Tag Archives: autoimmune

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

Causes and prevention of MS

What is multiple sclerosis?

This is the first of a series of basic lessons to help you understand multiple sclerosis (MS).

Key points

  • MS is an autoimmune disease in which the immune system attacks the central nervous system.
  • Its exact cause is unknown; some contributory environmental factors are outlined.
  • Common manifestations of MS include lesions, relapses and intermittent symptoms, which often worsen with fatigue.
  • Early treatment is important to help prevent the damage that occurs with MS.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an organ-specific autoimmune disease. Autoimmune simply means that the immune system, whose primary role is to fight infections and cancers, goes awry and attacks itself. Organ-specific means that a disease is limited to one organ. So, in the case of MS, the immune system attacks the central nervous system (CNS), which consists of the brain, spinal cord and optic nerves.

Every organ in the body has its specific autoimmune disease. For example:

  • joints: rheumatoid arthritis
  • skin: psoriasis 
  • insulin-producing cells of the pancreas: type 1 diabetes
  • intestines: inflammatory bowel disease
  • kidneys: autoimmune nephritis (interstitial or glomerulonephritis).

The cause of MS

At present, the exact cause of MS is unproven. MS is a complex disease that occurs due to the environment’s interaction with inherited or genetic factors.1 Some of the main environmental factors are:

  • low vitamin D levels or a lack of sunshine
  • smoking 
  • Epstein–Barr virus (EBV), the virus that causes infectious mononucleosis (glandular fever) 
  • obesity, particularly in adolescence.

What we don’t know is how these genetic and environmental factors interact to cause MS. There are many genetic variants that predispose someone to get MS, but only a minority of people who have these variants will get the disease. Similarly, only a minority of people exposed to environmental risk factors get the disease.

Mechanisms that underlie the common manifestations of MS

Lesions

MS is characterised by inflammatory lesions – areas of damage or scarring (sclerosis) in the CNS – that come and go. The clinical manifestations of MS depend on where these inflammatory lesions occur. If, for example, a lesion involves the optic nerve, it will cause impaired vision; if it involves the brain stem, it causes double vision, vertigo or unsteadiness of gait; a spinal cord lesion leads to loss of feeling, limb weakness or bladder and bowel problems.  

Relapses

A new MS lesion in a site that is eloquent will cause symptoms and neurological signs; if these last for at least a day, they are called an attack or a relapse. If a lesion occurs in a site not associated with overt symptoms, this is often referred to as a subclinical or asymptomatic relapse. Subclinical relapses can be detected using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). It is said that for every clinical attack there are 10 or more sub-clinical attacks (new MRI lesions).2 

Damage frequently occurs at the site of MS lesions. The inflammation strips the myelin covering the nerve processes and may cut through axons. Axons are the nerve processes that transmit electrical impulses or signals. When the axons are stripped of their myelin sheath, and/or are cut, they can’t transmit electrical signals. This causes loss of function, which manifests with specific symptoms.

Demyelination: loss of the myelin sheath that insulates nerves, leading to disruption of electrical signals. Image courtesy of Timonina/shutterstock.com. 

Intermittent symptoms

Surviving axons that pass through the lesion are able to recover function, by synthesising and distributing so-called ion channels across the demyelinated segment or by being remyelinated. Both these processes are not perfect. For example, the new sodium channels may not function normally, so they sometimes fire spontaneously. The spontaneous firing of axons may cause positive symptoms, for example, pins and needles, pain or spasms. The new myelin is typically thinner and shorter than normal and is temperature, fatigue and stretch sensitive. 

Stretch sensitivity

If someone with MS has a lesion in their spinal cord, electric shock-like sensations may occur when they stretch the spinal cord by bending or flexing their neck; this is known as Lhermitte’s sign.  

Temperature sensitivity

Recurrent symptoms may occur when body temperature rises, for example following fever, exercise or a hot bath. The MS symptoms (which may vary among individuals) disappear when the fever resolves or the body cools down. The temperature sensitivity is often referred to as Uhtoff’s phenomenon. 

Fatigue

Symptoms tend to worsen with physical and/or mental fatigue; for example, someone with MS may begin dragging a leg or dropping their foot after 20–30 minutes of walking. This is because the transmission in the functioning nerves, which have been previously damaged, begins to fail. This failure may be related to a lack of energy and/or to temperature changes that occur with exercise. 

Worsening MS (also called progressive MS)

If the axons, or nerve processes, above and below an MS lesion die off, the surviving axons may sprout to take over the function of the axons below the lesion. This puts an unnecessary strain on the surviving axons, which makes them vulnerable to die off in the future. A reduction in the number of nerves in a neuronal system reduces the neurological reserve of that system, making it more vulnerable to future attacks. In other words, the ability to recover from future attacks is reduced, and the neuronal pathway is susceptible to delayed degeneration and premature ageing. Clearly, if no treatment is given and focal inflammatory lesions continue to come and go, this will cause worsening of the disease. If enough damage is allowed to accrue, even switching off new inflammatory lesions may not prevent the so-called delayed neurodegeneration. This is why one of the primary principles of managing MS is early treatment to prevent damage from occurring in the first place. We have also discovered that the neuronal systems with the longest nerve fibres, in particular the bladder and legs, are much more susceptible to damage. We think this is simply because the longest pathways provide the greatest scope to be hit by multiple MS lesions.

Ageing and MS

As we get older our nervous systems degenerate. If we live long enough, we will all develop age-related neurological problems, such as unsteadiness of gait, loss of memory, reduced vision, loss of hearing, and poor coordination. 

What protects people with MS from becoming disabled and developing age-related neurodegeneration are brain reserve and cognitive reserve. Brain reserve is simply the size of your brain or the number of nerve cells you have. Cognitive reserve, in comparison, relates to how well these nerves function; it is associated with your level of education and how well you enrich your life by using your brain. From about 35 years of age, our brains start to shrink. In MS, this brain shrinkage is in general much greater than normal, and the resulting reduction in brain and cognitive reserve almost certainly primes the nervous system to age earlier. This is one of the reasons why people with MS continue to develop worsening disability later in the course of their disease. This insight is one of the main reasons why we promote early effective treatment of MS to protect and maintain brain and cognitive reserves.  

References

  1. Olsson T, et al. Interactions between genetic, lifestyle and environmental risk factors for multiple sclerosis. Nat Rev Neurol 2017;13:25–36.
  2. Gafson A, et al. The diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: From Charcot to McDonald. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2012;1:9–14

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.
Diagnosis

Am I sure that I have MS?

The multiple sclerosis misdiagnosis rate is around 5% and this has major implications for individuals and the treatment of MS.

Key points

  • A wrong diagnosis of MS may have financial, social and psychological consequences for the individuals concerned, affecting major life decisions.
  • Some MS treatments have life-threatening complications and should only be prescribed for people with a clear diagnosis of MS.
  • Some of the diseases that mimic MS can be made worse by disease-modifying treatments for MS.
  • Diagnostic criteria for MS have evolved and now take account of clinical, electrical, laboratory and magnetic resonance imaging findings.

A case study

She had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis 8 years ago and had been taking interferon-beta since her diagnosis. I told her that I didn’t think she had MS and that her diagnosis was almost certainly complicated migraine with aura. The lesions on her magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan were non-specific white matter lesions and not inflammatory. Her neurological examination, spinal fluid analysis and evoked potentials (EPs) were normal. What clinched the non-MS diagnosis for me was the history of neurological events, which were too short-lived and migratory to be MS attacks. The final piece of the jigsaw was that a special MRI sequence showed none of her white matter lesions had a central vein, which told me that none of her white matter lesions was an MS lesion.  Her anger was palpable. She was angry because she had decided not to start a family and had changed her career because of the fear of becoming disabled in the future and not being able to work or look after a child.  This case illustrates why I always try to review the diagnosis of patients referred to me with MS and why it is important to answer this question before starting a disease-modifying therapy (DMT).   

Making a diagnosis of MS

Unfortunately, there is no single test to diagnose MS. Rather, MS is diagnosed by combining a set of clinical and MRI findings, electrical or neurophysiological investigations and laboratory tests. If these tests fulfil a set of so-called MS diagnostic criteria, the healthcare professional (HCP) or neurologist makes a diagnosis of MS. 

The underlying principles of diagnosing MS are to show the dissemination of lesions in space and time and exclude possible mimics of MS. The diagnostic criteria have evolved over time from 1) being based purely on clinical attacks,1 to 2) include electrical and spinal fluid tests as well as clinical attacks,2 and 3) to add on the use of MRI to help confirm dissemination in time and space.3–6  

Dissemination in time 

This means that two attacks or MS lesions must occur at least 30 days apart or that oligoclonal bands (OCBs) of immunoglobulins can be detected in the spinal fluid.

Dissemination in space 

This requires MS lesions to occur in different locations, for example, the optic nerve and the spinal cord. 

Electrical tests

The electrical or neurophysiological tests are called evoked potential (EPs) and test electrical conduction in a particular pathway. They can show lesions in nerve pathways that are not evident on the neurological examination or seen on MRI. The EPs can also show slow electrical conduction, which is one of the hallmarks of diseases that affect myelin, the insulation around nerves that is responsible for speeding up the electrical conduction of nerve impulses.

Laboratory tests

The laboratory tests are typically done to exclude other diseases that can mimic MS. Examining the spinal fluid for the presence of OCBs is useful in helping to make an MS diagnosis. OCBs are the fingerprint of a specific type of immune activation within the central nervous system (CNS). The OCB fingerprint is relatively specific for the diagnosis of MS in the correct clinical context. (OCBs are also found in CNS infections and other autoimmune diseases, but these are relatively easy to differentiate from MS.)

Please be aware that you may have MS according to the latest diagnostic criteria when you could not be diagnosed with MS using past criteria.

Why is a correct diagnosis important?

Neurologists get the diagnosis wrong in approximately 5% of people with MS. In other words, one in 20 people who have a diagnosis of MS in life does not have MS when their brain is studied post mortem. This data is based on a large study in a region of Denmark.7 More recently, a study from a specialist MS centre in the United States reported a misdiagnosis rate of approximately 15% in patients with presumed MS referred to their centre for treatment.8 

Why is getting the diagnosis of MS correct so important? Firstly, some MS treatments have life-threatening complications; you don’t want to expose people without MS to these complications. More concerning is that some of the diseases that mimic MS can be made worse by MS DMTs. Finally, a diagnosis of MS has many psychological, social, financial and economic implications. Even if you turn out to have ‘benign disease’, just having a diagnosis of MS, has implications for your life choices and may impact your ability to get insurance cover, to name obvious examples. I, therefore, advise you to make sure you have MS and not an MS mimic.

Common MS mimics

References

  1. Schumacher GA, et al. Problems of experimental trials of therapy in multiple sclerosis: Report by the Panel on the Evaluation of Experimental Trials of Therapy in Multiple Sclerosis. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1965;122:552–68.
  2. Poser CM, et al. New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines for research protocols. Ann Neurol 1983;13:227–31.
  3. McDonald WI, et al. Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from the International Panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2001;50:121–7.
  4. Polman CH, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald Criteria”. Ann Neurol 2005;58:840–6.
  5. Polman CH, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 2011;69:292–302.
  6. Thompson AJ, et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol 2018;17:162–73.
  7. Engell T. A clinico-pathoanatomical study of multiple sclerosis diagnosis. Acta Neurol Scand 1988;78:39–44.
  8. Kaisey M, et al. Incidence of multiple sclerosis misdiagnosis in referrals to two academic centers. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2019;30:51–6.