MILAN – researchers told colleagues at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting. But there’s no consensus over best practices.
“Is this a good alternative regarding treatment efficacy and risk? When should we switch from standard treatment? Should we switch from a low-efficacy treatment, from a previous high-efficacy treatment, or from two or more? There is no agreement on this at the moment,” said neurologist Lars Bø, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Bergen (Norway).
However, rapid conversion to efficient treatment in the early stages of disease is turning out to be crucial, Dr. Bø said. “Early inflammatory activity has lasting effects. A delay from less than 2 years to 4-6 years has implications for disability.”
Where does HSCT fit in? According to Dr. Bø, a 2017 study found that newer treatments bring up to 50% of patients to no evidence of disease activity at 2 years compared with 70%-90% for HSCT. That study reported that “optimal candidates ... are young, ambulatory, and have inflammatory-active relapsing remitting MS.”
But other research is presenting a different picture with “data that doesn’t show such a clear-cut difference.” Dr. Bø highlighted a study published earlier this year that found that HSCT was “considerably superior” to fingolimod and “marginally superior” to natalizumab, but was not superior to ocrelizumab over shorter periods of time. As a result, “there is a need for further randomized trials comparing [HSCT] with these newer medications.”
Would it make sense to treat all younger patients with highly active MS? Research does suggest that “there’s a significant benefit in what we describe as aggressive [disease], high-disability, young age, very short disease lengths,” said neurologist Richard Nicholas, MBBS, of Imperial College London, in a separate presentation.
However, he cautioned that not everyone with highly active MS may be appropriate for HSCT. “That number could be as high as 15%, and “that’s a rather large group of people who would be treated with this therapy.” He suggested focusing on “the most important features”: “two or more relapses and also rapid accrual of disabilities.”
Dr. Nicholas also noted the findings of a study that he coauthored into HSCT versus alemtuzumab and ocrelizumab. The findings of that study were released at ECTRIMS and presented by neurologist Antonio Scalfari, MD, PhD, of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust.
The researchers tracked 103 patients after stem cell transplants (median, 45 months), 204 patients on alemtuzumab (median, 45 months), and 314 patients on ocrelizumab (median, 35 months). Those who received transplants had a 74% lower risk of relapse versus alemtuzumab, and a 66% lower risk of new MS activity detected via MRI. Compared with ocrelizumab, patients who received stem cell transplants had a 60% lower risk of relapse but the same risk of MS activity detected via MRI.
The researchers noted that the patients who underwent stem cell transplantation had numerous adverse effects.
What happens now? “HSCT should be available for our MS patients when standard treatment is no longer effective,” Dr. Bø said. “When treatment options are limited, it is likely to have a good effect in younger patients with a shorter disease duration and a low disability.”
He added that “there is an increasing use of high-efficacy treatment early in RRMS [relapsing-remitting MS], and this may make the subgroup with indication for HSCT as a rescue therapy smaller.”
Meanwhile, he said, “demonstrating a higher efficacy may require larger studies and a combined analysis of data from the ongoing randomized trials. Also, there is a need for follow-up longer than 2 or 3 years for the estimation of cost versus benefit for this treatment.”
Dr. Bø disclosed receiving speaker fees from Novartis and consulting fees from Viatris. Dr. Nicholas disclosed speaker advisory board relationships with Roche and Novartis.