicians and patients remain wary of these medications.

High-efficacy therapies were the subject of a session at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). Key topics included patient selection, timing of escalation to high-efficacy therapies, and initial use of high-efficacy therapies. The session produced a compelling message, according to moderator Patricia Coyle, MD. “I think [the speakers provided] accumulating data that this is a smart thing to do: Use high-efficacy therapies early to get the maximum bang for the buck,” Dr. Coyle said in an interview. She is professor of neurology and director of the MS Comprehensive Care Center at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University.
 

Consider baseline characteristics

In the first talk, Xavier Montalban, MD, PhD, noted that a statement from the ECTRIMS/EAN (European Academy of Neurology) guideline update in 2021 said that a high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy (DMT) should be considered early in the disease course. A key question is whether any baseline characteristics can be used to select patients, and studies have shown worse prognosis with older age, male sex, low levels of vitamin D, and smoking status, among various other factors.

He presented subgroup analyses from trials of fingolimod and ozanimod, which showed that the drugs did not work as well in patients with poor prognostic factors such as an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 4 or above and age over 40 years. Lower doses also tend to have less efficacy in males. “If you have [a patient with] bad baseline prognostic factors, you need high-efficacy medication at the right dose, because a lower dose will not work well. It is the same phenomenon for age,” Dr. Montalban said in his talk. On the other hand, he showed the results of a study of ofatumumab and ocrelizumab, both of which showed high efficacy even in patients with poor prognostic factors.

Among patients with secondary progressive MS, clinical or MRI evidence of inflammatory activity is the only poor prognostic factor that appears to be a good predictor of treatment response.

Dr. Montalban also addressed the timing of intervention with DMTs. A study from his group prospectively followed 1,015 patients treated with DMTs. “Interestingly, what we observed is that patients who were treated with DMTs just after the first attack did better than those who were treated after the second attack, and you have to take into consideration that we treat those patients after the first attack, those who had the worst prognostic factors, so treatment was very effective in that sense,” said Dr. Montalban, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.
 

Switching DMTs

In the second presentation, Dalia Rotstein, MD, discussed how to incorporate prognostic factors when switching a patient to high-efficacy therapies as a result of new disease activity while on another therapy.

Patients with favorable prognostic factors at baseline may be started out on immunomodulatory therapy. “Essentially, we want to match the intensity of the therapy to the intensity of the disease of the patient in front of us,” Dr. Rotstein said in her talk. Nevertheless, the course of MS is unpredictable, and the first year or two of immunomodulatory therapy can give physicians clues about the longer-term course of the disease. “We need to observe closely for disease activity in the first year, but even up to 2 years on therapy to determine a need for early escalation,” said Dr. Rotstein, assistant professor of medicine at University of Toronto.

For switching to high-efficacy therapies, any relapse, disability progression, or an EDSS change of 1 point or more could be a consideration. MRI indicators are more controversial, but one to three new T2 lesions also could prompt a switch.

Serum neural filament light chain (sNFL) is a useful biomarker for monitoring disease activity as it correlates well with new disease activity within the next year. It can be monitored every 3-4 months and adjusted for clinical factors and monitored for changing levels. A concerning finding can be followed up with an MRI or in-person visit.

When switching to a high-efficacy therapy, it’s important to administer any vaccines well in advance to ensure a good immune response.

When it comes to a washout period, physicians need to consider both the risk of immunosuppression and breakthrough disease activity. “But in general, we’ve observed that we can minimize the duration of the washout when stopping initial immunomodulator therapy to reduce the risk of breakthrough disease activity. We need to pay particular attention to the risk of rebound activity with longer washouts after stopping sphingosine-1 phosphate (S1P) receptor modulators because the rebound activity can be devastating,” said Dr. Rotstein.

A study of timing of relapses after fingolimod washout, carried out by Dr. Rotstein’s group, found a stark signal. “We observed that when the washout after fingolimod discontinuation was 30 days or more, there is a very high risk of early relapse,” she said.
 

The case for induction therapy

In the third talk, Gavin Giovannoni, MBBCh, PhD, discussed “flipping the pyramid” – that is, starting patients off immediately with high-efficacy therapies rather than waiting until they progress on other therapies. He likened such a decision to a gambler, because MS patients on less-effective therapy can suffer irreversible, long-term physical consequences, as well as social consequences such as unemployment due to cognitive effects.

“We always tend to put up a graph about the risks and benefits of a specific treatment, and we forget about the risks of untreated or undertreated MS. Keep that in mind when making decisions about high-efficacy therapies,” said Dr. Giovannoni, professor of neurology at Queen Mary University of London.

About 80% of patients on tier 1, or low-efficacy therapies, will have breakthrough activity on MRI within 4 years. Moving up a tier gets to about a 60% rate of breakthrough activity. High-efficacy therapies attain an efficacy of about 80% at 6 months. “If you have MS, you’ve got to realize that if you had to roll the dice, which tier would you want to be in? By putting all of them [on high-efficacy therapies], you’re going to get the majority responding and a few of them will break through,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

He presented some real-world evidence to back up the argument: A study comparing outcomes in Sweden and Denmark, which have similar demographics. In Denmark, 7.6% of patients with MS received high-efficacy therapies initially, while in Sweden the proportion was 34.5%. Patients with MS treated in Sweden had a 29% lower probability of progressing to disability (P = .004) and there were 22% fewer discontinuations of DMTs (P < .001). Since that study, the proportion of patients receiving high-efficacy therapies to begin with is closer to 70%. “This is compelling evidence that you want to be on a [high-efficacy therapy] early. If I had MS, I would want to live in Sweden,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

Historical treatments focused on reducing relapses, and more recently on eliminating evidence of inflammatory disease. He said that physicians are prioritizing brain volume loss to improve long-term outcomes in MS, and some are studying long-term disability. “We know that brain volume loss in MS is a prognostic sign both at baseline and at follow-up. It predicts poor outcome, poor cognition and employment, poor quality of life, et cetera,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

He cited data from studies of alemtuzumab that showed a significant reduction in brain volume loss. “The rate is about 0.2% per annum, which is kind of getting into the normal range for age-matched controls. Those people who were started off on interferons in the study lost a lot of brain volume in those first 2 years, and that’s irreversible,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

He pointed out that studies of hematopoietic stem cell therapy showed similar brain-volume outcomes. “So flipping the pyramid with the two most highly effective therapies almost normalizes brain volume loss in people with MS,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

There is also evidence in other autoimmune diseases that early use of high-efficacy therapies improves outcomes. More aggressive therapy in rheumatoid arthritis has reduced joint replacements by 90%.

“I think you really, really need to give your patients the opportunity of flipping the pyramid. You shouldn’t decide that for them,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

Dr. Coyle has consulted for nearly all pharmaceutical companies developing drugs in the MS space. Dr. Montalban has financial relationships with Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Genentech, Genzyme, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, Roche, Celgene, Actelion, Mylan, BMS, and Sandoz. Dr. Rotstein has financial ties with Roche Canada, Alexion, Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi Aventis. Dr. Giovannoni has financial ties with AbbVie, Aslan, Atara Bio, Biogen, BMS-Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, GW Pharma, Janssen/J&J, Japanese Tobacco, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, LifNano, Merck & Co., Merck KGaA/EMD Serono, Moderna, Novartis, Sanofi, Roche/Genentech, and Teva.

High-efficacy therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS) have improved disease outcomes for many patients, but physicians are uncertain when to use them. Despite better long-term disease outcomes, there are concerns over long-term safety, and some physicians and patients remain wary of these medications.

High-efficacy therapies were the subject of a session at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). Key topics included patient selection, timing of escalation to high-efficacy therapies, and initial use of high-efficacy therapies. The session produced a compelling message, according to moderator Patricia Coyle, MD. “I think [the speakers provided] accumulating data that this is a smart thing to do: Use high-efficacy therapies early to get the maximum bang for the buck,” Dr. Coyle said in an interview. She is professor of neurology and director of the MS Comprehensive Care Center at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University.
 

Consider baseline characteristics

In the first talk, Xavier Montalban, MD, PhD, noted that a statement from the ECTRIMS/EAN (European Academy of Neurology) guideline update in 2021 said that a high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy (DMT) should be considered early in the disease course. A key question is whether any baseline characteristics can be used to select patients, and studies have shown worse prognosis with older age, male sex, low levels of vitamin D, and smoking status, among various other factors.

He presented subgroup analyses from trials of fingolimod and ozanimod, which showed that the drugs did not work as well in patients with poor prognostic factors such as an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 4 or above and age over 40 years. Lower doses also tend to have less efficacy in males. “If you have [a patient with] bad baseline prognostic factors, you need high-efficacy medication at the right dose, because a lower dose will not work well. It is the same phenomenon for age,” Dr. Montalban said in his talk. On the other hand, he showed the results of a study of ofatumumab and ocrelizumab, both of which showed high efficacy even in patients with poor prognostic factors.

Among patients with secondary progressive MS, clinical or MRI evidence of inflammatory activity is the only poor prognostic factor that appears to be a good predictor of treatment response.

Dr. Montalban also addressed the timing of intervention with DMTs. A study from his group prospectively followed 1,015 patients treated with DMTs. “Interestingly, what we observed is that patients who were treated with DMTs just after the first attack did better than those who were treated after the second attack, and you have to take into consideration that we treat those patients after the first attack, those who had the worst prognostic factors, so treatment was very effective in that sense,” said Dr. Montalban, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.
 

Switching DMTs

In the second presentation, Dalia Rotstein, MD, discussed how to incorporate prognostic factors when switching a patient to high-efficacy therapies as a result of new disease activity while on another therapy.

Patients with favorable prognostic factors at baseline may be started out on immunomodulatory therapy. “Essentially, we want to match the intensity of the therapy to the intensity of the disease of the patient in front of us,” Dr. Rotstein said in her talk. Nevertheless, the course of MS is unpredictable, and the first year or two of immunomodulatory therapy can give physicians clues about the longer-term course of the disease. “We need to observe closely for disease activity in the first year, but even up to 2 years on therapy to determine a need for early escalation,” said Dr. Rotstein, assistant professor of medicine at University of Toronto.

For switching to high-efficacy therapies, any relapse, disability progression, or an EDSS change of 1 point or more could be a consideration. MRI indicators are more controversial, but one to three new T2 lesions also could prompt a switch.

Serum neural filament light chain (sNFL) is a useful biomarker for monitoring disease activity as it correlates well with new disease activity within the next year. It can be monitored every 3-4 months and adjusted for clinical factors and monitored for changing levels. A concerning finding can be followed up with an MRI or in-person visit.

When switching to a high-efficacy therapy, it’s important to administer any vaccines well in advance to ensure a good immune response.

When it comes to a washout period, physicians need to consider both the risk of immunosuppression and breakthrough disease activity. “But in general, we’ve observed that we can minimize the duration of the washout when stopping initial immunomodulator therapy to reduce the risk of breakthrough disease activity. We need to pay particular attention to the risk of rebound activity with longer washouts after stopping sphingosine-1 phosphate (S1P) receptor modulators because the rebound activity can be devastating,” said Dr. Rotstein.

A study of timing of relapses after fingolimod washout, carried out by Dr. Rotstein’s group, found a stark signal. “We observed that when the washout after fingolimod discontinuation was 30 days or more, there is a very high risk of early relapse,” she said.
 

The case for induction therapy

In the third talk, Gavin Giovannoni, MBBCh, PhD, discussed “flipping the pyramid” – that is, starting patients off immediately with high-efficacy therapies rather than waiting until they progress on other therapies. He likened such a decision to a gambler, because MS patients on less-effective therapy can suffer irreversible, long-term physical consequences, as well as social consequences such as unemployment due to cognitive effects.

“We always tend to put up a graph about the risks and benefits of a specific treatment, and we forget about the risks of untreated or undertreated MS. Keep that in mind when making decisions about high-efficacy therapies,” said Dr. Giovannoni, professor of neurology at Queen Mary University of London.

About 80% of patients on tier 1, or low-efficacy therapies, will have breakthrough activity on MRI within 4 years. Moving up a tier gets to about a 60% rate of breakthrough activity. High-efficacy therapies attain an efficacy of about 80% at 6 months. “If you have MS, you’ve got to realize that if you had to roll the dice, which tier would you want to be in? By putting all of them [on high-efficacy therapies], you’re going to get the majority responding and a few of them will break through,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

He presented some real-world evidence to back up the argument: A study comparing outcomes in Sweden and Denmark, which have similar demographics. In Denmark, 7.6% of patients with MS received high-efficacy therapies initially, while in Sweden the proportion was 34.5%. Patients with MS treated in Sweden had a 29% lower probability of progressing to disability (P = .004) and there were 22% fewer discontinuations of DMTs (P < .001). Since that study, the proportion of patients receiving high-efficacy therapies to begin with is closer to 70%. “This is compelling evidence that you want to be on a [high-efficacy therapy] early. If I had MS, I would want to live in Sweden,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

Historical treatments focused on reducing relapses, and more recently on eliminating evidence of inflammatory disease. He said that physicians are prioritizing brain volume loss to improve long-term outcomes in MS, and some are studying long-term disability. “We know that brain volume loss in MS is a prognostic sign both at baseline and at follow-up. It predicts poor outcome, poor cognition and employment, poor quality of life, et cetera,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

He cited data from studies of alemtuzumab that showed a significant reduction in brain volume loss. “The rate is about 0.2% per annum, which is kind of getting into the normal range for age-matched controls. Those people who were started off on interferons in the study lost a lot of brain volume in those first 2 years, and that’s irreversible,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

He pointed out that studies of hematopoietic stem cell therapy showed similar brain-volume outcomes. “So flipping the pyramid with the two most highly effective therapies almost normalizes brain volume loss in people with MS,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

There is also evidence in other autoimmune diseases that early use of high-efficacy therapies improves outcomes. More aggressive therapy in rheumatoid arthritis has reduced joint replacements by 90%.

“I think you really, really need to give your patients the opportunity of flipping the pyramid. You shouldn’t decide that for them,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

Dr. Coyle has consulted for nearly all pharmaceutical companies developing drugs in the MS space. Dr. Montalban has financial relationships with Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Genentech, Genzyme, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, Roche, Celgene, Actelion, Mylan, BMS, and Sandoz. Dr. Rotstein has financial ties with Roche Canada, Alexion, Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi Aventis. Dr. Giovannoni has financial ties with AbbVie, Aslan, Atara Bio, Biogen, BMS-Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, GW Pharma, Janssen/J&J, Japanese Tobacco, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, LifNano, Merck & Co., Merck KGaA/EMD Serono, Moderna, Novartis, Sanofi, Roche/Genentech, and Teva.