Tag Archives: cost-effective

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

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).