Category Archives: Treatment strategy

Detail, DMTsDetail, Treatment strategy

What are the attributes of the specific DMTs?

Multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment has evolved rapidly, with 11 classes of disease-modifying therapy (DMT) now available in the UK. I will summarise them briefly and explain how they fit within a treatment paradigm for effective and safe use.

Maintenance therapies versus immune reconstitution: what’s the difference?

There is a divide between the two main treatment philosophies: maintenance ̶ escalation versus immune reconstitution therapies (IRTs).

An IRT is given as a short course – a one-off treatment in the case of autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) or intermittently for alemtuzumab, cladribine or mitoxantrone. IRTs are not given continuously, and additional courses are given only if inflammatory activity recurs. IRTs can induce long-term remission and, in some cases, potentially a cure.

Maintenance therapies, by comparison, are given continuously without an interruption in dosing (‘continuous’ administration may be daily, one or more times weekly, monthly or even once every few months). Although maintenance therapies can induce long-term remission, they cannot, by definition, result in a cure. The recurrence or continuation of inflammatory activity indicates a suboptimal response to treatment and typically requires a treatment switch. Ideally, this switch should be an escalation to a more effective class of DMT.

An article in our list of key questions, entitled How do I want my MS to be treated?, provides a more detailed comparison of maintenance and IRT therapies, including frequency of administration, efficacy, risks, use in pregnancy, vaccine response and potential for a cure.

The DMTs currently licensed in the UK (in August 2024) are listed in the table under the relevant category.

table format updated 180625 SS

Disease-modifying therapies for MS licensed in the UK. *Please note, Bonspri is available in other markets but not the UK.

How effective are the different DMTs?

The measures used to assess the effectiveness of a DMT include its ability to reduce or prevent relapses, focal inflammatory activity (that is, new or enlarging lesions) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and disability progression. Additional factors that can help to assess the relative efficacy of DMTs include the proportion of clinical trial subjects who experience improvement in disability and the impact of the treatment on brain volume loss.

The MS-Selfie InfoCards are an easy-to-use resource to help people with MS compare the key features of each DMT. They contain bite-sized information designed to aid treatment choices and an overview of the key aspects of each DMT.

Efficacy of the licensed DMTs for MS can be visualised as pyramid, with the moderately effective treatments at the bottom and the more effective approaches at the top. What determines the most appropriate DMT efficacy level for an individual depends on several factors, such as baseline prognostic profile, family planning requirements, local or national treatment guidelines, socioeconomic factors, consideration of any co-existing illnesses, cognitive impairment, risk aversion and lifestyle issues.

Pyramid format updated 180625 SS

UK licensed DMTs for MS, in ascending order of efficacy.
HSCT/AHSCT, haematopoietic stem cell transplantation/autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

What is the goal of treatment? Introducing NEIDA as a target

In the past, we used no evident disease activity (NEDA) as a treatment target. ‘Disease activity’ included progression or disease worsening independent of relapse activity (termed smouldering MS). Although some of the more effective DMTs may modify this stage of the disease, many neurologists feel uncomfortable switching or stopping a DMT based simply on smouldering MS disease activity. 

Relapses and ongoing focal MRI activity are associated with a worse short-term to intermediate-term prognosis. These observations have led to the increasing adoption of ‘no evident inflammatory disease activity’ (NEIDA) as a new treatment target. For more information about treatment targets, please see the article in our key questions, Do I understand the concepts of treat-2-target and NEDA?

Many healthcare professionals (HCPs) remain sceptical of using NEIDA as a treatment target, fearing that this could lead to more people with MS being on ‘riskier’ high-efficacy therapies. However, achieving long-term remission, or NEIDA, is a well-established treatment target in other autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. People with MS treated-to-target of NEIDA from the outset do better than those whose treatment is escalated following breakthrough disease (at a clinical or subclinical/MRI level)1. I would, therefore, strongly encourage people with MS and their HCPs to adopt NEIDA as an initial treatment target.

Flipping the pyramid

The effectiveness, or relative effectiveness, of individual DMTs becomes less critical in the context of a treatment target of NEIDA. Choosing a DMT with a lower efficacy rate simply means that a greater proportion of treated people with MS will need to be switched to higher efficacy therapies over time to achieve NEIDA. We refer to the latter of these three approaches – starting with high-efficacy treatment – as flipping the pyramid. In recent trials of alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab and ublituximab, people with MS randomised to 2 years of lower efficacy DMTs (interferon-beta-1a or teriflunomide) had poorer outcomes than those receiving highly active therapy from the outset. Real-world data from registries also support this; groups of people with MS with delayed access to high-efficacy DMTs did worse than those who received high-efficacy treatments early.1,2

Horizontal versus vertical switching

If we consider the conventional step care paradigm, people with MS who switch horizontally from interferon-beta to glatiramer acetate, or vice-versa (i.e. from one moderate efficacy DMT to another moderate efficacy DMT) do less well than those who switch vertically to fingolimod, a highly effective DMT. Similarly, people with MS escalating to natalizumab, a very high-efficacy DMT, do better than those being escalated to the less effective, but still high-efficacy, DMT fingolimod. 

Continuous and intermittent immunosuppression

Another useful way of classifying DMTs is whether they are immunosuppressive, that is, they reduce the activation, or effectiveness, of the immune system. Drug regulators stipulate that a drug may be classified as immunosuppressive if it (1) causes significant lymphopaenia (low lymphocyte count) or leukopenia (low white blood cell count), (2) is associated with opportunistic infections, (3) reduces the antibody and immune response to vaccines and (4) increases the risk of secondary malignancies.

The duration and intensity of immunosuppression further determine the risks. For example, short-term or intermittent immunosuppression associated with IRTs front-loads the risks, which are substantially lower once the immune system has reconstituted itself. In comparison, long-term continuous or persistent immunosuppression, which occurs with some of the maintenance DMTs, accumulates problems over time, particularly opportunistic infections and secondary malignancies. You can read more detail on this topic in the key question How immunosuppressed am I? The following table summarises the main attributes of intermittent and persistent immunosuppression.

How immunosuppressed are you table updated format 180625 SS

The main characteristics of continuous (persistent) and short-term (intermittent) immunosuppression. Modified from Giovannoni, Curr Opin Neurol.2
AHSCT, autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation; PML, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

Adverse effects, monitoring and risk reduction

The complications associated with immunosuppression vary from DMT to DMT. Each individual drug summary in the DMTs section of MS-Selfie contains detailed information about the main adverse events, key monitoring requirements, use (or contraindication) during pregnancy and breastfeeding, and response to vaccines. The MS-Selfie InfoCards provide bite-sized summaries of several practical aspects, including side effects, to enable easy comparison of any treatments you are considering; some of this information is collated below for easy reference.

Short-term versus long-term adverse effects

Each drug has been given scores from 1 to 10 based on published analyses of its short-term and long-term side effects. Short-term refers to side effects that emerge when a treatment is started and decrease in severity or disappear within days or weeks. A well-known example of short-term side effects on starting interferon-beta is flu-like symptoms that typically abate within 4 ̶ 8 weeks.

A long-term side effect persists for months or doesn’t disappear on continuing the DMT. Examples include intermittent but persistent flushing after taking dimethyl fumarate, or low B lymphocyte counts with anti-CD20 therapies that may lead to low antibody or immunoglobulin levels (hypogammaglobulinaemia).

A low score denotes few or rare side effects; a high score denotes many or frequent side effects. The score does not correlate to a percentage. More information can be found in each drug summary and the manufacturer’s Summary of Product Characteristics.

Scores for short-term and long-term side effects assigned to the individual DMTs summarised in the MS-Selfie InfoCards, based on a published network meta-analysis.3
Alem, alemtuzumab; GA, glatiramer acetate; HSCT, haematopoietic stem cell transplantation; IFN-beta; interferon-beta; Nat, natalizumab.

Monitoring and risk reduction

Numerous tests are carried out at the start of treatment, and ongoing monitoring is required for many factors, to reduce the risk from adverse events. The key question, How can I reduce my chances of adverse events on specific DMTs?, explains what needs to be done at the start of DMT administration (baseline) and during subsequent monitoring. The specifics vary from DMT to DMT; please refer to the individual summaries for details such as baseline tests, follow-up, infection prevention, cancer risk, pregnancy, breastfeeding and vaccination. It is important to remember that all licensed MS DMTs have had a thorough risk ̶ benefit assessment, and their benefits are considered to outweigh the potential risks.

Administration and other practical considerations

Routes and frequency of administration

The MS-Selfie InfoCards contain a symbol for each DMT, showing how it is administered. Some DMTs are available in more than one formulation (e.g. tablets and injection). The frequency of administration varies greatly from DMT to DMT; please consult the relevant summary in the DMTs section and discuss your preferences and priorities with your MS HCP.

The route of administration for each drug in the MS-Selfie InfoCards is clearly identified by the relevant symbol. (If a DMT is available in more than one formulation, there is a separate card for each delivery route.)

Number of clinic visits

It may be important for you to consider the frequency of clinic visits. This will depend on factors such as the delivery route of your DMT, the monitoring requirements of the drug regulators and the risk of specific side effects. The table below summarises the assessments from the MS-Selfie InfoCards. This is another factor to consider in discussions with your MS HCPs about the most appropriate DMT for you.

Conclusions

People with MS must understand the objectives of MS treatments and the different treatment strategies currently available to achieve these objectives. Although the MS therapeutic landscape is complex and hence may seem overwhelming, framing the choices using a relatively simple construct should help each individual to make informed decisions about managing their MS. MS-Selfie aims to guide you in the process of deciding on the most appropriate therapeutic strategy and specific DMT for treating your disease.

References

  1. Rotstein D, et al. Association of No Evidence of Disease Activity with no long-term disability progression in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurology 2022;99:e209̶ ̶ 20.
  2. Giovannoni G. Disease-modifying treatments for early and advanced multiple sclerosis: a new treatment paradigm. Curr Opin Neurol 2018;31:233 ̶ 43.
  3. Samjoo IA, et al. Efficacy classification of modern therapies in multiple sclerosis. J Comp Eff Res 2021;10:495–507.
Treatment strategy

Do I understand the concepts of treat-2-target and NEDA?

Has anyone discussed a treatment target with you, including the need to rebaseline your disease activity? Have the concepts of preventing end-organ damage to the central nervous system (the ‘end-organ’ in MS) and brain volume loss or atrophy been broached?

Key points

  • Achieving long-term remission is a well-established treatment target in MS and several other autoimmune diseases.
  • Key measures of MS disease activity are used to define composite treatment targets; they provide objective means for monitoring and decision-making.
  • To demonstrate a target of no evident disease activity (NEDA) requires a minimum of three criteria to be met: no relapses, no MRI activity and no disability progression.
  • More stringent definitions of NEDA targets have evolved and will continue to do so as new predictors of treatment response are developed.

If you are on a disease-modifying therapy (DMT), what is the objective or treatment target for your MS? This is another question to be answered before committing yourself to a specific treatment strategy.

Treat-2-target

Relapses and ongoing focal inflammatory activity on MRI (new or enlarging T2 lesions and T1 gadolinium-enhancing lesions [Gd-enhancing]) are associated with poor outcomes. This has led to the adoption of ‘no evident disease activity’ (NEDA) as a treatment target in MS. NEDA, or NEDA-3, is a composite of three related measures of MS disease activity: (i) no relapses, (ii) no MRI activity (new or enlarging T2 lesions or Gd-enhancing lesions) and (iii) no disability progression. NEDA is an important goal for treating individuals with MS.

When to rebaseline

To use NEDA as a treatment target in day-to-day clinical practice, it is advisable to be ‘rebaselined’ after the onset of action of the DMT you have been started on. The timing of the MRI to provide a new baseline depends on the DMT concerned. The recommendations for immune reconstitution therapies (IRTs) are very different from those for maintenance therapies. In the case of an IRT (for example alemtuzumab or cladribine, which are given as short courses), breakthrough disease activity can be used as an indicator to retreat rather than necessarily to switch therapy. Therefore, a rebaselining MRI should be delayed until after the final course of therapy, e.g. 2 years, or close enough to the time when a third, or subsequent course, can be administered.

Determining treatment failure: IRTs

Questions remain of how many treatment cycles need to be given before considering that a specific IRT has not been effective.

  • For alemtuzumab, the threshold is three cycles under NHS England’s treatment algorithm (based on their cost-effectiveness analysis). Alemtuzumab is a biological or protein-based treatment, so the risk of developing neutralising anti-drug antibodies increases with each infusion.
  • Cladribine on the other hand is a small molecule, so neutralising antibodies are not a problem and there is no real limit on the number of courses that can be given.
  • Although HSCT tends to be a one-off treatment, there are rare reports of people with MS receiving more than one cycle.

Please note there are potentially cumulative risks associated with multiple cycles of an IRT: secondary malignancies in the case of HSCT and persistent lymphopaenia with cladribine. 

Determining treatment failure: maintenance therapies

In comparison to IRTs, if you have disease activity on a particular maintenance DMT, and provided you have been adherent to your treatment, this is usually interpreted as a suboptimal response or non-response and it should trigger a switch to another class of DMT. 

A criticism of NEDA is the omission of so-called ‘non-relapse-associated disease worsening’ as a component of the treatment target (in addition to evidence of incomplete recovery from relapses). I refer to this disease worsening as smouldering MS. Worsening disability in the absence of relapses may have little to do with ongoing focal inflammatory activity. It may simply represent a delayed dying-off of axons and nerve fibres following earlier focal inflammatory lesions. As a result, many neurologists feel uncomfortable switching, or stopping a DMT, based simply on non-relapse-associated worsening disability. For more information, please see Getting worse – smouldering MS.

Beyond NEDA-3

The definition of NEDA is evolving with clinical practice. Some centres are now testing for brain volume loss (that is, brain atrophy) and/or increased neurofilament light chain (NFL) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) as part of the NEDA-3 treatment target. NEDA-4 builds on NEDA-3, by including the target of normalising brain atrophy rates to within the normal range. The problem we have found with this is that the measurement of brain atrophy in an individual with MS level is very unreliable. For example, dehydration, excessive alcohol consumption and some symptomatic medications can cause the brain to shrink temporarily. We, therefore, think that CSF NFL levels are a better treatment target, less prone to misinterpretation. Neurofilaments are proteins that are found in nerves and axons (nerve fibres) and are released in proportion to the amount of nerve fibre damage that occurs in MS. Normalising CSF NFL levels, which would indicate that nerve damage is stopped, is referred to as NEDA-5. From a scientific perspective, including a more objective end-organ biomarker makes sense and will almost certainly be incorporated into our treatment target in the future.  

Table format updated 180625 SS

The components of NEDA-recommended targets are expanding as our ability to measure predictors of treatment response grows.
CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; MRI, Magnetic resonance imaging; NEDA, no evident disease activity; NEIDA, no evident inflammatory disease activity; NFL, neurofilament light; PROMS, patient-related outcome measures.

End-organ damage

The combination of relapses, the development of new MRI lesions and brain volume loss over 2 years in clinical trials predicts quite accurately who will become disabled over the same time period. From a treatment perspective, it is important to stop relapses, new MRI lesions and brain volume loss if we are to prevent or slow down worsening disability. Therefore, we must go beyond NEIDA (no evident inflammatory activity), which refers to relapses and focal MRI activity, and normalise brain volume loss if we can. 

Alternatives to NEDA?

Many neurologists are critical of using NEDA as a treatment target in clinical practice, fearing that it encourages people with MS to take highly effective DMTs that they consider may be ‘more risky’ (see short summaries of the available DMTs for information about individual drugs). Such neurologists, therefore, promote a less proactive approach and allow for some residual MS disease activity, but at a lower level. This treatment target is referred to as minimal evidence of disease activity, or MEDA.

In my opinion, MEDA flies in the face of the science of focal inflammatory lesions being ‘bad’ and it is associated with poor short-term, intermediate and long-term outcomes. If most people with MS end up receiving so-called high-efficacy therapies because of breakthrough disease activity, then this is what they probably need, that is, to have their MS treated adequately. Compelling evidence has emerged from trials, large registries and real-world data that people with MS treated early with highly effective DMTs (flipping the pyramid) do better than those who have delayed access to more effective DMTs.1,2,3 You can find a short summary of some key findings on the MS Brain Health website.

Implementing NEDA in clinical practice

Please note that achieving long-term remission, or NEDA, is a well-established treatment target in other autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, autoimmune kidney disease and inflammatory bowel disease. People with MS treated to a target of NEDA do better than those with breakthrough disease activity. I would therefore strongly encourage you to discuss this treatment target with your own MS neurologist. 

The flowchart below illustrates how we implement a treat-2-target of NEDA strategy. The important take-home message is that the treatment targets in MS have moved; goal-setting and the active monitoring of outcomes is now required to achieve these goals. 

Treat to target NEDA algorithm

Recommended approaches to implementing a treat-2-target of NEDA strategy, using maintenance ̶ escalation or immune reconstitution therapy (IRT). The dotted lines indicate that if treatment fails you can either switch within the class (maintenance or IRT) or reassess the strategy. From Giovannoni, Curr Opin Neurol.4
Alem, alemtuzumab; Clad, cladribine; DMF, dimethyl fumarate; Fingo, fingolimod; GA, glatiramer acetate; HSCT, haematopoietic stem cell transplantation; IFNβ, interferon-beta; Mitox, mitoxantrone; NEDA, no evident disease activity; Nz, natalizumab; Ocre, ocrelizumab; Ofat, ofatumumab; Teri, teriflunomide.

There is also a clear need to update the definition of NEDA regularly as new technologies become available and are validated as predictors of treatment response. I therefore envisage the definition of NEDA changing still further in future to include more objective measures, particularly ones measuring end-organ damage and the inclusion of patient-related outcome measures.

References

DMTs, Treatment strategy

How immunosuppressed am I?

Do you understand the difference between short-term intermittent and long-term continuous immunosuppression? Here we address another of the key questions to consider before deciding on a specific disease-modifying therapy (DMT).

Key points

  • Immunosuppressive disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) reduce the immune system’s effectiveness.
  • It is important to weigh up the benefits and risks of short-term versus continuous immunosuppression.
  • Non-selective DMTs suppress the adaptive and innate immune systems; selective DMTs do not affect the innate immune system and are thus associated with a low risk of bacterial infections.
  • The implications of immunosuppression need to be considered within the context of other health and lifestyle factors.

Which DMTs cause immunosuppression?

A useful way of thinking about DMTs is based on whether they are immunosuppressive. Broadly speaking, an immunosuppressive is any DMT that reduces the immune system’s activation or effectiveness. 

From a regulatory perspective, for a drug to be classified as immunosuppressive, it should: 

  • cause significant lymphopaenia or leukopenia (reduced white cell counts)
  • be associated with opportunistic infections (infections that don’t occur in people with a normal, healthy immune system)
  • reduce antibody and/or T-cell responses to vaccines 
  • increase the risk of secondary malignancies. 

Based on the above criteria, the interferon-beta preparations and glatiramer acetate are immunomodulatory rather than immunosuppressive. Teriflunomide is also an immunomodulatory therapy with the potential, albeit small, to cause immunosuppression. In real life, however, very few people with MS treated with teriflunomide develop significant lymphopaenia or leukopenia; if they do, we tend to stop the drug. The other licensed DMTs are immunosuppressive to a greater or lesser degree. 

Short-term versus continuous immunosuppression

The duration and intensity of immunosuppression further determine the risks. Short-term or intermittent immunosuppression associated with an immune reconstitution therapy (IRT) front-loads the risks, which decrease substantially once the immune system has reconstituted itself. In comparison, long-term continuous or persistent immunosuppression, which occurs with most maintenance DMTs, accumulates problems over time, particularly opportunistic infections and secondary malignancies.

Live vaccines are, in general, contraindicated in patients on continuous immunosuppressive therapies. However, someone with MS on an IRT who has reconstituted their immune system can tolerate and respond to live vaccines. The benefits of administering live vaccines always need to be balanced against the risks of the vaccine.

How immunosuppressed are you table updated format 180625 SS

The main characteristics of continuous persistent and short-term (intermittent) immunosuppression. Modified from Giovannoni, Curr Opin Neurol.1
AHSCT, autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation; PML, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

Selective versus non-selective immunosuppression

Immunosuppression that accompanies DMTs may be selective or non-selective. Non-selective therapies deplete and/or suppress both the adaptive immune system (T cells and B cells) and the innate immune system (monocytes, neutrophils and natural killer [NK] cells). Alemtuzumab, AHSCT (autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation) and mitoxantrone are non-selective and are therefore associated with acute bacterial infections such as listeriosis, nocardiosis and cytomegalovirus reactivation. In comparison, anti-CD20 agents (ocrelizumab and ofatumumab) and cladribine are selective, do not affect the innate immune system and are therefore associated with a low risk of acute bacterial infections. 

How immunosuppressed are you_MET vs IRT_2 Dec 2024

Classification of disease-modifying therapies for relapsing forms of MS. Modified from Giovannoni, Curr Opin Neurol.1
AHSCT, autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Other considerations

Please note that the implications of immunosuppression are not black and white but interact with other factors such as:

These factors have been highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in relation to the risk of severe COVID-19 and the variations in vaccine responses among people with MS (including waning of the immune response).

It is important to realise that we can derisk (reduce the risk of) some complications associated with long-term immunosuppression and the use of DMTs. Please see the post entitled How can I reduce my chances of adverse events on specific DMTs?

References

  1. Giovannoni G. Disease-modifying treatments for early and advanced multiple sclerosis: a new treatment paradigm. Curr Opin Neurol 2018;31:233 ̶ 43.
DMTs, Treatment strategy

How do I want my MS to be treated?

What is the difference between a maintenance ̶ escalation DMT and an immune reconstitution therapy (IRT)? Why is it important to understand the distinction?

Key points

  • Maintenance–escalation and immune reconstitution therapy (IRT) are two approaches to MS treatment currently favoured.
  • IRT is a one-off, short course which acts on immune system cells in three stages: reduction, repopulation and reconstitution.
  • Maintenance–escalation is given continuously without interruption. If it does not work well, the treatment is changed to a more effective DMT (known as ‘escalation’).
  • Additional future approaches are likely to include induction ̶ maintenance and/or combination therapy.

If I had MS, how would I want to be treated? This is a difficult question, and one that many of my patients ask me. The answer depends on your life stage, what risks you are prepared to take, personal factors such as family planning considerations and the extent of your understanding of MS and how we approach its treatment.

Currently, there are two main philosophies regarding the treatment of MS with DMTs: maintenance/escalation versus immune reconstitution therapies (IRTs). 

What is an immune reconstitution therapy?

By definition, an IRT is given as a short course, i.e. as a one-off treatment in the case of autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) or intermittently in the case of alemtuzumab, cladribine or mitoxantrone. IRTs are not given continuously, and additional courses of the therapy are given only if there is a recurrence of MS inflammatory activity. IRTs can induce long-term remission and, arguably, in some cases a potential cure.

IRTs have three phases to their mode of action, which I refer to as the ‘three Rs’.

  1. Reduction, or depletion, when we try to kill the autoimmune cells that cause MS.
  2. Repopulation, when the immune system recovers from stem cell transplantation and, hopefully, the autoimmune cells don’t return.
  3. Reconstitution, when the immune system is recovered and fully competent. The recovered immune system following treatment with an IRT is different from what was there before. Some people like to think of an IRT as a reboot of the immune system, but without MS.
Slide1

The three Rs of immune reconstitution therapy: reduction, repopulation and reconstitution. From Giovannoni, Curr Opin Neurol.1 

What is an MS ’cure’?

One attempt at a definition describes an MS cure as no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) 15 years after the administration of an IRT. I justify using 15 years because it is the time-point most accepted for defining ‘benign MS‘ and is also beyond the average time to onset of secondary progressive MS in natural history studies.

What is a maintenance therapy?

A maintenance therapy is given continuously without an interruption in dosing. Although maintenance therapies can induce long-term remission (i.e. NEDA), they cannot result in a cure. The recurrence or continuation of inflammatory disease activity with maintenance therapies is an indication of a suboptimal response to treatment and typically results in a treatment switch. Ideally, this switch should be to a more effective class of DMTs – hence the term ‘escalation’. 

What would I recommend?

I can’t choose for you. The debate is complex and depends on many factors. One important consideration is vaccine readiness: will I be able to mount an adequate immune response to a vaccine? IRTs have the advantage that they allow reconstitution of the immune system; once it recovers, vaccine responses are restored, and even live vaccines can be given.

The table below highlights key differentiators. Further, detailed information about most of the products listed in the Table can be accessed through the DMT comparison tool available at ClinicSpeak or via the Multiple Sclerosis Trust MS Decisions aid.

Similarities and differences between maintenance treatments and immune reconstitution therapies. Registered trade names (UK market) of the generic drugs listed are shown in brackets. *How to define a ‘cure’ in MS is controversial. Modified from Giovannoni, Curr Opin Neurol.1
DMT, disease-modifying therapy; HSCT, haematopoietic stem cell transplant; IRT, immune reconstitution therapy.

The future

I envisage two more treatment strategies emerging.

  • One approach is induction ̶ maintenance therapy, using an IRT followed by an immunomodulatory therapy rather than an immunosuppressive DMT (which is a safer option) the aim is to keep MS in long-term remission. This approach is used in oncology, where the cancer is hit hard with induction chemotherapy and then kept at bay with a well-tolerated maintenance therapy (e.g. antihormonal therapies in breast cancer).
  • Another approach is combination maintenance therapy; the aim would be to combine an anti-inflammatory therapy with, say, neuroprotective therapies to target smouldering MS.

The diagram below illustrates the scheduling of the four approaches discussed in this section. You may like to try out the DMT comparison tool to find out how some of the drugs listed in the comparison Table above align with your personal life choices and priorities.

Slide5

Four approaches discussed in this section. The white panels illustrate the two approaches currently available; the shaded panels illustrate two strategies that may emerge in the future. Modified from Giovannoni, Curr Opin Neurol.1

References

  1. Giovannoni G. Disease-modifying treatments for early and advanced multiple sclerosis: a new treatment paradigm. Curr Opin Neurol 2018;31:233 ̶ 43.
DMTs, Treatment strategy

Am I eligible for an MS disease-modifying therapy?

Key points

Do you know the eligibility criteria for MS disease-modifying therapies? And who decides what drugs can be prescribed for your MS?

  • Disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) change the long-term trajectory of MS and protect the central nervous system from further damage.
  • Regulators such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) decide in which group(s) of patients a particular drug can be used, based on the results of clinical trials.
  • Once a drug has been licensed in your region, local payers decide whether to make it available within your country, based on cost-effective assessments.
  • If you have active MS, your level of disease activity, its severity and speed of development will determine which DMTs you can be offered.
  • In some countries, ocrelizumab has been approved for the treatment of active primary progressive MS (PPMS) and siponimod has been approved for the treatment of active secondary progressive MS.
  • Protecting upper limb function has been a neglected area; studies are now ongoing, however, with a view to finding DMTs that limit the progression of upper limb disability.

What do disease-modifying drugs do?

Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are treatments that change the natural history – that is, the long-term trajectory – of the disease. They reduce the rate of disability worsening and so protect the end-organ (in the case of MS, this is the central nervous system). To simplify, let’s say that a person with MS on no treatment may manage for an average of 18-20 years before needing to use a walking stick (corresponding to Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] 6.0), while someone on treatment might manage without aid for 24 years, i.e. a 4-6-year delay, then the treatment can be called disease-modifying. (Please note, the treatment effect or 4-6-year delay in reaching EDSS 6.0 is an average and some people with MS will do better than others. Conversely, some will do worse than average.) 

Is interferon a DMT?

In the early days of interferon therapy, there was debate about whether simply reducing the relapse rate by 30% relative to placebo treatment, without slowing down the worsening of the disease over 2 years, was disease-modification. However, subsequent trials and follow-up of people with MS treated with interferon-beta showed a slowing down of disease worsening, delays in developing secondary progressive MS and a favourable impact on survival.1 

Do symptomatic treatments modify the disease?

Symptomatic treatments improve the symptoms associated with MS without affecting the natural history. Treatments are classified as symptomatic in relation to their mode of action; but some classes of treatment may yet prove to be disease-modifying. For example, we often use sodium channel blocking agents, such as phenytoin, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine and lamotrigine, for MS-related neuralgia and other pain syndromes. However, there is evidence that this class of therapy may be neuroprotective and hence disease-modifying. 

Who decides on eligibility for a licensed DMT?

Regulators decide in which group of people with MS the DMT can be used, and they grant a licence for its use. Regulators include the EMA, the FDA and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA in the UK).

Payers hold the purse strings and decide which licensed drugs to make available. They makecost-effectiveness assessments to try and optimise the use of the drug in clinical practice. Payers include medical insurance companies and the NHS in the UK. 

Guidelines are formulated to help healthcare professionals use DMTs in the most appropriate way within a particular healthcare system. Guidelines often go much further than the regulators and payers, in that they try to address potential ambiguities in the prescribing of DMTs. National, regional or local guidelines that provide expert clinical guidance include the UK NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) MS management guidelines and the Association of British Neurologists guidelines. 

In the NHS in England, we must abide by NHS England’s algorithm that is predominantly based on NICE technology appraisals, NICE standards of care and the Association of British Neurologists guidelines. To navigate the specifics of the eligibility criteria is quite complex. However, a simpler way of looking at this is to start by defining how active your MS is. 

How does disease activity affect my treatment options?

To be eligible for DMTs, you must have active MS. A summary of the four categories of disease activity is given below. Further details can be found in the section entitled Do I have active MS?

  1. Inactive MS – you are not currently eligible for DMTs.
  2. Active MS – you should be eligible for a so-called platform therapy (interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate or ponesimod) and ocrelizumab or ofatumumab.
  3. Highly active MS – you are eligible for all therapies except natalizumab. Please note in England fingolimod can only be used as a second-line therapy (after another DMT has failed).
  4. Rapidly evolving severe MS – you should be eligible for all DMTs.

Advanced or progressive MS

Ocrelizumab and siponimod are now approved in several countries for the treatment of active PPMS and active SPMS, respectively. A classification of active PPMS requires recent MRI evidence of disease activity, that is, the formation of new T2 lesions and/or the presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions in the last 3 years. Active SPMS is confirmed by the occurrence of superimposed relapses and/or the presence of new T2 lesions and/or gadolinium-enhancing lesions in the last 2 years. Based on these very narrow definitions, most patients with PPMS and SPMS will not be eligible for ocrelizumab or siponimod, respectively. The differences between the MRI criteria for active PPMS and active SPMS reflect the reality that people with PPMS are less likely to be having regular monitoring MRI scans.

Stages of MS currently not eligible for treatment

In the UK, people with MS who are wheelchair users are not eligible for DMTs. The reason for this is that patients with more advanced MS have generally been excluded from phase 3 clinical trials; hence there are no data to show whether licensed DMTs are effective in this group.

There is a long-held view that inflammation is reduced or absent in advanced MS. However, clinical, imaging and pathological data show that inflammation still plays a large, and possibly a major, role in advanced MS. Therefore, not targeting more advanced MS with an anti-inflammatory is counterintuitive.

The importance of upper limb function

In 2016, the #ThinkHand campaign was launched to raise awareness of the importance of hand and arm function in people with MS and the need for clinical trials in this population. Studies currently ongoing that focus on limiting upper limb disability progression include ChariotMS (oral cladribine)2 in people with advanced MS (UK only) and the global, multicentre O’HAND trial  (ocrelizumab)3 in participants with PPMS. 

Once someone with MS becomes a wheelchair user, they still have neuronal systems that are potentially modifiable – for example, upper limb, bulbar (speech and swallowing), cognition and visual function. There is an extensive evidence base showing that several licensed DMTs can slow the worsening of upper limb function despite subjects having advanced MS. Now that ocrelizumab and siponimod have been licensed for active primary and secondary progressive MS, respectively, these DMTs may form the platform for future add-on trials. 

References

  1. Goodin DS, et al. Survival in MS: a randomized cohort study 21 years after the start of the pivotal IFNβ-1b trial. Neurology 2012;78:1315 ̶ 22.
  2. National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). MS clinical trial to focus on people who can’t walk. November 2020. Available at https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/ms-clinical-trial-to-focus-on-people-who-cant-walk/26227 (accessed June 2022).
  3. US National Library of Medicine. A Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Ocrelizumab in Adults With Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (O’HAND). First posted July 2019. Available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04035005 (accessed June 2022).
Brain health and holistic management of MS, Treatment strategy

What are the consequences of not treating MS?

Are there valid reasons not to treat MS with a disease-modifying therapy? What are the consequences of not treating MS? Is watchful waiting justified?

Key points

  • Untreated MS will, given time, result in physical disability, impaired quality of life and ‘hidden’ problems such as cognitive impairment, anxiety and depression.
  • Brain atrophy, or shrinkage, occurs at a faster rate in people with MS than in healthy individuals.
  • Optic neuritis, inflammation or destruction of nerve fibres in the brain and spinal cord, and extensive damage to the cerebral cortex (grey matter) are some consequences of MS lesion development.
  • Quality of life impacts may include reduced mobility, relationship difficulties, increased likelihood of unemployment and memory impairment.
  • Without treatment, the life expectancy of people with MS is reduced by about 6 ̶ 8 years.
  • There are, however, several valid reasons why some people with MS prefer not to receive disease-modifying treatments.

Risks from no disease-modifying treatment

Many patients ask me what will happen to their MS if they don’t take a disease-modifying treatment (DMT) and how effective DMTs are at preventing negative outcomes. Here I try and address questions you need to ask yourself before starting a DMT.

If you are an individual with MS, predicting your disease course is difficult. However, many studies monitoring groups of people with MS show patterns in relation to the progression of the disease and its outcome, with various data sets being consistent.

Given sufficient time, most people with MS who are not treated will become disabled. Most people focus on physical disability, but MS causes many hidden problems, such as cognitive impairment, anxiety and depression.

How untreated MS can progress – headline results

The slides below summarise some of the outcomes of untreated MS; these include brain changes (atrophy), further MS lesion development, reduced health-related quality of life, long-term impact on physical and mental health and shorter life expectancy. (To enlarge an individual slide, click on the arrow at the top right.)

Brain changes
MS lesion development
Quality of life impact
Long-term outlook

DMTs have changed the landscape

It is important to note that these outcomes are from the pre-DMT era and don’t apply to populations of people with MS treated with DMTs. New real-life data indicate that DMTs, particularly high-efficacy DMTs, are preventing many of these problems. By not being on a DMT, if you have active MS, you are at risk of acquiring damage from focal inflammatory lesions. Early in the disease course, you may not be aware of this damage because of the remarkable capacity of the nervous system to compensate for damage (neurological reserve). However, once the compensatory mechanisms have been exhausted, further damage results in overt disability. It is important to regard DMTs as preventive treatments, i.e. their aim is to delay, and hopefully prevent, future disability.

Possible reasons for not receiving a DMT

Many people with MS will not be on a DMT, for a variety of reasons. The list below is probably not extensive; if you know of other reasons why someone who qualifies is not taking a DMT, please let me know.

Inactive MS

Someone with inactive MS will not be eligible for a DMT. There is no standard definition of active MS. To me, active MS is recent evidence of focal inflammatory disease activity, defined as:

  • clinical relapse(s) in the last 2 years
  • OR magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity in the last 12 ̶ 36 months (new or enlarging T2 lesions or T1 Gd-enhancing lesions)
  • OR a raised cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) neurofilament light chain level in the last 12 months.

Worsening disability in MS without focal inflammatory disease activity is not active disease. It can be due to damage caused by past inflammation, smouldering MS or the effects of premature ageing; anti-inflammatory DMTs can’t address this problem. We need different types of DMTs to address these mechanisms – for example, neuroprotective and/or remyelination therapies and anti-ageing therapies.

Watchful waiting

In many situations, some neurologists think someone with MS will end up having benign disease, so they are not prepared to start treatment until the patient develops some overt disability. I abhor this practice and it is one of the reasons I spend so much of my time disseminating knowledge and getting involved with health politics. Watchful waiting, in terms of treating MS, is not supported by data. The earlier and more effectively you treat MS, the better the outcome. The only situation I could condone watchful waiting in someone with active MS is when the diagnosis of MS is in question. Sometimes in neurology, time is the best diagnostician. If the person has MS, it will declare itself with further disease activity, and this would be the trigger to start a DMT.

Family planning

Trying to fall pregnant, pregnancy or breastfeeding are common reasons to interrupt or stop DMTs. Please note that most neurologists now have options to treat MS during pregnancy and while breastfeeding, so this is becoming a less common reason for not taking a DMT.

Risk aversion

Some people with MS are not prepared to take the potential risks associated with DMTs.

Personal reasons

Some people with MS don’t believe in having their MS treated, preferring to try alternative medicines and turn down traditional DMTs. If you are one of these people, I would recommend you continue to interact with your MS team and have regular monitoring of your MS (clinical, MRI, patient-related outcome measures [PROMS] and possibly CSF analyses). Then, if these alternative strategies don’t work, you will keep open the option of treatment with a ‘traditional DMT‘. Most alternative treatment strategies for MS are compatible with DMTs and hence should be viewed as complementary. Understanding the difference between complementary and alternative treatments is important. Complementary treatment strategies are part of the holistic management of MS.

Financial constraints

In some parts of the world, MS treatment is not covered by a national health service or medical insurance scheme and some people with MS simply can’t afford DMTs. Even in rich countries, people with MS who are disenfranchised don’t have access to treatment; these may include illegal immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers waiting for their applications to be processed.

Progressive or more advanced MS

In most countries, neurologists don’t initiate treatment in patients with more advanced MS. This approach is based on a lack of evidence of the effectiveness of DMTs in this population. However, we are increasingly offering ocrelizumab (for active primary progressive MS), siponimod (for active secondary progressive MS) or off-label therapies on a compassionate basis to people with more advanced MS. In addition, there is also the potential to participate in clinical trials of new treatments for more advanced MS.

Ageism

Some healthcare systems and some neurologists are reluctant to start DMTs in people with MS who are over a certain age. This is based on a lack of evidence of the effectiveness of DMTs in this population, and it is why we need to do clinical trials in older people with MS.

Comorbidities

Many people have other medical problems for which the treatment takes priority over the treatment of MS. For example, a patient of mine was diagnosed with stage four bowel cancer. After her surgery, she started an intensive period of chemotherapy during which we stopped her DMT.

References

  1. Fisher E, et al. Gray matter atrophy in multiple sclerosis: a longitudinal study. Ann Neurol 2008;64:255–65.
  2. Barkhof F, et al. Imaging outcomes for neuroprotection and repair in multiple sclerosis trials. Nat Rev Neurol 2009;5:256–66.
  3. Simon JH. Brain atrophy in multiple sclerosis: what we know and would like to know. Mult Scler 2006;12:679–87.
  4. Ziemssen T, et al. Optimizing treatment success in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 2016;263:1053–65.
  5. Hickman SJ, et al. Detection of optic nerve atrophy following a single episode of unilateral optic neuritis by MRI using a fat-saturated short-echo fast FLAIR sequence. Neuroradiology 2001;43:123–8.
  6. Trapp BD, et al. Axonal transection in the lesions of multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 1998;338:278–85.
  7. Peterson JW, et al. Transected neurites, apoptotic neurons, and reduced inflammation in cortical multiple sclerosis lesions. Ann Neurol 2001;50:389–400.
  8. Orme M, et al. The effect of disease, functional status, and relapses on the utility of people with multiple sclerosis in the UK. Value Health 2007;10:54–60.
  9. Pfleger CC, et al. Social consequences of multiple sclerosis (1): early pension and temporary unemployment – a historical prospective cohort study. Mult Scler 2010;16:121–6.
  10. Kobelt G, et al. Costs and quality of life of patients with multiple sclerosis in Europe. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2006;77:918–26.
  11. Feuillet L, et al. Early cognitive impairment in patients with clinically isolated syndrome suggestive of multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2007;13:124–7. 
  12. Confavreux C and Compston A. Chapter 4. The natural history of multiple sclerosis. In: McAlpine’s Multiple Sclerosis, Fourth Edition, 2006; 183 ̶ 272. Churchill Livingstone.
  13. Weinshenker BG et al. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study. I. Clinical course and disability. Brain 1989;112:133 ̶ 46.
  14. Torkildsen GN, et al. Survival and cause of death in multiple sclerosis: results from a 50-year follow-up in Western Norway. Mult Scler 2008;14:1191–8.
  15. Kingwell E, et al. Relative mortality and survival in multiple sclerosis: findings from British Columbia, Canada. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2012;83:61–6.
  16. Sadovnick AD, et al. Cause of death in patients attending multiple sclerosis clinics. Neurology 1991;41:1193–6.
  17. Brenner P, et al. Multiple sclerosis and risk of attempted and completed suicide – a cohort study. Eur J Neurol 2016;23:1329–36.