Multiple Sclerosis

MILAN – While multiple sclerosis (MS) is “one of two or three great success stories of modern molecular medicine,” we’re still only “halfway home,” University of California, San Francisco, neurology professor Stephen Hauser, MD, told colleagues in a highlighted lecture at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.

Going forward, the MS field should emphasize identifying early biomarkers of MS, Dr. Hauser said.

He noted that many experts had anticipated “that, if we could intervene early in the relapsing phase of the disease, we would stabilize neurodegeneration and patient disability. But one of the big surprises was that that was not the case. Instead, the observed course was that by silencing relapses and focal inflammation, a clinically silent, slow, insidious progression continues during the relapsing phase of disease in patients who are not having ongoing relapses.”

Even as focal activity detected via MRI is silenced, “progression continues” he said. “This remains the great unsolved challenge.”

Dr. Hauser asked colleagues to consider a three-stage model of MS that begins with benign autoimmunity followed by pathogenic autoimmunity with subclinical tissue damage. The third stage is clinical autoimmunity.

How can you determine who’s at risk? Genetics can only fill in part of the picture because they can’t pinpoint exactly who’s likely to develop the disease. “In other autoimmune diseases, serologic autoantibodies have been by far the most effective biomarkers,” he said. “There is real-world support – not only in mice – for the concept that autoimmunity begins as a highly focused immune response that then spreads over time.”

In systemic lupus erythematosus, the cascade toward disease begins about 9 years before clinical presentation, he said. It’s 7 months in type 1 diabetes, and 20 years in rheumatoid arthritis. “These have been enormously powerful in designing both observational and therapeutic studies to try to interrupt autoimmunity at the earliest possible stage.”

What can be done if a MS biomarker is developed and shows that a person is at risk? Dr. Hauser highlighted how the anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab has been developed – and Food and Drug Administration approved – to greatly reduce the risk of type 1 diabetes in high-risk patients. Per a 2021 study, a single-14-day course of the drug was linked to lowering the risk of disease over a median 923 days by more than 50% (hazard ratio, 0.457; P < 0.01). Half of those who received the drug were free of diabetes versus just 22% of those treated by placebo.

“We’ve not yet had those serologic biomarkers in MS. But I’d like to show you that maybe we are getting close to having them,” Dr. Hauser said. He pointed to new research into a U.S. Department of Defense serum repository that’s turned up “a pretty rock-solid prediagnostic biomarker specific to MS.”

Moving on to therapy, Dr. Hauser said it’s clear that “the earlier that we treat, the more likely we are to have a large response. Highly effective therapies delivered as first-line therapies have better long-term outcomes for disability then does a graded approach that doesn’t begin with high-efficacy therapy.”
 

What constitutes a cure?

What else needs to be done going forward? Dr. Hauser called for the MS field to develop a definition of cure. “We should take the lead from cancer therapeutics, where they define what a cure means.” In B-cell leukemia, for example, patients are considered cured “if they remain completely disease-free in terms of clinical symptoms and biomarkers of clonal proliferation for 4 years. They have less than a 1% lifetime risk of relapse. They’re essentially cured. Our equivalent could also be developed for MS.”

He highlighted the IMPACT MS phase 4 trial, a small single-center study of ocrelizumab, which just finished enrollment and will examine the effect of the drug on treatment-naive patients at the moment of their first-ever attack. The primary endpoint is oligoclonal bands in 3 years. “I think more of these studies will probably follow,” Dr. Hauser said.

Is intervention possible at the presymptomatic stage? Targets could be members of families with multiple affected relatives who test positive for the predictive antibody signature and who have a high genetic score, he said. “We could do perhaps an Epstein-Barr virus intervention trial in this population. Then, if we have the courage and are more confident in our biomarkers, perhaps even a therapeutic trial, as has been done in these other diseases.”

As for next-generation therapies, “we’ll need to neutralize multiple cell types, especially in later disease,” he said. Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors “seem to be a class of drugs that was designed for the MS patient because they not only hit B cells, but also the plasmablasts that CD20s don’t hit and are the main component of the humoral pathology in chronic MS lesions.”

Dr. Hauser discloses scientific board (Accure, Alector, Annexon), board of directors (Neurona), consulting (BD, Moderna, NGM Bio), and travel reimbursement/writing support (Roche and Novartis).

MILAN – While multiple sclerosis (MS) is “one of two or three great success stories of modern molecular medicine,” we’re still only “halfway home,” University of California, San Francisco, neurology professor Stephen Hauser, MD, told colleagues in a highlighted lecture at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.

Going forward, the MS field should emphasize identifying early biomarkers of MS, Dr. Hauser said.

He noted that many experts had anticipated “that, if we could intervene early in the relapsing phase of the disease, we would stabilize neurodegeneration and patient disability. But one of the big surprises was that that was not the case. Instead, the observed course was that by silencing relapses and focal inflammation, a clinically silent, slow, insidious progression continues during the relapsing phase of disease in patients who are not having ongoing relapses.”

Even as focal activity detected via MRI is silenced, “progression continues” he said. “This remains the great unsolved challenge.”

Dr. Hauser asked colleagues to consider a three-stage model of MS that begins with benign autoimmunity followed by pathogenic autoimmunity with subclinical tissue damage. The third stage is clinical autoimmunity.

How can you determine who’s at risk? Genetics can only fill in part of the picture because they can’t pinpoint exactly who’s likely to develop the disease. “In other autoimmune diseases, serologic autoantibodies have been by far the most effective biomarkers,” he said. “There is real-world support – not only in mice – for the concept that autoimmunity begins as a highly focused immune response that then spreads over time.”

In systemic lupus erythematosus, the cascade toward disease begins about 9 years before clinical presentation, he said. It’s 7 months in type 1 diabetes, and 20 years in rheumatoid arthritis. “These have been enormously powerful in designing both observational and therapeutic studies to try to interrupt autoimmunity at the earliest possible stage.”

What can be done if a MS biomarker is developed and shows that a person is at risk? Dr. Hauser highlighted how the anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab has been developed – and Food and Drug Administration approved – to greatly reduce the risk of type 1 diabetes in high-risk patients. Per a 2021 study, a single-14-day course of the drug was linked to lowering the risk of disease over a median 923 days by more than 50% (hazard ratio, 0.457; P < 0.01). Half of those who received the drug were free of diabetes versus just 22% of those treated by placebo.

“We’ve not yet had those serologic biomarkers in MS. But I’d like to show you that maybe we are getting close to having them,” Dr. Hauser said. He pointed to new research into a U.S. Department of Defense serum repository that’s turned up “a pretty rock-solid prediagnostic biomarker specific to MS.”

Moving on to therapy, Dr. Hauser said it’s clear that “the earlier that we treat, the more likely we are to have a large response. Highly effective therapies delivered as first-line therapies have better long-term outcomes for disability then does a graded approach that doesn’t begin with high-efficacy therapy.”
 

What constitutes a cure?

What else needs to be done going forward? Dr. Hauser called for the MS field to develop a definition of cure. “We should take the lead from cancer therapeutics, where they define what a cure means.” In B-cell leukemia, for example, patients are considered cured “if they remain completely disease-free in terms of clinical symptoms and biomarkers of clonal proliferation for 4 years. They have less than a 1% lifetime risk of relapse. They’re essentially cured. Our equivalent could also be developed for MS.”

He highlighted the IMPACT MS phase 4 trial, a small single-center study of ocrelizumab, which just finished enrollment and will examine the effect of the drug on treatment-naive patients at the moment of their first-ever attack. The primary endpoint is oligoclonal bands in 3 years. “I think more of these studies will probably follow,” Dr. Hauser said.

Is intervention possible at the presymptomatic stage? Targets could be members of families with multiple affected relatives who test positive for the predictive antibody signature and who have a high genetic score, he said. “We could do perhaps an Epstein-Barr virus intervention trial in this population. Then, if we have the courage and are more confident in our biomarkers, perhaps even a therapeutic trial, as has been done in these other diseases.”

As for next-generation therapies, “we’ll need to neutralize multiple cell types, especially in later disease,” he said. Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors “seem to be a class of drugs that was designed for the MS patient because they not only hit B cells, but also the plasmablasts that CD20s don’t hit and are the main component of the humoral pathology in chronic MS lesions.”

Dr. Hauser discloses scientific board (Accure, Alector, Annexon), board of directors (Neurona), consulting (BD, Moderna, NGM Bio), and travel reimbursement/writing support (Roche and Novartis).

MILAN – While multiple sclerosis (MS) is “one of two or three great success stories of modern molecular medicine,” we’re still only “halfway home,” University of California, San Francisco, neurology professor Stephen Hauser, MD, told colleagues in a highlighted lecture at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.

Going forward, the MS field should emphasize identifying early biomarkers of MS, Dr. Hauser said.

He noted that many experts had anticipated “that, if we could intervene early in the relapsing phase of the disease, we would stabilize neurodegeneration and patient disability. But one of the big surprises was that that was not the case. Instead, the observed course was that by silencing relapses and focal inflammation, a clinically silent, slow, insidious progression continues during the relapsing phase of disease in patients who are not having ongoing relapses.”

Even as focal activity detected via MRI is silenced, “progression continues” he said. “This remains the great unsolved challenge.”

Dr. Hauser asked colleagues to consider a three-stage model of MS that begins with benign autoimmunity followed by pathogenic autoimmunity with subclinical tissue damage. The third stage is clinical autoimmunity.

How can you determine who’s at risk? Genetics can only fill in part of the picture because they can’t pinpoint exactly who’s likely to develop the disease. “In other autoimmune diseases, serologic autoantibodies have been by far the most effective biomarkers,” he said. “There is real-world support – not only in mice – for the concept that autoimmunity begins as a highly focused immune response that then spreads over time.”

In systemic lupus erythematosus, the cascade toward disease begins about 9 years before clinical presentation, he said. It’s 7 months in type 1 diabetes, and 20 years in rheumatoid arthritis. “These have been enormously powerful in designing both observational and therapeutic studies to try to interrupt autoimmunity at the earliest possible stage.”

What can be done if a MS biomarker is developed and shows that a person is at risk? Dr. Hauser highlighted how the anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab has been developed – and Food and Drug Administration approved – to greatly reduce the risk of type 1 diabetes in high-risk patients. Per a 2021 study, a single-14-day course of the drug was linked to lowering the risk of disease over a median 923 days by more than 50% (hazard ratio, 0.457; P < 0.01). Half of those who received the drug were free of diabetes versus just 22% of those treated by placebo.

“We’ve not yet had those serologic biomarkers in MS. But I’d like to show you that maybe we are getting close to having them,” Dr. Hauser said. He pointed to new research into a U.S. Department of Defense serum repository that’s turned up “a pretty rock-solid prediagnostic biomarker specific to MS.”

Moving on to therapy, Dr. Hauser said it’s clear that “the earlier that we treat, the more likely we are to have a large response. Highly effective therapies delivered as first-line therapies have better long-term outcomes for disability then does a graded approach that doesn’t begin with high-efficacy therapy.”
 

What constitutes a cure?

What else needs to be done going forward? Dr. Hauser called for the MS field to develop a definition of cure. “We should take the lead from cancer therapeutics, where they define what a cure means.” In B-cell leukemia, for example, patients are considered cured “if they remain completely disease-free in terms of clinical symptoms and biomarkers of clonal proliferation for 4 years. They have less than a 1% lifetime risk of relapse. They’re essentially cured. Our equivalent could also be developed for MS.”

He highlighted the IMPACT MS phase 4 trial, a small single-center study of ocrelizumab, which just finished enrollment and will examine the effect of the drug on treatment-naive patients at the moment of their first-ever attack. The primary endpoint is oligoclonal bands in 3 years. “I think more of these studies will probably follow,” Dr. Hauser said.

Is intervention possible at the presymptomatic stage? Targets could be members of families with multiple affected relatives who test positive for the predictive antibody signature and who have a high genetic score, he said. “We could do perhaps an Epstein-Barr virus intervention trial in this population. Then, if we have the courage and are more confident in our biomarkers, perhaps even a therapeutic trial, as has been done in these other diseases.”

As for next-generation therapies, “we’ll need to neutralize multiple cell types, especially in later disease,” he said. Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors “seem to be a class of drugs that was designed for the MS patient because they not only hit B cells, but also the plasmablasts that CD20s don’t hit and are the main component of the humoral pathology in chronic MS lesions.”

Dr. Hauser discloses scientific board (Accure, Alector, Annexon), board of directors (Neurona), consulting (BD, Moderna, NGM Bio), and travel reimbursement/writing support (Roche and Novartis).

MILAN – Several important clinical trials in progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) will provide results within the next couple years and will potentially help guide the field toward better treatments, neurologist Jeremy Chataway, MD, PhD, of University College London and Queen Square Multiple Sclerosis Center told colleagues at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.

University College London

“They’re all very different, and I think that’s exciting,” he said. “It’s a rich trial environment.”

The problem: At a median of almost 3 years in treatment for primary progressive MS, “we know that about a third of patients will progress despite on being on anti-inflammatory treatment. The same is true for secondary progressive MS. That is the hard core of what we have to think about. We want to improve the efficacy gap between control and active.”

First, Dr. Chataway highlighted the MS-STAT2 trial of simvastatin (Zocor), an inexpensive statin used to lower cholesterol. He is one of the leaders of the 3-year, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, which is testing whether 80-mg daily doses of simvastatin will slow MS progression.

As Dr. Chataway noted, an earlier study – MS-STAT1 – found less brain atrophy in patients who took a high dose of the drug, which was “well tolerated and safe.”

Vascular morbidity drives disability and mortality in MS. “This is low-hanging fruit because we have the tools to do something about it,” he said. “There’s an opportunity here to add into our treatment paradigms across people with MS by actively treating their vascular comorbidity. It will have an effect.”

Recruitment for a trial of this approach is complete, and study results are expected in 2024 and 2025, Dr. Chataway said.

Another new study is exploring the possible effects of the antioxidant lipoic acid, also known as alpha-lipoic acid. As Dr. Chataway noted, a 2017 single-center, randomized, double-blind pilot study of daily oral 1,200 mg lipoic acid versus placebo linked the intervention to a dramatic lowering of brain atrophy – by about 50%.

The new LAPMS study, sponsored by the Veterans Administration, will explore whether lipoic acid affects walking ability, clinical outcome, and brain atrophy, Dr. Chataway said. Results from phase 2 are expected in a year or two, he said.

Dr. Chataway also highlighted one of his own trials, the OCTOPUS study, a multiarm, multistage study that will examine multiple drugs to treat progressive MS. It’s starting with metformin and will look at lipoic acid too, he said.

He also noted the phase 2 CALLIPER trial, which has completed enrollment and expects to provide top-line data in 2025. The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled will test vidofludimus calcium in patients with progressive MS.

Finally, Dr. Chataway highlighted the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on phase 2 NACPMS trial of n-acetyl cysteine and the phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of SAR443820, a central nervous system penetrant oral RIPK1 inhibitor.

Dr. Chataway discloses grants (UK Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Board, Health Technology Assessment, Multiple Sclerosis Trials Collaboration, and Rosetrees Trust), advisory board service (Azadyne, Biogen, Lucid, Janssen, Merck, NervGen, Novartis, and Roche), other support (National Institute of Health Research Support, University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centers funding scheme), and serving as an trial investigator (Canadian MS Society, Ionis, Novartis, and Roche).

MILAN – Several important clinical trials in progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) will provide results within the next couple years and will potentially help guide the field toward better treatments, neurologist Jeremy Chataway, MD, PhD, of University College London and Queen Square Multiple Sclerosis Center told colleagues at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.

University College London

“They’re all very different, and I think that’s exciting,” he said. “It’s a rich trial environment.”

The problem: At a median of almost 3 years in treatment for primary progressive MS, “we know that about a third of patients will progress despite on being on anti-inflammatory treatment. The same is true for secondary progressive MS. That is the hard core of what we have to think about. We want to improve the efficacy gap between control and active.”

First, Dr. Chataway highlighted the MS-STAT2 trial of simvastatin (Zocor), an inexpensive statin used to lower cholesterol. He is one of the leaders of the 3-year, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, which is testing whether 80-mg daily doses of simvastatin will slow MS progression.

As Dr. Chataway noted, an earlier study – MS-STAT1 – found less brain atrophy in patients who took a high dose of the drug, which was “well tolerated and safe.”

Vascular morbidity drives disability and mortality in MS. “This is low-hanging fruit because we have the tools to do something about it,” he said. “There’s an opportunity here to add into our treatment paradigms across people with MS by actively treating their vascular comorbidity. It will have an effect.”

Recruitment for a trial of this approach is complete, and study results are expected in 2024 and 2025, Dr. Chataway said.

Another new study is exploring the possible effects of the antioxidant lipoic acid, also known as alpha-lipoic acid. As Dr. Chataway noted, a 2017 single-center, randomized, double-blind pilot study of daily oral 1,200 mg lipoic acid versus placebo linked the intervention to a dramatic lowering of brain atrophy – by about 50%.

The new LAPMS study, sponsored by the Veterans Administration, will explore whether lipoic acid affects walking ability, clinical outcome, and brain atrophy, Dr. Chataway said. Results from phase 2 are expected in a year or two, he said.

Dr. Chataway also highlighted one of his own trials, the OCTOPUS study, a multiarm, multistage study that will examine multiple drugs to treat progressive MS. It’s starting with metformin and will look at lipoic acid too, he said.

He also noted the phase 2 CALLIPER trial, which has completed enrollment and expects to provide top-line data in 2025. The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled will test vidofludimus calcium in patients with progressive MS.

Finally, Dr. Chataway highlighted the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on phase 2 NACPMS trial of n-acetyl cysteine and the phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of SAR443820, a central nervous system penetrant oral RIPK1 inhibitor.

Dr. Chataway discloses grants (UK Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Board, Health Technology Assessment, Multiple Sclerosis Trials Collaboration, and Rosetrees Trust), advisory board service (Azadyne, Biogen, Lucid, Janssen, Merck, NervGen, Novartis, and Roche), other support (National Institute of Health Research Support, University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centers funding scheme), and serving as an trial investigator (Canadian MS Society, Ionis, Novartis, and Roche).

MILAN – Several important clinical trials in progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) will provide results within the next couple years and will potentially help guide the field toward better treatments, neurologist Jeremy Chataway, MD, PhD, of University College London and Queen Square Multiple Sclerosis Center told colleagues at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.

University College London

“They’re all very different, and I think that’s exciting,” he said. “It’s a rich trial environment.”

The problem: At a median of almost 3 years in treatment for primary progressive MS, “we know that about a third of patients will progress despite on being on anti-inflammatory treatment. The same is true for secondary progressive MS. That is the hard core of what we have to think about. We want to improve the efficacy gap between control and active.”

First, Dr. Chataway highlighted the MS-STAT2 trial of simvastatin (Zocor), an inexpensive statin used to lower cholesterol. He is one of the leaders of the 3-year, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, which is testing whether 80-mg daily doses of simvastatin will slow MS progression.

As Dr. Chataway noted, an earlier study – MS-STAT1 – found less brain atrophy in patients who took a high dose of the drug, which was “well tolerated and safe.”

Vascular morbidity drives disability and mortality in MS. “This is low-hanging fruit because we have the tools to do something about it,” he said. “There’s an opportunity here to add into our treatment paradigms across people with MS by actively treating their vascular comorbidity. It will have an effect.”

Recruitment for a trial of this approach is complete, and study results are expected in 2024 and 2025, Dr. Chataway said.

Another new study is exploring the possible effects of the antioxidant lipoic acid, also known as alpha-lipoic acid. As Dr. Chataway noted, a 2017 single-center, randomized, double-blind pilot study of daily oral 1,200 mg lipoic acid versus placebo linked the intervention to a dramatic lowering of brain atrophy – by about 50%.

The new LAPMS study, sponsored by the Veterans Administration, will explore whether lipoic acid affects walking ability, clinical outcome, and brain atrophy, Dr. Chataway said. Results from phase 2 are expected in a year or two, he said.

Dr. Chataway also highlighted one of his own trials, the OCTOPUS study, a multiarm, multistage study that will examine multiple drugs to treat progressive MS. It’s starting with metformin and will look at lipoic acid too, he said.

He also noted the phase 2 CALLIPER trial, which has completed enrollment and expects to provide top-line data in 2025. The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled will test vidofludimus calcium in patients with progressive MS.

Finally, Dr. Chataway highlighted the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on phase 2 NACPMS trial of n-acetyl cysteine and the phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of SAR443820, a central nervous system penetrant oral RIPK1 inhibitor.

Dr. Chataway discloses grants (UK Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Board, Health Technology Assessment, Multiple Sclerosis Trials Collaboration, and Rosetrees Trust), advisory board service (Azadyne, Biogen, Lucid, Janssen, Merck, NervGen, Novartis, and Roche), other support (National Institute of Health Research Support, University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centers funding scheme), and serving as an trial investigator (Canadian MS Society, Ionis, Novartis, and Roche).

MILAN – A form of artificial intelligence (AI) that compares the structures of drugs and foods found numerous potential interactions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and made suggestions for less risky therapeutic combinations, German researchers reported.

The team fed the medication plans of almost 630 patients into a deep neural network, which identified drug-drug interactions in more than 80% of cases, in particular when switching from one medication to another, alongside potential food interactions.

The tool was able to identify specific interactions that could be avoided if a drug was replaced with one with a similar pharmacologic profile, but a lower risk of adverse effects.

“Potential drug-drug interactions are a major safety concern in patients with MS,” said study presenter Michael Hecker, PhD, department of neurology, Rostock (Germany) University Medical Center.

Such deep learning–based methods are “useful” in screening for potential interactions both between drugs and with foods, they concluded.

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting.
 

Unknown interactions

During his presentation, Dr. Hecker noted that most patients with MS take two or more drugs “to treat their disease and to mitigate their symptoms and comorbidities.” He pointed out, however, that patients who take multiple medications are at an increased risk for side effects, as one drug may affect the pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic properties of another.

“For instance, it may change its metabolism,” Dr. Hecker said, and therefore affect its mechanism of action and the response to the drug, with medications potentially having synergistic, antagonistic, or additive effects.

He explained that the online DrugBank database “provides a huge collection” of known drug-drug interactions for compounds that have a track record. “However, for other drugs, and especially those that are tested only in clinical trials, there’s no information about drug-drug and drug-food interactions,” Dr. Hecker said.

“Moreover, it is quite time-consuming to search a database for individual drug-drug interactions,” he added.
 

34 million parameters

Consequently, there is increasing interest in the use of deep neural networks to study drug-drug interactions, Dr. Hecker said. DeepDDI is the “state-of-the-art deep learning framework” for predicting interactions. It takes drug-drug or drug-food pairs and compares their structures to determine their similarity. This information is fed into a deep neural network with almost 34 million trainable parameters.

The framework then provides a prediction of any interactions in the same terms as the DrugBank, suggesting, for example, that Drug A may decrease the antihypertensive activities of Drug B.

For the current study, the researchers trained the deep neural network on the most recent release of the DrugBank database, finding it was able to replicate the drug-drug interactions in the database at an accuracy of 92.2% in the validation set and 92.1% in the testing set. They then put the medication plans of 627 patients with MS into the deep neural network.

The patients had a mean age of 48.6 years, 70.3% were women, and the median disease duration was 10 years. They were taking an average of 5.3 medications, and 62% were using disease-modifying therapies (DMT).

The team compared the structures of the drugs they were taking with those of 367 drugs used for the treatment of MS, as well as with structural data for 1,673 food compounds from the FooDB database.
 

Swapping drugs could reduce interactions

The overall prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions among the patients included in the study was 81.2%.

The researchers then determined the proportion of patients who would be at risk of additional drug-drug interaction if they switched from one DMT to another, or to a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, given all their other medications.

They found, for example, that more than 40% of patients who switched to the immunomodulator fingolimod (Gilenya) would be at increased risk for bradycardia.

Just under 40% of patients who changed their DMT to the purine analogue cladribine (Mavenclad) would have an increased risk, or worsening, of bleeding, as would approximately 25% of those who switched to the anthracenedione antineoplastic agent mitoxantrone (Novantrone).

Dr. Hecker also showed the deep neural network could make suggestions as to how critical drug-drug interactions could be avoided by replacing interacting drugs with alternatives that have similar pharmacological effects.

For example, carbamazepine (Tegretol, Equetro) could be replaced with topiramate (several brand names) to avoid hepatotoxicity in patients also taking acetaminophen, while liothyronine (Cytomel, Triostat) could replace levothyroxine in patients also taking teriflunomide (Aubagio).

Finally, Dr. Hecker reported there was a subset of 6,860 potential drug-food interactions with the patients’ medications, resulting in reduced or increased concentrations of the drugs, particularly with fish or mushroom consumption.

He conceded, however, there were several limitations to their study, including that it included only small-molecule drugs, and that they did not ask patients about their diet or if they had observed any undesired drug effects.

Furthermore, “only a small number” of the potential drug-drug or drug-food interactions they identified would be “clinically relevant.”

Dr. Hecker also pointed out that each drug has one record, but it is used for different indications, with different dosages, and has different side effects, depending how it is used. “The model does not distinguish this,” he said, and so some of the interactions it highlights could be related to other doses than the one used in MS, for example.
 

Promise for the future

Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, commented that, as with all AI tools, “it’s only as good as what we’re putting into it.”

Dr. Bhargava, who cochaired the session, said that “there’s limitations on the information in the databases” that are being fed into the deep neural network.

He also highlighted that, “at this point, it didn’t seem like it was coming up with much clinically useful information,” but noted that, “we may get to that point.”

“Right now, there’s promise,” Dr. Bhargava said, but “it’s still not quite there.”

No funding was declared. Dr. Hecker declares relationships with Bayer HealthCare, Biogen, Merck Healthcare, Novartis, and Teva. Several other coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.

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

MILAN – A form of artificial intelligence (AI) that compares the structures of drugs and foods found numerous potential interactions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and made suggestions for less risky therapeutic combinations, German researchers reported.

The team fed the medication plans of almost 630 patients into a deep neural network, which identified drug-drug interactions in more than 80% of cases, in particular when switching from one medication to another, alongside potential food interactions.

The tool was able to identify specific interactions that could be avoided if a drug was replaced with one with a similar pharmacologic profile, but a lower risk of adverse effects.

“Potential drug-drug interactions are a major safety concern in patients with MS,” said study presenter Michael Hecker, PhD, department of neurology, Rostock (Germany) University Medical Center.

Such deep learning–based methods are “useful” in screening for potential interactions both between drugs and with foods, they concluded.

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting.
 

Unknown interactions

During his presentation, Dr. Hecker noted that most patients with MS take two or more drugs “to treat their disease and to mitigate their symptoms and comorbidities.” He pointed out, however, that patients who take multiple medications are at an increased risk for side effects, as one drug may affect the pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic properties of another.

“For instance, it may change its metabolism,” Dr. Hecker said, and therefore affect its mechanism of action and the response to the drug, with medications potentially having synergistic, antagonistic, or additive effects.

He explained that the online DrugBank database “provides a huge collection” of known drug-drug interactions for compounds that have a track record. “However, for other drugs, and especially those that are tested only in clinical trials, there’s no information about drug-drug and drug-food interactions,” Dr. Hecker said.

“Moreover, it is quite time-consuming to search a database for individual drug-drug interactions,” he added.
 

34 million parameters

Consequently, there is increasing interest in the use of deep neural networks to study drug-drug interactions, Dr. Hecker said. DeepDDI is the “state-of-the-art deep learning framework” for predicting interactions. It takes drug-drug or drug-food pairs and compares their structures to determine their similarity. This information is fed into a deep neural network with almost 34 million trainable parameters.

The framework then provides a prediction of any interactions in the same terms as the DrugBank, suggesting, for example, that Drug A may decrease the antihypertensive activities of Drug B.

For the current study, the researchers trained the deep neural network on the most recent release of the DrugBank database, finding it was able to replicate the drug-drug interactions in the database at an accuracy of 92.2% in the validation set and 92.1% in the testing set. They then put the medication plans of 627 patients with MS into the deep neural network.

The patients had a mean age of 48.6 years, 70.3% were women, and the median disease duration was 10 years. They were taking an average of 5.3 medications, and 62% were using disease-modifying therapies (DMT).

The team compared the structures of the drugs they were taking with those of 367 drugs used for the treatment of MS, as well as with structural data for 1,673 food compounds from the FooDB database.
 

Swapping drugs could reduce interactions

The overall prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions among the patients included in the study was 81.2%.

The researchers then determined the proportion of patients who would be at risk of additional drug-drug interaction if they switched from one DMT to another, or to a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, given all their other medications.

They found, for example, that more than 40% of patients who switched to the immunomodulator fingolimod (Gilenya) would be at increased risk for bradycardia.

Just under 40% of patients who changed their DMT to the purine analogue cladribine (Mavenclad) would have an increased risk, or worsening, of bleeding, as would approximately 25% of those who switched to the anthracenedione antineoplastic agent mitoxantrone (Novantrone).

Dr. Hecker also showed the deep neural network could make suggestions as to how critical drug-drug interactions could be avoided by replacing interacting drugs with alternatives that have similar pharmacological effects.

For example, carbamazepine (Tegretol, Equetro) could be replaced with topiramate (several brand names) to avoid hepatotoxicity in patients also taking acetaminophen, while liothyronine (Cytomel, Triostat) could replace levothyroxine in patients also taking teriflunomide (Aubagio).

Finally, Dr. Hecker reported there was a subset of 6,860 potential drug-food interactions with the patients’ medications, resulting in reduced or increased concentrations of the drugs, particularly with fish or mushroom consumption.

He conceded, however, there were several limitations to their study, including that it included only small-molecule drugs, and that they did not ask patients about their diet or if they had observed any undesired drug effects.

Furthermore, “only a small number” of the potential drug-drug or drug-food interactions they identified would be “clinically relevant.”

Dr. Hecker also pointed out that each drug has one record, but it is used for different indications, with different dosages, and has different side effects, depending how it is used. “The model does not distinguish this,” he said, and so some of the interactions it highlights could be related to other doses than the one used in MS, for example.
 

Promise for the future

Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, commented that, as with all AI tools, “it’s only as good as what we’re putting into it.”

Dr. Bhargava, who cochaired the session, said that “there’s limitations on the information in the databases” that are being fed into the deep neural network.

He also highlighted that, “at this point, it didn’t seem like it was coming up with much clinically useful information,” but noted that, “we may get to that point.”

“Right now, there’s promise,” Dr. Bhargava said, but “it’s still not quite there.”

No funding was declared. Dr. Hecker declares relationships with Bayer HealthCare, Biogen, Merck Healthcare, Novartis, and Teva. Several other coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.

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

MILAN – A form of artificial intelligence (AI) that compares the structures of drugs and foods found numerous potential interactions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and made suggestions for less risky therapeutic combinations, German researchers reported.

The team fed the medication plans of almost 630 patients into a deep neural network, which identified drug-drug interactions in more than 80% of cases, in particular when switching from one medication to another, alongside potential food interactions.

The tool was able to identify specific interactions that could be avoided if a drug was replaced with one with a similar pharmacologic profile, but a lower risk of adverse effects.

“Potential drug-drug interactions are a major safety concern in patients with MS,” said study presenter Michael Hecker, PhD, department of neurology, Rostock (Germany) University Medical Center.

Such deep learning–based methods are “useful” in screening for potential interactions both between drugs and with foods, they concluded.

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting.
 

Unknown interactions

During his presentation, Dr. Hecker noted that most patients with MS take two or more drugs “to treat their disease and to mitigate their symptoms and comorbidities.” He pointed out, however, that patients who take multiple medications are at an increased risk for side effects, as one drug may affect the pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic properties of another.

“For instance, it may change its metabolism,” Dr. Hecker said, and therefore affect its mechanism of action and the response to the drug, with medications potentially having synergistic, antagonistic, or additive effects.

He explained that the online DrugBank database “provides a huge collection” of known drug-drug interactions for compounds that have a track record. “However, for other drugs, and especially those that are tested only in clinical trials, there’s no information about drug-drug and drug-food interactions,” Dr. Hecker said.

“Moreover, it is quite time-consuming to search a database for individual drug-drug interactions,” he added.
 

34 million parameters

Consequently, there is increasing interest in the use of deep neural networks to study drug-drug interactions, Dr. Hecker said. DeepDDI is the “state-of-the-art deep learning framework” for predicting interactions. It takes drug-drug or drug-food pairs and compares their structures to determine their similarity. This information is fed into a deep neural network with almost 34 million trainable parameters.

The framework then provides a prediction of any interactions in the same terms as the DrugBank, suggesting, for example, that Drug A may decrease the antihypertensive activities of Drug B.

For the current study, the researchers trained the deep neural network on the most recent release of the DrugBank database, finding it was able to replicate the drug-drug interactions in the database at an accuracy of 92.2% in the validation set and 92.1% in the testing set. They then put the medication plans of 627 patients with MS into the deep neural network.

The patients had a mean age of 48.6 years, 70.3% were women, and the median disease duration was 10 years. They were taking an average of 5.3 medications, and 62% were using disease-modifying therapies (DMT).

The team compared the structures of the drugs they were taking with those of 367 drugs used for the treatment of MS, as well as with structural data for 1,673 food compounds from the FooDB database.
 

Swapping drugs could reduce interactions

The overall prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions among the patients included in the study was 81.2%.

The researchers then determined the proportion of patients who would be at risk of additional drug-drug interaction if they switched from one DMT to another, or to a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, given all their other medications.

They found, for example, that more than 40% of patients who switched to the immunomodulator fingolimod (Gilenya) would be at increased risk for bradycardia.

Just under 40% of patients who changed their DMT to the purine analogue cladribine (Mavenclad) would have an increased risk, or worsening, of bleeding, as would approximately 25% of those who switched to the anthracenedione antineoplastic agent mitoxantrone (Novantrone).

Dr. Hecker also showed the deep neural network could make suggestions as to how critical drug-drug interactions could be avoided by replacing interacting drugs with alternatives that have similar pharmacological effects.

For example, carbamazepine (Tegretol, Equetro) could be replaced with topiramate (several brand names) to avoid hepatotoxicity in patients also taking acetaminophen, while liothyronine (Cytomel, Triostat) could replace levothyroxine in patients also taking teriflunomide (Aubagio).

Finally, Dr. Hecker reported there was a subset of 6,860 potential drug-food interactions with the patients’ medications, resulting in reduced or increased concentrations of the drugs, particularly with fish or mushroom consumption.

He conceded, however, there were several limitations to their study, including that it included only small-molecule drugs, and that they did not ask patients about their diet or if they had observed any undesired drug effects.

Furthermore, “only a small number” of the potential drug-drug or drug-food interactions they identified would be “clinically relevant.”

Dr. Hecker also pointed out that each drug has one record, but it is used for different indications, with different dosages, and has different side effects, depending how it is used. “The model does not distinguish this,” he said, and so some of the interactions it highlights could be related to other doses than the one used in MS, for example.
 

Promise for the future

Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, commented that, as with all AI tools, “it’s only as good as what we’re putting into it.”

Dr. Bhargava, who cochaired the session, said that “there’s limitations on the information in the databases” that are being fed into the deep neural network.

He also highlighted that, “at this point, it didn’t seem like it was coming up with much clinically useful information,” but noted that, “we may get to that point.”

“Right now, there’s promise,” Dr. Bhargava said, but “it’s still not quite there.”

No funding was declared. Dr. Hecker declares relationships with Bayer HealthCare, Biogen, Merck Healthcare, Novartis, and Teva. Several other coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.

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

MILAN – Ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) effectively prevents relapse in older patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), researchers have shown for the first time, although the extremely low risk for relapse in this population should be taken into account, they say.

The researchers studied about 700 patients with MS aged 60 years and older from an international database, comparing outcomes with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab versus those for interferon/glatiramer acetate (BRACE). They found ocrelizumab significantly reduced the annual rate of relapses, although after adjustments, patients overall faced a relapse rate of less than 0.1 per year. There were also no significant differences in either disability progression or improvement between the two treatments.

“We believe this study is unique in that ocrelizumab demonstrates a very clear differential treatment benefit in this age group,” said study presenter Yi Chao Foong, MD, department of neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne. “However, this has to be balanced against the fact that overall relapse activity is extremely low in people with MS over the age of 60. We believe that this study adds valuable, real-world data for nuanced benefit versus risk DMT discussions with for older adults with MS.”

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
 

Lack of data in older patients

Dr. Fong explained the comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has not been demonstrated in older people with MS, as all landmark trials to date have excluded people older than age 60 years. He underlined, however, that the inflammatory aspect of MS reduces with age, when neurodegenerative processes begin to predominate.

“This, combined with increased risk of acute infections in older adults have raised concerns over the benefit ratios of DMTs in this age group,” Dr. Fong said.

This has led to several de-escalation studies in older patients already on treatment for MS, but with “varied results.”

One study, published earlier in 2023, was unable to conclude whether DMT discontinuation was noninferior to continuation in older patients with no recent relapse or new MRI activity.

To investigate further, the Australian team used the MSBase database to study patients with a confirmed MS diagnosis who had started or switched to ocrelizumab or BRACE when older than 60 years of age.

They were also required to have undergone an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessment around the time of the initiation of DMT. In all, 675 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 248 started with ocrelizumab and 427 with BRACE.

The treatment groups were well balanced, although baseline EDSS scores were higher in patients given ocrelizumab, at 5.22 versus 3.89 with BRACE (P = .05), and they had a lower relapse rate prior in the year (P = .01) and 2 years (P = .02) prior to baseline.
 

Only relapse rates reduced

With more than 571 patient-years of follow-up, there were eight relapses in patients treated with ocrelizumab, compared with 182 relapses during 2238 patient-years among those given BRACE.

The team then performed propensity matching based on patient age, disease duration, sex, baseline EDSS, prior relapses, and prior DMTs.

They found that, over a median follow-up of 2.47 years for ocrelizumab and 4.48 years for BRACE, there was a lower rate of relapse with ocrelizumab, at a weighted annualized relapse rate of 0.01 versus 0.08 (P < .0001). This, they calculated, equated to an ARR ratio in favor of ocrelizumab of 0.15 (P < .01).

The time to first relapse was also longer for ocrelizumab versus BRACE, at a weighted hazard ratio for relapse of 0.11 (P < .001) and with, as Dr. Fong highlighted, separation of the curves at 5 months.

Over a follow-up duration of 3.6 years, there was, however, no significant difference in confirmed disability progression between the two treatments (P = .31), with similar results seen for confirmed disability improvement (P = .92).

Dr. Fong noted the study was limited by an inherent treatment indication bias, affecting the sensitivity analysis and weighing, while assessment of confirmed disability progression and confirmed disability improvement was hampered by the relatively short follow-up period and the lack of data on comorbidities.

He also highlighted the lack of safety data for the study population, as well as the lack of MRI.
 

Muddling the data

Approached for comment, Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, pointed out the study is based on retrospective data.

“The main question that we normally come up against in clinical practice, once people are older, is: What do you do with their treatment?” he asked.

This, Dr. Bhargava said, was the question that was addressed in the previous de-escalation studies.

The current study “actually answered a completely different question: If you were starting or changing a treatment after 60, which one would be better to choose?” This is a “much rarer scenario,” he said.

The results nevertheless showed what is seen in younger patients; in other words, “a more efficacious treatment is more effective at reducing relapses than a less efficacious treatment, even though overall the number of relapses is quite low,” Dr. Bhargava said.

“The other problem,” he added, is the study included “not just relapsing but also progressive patients, so that kind of muddles the data a little bit.”

Consequently, “it’s hard to really make a definitive conclusion” from the results, Dr. Bhargava concluded.

No funding was declared. Dr. Fong declares relationships with Biogen, National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia, and the Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists. Several coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.

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

MILAN – Ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) effectively prevents relapse in older patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), researchers have shown for the first time, although the extremely low risk for relapse in this population should be taken into account, they say.

The researchers studied about 700 patients with MS aged 60 years and older from an international database, comparing outcomes with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab versus those for interferon/glatiramer acetate (BRACE). They found ocrelizumab significantly reduced the annual rate of relapses, although after adjustments, patients overall faced a relapse rate of less than 0.1 per year. There were also no significant differences in either disability progression or improvement between the two treatments.

“We believe this study is unique in that ocrelizumab demonstrates a very clear differential treatment benefit in this age group,” said study presenter Yi Chao Foong, MD, department of neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne. “However, this has to be balanced against the fact that overall relapse activity is extremely low in people with MS over the age of 60. We believe that this study adds valuable, real-world data for nuanced benefit versus risk DMT discussions with for older adults with MS.”

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
 

Lack of data in older patients

Dr. Fong explained the comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has not been demonstrated in older people with MS, as all landmark trials to date have excluded people older than age 60 years. He underlined, however, that the inflammatory aspect of MS reduces with age, when neurodegenerative processes begin to predominate.

“This, combined with increased risk of acute infections in older adults have raised concerns over the benefit ratios of DMTs in this age group,” Dr. Fong said.

This has led to several de-escalation studies in older patients already on treatment for MS, but with “varied results.”

One study, published earlier in 2023, was unable to conclude whether DMT discontinuation was noninferior to continuation in older patients with no recent relapse or new MRI activity.

To investigate further, the Australian team used the MSBase database to study patients with a confirmed MS diagnosis who had started or switched to ocrelizumab or BRACE when older than 60 years of age.

They were also required to have undergone an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessment around the time of the initiation of DMT. In all, 675 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 248 started with ocrelizumab and 427 with BRACE.

The treatment groups were well balanced, although baseline EDSS scores were higher in patients given ocrelizumab, at 5.22 versus 3.89 with BRACE (P = .05), and they had a lower relapse rate prior in the year (P = .01) and 2 years (P = .02) prior to baseline.
 

Only relapse rates reduced

With more than 571 patient-years of follow-up, there were eight relapses in patients treated with ocrelizumab, compared with 182 relapses during 2238 patient-years among those given BRACE.

The team then performed propensity matching based on patient age, disease duration, sex, baseline EDSS, prior relapses, and prior DMTs.

They found that, over a median follow-up of 2.47 years for ocrelizumab and 4.48 years for BRACE, there was a lower rate of relapse with ocrelizumab, at a weighted annualized relapse rate of 0.01 versus 0.08 (P < .0001). This, they calculated, equated to an ARR ratio in favor of ocrelizumab of 0.15 (P < .01).

The time to first relapse was also longer for ocrelizumab versus BRACE, at a weighted hazard ratio for relapse of 0.11 (P < .001) and with, as Dr. Fong highlighted, separation of the curves at 5 months.

Over a follow-up duration of 3.6 years, there was, however, no significant difference in confirmed disability progression between the two treatments (P = .31), with similar results seen for confirmed disability improvement (P = .92).

Dr. Fong noted the study was limited by an inherent treatment indication bias, affecting the sensitivity analysis and weighing, while assessment of confirmed disability progression and confirmed disability improvement was hampered by the relatively short follow-up period and the lack of data on comorbidities.

He also highlighted the lack of safety data for the study population, as well as the lack of MRI.
 

Muddling the data

Approached for comment, Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, pointed out the study is based on retrospective data.

“The main question that we normally come up against in clinical practice, once people are older, is: What do you do with their treatment?” he asked.

This, Dr. Bhargava said, was the question that was addressed in the previous de-escalation studies.

The current study “actually answered a completely different question: If you were starting or changing a treatment after 60, which one would be better to choose?” This is a “much rarer scenario,” he said.

The results nevertheless showed what is seen in younger patients; in other words, “a more efficacious treatment is more effective at reducing relapses than a less efficacious treatment, even though overall the number of relapses is quite low,” Dr. Bhargava said.

“The other problem,” he added, is the study included “not just relapsing but also progressive patients, so that kind of muddles the data a little bit.”

Consequently, “it’s hard to really make a definitive conclusion” from the results, Dr. Bhargava concluded.

No funding was declared. Dr. Fong declares relationships with Biogen, National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia, and the Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists. Several coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.

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

MILAN – Ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) effectively prevents relapse in older patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), researchers have shown for the first time, although the extremely low risk for relapse in this population should be taken into account, they say.

The researchers studied about 700 patients with MS aged 60 years and older from an international database, comparing outcomes with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab versus those for interferon/glatiramer acetate (BRACE). They found ocrelizumab significantly reduced the annual rate of relapses, although after adjustments, patients overall faced a relapse rate of less than 0.1 per year. There were also no significant differences in either disability progression or improvement between the two treatments.

“We believe this study is unique in that ocrelizumab demonstrates a very clear differential treatment benefit in this age group,” said study presenter Yi Chao Foong, MD, department of neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne. “However, this has to be balanced against the fact that overall relapse activity is extremely low in people with MS over the age of 60. We believe that this study adds valuable, real-world data for nuanced benefit versus risk DMT discussions with for older adults with MS.”

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
 

Lack of data in older patients

Dr. Fong explained the comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has not been demonstrated in older people with MS, as all landmark trials to date have excluded people older than age 60 years. He underlined, however, that the inflammatory aspect of MS reduces with age, when neurodegenerative processes begin to predominate.

“This, combined with increased risk of acute infections in older adults have raised concerns over the benefit ratios of DMTs in this age group,” Dr. Fong said.

This has led to several de-escalation studies in older patients already on treatment for MS, but with “varied results.”

One study, published earlier in 2023, was unable to conclude whether DMT discontinuation was noninferior to continuation in older patients with no recent relapse or new MRI activity.

To investigate further, the Australian team used the MSBase database to study patients with a confirmed MS diagnosis who had started or switched to ocrelizumab or BRACE when older than 60 years of age.

They were also required to have undergone an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessment around the time of the initiation of DMT. In all, 675 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 248 started with ocrelizumab and 427 with BRACE.

The treatment groups were well balanced, although baseline EDSS scores were higher in patients given ocrelizumab, at 5.22 versus 3.89 with BRACE (P = .05), and they had a lower relapse rate prior in the year (P = .01) and 2 years (P = .02) prior to baseline.
 

Only relapse rates reduced

With more than 571 patient-years of follow-up, there were eight relapses in patients treated with ocrelizumab, compared with 182 relapses during 2238 patient-years among those given BRACE.

The team then performed propensity matching based on patient age, disease duration, sex, baseline EDSS, prior relapses, and prior DMTs.

They found that, over a median follow-up of 2.47 years for ocrelizumab and 4.48 years for BRACE, there was a lower rate of relapse with ocrelizumab, at a weighted annualized relapse rate of 0.01 versus 0.08 (P < .0001). This, they calculated, equated to an ARR ratio in favor of ocrelizumab of 0.15 (P < .01).

The time to first relapse was also longer for ocrelizumab versus BRACE, at a weighted hazard ratio for relapse of 0.11 (P < .001) and with, as Dr. Fong highlighted, separation of the curves at 5 months.

Over a follow-up duration of 3.6 years, there was, however, no significant difference in confirmed disability progression between the two treatments (P = .31), with similar results seen for confirmed disability improvement (P = .92).

Dr. Fong noted the study was limited by an inherent treatment indication bias, affecting the sensitivity analysis and weighing, while assessment of confirmed disability progression and confirmed disability improvement was hampered by the relatively short follow-up period and the lack of data on comorbidities.

He also highlighted the lack of safety data for the study population, as well as the lack of MRI.
 

Muddling the data

Approached for comment, Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, pointed out the study is based on retrospective data.

“The main question that we normally come up against in clinical practice, once people are older, is: What do you do with their treatment?” he asked.

This, Dr. Bhargava said, was the question that was addressed in the previous de-escalation studies.

The current study “actually answered a completely different question: If you were starting or changing a treatment after 60, which one would be better to choose?” This is a “much rarer scenario,” he said.

The results nevertheless showed what is seen in younger patients; in other words, “a more efficacious treatment is more effective at reducing relapses than a less efficacious treatment, even though overall the number of relapses is quite low,” Dr. Bhargava said.

“The other problem,” he added, is the study included “not just relapsing but also progressive patients, so that kind of muddles the data a little bit.”

Consequently, “it’s hard to really make a definitive conclusion” from the results, Dr. Bhargava concluded.

No funding was declared. Dr. Fong declares relationships with Biogen, National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia, and the Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists. Several coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.

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

MILAN – Obese patients with MS are more likely to rapidly progress through the stages of their disease and experience higher levels of cognitive difficulty than nonobese patients with MS, Swedish researchers reported at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.

In a group of 3,249 subjects tracked for up to 5 years (74% female; mean age, 37.8 years), patients who were obese at diagnosis were 1.41 times more likely than normal-weight patients to reach an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 3. About 35% of 355 obese subjects (body mass index > 30 kg/m²) reached that level versus 29% of 713 overweight patients (BMI, 25-30) and 28% of 1,475 normal-weight patients (BMI, 18.5-24.99).

Among subjects whose BMI category didn’t change over follow-up, those who were obese at diagnosis were more likely to develop cognitive worsening than those who weren’t obese (hazard ratio, 1.47, 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.01).

Lars Alfredsson, PhD, a professor at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who presented the study findings, said in an interview that they fill a gap in knowledge about obesity and MS. “It is known that obesity around the age of 20 or in adolescence is a risk factor for developing MS. But much less is known in regard to progression, and the studies have been very inconclusive.”

The researchers tracked patients via the Swedish MS registry: 1,475 of normal weight, 713 overweight, and 355 obese. Before adjustment for factors such as age, gender, and baseline EDSS, obese subjects were 1.51 times more likely to reach EDSS score 3 than normal-weight subjects.

Obese subjects whose BMI level didn’t change over time were 1.70 times more likely than the nonobese to develop physical worsening as measured by an increased Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale physical score of 7.5 points or more, and they were 1.36 times more likely to have psychological worsening as measured by increased MSIS-28 psychological score of 7.5 points or more.

Also, among subjects whose BMI didn’t change over time, the likelihood of cognitive disability worsening was 1.47 times higher among obese participants versus nonobese participants. Worsening was defined as an increased Symbol Digit Modalities Test score of 8 points or more.

The level of excess cognitive decline “will affect people significantly,” Dr. Alfredsson said.

While obesity can counterintuitively provide a protective effect in some diseases, he said there’s no sign of such an effect in the subjects.

As for limitations, Dr. Alfredsson noted in his presentation that BMI data is self-reported, and it’s possible that the researchers didn’t adjust their statistics to reflect important confounders.

A 2023 German study of outcomes in MS patients with obesity came to similar conclusions. It tracked 1,066 subjects for up to 6 years and found that “median time to reach EDSS 3 was 0.99 years for patients with BMI of 30 or higher and 1.46 years for nonobese patients. Risk to reach EDSS 3 over 6 years was significantly increased in patients with BMI of at least 30, compared with patients with BMI less than 30 after adjustment for sex, age, smoking (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6; P < .001), and independent of disease-modifying therapies.”

However, the German researchers found no link between obesity and higher levels of relapse, contrast-enhancing MRI lesions, or MRI T2 lesion burden.
 

Interpretation and commentary

Could obesity be causing worse outcomes? The new study doesn’t provide insight into cause and effect. However, obesity may speed up progression via low-grade inflammation, Dr. Alfredsson said.

What can clinicians do with the information from the study? If patients are obese, it can be a good idea to more carefully monitor them and use reliable tools to improve their progression, Dr. Alfredsson said.

In an interview, Michael D. Kornberg, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved with the study, agreed with Dr. Alfredsson that other research has linked obesity early in life to higher rates of MS. He added that “a number of studies have shown that comorbidities in general are usually associated with a higher rate of disability.”

Dr. Kornberg said the new research is important, and he noted that it has a “robust” cohort because of its larger size.

Could patients with MS reverse the risk of progression and other poor outcomes by losing weight? “It’s hard to say,” Dr. Kornberg said. “We have to be cautious when we assume causation. There’s a plausible rationale that obesity might worsen progression in MS, but it could just be a marker of some other factor that reflects a different phenotype of MS.”

He doesn’t think it’s likely that weight loss would “dramatically reverse the biology of MS,” but he said reversing the obesity epidemic would still be a good thing. An interventional study could examine the effects of weight-loss intervention on disability measures, he said, “and that’s the next step.”

Also contacted for commentary, Adil Harroud, MD, a neurologist at McGill University who studies obesity in MS, said research suggests that “obesity seems to exacerbate MS disability. While some studies show no effect, the majority indicate a detrimental impact.”

However, “the effect of obesity on MS progression remains unclear. Animal studies suggest that shifts in immune cell subsets and functions may play a role, but the relevance to humans is yet to be determined,” he said.

Dr. Harroud, who did not take part in the new study, said it’s “one of the largest examining the impact of obesity on MS disability.” He added that “the cohort was relatively early in their disease course, suggesting that obesity impacts even the early stages of MS. This underscores the importance of obesity as a modifiable risk factor for disability accumulation.”

As for why obesity affects MS, he said one theory is that obesity plays a role through its impact on vitamin D levels. “However, using a genetic approach, we have demonstrated that, at least for MS risk, the effect of obesity is independent of vitamin D. This is also likely true for MS progression, as recent trials of vitamin D supplementation have not shown a meaningful impact on MS outcomes.”

According to Dr. Harroud, “other theories suggest that obesity leads to a pro-inflammatory immune shift. Additionally, it has been proposed that obesity may influence the response to disease-modifying therapy by reducing drug bioavailability, potentially necessitating weight-based dosing for some therapies.”

Dr. Alfredsson reported receiving grants from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Research Council for Health Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Brain Foundation and personal fees from Teva and Biogene Idec. Some of the other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Kornberg and Dr. Harroud reported no relevant disclosures.

This article was updated 10/20/23.

MILAN – Obese patients with MS are more likely to rapidly progress through the stages of their disease and experience higher levels of cognitive difficulty than nonobese patients with MS, Swedish researchers reported at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.

In a group of 3,249 subjects tracked for up to 5 years (74% female; mean age, 37.8 years), patients who were obese at diagnosis were 1.41 times more likely than normal-weight patients to reach an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 3. About 35% of 355 obese subjects (body mass index > 30 kg/m²) reached that level versus 29% of 713 overweight patients (BMI, 25-30) and 28% of 1,475 normal-weight patients (BMI, 18.5-24.99).

Among subjects whose BMI category didn’t change over follow-up, those who were obese at diagnosis were more likely to develop cognitive worsening than those who weren’t obese (hazard ratio, 1.47, 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.01).

Lars Alfredsson, PhD, a professor at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who presented the study findings, said in an interview that they fill a gap in knowledge about obesity and MS. “It is known that obesity around the age of 20 or in adolescence is a risk factor for developing MS. But much less is known in regard to progression, and the studies have been very inconclusive.”

The researchers tracked patients via the Swedish MS registry: 1,475 of normal weight, 713 overweight, and 355 obese. Before adjustment for factors such as age, gender, and baseline EDSS, obese subjects were 1.51 times more likely to reach EDSS score 3 than normal-weight subjects.

Obese subjects whose BMI level didn’t change over time were 1.70 times more likely than the nonobese to develop physical worsening as measured by an increased Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale physical score of 7.5 points or more, and they were 1.36 times more likely to have psychological worsening as measured by increased MSIS-28 psychological score of 7.5 points or more.

Also, among subjects whose BMI didn’t change over time, the likelihood of cognitive disability worsening was 1.47 times higher among obese participants versus nonobese participants. Worsening was defined as an increased Symbol Digit Modalities Test score of 8 points or more.

The level of excess cognitive decline “will affect people significantly,” Dr. Alfredsson said.

While obesity can counterintuitively provide a protective effect in some diseases, he said there’s no sign of such an effect in the subjects.

As for limitations, Dr. Alfredsson noted in his presentation that BMI data is self-reported, and it’s possible that the researchers didn’t adjust their statistics to reflect important confounders.

A 2023 German study of outcomes in MS patients with obesity came to similar conclusions. It tracked 1,066 subjects for up to 6 years and found that “median time to reach EDSS 3 was 0.99 years for patients with BMI of 30 or higher and 1.46 years for nonobese patients. Risk to reach EDSS 3 over 6 years was significantly increased in patients with BMI of at least 30, compared with patients with BMI less than 30 after adjustment for sex, age, smoking (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6; P < .001), and independent of disease-modifying therapies.”

However, the German researchers found no link between obesity and higher levels of relapse, contrast-enhancing MRI lesions, or MRI T2 lesion burden.
 

Interpretation and commentary

Could obesity be causing worse outcomes? The new study doesn’t provide insight into cause and effect. However, obesity may speed up progression via low-grade inflammation, Dr. Alfredsson said.

What can clinicians do with the information from the study? If patients are obese, it can be a good idea to more carefully monitor them and use reliable tools to improve their progression, Dr. Alfredsson said.

In an interview, Michael D. Kornberg, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved with the study, agreed with Dr. Alfredsson that other research has linked obesity early in life to higher rates of MS. He added that “a number of studies have shown that comorbidities in general are usually associated with a higher rate of disability.”

Dr. Kornberg said the new research is important, and he noted that it has a “robust” cohort because of its larger size.

Could patients with MS reverse the risk of progression and other poor outcomes by losing weight? “It’s hard to say,” Dr. Kornberg said. “We have to be cautious when we assume causation. There’s a plausible rationale that obesity might worsen progression in MS, but it could just be a marker of some other factor that reflects a different phenotype of MS.”

He doesn’t think it’s likely that weight loss would “dramatically reverse the biology of MS,” but he said reversing the obesity epidemic would still be a good thing. An interventional study could examine the effects of weight-loss intervention on disability measures, he said, “and that’s the next step.”

Also contacted for commentary, Adil Harroud, MD, a neurologist at McGill University who studies obesity in MS, said research suggests that “obesity seems to exacerbate MS disability. While some studies show no effect, the majority indicate a detrimental impact.”

However, “the effect of obesity on MS progression remains unclear. Animal studies suggest that shifts in immune cell subsets and functions may play a role, but the relevance to humans is yet to be determined,” he said.

Dr. Harroud, who did not take part in the new study, said it’s “one of the largest examining the impact of obesity on MS disability.” He added that “the cohort was relatively early in their disease course, suggesting that obesity impacts even the early stages of MS. This underscores the importance of obesity as a modifiable risk factor for disability accumulation.”

As for why obesity affects MS, he said one theory is that obesity plays a role through its impact on vitamin D levels. “However, using a genetic approach, we have demonstrated that, at least for MS risk, the effect of obesity is independent of vitamin D. This is also likely true for MS progression, as recent trials of vitamin D supplementation have not shown a meaningful impact on MS outcomes.”

According to Dr. Harroud, “other theories suggest that obesity leads to a pro-inflammatory immune shift. Additionally, it has been proposed that obesity may influence the response to disease-modifying therapy by reducing drug bioavailability, potentially necessitating weight-based dosing for some therapies.”

Dr. Alfredsson reported receiving grants from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Research Council for Health Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Brain Foundation and personal fees from Teva and Biogene Idec. Some of the other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Kornberg and Dr. Harroud reported no relevant disclosures.

This article was updated 10/20/23.

MILAN – Obese patients with MS are more likely to rapidly progress through the stages of their disease and experience higher levels of cognitive difficulty than nonobese patients with MS, Swedish researchers reported at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.

In a group of 3,249 subjects tracked for up to 5 years (74% female; mean age, 37.8 years), patients who were obese at diagnosis were 1.41 times more likely than normal-weight patients to reach an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 3. About 35% of 355 obese subjects (body mass index > 30 kg/m²) reached that level versus 29% of 713 overweight patients (BMI, 25-30) and 28% of 1,475 normal-weight patients (BMI, 18.5-24.99).

Among subjects whose BMI category didn’t change over follow-up, those who were obese at diagnosis were more likely to develop cognitive worsening than those who weren’t obese (hazard ratio, 1.47, 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.01).

Lars Alfredsson, PhD, a professor at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who presented the study findings, said in an interview that they fill a gap in knowledge about obesity and MS. “It is known that obesity around the age of 20 or in adolescence is a risk factor for developing MS. But much less is known in regard to progression, and the studies have been very inconclusive.”

The researchers tracked patients via the Swedish MS registry: 1,475 of normal weight, 713 overweight, and 355 obese. Before adjustment for factors such as age, gender, and baseline EDSS, obese subjects were 1.51 times more likely to reach EDSS score 3 than normal-weight subjects.

Obese subjects whose BMI level didn’t change over time were 1.70 times more likely than the nonobese to develop physical worsening as measured by an increased Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale physical score of 7.5 points or more, and they were 1.36 times more likely to have psychological worsening as measured by increased MSIS-28 psychological score of 7.5 points or more.

Also, among subjects whose BMI didn’t change over time, the likelihood of cognitive disability worsening was 1.47 times higher among obese participants versus nonobese participants. Worsening was defined as an increased Symbol Digit Modalities Test score of 8 points or more.

The level of excess cognitive decline “will affect people significantly,” Dr. Alfredsson said.

While obesity can counterintuitively provide a protective effect in some diseases, he said there’s no sign of such an effect in the subjects.

As for limitations, Dr. Alfredsson noted in his presentation that BMI data is self-reported, and it’s possible that the researchers didn’t adjust their statistics to reflect important confounders.

A 2023 German study of outcomes in MS patients with obesity came to similar conclusions. It tracked 1,066 subjects for up to 6 years and found that “median time to reach EDSS 3 was 0.99 years for patients with BMI of 30 or higher and 1.46 years for nonobese patients. Risk to reach EDSS 3 over 6 years was significantly increased in patients with BMI of at least 30, compared with patients with BMI less than 30 after adjustment for sex, age, smoking (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6; P < .001), and independent of disease-modifying therapies.”

However, the German researchers found no link between obesity and higher levels of relapse, contrast-enhancing MRI lesions, or MRI T2 lesion burden.
 

Interpretation and commentary

Could obesity be causing worse outcomes? The new study doesn’t provide insight into cause and effect. However, obesity may speed up progression via low-grade inflammation, Dr. Alfredsson said.

What can clinicians do with the information from the study? If patients are obese, it can be a good idea to more carefully monitor them and use reliable tools to improve their progression, Dr. Alfredsson said.

In an interview, Michael D. Kornberg, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved with the study, agreed with Dr. Alfredsson that other research has linked obesity early in life to higher rates of MS. He added that “a number of studies have shown that comorbidities in general are usually associated with a higher rate of disability.”

Dr. Kornberg said the new research is important, and he noted that it has a “robust” cohort because of its larger size.

Could patients with MS reverse the risk of progression and other poor outcomes by losing weight? “It’s hard to say,” Dr. Kornberg said. “We have to be cautious when we assume causation. There’s a plausible rationale that obesity might worsen progression in MS, but it could just be a marker of some other factor that reflects a different phenotype of MS.”

He doesn’t think it’s likely that weight loss would “dramatically reverse the biology of MS,” but he said reversing the obesity epidemic would still be a good thing. An interventional study could examine the effects of weight-loss intervention on disability measures, he said, “and that’s the next step.”

Also contacted for commentary, Adil Harroud, MD, a neurologist at McGill University who studies obesity in MS, said research suggests that “obesity seems to exacerbate MS disability. While some studies show no effect, the majority indicate a detrimental impact.”

However, “the effect of obesity on MS progression remains unclear. Animal studies suggest that shifts in immune cell subsets and functions may play a role, but the relevance to humans is yet to be determined,” he said.

Dr. Harroud, who did not take part in the new study, said it’s “one of the largest examining the impact of obesity on MS disability.” He added that “the cohort was relatively early in their disease course, suggesting that obesity impacts even the early stages of MS. This underscores the importance of obesity as a modifiable risk factor for disability accumulation.”

As for why obesity affects MS, he said one theory is that obesity plays a role through its impact on vitamin D levels. “However, using a genetic approach, we have demonstrated that, at least for MS risk, the effect of obesity is independent of vitamin D. This is also likely true for MS progression, as recent trials of vitamin D supplementation have not shown a meaningful impact on MS outcomes.”

According to Dr. Harroud, “other theories suggest that obesity leads to a pro-inflammatory immune shift. Additionally, it has been proposed that obesity may influence the response to disease-modifying therapy by reducing drug bioavailability, potentially necessitating weight-based dosing for some therapies.”

Dr. Alfredsson reported receiving grants from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Research Council for Health Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Brain Foundation and personal fees from Teva and Biogene Idec. Some of the other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Kornberg and Dr. Harroud reported no relevant disclosures.

This article was updated 10/20/23.

MILAN – Researchers halted a study into stopping disease-modifying therapy (DMT) in patients with stable multiple sclerosis (MS) because inflammatory activity returned in nearly one-fifth of subjects who stopped treatment.

In the multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferiority DOT-MS trial, inflammatory activity came back in 17.8% of 45 participants who discontinued DMT, researchers reported at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting.

“Because the number of participants with active disease – relapse or MRI activity – was higher in the discontinuation group, and this difference between the groups exceeded our predefined threshold, we prematurely terminated the trial in its current form,” said Eline Coerver, a graduate student with VU University Amsterdam, in an interview.

Previous studies have offered a mixed picture about whether stopping DMT is a good idea when patients with MS are doing well.

“Observational studies suggest that discontinuation of first-line DMTs, or platform therapies, might be safe in patients with MS who have been stable for a long period of time, meaning they did not have any clinical relapses or inflammatory MRI activity – new or contrast-enhancing lesions on MRI,” Ms. Coerver said. “These studies also suggest that patients with higher age have a lower risk of disease activity after DMT discontinuation.”

Discontinuation of DMTs can spare patients from side effects and the cost of the drugs. However, a phase 4 trial published earlier this year in The Lancet Neurology could not determine that stopping DMTs is noninferior to continuing treatment in patients with MS aged 55 and older.

“Six (4.7%) of 128 participants in the continue group and 16 (12.2%) of 131 in the discontinue group had a relapse or a new or expanding brain MRI lesion within 2 years,” the researchers reported.

For the new study, Ms. Coerver and colleagues recruited patients with relapse-onset MS aged 18 years or older who hadn’t had any relapses or substantial MRI activity in the last 5 years. The subjects were randomly assigned to discontinue DMT (interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, or dimethyl fumarate) or continue taking the therapy for 2 years.

At pre-set interim analyses, the researchers would look for signs of inflammatory disease activity, which they defined as a confirmed relapse or three or more new T2-lesions or two or more contrast-enhancing lesions detected via MRI.

At the time of cessation in March 2023 (median follow-up = 12.0 months, interquartile range 7.0-20.0), the study had recruited 89 subjects: 67.4% female, mean age 53 (SD, 7.8). Just over half (50.6%) were randomized to discontinue treatment. Of the 45 in the discontinuation group, 8 (17.8%) developed inflammatory activity (7 significant MRI activity, 2 relapses) versus none of the 44 who continued therapy.
 

Interpreting the results

Two MS clinicians who are familiar with the study findings but weren’t involved with the research were reached for comment.

Katherine Knox, MD, a physiatrist and associate professor who specializes in MS care at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, said in an interview that the new study is useful “because it affirms that an appropriate stopping recommendation cannot be made primarily on the basis of a standard number of years without disease activity.”

In regard to the percentage of patients who had a recurrence of inflammatory activity (17.8%), Dr. Knox said “ideally patients can be triaged for stopping therapy appropriately with a much lower risk for return of disease activity based on their individual risk factors – i.e., under 2%.”

Michael J. Olek, DO, associate professor of neurology at Touro University Nevada, Henderson, took a different view. He said he does not discontinue medication in patients with MS even if they’re stable for 5 years.

“I am waiting for trials that show that discontinuing medication is OK for the patient. To date, there are no studies showing that stopping medication is a good idea,” he said. “The immune systems slows as people age, so there may be a point in a person’s lifetime when medication used to slow the immune system is no longer needed. But until then I will continue medication for all multiple sclerosis patients.”

Moving forward, study lead author Ms. Coerver said “there are large differences between patients, and there is still room for discussion regarding what percentage of disease activity can be accepted after DMT discontinuation. The most important point is to inform patients about the risks of discontinuation so that each individual patient can make a well-informed decision.”

The study was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and Stichting MS Research. Ms. Coerver reports no disclosures; some other study authors report various disclosures. Dr. Olek reports no disclosures. Dr. Knox discloses research funding from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Health to evaluate and monitor long-term outcomes in MS.
 

MILAN – Researchers halted a study into stopping disease-modifying therapy (DMT) in patients with stable multiple sclerosis (MS) because inflammatory activity returned in nearly one-fifth of subjects who stopped treatment.

In the multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferiority DOT-MS trial, inflammatory activity came back in 17.8% of 45 participants who discontinued DMT, researchers reported at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting.

“Because the number of participants with active disease – relapse or MRI activity – was higher in the discontinuation group, and this difference between the groups exceeded our predefined threshold, we prematurely terminated the trial in its current form,” said Eline Coerver, a graduate student with VU University Amsterdam, in an interview.

Previous studies have offered a mixed picture about whether stopping DMT is a good idea when patients with MS are doing well.

“Observational studies suggest that discontinuation of first-line DMTs, or platform therapies, might be safe in patients with MS who have been stable for a long period of time, meaning they did not have any clinical relapses or inflammatory MRI activity – new or contrast-enhancing lesions on MRI,” Ms. Coerver said. “These studies also suggest that patients with higher age have a lower risk of disease activity after DMT discontinuation.”

Discontinuation of DMTs can spare patients from side effects and the cost of the drugs. However, a phase 4 trial published earlier this year in The Lancet Neurology could not determine that stopping DMTs is noninferior to continuing treatment in patients with MS aged 55 and older.

“Six (4.7%) of 128 participants in the continue group and 16 (12.2%) of 131 in the discontinue group had a relapse or a new or expanding brain MRI lesion within 2 years,” the researchers reported.

For the new study, Ms. Coerver and colleagues recruited patients with relapse-onset MS aged 18 years or older who hadn’t had any relapses or substantial MRI activity in the last 5 years. The subjects were randomly assigned to discontinue DMT (interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, or dimethyl fumarate) or continue taking the therapy for 2 years.

At pre-set interim analyses, the researchers would look for signs of inflammatory disease activity, which they defined as a confirmed relapse or three or more new T2-lesions or two or more contrast-enhancing lesions detected via MRI.

At the time of cessation in March 2023 (median follow-up = 12.0 months, interquartile range 7.0-20.0), the study had recruited 89 subjects: 67.4% female, mean age 53 (SD, 7.8). Just over half (50.6%) were randomized to discontinue treatment. Of the 45 in the discontinuation group, 8 (17.8%) developed inflammatory activity (7 significant MRI activity, 2 relapses) versus none of the 44 who continued therapy.
 

Interpreting the results

Two MS clinicians who are familiar with the study findings but weren’t involved with the research were reached for comment.

Katherine Knox, MD, a physiatrist and associate professor who specializes in MS care at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, said in an interview that the new study is useful “because it affirms that an appropriate stopping recommendation cannot be made primarily on the basis of a standard number of years without disease activity.”

In regard to the percentage of patients who had a recurrence of inflammatory activity (17.8%), Dr. Knox said “ideally patients can be triaged for stopping therapy appropriately with a much lower risk for return of disease activity based on their individual risk factors – i.e., under 2%.”

Michael J. Olek, DO, associate professor of neurology at Touro University Nevada, Henderson, took a different view. He said he does not discontinue medication in patients with MS even if they’re stable for 5 years.

“I am waiting for trials that show that discontinuing medication is OK for the patient. To date, there are no studies showing that stopping medication is a good idea,” he said. “The immune systems slows as people age, so there may be a point in a person’s lifetime when medication used to slow the immune system is no longer needed. But until then I will continue medication for all multiple sclerosis patients.”

Moving forward, study lead author Ms. Coerver said “there are large differences between patients, and there is still room for discussion regarding what percentage of disease activity can be accepted after DMT discontinuation. The most important point is to inform patients about the risks of discontinuation so that each individual patient can make a well-informed decision.”

The study was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and Stichting MS Research. Ms. Coerver reports no disclosures; some other study authors report various disclosures. Dr. Olek reports no disclosures. Dr. Knox discloses research funding from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Health to evaluate and monitor long-term outcomes in MS.
 

MILAN – Researchers halted a study into stopping disease-modifying therapy (DMT) in patients with stable multiple sclerosis (MS) because inflammatory activity returned in nearly one-fifth of subjects who stopped treatment.

In the multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferiority DOT-MS trial, inflammatory activity came back in 17.8% of 45 participants who discontinued DMT, researchers reported at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting.

“Because the number of participants with active disease – relapse or MRI activity – was higher in the discontinuation group, and this difference between the groups exceeded our predefined threshold, we prematurely terminated the trial in its current form,” said Eline Coerver, a graduate student with VU University Amsterdam, in an interview.

Previous studies have offered a mixed picture about whether stopping DMT is a good idea when patients with MS are doing well.

“Observational studies suggest that discontinuation of first-line DMTs, or platform therapies, might be safe in patients with MS who have been stable for a long period of time, meaning they did not have any clinical relapses or inflammatory MRI activity – new or contrast-enhancing lesions on MRI,” Ms. Coerver said. “These studies also suggest that patients with higher age have a lower risk of disease activity after DMT discontinuation.”

Discontinuation of DMTs can spare patients from side effects and the cost of the drugs. However, a phase 4 trial published earlier this year in The Lancet Neurology could not determine that stopping DMTs is noninferior to continuing treatment in patients with MS aged 55 and older.

“Six (4.7%) of 128 participants in the continue group and 16 (12.2%) of 131 in the discontinue group had a relapse or a new or expanding brain MRI lesion within 2 years,” the researchers reported.

For the new study, Ms. Coerver and colleagues recruited patients with relapse-onset MS aged 18 years or older who hadn’t had any relapses or substantial MRI activity in the last 5 years. The subjects were randomly assigned to discontinue DMT (interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, or dimethyl fumarate) or continue taking the therapy for 2 years.

At pre-set interim analyses, the researchers would look for signs of inflammatory disease activity, which they defined as a confirmed relapse or three or more new T2-lesions or two or more contrast-enhancing lesions detected via MRI.

At the time of cessation in March 2023 (median follow-up = 12.0 months, interquartile range 7.0-20.0), the study had recruited 89 subjects: 67.4% female, mean age 53 (SD, 7.8). Just over half (50.6%) were randomized to discontinue treatment. Of the 45 in the discontinuation group, 8 (17.8%) developed inflammatory activity (7 significant MRI activity, 2 relapses) versus none of the 44 who continued therapy.
 

Interpreting the results

Two MS clinicians who are familiar with the study findings but weren’t involved with the research were reached for comment.

Katherine Knox, MD, a physiatrist and associate professor who specializes in MS care at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, said in an interview that the new study is useful “because it affirms that an appropriate stopping recommendation cannot be made primarily on the basis of a standard number of years without disease activity.”

In regard to the percentage of patients who had a recurrence of inflammatory activity (17.8%), Dr. Knox said “ideally patients can be triaged for stopping therapy appropriately with a much lower risk for return of disease activity based on their individual risk factors – i.e., under 2%.”

Michael J. Olek, DO, associate professor of neurology at Touro University Nevada, Henderson, took a different view. He said he does not discontinue medication in patients with MS even if they’re stable for 5 years.

“I am waiting for trials that show that discontinuing medication is OK for the patient. To date, there are no studies showing that stopping medication is a good idea,” he said. “The immune systems slows as people age, so there may be a point in a person’s lifetime when medication used to slow the immune system is no longer needed. But until then I will continue medication for all multiple sclerosis patients.”

Moving forward, study lead author Ms. Coerver said “there are large differences between patients, and there is still room for discussion regarding what percentage of disease activity can be accepted after DMT discontinuation. The most important point is to inform patients about the risks of discontinuation so that each individual patient can make a well-informed decision.”

The study was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and Stichting MS Research. Ms. Coerver reports no disclosures; some other study authors report various disclosures. Dr. Olek reports no disclosures. Dr. Knox discloses research funding from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Health to evaluate and monitor long-term outcomes in MS.
 

A revolutionary treatment for cancers may also be able to treat and reset the immune system to provide long-term remission or possibly even cure certain autoimmune diseases.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has offered a novel approach to treating hematologic cancers since 2017, but there are early signs that these cellular immunotherapies could be repurposed for B-cell mediated autoimmune diseases.

In September of last year, researchers in Germany reported that five patients with refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) treated with CAR T-cell therapy all achieved drug-free remission. At the time of publication, no patients had relapsed for up to 17 months after treatment. The authors described seroconversion of antinuclear antibodies in two patients with the longest follow-up, “indicating that abrogation of autoimmune B-cell clones may lead to a more widespread correction of autoimmunity,” the researchers write.

In another case study published in June, researchers used CD-19 targeted CAR-T cells to treat a 41-year-old man with refractory antisynthetase syndrome with progressive myositis and interstitial lung disease. Six months after treatment, there were no signs of myositis on MRI and a chest CT scan showed full regression of alveolitis.

John Hopkins Medicine

Since then, two biotechnology companies – Cabaletta Bio in Philadelphia and Kyverna Therapeutics in Emeryville, Calif. – have already been granted fast-track designations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for CAR T-cell therapy for SLE and lupus nephritis. Bristol-Myers Squibb is also conducting a phase 1 trial in patients with severe, refractory SLE. Several biotechnology companies and hospitals in China are also conducting clinical trials for SLE. But this is only the tip of the iceberg regarding cellular therapies for autoimmune disease, said Max Konig, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“It’s an incredibly exciting time. It’s unprecedented in the history of autoimmunity,” he noted.
 

A ‘reboot’ for the immune system

B-cell targeted therapies have been around since the early 2000s with drugs like rituximab, a monoclonal antibody medication that targets CD20, an antigen expressed on the surface of B cells. The CAR T cells currently available target another surface antigen, CD19, and are a much more potent therapy. Both are effective at depleting B cells in blood, but these engineered CD19-targeted T cells can reach B cells sitting in tissues in a way that antibody therapies cannot, Dr. Konig explained.

“If you have a patient with myositis, for example, where autoreactive B cells are sitting in the inflamed muscle, or a patient with rheumatoid arthritis, where you have disease-relevant B cells in hard-to-reach tissues like the synovium, those cells are much harder to deplete with an antibody, compared to a T cell that evolved to surveil and effectively kill in all tissues,” he explained.

In this process, T cells are collected from patients via leukapheresis and then re-engineered to express chimeric antigen receptors. A few days before these modified T cells are infused back into the patient, the patients are given a low-dose chemotherapy (lymphodepletion) regimen to help increase the effectiveness of the therapy. The one-time infusion is generally given on an inpatient basis, and patients are then monitored in hospital for side effects.

Once B cells are depleted, disease symptoms improve. But in the case studies published to date, once B cells re-emerge, they are naïve and no longer producing autoreactive B cells.
 

“Maybe it’s like a tabula rasa: You wipe [the B cells] out and start with a clean slate. Then, the immune system reboots, and now it’s working, whereas before it was messed up,” said Carl June, MD, who directs the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies at the at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. June and his research team led the development of CAR T-cell therapies for blood cancers.

The findings suggest that autoantibodies “might not be hardwired into the immune system,” he said.

But Dr. Konig stressed that we are still in the early days of clinical trials, and more research is necessary to understand the safety and efficacy of these therapies.

“There’s an incredible buzz around CAR T cells at the moment in rheumatology, which is great because I think that’s where the future is,” he said. “But we still need to learn how to appropriately apply these therapies in randomized, controlled trials.”

So far, the evidence behind CD19 CAR T-cell therapies in autoimmune disease is from case studies and phase 1 trials in a very small number of selected patients. (The upcoming Cabaletta and Kyverna trials in lupus will also be small, consisting of 12 patients each.)
 

Risks of intensive therapy

But while these therapies show promise, the process is very intensive. The lymphodepleting regimen increases the risk for infection and patients are commonly hospitalized for a week or more following infusion for toxicity monitoring. Serious adverse events such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) can occur days to weeks after CAR T-cell infusion. In the five-patient case series reported in 2022, patients were hospitalized for 10 days following treatment.

The patient with antisynthetase syndrome, as well as three of five patients in the SLE case series study experienced mild CRS following infusion. Patients are also at a high risk for infection, as the engineered T cells target all B cells, not just the autoreactive immune cells.

The inability to differentiate between disease-causing and protective immune cells is an issue for all currently available drugs treating autoimmune disease, Dr. Konig said. But scientists are already working on how to make these potent cellular therapies safer and more precise.
 

Alternatives to standard CAR T-cell therapies

Engineering T cells with RNA is a new approach to limit the side effects and toxicity of CAR T-cell therapy, said Chris Jewell, PhD, the chief scientific officer at Cartesian Therapeutics, a biotechnology company based in Gaithersburg, Md. The company’s RNA CAR T-cell (rCAR-T) therapy – called DESCARTES-08 – is in phase 2 clinical trials for treatment of myasthenia gravis. Once these rCAR-T cells are infused in patients, as they divide, the RNAnaturally decays, he explained, meaning that after a certain point, the CAR is no longer expressed.

Cartesian Therapeutics

DESCARTES-08 targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is primarily expressed on plasma cells, rather than all B cells, Dr. Jewell said.

“Targeting BCMA, we actually have a more selective profile,” he explained. “We are targeting the cells primarily responsible for the pathogenicity; many plasma cells – such as long-lived plasma cells – also take a long time to repopulate.”

This therapy also does not require lymphodepletion prior to infusion and can be done in an outpatient setting. The therapy is given in multiple infusions, once per week.

In the most recent clinical trial, patients with myasthenia gravis received six infusions over 6 weeks and experienced notable decreases in myasthenia gravis severity scale at up to 9 months of follow-up.

Abata Therapeutics

While standard CAR T-cell therapies under clinical investigational up to now all use effector T cells, regulatory T cells (Tregs) can also be engineered to target autoimmune disease. Abata Therapeutics, based in Boston, is using this approach for therapies for progressive multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes. These engineered Tregs express a T-cell receptor (TCR) that recognizes tissue-specific antigens and suppress inflammation at the site of the disease. “Treg-based cell therapies are really harnessing the natural power of regulatory cells to reset immune tolerance and recalibrate the immune system,” said their chief medical officer, Leonard Dragone, MD, PhD.

These therapies are derived from terminally differentiated cells that have limited capacity to produce pro-inflammatory cytokines including interleukin-2 or interferon gamma, Dr. Dragone explained. “CRS is difficult to envision from engineered Treg products and hasn’t been observed in any clinical experience with polyclonal Tregs,” he said.

This approach also does not require lymphodepletion prior to treatment. The company’s Treg cellular therapy for progressive MS is currently in investigational new drug-enabling studies, and they aim to dose their first patients in 2024.
 

Precision immunotherapy

For B-cell driven autoimmune diseases where the autoantibody is known, researchers have begun to re-engineer T cells to recognize only autoreactive B cells. While CD19 CAR T cells act more like a sledgehammer, these precision cellular immunotherapies are “like a razor’s strike,” Dr. June said.

University of Pennsylvania

“The chimeric autoantibody receptor (CAAR) approach targets autoantibodies that are expressed only on the surface of autoimmune B cells and are not expressed on normal B cells, which ideally should lead to precision targeting of just the cells that cause autoimmune disease,” explained Aimee Payne, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of the Penn Clinical Autoimmunity Center of Excellence at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She and her research team used this approach to develop a treatment for mucosal pemphigus vulgaris, an autoimmune blistering disease of mucous membranes driven by autoantibodies against desmoglein 3.

“The current standard of care for pemphigus is to treat with steroids and rituximab, an infusion therapy that results in global, but temporary, B-cell depletion,” she said. “By expressing desmoglein 3 (DSG3) on the surface of the CAAR T-cell therapy, we target just the anti-DSG3 B cells that cause disease in mucosal pemphigus vulgaris and spare the healthy B cells.”

The therapy – called DSG3-CAART – is being developed by Cabaletta Bio and is now in phase 1 clinical trials. The approach is also being investigated to treat certain types of myasthenia gravis and membranous nephropathy.

Dr. Konig’s lab at Johns Hopkins developed and is now exploring a new precision cellular immunotherapy approach, chimeric autoantigen-T cell receptor (CATCR) T-cell therapy, to treat antiphospholipid syndrome, which is in preclinical stages. In this approach, Dr. Konig and his team are “re-engineering the natural T-cell receptor to selectively kill disease-causing B cells that drive antiphospholipid syndrome,” he explained.

He anticipates the CD19 CAR T-cell therapies currently in clinical trials will help to pave the way for this new generation of precision cellular therapies. The ultimate goal of these therapies, he said, is to uncouple therapeutic potency from infection risk.

“That’s really the holy grail in the treatment of autoimmune diseases. It’s tantalizingly close, but we’re not there yet.”

Dr. June is an inventor on patents and/or patent applications licensed to Novartis Institutes of Biomedical Research and receives license revenue from such licenses. Dr. June is a scientific founder of Tmunity Therapeutics and Capstan Therapeutics and is a member of the scientific advisory boards of AC Immune SA, Alaunos, BlueSphere Bio, Cabaletta, Carisma, Cartography Biosciences, Cellares, Celldex, Decheng Capital, Poseida, Verismo, and WIRB-Copernicus Group. Dr. Konig is a consultant for argenx and Revel and is listed as inventor for patent applications filed by John Hopkins University. Dr. Payne holds equity, grants, payments, and patent licensing from Cabaletta Bio and consults for Janssen.

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

A revolutionary treatment for cancers may also be able to treat and reset the immune system to provide long-term remission or possibly even cure certain autoimmune diseases.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has offered a novel approach to treating hematologic cancers since 2017, but there are early signs that these cellular immunotherapies could be repurposed for B-cell mediated autoimmune diseases.

In September of last year, researchers in Germany reported that five patients with refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) treated with CAR T-cell therapy all achieved drug-free remission. At the time of publication, no patients had relapsed for up to 17 months after treatment. The authors described seroconversion of antinuclear antibodies in two patients with the longest follow-up, “indicating that abrogation of autoimmune B-cell clones may lead to a more widespread correction of autoimmunity,” the researchers write.

In another case study published in June, researchers used CD-19 targeted CAR-T cells to treat a 41-year-old man with refractory antisynthetase syndrome with progressive myositis and interstitial lung disease. Six months after treatment, there were no signs of myositis on MRI and a chest CT scan showed full regression of alveolitis.

John Hopkins Medicine

Since then, two biotechnology companies – Cabaletta Bio in Philadelphia and Kyverna Therapeutics in Emeryville, Calif. – have already been granted fast-track designations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for CAR T-cell therapy for SLE and lupus nephritis. Bristol-Myers Squibb is also conducting a phase 1 trial in patients with severe, refractory SLE. Several biotechnology companies and hospitals in China are also conducting clinical trials for SLE. But this is only the tip of the iceberg regarding cellular therapies for autoimmune disease, said Max Konig, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“It’s an incredibly exciting time. It’s unprecedented in the history of autoimmunity,” he noted.
 

A ‘reboot’ for the immune system

B-cell targeted therapies have been around since the early 2000s with drugs like rituximab, a monoclonal antibody medication that targets CD20, an antigen expressed on the surface of B cells. The CAR T cells currently available target another surface antigen, CD19, and are a much more potent therapy. Both are effective at depleting B cells in blood, but these engineered CD19-targeted T cells can reach B cells sitting in tissues in a way that antibody therapies cannot, Dr. Konig explained.

“If you have a patient with myositis, for example, where autoreactive B cells are sitting in the inflamed muscle, or a patient with rheumatoid arthritis, where you have disease-relevant B cells in hard-to-reach tissues like the synovium, those cells are much harder to deplete with an antibody, compared to a T cell that evolved to surveil and effectively kill in all tissues,” he explained.

In this process, T cells are collected from patients via leukapheresis and then re-engineered to express chimeric antigen receptors. A few days before these modified T cells are infused back into the patient, the patients are given a low-dose chemotherapy (lymphodepletion) regimen to help increase the effectiveness of the therapy. The one-time infusion is generally given on an inpatient basis, and patients are then monitored in hospital for side effects.

Once B cells are depleted, disease symptoms improve. But in the case studies published to date, once B cells re-emerge, they are naïve and no longer producing autoreactive B cells.
 

“Maybe it’s like a tabula rasa: You wipe [the B cells] out and start with a clean slate. Then, the immune system reboots, and now it’s working, whereas before it was messed up,” said Carl June, MD, who directs the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies at the at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. June and his research team led the development of CAR T-cell therapies for blood cancers.

The findings suggest that autoantibodies “might not be hardwired into the immune system,” he said.

But Dr. Konig stressed that we are still in the early days of clinical trials, and more research is necessary to understand the safety and efficacy of these therapies.

“There’s an incredible buzz around CAR T cells at the moment in rheumatology, which is great because I think that’s where the future is,” he said. “But we still need to learn how to appropriately apply these therapies in randomized, controlled trials.”

So far, the evidence behind CD19 CAR T-cell therapies in autoimmune disease is from case studies and phase 1 trials in a very small number of selected patients. (The upcoming Cabaletta and Kyverna trials in lupus will also be small, consisting of 12 patients each.)
 

Risks of intensive therapy

But while these therapies show promise, the process is very intensive. The lymphodepleting regimen increases the risk for infection and patients are commonly hospitalized for a week or more following infusion for toxicity monitoring. Serious adverse events such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) can occur days to weeks after CAR T-cell infusion. In the five-patient case series reported in 2022, patients were hospitalized for 10 days following treatment.

The patient with antisynthetase syndrome, as well as three of five patients in the SLE case series study experienced mild CRS following infusion. Patients are also at a high risk for infection, as the engineered T cells target all B cells, not just the autoreactive immune cells.

The inability to differentiate between disease-causing and protective immune cells is an issue for all currently available drugs treating autoimmune disease, Dr. Konig said. But scientists are already working on how to make these potent cellular therapies safer and more precise.
 

Alternatives to standard CAR T-cell therapies

Engineering T cells with RNA is a new approach to limit the side effects and toxicity of CAR T-cell therapy, said Chris Jewell, PhD, the chief scientific officer at Cartesian Therapeutics, a biotechnology company based in Gaithersburg, Md. The company’s RNA CAR T-cell (rCAR-T) therapy – called DESCARTES-08 – is in phase 2 clinical trials for treatment of myasthenia gravis. Once these rCAR-T cells are infused in patients, as they divide, the RNAnaturally decays, he explained, meaning that after a certain point, the CAR is no longer expressed.

Cartesian Therapeutics

DESCARTES-08 targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is primarily expressed on plasma cells, rather than all B cells, Dr. Jewell said.

“Targeting BCMA, we actually have a more selective profile,” he explained. “We are targeting the cells primarily responsible for the pathogenicity; many plasma cells – such as long-lived plasma cells – also take a long time to repopulate.”

This therapy also does not require lymphodepletion prior to infusion and can be done in an outpatient setting. The therapy is given in multiple infusions, once per week.

In the most recent clinical trial, patients with myasthenia gravis received six infusions over 6 weeks and experienced notable decreases in myasthenia gravis severity scale at up to 9 months of follow-up.

Abata Therapeutics

While standard CAR T-cell therapies under clinical investigational up to now all use effector T cells, regulatory T cells (Tregs) can also be engineered to target autoimmune disease. Abata Therapeutics, based in Boston, is using this approach for therapies for progressive multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes. These engineered Tregs express a T-cell receptor (TCR) that recognizes tissue-specific antigens and suppress inflammation at the site of the disease. “Treg-based cell therapies are really harnessing the natural power of regulatory cells to reset immune tolerance and recalibrate the immune system,” said their chief medical officer, Leonard Dragone, MD, PhD.

These therapies are derived from terminally differentiated cells that have limited capacity to produce pro-inflammatory cytokines including interleukin-2 or interferon gamma, Dr. Dragone explained. “CRS is difficult to envision from engineered Treg products and hasn’t been observed in any clinical experience with polyclonal Tregs,” he said.

This approach also does not require lymphodepletion prior to treatment. The company’s Treg cellular therapy for progressive MS is currently in investigational new drug-enabling studies, and they aim to dose their first patients in 2024.
 

Precision immunotherapy

For B-cell driven autoimmune diseases where the autoantibody is known, researchers have begun to re-engineer T cells to recognize only autoreactive B cells. While CD19 CAR T cells act more like a sledgehammer, these precision cellular immunotherapies are “like a razor’s strike,” Dr. June said.

University of Pennsylvania

“The chimeric autoantibody receptor (CAAR) approach targets autoantibodies that are expressed only on the surface of autoimmune B cells and are not expressed on normal B cells, which ideally should lead to precision targeting of just the cells that cause autoimmune disease,” explained Aimee Payne, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of the Penn Clinical Autoimmunity Center of Excellence at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She and her research team used this approach to develop a treatment for mucosal pemphigus vulgaris, an autoimmune blistering disease of mucous membranes driven by autoantibodies against desmoglein 3.

“The current standard of care for pemphigus is to treat with steroids and rituximab, an infusion therapy that results in global, but temporary, B-cell depletion,” she said. “By expressing desmoglein 3 (DSG3) on the surface of the CAAR T-cell therapy, we target just the anti-DSG3 B cells that cause disease in mucosal pemphigus vulgaris and spare the healthy B cells.”

The therapy – called DSG3-CAART – is being developed by Cabaletta Bio and is now in phase 1 clinical trials. The approach is also being investigated to treat certain types of myasthenia gravis and membranous nephropathy.

Dr. Konig’s lab at Johns Hopkins developed and is now exploring a new precision cellular immunotherapy approach, chimeric autoantigen-T cell receptor (CATCR) T-cell therapy, to treat antiphospholipid syndrome, which is in preclinical stages. In this approach, Dr. Konig and his team are “re-engineering the natural T-cell receptor to selectively kill disease-causing B cells that drive antiphospholipid syndrome,” he explained.

He anticipates the CD19 CAR T-cell therapies currently in clinical trials will help to pave the way for this new generation of precision cellular therapies. The ultimate goal of these therapies, he said, is to uncouple therapeutic potency from infection risk.

“That’s really the holy grail in the treatment of autoimmune diseases. It’s tantalizingly close, but we’re not there yet.”

Dr. June is an inventor on patents and/or patent applications licensed to Novartis Institutes of Biomedical Research and receives license revenue from such licenses. Dr. June is a scientific founder of Tmunity Therapeutics and Capstan Therapeutics and is a member of the scientific advisory boards of AC Immune SA, Alaunos, BlueSphere Bio, Cabaletta, Carisma, Cartography Biosciences, Cellares, Celldex, Decheng Capital, Poseida, Verismo, and WIRB-Copernicus Group. Dr. Konig is a consultant for argenx and Revel and is listed as inventor for patent applications filed by John Hopkins University. Dr. Payne holds equity, grants, payments, and patent licensing from Cabaletta Bio and consults for Janssen.

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

A revolutionary treatment for cancers may also be able to treat and reset the immune system to provide long-term remission or possibly even cure certain autoimmune diseases.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has offered a novel approach to treating hematologic cancers since 2017, but there are early signs that these cellular immunotherapies could be repurposed for B-cell mediated autoimmune diseases.

In September of last year, researchers in Germany reported that five patients with refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) treated with CAR T-cell therapy all achieved drug-free remission. At the time of publication, no patients had relapsed for up to 17 months after treatment. The authors described seroconversion of antinuclear antibodies in two patients with the longest follow-up, “indicating that abrogation of autoimmune B-cell clones may lead to a more widespread correction of autoimmunity,” the researchers write.

In another case study published in June, researchers used CD-19 targeted CAR-T cells to treat a 41-year-old man with refractory antisynthetase syndrome with progressive myositis and interstitial lung disease. Six months after treatment, there were no signs of myositis on MRI and a chest CT scan showed full regression of alveolitis.

John Hopkins Medicine

Since then, two biotechnology companies – Cabaletta Bio in Philadelphia and Kyverna Therapeutics in Emeryville, Calif. – have already been granted fast-track designations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for CAR T-cell therapy for SLE and lupus nephritis. Bristol-Myers Squibb is also conducting a phase 1 trial in patients with severe, refractory SLE. Several biotechnology companies and hospitals in China are also conducting clinical trials for SLE. But this is only the tip of the iceberg regarding cellular therapies for autoimmune disease, said Max Konig, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“It’s an incredibly exciting time. It’s unprecedented in the history of autoimmunity,” he noted.
 

A ‘reboot’ for the immune system

B-cell targeted therapies have been around since the early 2000s with drugs like rituximab, a monoclonal antibody medication that targets CD20, an antigen expressed on the surface of B cells. The CAR T cells currently available target another surface antigen, CD19, and are a much more potent therapy. Both are effective at depleting B cells in blood, but these engineered CD19-targeted T cells can reach B cells sitting in tissues in a way that antibody therapies cannot, Dr. Konig explained.

“If you have a patient with myositis, for example, where autoreactive B cells are sitting in the inflamed muscle, or a patient with rheumatoid arthritis, where you have disease-relevant B cells in hard-to-reach tissues like the synovium, those cells are much harder to deplete with an antibody, compared to a T cell that evolved to surveil and effectively kill in all tissues,” he explained.

In this process, T cells are collected from patients via leukapheresis and then re-engineered to express chimeric antigen receptors. A few days before these modified T cells are infused back into the patient, the patients are given a low-dose chemotherapy (lymphodepletion) regimen to help increase the effectiveness of the therapy. The one-time infusion is generally given on an inpatient basis, and patients are then monitored in hospital for side effects.

Once B cells are depleted, disease symptoms improve. But in the case studies published to date, once B cells re-emerge, they are naïve and no longer producing autoreactive B cells.
 

“Maybe it’s like a tabula rasa: You wipe [the B cells] out and start with a clean slate. Then, the immune system reboots, and now it’s working, whereas before it was messed up,” said Carl June, MD, who directs the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies at the at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. June and his research team led the development of CAR T-cell therapies for blood cancers.

The findings suggest that autoantibodies “might not be hardwired into the immune system,” he said.

But Dr. Konig stressed that we are still in the early days of clinical trials, and more research is necessary to understand the safety and efficacy of these therapies.

“There’s an incredible buzz around CAR T cells at the moment in rheumatology, which is great because I think that’s where the future is,” he said. “But we still need to learn how to appropriately apply these therapies in randomized, controlled trials.”

So far, the evidence behind CD19 CAR T-cell therapies in autoimmune disease is from case studies and phase 1 trials in a very small number of selected patients. (The upcoming Cabaletta and Kyverna trials in lupus will also be small, consisting of 12 patients each.)
 

Risks of intensive therapy

But while these therapies show promise, the process is very intensive. The lymphodepleting regimen increases the risk for infection and patients are commonly hospitalized for a week or more following infusion for toxicity monitoring. Serious adverse events such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) can occur days to weeks after CAR T-cell infusion. In the five-patient case series reported in 2022, patients were hospitalized for 10 days following treatment.

The patient with antisynthetase syndrome, as well as three of five patients in the SLE case series study experienced mild CRS following infusion. Patients are also at a high risk for infection, as the engineered T cells target all B cells, not just the autoreactive immune cells.

The inability to differentiate between disease-causing and protective immune cells is an issue for all currently available drugs treating autoimmune disease, Dr. Konig said. But scientists are already working on how to make these potent cellular therapies safer and more precise.
 

Alternatives to standard CAR T-cell therapies

Engineering T cells with RNA is a new approach to limit the side effects and toxicity of CAR T-cell therapy, said Chris Jewell, PhD, the chief scientific officer at Cartesian Therapeutics, a biotechnology company based in Gaithersburg, Md. The company’s RNA CAR T-cell (rCAR-T) therapy – called DESCARTES-08 – is in phase 2 clinical trials for treatment of myasthenia gravis. Once these rCAR-T cells are infused in patients, as they divide, the RNAnaturally decays, he explained, meaning that after a certain point, the CAR is no longer expressed.

Cartesian Therapeutics

DESCARTES-08 targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is primarily expressed on plasma cells, rather than all B cells, Dr. Jewell said.

“Targeting BCMA, we actually have a more selective profile,” he explained. “We are targeting the cells primarily responsible for the pathogenicity; many plasma cells – such as long-lived plasma cells – also take a long time to repopulate.”

This therapy also does not require lymphodepletion prior to infusion and can be done in an outpatient setting. The therapy is given in multiple infusions, once per week.

In the most recent clinical trial, patients with myasthenia gravis received six infusions over 6 weeks and experienced notable decreases in myasthenia gravis severity scale at up to 9 months of follow-up.

Abata Therapeutics

While standard CAR T-cell therapies under clinical investigational up to now all use effector T cells, regulatory T cells (Tregs) can also be engineered to target autoimmune disease. Abata Therapeutics, based in Boston, is using this approach for therapies for progressive multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes. These engineered Tregs express a T-cell receptor (TCR) that recognizes tissue-specific antigens and suppress inflammation at the site of the disease. “Treg-based cell therapies are really harnessing the natural power of regulatory cells to reset immune tolerance and recalibrate the immune system,” said their chief medical officer, Leonard Dragone, MD, PhD.

These therapies are derived from terminally differentiated cells that have limited capacity to produce pro-inflammatory cytokines including interleukin-2 or interferon gamma, Dr. Dragone explained. “CRS is difficult to envision from engineered Treg products and hasn’t been observed in any clinical experience with polyclonal Tregs,” he said.

This approach also does not require lymphodepletion prior to treatment. The company’s Treg cellular therapy for progressive MS is currently in investigational new drug-enabling studies, and they aim to dose their first patients in 2024.
 

Precision immunotherapy

For B-cell driven autoimmune diseases where the autoantibody is known, researchers have begun to re-engineer T cells to recognize only autoreactive B cells. While CD19 CAR T cells act more like a sledgehammer, these precision cellular immunotherapies are “like a razor’s strike,” Dr. June said.

University of Pennsylvania

“The chimeric autoantibody receptor (CAAR) approach targets autoantibodies that are expressed only on the surface of autoimmune B cells and are not expressed on normal B cells, which ideally should lead to precision targeting of just the cells that cause autoimmune disease,” explained Aimee Payne, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of the Penn Clinical Autoimmunity Center of Excellence at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She and her research team used this approach to develop a treatment for mucosal pemphigus vulgaris, an autoimmune blistering disease of mucous membranes driven by autoantibodies against desmoglein 3.

“The current standard of care for pemphigus is to treat with steroids and rituximab, an infusion therapy that results in global, but temporary, B-cell depletion,” she said. “By expressing desmoglein 3 (DSG3) on the surface of the CAAR T-cell therapy, we target just the anti-DSG3 B cells that cause disease in mucosal pemphigus vulgaris and spare the healthy B cells.”

The therapy – called DSG3-CAART – is being developed by Cabaletta Bio and is now in phase 1 clinical trials. The approach is also being investigated to treat certain types of myasthenia gravis and membranous nephropathy.

Dr. Konig’s lab at Johns Hopkins developed and is now exploring a new precision cellular immunotherapy approach, chimeric autoantigen-T cell receptor (CATCR) T-cell therapy, to treat antiphospholipid syndrome, which is in preclinical stages. In this approach, Dr. Konig and his team are “re-engineering the natural T-cell receptor to selectively kill disease-causing B cells that drive antiphospholipid syndrome,” he explained.

He anticipates the CD19 CAR T-cell therapies currently in clinical trials will help to pave the way for this new generation of precision cellular therapies. The ultimate goal of these therapies, he said, is to uncouple therapeutic potency from infection risk.

“That’s really the holy grail in the treatment of autoimmune diseases. It’s tantalizingly close, but we’re not there yet.”

Dr. June is an inventor on patents and/or patent applications licensed to Novartis Institutes of Biomedical Research and receives license revenue from such licenses. Dr. June is a scientific founder of Tmunity Therapeutics and Capstan Therapeutics and is a member of the scientific advisory boards of AC Immune SA, Alaunos, BlueSphere Bio, Cabaletta, Carisma, Cartography Biosciences, Cellares, Celldex, Decheng Capital, Poseida, Verismo, and WIRB-Copernicus Group. Dr. Konig is a consultant for argenx and Revel and is listed as inventor for patent applications filed by John Hopkins University. Dr. Payne holds equity, grants, payments, and patent licensing from Cabaletta Bio and consults for Janssen.

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

TOPLINE:

The disease-modifying treatment (DMT) delays conversion to clinical multiple sclerosis (MS) for patients with radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS) and has a reassuring long-term safety profile, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

Early use of DMTs is typically recommended for patients with established MS, but mounting evidence, including the ARISE trial, which assessed Tecfidera, suggests these agents benefit patients with RIS, the earliest detectable preclinical MS stage.

The new study, known as Teriflunomide in Radiologically Isolated Syndrome (TERIS), included 89 adult patients with RIS (mean age, 37.8 years) from centers in France, Switzerland, and Turkey. Participants were randomly assigned to receive placebo or teriflunomide 14 mg daily. Teriflunomide is an oral immunomodulator approved for treating relapsing remitting MS.

Investigators performed MRI at baseline and at weeks 48, 96, and 144 and at any time during the study if warranted.

Researchers adjusted for potential confounders, including sex, age at RIS diagnosis, MS family history, brain T2-weighted hyperintense lesion volume, and presence of Gd+/− lesions.

The primary outcome was time to a first acute or progressive neurologic event resulting from central nervous system demyelination, expressed as a rate of conversion to clinical MS.
 

TAKEAWAY:

Eighteen participants – nine in each group – discontinued the study, resulting in a dropout rate of 20%.

The risk of a first clinical event was significantly reduced in the teriflunomide arm (mean time to event, 128.2 weeks) with 8 clinical events (6 acute, 2 progressive) in comparison with the placebo arm (mean time to event, 109.6 weeks) with 20 clinical events (18 acute, 2 progressive) and an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.28 (95% CI, 0.11-0.71; P = .007).

All secondary MRI measures, including the cumulative number of new and/or newly enlarging T2 lesions and the cumulative number of Gd+ lesions, did not reach statistical significance, although these were numerically lower in the teriflunomide arm, possibly because participants with early events switched to the treatment arm.

The most common adverse events that occurred more often in patients treated with teriflunomide were gastrointestinal disorders (11.4%), dysmenorrhea (9.1%), benign respiratory infections (6.8%), general disorders/conditions (6.8%), and transient increase of transaminases (4.5%).
 

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that for the first time, we may have an opportunity to better identify those at risk for a primary progressive clinical course at this preclinical stage and prevent or delay clinical progression from the onset, which is a clear unmet need in MS clinical practice,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was carried out by Christine Lebrun-Frénay MD, PhD, head of the inflammatory neurological disorders clinical research unit and MS center at the University of Nice (France). It was published online in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The investigators could not stratify at-risk subgroups according to risk factors for developing MS, mainly because of power issues. The study was prematurely discontinued by its financial sponsor (Sanofi), owing primarily to slow enrollment that resulted from national regulations on activating recruitment sites and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Another challenge for the study was that some individuals with RIS had already been exposed to a DMT or hesitated to participate in a clinical trial. The financial sponsor, which provided the study drug and placebo tablets, terminated their availability, given the anticipated release of generic teriflunomide.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Sanofi, the University Hospital of Nice, University Cote d’Azur, and the Radiologically Isolated Syndrome Consortium. Lebrun-Frénay has no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The disease-modifying treatment (DMT) delays conversion to clinical multiple sclerosis (MS) for patients with radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS) and has a reassuring long-term safety profile, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

Early use of DMTs is typically recommended for patients with established MS, but mounting evidence, including the ARISE trial, which assessed Tecfidera, suggests these agents benefit patients with RIS, the earliest detectable preclinical MS stage.

The new study, known as Teriflunomide in Radiologically Isolated Syndrome (TERIS), included 89 adult patients with RIS (mean age, 37.8 years) from centers in France, Switzerland, and Turkey. Participants were randomly assigned to receive placebo or teriflunomide 14 mg daily. Teriflunomide is an oral immunomodulator approved for treating relapsing remitting MS.

Investigators performed MRI at baseline and at weeks 48, 96, and 144 and at any time during the study if warranted.

Researchers adjusted for potential confounders, including sex, age at RIS diagnosis, MS family history, brain T2-weighted hyperintense lesion volume, and presence of Gd+/− lesions.

The primary outcome was time to a first acute or progressive neurologic event resulting from central nervous system demyelination, expressed as a rate of conversion to clinical MS.
 

TAKEAWAY:

Eighteen participants – nine in each group – discontinued the study, resulting in a dropout rate of 20%.

The risk of a first clinical event was significantly reduced in the teriflunomide arm (mean time to event, 128.2 weeks) with 8 clinical events (6 acute, 2 progressive) in comparison with the placebo arm (mean time to event, 109.6 weeks) with 20 clinical events (18 acute, 2 progressive) and an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.28 (95% CI, 0.11-0.71; P = .007).

All secondary MRI measures, including the cumulative number of new and/or newly enlarging T2 lesions and the cumulative number of Gd+ lesions, did not reach statistical significance, although these were numerically lower in the teriflunomide arm, possibly because participants with early events switched to the treatment arm.

The most common adverse events that occurred more often in patients treated with teriflunomide were gastrointestinal disorders (11.4%), dysmenorrhea (9.1%), benign respiratory infections (6.8%), general disorders/conditions (6.8%), and transient increase of transaminases (4.5%).
 

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that for the first time, we may have an opportunity to better identify those at risk for a primary progressive clinical course at this preclinical stage and prevent or delay clinical progression from the onset, which is a clear unmet need in MS clinical practice,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was carried out by Christine Lebrun-Frénay MD, PhD, head of the inflammatory neurological disorders clinical research unit and MS center at the University of Nice (France). It was published online in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The investigators could not stratify at-risk subgroups according to risk factors for developing MS, mainly because of power issues. The study was prematurely discontinued by its financial sponsor (Sanofi), owing primarily to slow enrollment that resulted from national regulations on activating recruitment sites and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Another challenge for the study was that some individuals with RIS had already been exposed to a DMT or hesitated to participate in a clinical trial. The financial sponsor, which provided the study drug and placebo tablets, terminated their availability, given the anticipated release of generic teriflunomide.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Sanofi, the University Hospital of Nice, University Cote d’Azur, and the Radiologically Isolated Syndrome Consortium. Lebrun-Frénay has no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The disease-modifying treatment (DMT) delays conversion to clinical multiple sclerosis (MS) for patients with radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS) and has a reassuring long-term safety profile, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

Early use of DMTs is typically recommended for patients with established MS, but mounting evidence, including the ARISE trial, which assessed Tecfidera, suggests these agents benefit patients with RIS, the earliest detectable preclinical MS stage.

The new study, known as Teriflunomide in Radiologically Isolated Syndrome (TERIS), included 89 adult patients with RIS (mean age, 37.8 years) from centers in France, Switzerland, and Turkey. Participants were randomly assigned to receive placebo or teriflunomide 14 mg daily. Teriflunomide is an oral immunomodulator approved for treating relapsing remitting MS.

Investigators performed MRI at baseline and at weeks 48, 96, and 144 and at any time during the study if warranted.

Researchers adjusted for potential confounders, including sex, age at RIS diagnosis, MS family history, brain T2-weighted hyperintense lesion volume, and presence of Gd+/− lesions.

The primary outcome was time to a first acute or progressive neurologic event resulting from central nervous system demyelination, expressed as a rate of conversion to clinical MS.
 

TAKEAWAY:

Eighteen participants – nine in each group – discontinued the study, resulting in a dropout rate of 20%.

The risk of a first clinical event was significantly reduced in the teriflunomide arm (mean time to event, 128.2 weeks) with 8 clinical events (6 acute, 2 progressive) in comparison with the placebo arm (mean time to event, 109.6 weeks) with 20 clinical events (18 acute, 2 progressive) and an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.28 (95% CI, 0.11-0.71; P = .007).

All secondary MRI measures, including the cumulative number of new and/or newly enlarging T2 lesions and the cumulative number of Gd+ lesions, did not reach statistical significance, although these were numerically lower in the teriflunomide arm, possibly because participants with early events switched to the treatment arm.

The most common adverse events that occurred more often in patients treated with teriflunomide were gastrointestinal disorders (11.4%), dysmenorrhea (9.1%), benign respiratory infections (6.8%), general disorders/conditions (6.8%), and transient increase of transaminases (4.5%).
 

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that for the first time, we may have an opportunity to better identify those at risk for a primary progressive clinical course at this preclinical stage and prevent or delay clinical progression from the onset, which is a clear unmet need in MS clinical practice,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was carried out by Christine Lebrun-Frénay MD, PhD, head of the inflammatory neurological disorders clinical research unit and MS center at the University of Nice (France). It was published online in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The investigators could not stratify at-risk subgroups according to risk factors for developing MS, mainly because of power issues. The study was prematurely discontinued by its financial sponsor (Sanofi), owing primarily to slow enrollment that resulted from national regulations on activating recruitment sites and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Another challenge for the study was that some individuals with RIS had already been exposed to a DMT or hesitated to participate in a clinical trial. The financial sponsor, which provided the study drug and placebo tablets, terminated their availability, given the anticipated release of generic teriflunomide.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Sanofi, the University Hospital of Nice, University Cote d’Azur, and the Radiologically Isolated Syndrome Consortium. Lebrun-Frénay has no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

AURORA, COLO. – Several drugs for multiple sclerosis (MS) that are contraindicated during pregnancy nevertheless have not shown concerning safety signals in a series of small studies presented as posters at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. The industry-sponsored research included an assessment of pregnancy and infant outcomes for cladribine, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab, and ozanimod, all of which are not recommended during pregnancy based primarily on minimal data that suggests, but does not confirm, possible teratogenicity.

“When these new medications hit the market, maternal-fetal medicine physicians and obstetricians are left with very scant data on how to counsel patients, and it’s often based on theory, case reports, or animal studies,” said Teodora Kolarova, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine physician at the University of Washington, Seattle, who was not involved in any of the research. “Although these sample sizes seem small, the population they are sampling from – patients with MS who take immunomodulators who then experience a pregnancy – is much smaller than all pregnant patients.”

Taken together, the findings suggest no increased risk of miscarriage or congenital malformation, compared with baseline risk, Dr. Kolarova said.

“As a whole, these studies are overall reassuring with, of course, some caveats, including timing of medication exposure, limited sample size, and limited outcome data,” Dr. Kolarova said. She noted that embryonic organ formation is complete by 10 weeks gestation, by which time an unplanned pregnancy may not have been recognized yet. “In the subset of patients in the studies that were exposed during the first trimester, there was no increase in congenital malformations from a baseline risk of about 2%-3% in the general population, which is helpful for patient counseling.”
 

Counseling during the childbearing years

That kind of counseling is important yet absent for many people capable of pregnancy, suggests separate research also presented at the conference by Suma Shah, MD, an associate professor of neurology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Dr. Shah gave 13-question surveys to female MS patients of all ages at her institution and presented an analysis of data from 38 completed surveys. Among those taking disease-modifying therapies, their medications included ocrelizumab, rituximab, teriflunomide, fingolimod, fumarates, interferons, natalizumab, and cladribine.

“MS disproportionately impacts women among 20 to 40 years, and that’s a really big part of their childbearing years when there are big decisions being made about whether they’re going to choose to grow family or not,” said Dr. Shah. The average age of those who completed the survey was 44. Dr. Shah noted that a lot of research has looked at the safety of older disease-modifying agents in pregnancy, but that information doesn’t appear to be filtering down to patients. “What I really wanted to look at is what do our parent patients understand about whether or not they can even think about pregnancy – and there’s a lot of work to be done.”

Just under a third of survey respondents said they did not have as many children as they would like, and a quarter said they were told they couldn’t have children if they had a diagnosis of MS.

“That was a little heartbreaking to hear because that’s not the truth,” Dr. Shah said. She said it’s necessary to have a more detailed conversation looking at tailored decisions for patients. “Both of those things – patients not being able to grow their family to the number that they desire, and not feeling like they can grow a family – I would think in 2023 we would have come farther than that, and there’s still a lot of room there to improve.”

She advised clinicians not to assume that MS patients know what their options are regarding family planning. “There’s still a lot of room for conversations,” she said. She also explicitly recommends discussing family planning and pregnancy planning with every patient, no matter their gender, early and often.
 

Cladribine shows no miscarriage, malformations

Dr. Kolarova noted that one of the studies, on cladribine, had a fairly robust sample size with its 180 pregnancy exposures. In that study, led by Kerstin Hellwig, MD, of Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany, data came from the global surveillance program MAPLE-MS, established to assess cladribine effects on pregnancy and infant outcomes. The researchers analyzed data from 76 mothers and 9 fathers who, at any time from 2017 to 2022, were taking cladribine during pregnancy or up to 6 months before pregnancy. Outcomes included live birth, miscarriage, stillbirth, elective abortion, ectopic pregnancy, and major congenital anomalies.

Just over half the mothers (53.9%) were exposed before pregnancy, and about a quarter (26.3%) were exposed during the first trimester. The timing was unknown for most of the other mothers (18.4%). Among the fathers, two-thirds (66.7%) were exposed before pregnancy, and one-third had unknown timing.

Among the 180 pregnancies in the maternal cohort, 42.2% had known outcomes. Nearly half the women (48.7%) taking cladribine had live births, 28.9% had elective abortions, and 21.1% had miscarriages. Only 9 of the 22 pregnancies in the paternal cohort had known outcomes, which included 88.9% live births and 11.1% miscarriages. None of the pregnancies resulted in stillbirth or in a live birth with major congenital anomalies.

”Robust conclusions cannot be made about the risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes with cladribine tablets, but no increase has been signaled thus far,” the researchers reported. ”It is necessary to counsel patients to prevent pregnancy and to use effective contraception during cladribine tablets intake and for at least 6 months after the last cladribine tablet intake in each treatment year.”

Emily Evans, MD, MBE, medical director at U.S. Neurology and Immunology in Rockland, Mass., speaking on behalf of the findings, said they were fairly encouraging.

“Of course, we don’t encourage patients to get pregnant within 6 months of their last dose of cladribine tablets,” Dr. Evans said, but “within those individuals who have gotten pregnant within 6 months of their last dose of cladribine, or who have fathered a child within 6 months of their last dose of cladribine tablets, we’re seeing overall encouraging outcomes. We’re specifically not seeing any differences in the rates of spontaneous abortions, and we’re not seeing any differences in the rates of congenital malformations.”
 

Ocrelizumab and ofatumumab: No infections so far

Current recommendations for ocrelizumab are to avoid pregnancy for 6 months after the last infusion and stop any breastfeeding during therapy. Yet these recommendations are only because of insufficient data rather than evidence of risk, according to Lana Zhovtis Ryerson, MD, of the NYU Multiple Sclerosis Comprehensive Care Center in New York. She and her colleagues identified all women of childbearing age who had received ocrelizumab within 1 year of pregnancy at their NYU institution. A retrospective chart review found 18 women, with an average age of 35, an average 11 years of an MS diagnosis, and an average 11 months taking ocrelizumab.

Among the 18 pregnancies, four women had a first trimester miscarriage, one had a second trimester miscarriage, and one had an abortion. The miscarriage rate could have been partly influenced by the older maternal population, the authors noted. Of the remaining 12 live births, one infant was premature at 34 weeks, and three infants stayed in NICU but were discharged within 2 weeks.

One patient experienced an MS relapse postpartum, despite receiving ocrelizumab within 45 days of delivery. Of the 16 women who agreed to participate in a Pregnancy Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) developed by the CDC, two women chose to breastfeed, and seven said their neurologist recommended against breastfeeding. None of the children’s pediatricians advised delaying vaccinations.

“This small sample observational study has not identified a potential additional risk with ocrelizumab for an adverse pregnancy outcome,” the authors concluded, but they added that ongoing studies, MINORE and SOPRANINO, can help guide future recommendations.

Though still limited, slightly more data exists on ofatumumab during pregnancy, including transient B-cell depletion and lymphopenia in infants whose mothers received anti-CD20 antibodies during pregnancy. However, research has found minimal IgG transfer in the first trimester, though it begins rising in the second trimester, and in utero ofatumumab exposure did not lead to any maternal toxicity or adverse prenatal or postnatal developmental effects in cynomolgus monkeys.

Riley Love, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, Weill Institute for Neuroscience, and her colleagues both prospectively and retrospectively examined pregnancy and infant outcomes for up to 1 year post partum in women with MS who took ofatumumab during pregnancy or in the 6 months leading up to pregnancy. Their population included 104 prospective cases, most of which (84%) included first trimester exposure, and 14 retrospective cases. One in five of the prospective cases occurred during a clinical trial, while the remaining 80% occurred in postmarketing surveillance.

The prospectively followed women were an average 32 years old and were an average 7 weeks pregnant at the time of reporting. Among the 106 fetuses (including two twin pregnancies), only 30 outcomes had data at the cutoff time, including 16 live births, 9 abortions, and 5 miscarriages. None of the live births had congenital anomalies or serious infections. Another 30 pregnancies were lost to follow-up, and 46 were ongoing.

In the 14 retrospective cases, 57% of women were exposed in the first trimester, and 43% were exposed leading up to pregnancy. Half the cases occurred during clinical trials, and half in postmarketing surveillance. The women were an average 32 years old and were an average 10 weeks pregnant at reporting. Among the 14 pregnancies, nine were miscarriages, one was aborted, and four were born live with no congenital anomalies.

The authors did not draw any conclusions from the findings; they cited too little data and an ongoing study by Novartis to investigate ofatumumab in pregnancy.

“Therapies such as ofatumumab and ocrelizumab can lead to increased risk of infection due to transient B-cell depletion in neonates, but the two studies looking at this did not demonstrate increased infectious morbidity for these infants,” Dr. Kolarova said. “As with all poster presentations, I look forward to reading the full papers once they are published as they will often include a lot more detail about when during pregnancy medication exposure occurred and more detailed outcome data that was assessed.”
 

Ozanimod outcomes within general population’s ‘expected ranges’

The final study looked at outcomes of pregnancies in people taking ozanimod and in the partners of people taking ozanimod in a clinical trial setting. The findings show low rates of miscarriage, preterm birth, and congenital anomalies that the authors concluded were within the typical range expected for the general population.

“While pregnancy should be avoided when taking and for 3 months after stopping ozanimod to allow for drug elimination, there is no evidence to date of increased occurrence of adverse pregnancy outcomes with ozanimod exposure during early pregnancy,” wrote Anthony Krakovich, of Bristol Myers Squibb in Princeton, N.J., and his associates.

Ozanimod is an oral sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor 1 and 5 modulator whose therapeutic mechanism is not fully understood “but may involve the reduction of lymphocyte migration into the central nervous system and intestine,” the authors wrote. S1P receptors are involved in vascular formation during embryogenesis, and animal studies in rats and rabbits have shown toxicity to the embryo and fetus from S1P receptor modulators, including death and malformations. S1P receptor modulator labels therefore note potential fetal risk and the need for effective contraception while taking the drug.

The study prospectively tracked clinical trial participants taking ozanimod as healthy volunteers or for relapsing MS, ulcerative colitis, or Crohn’s disease. Most of the participants who became pregnant (73%) had relapsing MS, while 18% had ulcerative colitis and 8% had Crohn’s disease.

In female patients receiving ozanimod, 78 pregnancies resulted in 12 miscarriages (including one twin), 15 abortions, and 42 live births, with 6 pregnancies ongoing at the time of reporting and no data available for the remaining 4 pregnancies. Among the 42 live births, 4 were premature but otherwise healthy, 1 had a duplex kidney, and the other 37 infants were typical with no apparent health concerns. These rates of miscarriage, preterm birth, and congenital anomalies were within the expected ranges for the general population, the researchers wrote.

The researchers also assessed pregnancy outcomes for partners of male participants taking ozanimod. The 29 partner pregnancies resulted in 21 live births and one miscarriage, with one pregnancy ongoing and no information available for the other seven. The live births included 5 premature infants (including twins), 13 typical and healthy infants, 1 with Hirschsprung’s disease, 1 with a congenital hydrocele, and 1 with a partial atrioventricular septal defect. Again, the researchers concluded that these rates were within the typical range for the general population and that “no teratogenicity was observed.”

“We often encourage patients with MS, regardless of disease activity and therapies, to seek preconception evaluations with Maternal-Fetal Medicine and their neurologists in order to make plans for pregnancy and postpartum care,” Dr. Kolarova said. “That being said, access to subspecialized health care is not available to all, and pregnancy prior to such consultation does occur. These studies provide novel information that we have not had access to in the past and can improve patient counseling regarding their risks and options.”

The study on cladribine was funded by Merck KGaA, at which two authors are employed. Dr. Hellwig reported consulting, speaker, and/or research support from Bayer, Biogen, Teva, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Schering Healthcare, Serono, and Merck, and one author is a former employee of EMD Serono. The study on ocrelizumab was funded by Genentech. Dr. Zhovtis Ryerson reported personal fees from Biogen, Genentech, and Novartis, and research grants from Biogen, Genentech, and CMSC. The other authors had no disclosures. The study on ofatumumab was funded by Novartis. Dr. Bove has received research funds from Biogen, Novartis, and Roche Genentech, and consulting fees from EMD Serono, Horizon, Janssen, and TG Therapeutics; she has an ownership interest in Global Consult MD. Five authors are Novartis employees. Her coauthors, including Dr. Hellwig, reported advisory, consulting, research, speaking, or traveling fees from Alexion, Bayer, Biogen, Celgene BMS, EMD Serono, Horizon, Janssen, Lundbeck, Merck, Pfizer, Roche Genentech, Sanofi Genzyme, Schering Healthcare, Teva, TG Therapeutics, and Novartis. The study on ozanimod was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Krakovich and another author are employees and/or shareholders of Bristol Myers Squibb. The other authors reported consulting, speaking, advisory board, and/or research fees from AbbVie, Almirall, Arena, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelhei, Celgene, Celltrion, EXCEMED, Falk Benelux, Ferring, Forward Pharma, Genentech, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Prometheus Labs, Protagonist, Roche, Sanofi, Synthon, Takeda, and Teva. Dr. Kolarova had no disclosures. Dr. Shah has received research support from Biogen and VeraSci.
 

AURORA, COLO. – Several drugs for multiple sclerosis (MS) that are contraindicated during pregnancy nevertheless have not shown concerning safety signals in a series of small studies presented as posters at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. The industry-sponsored research included an assessment of pregnancy and infant outcomes for cladribine, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab, and ozanimod, all of which are not recommended during pregnancy based primarily on minimal data that suggests, but does not confirm, possible teratogenicity.

“When these new medications hit the market, maternal-fetal medicine physicians and obstetricians are left with very scant data on how to counsel patients, and it’s often based on theory, case reports, or animal studies,” said Teodora Kolarova, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine physician at the University of Washington, Seattle, who was not involved in any of the research. “Although these sample sizes seem small, the population they are sampling from – patients with MS who take immunomodulators who then experience a pregnancy – is much smaller than all pregnant patients.”

Taken together, the findings suggest no increased risk of miscarriage or congenital malformation, compared with baseline risk, Dr. Kolarova said.

“As a whole, these studies are overall reassuring with, of course, some caveats, including timing of medication exposure, limited sample size, and limited outcome data,” Dr. Kolarova said. She noted that embryonic organ formation is complete by 10 weeks gestation, by which time an unplanned pregnancy may not have been recognized yet. “In the subset of patients in the studies that were exposed during the first trimester, there was no increase in congenital malformations from a baseline risk of about 2%-3% in the general population, which is helpful for patient counseling.”
 

Counseling during the childbearing years

That kind of counseling is important yet absent for many people capable of pregnancy, suggests separate research also presented at the conference by Suma Shah, MD, an associate professor of neurology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Dr. Shah gave 13-question surveys to female MS patients of all ages at her institution and presented an analysis of data from 38 completed surveys. Among those taking disease-modifying therapies, their medications included ocrelizumab, rituximab, teriflunomide, fingolimod, fumarates, interferons, natalizumab, and cladribine.

“MS disproportionately impacts women among 20 to 40 years, and that’s a really big part of their childbearing years when there are big decisions being made about whether they’re going to choose to grow family or not,” said Dr. Shah. The average age of those who completed the survey was 44. Dr. Shah noted that a lot of research has looked at the safety of older disease-modifying agents in pregnancy, but that information doesn’t appear to be filtering down to patients. “What I really wanted to look at is what do our parent patients understand about whether or not they can even think about pregnancy – and there’s a lot of work to be done.”

Just under a third of survey respondents said they did not have as many children as they would like, and a quarter said they were told they couldn’t have children if they had a diagnosis of MS.

“That was a little heartbreaking to hear because that’s not the truth,” Dr. Shah said. She said it’s necessary to have a more detailed conversation looking at tailored decisions for patients. “Both of those things – patients not being able to grow their family to the number that they desire, and not feeling like they can grow a family – I would think in 2023 we would have come farther than that, and there’s still a lot of room there to improve.”

She advised clinicians not to assume that MS patients know what their options are regarding family planning. “There’s still a lot of room for conversations,” she said. She also explicitly recommends discussing family planning and pregnancy planning with every patient, no matter their gender, early and often.
 

Cladribine shows no miscarriage, malformations

Dr. Kolarova noted that one of the studies, on cladribine, had a fairly robust sample size with its 180 pregnancy exposures. In that study, led by Kerstin Hellwig, MD, of Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany, data came from the global surveillance program MAPLE-MS, established to assess cladribine effects on pregnancy and infant outcomes. The researchers analyzed data from 76 mothers and 9 fathers who, at any time from 2017 to 2022, were taking cladribine during pregnancy or up to 6 months before pregnancy. Outcomes included live birth, miscarriage, stillbirth, elective abortion, ectopic pregnancy, and major congenital anomalies.

Just over half the mothers (53.9%) were exposed before pregnancy, and about a quarter (26.3%) were exposed during the first trimester. The timing was unknown for most of the other mothers (18.4%). Among the fathers, two-thirds (66.7%) were exposed before pregnancy, and one-third had unknown timing.

Among the 180 pregnancies in the maternal cohort, 42.2% had known outcomes. Nearly half the women (48.7%) taking cladribine had live births, 28.9% had elective abortions, and 21.1% had miscarriages. Only 9 of the 22 pregnancies in the paternal cohort had known outcomes, which included 88.9% live births and 11.1% miscarriages. None of the pregnancies resulted in stillbirth or in a live birth with major congenital anomalies.

”Robust conclusions cannot be made about the risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes with cladribine tablets, but no increase has been signaled thus far,” the researchers reported. ”It is necessary to counsel patients to prevent pregnancy and to use effective contraception during cladribine tablets intake and for at least 6 months after the last cladribine tablet intake in each treatment year.”

Emily Evans, MD, MBE, medical director at U.S. Neurology and Immunology in Rockland, Mass., speaking on behalf of the findings, said they were fairly encouraging.

“Of course, we don’t encourage patients to get pregnant within 6 months of their last dose of cladribine tablets,” Dr. Evans said, but “within those individuals who have gotten pregnant within 6 months of their last dose of cladribine, or who have fathered a child within 6 months of their last dose of cladribine tablets, we’re seeing overall encouraging outcomes. We’re specifically not seeing any differences in the rates of spontaneous abortions, and we’re not seeing any differences in the rates of congenital malformations.”
 

Ocrelizumab and ofatumumab: No infections so far

Current recommendations for ocrelizumab are to avoid pregnancy for 6 months after the last infusion and stop any breastfeeding during therapy. Yet these recommendations are only because of insufficient data rather than evidence of risk, according to Lana Zhovtis Ryerson, MD, of the NYU Multiple Sclerosis Comprehensive Care Center in New York. She and her colleagues identified all women of childbearing age who had received ocrelizumab within 1 year of pregnancy at their NYU institution. A retrospective chart review found 18 women, with an average age of 35, an average 11 years of an MS diagnosis, and an average 11 months taking ocrelizumab.

Among the 18 pregnancies, four women had a first trimester miscarriage, one had a second trimester miscarriage, and one had an abortion. The miscarriage rate could have been partly influenced by the older maternal population, the authors noted. Of the remaining 12 live births, one infant was premature at 34 weeks, and three infants stayed in NICU but were discharged within 2 weeks.

One patient experienced an MS relapse postpartum, despite receiving ocrelizumab within 45 days of delivery. Of the 16 women who agreed to participate in a Pregnancy Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) developed by the CDC, two women chose to breastfeed, and seven said their neurologist recommended against breastfeeding. None of the children’s pediatricians advised delaying vaccinations.

“This small sample observational study has not identified a potential additional risk with ocrelizumab for an adverse pregnancy outcome,” the authors concluded, but they added that ongoing studies, MINORE and SOPRANINO, can help guide future recommendations.

Though still limited, slightly more data exists on ofatumumab during pregnancy, including transient B-cell depletion and lymphopenia in infants whose mothers received anti-CD20 antibodies during pregnancy. However, research has found minimal IgG transfer in the first trimester, though it begins rising in the second trimester, and in utero ofatumumab exposure did not lead to any maternal toxicity or adverse prenatal or postnatal developmental effects in cynomolgus monkeys.

Riley Love, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, Weill Institute for Neuroscience, and her colleagues both prospectively and retrospectively examined pregnancy and infant outcomes for up to 1 year post partum in women with MS who took ofatumumab during pregnancy or in the 6 months leading up to pregnancy. Their population included 104 prospective cases, most of which (84%) included first trimester exposure, and 14 retrospective cases. One in five of the prospective cases occurred during a clinical trial, while the remaining 80% occurred in postmarketing surveillance.

The prospectively followed women were an average 32 years old and were an average 7 weeks pregnant at the time of reporting. Among the 106 fetuses (including two twin pregnancies), only 30 outcomes had data at the cutoff time, including 16 live births, 9 abortions, and 5 miscarriages. None of the live births had congenital anomalies or serious infections. Another 30 pregnancies were lost to follow-up, and 46 were ongoing.

In the 14 retrospective cases, 57% of women were exposed in the first trimester, and 43% were exposed leading up to pregnancy. Half the cases occurred during clinical trials, and half in postmarketing surveillance. The women were an average 32 years old and were an average 10 weeks pregnant at reporting. Among the 14 pregnancies, nine were miscarriages, one was aborted, and four were born live with no congenital anomalies.

The authors did not draw any conclusions from the findings; they cited too little data and an ongoing study by Novartis to investigate ofatumumab in pregnancy.

“Therapies such as ofatumumab and ocrelizumab can lead to increased risk of infection due to transient B-cell depletion in neonates, but the two studies looking at this did not demonstrate increased infectious morbidity for these infants,” Dr. Kolarova said. “As with all poster presentations, I look forward to reading the full papers once they are published as they will often include a lot more detail about when during pregnancy medication exposure occurred and more detailed outcome data that was assessed.”
 

Ozanimod outcomes within general population’s ‘expected ranges’

The final study looked at outcomes of pregnancies in people taking ozanimod and in the partners of people taking ozanimod in a clinical trial setting. The findings show low rates of miscarriage, preterm birth, and congenital anomalies that the authors concluded were within the typical range expected for the general population.

“While pregnancy should be avoided when taking and for 3 months after stopping ozanimod to allow for drug elimination, there is no evidence to date of increased occurrence of adverse pregnancy outcomes with ozanimod exposure during early pregnancy,” wrote Anthony Krakovich, of Bristol Myers Squibb in Princeton, N.J., and his associates.

Ozanimod is an oral sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor 1 and 5 modulator whose therapeutic mechanism is not fully understood “but may involve the reduction of lymphocyte migration into the central nervous system and intestine,” the authors wrote. S1P receptors are involved in vascular formation during embryogenesis, and animal studies in rats and rabbits have shown toxicity to the embryo and fetus from S1P receptor modulators, including death and malformations. S1P receptor modulator labels therefore note potential fetal risk and the need for effective contraception while taking the drug.

The study prospectively tracked clinical trial participants taking ozanimod as healthy volunteers or for relapsing MS, ulcerative colitis, or Crohn’s disease. Most of the participants who became pregnant (73%) had relapsing MS, while 18% had ulcerative colitis and 8% had Crohn’s disease.

In female patients receiving ozanimod, 78 pregnancies resulted in 12 miscarriages (including one twin), 15 abortions, and 42 live births, with 6 pregnancies ongoing at the time of reporting and no data available for the remaining 4 pregnancies. Among the 42 live births, 4 were premature but otherwise healthy, 1 had a duplex kidney, and the other 37 infants were typical with no apparent health concerns. These rates of miscarriage, preterm birth, and congenital anomalies were within the expected ranges for the general population, the researchers wrote.

The researchers also assessed pregnancy outcomes for partners of male participants taking ozanimod. The 29 partner pregnancies resulted in 21 live births and one miscarriage, with one pregnancy ongoing and no information available for the other seven. The live births included 5 premature infants (including twins), 13 typical and healthy infants, 1 with Hirschsprung’s disease, 1 with a congenital hydrocele, and 1 with a partial atrioventricular septal defect. Again, the researchers concluded that these rates were within the typical range for the general population and that “no teratogenicity was observed.”

“We often encourage patients with MS, regardless of disease activity and therapies, to seek preconception evaluations with Maternal-Fetal Medicine and their neurologists in order to make plans for pregnancy and postpartum care,” Dr. Kolarova said. “That being said, access to subspecialized health care is not available to all, and pregnancy prior to such consultation does occur. These studies provide novel information that we have not had access to in the past and can improve patient counseling regarding their risks and options.”

The study on cladribine was funded by Merck KGaA, at which two authors are employed. Dr. Hellwig reported consulting, speaker, and/or research support from Bayer, Biogen, Teva, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Schering Healthcare, Serono, and Merck, and one author is a former employee of EMD Serono. The study on ocrelizumab was funded by Genentech. Dr. Zhovtis Ryerson reported personal fees from Biogen, Genentech, and Novartis, and research grants from Biogen, Genentech, and CMSC. The other authors had no disclosures. The study on ofatumumab was funded by Novartis. Dr. Bove has received research funds from Biogen, Novartis, and Roche Genentech, and consulting fees from EMD Serono, Horizon, Janssen, and TG Therapeutics; she has an ownership interest in Global Consult MD. Five authors are Novartis employees. Her coauthors, including Dr. Hellwig, reported advisory, consulting, research, speaking, or traveling fees from Alexion, Bayer, Biogen, Celgene BMS, EMD Serono, Horizon, Janssen, Lundbeck, Merck, Pfizer, Roche Genentech, Sanofi Genzyme, Schering Healthcare, Teva, TG Therapeutics, and Novartis. The study on ozanimod was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Krakovich and another author are employees and/or shareholders of Bristol Myers Squibb. The other authors reported consulting, speaking, advisory board, and/or research fees from AbbVie, Almirall, Arena, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelhei, Celgene, Celltrion, EXCEMED, Falk Benelux, Ferring, Forward Pharma, Genentech, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Prometheus Labs, Protagonist, Roche, Sanofi, Synthon, Takeda, and Teva. Dr. Kolarova had no disclosures. Dr. Shah has received research support from Biogen and VeraSci.
 

AURORA, COLO. – Several drugs for multiple sclerosis (MS) that are contraindicated during pregnancy nevertheless have not shown concerning safety signals in a series of small studies presented as posters at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. The industry-sponsored research included an assessment of pregnancy and infant outcomes for cladribine, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab, and ozanimod, all of which are not recommended during pregnancy based primarily on minimal data that suggests, but does not confirm, possible teratogenicity.

“When these new medications hit the market, maternal-fetal medicine physicians and obstetricians are left with very scant data on how to counsel patients, and it’s often based on theory, case reports, or animal studies,” said Teodora Kolarova, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine physician at the University of Washington, Seattle, who was not involved in any of the research. “Although these sample sizes seem small, the population they are sampling from – patients with MS who take immunomodulators who then experience a pregnancy – is much smaller than all pregnant patients.”

Taken together, the findings suggest no increased risk of miscarriage or congenital malformation, compared with baseline risk, Dr. Kolarova said.

“As a whole, these studies are overall reassuring with, of course, some caveats, including timing of medication exposure, limited sample size, and limited outcome data,” Dr. Kolarova said. She noted that embryonic organ formation is complete by 10 weeks gestation, by which time an unplanned pregnancy may not have been recognized yet. “In the subset of patients in the studies that were exposed during the first trimester, there was no increase in congenital malformations from a baseline risk of about 2%-3% in the general population, which is helpful for patient counseling.”
 

Counseling during the childbearing years

That kind of counseling is important yet absent for many people capable of pregnancy, suggests separate research also presented at the conference by Suma Shah, MD, an associate professor of neurology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Dr. Shah gave 13-question surveys to female MS patients of all ages at her institution and presented an analysis of data from 38 completed surveys. Among those taking disease-modifying therapies, their medications included ocrelizumab, rituximab, teriflunomide, fingolimod, fumarates, interferons, natalizumab, and cladribine.

“MS disproportionately impacts women among 20 to 40 years, and that’s a really big part of their childbearing years when there are big decisions being made about whether they’re going to choose to grow family or not,” said Dr. Shah. The average age of those who completed the survey was 44. Dr. Shah noted that a lot of research has looked at the safety of older disease-modifying agents in pregnancy, but that information doesn’t appear to be filtering down to patients. “What I really wanted to look at is what do our parent patients understand about whether or not they can even think about pregnancy – and there’s a lot of work to be done.”

Just under a third of survey respondents said they did not have as many children as they would like, and a quarter said they were told they couldn’t have children if they had a diagnosis of MS.

“That was a little heartbreaking to hear because that’s not the truth,” Dr. Shah said. She said it’s necessary to have a more detailed conversation looking at tailored decisions for patients. “Both of those things – patients not being able to grow their family to the number that they desire, and not feeling like they can grow a family – I would think in 2023 we would have come farther than that, and there’s still a lot of room there to improve.”

She advised clinicians not to assume that MS patients know what their options are regarding family planning. “There’s still a lot of room for conversations,” she said. She also explicitly recommends discussing family planning and pregnancy planning with every patient, no matter their gender, early and often.
 

Cladribine shows no miscarriage, malformations

Dr. Kolarova noted that one of the studies, on cladribine, had a fairly robust sample size with its 180 pregnancy exposures. In that study, led by Kerstin Hellwig, MD, of Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany, data came from the global surveillance program MAPLE-MS, established to assess cladribine effects on pregnancy and infant outcomes. The researchers analyzed data from 76 mothers and 9 fathers who, at any time from 2017 to 2022, were taking cladribine during pregnancy or up to 6 months before pregnancy. Outcomes included live birth, miscarriage, stillbirth, elective abortion, ectopic pregnancy, and major congenital anomalies.

Just over half the mothers (53.9%) were exposed before pregnancy, and about a quarter (26.3%) were exposed during the first trimester. The timing was unknown for most of the other mothers (18.4%). Among the fathers, two-thirds (66.7%) were exposed before pregnancy, and one-third had unknown timing.

Among the 180 pregnancies in the maternal cohort, 42.2% had known outcomes. Nearly half the women (48.7%) taking cladribine had live births, 28.9% had elective abortions, and 21.1% had miscarriages. Only 9 of the 22 pregnancies in the paternal cohort had known outcomes, which included 88.9% live births and 11.1% miscarriages. None of the pregnancies resulted in stillbirth or in a live birth with major congenital anomalies.

”Robust conclusions cannot be made about the risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes with cladribine tablets, but no increase has been signaled thus far,” the researchers reported. ”It is necessary to counsel patients to prevent pregnancy and to use effective contraception during cladribine tablets intake and for at least 6 months after the last cladribine tablet intake in each treatment year.”

Emily Evans, MD, MBE, medical director at U.S. Neurology and Immunology in Rockland, Mass., speaking on behalf of the findings, said they were fairly encouraging.

“Of course, we don’t encourage patients to get pregnant within 6 months of their last dose of cladribine tablets,” Dr. Evans said, but “within those individuals who have gotten pregnant within 6 months of their last dose of cladribine, or who have fathered a child within 6 months of their last dose of cladribine tablets, we’re seeing overall encouraging outcomes. We’re specifically not seeing any differences in the rates of spontaneous abortions, and we’re not seeing any differences in the rates of congenital malformations.”
 

Ocrelizumab and ofatumumab: No infections so far

Current recommendations for ocrelizumab are to avoid pregnancy for 6 months after the last infusion and stop any breastfeeding during therapy. Yet these recommendations are only because of insufficient data rather than evidence of risk, according to Lana Zhovtis Ryerson, MD, of the NYU Multiple Sclerosis Comprehensive Care Center in New York. She and her colleagues identified all women of childbearing age who had received ocrelizumab within 1 year of pregnancy at their NYU institution. A retrospective chart review found 18 women, with an average age of 35, an average 11 years of an MS diagnosis, and an average 11 months taking ocrelizumab.

Among the 18 pregnancies, four women had a first trimester miscarriage, one had a second trimester miscarriage, and one had an abortion. The miscarriage rate could have been partly influenced by the older maternal population, the authors noted. Of the remaining 12 live births, one infant was premature at 34 weeks, and three infants stayed in NICU but were discharged within 2 weeks.

One patient experienced an MS relapse postpartum, despite receiving ocrelizumab within 45 days of delivery. Of the 16 women who agreed to participate in a Pregnancy Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) developed by the CDC, two women chose to breastfeed, and seven said their neurologist recommended against breastfeeding. None of the children’s pediatricians advised delaying vaccinations.

“This small sample observational study has not identified a potential additional risk with ocrelizumab for an adverse pregnancy outcome,” the authors concluded, but they added that ongoing studies, MINORE and SOPRANINO, can help guide future recommendations.

Though still limited, slightly more data exists on ofatumumab during pregnancy, including transient B-cell depletion and lymphopenia in infants whose mothers received anti-CD20 antibodies during pregnancy. However, research has found minimal IgG transfer in the first trimester, though it begins rising in the second trimester, and in utero ofatumumab exposure did not lead to any maternal toxicity or adverse prenatal or postnatal developmental effects in cynomolgus monkeys.

Riley Love, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, Weill Institute for Neuroscience, and her colleagues both prospectively and retrospectively examined pregnancy and infant outcomes for up to 1 year post partum in women with MS who took ofatumumab during pregnancy or in the 6 months leading up to pregnancy. Their population included 104 prospective cases, most of which (84%) included first trimester exposure, and 14 retrospective cases. One in five of the prospective cases occurred during a clinical trial, while the remaining 80% occurred in postmarketing surveillance.

The prospectively followed women were an average 32 years old and were an average 7 weeks pregnant at the time of reporting. Among the 106 fetuses (including two twin pregnancies), only 30 outcomes had data at the cutoff time, including 16 live births, 9 abortions, and 5 miscarriages. None of the live births had congenital anomalies or serious infections. Another 30 pregnancies were lost to follow-up, and 46 were ongoing.

In the 14 retrospective cases, 57% of women were exposed in the first trimester, and 43% were exposed leading up to pregnancy. Half the cases occurred during clinical trials, and half in postmarketing surveillance. The women were an average 32 years old and were an average 10 weeks pregnant at reporting. Among the 14 pregnancies, nine were miscarriages, one was aborted, and four were born live with no congenital anomalies.

The authors did not draw any conclusions from the findings; they cited too little data and an ongoing study by Novartis to investigate ofatumumab in pregnancy.

“Therapies such as ofatumumab and ocrelizumab can lead to increased risk of infection due to transient B-cell depletion in neonates, but the two studies looking at this did not demonstrate increased infectious morbidity for these infants,” Dr. Kolarova said. “As with all poster presentations, I look forward to reading the full papers once they are published as they will often include a lot more detail about when during pregnancy medication exposure occurred and more detailed outcome data that was assessed.”
 

Ozanimod outcomes within general population’s ‘expected ranges’

The final study looked at outcomes of pregnancies in people taking ozanimod and in the partners of people taking ozanimod in a clinical trial setting. The findings show low rates of miscarriage, preterm birth, and congenital anomalies that the authors concluded were within the typical range expected for the general population.

“While pregnancy should be avoided when taking and for 3 months after stopping ozanimod to allow for drug elimination, there is no evidence to date of increased occurrence of adverse pregnancy outcomes with ozanimod exposure during early pregnancy,” wrote Anthony Krakovich, of Bristol Myers Squibb in Princeton, N.J., and his associates.

Ozanimod is an oral sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor 1 and 5 modulator whose therapeutic mechanism is not fully understood “but may involve the reduction of lymphocyte migration into the central nervous system and intestine,” the authors wrote. S1P receptors are involved in vascular formation during embryogenesis, and animal studies in rats and rabbits have shown toxicity to the embryo and fetus from S1P receptor modulators, including death and malformations. S1P receptor modulator labels therefore note potential fetal risk and the need for effective contraception while taking the drug.

The study prospectively tracked clinical trial participants taking ozanimod as healthy volunteers or for relapsing MS, ulcerative colitis, or Crohn’s disease. Most of the participants who became pregnant (73%) had relapsing MS, while 18% had ulcerative colitis and 8% had Crohn’s disease.

In female patients receiving ozanimod, 78 pregnancies resulted in 12 miscarriages (including one twin), 15 abortions, and 42 live births, with 6 pregnancies ongoing at the time of reporting and no data available for the remaining 4 pregnancies. Among the 42 live births, 4 were premature but otherwise healthy, 1 had a duplex kidney, and the other 37 infants were typical with no apparent health concerns. These rates of miscarriage, preterm birth, and congenital anomalies were within the expected ranges for the general population, the researchers wrote.

The researchers also assessed pregnancy outcomes for partners of male participants taking ozanimod. The 29 partner pregnancies resulted in 21 live births and one miscarriage, with one pregnancy ongoing and no information available for the other seven. The live births included 5 premature infants (including twins), 13 typical and healthy infants, 1 with Hirschsprung’s disease, 1 with a congenital hydrocele, and 1 with a partial atrioventricular septal defect. Again, the researchers concluded that these rates were within the typical range for the general population and that “no teratogenicity was observed.”

“We often encourage patients with MS, regardless of disease activity and therapies, to seek preconception evaluations with Maternal-Fetal Medicine and their neurologists in order to make plans for pregnancy and postpartum care,” Dr. Kolarova said. “That being said, access to subspecialized health care is not available to all, and pregnancy prior to such consultation does occur. These studies provide novel information that we have not had access to in the past and can improve patient counseling regarding their risks and options.”

The study on cladribine was funded by Merck KGaA, at which two authors are employed. Dr. Hellwig reported consulting, speaker, and/or research support from Bayer, Biogen, Teva, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Schering Healthcare, Serono, and Merck, and one author is a former employee of EMD Serono. The study on ocrelizumab was funded by Genentech. Dr. Zhovtis Ryerson reported personal fees from Biogen, Genentech, and Novartis, and research grants from Biogen, Genentech, and CMSC. The other authors had no disclosures. The study on ofatumumab was funded by Novartis. Dr. Bove has received research funds from Biogen, Novartis, and Roche Genentech, and consulting fees from EMD Serono, Horizon, Janssen, and TG Therapeutics; she has an ownership interest in Global Consult MD. Five authors are Novartis employees. Her coauthors, including Dr. Hellwig, reported advisory, consulting, research, speaking, or traveling fees from Alexion, Bayer, Biogen, Celgene BMS, EMD Serono, Horizon, Janssen, Lundbeck, Merck, Pfizer, Roche Genentech, Sanofi Genzyme, Schering Healthcare, Teva, TG Therapeutics, and Novartis. The study on ozanimod was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Krakovich and another author are employees and/or shareholders of Bristol Myers Squibb. The other authors reported consulting, speaking, advisory board, and/or research fees from AbbVie, Almirall, Arena, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelhei, Celgene, Celltrion, EXCEMED, Falk Benelux, Ferring, Forward Pharma, Genentech, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Prometheus Labs, Protagonist, Roche, Sanofi, Synthon, Takeda, and Teva. Dr. Kolarova had no disclosures. Dr. Shah has received research support from Biogen and VeraSci.
 

The persistent notion that multiple sclerosis (MS) is predominantly a White patient’s disease has been challenged by scientific data and our clinical experience in the field. Recent research has shown a higher risk of MS in non-White populations than originally thought. This may be surprising, but new data are influencing the way we now approach MS in under-represented minorities, bringing this topic to the forefront of scientific interest.

     The early conviction that “there is no MS in minorities” led to underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of MS in those patients, which in turn deepened these patients’ distrust of physicians and reluctance to seek further medical care, very often delivered by non-minority providers. Inequities in social determinants of health, low health literacy, and lack of private insurance, along with structural racism in healthcare, has further hindered active engagement with an already marginalized patient population in their MS care. This lack of engagement and lack of minorities in scientific research has proved to be unfavorable for MS research as well, creating large and persistent knowledge gaps in understanding MS course, severity, and response to treatment specific to this group. A 2014 PubMed search found 52,000 publications on MS in English, but in only 136 of those were minority patients with MS (Black or Hispanic/Latino) the primary research focus. In 2019, the same search indicated that the subsequent 5 years produced only 30 more articles focusing solely on minority patients.

      Research participation of underrepresented minorities is another area where we, as a field, continue to fail these patients. A review of participant enrollment in MS clinical trials that took place between 1993 and 2006 showed a significant decrease in the percentage of enrolled Black patients (from 7% to about 4%). This trend did not improve by the DEFINE treatment trial (2012), in which only 2% of enrolled patients were Black. Of the 1246 participants in the 2019 SUNBEAM MS study, only 2 were Black. Low numbers of minority patients in trials prevent us from drawing any reasonable conclusion as to the efficacy of disease-modifying agents in those patients and make the goal of personalized medicine for this group impossible.

        The results of the research conducted on these groups are compelling and should be prompting further work. Not only do Black patients have a higher risk of MS, but there is also now convincing evidence that MS in minorities is more severe overall, causing early progression of disability and necessitating assistive gait devices such as a cane or wheelchair. Minority patients tend to have more extensive involvement of spinal cord and infra-tentorial brain structures during the disease, which could explain the increased likelihood of more severe disease and earlier disability. Minority patients were admitted to nursing homes at a younger age, with greater physical and cognitive impairment than nonminority patients. A study looking at MS mortality between 1999 and 2015 found that Black males with MS had the highest mortality rate before age 45, and Black females before age 53. MS mortality increased with age but peaked at age 55 to 64 for Black patients and 65 to 74 for White patients. Underrepresented minorities are also less likely to use community resources, case management, medical equipment, and home nursing services. When looking at other measures of disease impact on these patients, studies evaluating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data showed higher lesion volume in Black patients with MS, as well as a higher degree of brain demyelination and atrophy when compared with White patients. 

         Treatment strategies currently used for underrepresented minority patients, as well as estimations of medication efficacy, treatment responses, and adverse-event profiles are largely driven by data from clinical trials with only minimal representation of those patients. How can we propose a patient-tailored and individualized treatment plan without these crucial data? Given that, to this day, not a single trial has focused solely on underrepresented minorities, we are left with either post hoc exploratory subgroup analyses of existing trials or pragmatic, observational, and very often retrospective studies using chart analysis. Notwithstanding the methodological flaws of either approach, prior studies did suggest worse response to platform therapies in Black patients, but equal response to high-efficacy therapies when compared with White patients. 

       Definitive biological underpinnings of disparities in disease severity have not been identified. In recent years, the field of health outcomes research has suggested we move away from considering racial categories as biologically distinct and instead focus on long-overlooked sociodemographic and modifiable lifestyle

factors. The role of diet, exercise, body mass index, smoking, and vascular comorbidities as risk factors associated with worse MS outcomes has been previously shown; however, these factors have not been rigorously assessed in underrepresented populations with MS. Recent studies focused on uncovering what drives the differences in MS severity in underrepresented populations disagree on the role biological differences, socioeconomic disparities, and structural racism in both healthcare settings and society play in answering this question. While it is plausible that a combination of these factors might explain our observations, more research on larger, underserved patient populations and better-defined measures of socioeconomic differences are needed to answer this complex question. 

         The path of recognizing and correcting our mistakes is not simple but must be done, and our underrepresented minority patients depend on our swift action. There are many places where we as a field of experts can and must do better—in communities, healthcare systems, and society in general. 

       Increasing community health literacy around MS, rebuilding trust, and addressing structural racism on every level is important. Outreach and educational programs that include in-person meetings and leverage social media platforms can help empower patients and their families—and hopefully increase trust in healthcare providers. Devising targeted interventions focusing on modifiable factors of a healthy lifestyle such as diet and exercise can increase community engagement and strengthen the support system for our patients. Increasing diversity in our own field of physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers can also aid in strengthening mutual relationships. 

         Improving access to comprehensive MS care for underrepresented minorities who very often also lack robust insurance coverage is paramount. Recipients of comprehensive care are more likely to participate in research, as these patients receive more well-rounded care and have a lower risk of mismanaged comorbidities. Their involvement in the treatment plan is higher, which also improves compliance with treatment. Patients in comprehensive care centers are more likely to receive newer treatment agents with better efficacy without hindrance of monitoring barriers, and they are likely to benefit from treatment strategies using newly approved agents soon after US Food and Drug Administration approval. 

          Increasing research participation and, ideally, conducting a clinical trial devoted solely to studying MS in underrepresented minorities is something for which we should actively strive. Identifying the main factors prohibiting enrollment and retention of a high number of minority participants in trials is critical to success. Multiple deterrents in day-to-day life, very often directly connected to economic hardship and racism, pose a very real threat to equitable trial participation. To even consider a successful trial for underrepresented minorities, we must do better in devising strategies and accommodations to help overcome those barriers. 

         The underserved minorities with MS deserve and need our attention and focus. These patients have largely been neglected and forgotten, but now are emerging at the forefront of our attention—where they belong. 

The persistent notion that multiple sclerosis (MS) is predominantly a White patient’s disease has been challenged by scientific data and our clinical experience in the field. Recent research has shown a higher risk of MS in non-White populations than originally thought. This may be surprising, but new data are influencing the way we now approach MS in under-represented minorities, bringing this topic to the forefront of scientific interest.

     The early conviction that “there is no MS in minorities” led to underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of MS in those patients, which in turn deepened these patients’ distrust of physicians and reluctance to seek further medical care, very often delivered by non-minority providers. Inequities in social determinants of health, low health literacy, and lack of private insurance, along with structural racism in healthcare, has further hindered active engagement with an already marginalized patient population in their MS care. This lack of engagement and lack of minorities in scientific research has proved to be unfavorable for MS research as well, creating large and persistent knowledge gaps in understanding MS course, severity, and response to treatment specific to this group. A 2014 PubMed search found 52,000 publications on MS in English, but in only 136 of those were minority patients with MS (Black or Hispanic/Latino) the primary research focus. In 2019, the same search indicated that the subsequent 5 years produced only 30 more articles focusing solely on minority patients.

      Research participation of underrepresented minorities is another area where we, as a field, continue to fail these patients. A review of participant enrollment in MS clinical trials that took place between 1993 and 2006 showed a significant decrease in the percentage of enrolled Black patients (from 7% to about 4%). This trend did not improve by the DEFINE treatment trial (2012), in which only 2% of enrolled patients were Black. Of the 1246 participants in the 2019 SUNBEAM MS study, only 2 were Black. Low numbers of minority patients in trials prevent us from drawing any reasonable conclusion as to the efficacy of disease-modifying agents in those patients and make the goal of personalized medicine for this group impossible.

        The results of the research conducted on these groups are compelling and should be prompting further work. Not only do Black patients have a higher risk of MS, but there is also now convincing evidence that MS in minorities is more severe overall, causing early progression of disability and necessitating assistive gait devices such as a cane or wheelchair. Minority patients tend to have more extensive involvement of spinal cord and infra-tentorial brain structures during the disease, which could explain the increased likelihood of more severe disease and earlier disability. Minority patients were admitted to nursing homes at a younger age, with greater physical and cognitive impairment than nonminority patients. A study looking at MS mortality between 1999 and 2015 found that Black males with MS had the highest mortality rate before age 45, and Black females before age 53. MS mortality increased with age but peaked at age 55 to 64 for Black patients and 65 to 74 for White patients. Underrepresented minorities are also less likely to use community resources, case management, medical equipment, and home nursing services. When looking at other measures of disease impact on these patients, studies evaluating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data showed higher lesion volume in Black patients with MS, as well as a higher degree of brain demyelination and atrophy when compared with White patients. 

         Treatment strategies currently used for underrepresented minority patients, as well as estimations of medication efficacy, treatment responses, and adverse-event profiles are largely driven by data from clinical trials with only minimal representation of those patients. How can we propose a patient-tailored and individualized treatment plan without these crucial data? Given that, to this day, not a single trial has focused solely on underrepresented minorities, we are left with either post hoc exploratory subgroup analyses of existing trials or pragmatic, observational, and very often retrospective studies using chart analysis. Notwithstanding the methodological flaws of either approach, prior studies did suggest worse response to platform therapies in Black patients, but equal response to high-efficacy therapies when compared with White patients. 

       Definitive biological underpinnings of disparities in disease severity have not been identified. In recent years, the field of health outcomes research has suggested we move away from considering racial categories as biologically distinct and instead focus on long-overlooked sociodemographic and modifiable lifestyle

factors. The role of diet, exercise, body mass index, smoking, and vascular comorbidities as risk factors associated with worse MS outcomes has been previously shown; however, these factors have not been rigorously assessed in underrepresented populations with MS. Recent studies focused on uncovering what drives the differences in MS severity in underrepresented populations disagree on the role biological differences, socioeconomic disparities, and structural racism in both healthcare settings and society play in answering this question. While it is plausible that a combination of these factors might explain our observations, more research on larger, underserved patient populations and better-defined measures of socioeconomic differences are needed to answer this complex question. 

         The path of recognizing and correcting our mistakes is not simple but must be done, and our underrepresented minority patients depend on our swift action. There are many places where we as a field of experts can and must do better—in communities, healthcare systems, and society in general. 

       Increasing community health literacy around MS, rebuilding trust, and addressing structural racism on every level is important. Outreach and educational programs that include in-person meetings and leverage social media platforms can help empower patients and their families—and hopefully increase trust in healthcare providers. Devising targeted interventions focusing on modifiable factors of a healthy lifestyle such as diet and exercise can increase community engagement and strengthen the support system for our patients. Increasing diversity in our own field of physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers can also aid in strengthening mutual relationships. 

         Improving access to comprehensive MS care for underrepresented minorities who very often also lack robust insurance coverage is paramount. Recipients of comprehensive care are more likely to participate in research, as these patients receive more well-rounded care and have a lower risk of mismanaged comorbidities. Their involvement in the treatment plan is higher, which also improves compliance with treatment. Patients in comprehensive care centers are more likely to receive newer treatment agents with better efficacy without hindrance of monitoring barriers, and they are likely to benefit from treatment strategies using newly approved agents soon after US Food and Drug Administration approval. 

          Increasing research participation and, ideally, conducting a clinical trial devoted solely to studying MS in underrepresented minorities is something for which we should actively strive. Identifying the main factors prohibiting enrollment and retention of a high number of minority participants in trials is critical to success. Multiple deterrents in day-to-day life, very often directly connected to economic hardship and racism, pose a very real threat to equitable trial participation. To even consider a successful trial for underrepresented minorities, we must do better in devising strategies and accommodations to help overcome those barriers. 

         The underserved minorities with MS deserve and need our attention and focus. These patients have largely been neglected and forgotten, but now are emerging at the forefront of our attention—where they belong. 

The persistent notion that multiple sclerosis (MS) is predominantly a White patient’s disease has been challenged by scientific data and our clinical experience in the field. Recent research has shown a higher risk of MS in non-White populations than originally thought. This may be surprising, but new data are influencing the way we now approach MS in under-represented minorities, bringing this topic to the forefront of scientific interest.

     The early conviction that “there is no MS in minorities” led to underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of MS in those patients, which in turn deepened these patients’ distrust of physicians and reluctance to seek further medical care, very often delivered by non-minority providers. Inequities in social determinants of health, low health literacy, and lack of private insurance, along with structural racism in healthcare, has further hindered active engagement with an already marginalized patient population in their MS care. This lack of engagement and lack of minorities in scientific research has proved to be unfavorable for MS research as well, creating large and persistent knowledge gaps in understanding MS course, severity, and response to treatment specific to this group. A 2014 PubMed search found 52,000 publications on MS in English, but in only 136 of those were minority patients with MS (Black or Hispanic/Latino) the primary research focus. In 2019, the same search indicated that the subsequent 5 years produced only 30 more articles focusing solely on minority patients.

      Research participation of underrepresented minorities is another area where we, as a field, continue to fail these patients. A review of participant enrollment in MS clinical trials that took place between 1993 and 2006 showed a significant decrease in the percentage of enrolled Black patients (from 7% to about 4%). This trend did not improve by the DEFINE treatment trial (2012), in which only 2% of enrolled patients were Black. Of the 1246 participants in the 2019 SUNBEAM MS study, only 2 were Black. Low numbers of minority patients in trials prevent us from drawing any reasonable conclusion as to the efficacy of disease-modifying agents in those patients and make the goal of personalized medicine for this group impossible.

        The results of the research conducted on these groups are compelling and should be prompting further work. Not only do Black patients have a higher risk of MS, but there is also now convincing evidence that MS in minorities is more severe overall, causing early progression of disability and necessitating assistive gait devices such as a cane or wheelchair. Minority patients tend to have more extensive involvement of spinal cord and infra-tentorial brain structures during the disease, which could explain the increased likelihood of more severe disease and earlier disability. Minority patients were admitted to nursing homes at a younger age, with greater physical and cognitive impairment than nonminority patients. A study looking at MS mortality between 1999 and 2015 found that Black males with MS had the highest mortality rate before age 45, and Black females before age 53. MS mortality increased with age but peaked at age 55 to 64 for Black patients and 65 to 74 for White patients. Underrepresented minorities are also less likely to use community resources, case management, medical equipment, and home nursing services. When looking at other measures of disease impact on these patients, studies evaluating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data showed higher lesion volume in Black patients with MS, as well as a higher degree of brain demyelination and atrophy when compared with White patients. 

         Treatment strategies currently used for underrepresented minority patients, as well as estimations of medication efficacy, treatment responses, and adverse-event profiles are largely driven by data from clinical trials with only minimal representation of those patients. How can we propose a patient-tailored and individualized treatment plan without these crucial data? Given that, to this day, not a single trial has focused solely on underrepresented minorities, we are left with either post hoc exploratory subgroup analyses of existing trials or pragmatic, observational, and very often retrospective studies using chart analysis. Notwithstanding the methodological flaws of either approach, prior studies did suggest worse response to platform therapies in Black patients, but equal response to high-efficacy therapies when compared with White patients. 

       Definitive biological underpinnings of disparities in disease severity have not been identified. In recent years, the field of health outcomes research has suggested we move away from considering racial categories as biologically distinct and instead focus on long-overlooked sociodemographic and modifiable lifestyle

factors. The role of diet, exercise, body mass index, smoking, and vascular comorbidities as risk factors associated with worse MS outcomes has been previously shown; however, these factors have not been rigorously assessed in underrepresented populations with MS. Recent studies focused on uncovering what drives the differences in MS severity in underrepresented populations disagree on the role biological differences, socioeconomic disparities, and structural racism in both healthcare settings and society play in answering this question. While it is plausible that a combination of these factors might explain our observations, more research on larger, underserved patient populations and better-defined measures of socioeconomic differences are needed to answer this complex question. 

         The path of recognizing and correcting our mistakes is not simple but must be done, and our underrepresented minority patients depend on our swift action. There are many places where we as a field of experts can and must do better—in communities, healthcare systems, and society in general. 

       Increasing community health literacy around MS, rebuilding trust, and addressing structural racism on every level is important. Outreach and educational programs that include in-person meetings and leverage social media platforms can help empower patients and their families—and hopefully increase trust in healthcare providers. Devising targeted interventions focusing on modifiable factors of a healthy lifestyle such as diet and exercise can increase community engagement and strengthen the support system for our patients. Increasing diversity in our own field of physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers can also aid in strengthening mutual relationships. 

         Improving access to comprehensive MS care for underrepresented minorities who very often also lack robust insurance coverage is paramount. Recipients of comprehensive care are more likely to participate in research, as these patients receive more well-rounded care and have a lower risk of mismanaged comorbidities. Their involvement in the treatment plan is higher, which also improves compliance with treatment. Patients in comprehensive care centers are more likely to receive newer treatment agents with better efficacy without hindrance of monitoring barriers, and they are likely to benefit from treatment strategies using newly approved agents soon after US Food and Drug Administration approval. 

          Increasing research participation and, ideally, conducting a clinical trial devoted solely to studying MS in underrepresented minorities is something for which we should actively strive. Identifying the main factors prohibiting enrollment and retention of a high number of minority participants in trials is critical to success. Multiple deterrents in day-to-day life, very often directly connected to economic hardship and racism, pose a very real threat to equitable trial participation. To even consider a successful trial for underrepresented minorities, we must do better in devising strategies and accommodations to help overcome those barriers. 

         The underserved minorities with MS deserve and need our attention and focus. These patients have largely been neglected and forgotten, but now are emerging at the forefront of our attention—where they belong.