Multiple Sclerosis Hub

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Positive data support autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a neurologist told colleagues, and it’s a “reasonable option for people that have largely failed other disease-modifying options.” But, he said, it remains unclear which patients should undergo the procedure.

An especially pressing question is “whether transplant is an alternative to our high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies” (DMTs) in some high-risk patients, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, director of experimental therapeutics at Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center, said in a presidential lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

A handful of ongoing randomized controlled trials will bring answers, he said.

Stem cell therapy exists because there are gaps in MS treatment, Dr. Cohen said. “We have now more than 20 medications. However, none of these therapies is completely effective in all patients. In particular, there are some patients with very active disease who continue to have relapses or new MRI lesion activity despite treatment with all of the available therapies.”

And in progressive MS, the efficacy of a couple of agents is modest and mainly for people with ongoing focal lesion activity, he said. “Finally, all of these currently available therapies are intended primarily to prevent the accumulation of damage, and none of them directly promotes repair. So despite our progress in the field, there still are a number of unmet needs.”
 

‘Rebooting’ the immune system

Several types of stem cell therapy exist, including remyelination and anti-inflammatory therapy, Dr. Cohen said. In his lecture, he focused on immunoablative or myeloablative therapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

This “complicated, multistep procedure” involves first eliminating the immune system to get rid of pathogenic inflammatory cells. This “big component is actually the therapy for MS. It’s also the step that has the most potential complications,” he said.

According to Dr. Cohen, the next step has been described as “rebooting” the immune system.

Does this procedure help patients with MS? In relapsing MS, reports suggest there’s “almost complete abrogation of disease activity following transplant,” he said, “a benefit that’s lasted 5-10-15 years. In addition, there’s also a benefit on the accumulation of CNS damage as measured by whole brain atrophy.”

Recent data, he said, suggests that MS patients most likely to benefit are young, developed MS relatively recently, are still ambulatory, and have highly active MS despite treatment with first- and second-line agents.

However, there have only been two randomized controlled trials of stem cell transplantation versus DMT, and Dr. Cohen said both studies have limitations. The first one, from 2015, is very small, with just 21 subjects. The second study – from 2019 – is larger (n = 103), but some patients weren’t taking higher-efficacy DMTs.

Other research is more promising: Dr. Cohen highlighted a 2017 analysis that found patients with relapsing/remitting MS who underwent stem-cell transplantation were more likely to be symptom-free at 2 years (78%-83%) than those who took DMTs in clinical trials (13%-46%).
 

Clinical concerns

As for side effects of stem cell transplantation, Dr. Cohen said, “most patients have some adverse effects during the procedure itself. There may be an MS relapse or pseudorelapses in association with the mobilization and the conditioning regimens.”

A wide range of other adverse effects is possible before the immune system is reconstituted, he said, including reactivation of various virus infections, such as HPV, CMV or EPV (Epstein-Barr virus), secondary autoimmune phenomenon, and secondary malignancy. EPV infection is also common after transplant, and is “probably the most troublesome posttransplant complication from a management point of view,” he said.

“Thankfully, once the patient ... recovers from the transplant procedure, late adverse effects are relatively uncommon, the most common of which would be infertility,” he said. “There have been some reports of successful pregnancies following transplant, but it’s important to advise people who are considering transplant that most men and women have infertility after the procedure. So if they desire to have children afterward, they need to be counseled on necessary preparations to do that.”

What about progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), which seems a possible risk because of the suppression of the immune system? Dr. Cohen is aware of one case linked to a stem-cell transplant, and it may not have been caused by the procedure.

Cost is another potential obstacle, he noted. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society estimates that autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants cost $150,000 on average in the U.S., although the expense varies widely.
 

Unanswered questions

Moving forward, Dr. Cohen said it remains unclear how these procedures fare against the newest generations of DMTs in MS. Five phase 3 randomized controlled trials are now trying to clarify the matter, he said, by pitting stem-cell transplantation against various MS drugs – alemtuzumab, cladribine, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, and rituximab.

There are also unanswered questions about the best conditioning regimens in the transplants, he said, and lack of clarity about where to draw the line between eligible and ineligible patients with MS. “How many DMTs does the person have to fail? What’s the upper level of disability beyond which it is unlikely to be helpful and more likely to cause harm?”

He added: “A particular profile that we’re seeing increasingly at our center is someone with very active disease and onset who gets started on a high-efficacy therapy as their first therapy and effectively stops relapses and MRI lesion activity. But within a couple of years, we can tell that they’re already starting to accumulate disability. Is this someone for whom transplant might be useful, and by extension, is transplant appropriate as the first therapy in some patients? And beyond MS, is transplant a consideration for other autoimmune CNS disorders? There are lots of unanswered questions, which future studies will hopefully begin to address.”

Dr. Cohen reports consulting for Biogen, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Convelo, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline (now GSK), Janssen, Mylan, and PSI. He serves as an editor of Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Positive data support autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a neurologist told colleagues, and it’s a “reasonable option for people that have largely failed other disease-modifying options.” But, he said, it remains unclear which patients should undergo the procedure.

An especially pressing question is “whether transplant is an alternative to our high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies” (DMTs) in some high-risk patients, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, director of experimental therapeutics at Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center, said in a presidential lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

A handful of ongoing randomized controlled trials will bring answers, he said.

Stem cell therapy exists because there are gaps in MS treatment, Dr. Cohen said. “We have now more than 20 medications. However, none of these therapies is completely effective in all patients. In particular, there are some patients with very active disease who continue to have relapses or new MRI lesion activity despite treatment with all of the available therapies.”

And in progressive MS, the efficacy of a couple of agents is modest and mainly for people with ongoing focal lesion activity, he said. “Finally, all of these currently available therapies are intended primarily to prevent the accumulation of damage, and none of them directly promotes repair. So despite our progress in the field, there still are a number of unmet needs.”
 

‘Rebooting’ the immune system

Several types of stem cell therapy exist, including remyelination and anti-inflammatory therapy, Dr. Cohen said. In his lecture, he focused on immunoablative or myeloablative therapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

This “complicated, multistep procedure” involves first eliminating the immune system to get rid of pathogenic inflammatory cells. This “big component is actually the therapy for MS. It’s also the step that has the most potential complications,” he said.

According to Dr. Cohen, the next step has been described as “rebooting” the immune system.

Does this procedure help patients with MS? In relapsing MS, reports suggest there’s “almost complete abrogation of disease activity following transplant,” he said, “a benefit that’s lasted 5-10-15 years. In addition, there’s also a benefit on the accumulation of CNS damage as measured by whole brain atrophy.”

Recent data, he said, suggests that MS patients most likely to benefit are young, developed MS relatively recently, are still ambulatory, and have highly active MS despite treatment with first- and second-line agents.

However, there have only been two randomized controlled trials of stem cell transplantation versus DMT, and Dr. Cohen said both studies have limitations. The first one, from 2015, is very small, with just 21 subjects. The second study – from 2019 – is larger (n = 103), but some patients weren’t taking higher-efficacy DMTs.

Other research is more promising: Dr. Cohen highlighted a 2017 analysis that found patients with relapsing/remitting MS who underwent stem-cell transplantation were more likely to be symptom-free at 2 years (78%-83%) than those who took DMTs in clinical trials (13%-46%).
 

Clinical concerns

As for side effects of stem cell transplantation, Dr. Cohen said, “most patients have some adverse effects during the procedure itself. There may be an MS relapse or pseudorelapses in association with the mobilization and the conditioning regimens.”

A wide range of other adverse effects is possible before the immune system is reconstituted, he said, including reactivation of various virus infections, such as HPV, CMV or EPV (Epstein-Barr virus), secondary autoimmune phenomenon, and secondary malignancy. EPV infection is also common after transplant, and is “probably the most troublesome posttransplant complication from a management point of view,” he said.

“Thankfully, once the patient ... recovers from the transplant procedure, late adverse effects are relatively uncommon, the most common of which would be infertility,” he said. “There have been some reports of successful pregnancies following transplant, but it’s important to advise people who are considering transplant that most men and women have infertility after the procedure. So if they desire to have children afterward, they need to be counseled on necessary preparations to do that.”

What about progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), which seems a possible risk because of the suppression of the immune system? Dr. Cohen is aware of one case linked to a stem-cell transplant, and it may not have been caused by the procedure.

Cost is another potential obstacle, he noted. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society estimates that autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants cost $150,000 on average in the U.S., although the expense varies widely.
 

Unanswered questions

Moving forward, Dr. Cohen said it remains unclear how these procedures fare against the newest generations of DMTs in MS. Five phase 3 randomized controlled trials are now trying to clarify the matter, he said, by pitting stem-cell transplantation against various MS drugs – alemtuzumab, cladribine, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, and rituximab.

There are also unanswered questions about the best conditioning regimens in the transplants, he said, and lack of clarity about where to draw the line between eligible and ineligible patients with MS. “How many DMTs does the person have to fail? What’s the upper level of disability beyond which it is unlikely to be helpful and more likely to cause harm?”

He added: “A particular profile that we’re seeing increasingly at our center is someone with very active disease and onset who gets started on a high-efficacy therapy as their first therapy and effectively stops relapses and MRI lesion activity. But within a couple of years, we can tell that they’re already starting to accumulate disability. Is this someone for whom transplant might be useful, and by extension, is transplant appropriate as the first therapy in some patients? And beyond MS, is transplant a consideration for other autoimmune CNS disorders? There are lots of unanswered questions, which future studies will hopefully begin to address.”

Dr. Cohen reports consulting for Biogen, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Convelo, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline (now GSK), Janssen, Mylan, and PSI. He serves as an editor of Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Positive data support autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a neurologist told colleagues, and it’s a “reasonable option for people that have largely failed other disease-modifying options.” But, he said, it remains unclear which patients should undergo the procedure.

An especially pressing question is “whether transplant is an alternative to our high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies” (DMTs) in some high-risk patients, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, director of experimental therapeutics at Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center, said in a presidential lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

A handful of ongoing randomized controlled trials will bring answers, he said.

Stem cell therapy exists because there are gaps in MS treatment, Dr. Cohen said. “We have now more than 20 medications. However, none of these therapies is completely effective in all patients. In particular, there are some patients with very active disease who continue to have relapses or new MRI lesion activity despite treatment with all of the available therapies.”

And in progressive MS, the efficacy of a couple of agents is modest and mainly for people with ongoing focal lesion activity, he said. “Finally, all of these currently available therapies are intended primarily to prevent the accumulation of damage, and none of them directly promotes repair. So despite our progress in the field, there still are a number of unmet needs.”
 

‘Rebooting’ the immune system

Several types of stem cell therapy exist, including remyelination and anti-inflammatory therapy, Dr. Cohen said. In his lecture, he focused on immunoablative or myeloablative therapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

This “complicated, multistep procedure” involves first eliminating the immune system to get rid of pathogenic inflammatory cells. This “big component is actually the therapy for MS. It’s also the step that has the most potential complications,” he said.

According to Dr. Cohen, the next step has been described as “rebooting” the immune system.

Does this procedure help patients with MS? In relapsing MS, reports suggest there’s “almost complete abrogation of disease activity following transplant,” he said, “a benefit that’s lasted 5-10-15 years. In addition, there’s also a benefit on the accumulation of CNS damage as measured by whole brain atrophy.”

Recent data, he said, suggests that MS patients most likely to benefit are young, developed MS relatively recently, are still ambulatory, and have highly active MS despite treatment with first- and second-line agents.

However, there have only been two randomized controlled trials of stem cell transplantation versus DMT, and Dr. Cohen said both studies have limitations. The first one, from 2015, is very small, with just 21 subjects. The second study – from 2019 – is larger (n = 103), but some patients weren’t taking higher-efficacy DMTs.

Other research is more promising: Dr. Cohen highlighted a 2017 analysis that found patients with relapsing/remitting MS who underwent stem-cell transplantation were more likely to be symptom-free at 2 years (78%-83%) than those who took DMTs in clinical trials (13%-46%).
 

Clinical concerns

As for side effects of stem cell transplantation, Dr. Cohen said, “most patients have some adverse effects during the procedure itself. There may be an MS relapse or pseudorelapses in association with the mobilization and the conditioning regimens.”

A wide range of other adverse effects is possible before the immune system is reconstituted, he said, including reactivation of various virus infections, such as HPV, CMV or EPV (Epstein-Barr virus), secondary autoimmune phenomenon, and secondary malignancy. EPV infection is also common after transplant, and is “probably the most troublesome posttransplant complication from a management point of view,” he said.

“Thankfully, once the patient ... recovers from the transplant procedure, late adverse effects are relatively uncommon, the most common of which would be infertility,” he said. “There have been some reports of successful pregnancies following transplant, but it’s important to advise people who are considering transplant that most men and women have infertility after the procedure. So if they desire to have children afterward, they need to be counseled on necessary preparations to do that.”

What about progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), which seems a possible risk because of the suppression of the immune system? Dr. Cohen is aware of one case linked to a stem-cell transplant, and it may not have been caused by the procedure.

Cost is another potential obstacle, he noted. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society estimates that autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants cost $150,000 on average in the U.S., although the expense varies widely.
 

Unanswered questions

Moving forward, Dr. Cohen said it remains unclear how these procedures fare against the newest generations of DMTs in MS. Five phase 3 randomized controlled trials are now trying to clarify the matter, he said, by pitting stem-cell transplantation against various MS drugs – alemtuzumab, cladribine, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, and rituximab.

There are also unanswered questions about the best conditioning regimens in the transplants, he said, and lack of clarity about where to draw the line between eligible and ineligible patients with MS. “How many DMTs does the person have to fail? What’s the upper level of disability beyond which it is unlikely to be helpful and more likely to cause harm?”

He added: “A particular profile that we’re seeing increasingly at our center is someone with very active disease and onset who gets started on a high-efficacy therapy as their first therapy and effectively stops relapses and MRI lesion activity. But within a couple of years, we can tell that they’re already starting to accumulate disability. Is this someone for whom transplant might be useful, and by extension, is transplant appropriate as the first therapy in some patients? And beyond MS, is transplant a consideration for other autoimmune CNS disorders? There are lots of unanswered questions, which future studies will hopefully begin to address.”

Dr. Cohen reports consulting for Biogen, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Convelo, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline (now GSK), Janssen, Mylan, and PSI. He serves as an editor of Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – While patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) don’t seem to be more likely to be infected with COVID-19, a neurologist told colleagues, the jury is still out over whether they face a higher mortality risk, especially if they take certain disease-modifying therapies (DMTs)

In regard to MS overall, “the data is conflicting, but any increased risk of mortality appears to be slight. And it appears to be chiefly the consequences associated with comorbidities as seen in other populations,” Joseph R. Berger, MD, said at the John F. Kurtzke Memorial Lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “If you’re old, if you’re infirm, if you have obesity and cardiovascular disease and underlying pulmonary disease, you’re at risk of dying yourself. It’s not so much the MS,” said Dr. Berger, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and chief of the multiple sclerosis division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Berger had his own COVID-19 story to tell: He couldn’t attend the conference in person because he was quarantining in Portugal since he tested positive. At press time, he was faring well but had reported 4 days of intense back pain.

In regard to MS and COVID-19, Dr. Berger said consistent research suggests that patients with MS aren’t at higher risk of COVID infection, although hospitalization may be more common. There may be a very small increase in risk of MS relapse in patients with COVID-19, he said, but pseudorelapses are far more common. As for mortality, he highlighted a 2021 pooled analysis of 18 studies with 5,634 patients that suggested they had a crude death rate of 1.97%, standardized lethality ratio of 1.24, and a 24% increased risk of death.

Dr. Berger is skeptical of these findings, however, in light of overall death rate numbers. Early on in the pandemic, the fatality rate in China was estimated at 2.3%.

He said he’s more convinced by a retrospective 2021 German COVID-19 study that compared 551 patients with MS to 156,973 other patients and found lower rates of ICU admission (17.1% in patients with MS vs. 22.7% in those without it), ventilation (9.8% vs. 14.5%), and in‐hospital mortality (11.1% vs. 19.3%).

Meanwhile, a 2021 systematic review found no increase in mortality among 4,310 patients with MS (3% death rate, 20.7% hospitalization), but the death risk was highest among those on no DMTs and those taking anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. The COViMS Registry has reported similar findings regarding the anti-CD20 drugs rituximab and ocrelizumab, Dr. Berger noted, and a pooled study of Italian and French data links the monoclonal antibodies to more severe COVID. A 2021 aggregated study also linked the antibodies to increased risk of hospitalization and ICU admission.

“Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies appear to increase the risk of hospitalization and perhaps the acquisition of the virus, ICU admission, maybe death,” he said, with rituximab appearing to pose the most risk, followed by ocrelizumab and ofatumumab. “And it appears that the platform [older] therapies may be associated with lesser mortality.”

As for nondrug factors, Dr. Berger said, studies have linked higher risk to age, male sex, and comorbidities.

COVID-19 vaccines are another area of concern, he said. “The recommendation is to administer vaccination prior to the initiation of the anti-CD20s, alemtuzumab, and cladribine, and wait a period of time. Three months is ideal, maybe a little longer, because it appears that the antibody response seems to be best as your CD19 count starts to return.”

Finally, Dr. Berger noted that “passive vaccination” is now available via Evusheld (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) as a preexposure treatment for people with moderate to severe immune compromise who may not mount an effective immune response to COVID-19 vaccination or those who are allergic.

Dr. Berger reported multiple disclosures.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – While patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) don’t seem to be more likely to be infected with COVID-19, a neurologist told colleagues, the jury is still out over whether they face a higher mortality risk, especially if they take certain disease-modifying therapies (DMTs)

In regard to MS overall, “the data is conflicting, but any increased risk of mortality appears to be slight. And it appears to be chiefly the consequences associated with comorbidities as seen in other populations,” Joseph R. Berger, MD, said at the John F. Kurtzke Memorial Lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “If you’re old, if you’re infirm, if you have obesity and cardiovascular disease and underlying pulmonary disease, you’re at risk of dying yourself. It’s not so much the MS,” said Dr. Berger, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and chief of the multiple sclerosis division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Berger had his own COVID-19 story to tell: He couldn’t attend the conference in person because he was quarantining in Portugal since he tested positive. At press time, he was faring well but had reported 4 days of intense back pain.

In regard to MS and COVID-19, Dr. Berger said consistent research suggests that patients with MS aren’t at higher risk of COVID infection, although hospitalization may be more common. There may be a very small increase in risk of MS relapse in patients with COVID-19, he said, but pseudorelapses are far more common. As for mortality, he highlighted a 2021 pooled analysis of 18 studies with 5,634 patients that suggested they had a crude death rate of 1.97%, standardized lethality ratio of 1.24, and a 24% increased risk of death.

Dr. Berger is skeptical of these findings, however, in light of overall death rate numbers. Early on in the pandemic, the fatality rate in China was estimated at 2.3%.

He said he’s more convinced by a retrospective 2021 German COVID-19 study that compared 551 patients with MS to 156,973 other patients and found lower rates of ICU admission (17.1% in patients with MS vs. 22.7% in those without it), ventilation (9.8% vs. 14.5%), and in‐hospital mortality (11.1% vs. 19.3%).

Meanwhile, a 2021 systematic review found no increase in mortality among 4,310 patients with MS (3% death rate, 20.7% hospitalization), but the death risk was highest among those on no DMTs and those taking anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. The COViMS Registry has reported similar findings regarding the anti-CD20 drugs rituximab and ocrelizumab, Dr. Berger noted, and a pooled study of Italian and French data links the monoclonal antibodies to more severe COVID. A 2021 aggregated study also linked the antibodies to increased risk of hospitalization and ICU admission.

“Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies appear to increase the risk of hospitalization and perhaps the acquisition of the virus, ICU admission, maybe death,” he said, with rituximab appearing to pose the most risk, followed by ocrelizumab and ofatumumab. “And it appears that the platform [older] therapies may be associated with lesser mortality.”

As for nondrug factors, Dr. Berger said, studies have linked higher risk to age, male sex, and comorbidities.

COVID-19 vaccines are another area of concern, he said. “The recommendation is to administer vaccination prior to the initiation of the anti-CD20s, alemtuzumab, and cladribine, and wait a period of time. Three months is ideal, maybe a little longer, because it appears that the antibody response seems to be best as your CD19 count starts to return.”

Finally, Dr. Berger noted that “passive vaccination” is now available via Evusheld (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) as a preexposure treatment for people with moderate to severe immune compromise who may not mount an effective immune response to COVID-19 vaccination or those who are allergic.

Dr. Berger reported multiple disclosures.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – While patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) don’t seem to be more likely to be infected with COVID-19, a neurologist told colleagues, the jury is still out over whether they face a higher mortality risk, especially if they take certain disease-modifying therapies (DMTs)

In regard to MS overall, “the data is conflicting, but any increased risk of mortality appears to be slight. And it appears to be chiefly the consequences associated with comorbidities as seen in other populations,” Joseph R. Berger, MD, said at the John F. Kurtzke Memorial Lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “If you’re old, if you’re infirm, if you have obesity and cardiovascular disease and underlying pulmonary disease, you’re at risk of dying yourself. It’s not so much the MS,” said Dr. Berger, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and chief of the multiple sclerosis division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Berger had his own COVID-19 story to tell: He couldn’t attend the conference in person because he was quarantining in Portugal since he tested positive. At press time, he was faring well but had reported 4 days of intense back pain.

In regard to MS and COVID-19, Dr. Berger said consistent research suggests that patients with MS aren’t at higher risk of COVID infection, although hospitalization may be more common. There may be a very small increase in risk of MS relapse in patients with COVID-19, he said, but pseudorelapses are far more common. As for mortality, he highlighted a 2021 pooled analysis of 18 studies with 5,634 patients that suggested they had a crude death rate of 1.97%, standardized lethality ratio of 1.24, and a 24% increased risk of death.

Dr. Berger is skeptical of these findings, however, in light of overall death rate numbers. Early on in the pandemic, the fatality rate in China was estimated at 2.3%.

He said he’s more convinced by a retrospective 2021 German COVID-19 study that compared 551 patients with MS to 156,973 other patients and found lower rates of ICU admission (17.1% in patients with MS vs. 22.7% in those without it), ventilation (9.8% vs. 14.5%), and in‐hospital mortality (11.1% vs. 19.3%).

Meanwhile, a 2021 systematic review found no increase in mortality among 4,310 patients with MS (3% death rate, 20.7% hospitalization), but the death risk was highest among those on no DMTs and those taking anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. The COViMS Registry has reported similar findings regarding the anti-CD20 drugs rituximab and ocrelizumab, Dr. Berger noted, and a pooled study of Italian and French data links the monoclonal antibodies to more severe COVID. A 2021 aggregated study also linked the antibodies to increased risk of hospitalization and ICU admission.

“Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies appear to increase the risk of hospitalization and perhaps the acquisition of the virus, ICU admission, maybe death,” he said, with rituximab appearing to pose the most risk, followed by ocrelizumab and ofatumumab. “And it appears that the platform [older] therapies may be associated with lesser mortality.”

As for nondrug factors, Dr. Berger said, studies have linked higher risk to age, male sex, and comorbidities.

COVID-19 vaccines are another area of concern, he said. “The recommendation is to administer vaccination prior to the initiation of the anti-CD20s, alemtuzumab, and cladribine, and wait a period of time. Three months is ideal, maybe a little longer, because it appears that the antibody response seems to be best as your CD19 count starts to return.”

Finally, Dr. Berger noted that “passive vaccination” is now available via Evusheld (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) as a preexposure treatment for people with moderate to severe immune compromise who may not mount an effective immune response to COVID-19 vaccination or those who are allergic.

Dr. Berger reported multiple disclosures.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. -- Over 25 years of clinical research, phase 3 trials of approved disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) were overwhelmingly made up of White subjects, a new analysis finds, and many studies failed to report percentages of non-White subjects at all. Researchers also found that the websites of multiple major drug manufacturers don’t include any trial data about how medications may affect people of different races and ethnicities.

It’s clear that “non-White participants are significantly underreported and unrepresented,” said study corresponding author and Dell Medical School/The University of Texas at Austin neurologist Leorah Freeman, MD, PhD, in an interview. “Despite the globalization of MS trials over time, we do not see that trials are enrolling more diverse populations.”

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and published in Neurology.

“The lack of diversity in MS research is something that has been sporadically discussed in the past. By conducting this systematic review of MS phase 3 trials, we wanted to put numbers on this issue and review the evidence systematically,” Dr. Freeman said. “By doing so, we hoped to raise awareness about the problem of underreporting and underrepresentation of non-White participants in trials so that we, as a community involved in MS research, can start having the difficult conversations needed for change to occur.”
 

25 years of clinical research

The researchers reviewed 44 phase 3 studies from 1995-2020 that represented 45 trials. “We wanted to capture data from the very first global trials being conducted for the approval of MS DMTs, and the first was published in 1995,” Dr. Freeman said. “We were interested in understanding the impact of trial globalization over a long period of time on diversity of enrollment.”

The studies include trials of mainstays of MS treatment such as interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and others.

The researchers found that 17 (37.8%) of the trials did not report race or ethnicity, 14 (31.1%) reported race and ethnicity as proportion of White participants only, and 14 (31.1%) reported 2 or more races/ethnicities.

Of the 28 trials with racial breakdowns, the median percentage of White participants was 93.8% (range 78.5-99.6% across 28 studies), 1.9% for Black participants (range 0.1-8.1% across 14 studies), and 0.5% for Asian participants (range 0.1-14.5% across 11 studies).

The studies often failed to account for non-White subjects even though “Black people, in particular, have been shown to have a more severe disease course,” Dr. Freeman said.

A 2022 study of more than 2.6 million Southern California adults finds that prevalence of MS was similar among White and Black people at about 230 per 100,000. “Taken together with previous studies, these findings indicate that the burden of MS in the United States Black community has long been underrecognized,” the researchers wrote.

According to Dr. Freeman, it’s unclear why the studies were so dominated by White subjects. “Lack of awareness about the importance of this information likely explains why this information often goes unreported.”

She highlighted the TOWER (teriflunomide) and DEFINE and CONFIRM (dimethyl fumarate) studies as positive examples. “We noted the inclusion of trial sites in Asia and consequently a higher representation of Asian people with MS in those trials. We felt these studies were examples of how trial globalization can support better representation of underrepresented groups.”

And she noted that the ongoing CHIMES trial is examining the use of ocrelizumab in Black and Hispanic people with MS. “This study was designed in partnership with MS patients and advocacy groups to bridge gaps in clinical trial participation in these communities,” she said. “Innovative strategies were developed to increase participation of Black and Hispanic patients in this trial.”
 

What should happen next?

Going forward, Dr. Freeman said, “MS researchers, DMT manufacturers, sponsors, and publishers need to set better standards for racial and ethnic representation and reporting in trial publications.”

In an interview, epidemiologist Luisa N. Borrell, DDS, PhD, a professor who studies race and medicine at City University of New York, said the new study is valid and useful. She noted that it reflects the findings of a 2022 analysis of more than 20,500 clinical trials in the U.S. from 2000-2020: Only 43% reported racial/ethnic breakdowns, and the subjects were much more White than the population at large.

Possible reasons for the disparity include distrust among possible participants and lack of health literacy, she said, which are both “modifiable issues.”

Dr. Borrell added: “Clinical trials should aim to recruit populations affected by the outcome of interest. That would allow for the intervention to effectively treat those who need it the most. Moreover, the lack of diversity of trials brings issues of generalizability and transportability of the findings.”

No funding is reported. Dr. Freeman and some of the other study authors report various disclosures.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. -- Over 25 years of clinical research, phase 3 trials of approved disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) were overwhelmingly made up of White subjects, a new analysis finds, and many studies failed to report percentages of non-White subjects at all. Researchers also found that the websites of multiple major drug manufacturers don’t include any trial data about how medications may affect people of different races and ethnicities.

It’s clear that “non-White participants are significantly underreported and unrepresented,” said study corresponding author and Dell Medical School/The University of Texas at Austin neurologist Leorah Freeman, MD, PhD, in an interview. “Despite the globalization of MS trials over time, we do not see that trials are enrolling more diverse populations.”

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and published in Neurology.

“The lack of diversity in MS research is something that has been sporadically discussed in the past. By conducting this systematic review of MS phase 3 trials, we wanted to put numbers on this issue and review the evidence systematically,” Dr. Freeman said. “By doing so, we hoped to raise awareness about the problem of underreporting and underrepresentation of non-White participants in trials so that we, as a community involved in MS research, can start having the difficult conversations needed for change to occur.”
 

25 years of clinical research

The researchers reviewed 44 phase 3 studies from 1995-2020 that represented 45 trials. “We wanted to capture data from the very first global trials being conducted for the approval of MS DMTs, and the first was published in 1995,” Dr. Freeman said. “We were interested in understanding the impact of trial globalization over a long period of time on diversity of enrollment.”

The studies include trials of mainstays of MS treatment such as interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and others.

The researchers found that 17 (37.8%) of the trials did not report race or ethnicity, 14 (31.1%) reported race and ethnicity as proportion of White participants only, and 14 (31.1%) reported 2 or more races/ethnicities.

Of the 28 trials with racial breakdowns, the median percentage of White participants was 93.8% (range 78.5-99.6% across 28 studies), 1.9% for Black participants (range 0.1-8.1% across 14 studies), and 0.5% for Asian participants (range 0.1-14.5% across 11 studies).

The studies often failed to account for non-White subjects even though “Black people, in particular, have been shown to have a more severe disease course,” Dr. Freeman said.

A 2022 study of more than 2.6 million Southern California adults finds that prevalence of MS was similar among White and Black people at about 230 per 100,000. “Taken together with previous studies, these findings indicate that the burden of MS in the United States Black community has long been underrecognized,” the researchers wrote.

According to Dr. Freeman, it’s unclear why the studies were so dominated by White subjects. “Lack of awareness about the importance of this information likely explains why this information often goes unreported.”

She highlighted the TOWER (teriflunomide) and DEFINE and CONFIRM (dimethyl fumarate) studies as positive examples. “We noted the inclusion of trial sites in Asia and consequently a higher representation of Asian people with MS in those trials. We felt these studies were examples of how trial globalization can support better representation of underrepresented groups.”

And she noted that the ongoing CHIMES trial is examining the use of ocrelizumab in Black and Hispanic people with MS. “This study was designed in partnership with MS patients and advocacy groups to bridge gaps in clinical trial participation in these communities,” she said. “Innovative strategies were developed to increase participation of Black and Hispanic patients in this trial.”
 

What should happen next?

Going forward, Dr. Freeman said, “MS researchers, DMT manufacturers, sponsors, and publishers need to set better standards for racial and ethnic representation and reporting in trial publications.”

In an interview, epidemiologist Luisa N. Borrell, DDS, PhD, a professor who studies race and medicine at City University of New York, said the new study is valid and useful. She noted that it reflects the findings of a 2022 analysis of more than 20,500 clinical trials in the U.S. from 2000-2020: Only 43% reported racial/ethnic breakdowns, and the subjects were much more White than the population at large.

Possible reasons for the disparity include distrust among possible participants and lack of health literacy, she said, which are both “modifiable issues.”

Dr. Borrell added: “Clinical trials should aim to recruit populations affected by the outcome of interest. That would allow for the intervention to effectively treat those who need it the most. Moreover, the lack of diversity of trials brings issues of generalizability and transportability of the findings.”

No funding is reported. Dr. Freeman and some of the other study authors report various disclosures.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. -- Over 25 years of clinical research, phase 3 trials of approved disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) were overwhelmingly made up of White subjects, a new analysis finds, and many studies failed to report percentages of non-White subjects at all. Researchers also found that the websites of multiple major drug manufacturers don’t include any trial data about how medications may affect people of different races and ethnicities.

It’s clear that “non-White participants are significantly underreported and unrepresented,” said study corresponding author and Dell Medical School/The University of Texas at Austin neurologist Leorah Freeman, MD, PhD, in an interview. “Despite the globalization of MS trials over time, we do not see that trials are enrolling more diverse populations.”

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and published in Neurology.

“The lack of diversity in MS research is something that has been sporadically discussed in the past. By conducting this systematic review of MS phase 3 trials, we wanted to put numbers on this issue and review the evidence systematically,” Dr. Freeman said. “By doing so, we hoped to raise awareness about the problem of underreporting and underrepresentation of non-White participants in trials so that we, as a community involved in MS research, can start having the difficult conversations needed for change to occur.”
 

25 years of clinical research

The researchers reviewed 44 phase 3 studies from 1995-2020 that represented 45 trials. “We wanted to capture data from the very first global trials being conducted for the approval of MS DMTs, and the first was published in 1995,” Dr. Freeman said. “We were interested in understanding the impact of trial globalization over a long period of time on diversity of enrollment.”

The studies include trials of mainstays of MS treatment such as interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and others.

The researchers found that 17 (37.8%) of the trials did not report race or ethnicity, 14 (31.1%) reported race and ethnicity as proportion of White participants only, and 14 (31.1%) reported 2 or more races/ethnicities.

Of the 28 trials with racial breakdowns, the median percentage of White participants was 93.8% (range 78.5-99.6% across 28 studies), 1.9% for Black participants (range 0.1-8.1% across 14 studies), and 0.5% for Asian participants (range 0.1-14.5% across 11 studies).

The studies often failed to account for non-White subjects even though “Black people, in particular, have been shown to have a more severe disease course,” Dr. Freeman said.

A 2022 study of more than 2.6 million Southern California adults finds that prevalence of MS was similar among White and Black people at about 230 per 100,000. “Taken together with previous studies, these findings indicate that the burden of MS in the United States Black community has long been underrecognized,” the researchers wrote.

According to Dr. Freeman, it’s unclear why the studies were so dominated by White subjects. “Lack of awareness about the importance of this information likely explains why this information often goes unreported.”

She highlighted the TOWER (teriflunomide) and DEFINE and CONFIRM (dimethyl fumarate) studies as positive examples. “We noted the inclusion of trial sites in Asia and consequently a higher representation of Asian people with MS in those trials. We felt these studies were examples of how trial globalization can support better representation of underrepresented groups.”

And she noted that the ongoing CHIMES trial is examining the use of ocrelizumab in Black and Hispanic people with MS. “This study was designed in partnership with MS patients and advocacy groups to bridge gaps in clinical trial participation in these communities,” she said. “Innovative strategies were developed to increase participation of Black and Hispanic patients in this trial.”
 

What should happen next?

Going forward, Dr. Freeman said, “MS researchers, DMT manufacturers, sponsors, and publishers need to set better standards for racial and ethnic representation and reporting in trial publications.”

In an interview, epidemiologist Luisa N. Borrell, DDS, PhD, a professor who studies race and medicine at City University of New York, said the new study is valid and useful. She noted that it reflects the findings of a 2022 analysis of more than 20,500 clinical trials in the U.S. from 2000-2020: Only 43% reported racial/ethnic breakdowns, and the subjects were much more White than the population at large.

Possible reasons for the disparity include distrust among possible participants and lack of health literacy, she said, which are both “modifiable issues.”

Dr. Borrell added: “Clinical trials should aim to recruit populations affected by the outcome of interest. That would allow for the intervention to effectively treat those who need it the most. Moreover, the lack of diversity of trials brings issues of generalizability and transportability of the findings.”

No funding is reported. Dr. Freeman and some of the other study authors report various disclosures.

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with the B-cell-depleting medication rituximab who have not yet been vaccinated against COVID-19 should get the initial vaccination as soon as possible but wait to get a booster shot until B-cell levels increase, new research suggests.

In a prospective cohort study, 90% of patients taking rituximab whose B-cell level was at least 40 cells/mcL had a sufficient antibody response to the Pfizer vaccine, whereas among those with lower levels, the antibody response was significantly lower.

Results also showed a wide variation in the length of time needed for adequate B-cell restoration. Some patients needed a year or longer for levels to become adequate.

The findings led the hospital where the study was conducted to suspend rituximab therapy until patients could be vaccinated. The findings also prompted researchers to call for new guidelines on vaccine scheduling that are based on B-cell levels and not on the current criteria of length of time since last treatment.

“It’s meaningless to just go by some recommendation covering time since the last treatment,” study investigator Joachim Burman, MD, PhD, a consultant neurologist at Uppsala University Hospital and an associate professor at Uppsala University, both in Sweden, told this news organization.

“It’s misleading and potentially harmful for patients,” Dr. Burman said.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

Finding the cutoff

Drugs such as rituximab target CD20, a protein found on the surface of B cells, resulting in B-cell depletion.

Rituximab is the most common MS therapy used in Sweden. The drug is approved in the United States to treat rheumatoid arthritis and some forms of cancer, but it is not approved for treatment of MS.

Prior research showed that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines was lower in patients receiving B-cell therapy than in the general population. That was not altogether surprising, given the fact that studies have found a similarly weakened antibody response to other vaccines.

But before now, there was no known B-cell threshold sufficient to mount an acceptable antibody response following COVID vaccination.

Researchers enrolled 67 patients in the study. Of those patients, 60 had received rituximab treatment, and seven had not.

Approximately 6 months after the last rituximab dose, the B-cell count was lower than 10/mcL for 40% of patients. In that group, rituximab treatment duration was the only factor significantly associated with slower B-cell mobilization (median duration, 4.0 years, vs. 2.1; P = .002).
 

Close monitoring needed

Six weeks after vaccination with tozinameran, the mRNA vaccine manufactured by Pfizer, 28% of patients failed to generate a sufficient antibody response. Among those patients, the median B-cell count was 22/mcL, versus 51/mcL for the remainder of the cohort (P < .001).

A cutoff value of 40/mcL rendered adequate levels of anti-spike immunoglobulin G antibodies in 90% of patients and a strong response in anti-RBD antibodies in 72%.

Study participants did register an adequate T-cell response to the vaccine, suggesting at least some level of protection.

Because MS patients are at increased risk for serious illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators recommend that patients with MS receive their initial COVID vaccines as soon as possible – but that they should hold off on receiving a booster until their B-cell counts reach 40/mcL.

Regarding when a clinician should re-vaccinate, “the results from our study strongly suggest that you should not do that right away or just follow some generic guideline,” Dr. Burman said.

“You should closely monitor the B-cell values, and re-vaccinate once those B- cells hit the level of 40 cells/mcL” he added.

Dr. Burman said he would expect that their findings would hold with the other mRNA vaccine and with any other B-cell therapy.
 

Too soon for B-cell measures?

Commenting for this news organization, Robert J. Fox, MD, staff neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS and vice-chair for research at the Neurological Institute at Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said the B-cell threshold identified in the study is much higher than what is typically seen in patients who undergo treatment with ocrelizumab, an anti-CD20 B-cell therapy approved in the United States for treating MS.

“Decisions about treatment interval need to balance efficacy in treating MS with safety, including response to vaccines,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the research.

“Given the unknown efficacy of these extended intervals, I don’t think we’re at the point of making management recommendations based upon B-cell counts,” he added.

And yet, Uppsala University Hospital, where the study was conducted, and other centers in Sweden decided to do just that. They suspended administering rituximab to patients with MS until the patients were vaccinated. For patients newly diagnosed with MS, therapy was initiated using another disease-modifying treatment, and for those who were due for a rituximab infusion, that treatment was delayed.

Only one patient experienced a mild MS relapse during the rituximab suspension, and that case went into remission within a week, Dr. Burman reported.

“Ever since the Bar-Or report showing that the humeral response to vaccines is markedly diminished in MS patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies, clinicians have been struggling to balance those safety concerns related to anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody treatments and the clinical benefit of this treatment class,” Dr. Fox said.

“Given the uncharted waters of the COVID pandemic, clinicians made judgments and decisions as best they could, given the paucity of data,” he noted.

“At this point, we don’t know which decisions were right or wrong, but I certainly don’t think we should judge clinicians for making decisions the best they could.”

The study was funded by the Engkvist Foundation, the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, and the Swedish Society for Medical Research. Dr. Burman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fox has received consulting fees from Genentech/Roche, Biogen, and other companies that promote MS therapies.

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

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with the B-cell-depleting medication rituximab who have not yet been vaccinated against COVID-19 should get the initial vaccination as soon as possible but wait to get a booster shot until B-cell levels increase, new research suggests.

In a prospective cohort study, 90% of patients taking rituximab whose B-cell level was at least 40 cells/mcL had a sufficient antibody response to the Pfizer vaccine, whereas among those with lower levels, the antibody response was significantly lower.

Results also showed a wide variation in the length of time needed for adequate B-cell restoration. Some patients needed a year or longer for levels to become adequate.

The findings led the hospital where the study was conducted to suspend rituximab therapy until patients could be vaccinated. The findings also prompted researchers to call for new guidelines on vaccine scheduling that are based on B-cell levels and not on the current criteria of length of time since last treatment.

“It’s meaningless to just go by some recommendation covering time since the last treatment,” study investigator Joachim Burman, MD, PhD, a consultant neurologist at Uppsala University Hospital and an associate professor at Uppsala University, both in Sweden, told this news organization.

“It’s misleading and potentially harmful for patients,” Dr. Burman said.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

Finding the cutoff

Drugs such as rituximab target CD20, a protein found on the surface of B cells, resulting in B-cell depletion.

Rituximab is the most common MS therapy used in Sweden. The drug is approved in the United States to treat rheumatoid arthritis and some forms of cancer, but it is not approved for treatment of MS.

Prior research showed that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines was lower in patients receiving B-cell therapy than in the general population. That was not altogether surprising, given the fact that studies have found a similarly weakened antibody response to other vaccines.

But before now, there was no known B-cell threshold sufficient to mount an acceptable antibody response following COVID vaccination.

Researchers enrolled 67 patients in the study. Of those patients, 60 had received rituximab treatment, and seven had not.

Approximately 6 months after the last rituximab dose, the B-cell count was lower than 10/mcL for 40% of patients. In that group, rituximab treatment duration was the only factor significantly associated with slower B-cell mobilization (median duration, 4.0 years, vs. 2.1; P = .002).
 

Close monitoring needed

Six weeks after vaccination with tozinameran, the mRNA vaccine manufactured by Pfizer, 28% of patients failed to generate a sufficient antibody response. Among those patients, the median B-cell count was 22/mcL, versus 51/mcL for the remainder of the cohort (P < .001).

A cutoff value of 40/mcL rendered adequate levels of anti-spike immunoglobulin G antibodies in 90% of patients and a strong response in anti-RBD antibodies in 72%.

Study participants did register an adequate T-cell response to the vaccine, suggesting at least some level of protection.

Because MS patients are at increased risk for serious illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators recommend that patients with MS receive their initial COVID vaccines as soon as possible – but that they should hold off on receiving a booster until their B-cell counts reach 40/mcL.

Regarding when a clinician should re-vaccinate, “the results from our study strongly suggest that you should not do that right away or just follow some generic guideline,” Dr. Burman said.

“You should closely monitor the B-cell values, and re-vaccinate once those B- cells hit the level of 40 cells/mcL” he added.

Dr. Burman said he would expect that their findings would hold with the other mRNA vaccine and with any other B-cell therapy.
 

Too soon for B-cell measures?

Commenting for this news organization, Robert J. Fox, MD, staff neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS and vice-chair for research at the Neurological Institute at Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said the B-cell threshold identified in the study is much higher than what is typically seen in patients who undergo treatment with ocrelizumab, an anti-CD20 B-cell therapy approved in the United States for treating MS.

“Decisions about treatment interval need to balance efficacy in treating MS with safety, including response to vaccines,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the research.

“Given the unknown efficacy of these extended intervals, I don’t think we’re at the point of making management recommendations based upon B-cell counts,” he added.

And yet, Uppsala University Hospital, where the study was conducted, and other centers in Sweden decided to do just that. They suspended administering rituximab to patients with MS until the patients were vaccinated. For patients newly diagnosed with MS, therapy was initiated using another disease-modifying treatment, and for those who were due for a rituximab infusion, that treatment was delayed.

Only one patient experienced a mild MS relapse during the rituximab suspension, and that case went into remission within a week, Dr. Burman reported.

“Ever since the Bar-Or report showing that the humeral response to vaccines is markedly diminished in MS patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies, clinicians have been struggling to balance those safety concerns related to anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody treatments and the clinical benefit of this treatment class,” Dr. Fox said.

“Given the uncharted waters of the COVID pandemic, clinicians made judgments and decisions as best they could, given the paucity of data,” he noted.

“At this point, we don’t know which decisions were right or wrong, but I certainly don’t think we should judge clinicians for making decisions the best they could.”

The study was funded by the Engkvist Foundation, the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, and the Swedish Society for Medical Research. Dr. Burman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fox has received consulting fees from Genentech/Roche, Biogen, and other companies that promote MS therapies.

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

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with the B-cell-depleting medication rituximab who have not yet been vaccinated against COVID-19 should get the initial vaccination as soon as possible but wait to get a booster shot until B-cell levels increase, new research suggests.

In a prospective cohort study, 90% of patients taking rituximab whose B-cell level was at least 40 cells/mcL had a sufficient antibody response to the Pfizer vaccine, whereas among those with lower levels, the antibody response was significantly lower.

Results also showed a wide variation in the length of time needed for adequate B-cell restoration. Some patients needed a year or longer for levels to become adequate.

The findings led the hospital where the study was conducted to suspend rituximab therapy until patients could be vaccinated. The findings also prompted researchers to call for new guidelines on vaccine scheduling that are based on B-cell levels and not on the current criteria of length of time since last treatment.

“It’s meaningless to just go by some recommendation covering time since the last treatment,” study investigator Joachim Burman, MD, PhD, a consultant neurologist at Uppsala University Hospital and an associate professor at Uppsala University, both in Sweden, told this news organization.

“It’s misleading and potentially harmful for patients,” Dr. Burman said.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

Finding the cutoff

Drugs such as rituximab target CD20, a protein found on the surface of B cells, resulting in B-cell depletion.

Rituximab is the most common MS therapy used in Sweden. The drug is approved in the United States to treat rheumatoid arthritis and some forms of cancer, but it is not approved for treatment of MS.

Prior research showed that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines was lower in patients receiving B-cell therapy than in the general population. That was not altogether surprising, given the fact that studies have found a similarly weakened antibody response to other vaccines.

But before now, there was no known B-cell threshold sufficient to mount an acceptable antibody response following COVID vaccination.

Researchers enrolled 67 patients in the study. Of those patients, 60 had received rituximab treatment, and seven had not.

Approximately 6 months after the last rituximab dose, the B-cell count was lower than 10/mcL for 40% of patients. In that group, rituximab treatment duration was the only factor significantly associated with slower B-cell mobilization (median duration, 4.0 years, vs. 2.1; P = .002).
 

Close monitoring needed

Six weeks after vaccination with tozinameran, the mRNA vaccine manufactured by Pfizer, 28% of patients failed to generate a sufficient antibody response. Among those patients, the median B-cell count was 22/mcL, versus 51/mcL for the remainder of the cohort (P < .001).

A cutoff value of 40/mcL rendered adequate levels of anti-spike immunoglobulin G antibodies in 90% of patients and a strong response in anti-RBD antibodies in 72%.

Study participants did register an adequate T-cell response to the vaccine, suggesting at least some level of protection.

Because MS patients are at increased risk for serious illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators recommend that patients with MS receive their initial COVID vaccines as soon as possible – but that they should hold off on receiving a booster until their B-cell counts reach 40/mcL.

Regarding when a clinician should re-vaccinate, “the results from our study strongly suggest that you should not do that right away or just follow some generic guideline,” Dr. Burman said.

“You should closely monitor the B-cell values, and re-vaccinate once those B- cells hit the level of 40 cells/mcL” he added.

Dr. Burman said he would expect that their findings would hold with the other mRNA vaccine and with any other B-cell therapy.
 

Too soon for B-cell measures?

Commenting for this news organization, Robert J. Fox, MD, staff neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS and vice-chair for research at the Neurological Institute at Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said the B-cell threshold identified in the study is much higher than what is typically seen in patients who undergo treatment with ocrelizumab, an anti-CD20 B-cell therapy approved in the United States for treating MS.

“Decisions about treatment interval need to balance efficacy in treating MS with safety, including response to vaccines,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the research.

“Given the unknown efficacy of these extended intervals, I don’t think we’re at the point of making management recommendations based upon B-cell counts,” he added.

And yet, Uppsala University Hospital, where the study was conducted, and other centers in Sweden decided to do just that. They suspended administering rituximab to patients with MS until the patients were vaccinated. For patients newly diagnosed with MS, therapy was initiated using another disease-modifying treatment, and for those who were due for a rituximab infusion, that treatment was delayed.

Only one patient experienced a mild MS relapse during the rituximab suspension, and that case went into remission within a week, Dr. Burman reported.

“Ever since the Bar-Or report showing that the humeral response to vaccines is markedly diminished in MS patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies, clinicians have been struggling to balance those safety concerns related to anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody treatments and the clinical benefit of this treatment class,” Dr. Fox said.

“Given the uncharted waters of the COVID pandemic, clinicians made judgments and decisions as best they could, given the paucity of data,” he noted.

“At this point, we don’t know which decisions were right or wrong, but I certainly don’t think we should judge clinicians for making decisions the best they could.”

The study was funded by the Engkvist Foundation, the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, and the Swedish Society for Medical Research. Dr. Burman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fox has received consulting fees from Genentech/Roche, Biogen, and other companies that promote MS therapies.

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

Emotional or sexual abuse in childhood may increase risk of multiple sclerosis (MS) in women, and risk may increase further with exposure to multiple kinds of abuse, according to the first prospective cohort study of its kind.

More research is needed to uncover underlying mechanisms of action, according to lead author Karine Eid, MD, a PhD candidate at Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, and colleagues.

“Trauma and stressful life events have been associated with an increased risk of autoimmune disorders,” the investigators wrote in the Journal Of Neurology, Neurosurgery, & Psychiatry. “Whether adverse events in childhood can have an impact on MS susceptibility is not known.”

The present study recruited participants from the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child cohort, a population consisting of Norwegian women who were pregnant from 1999 to 2008. Of the 77,997 participating women, 14,477 reported emotional, sexual, and/or physical abuse in childhood, while the remaining 63,520 women reported no abuse. After a mean follow-up of 13 years, 300 women were diagnosed with MS, among whom 24% reported a history of childhood abuse, compared with 19% among women who did not develop MS.

To look for associations between childhood abuse and risk of MS, the investigators used a Cox model adjusted for confounders and mediators, including smoking, obesity, adult socioeconomic factors, and childhood social status. The model revealed that emotional abuse increased the risk of MS by 40% (hazard ratio [HR] 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.90), and sexual abuse increased the risk of MS by 65% (HR 1.65; 95% CI, 1.13-2.39).

Although physical abuse alone did not significantly increase risk of MS (HR 1.31; 95% CI, 0.83-2.06), it did contribute to a dose-response relationship when women were exposed to more than one type of childhood abuse. Women exposed to two out of three abuse categories had a 66% increased risk of MS (HR 1.66; 95% CI, 1.04-2.67), whereas women exposed to all three types of abuse had the highest risk of MS, at 93% (HR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.02-3.67).

Dr. Eid and colleagues noted that their findings are supported by previous retrospective research, and discussed possible mechanisms of action.

“The increased risk of MS after exposure to childhood sexual and emotional abuse may have a biological explanation,” they wrote. “Childhood abuse can cause dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, lead to oxidative stress, and induce a proinflammatory state decades into adulthood. Psychological stress has been shown to disrupt the blood-brain barrier and cause epigenetic changes that may increase the risk of neurodegenerative disorders, including MS.

“The underlying mechanisms behind this association should be investigated further,” they concluded.
 

Study findings should guide interventions

Commenting on the research, Ruth Ann Marrie, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and community health sciences and director of the multiple sclerosis clinic at Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, said that the present study “has several strengths compared to prior studies – including that it is prospective and the sample size.”

Dr. Marrie, who was not involved in the study, advised clinicians in the field to take note of the findings, as patients with a history of abuse may need unique interventions.

“Providers need to recognize the higher prevalence of childhood maltreatment in people with MS,” Dr. Marrie said in an interview. “These findings dovetail with others that suggest that adverse childhood experiences are associated with increased mental health concerns and pain catastrophizing in people with MS. Affected individuals may benefit from additional psychological supports and trauma-informed care.”

Tiffany Joy Braley, MD, associate professor of neurology, and Carri Polick, RN and PhD candidate at the school of nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who published a case report last year highlighting the importance of evaluating stress exposure in MS, suggested that the findings should guide interventions at both a system and patient level.

“Although a cause-and-effect relationship cannot be established by the current study, these and related findings should be considered in the context of system level and policy interventions that address links between environment and health care disparities,” they said in a joint, written comment. “Given recent impetus to provide trauma-informed health care, these data could be particularly informative in neurological conditions which are associated with high mental health comorbidity. Traumatic stress screening practices could lead to referrals for appropriate support services and more personalized health care.”

While several mechanisms have been proposed to explain the link between traumatic stress and MS, more work is needed in this area, they added.

This knowledge gap was acknowledged by Dr. Marrie.

“Our understanding of the etiology of MS remains incomplete,” Dr. Marrie said. “We still need a better understanding of mechanisms by which adverse childhood experiences lead to MS, how they interact with other risk factors for MS (beyond smoking and obesity), and whether there are any interventions that can mitigate the risk of developing MS that is associated with adverse childhood experiences.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Novartis, Biogen, Merck, and others. Dr. Marrie receives research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, MS Society of Canada, the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Crohn’s and Colitis Canada, Research Manitoba, and the Arthritis Society; she has no pharmaceutical support. Dr. Braley and Ms. Polick reported no conflicts of interest.

Emotional or sexual abuse in childhood may increase risk of multiple sclerosis (MS) in women, and risk may increase further with exposure to multiple kinds of abuse, according to the first prospective cohort study of its kind.

More research is needed to uncover underlying mechanisms of action, according to lead author Karine Eid, MD, a PhD candidate at Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, and colleagues.

“Trauma and stressful life events have been associated with an increased risk of autoimmune disorders,” the investigators wrote in the Journal Of Neurology, Neurosurgery, & Psychiatry. “Whether adverse events in childhood can have an impact on MS susceptibility is not known.”

The present study recruited participants from the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child cohort, a population consisting of Norwegian women who were pregnant from 1999 to 2008. Of the 77,997 participating women, 14,477 reported emotional, sexual, and/or physical abuse in childhood, while the remaining 63,520 women reported no abuse. After a mean follow-up of 13 years, 300 women were diagnosed with MS, among whom 24% reported a history of childhood abuse, compared with 19% among women who did not develop MS.

To look for associations between childhood abuse and risk of MS, the investigators used a Cox model adjusted for confounders and mediators, including smoking, obesity, adult socioeconomic factors, and childhood social status. The model revealed that emotional abuse increased the risk of MS by 40% (hazard ratio [HR] 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.90), and sexual abuse increased the risk of MS by 65% (HR 1.65; 95% CI, 1.13-2.39).

Although physical abuse alone did not significantly increase risk of MS (HR 1.31; 95% CI, 0.83-2.06), it did contribute to a dose-response relationship when women were exposed to more than one type of childhood abuse. Women exposed to two out of three abuse categories had a 66% increased risk of MS (HR 1.66; 95% CI, 1.04-2.67), whereas women exposed to all three types of abuse had the highest risk of MS, at 93% (HR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.02-3.67).

Dr. Eid and colleagues noted that their findings are supported by previous retrospective research, and discussed possible mechanisms of action.

“The increased risk of MS after exposure to childhood sexual and emotional abuse may have a biological explanation,” they wrote. “Childhood abuse can cause dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, lead to oxidative stress, and induce a proinflammatory state decades into adulthood. Psychological stress has been shown to disrupt the blood-brain barrier and cause epigenetic changes that may increase the risk of neurodegenerative disorders, including MS.

“The underlying mechanisms behind this association should be investigated further,” they concluded.
 

Study findings should guide interventions

Commenting on the research, Ruth Ann Marrie, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and community health sciences and director of the multiple sclerosis clinic at Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, said that the present study “has several strengths compared to prior studies – including that it is prospective and the sample size.”

Dr. Marrie, who was not involved in the study, advised clinicians in the field to take note of the findings, as patients with a history of abuse may need unique interventions.

“Providers need to recognize the higher prevalence of childhood maltreatment in people with MS,” Dr. Marrie said in an interview. “These findings dovetail with others that suggest that adverse childhood experiences are associated with increased mental health concerns and pain catastrophizing in people with MS. Affected individuals may benefit from additional psychological supports and trauma-informed care.”

Tiffany Joy Braley, MD, associate professor of neurology, and Carri Polick, RN and PhD candidate at the school of nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who published a case report last year highlighting the importance of evaluating stress exposure in MS, suggested that the findings should guide interventions at both a system and patient level.

“Although a cause-and-effect relationship cannot be established by the current study, these and related findings should be considered in the context of system level and policy interventions that address links between environment and health care disparities,” they said in a joint, written comment. “Given recent impetus to provide trauma-informed health care, these data could be particularly informative in neurological conditions which are associated with high mental health comorbidity. Traumatic stress screening practices could lead to referrals for appropriate support services and more personalized health care.”

While several mechanisms have been proposed to explain the link between traumatic stress and MS, more work is needed in this area, they added.

This knowledge gap was acknowledged by Dr. Marrie.

“Our understanding of the etiology of MS remains incomplete,” Dr. Marrie said. “We still need a better understanding of mechanisms by which adverse childhood experiences lead to MS, how they interact with other risk factors for MS (beyond smoking and obesity), and whether there are any interventions that can mitigate the risk of developing MS that is associated with adverse childhood experiences.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Novartis, Biogen, Merck, and others. Dr. Marrie receives research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, MS Society of Canada, the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Crohn’s and Colitis Canada, Research Manitoba, and the Arthritis Society; she has no pharmaceutical support. Dr. Braley and Ms. Polick reported no conflicts of interest.

Emotional or sexual abuse in childhood may increase risk of multiple sclerosis (MS) in women, and risk may increase further with exposure to multiple kinds of abuse, according to the first prospective cohort study of its kind.

More research is needed to uncover underlying mechanisms of action, according to lead author Karine Eid, MD, a PhD candidate at Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, and colleagues.

“Trauma and stressful life events have been associated with an increased risk of autoimmune disorders,” the investigators wrote in the Journal Of Neurology, Neurosurgery, & Psychiatry. “Whether adverse events in childhood can have an impact on MS susceptibility is not known.”

The present study recruited participants from the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child cohort, a population consisting of Norwegian women who were pregnant from 1999 to 2008. Of the 77,997 participating women, 14,477 reported emotional, sexual, and/or physical abuse in childhood, while the remaining 63,520 women reported no abuse. After a mean follow-up of 13 years, 300 women were diagnosed with MS, among whom 24% reported a history of childhood abuse, compared with 19% among women who did not develop MS.

To look for associations between childhood abuse and risk of MS, the investigators used a Cox model adjusted for confounders and mediators, including smoking, obesity, adult socioeconomic factors, and childhood social status. The model revealed that emotional abuse increased the risk of MS by 40% (hazard ratio [HR] 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.90), and sexual abuse increased the risk of MS by 65% (HR 1.65; 95% CI, 1.13-2.39).

Although physical abuse alone did not significantly increase risk of MS (HR 1.31; 95% CI, 0.83-2.06), it did contribute to a dose-response relationship when women were exposed to more than one type of childhood abuse. Women exposed to two out of three abuse categories had a 66% increased risk of MS (HR 1.66; 95% CI, 1.04-2.67), whereas women exposed to all three types of abuse had the highest risk of MS, at 93% (HR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.02-3.67).

Dr. Eid and colleagues noted that their findings are supported by previous retrospective research, and discussed possible mechanisms of action.

“The increased risk of MS after exposure to childhood sexual and emotional abuse may have a biological explanation,” they wrote. “Childhood abuse can cause dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, lead to oxidative stress, and induce a proinflammatory state decades into adulthood. Psychological stress has been shown to disrupt the blood-brain barrier and cause epigenetic changes that may increase the risk of neurodegenerative disorders, including MS.

“The underlying mechanisms behind this association should be investigated further,” they concluded.
 

Study findings should guide interventions

Commenting on the research, Ruth Ann Marrie, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and community health sciences and director of the multiple sclerosis clinic at Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, said that the present study “has several strengths compared to prior studies – including that it is prospective and the sample size.”

Dr. Marrie, who was not involved in the study, advised clinicians in the field to take note of the findings, as patients with a history of abuse may need unique interventions.

“Providers need to recognize the higher prevalence of childhood maltreatment in people with MS,” Dr. Marrie said in an interview. “These findings dovetail with others that suggest that adverse childhood experiences are associated with increased mental health concerns and pain catastrophizing in people with MS. Affected individuals may benefit from additional psychological supports and trauma-informed care.”

Tiffany Joy Braley, MD, associate professor of neurology, and Carri Polick, RN and PhD candidate at the school of nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who published a case report last year highlighting the importance of evaluating stress exposure in MS, suggested that the findings should guide interventions at both a system and patient level.

“Although a cause-and-effect relationship cannot be established by the current study, these and related findings should be considered in the context of system level and policy interventions that address links between environment and health care disparities,” they said in a joint, written comment. “Given recent impetus to provide trauma-informed health care, these data could be particularly informative in neurological conditions which are associated with high mental health comorbidity. Traumatic stress screening practices could lead to referrals for appropriate support services and more personalized health care.”

While several mechanisms have been proposed to explain the link between traumatic stress and MS, more work is needed in this area, they added.

This knowledge gap was acknowledged by Dr. Marrie.

“Our understanding of the etiology of MS remains incomplete,” Dr. Marrie said. “We still need a better understanding of mechanisms by which adverse childhood experiences lead to MS, how they interact with other risk factors for MS (beyond smoking and obesity), and whether there are any interventions that can mitigate the risk of developing MS that is associated with adverse childhood experiences.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Novartis, Biogen, Merck, and others. Dr. Marrie receives research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, MS Society of Canada, the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Crohn’s and Colitis Canada, Research Manitoba, and the Arthritis Society; she has no pharmaceutical support. Dr. Braley and Ms. Polick reported no conflicts of interest.

SEATTLE – Multiple sclerosis (MS), sometimes thought of as primarily affecting Whites, is also common among Hispanic and Black people. These populations often have more severe disease, likely driven by socioeconomic factors and health care access, according to a new study that examined neighborhood-level data and disease severity in the United States.

“It has previously been thought that MS is less common among non-European Caucasian White populations, driven partly by the well-known association of incidence with latitude. It is abundantly clear at this point that this idea is not true,” said Christopher Orlando, MD, during a presentation at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

He noted that several U.S. studies with large sample sizes have shown greater disease severity and a higher disability burden among Hispanic and Black patients. “Black patients in particular appear to have a higher incidence of disease and a greater proportion of progressive disease phenotypes,” said Dr. Orlando.

Race and ethnicity are unlikely explanations for this disparity, according to Dr. Orlando. “While much remains to be discovered of the genetic underpinnings of MS, what we do know does not support the idea that minorities would have a predilection to more severe disease. For example, the well-known high-risk allele HLA DRB1*1501 appears to have a lower frequency in African populations, compared with European [populations].”

Instead, evidence suggests that interrelated social causes include access to resources, environmental exposures, and psychosocial stress. “These affect health via a number of pathways including direct physical injury, allostatic load, and access to health care,” said Dr. Orlando.
 

Probing racial and ethnic disparities

Previous studies that corrected for social determinants of health such as socioeconomic and insurance status reduce the association between MS disability and race, but they do not completely explain it.

To get a better understanding of the impacts of these factors, researchers have used neighborhood-level data combined with information on socioeconomic status and social deprivation to identify associations with MS severity.

At the conference, Dr. Orlando presented a new study that is the first to use this methodology in the United States, and it is the first to apply it to the study of racial and ethnic disparities in MS.

The study confirmed more severe disability in Hispanic and Black patients than in White patients. Clinical factors associated with more severe disease were similar across the three groups, with some small differences among individual traits. “More stark differences appeared when we compared social determinants of health. Hispanic patients were less likely to speak English as a primary language or to complete 12 years of education. Black patients were less likely to live in a rural county and more likely to be unemployed. One particularly stark difference was in the number of unemployed specifically due to their MS, with only 1 White patient [1.1%], 7 Hispanic patients [7.8%] and 27 Black patients [31.0%],” said Dr. Orlando.

The researchers found that Black and Hispanic patients tend to live in more vulnerable neighborhoods than White patients. The researchers found no significant association between social vulnerability index (SVI) values and MS severity, though there was an association in a separate analysis that only included White patients. The SVI uses 15 measures taken from the U.S. Census to identify communities that might require additional support during natural disasters.

“It would appear that the sheer complexity both in variety and magnitude of the social determinants of health are such that by far the stronger association is with race and ethnicity, which are surrogates for any number of social determinants and societal inequities,” said Dr. Orlando.
 

What drives the inequity?

Dr. Orlando acknowledged that some might wonder if these results indicate a true biologically intrinsic factor such as genetic predisposition. “I want to warn against that kind of thinking in the strongest possible terms. It is implausible on several levels. It’s not biologically plausible based on our understanding that race and ethnicity are not genetic constructs. And it’s also not numerically plausible based on these data,” said Dr. Orlando.

While some of the drivers of this inequity have been partially examined, many have not been studied. “As long as this is the case, our ability to fulfill our roles as physicians will be limited in several important ways. Our ability to assess our patients’ individual risk will be missing key information, which will limit the efficacy of shared decision-making, which of course is the cornerstone of MS treatment. In addition, we will continue to struggle to include minority patients in our research studies, and the very design and results of those studies may be misguided, as we will either fail to include these populations, or we will fail to adjust for important confounders,” he said.
 

New answers, new questions

The neighborhood-level data examined by Dr. Orlando’s group “brings extra information in terms of the negative impact of social determinants of health. The disparity seen in neighborhood living is quite striking,” said Lilyana Amezcua, MD, who served as a discussant for Dr. Orlando’s presentation. The study reinforces findings of her own group in Hispanic and Latinx individuals with MS. Some comorbidities are more common among these groups, which is exacerbated by poor health access.

“We have noted that almost 30% of them also have this comorbidity of hypertension, but what is also observed is that only 7% of them are aware [that they have hypertension],” said Dr. Amezcua, who is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

The findings should prompt further research to understand the impact of systemic racism and neighborhood factors, such as disinvestment in the public and private sectors, underresourced hospitals and clinics, and negative infrastructure. “We need to start discussing the (patient’s) environment so we can better understand the community resources they may have available, as well as create innovative transitional care services. We need to also recognize and accept that structural racism and imbalanced distribution of resources and neighborhoods does restrict educational and economic opportunities, as well as health care access and the safety of these marginalized communities,” said Dr. Amezcua.

Dr. Amezcua has consulted for, received speaking fees from, or served on steering committees or advisory boards for Biogen Idec, Novartis, Genentech, and EMD Serono. She has received research support from the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation and Biogen Idec. Dr. Orlando has no relevant financial disclosures.

SEATTLE – Multiple sclerosis (MS), sometimes thought of as primarily affecting Whites, is also common among Hispanic and Black people. These populations often have more severe disease, likely driven by socioeconomic factors and health care access, according to a new study that examined neighborhood-level data and disease severity in the United States.

“It has previously been thought that MS is less common among non-European Caucasian White populations, driven partly by the well-known association of incidence with latitude. It is abundantly clear at this point that this idea is not true,” said Christopher Orlando, MD, during a presentation at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

He noted that several U.S. studies with large sample sizes have shown greater disease severity and a higher disability burden among Hispanic and Black patients. “Black patients in particular appear to have a higher incidence of disease and a greater proportion of progressive disease phenotypes,” said Dr. Orlando.

Race and ethnicity are unlikely explanations for this disparity, according to Dr. Orlando. “While much remains to be discovered of the genetic underpinnings of MS, what we do know does not support the idea that minorities would have a predilection to more severe disease. For example, the well-known high-risk allele HLA DRB1*1501 appears to have a lower frequency in African populations, compared with European [populations].”

Instead, evidence suggests that interrelated social causes include access to resources, environmental exposures, and psychosocial stress. “These affect health via a number of pathways including direct physical injury, allostatic load, and access to health care,” said Dr. Orlando.
 

Probing racial and ethnic disparities

Previous studies that corrected for social determinants of health such as socioeconomic and insurance status reduce the association between MS disability and race, but they do not completely explain it.

To get a better understanding of the impacts of these factors, researchers have used neighborhood-level data combined with information on socioeconomic status and social deprivation to identify associations with MS severity.

At the conference, Dr. Orlando presented a new study that is the first to use this methodology in the United States, and it is the first to apply it to the study of racial and ethnic disparities in MS.

The study confirmed more severe disability in Hispanic and Black patients than in White patients. Clinical factors associated with more severe disease were similar across the three groups, with some small differences among individual traits. “More stark differences appeared when we compared social determinants of health. Hispanic patients were less likely to speak English as a primary language or to complete 12 years of education. Black patients were less likely to live in a rural county and more likely to be unemployed. One particularly stark difference was in the number of unemployed specifically due to their MS, with only 1 White patient [1.1%], 7 Hispanic patients [7.8%] and 27 Black patients [31.0%],” said Dr. Orlando.

The researchers found that Black and Hispanic patients tend to live in more vulnerable neighborhoods than White patients. The researchers found no significant association between social vulnerability index (SVI) values and MS severity, though there was an association in a separate analysis that only included White patients. The SVI uses 15 measures taken from the U.S. Census to identify communities that might require additional support during natural disasters.

“It would appear that the sheer complexity both in variety and magnitude of the social determinants of health are such that by far the stronger association is with race and ethnicity, which are surrogates for any number of social determinants and societal inequities,” said Dr. Orlando.
 

What drives the inequity?

Dr. Orlando acknowledged that some might wonder if these results indicate a true biologically intrinsic factor such as genetic predisposition. “I want to warn against that kind of thinking in the strongest possible terms. It is implausible on several levels. It’s not biologically plausible based on our understanding that race and ethnicity are not genetic constructs. And it’s also not numerically plausible based on these data,” said Dr. Orlando.

While some of the drivers of this inequity have been partially examined, many have not been studied. “As long as this is the case, our ability to fulfill our roles as physicians will be limited in several important ways. Our ability to assess our patients’ individual risk will be missing key information, which will limit the efficacy of shared decision-making, which of course is the cornerstone of MS treatment. In addition, we will continue to struggle to include minority patients in our research studies, and the very design and results of those studies may be misguided, as we will either fail to include these populations, or we will fail to adjust for important confounders,” he said.
 

New answers, new questions

The neighborhood-level data examined by Dr. Orlando’s group “brings extra information in terms of the negative impact of social determinants of health. The disparity seen in neighborhood living is quite striking,” said Lilyana Amezcua, MD, who served as a discussant for Dr. Orlando’s presentation. The study reinforces findings of her own group in Hispanic and Latinx individuals with MS. Some comorbidities are more common among these groups, which is exacerbated by poor health access.

“We have noted that almost 30% of them also have this comorbidity of hypertension, but what is also observed is that only 7% of them are aware [that they have hypertension],” said Dr. Amezcua, who is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

The findings should prompt further research to understand the impact of systemic racism and neighborhood factors, such as disinvestment in the public and private sectors, underresourced hospitals and clinics, and negative infrastructure. “We need to start discussing the (patient’s) environment so we can better understand the community resources they may have available, as well as create innovative transitional care services. We need to also recognize and accept that structural racism and imbalanced distribution of resources and neighborhoods does restrict educational and economic opportunities, as well as health care access and the safety of these marginalized communities,” said Dr. Amezcua.

Dr. Amezcua has consulted for, received speaking fees from, or served on steering committees or advisory boards for Biogen Idec, Novartis, Genentech, and EMD Serono. She has received research support from the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation and Biogen Idec. Dr. Orlando has no relevant financial disclosures.

SEATTLE – Multiple sclerosis (MS), sometimes thought of as primarily affecting Whites, is also common among Hispanic and Black people. These populations often have more severe disease, likely driven by socioeconomic factors and health care access, according to a new study that examined neighborhood-level data and disease severity in the United States.

“It has previously been thought that MS is less common among non-European Caucasian White populations, driven partly by the well-known association of incidence with latitude. It is abundantly clear at this point that this idea is not true,” said Christopher Orlando, MD, during a presentation at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

He noted that several U.S. studies with large sample sizes have shown greater disease severity and a higher disability burden among Hispanic and Black patients. “Black patients in particular appear to have a higher incidence of disease and a greater proportion of progressive disease phenotypes,” said Dr. Orlando.

Race and ethnicity are unlikely explanations for this disparity, according to Dr. Orlando. “While much remains to be discovered of the genetic underpinnings of MS, what we do know does not support the idea that minorities would have a predilection to more severe disease. For example, the well-known high-risk allele HLA DRB1*1501 appears to have a lower frequency in African populations, compared with European [populations].”

Instead, evidence suggests that interrelated social causes include access to resources, environmental exposures, and psychosocial stress. “These affect health via a number of pathways including direct physical injury, allostatic load, and access to health care,” said Dr. Orlando.
 

Probing racial and ethnic disparities

Previous studies that corrected for social determinants of health such as socioeconomic and insurance status reduce the association between MS disability and race, but they do not completely explain it.

To get a better understanding of the impacts of these factors, researchers have used neighborhood-level data combined with information on socioeconomic status and social deprivation to identify associations with MS severity.

At the conference, Dr. Orlando presented a new study that is the first to use this methodology in the United States, and it is the first to apply it to the study of racial and ethnic disparities in MS.

The study confirmed more severe disability in Hispanic and Black patients than in White patients. Clinical factors associated with more severe disease were similar across the three groups, with some small differences among individual traits. “More stark differences appeared when we compared social determinants of health. Hispanic patients were less likely to speak English as a primary language or to complete 12 years of education. Black patients were less likely to live in a rural county and more likely to be unemployed. One particularly stark difference was in the number of unemployed specifically due to their MS, with only 1 White patient [1.1%], 7 Hispanic patients [7.8%] and 27 Black patients [31.0%],” said Dr. Orlando.

The researchers found that Black and Hispanic patients tend to live in more vulnerable neighborhoods than White patients. The researchers found no significant association between social vulnerability index (SVI) values and MS severity, though there was an association in a separate analysis that only included White patients. The SVI uses 15 measures taken from the U.S. Census to identify communities that might require additional support during natural disasters.

“It would appear that the sheer complexity both in variety and magnitude of the social determinants of health are such that by far the stronger association is with race and ethnicity, which are surrogates for any number of social determinants and societal inequities,” said Dr. Orlando.
 

What drives the inequity?

Dr. Orlando acknowledged that some might wonder if these results indicate a true biologically intrinsic factor such as genetic predisposition. “I want to warn against that kind of thinking in the strongest possible terms. It is implausible on several levels. It’s not biologically plausible based on our understanding that race and ethnicity are not genetic constructs. And it’s also not numerically plausible based on these data,” said Dr. Orlando.

While some of the drivers of this inequity have been partially examined, many have not been studied. “As long as this is the case, our ability to fulfill our roles as physicians will be limited in several important ways. Our ability to assess our patients’ individual risk will be missing key information, which will limit the efficacy of shared decision-making, which of course is the cornerstone of MS treatment. In addition, we will continue to struggle to include minority patients in our research studies, and the very design and results of those studies may be misguided, as we will either fail to include these populations, or we will fail to adjust for important confounders,” he said.
 

New answers, new questions

The neighborhood-level data examined by Dr. Orlando’s group “brings extra information in terms of the negative impact of social determinants of health. The disparity seen in neighborhood living is quite striking,” said Lilyana Amezcua, MD, who served as a discussant for Dr. Orlando’s presentation. The study reinforces findings of her own group in Hispanic and Latinx individuals with MS. Some comorbidities are more common among these groups, which is exacerbated by poor health access.

“We have noted that almost 30% of them also have this comorbidity of hypertension, but what is also observed is that only 7% of them are aware [that they have hypertension],” said Dr. Amezcua, who is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

The findings should prompt further research to understand the impact of systemic racism and neighborhood factors, such as disinvestment in the public and private sectors, underresourced hospitals and clinics, and negative infrastructure. “We need to start discussing the (patient’s) environment so we can better understand the community resources they may have available, as well as create innovative transitional care services. We need to also recognize and accept that structural racism and imbalanced distribution of resources and neighborhoods does restrict educational and economic opportunities, as well as health care access and the safety of these marginalized communities,” said Dr. Amezcua.

Dr. Amezcua has consulted for, received speaking fees from, or served on steering committees or advisory boards for Biogen Idec, Novartis, Genentech, and EMD Serono. She has received research support from the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation and Biogen Idec. Dr. Orlando has no relevant financial disclosures.

A ketogenic diet may reduce disability and improve quality of life, fatigue, and depression in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests.

High-fat, low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets mimic a fasting state and promote a more efficient use of energy – and have previously been shown to affect immune regulation. The diet helps lower blood sugar in individuals with type 2 diabetes and has been used for years to improve seizure control in patients with epilepsy, researchers note.

However, “there is a paucity of literature on the ketogenic diet in MS currently,” said principal investigator J. Nicholas Brenton, MD, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“The current study demonstrates the safety, tolerability, and potential clinical benefits of a ketogenic diet over 6 months in patients with relapsing MS,” Dr. Brenton said.

The were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Palatable, beneficial

The open-label, uncontrolled study included 65 patients with relapsing MS who followed a ketogenic diet for 6 months. Investigators monitored adherence by daily urine ketone testing.

Patient-reported fatigue, depression, and quality-of-life scores were obtained at baseline, in addition to fasting adipokines and pertinent MS-related clinical outcome metrics. Baseline study metrics were repeated at 3 and/or 6 months while on the ketogenic diet.

Of the patient group, 83% adhered to the ketogenic diet for the full 6-month study period.

The ketogenic diet was associated with reductions in fat mass from baseline to 6 months (41.3 vs. 32.0 kg; P < .001) and a significant decline in fatigue and depression scores, the investigators reported.

MS quality-of-life physical and mental composite scores also improved while on the ketogenic diet (P < .001 for both).

A significant decrease from baseline to 6 months in Expanded Disability Status Scale scores, signifying improvement, was observed (2.3 vs. 1.9; P < .001).

Improvements were also shown on the 6-minute walk (1,631 vs. 1,733 feet; P < .001) and the nine-hole peg test (21.5 vs. 20.3 seconds; P < .001).

At 6 months on the diet, fasting serum leptin was significantly lower (25.5 vs. 14 ng/mL; P <.001), and adiponectin was higher (11.4 vs. 13.5 μg/mL, P = .002).
 

Justifies further research

The current study builds on an earlier one that Dr. Brenton and colleagues conducted in 2019 that showed that the ketogenic diet was feasible in patients with MS. “Our data justify the need for future studies of ketogenic diets as a complementary therapeutic approach to the treatment of MS,” Dr. Brenton said.

He noted that there may be multiple mechanisms of benefit when considering the ketogenic diet. “One avenue is via reduction in total body fat. This is an important aspect as we continue to learn more about the role of obesity and fat-derived inflammation in MS,” Dr. Brenton said.

“Ketogenic diets also have immunomodulatory properties,” such as the capacity to reduce oxidative damage from metabolic stress, increase mitochondrial biogenesis, and reduce systemic inflammation, he added. “These intrinsic properties of the ketogenic diet make it appealing to study in immune-mediated diseases, such as MS.”

Dr. Brenton cautioned that the data demonstrate the diet’s safety over 6 months but that the study was not designed to assess its long-term implications in MS. “Thus, while our results support the rationale for a larger-scale study of ketogenic diets as a complementary treatment for MS, our data does not support its widespread adoption outside of a clinical trial,” he said.
 

Remarkable adherence

Commenting on the study, Shaheen E. Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Boston, noted that “variations of the ketogenic diet have been popularized in the general population for weight loss and further studied for other medical conditions [that are] largely immune-related, including MS.”

He noted that it was “remarkable” that the vast majority of study participants with MS adhered to the very regimented ketogenic diet for 6 months.

Seeing this translate into the real world “will be the next milestone, in addition to its impact on relapses and brain lesions as seen on MRI,” which are the classic markers of MS, said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved with the research.

He cautioned that “even if one can follow the ketogenic diet, certain conditions can be made worse. This includes kidney stones, liver disease, reflux, constipation, and other metabolic disorders.”

The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health and by the ZiMS Foundation. Dr. Brenton and Dr. Lakhan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A ketogenic diet may reduce disability and improve quality of life, fatigue, and depression in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests.

High-fat, low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets mimic a fasting state and promote a more efficient use of energy – and have previously been shown to affect immune regulation. The diet helps lower blood sugar in individuals with type 2 diabetes and has been used for years to improve seizure control in patients with epilepsy, researchers note.

However, “there is a paucity of literature on the ketogenic diet in MS currently,” said principal investigator J. Nicholas Brenton, MD, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“The current study demonstrates the safety, tolerability, and potential clinical benefits of a ketogenic diet over 6 months in patients with relapsing MS,” Dr. Brenton said.

The were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Palatable, beneficial

The open-label, uncontrolled study included 65 patients with relapsing MS who followed a ketogenic diet for 6 months. Investigators monitored adherence by daily urine ketone testing.

Patient-reported fatigue, depression, and quality-of-life scores were obtained at baseline, in addition to fasting adipokines and pertinent MS-related clinical outcome metrics. Baseline study metrics were repeated at 3 and/or 6 months while on the ketogenic diet.

Of the patient group, 83% adhered to the ketogenic diet for the full 6-month study period.

The ketogenic diet was associated with reductions in fat mass from baseline to 6 months (41.3 vs. 32.0 kg; P < .001) and a significant decline in fatigue and depression scores, the investigators reported.

MS quality-of-life physical and mental composite scores also improved while on the ketogenic diet (P < .001 for both).

A significant decrease from baseline to 6 months in Expanded Disability Status Scale scores, signifying improvement, was observed (2.3 vs. 1.9; P < .001).

Improvements were also shown on the 6-minute walk (1,631 vs. 1,733 feet; P < .001) and the nine-hole peg test (21.5 vs. 20.3 seconds; P < .001).

At 6 months on the diet, fasting serum leptin was significantly lower (25.5 vs. 14 ng/mL; P <.001), and adiponectin was higher (11.4 vs. 13.5 μg/mL, P = .002).
 

Justifies further research

The current study builds on an earlier one that Dr. Brenton and colleagues conducted in 2019 that showed that the ketogenic diet was feasible in patients with MS. “Our data justify the need for future studies of ketogenic diets as a complementary therapeutic approach to the treatment of MS,” Dr. Brenton said.

He noted that there may be multiple mechanisms of benefit when considering the ketogenic diet. “One avenue is via reduction in total body fat. This is an important aspect as we continue to learn more about the role of obesity and fat-derived inflammation in MS,” Dr. Brenton said.

“Ketogenic diets also have immunomodulatory properties,” such as the capacity to reduce oxidative damage from metabolic stress, increase mitochondrial biogenesis, and reduce systemic inflammation, he added. “These intrinsic properties of the ketogenic diet make it appealing to study in immune-mediated diseases, such as MS.”

Dr. Brenton cautioned that the data demonstrate the diet’s safety over 6 months but that the study was not designed to assess its long-term implications in MS. “Thus, while our results support the rationale for a larger-scale study of ketogenic diets as a complementary treatment for MS, our data does not support its widespread adoption outside of a clinical trial,” he said.
 

Remarkable adherence

Commenting on the study, Shaheen E. Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Boston, noted that “variations of the ketogenic diet have been popularized in the general population for weight loss and further studied for other medical conditions [that are] largely immune-related, including MS.”

He noted that it was “remarkable” that the vast majority of study participants with MS adhered to the very regimented ketogenic diet for 6 months.

Seeing this translate into the real world “will be the next milestone, in addition to its impact on relapses and brain lesions as seen on MRI,” which are the classic markers of MS, said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved with the research.

He cautioned that “even if one can follow the ketogenic diet, certain conditions can be made worse. This includes kidney stones, liver disease, reflux, constipation, and other metabolic disorders.”

The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health and by the ZiMS Foundation. Dr. Brenton and Dr. Lakhan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A ketogenic diet may reduce disability and improve quality of life, fatigue, and depression in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests.

High-fat, low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets mimic a fasting state and promote a more efficient use of energy – and have previously been shown to affect immune regulation. The diet helps lower blood sugar in individuals with type 2 diabetes and has been used for years to improve seizure control in patients with epilepsy, researchers note.

However, “there is a paucity of literature on the ketogenic diet in MS currently,” said principal investigator J. Nicholas Brenton, MD, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“The current study demonstrates the safety, tolerability, and potential clinical benefits of a ketogenic diet over 6 months in patients with relapsing MS,” Dr. Brenton said.

The were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Palatable, beneficial

The open-label, uncontrolled study included 65 patients with relapsing MS who followed a ketogenic diet for 6 months. Investigators monitored adherence by daily urine ketone testing.

Patient-reported fatigue, depression, and quality-of-life scores were obtained at baseline, in addition to fasting adipokines and pertinent MS-related clinical outcome metrics. Baseline study metrics were repeated at 3 and/or 6 months while on the ketogenic diet.

Of the patient group, 83% adhered to the ketogenic diet for the full 6-month study period.

The ketogenic diet was associated with reductions in fat mass from baseline to 6 months (41.3 vs. 32.0 kg; P < .001) and a significant decline in fatigue and depression scores, the investigators reported.

MS quality-of-life physical and mental composite scores also improved while on the ketogenic diet (P < .001 for both).

A significant decrease from baseline to 6 months in Expanded Disability Status Scale scores, signifying improvement, was observed (2.3 vs. 1.9; P < .001).

Improvements were also shown on the 6-minute walk (1,631 vs. 1,733 feet; P < .001) and the nine-hole peg test (21.5 vs. 20.3 seconds; P < .001).

At 6 months on the diet, fasting serum leptin was significantly lower (25.5 vs. 14 ng/mL; P <.001), and adiponectin was higher (11.4 vs. 13.5 μg/mL, P = .002).
 

Justifies further research

The current study builds on an earlier one that Dr. Brenton and colleagues conducted in 2019 that showed that the ketogenic diet was feasible in patients with MS. “Our data justify the need for future studies of ketogenic diets as a complementary therapeutic approach to the treatment of MS,” Dr. Brenton said.

He noted that there may be multiple mechanisms of benefit when considering the ketogenic diet. “One avenue is via reduction in total body fat. This is an important aspect as we continue to learn more about the role of obesity and fat-derived inflammation in MS,” Dr. Brenton said.

“Ketogenic diets also have immunomodulatory properties,” such as the capacity to reduce oxidative damage from metabolic stress, increase mitochondrial biogenesis, and reduce systemic inflammation, he added. “These intrinsic properties of the ketogenic diet make it appealing to study in immune-mediated diseases, such as MS.”

Dr. Brenton cautioned that the data demonstrate the diet’s safety over 6 months but that the study was not designed to assess its long-term implications in MS. “Thus, while our results support the rationale for a larger-scale study of ketogenic diets as a complementary treatment for MS, our data does not support its widespread adoption outside of a clinical trial,” he said.
 

Remarkable adherence

Commenting on the study, Shaheen E. Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Boston, noted that “variations of the ketogenic diet have been popularized in the general population for weight loss and further studied for other medical conditions [that are] largely immune-related, including MS.”

He noted that it was “remarkable” that the vast majority of study participants with MS adhered to the very regimented ketogenic diet for 6 months.

Seeing this translate into the real world “will be the next milestone, in addition to its impact on relapses and brain lesions as seen on MRI,” which are the classic markers of MS, said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved with the research.

He cautioned that “even if one can follow the ketogenic diet, certain conditions can be made worse. This includes kidney stones, liver disease, reflux, constipation, and other metabolic disorders.”

The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health and by the ZiMS Foundation. Dr. Brenton and Dr. Lakhan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

WEST PALM BEACH, FL – Including serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) and serum glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) at multiple sclerosis (MS) onset may lead to better prediction of long-term outcomes and relapse risk, new research suggests.

The research shows that once standard clinical models can be incorporated into practice, the early measurement of these biomarkers will provide useful information in predicting who may be at risk of poorer outcomes, researcher Gauruv Bose, MD, Brigham Multiple Sclerosis Center, Ann Romney Center for Neurologic Diseases, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

The findings were presented at annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
 

Better together?

Although higher baseline sNfL levels in MS have previously been linked to greater brain atrophy and other long-term outcomes, and sGFAP changes are also associated with inflammation and damage through the disease course, less is known about longer-term effects of the two biomarker measures combined, Dr. Bose said.

“The value of using both sNfL and sGFAP in predictive models is of interest, since one correlates with neuroaxonal damage, while the other has correlated with astrocytic glial damage/cell turnover – potentially, though differently, reflecting inflammatory damage and neurodegeneration,” he added.

To investigate the relationship, the researchers evaluated patients with MS enrolled at the Brigham Multiple Sclerosis Center. All underwent neurologic examinations every 6 months, and MRI scans and blood samples were collected every year. Some had more than 20 years of follow-up.

The first study involved 144 patients (mean age, 37.4 years) from whom two samples of sNfL and sGFAP were collected within 3 years of MS onset.

The median baseline sNfL level was 10.7 pg/mL, and 50 patients (34.7%) already showed increases in sNfL at the 1-year follow-up. Their median sGFAP level at onset was 96 pg/mL, and 59 patients (41%) showed increases in sGFAP at the 1-year follow-up.

Results showed that higher baseline sNfL levels were significantly associated with increased risk for MS relapse at 10 years (hazard ratio, 1.34; P = .04), as well as with the development of new MRI lesions (HR, 1.35; P = .022).

Of the study group, 25 (17.4%) developed secondary progressive MS (SPMS) by the 10-year follow-up. For those prognostic assessments, the investigators compared utilization of a model using well-established clinical predictors of SPMS with and without the inclusion of sNfL and sGFAP.

The clinical model included key factors such as age, sex, body mass index, Extended Disability Status Scale (EDSS), timed 25-foot walk, and other measures.

The researchers found the clinical model alone predicted 10-year outcomes with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.75. However, with the addition of baseline sNfL and sGFAP measures, the AUC was improved to 0.79 (P = .0008).

Furthermore, the inclusion of additional follow-up sNfL and sGFAP measurements taken after baseline further improved the model’s AUC (0.82; P = .046).

The addition of the sNfL and sGFAP measures to the clinical models also improved the prediction of disability in MS at 10 years on EDSS (P = .068), as well as prediction of 10-year brain T2 lesion volume (P = .009) and brain parenchymal fraction (P = .04).
 

Relapse predictor?

In the second study, Dr. Bose and colleagues evaluated the role of the two serum measures in predicting relapse after disease-modifying therapy (DMT) discontinuation. That study included 42 patients who discontinued DMT treatment after having been disease-activity free for 2 years while on the drugs. They were compared with 36 patients who had similar characteristics and had continued DMT treatment.

All patients (mean age, 44.5 years) had a mean of 7.4 years since prior disease activity.

Increases in sNfL following DMT discontinuation, but not before, were associated with a significantly greater risk for clinical disease worsening at a mean follow-up of 7.5 years (HR, 9.4; P = .007). Change in sGFAP was associated with new MRI lesions (HR, 8.3; P = .039), compared with no changes.

“The crux of this study” was that patients with increased biomarker levels after stopping DMTs “were at a significantly higher risk for disease activity in the future compared to those whose biomarker levels remained stable,” Dr. Bose noted.

“We think this finding, if replicated in another cohort, has the potential to be included in guidelines regarding stopping DMT in patients with MS,” he added.
 

Clinically useful?

Jeffrey Cohen, MD, current president of ACTRIMS, said the first study supports mounting evidence on how sNfL and sGFAP at onset can predict future disease and have the potential to improve current predictive models.

“Combining clinical, MRI, and serum biomarkers into a single model works better than any of the three factors individually,” said Dr. Cohen, who is director of the Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research and professor of neurology at the Cleveland Clinic.

“For the clinician, this information may help with treatment selection,” he added.

Dr. Cohen noted that the suggestion that the biomarkers could also be helpful in predicting relapse after discontinuation is of importance.

“Increasingly, we are considering this issue in the clinical setting,” he said. However, he also noted some caveats.

“Interpretation of the results of the study is not straightforward, illustrating the complexity of the issue,” Dr. Cohen said. “One issue is that the patients in the study were relatively young, with an average age of 45, which is not a group in which we typically would consider stopping therapy.”

Dr. Bose has received a postdoctoral fellowship grant from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. Dr. Cohen reports having received personal compensation for consulting for Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Convelo, Genentech, Janssen, NervGen, Novartis, and PSI; speaking for H3 Communications; and serving as an editor of the Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

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

WEST PALM BEACH, FL – Including serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) and serum glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) at multiple sclerosis (MS) onset may lead to better prediction of long-term outcomes and relapse risk, new research suggests.

The research shows that once standard clinical models can be incorporated into practice, the early measurement of these biomarkers will provide useful information in predicting who may be at risk of poorer outcomes, researcher Gauruv Bose, MD, Brigham Multiple Sclerosis Center, Ann Romney Center for Neurologic Diseases, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

The findings were presented at annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
 

Better together?

Although higher baseline sNfL levels in MS have previously been linked to greater brain atrophy and other long-term outcomes, and sGFAP changes are also associated with inflammation and damage through the disease course, less is known about longer-term effects of the two biomarker measures combined, Dr. Bose said.

“The value of using both sNfL and sGFAP in predictive models is of interest, since one correlates with neuroaxonal damage, while the other has correlated with astrocytic glial damage/cell turnover – potentially, though differently, reflecting inflammatory damage and neurodegeneration,” he added.

To investigate the relationship, the researchers evaluated patients with MS enrolled at the Brigham Multiple Sclerosis Center. All underwent neurologic examinations every 6 months, and MRI scans and blood samples were collected every year. Some had more than 20 years of follow-up.

The first study involved 144 patients (mean age, 37.4 years) from whom two samples of sNfL and sGFAP were collected within 3 years of MS onset.

The median baseline sNfL level was 10.7 pg/mL, and 50 patients (34.7%) already showed increases in sNfL at the 1-year follow-up. Their median sGFAP level at onset was 96 pg/mL, and 59 patients (41%) showed increases in sGFAP at the 1-year follow-up.

Results showed that higher baseline sNfL levels were significantly associated with increased risk for MS relapse at 10 years (hazard ratio, 1.34; P = .04), as well as with the development of new MRI lesions (HR, 1.35; P = .022).

Of the study group, 25 (17.4%) developed secondary progressive MS (SPMS) by the 10-year follow-up. For those prognostic assessments, the investigators compared utilization of a model using well-established clinical predictors of SPMS with and without the inclusion of sNfL and sGFAP.

The clinical model included key factors such as age, sex, body mass index, Extended Disability Status Scale (EDSS), timed 25-foot walk, and other measures.

The researchers found the clinical model alone predicted 10-year outcomes with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.75. However, with the addition of baseline sNfL and sGFAP measures, the AUC was improved to 0.79 (P = .0008).

Furthermore, the inclusion of additional follow-up sNfL and sGFAP measurements taken after baseline further improved the model’s AUC (0.82; P = .046).

The addition of the sNfL and sGFAP measures to the clinical models also improved the prediction of disability in MS at 10 years on EDSS (P = .068), as well as prediction of 10-year brain T2 lesion volume (P = .009) and brain parenchymal fraction (P = .04).
 

Relapse predictor?

In the second study, Dr. Bose and colleagues evaluated the role of the two serum measures in predicting relapse after disease-modifying therapy (DMT) discontinuation. That study included 42 patients who discontinued DMT treatment after having been disease-activity free for 2 years while on the drugs. They were compared with 36 patients who had similar characteristics and had continued DMT treatment.

All patients (mean age, 44.5 years) had a mean of 7.4 years since prior disease activity.

Increases in sNfL following DMT discontinuation, but not before, were associated with a significantly greater risk for clinical disease worsening at a mean follow-up of 7.5 years (HR, 9.4; P = .007). Change in sGFAP was associated with new MRI lesions (HR, 8.3; P = .039), compared with no changes.

“The crux of this study” was that patients with increased biomarker levels after stopping DMTs “were at a significantly higher risk for disease activity in the future compared to those whose biomarker levels remained stable,” Dr. Bose noted.

“We think this finding, if replicated in another cohort, has the potential to be included in guidelines regarding stopping DMT in patients with MS,” he added.
 

Clinically useful?

Jeffrey Cohen, MD, current president of ACTRIMS, said the first study supports mounting evidence on how sNfL and sGFAP at onset can predict future disease and have the potential to improve current predictive models.

“Combining clinical, MRI, and serum biomarkers into a single model works better than any of the three factors individually,” said Dr. Cohen, who is director of the Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research and professor of neurology at the Cleveland Clinic.

“For the clinician, this information may help with treatment selection,” he added.

Dr. Cohen noted that the suggestion that the biomarkers could also be helpful in predicting relapse after discontinuation is of importance.

“Increasingly, we are considering this issue in the clinical setting,” he said. However, he also noted some caveats.

“Interpretation of the results of the study is not straightforward, illustrating the complexity of the issue,” Dr. Cohen said. “One issue is that the patients in the study were relatively young, with an average age of 45, which is not a group in which we typically would consider stopping therapy.”

Dr. Bose has received a postdoctoral fellowship grant from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. Dr. Cohen reports having received personal compensation for consulting for Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Convelo, Genentech, Janssen, NervGen, Novartis, and PSI; speaking for H3 Communications; and serving as an editor of the Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

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

WEST PALM BEACH, FL – Including serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) and serum glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) at multiple sclerosis (MS) onset may lead to better prediction of long-term outcomes and relapse risk, new research suggests.

The research shows that once standard clinical models can be incorporated into practice, the early measurement of these biomarkers will provide useful information in predicting who may be at risk of poorer outcomes, researcher Gauruv Bose, MD, Brigham Multiple Sclerosis Center, Ann Romney Center for Neurologic Diseases, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

The findings were presented at annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
 

Better together?

Although higher baseline sNfL levels in MS have previously been linked to greater brain atrophy and other long-term outcomes, and sGFAP changes are also associated with inflammation and damage through the disease course, less is known about longer-term effects of the two biomarker measures combined, Dr. Bose said.

“The value of using both sNfL and sGFAP in predictive models is of interest, since one correlates with neuroaxonal damage, while the other has correlated with astrocytic glial damage/cell turnover – potentially, though differently, reflecting inflammatory damage and neurodegeneration,” he added.

To investigate the relationship, the researchers evaluated patients with MS enrolled at the Brigham Multiple Sclerosis Center. All underwent neurologic examinations every 6 months, and MRI scans and blood samples were collected every year. Some had more than 20 years of follow-up.

The first study involved 144 patients (mean age, 37.4 years) from whom two samples of sNfL and sGFAP were collected within 3 years of MS onset.

The median baseline sNfL level was 10.7 pg/mL, and 50 patients (34.7%) already showed increases in sNfL at the 1-year follow-up. Their median sGFAP level at onset was 96 pg/mL, and 59 patients (41%) showed increases in sGFAP at the 1-year follow-up.

Results showed that higher baseline sNfL levels were significantly associated with increased risk for MS relapse at 10 years (hazard ratio, 1.34; P = .04), as well as with the development of new MRI lesions (HR, 1.35; P = .022).

Of the study group, 25 (17.4%) developed secondary progressive MS (SPMS) by the 10-year follow-up. For those prognostic assessments, the investigators compared utilization of a model using well-established clinical predictors of SPMS with and without the inclusion of sNfL and sGFAP.

The clinical model included key factors such as age, sex, body mass index, Extended Disability Status Scale (EDSS), timed 25-foot walk, and other measures.

The researchers found the clinical model alone predicted 10-year outcomes with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.75. However, with the addition of baseline sNfL and sGFAP measures, the AUC was improved to 0.79 (P = .0008).

Furthermore, the inclusion of additional follow-up sNfL and sGFAP measurements taken after baseline further improved the model’s AUC (0.82; P = .046).

The addition of the sNfL and sGFAP measures to the clinical models also improved the prediction of disability in MS at 10 years on EDSS (P = .068), as well as prediction of 10-year brain T2 lesion volume (P = .009) and brain parenchymal fraction (P = .04).
 

Relapse predictor?

In the second study, Dr. Bose and colleagues evaluated the role of the two serum measures in predicting relapse after disease-modifying therapy (DMT) discontinuation. That study included 42 patients who discontinued DMT treatment after having been disease-activity free for 2 years while on the drugs. They were compared with 36 patients who had similar characteristics and had continued DMT treatment.

All patients (mean age, 44.5 years) had a mean of 7.4 years since prior disease activity.

Increases in sNfL following DMT discontinuation, but not before, were associated with a significantly greater risk for clinical disease worsening at a mean follow-up of 7.5 years (HR, 9.4; P = .007). Change in sGFAP was associated with new MRI lesions (HR, 8.3; P = .039), compared with no changes.

“The crux of this study” was that patients with increased biomarker levels after stopping DMTs “were at a significantly higher risk for disease activity in the future compared to those whose biomarker levels remained stable,” Dr. Bose noted.

“We think this finding, if replicated in another cohort, has the potential to be included in guidelines regarding stopping DMT in patients with MS,” he added.
 

Clinically useful?

Jeffrey Cohen, MD, current president of ACTRIMS, said the first study supports mounting evidence on how sNfL and sGFAP at onset can predict future disease and have the potential to improve current predictive models.

“Combining clinical, MRI, and serum biomarkers into a single model works better than any of the three factors individually,” said Dr. Cohen, who is director of the Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research and professor of neurology at the Cleveland Clinic.

“For the clinician, this information may help with treatment selection,” he added.

Dr. Cohen noted that the suggestion that the biomarkers could also be helpful in predicting relapse after discontinuation is of importance.

“Increasingly, we are considering this issue in the clinical setting,” he said. However, he also noted some caveats.

“Interpretation of the results of the study is not straightforward, illustrating the complexity of the issue,” Dr. Cohen said. “One issue is that the patients in the study were relatively young, with an average age of 45, which is not a group in which we typically would consider stopping therapy.”

Dr. Bose has received a postdoctoral fellowship grant from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. Dr. Cohen reports having received personal compensation for consulting for Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Convelo, Genentech, Janssen, NervGen, Novartis, and PSI; speaking for H3 Communications; and serving as an editor of the Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

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

Among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) or neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) receiving ocrelizumab or rituximab, B cell depletion appears to last well past the 6-month dosing regimen typically used with these drugs. The results, drawn from a retrospective analysis, provide support for clinical trials to rest longer re-infusion intervals.

The study appeared online Jan. 21 in the journal Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, presented by lead author Mahmoud AbdelRazek, MD, at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

Both drugs were approved based on clinical trials that investigated 6-month doses, but previous studies have suggested depletion can last longer, including a range of 9-26 months in the case of rituximab.

The initial rationale for monitoring B cell depletion was to prevent a relapse by re-infusing a patient if B cells levels rise, but the researchers noted a pattern of sustained depletion, especially in patients who had a delayed infusion for some reason – they often still had low B cell counts at the time of the next drug infusion. “That became not an unusual finding,” said Dr. AbdelRazek in an interview. He is an instructor of neurology at Harvard Medical School.

Patients also found the delay appealing, in part because they often felt unwell in the days following an infusion, and delays could mean fewer infections and other adverse effects. “Most of my patients I’ve discussed this with would be very appreciative of that delay,” said Dr. AbdelRazek. “There’s obviously an economic benefit as well,” said Dr. AbdelRazek.
 

The final answer?

The retrospective nature of the study is a key weakness, and the rationale to delay infusions based on continuing B cell depletion assumes that B cell depletion is in fact the mechanism of action for countering MS. “That is a critical question,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. But if that is indeed the way the drugs work, then it would make sense to identify patients who repopulate B cells more slowly and tailor drug regimens. “It’s not one size fits all and blindly just re-dosing. The upsides are good: You come in less frequently for dosing, the cost to payers is less. But the bad is, maybe there are other markers. This is the putative mechanism, but what we believe may not be the final answer. There may be more to the story,” said Dr. Gutesblatt, who is Medical Director at South Shore Neurologic Associates, Patchogue, New York.

Dr. AbdelRazek also noted the study’s limitation. “I think a clinical trial is going to be warranted to really have this translated into clinical practice,” he said. His group is planning to conduct just such a trial, pending confirmation of a funding source.
 

B cell depletion beyond 6 months

The researchers analyzed data from 178 patients with MS and 10 patients with NMOSD who received ocrelizumab (n = 111) or rituximab (n = 53), or both (n = 24) at two Harvard Medical School teaching hospitals between 2010 and 2020. The data included 800 infusions and 1,054 CD19 measurements.

The researchers defined B cell depletion as an absolute count of 20 cells/uL or less, a B cell percentage of 2% or less, or if B cells were 5% or less of total lymphocytes.

Among the patient population, B cell depletion that met all 3 criteria occurred as long as 13.8 months after an initial ocrelizumab infusion cycle, and 22.8 months after second or more cycles of ocrelizumab. Following rituximab, the researchers noted B cell depletions. Following 500 mg of rituximab, B cell depletion defined by the first, second, or third criteria occurred as far out as 22.3, 26.2, and 28.5 months. For 1,000 mg doses of rituximab, B cell depletion occurred as long as 18.3, 18.3, and 29.1 months after a dose.

Examining 90 B cell measurements conducted at least 8 months after an ocrelizumab infusion, 50% were depleted by the first definition and 54% by the second definition. At 13 months, the figures were 58% and 62% among 26 B-cell measurements. Eight months or more after rituximab, 113 B-cell measurements showed rates of 43% and 52% B-cell depletion by the first two criteria.

Dr. AbdelRazek and Dr. Gudesblatt have no relevant financial disclosures.

Among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) or neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) receiving ocrelizumab or rituximab, B cell depletion appears to last well past the 6-month dosing regimen typically used with these drugs. The results, drawn from a retrospective analysis, provide support for clinical trials to rest longer re-infusion intervals.

The study appeared online Jan. 21 in the journal Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, presented by lead author Mahmoud AbdelRazek, MD, at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

Both drugs were approved based on clinical trials that investigated 6-month doses, but previous studies have suggested depletion can last longer, including a range of 9-26 months in the case of rituximab.

The initial rationale for monitoring B cell depletion was to prevent a relapse by re-infusing a patient if B cells levels rise, but the researchers noted a pattern of sustained depletion, especially in patients who had a delayed infusion for some reason – they often still had low B cell counts at the time of the next drug infusion. “That became not an unusual finding,” said Dr. AbdelRazek in an interview. He is an instructor of neurology at Harvard Medical School.

Patients also found the delay appealing, in part because they often felt unwell in the days following an infusion, and delays could mean fewer infections and other adverse effects. “Most of my patients I’ve discussed this with would be very appreciative of that delay,” said Dr. AbdelRazek. “There’s obviously an economic benefit as well,” said Dr. AbdelRazek.
 

The final answer?

The retrospective nature of the study is a key weakness, and the rationale to delay infusions based on continuing B cell depletion assumes that B cell depletion is in fact the mechanism of action for countering MS. “That is a critical question,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. But if that is indeed the way the drugs work, then it would make sense to identify patients who repopulate B cells more slowly and tailor drug regimens. “It’s not one size fits all and blindly just re-dosing. The upsides are good: You come in less frequently for dosing, the cost to payers is less. But the bad is, maybe there are other markers. This is the putative mechanism, but what we believe may not be the final answer. There may be more to the story,” said Dr. Gutesblatt, who is Medical Director at South Shore Neurologic Associates, Patchogue, New York.

Dr. AbdelRazek also noted the study’s limitation. “I think a clinical trial is going to be warranted to really have this translated into clinical practice,” he said. His group is planning to conduct just such a trial, pending confirmation of a funding source.
 

B cell depletion beyond 6 months

The researchers analyzed data from 178 patients with MS and 10 patients with NMOSD who received ocrelizumab (n = 111) or rituximab (n = 53), or both (n = 24) at two Harvard Medical School teaching hospitals between 2010 and 2020. The data included 800 infusions and 1,054 CD19 measurements.

The researchers defined B cell depletion as an absolute count of 20 cells/uL or less, a B cell percentage of 2% or less, or if B cells were 5% or less of total lymphocytes.

Among the patient population, B cell depletion that met all 3 criteria occurred as long as 13.8 months after an initial ocrelizumab infusion cycle, and 22.8 months after second or more cycles of ocrelizumab. Following rituximab, the researchers noted B cell depletions. Following 500 mg of rituximab, B cell depletion defined by the first, second, or third criteria occurred as far out as 22.3, 26.2, and 28.5 months. For 1,000 mg doses of rituximab, B cell depletion occurred as long as 18.3, 18.3, and 29.1 months after a dose.

Examining 90 B cell measurements conducted at least 8 months after an ocrelizumab infusion, 50% were depleted by the first definition and 54% by the second definition. At 13 months, the figures were 58% and 62% among 26 B-cell measurements. Eight months or more after rituximab, 113 B-cell measurements showed rates of 43% and 52% B-cell depletion by the first two criteria.

Dr. AbdelRazek and Dr. Gudesblatt have no relevant financial disclosures.

Among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) or neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) receiving ocrelizumab or rituximab, B cell depletion appears to last well past the 6-month dosing regimen typically used with these drugs. The results, drawn from a retrospective analysis, provide support for clinical trials to rest longer re-infusion intervals.

The study appeared online Jan. 21 in the journal Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, presented by lead author Mahmoud AbdelRazek, MD, at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

Both drugs were approved based on clinical trials that investigated 6-month doses, but previous studies have suggested depletion can last longer, including a range of 9-26 months in the case of rituximab.

The initial rationale for monitoring B cell depletion was to prevent a relapse by re-infusing a patient if B cells levels rise, but the researchers noted a pattern of sustained depletion, especially in patients who had a delayed infusion for some reason – they often still had low B cell counts at the time of the next drug infusion. “That became not an unusual finding,” said Dr. AbdelRazek in an interview. He is an instructor of neurology at Harvard Medical School.

Patients also found the delay appealing, in part because they often felt unwell in the days following an infusion, and delays could mean fewer infections and other adverse effects. “Most of my patients I’ve discussed this with would be very appreciative of that delay,” said Dr. AbdelRazek. “There’s obviously an economic benefit as well,” said Dr. AbdelRazek.
 

The final answer?

The retrospective nature of the study is a key weakness, and the rationale to delay infusions based on continuing B cell depletion assumes that B cell depletion is in fact the mechanism of action for countering MS. “That is a critical question,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. But if that is indeed the way the drugs work, then it would make sense to identify patients who repopulate B cells more slowly and tailor drug regimens. “It’s not one size fits all and blindly just re-dosing. The upsides are good: You come in less frequently for dosing, the cost to payers is less. But the bad is, maybe there are other markers. This is the putative mechanism, but what we believe may not be the final answer. There may be more to the story,” said Dr. Gutesblatt, who is Medical Director at South Shore Neurologic Associates, Patchogue, New York.

Dr. AbdelRazek also noted the study’s limitation. “I think a clinical trial is going to be warranted to really have this translated into clinical practice,” he said. His group is planning to conduct just such a trial, pending confirmation of a funding source.
 

B cell depletion beyond 6 months

The researchers analyzed data from 178 patients with MS and 10 patients with NMOSD who received ocrelizumab (n = 111) or rituximab (n = 53), or both (n = 24) at two Harvard Medical School teaching hospitals between 2010 and 2020. The data included 800 infusions and 1,054 CD19 measurements.

The researchers defined B cell depletion as an absolute count of 20 cells/uL or less, a B cell percentage of 2% or less, or if B cells were 5% or less of total lymphocytes.

Among the patient population, B cell depletion that met all 3 criteria occurred as long as 13.8 months after an initial ocrelizumab infusion cycle, and 22.8 months after second or more cycles of ocrelizumab. Following rituximab, the researchers noted B cell depletions. Following 500 mg of rituximab, B cell depletion defined by the first, second, or third criteria occurred as far out as 22.3, 26.2, and 28.5 months. For 1,000 mg doses of rituximab, B cell depletion occurred as long as 18.3, 18.3, and 29.1 months after a dose.

Examining 90 B cell measurements conducted at least 8 months after an ocrelizumab infusion, 50% were depleted by the first definition and 54% by the second definition. At 13 months, the figures were 58% and 62% among 26 B-cell measurements. Eight months or more after rituximab, 113 B-cell measurements showed rates of 43% and 52% B-cell depletion by the first two criteria.

Dr. AbdelRazek and Dr. Gudesblatt have no relevant financial disclosures.

A randomized, controlled trial of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) showed improvement in a secondary outcome measure – cognition – and provided evidence that the technique can be employed outside of a physician’s office.

The primary outcome of the sham-controlled trial was fatigue, but the findings presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) focused on a secondary cognitive measure, called the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS (BICAMS).

The intervention may still be a work in progress as far as a treatment technique “but the more important point is that there is a path to remote cognitive rehab interventions which, as a concept, is important,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y., who was asked to comment on the study.
 

Adaptive mechanisms

The study grew out of work done with BrainHQ, which is a brain-training program available commercially through Posit Science. It employs an algorithm to recommend and tailor exercises for participants and to adjust the difficulty of the exercises in order to maintain engagement. “We believe the key ingredient is really the adaptive mechanisms that adjust to users in real time, for instance slowing down when the user slows down or speeding up to drive the learning to maintain a level of engagement. The games are designed to target processing speed that then has a transfer effect to other aspects of cognitive function,” Leigh Charvet, PhD, said during her presentation of the study results. Dr. Charvet is director of MS research and a professor of neurology at New York University.

The researchers previously conducted a large trial in patients with MS and showed that the adaptive mechanism, used for 60 hours over 12 weeks, could improve cognitive functioning. “We had two learnings from that trial: One that the brain training in at least a very intense dose was beneficial for cognitive functioning, and the second was that at-home treatments are very popular,” said Dr. Charvet.

In the most recent trial, the researchers turned to tDCS in an effort to boost the effect of brain training. “The idea is that if you can stimulate the region of the brain that is engaged with the training activity, you can boost or potentiate the outcomes of the training,” said Dr. Charvet. The tDCS treatment applies 1.0-4.0 mA current to the scalp, where it can be placed to specifically affect a brain region of interest. The study targeted the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is a key region for executive function and cognitive flexibility.

The team developed a protocol that would allow the intervention to be conducted at home, with live supervision via HIPAA-compliant teleconferencing and technology that was designed for ease of use. The tDCS devices were preprogrammed and operated on an unlock code, which initiated active or sham tDCS. “We replicated onsite lab standards, but delivered it to people at home,” said Dr. Charvet.

In the new study, 106 patients with MS who had fatigue, but not depression, underwent 30 20-minute training sessions over a 6-week period, with active or sham tDCS. The participants were tested before and after treatment using the BICAMS. The sham group had a mean change of –0.17 in the BICAMS z score, compared with a mean of +0.05 in the tDCS group (P = .027).

One of the tests that make up the BICAMS battery, the single digit modalities test (SDMT), showed a trend toward improvement in the tDCS group (z sore, +0.09 versus –0.19; P = .058). There was no significant difference between the groups In the Rey’s Auditory Verbal Learning Test or the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test–Revised.
 

What about fatigue?

The emphasis on a secondary outcome drew some criticism. “It’s odd, because the primary outcome was fatigue. They didn’t report the primary outcome, they focused on a secondary outcome of cognitive measure,” said Patricia Coyle, MD, who was asked to comment on the study.

“I think the most important finding in this study was that they were able to deliver the transcranial direct current stimulation at home, via computer. They were able to do this study by computer with their patients at home, and it was a fairly large number. You could consider it broadly as a proof of principle that this can be done,” said Dr. Coyle, professor of neurology and director of Stony Brook MS Comprehensive Care Center.

The study was funded by the National MS Society. Dr. Gudesblatt has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Coyle has consulted or received speaker fees from Accord-ant, Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon Therapeutics, Janssen, Mylan, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and Viela Bio. Dr. Coyle has received research funding from Actelion, Alker-mes, Celgene, CorEvitas LLC, Genentech/Roche, MedDay, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.

A randomized, controlled trial of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) showed improvement in a secondary outcome measure – cognition – and provided evidence that the technique can be employed outside of a physician’s office.

The primary outcome of the sham-controlled trial was fatigue, but the findings presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) focused on a secondary cognitive measure, called the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS (BICAMS).

The intervention may still be a work in progress as far as a treatment technique “but the more important point is that there is a path to remote cognitive rehab interventions which, as a concept, is important,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y., who was asked to comment on the study.
 

Adaptive mechanisms

The study grew out of work done with BrainHQ, which is a brain-training program available commercially through Posit Science. It employs an algorithm to recommend and tailor exercises for participants and to adjust the difficulty of the exercises in order to maintain engagement. “We believe the key ingredient is really the adaptive mechanisms that adjust to users in real time, for instance slowing down when the user slows down or speeding up to drive the learning to maintain a level of engagement. The games are designed to target processing speed that then has a transfer effect to other aspects of cognitive function,” Leigh Charvet, PhD, said during her presentation of the study results. Dr. Charvet is director of MS research and a professor of neurology at New York University.

The researchers previously conducted a large trial in patients with MS and showed that the adaptive mechanism, used for 60 hours over 12 weeks, could improve cognitive functioning. “We had two learnings from that trial: One that the brain training in at least a very intense dose was beneficial for cognitive functioning, and the second was that at-home treatments are very popular,” said Dr. Charvet.

In the most recent trial, the researchers turned to tDCS in an effort to boost the effect of brain training. “The idea is that if you can stimulate the region of the brain that is engaged with the training activity, you can boost or potentiate the outcomes of the training,” said Dr. Charvet. The tDCS treatment applies 1.0-4.0 mA current to the scalp, where it can be placed to specifically affect a brain region of interest. The study targeted the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is a key region for executive function and cognitive flexibility.

The team developed a protocol that would allow the intervention to be conducted at home, with live supervision via HIPAA-compliant teleconferencing and technology that was designed for ease of use. The tDCS devices were preprogrammed and operated on an unlock code, which initiated active or sham tDCS. “We replicated onsite lab standards, but delivered it to people at home,” said Dr. Charvet.

In the new study, 106 patients with MS who had fatigue, but not depression, underwent 30 20-minute training sessions over a 6-week period, with active or sham tDCS. The participants were tested before and after treatment using the BICAMS. The sham group had a mean change of –0.17 in the BICAMS z score, compared with a mean of +0.05 in the tDCS group (P = .027).

One of the tests that make up the BICAMS battery, the single digit modalities test (SDMT), showed a trend toward improvement in the tDCS group (z sore, +0.09 versus –0.19; P = .058). There was no significant difference between the groups In the Rey’s Auditory Verbal Learning Test or the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test–Revised.
 

What about fatigue?

The emphasis on a secondary outcome drew some criticism. “It’s odd, because the primary outcome was fatigue. They didn’t report the primary outcome, they focused on a secondary outcome of cognitive measure,” said Patricia Coyle, MD, who was asked to comment on the study.

“I think the most important finding in this study was that they were able to deliver the transcranial direct current stimulation at home, via computer. They were able to do this study by computer with their patients at home, and it was a fairly large number. You could consider it broadly as a proof of principle that this can be done,” said Dr. Coyle, professor of neurology and director of Stony Brook MS Comprehensive Care Center.

The study was funded by the National MS Society. Dr. Gudesblatt has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Coyle has consulted or received speaker fees from Accord-ant, Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon Therapeutics, Janssen, Mylan, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and Viela Bio. Dr. Coyle has received research funding from Actelion, Alker-mes, Celgene, CorEvitas LLC, Genentech/Roche, MedDay, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.

A randomized, controlled trial of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) showed improvement in a secondary outcome measure – cognition – and provided evidence that the technique can be employed outside of a physician’s office.

The primary outcome of the sham-controlled trial was fatigue, but the findings presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) focused on a secondary cognitive measure, called the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS (BICAMS).

The intervention may still be a work in progress as far as a treatment technique “but the more important point is that there is a path to remote cognitive rehab interventions which, as a concept, is important,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y., who was asked to comment on the study.
 

Adaptive mechanisms

The study grew out of work done with BrainHQ, which is a brain-training program available commercially through Posit Science. It employs an algorithm to recommend and tailor exercises for participants and to adjust the difficulty of the exercises in order to maintain engagement. “We believe the key ingredient is really the adaptive mechanisms that adjust to users in real time, for instance slowing down when the user slows down or speeding up to drive the learning to maintain a level of engagement. The games are designed to target processing speed that then has a transfer effect to other aspects of cognitive function,” Leigh Charvet, PhD, said during her presentation of the study results. Dr. Charvet is director of MS research and a professor of neurology at New York University.

The researchers previously conducted a large trial in patients with MS and showed that the adaptive mechanism, used for 60 hours over 12 weeks, could improve cognitive functioning. “We had two learnings from that trial: One that the brain training in at least a very intense dose was beneficial for cognitive functioning, and the second was that at-home treatments are very popular,” said Dr. Charvet.

In the most recent trial, the researchers turned to tDCS in an effort to boost the effect of brain training. “The idea is that if you can stimulate the region of the brain that is engaged with the training activity, you can boost or potentiate the outcomes of the training,” said Dr. Charvet. The tDCS treatment applies 1.0-4.0 mA current to the scalp, where it can be placed to specifically affect a brain region of interest. The study targeted the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is a key region for executive function and cognitive flexibility.

The team developed a protocol that would allow the intervention to be conducted at home, with live supervision via HIPAA-compliant teleconferencing and technology that was designed for ease of use. The tDCS devices were preprogrammed and operated on an unlock code, which initiated active or sham tDCS. “We replicated onsite lab standards, but delivered it to people at home,” said Dr. Charvet.

In the new study, 106 patients with MS who had fatigue, but not depression, underwent 30 20-minute training sessions over a 6-week period, with active or sham tDCS. The participants were tested before and after treatment using the BICAMS. The sham group had a mean change of –0.17 in the BICAMS z score, compared with a mean of +0.05 in the tDCS group (P = .027).

One of the tests that make up the BICAMS battery, the single digit modalities test (SDMT), showed a trend toward improvement in the tDCS group (z sore, +0.09 versus –0.19; P = .058). There was no significant difference between the groups In the Rey’s Auditory Verbal Learning Test or the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test–Revised.
 

What about fatigue?

The emphasis on a secondary outcome drew some criticism. “It’s odd, because the primary outcome was fatigue. They didn’t report the primary outcome, they focused on a secondary outcome of cognitive measure,” said Patricia Coyle, MD, who was asked to comment on the study.

“I think the most important finding in this study was that they were able to deliver the transcranial direct current stimulation at home, via computer. They were able to do this study by computer with their patients at home, and it was a fairly large number. You could consider it broadly as a proof of principle that this can be done,” said Dr. Coyle, professor of neurology and director of Stony Brook MS Comprehensive Care Center.

The study was funded by the National MS Society. Dr. Gudesblatt has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Coyle has consulted or received speaker fees from Accord-ant, Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon Therapeutics, Janssen, Mylan, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and Viela Bio. Dr. Coyle has received research funding from Actelion, Alker-mes, Celgene, CorEvitas LLC, Genentech/Roche, MedDay, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.