ICYMI Multiple Sclerosis

Key clinical point: Clinical and imaging outcomes improve among patients with MS who switch from interferon beta-1a to alemtuzumab.

Major finding: The rate of freedom from relapse ranged from 83% to 90%, and disability scores were stable for 51% of patients.

Study details: An examination of data for 117 patients with MS who participated in extensions of the CARE-MS II trial.

Disclosures: Sanofi and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals supported this study. Dr. Ionete received research support from Biogen, Roche, and Sanofi. She reported receiving compensation for advisory board participation from Sanofi.

Citation: REPORTING FROM CMSC 2019

Key clinical point: Clinical and imaging outcomes improve among patients with MS who switch from interferon beta-1a to alemtuzumab.

Major finding: The rate of freedom from relapse ranged from 83% to 90%, and disability scores were stable for 51% of patients.

Study details: An examination of data for 117 patients with MS who participated in extensions of the CARE-MS II trial.

Disclosures: Sanofi and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals supported this study. Dr. Ionete received research support from Biogen, Roche, and Sanofi. She reported receiving compensation for advisory board participation from Sanofi.

Citation: REPORTING FROM CMSC 2019

Key clinical point: Clinical and imaging outcomes improve among patients with MS who switch from interferon beta-1a to alemtuzumab.

Major finding: The rate of freedom from relapse ranged from 83% to 90%, and disability scores were stable for 51% of patients.

Study details: An examination of data for 117 patients with MS who participated in extensions of the CARE-MS II trial.

Disclosures: Sanofi and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals supported this study. Dr. Ionete received research support from Biogen, Roche, and Sanofi. She reported receiving compensation for advisory board participation from Sanofi.

Citation: REPORTING FROM CMSC 2019

Key clinical point: Patients with multiple sclerosis who consider marijuana use are more likely to smoke and drink alcohol.

Major finding: Among multiple sclerosis patients who responded to a survey, 25.4% had used marijuana for their multiple sclerosis, 20.0% had discussed it with their doctors, and 16.1% were currently using some form of marijuana.

Study details: Questionnaire responses about health behaviors from 5,481 active participants in the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis.

Disclosures: The North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis is funded in part by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and the Foundation of the CMSC. The present study had no funding support. Dr. Cofield reported receiving a consulting fee from the U.S. Department of Defense.

Citation: REPORTING FROM CMSC 2019

Key clinical point: Patients with multiple sclerosis who consider marijuana use are more likely to smoke and drink alcohol.

Major finding: Among multiple sclerosis patients who responded to a survey, 25.4% had used marijuana for their multiple sclerosis, 20.0% had discussed it with their doctors, and 16.1% were currently using some form of marijuana.

Study details: Questionnaire responses about health behaviors from 5,481 active participants in the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis.

Disclosures: The North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis is funded in part by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and the Foundation of the CMSC. The present study had no funding support. Dr. Cofield reported receiving a consulting fee from the U.S. Department of Defense.

Citation: REPORTING FROM CMSC 2019

Key clinical point: Patients with multiple sclerosis who consider marijuana use are more likely to smoke and drink alcohol.

Major finding: Among multiple sclerosis patients who responded to a survey, 25.4% had used marijuana for their multiple sclerosis, 20.0% had discussed it with their doctors, and 16.1% were currently using some form of marijuana.

Study details: Questionnaire responses about health behaviors from 5,481 active participants in the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis.

Disclosures: The North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis is funded in part by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and the Foundation of the CMSC. The present study had no funding support. Dr. Cofield reported receiving a consulting fee from the U.S. Department of Defense.

Citation: REPORTING FROM CMSC 2019

Key clinical point: Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (MS) are more likely than those with adult-onset MS to have cognitive impairment in adulthood.

Major finding: At age 35 years, the mean Symbol Digit Modalities Test score for patients with adult-onset MS was 61, whereas for patients with pediatric-onset MS it was 51. By age 40 years, the mean score was 58 for adult-onset MS versus 46 for pediatric-onset MS.

Study details: A Swedish population-based, longitudinal cohort study of 5,704 patients with MS, 300 of whom had pediatric-onset MS (5%).

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, and by postdoctoral awards from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis, both to Dr. McKay. Coauthors reported receiving honoraria for speaking and serving on advisory boards for various pharmaceutical companies, as well as receiving research funding from agencies, foundations, and pharmaceutical companies.

Citation: McKay KA et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1546.

Key clinical point: Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (MS) are more likely than those with adult-onset MS to have cognitive impairment in adulthood.

Major finding: At age 35 years, the mean Symbol Digit Modalities Test score for patients with adult-onset MS was 61, whereas for patients with pediatric-onset MS it was 51. By age 40 years, the mean score was 58 for adult-onset MS versus 46 for pediatric-onset MS.

Study details: A Swedish population-based, longitudinal cohort study of 5,704 patients with MS, 300 of whom had pediatric-onset MS (5%).

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, and by postdoctoral awards from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis, both to Dr. McKay. Coauthors reported receiving honoraria for speaking and serving on advisory boards for various pharmaceutical companies, as well as receiving research funding from agencies, foundations, and pharmaceutical companies.

Citation: McKay KA et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1546.

Key clinical point: Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (MS) are more likely than those with adult-onset MS to have cognitive impairment in adulthood.

Major finding: At age 35 years, the mean Symbol Digit Modalities Test score for patients with adult-onset MS was 61, whereas for patients with pediatric-onset MS it was 51. By age 40 years, the mean score was 58 for adult-onset MS versus 46 for pediatric-onset MS.

Study details: A Swedish population-based, longitudinal cohort study of 5,704 patients with MS, 300 of whom had pediatric-onset MS (5%).

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, and by postdoctoral awards from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis, both to Dr. McKay. Coauthors reported receiving honoraria for speaking and serving on advisory boards for various pharmaceutical companies, as well as receiving research funding from agencies, foundations, and pharmaceutical companies.

Citation: McKay KA et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1546.

In patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) levels are associated with brain atrophy, according to an investigation published online August 12 in JAMA Neurology. Furthermore, changes in sNfL levels are associated with disability worsening, and sNfL levels may be influenced by treatment. These data support the potential of sNfL as an objective surrogate of ongoing MS disease activity, according to the researchers.

Neuronal and axonal loss increase levels of NfL in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in patients with MS. Previous research indicated that sNfL levels are correlated with CSF levels of NfL and are associated with clinical and imaging measures of disease activity. For the purpose of repeated sampling, collecting blood from patients would be more practical than performing lumbar punctures, said the investigators. No long-term studies of sNfL concentrations and their associations with MS disease outcomes had been performed, however.

Ester Cantó, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and colleagues examined data from the prospective Expression, Proteomics, Imaging, Clinical (EPIC) study to assess sNfL as a biomarker of MS disease activity and progression. The ongoing EPIC study is being conducted at UCSF. Dr. Cantó and colleagues analyzed data collected from July 1, 2004, through August 31, 2017, for 607 patients with MS. Participants underwent clinical examinations and serum sample collections annually for 5 years, then at various time points for as long as 12 years. The median follow-up duration was 10 years. The researchers measured sNfL levels with a sensitive single-molecule array platform and compared them with clinical and MRI variables using univariable and multivariable analyses. Dr. Cantó and colleagues chose disability progression, defined as clinically significant worsening on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, and brain fraction atrophy as their primary outcomes.

The population’s mean age was 42.5 years. About 70% of participants were women, and all were of non-Hispanic European descent. At baseline, sNfL levels were significantly associated with EDSS score, MS subtype, and treatment status.

Dr. Cantó and colleagues found a significant interaction between EDSS worsening and change in levels of sNfL over time. Baseline sNfL levels were associated with approximately 11.6% of the variance in participants’ brain fraction atrophy at year 10. When the investigators controlled for sex, age, and disease duration, they found that baseline sNfL levels were associated with 18% of the variance in brain fraction atrophy at year 10. After 5 years’ follow-up, active treatment was associated with lower levels of sNfL. High-efficacy treatments were associated with greater decreases in sNfL levels, compared with platform therapies.

More frequent sample acquisition could provide greater detail about changes in sNfL levels, wrote Dr. Cantó and colleagues. They acknowledged that their study had insufficient power for the researchers to assess the outcomes of individual MS therapies. Other limitations included the lack of data on NfL stability and the lack of a group of healthy controls.

“For an individual patient, the biomarker prognostic power of sNfL level for clinical and MRI outcomes was limited,” said the investigators. “Further prospective studies are necessary to assess the assay’s utility for decision making in individual patients.”

The National Institutes of Health and the U.S. National MS Society supported the study. Several of the investigators received compensation from Novartis, which provided funds for the reagents needed for the single-molecule array assay.
 

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Cantó E et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Aug. 12. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.2137.

In patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) levels are associated with brain atrophy, according to an investigation published online August 12 in JAMA Neurology. Furthermore, changes in sNfL levels are associated with disability worsening, and sNfL levels may be influenced by treatment. These data support the potential of sNfL as an objective surrogate of ongoing MS disease activity, according to the researchers.

Neuronal and axonal loss increase levels of NfL in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in patients with MS. Previous research indicated that sNfL levels are correlated with CSF levels of NfL and are associated with clinical and imaging measures of disease activity. For the purpose of repeated sampling, collecting blood from patients would be more practical than performing lumbar punctures, said the investigators. No long-term studies of sNfL concentrations and their associations with MS disease outcomes had been performed, however.

Ester Cantó, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and colleagues examined data from the prospective Expression, Proteomics, Imaging, Clinical (EPIC) study to assess sNfL as a biomarker of MS disease activity and progression. The ongoing EPIC study is being conducted at UCSF. Dr. Cantó and colleagues analyzed data collected from July 1, 2004, through August 31, 2017, for 607 patients with MS. Participants underwent clinical examinations and serum sample collections annually for 5 years, then at various time points for as long as 12 years. The median follow-up duration was 10 years. The researchers measured sNfL levels with a sensitive single-molecule array platform and compared them with clinical and MRI variables using univariable and multivariable analyses. Dr. Cantó and colleagues chose disability progression, defined as clinically significant worsening on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, and brain fraction atrophy as their primary outcomes.

The population’s mean age was 42.5 years. About 70% of participants were women, and all were of non-Hispanic European descent. At baseline, sNfL levels were significantly associated with EDSS score, MS subtype, and treatment status.

Dr. Cantó and colleagues found a significant interaction between EDSS worsening and change in levels of sNfL over time. Baseline sNfL levels were associated with approximately 11.6% of the variance in participants’ brain fraction atrophy at year 10. When the investigators controlled for sex, age, and disease duration, they found that baseline sNfL levels were associated with 18% of the variance in brain fraction atrophy at year 10. After 5 years’ follow-up, active treatment was associated with lower levels of sNfL. High-efficacy treatments were associated with greater decreases in sNfL levels, compared with platform therapies.

More frequent sample acquisition could provide greater detail about changes in sNfL levels, wrote Dr. Cantó and colleagues. They acknowledged that their study had insufficient power for the researchers to assess the outcomes of individual MS therapies. Other limitations included the lack of data on NfL stability and the lack of a group of healthy controls.

“For an individual patient, the biomarker prognostic power of sNfL level for clinical and MRI outcomes was limited,” said the investigators. “Further prospective studies are necessary to assess the assay’s utility for decision making in individual patients.”

The National Institutes of Health and the U.S. National MS Society supported the study. Several of the investigators received compensation from Novartis, which provided funds for the reagents needed for the single-molecule array assay.
 

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Cantó E et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Aug. 12. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.2137.

In patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) levels are associated with brain atrophy, according to an investigation published online August 12 in JAMA Neurology. Furthermore, changes in sNfL levels are associated with disability worsening, and sNfL levels may be influenced by treatment. These data support the potential of sNfL as an objective surrogate of ongoing MS disease activity, according to the researchers.

Neuronal and axonal loss increase levels of NfL in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in patients with MS. Previous research indicated that sNfL levels are correlated with CSF levels of NfL and are associated with clinical and imaging measures of disease activity. For the purpose of repeated sampling, collecting blood from patients would be more practical than performing lumbar punctures, said the investigators. No long-term studies of sNfL concentrations and their associations with MS disease outcomes had been performed, however.

Ester Cantó, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and colleagues examined data from the prospective Expression, Proteomics, Imaging, Clinical (EPIC) study to assess sNfL as a biomarker of MS disease activity and progression. The ongoing EPIC study is being conducted at UCSF. Dr. Cantó and colleagues analyzed data collected from July 1, 2004, through August 31, 2017, for 607 patients with MS. Participants underwent clinical examinations and serum sample collections annually for 5 years, then at various time points for as long as 12 years. The median follow-up duration was 10 years. The researchers measured sNfL levels with a sensitive single-molecule array platform and compared them with clinical and MRI variables using univariable and multivariable analyses. Dr. Cantó and colleagues chose disability progression, defined as clinically significant worsening on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, and brain fraction atrophy as their primary outcomes.

The population’s mean age was 42.5 years. About 70% of participants were women, and all were of non-Hispanic European descent. At baseline, sNfL levels were significantly associated with EDSS score, MS subtype, and treatment status.

Dr. Cantó and colleagues found a significant interaction between EDSS worsening and change in levels of sNfL over time. Baseline sNfL levels were associated with approximately 11.6% of the variance in participants’ brain fraction atrophy at year 10. When the investigators controlled for sex, age, and disease duration, they found that baseline sNfL levels were associated with 18% of the variance in brain fraction atrophy at year 10. After 5 years’ follow-up, active treatment was associated with lower levels of sNfL. High-efficacy treatments were associated with greater decreases in sNfL levels, compared with platform therapies.

More frequent sample acquisition could provide greater detail about changes in sNfL levels, wrote Dr. Cantó and colleagues. They acknowledged that their study had insufficient power for the researchers to assess the outcomes of individual MS therapies. Other limitations included the lack of data on NfL stability and the lack of a group of healthy controls.

“For an individual patient, the biomarker prognostic power of sNfL level for clinical and MRI outcomes was limited,” said the investigators. “Further prospective studies are necessary to assess the assay’s utility for decision making in individual patients.”

The National Institutes of Health and the U.S. National MS Society supported the study. Several of the investigators received compensation from Novartis, which provided funds for the reagents needed for the single-molecule array assay.
 

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Cantó E et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Aug. 12. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.2137.

Key clinical point: Data do not support an association between vaccination and increased risk of MS.

Major finding: The odds of MS were lower in participants who received vaccination, compared with participants without autoimmune disease (odds ratio, 0.870).

Study details: A systematic retrospective analysis of claims data for 12,262 patients with MS and 210,773 controls.

Disclosures: A grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research Competence Network MS supported the study. The authors had no relevant conflicts.

Citation: Hapfelmeier A et al. Neurology. 2019 Jul 30. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008012.

Key clinical point: Data do not support an association between vaccination and increased risk of MS.

Major finding: The odds of MS were lower in participants who received vaccination, compared with participants without autoimmune disease (odds ratio, 0.870).

Study details: A systematic retrospective analysis of claims data for 12,262 patients with MS and 210,773 controls.

Disclosures: A grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research Competence Network MS supported the study. The authors had no relevant conflicts.

Citation: Hapfelmeier A et al. Neurology. 2019 Jul 30. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008012.

Key clinical point: Data do not support an association between vaccination and increased risk of MS.

Major finding: The odds of MS were lower in participants who received vaccination, compared with participants without autoimmune disease (odds ratio, 0.870).

Study details: A systematic retrospective analysis of claims data for 12,262 patients with MS and 210,773 controls.

Disclosures: A grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research Competence Network MS supported the study. The authors had no relevant conflicts.

Citation: Hapfelmeier A et al. Neurology. 2019 Jul 30. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008012.

Key clinical point: Evaluating black holes as part of routine clinical practice could be a quick method for screening people with MS for referral to a comprehensive cognitive assessment.

Major finding: Mean Symbol Digit Modalities Test score was 49.0 in patients without a black hole and 42.9 in patients with at least one black hole.

Study details: A prospective study of 226 patients with MS.

Disclosures: The investigators had no disclosures and conducted their study without financial support.

Citation: Özakbas S et al. CMSC 2019, Abstract IMG02.

Key clinical point: Evaluating black holes as part of routine clinical practice could be a quick method for screening people with MS for referral to a comprehensive cognitive assessment.

Major finding: Mean Symbol Digit Modalities Test score was 49.0 in patients without a black hole and 42.9 in patients with at least one black hole.

Study details: A prospective study of 226 patients with MS.

Disclosures: The investigators had no disclosures and conducted their study without financial support.

Citation: Özakbas S et al. CMSC 2019, Abstract IMG02.

Key clinical point: Evaluating black holes as part of routine clinical practice could be a quick method for screening people with MS for referral to a comprehensive cognitive assessment.

Major finding: Mean Symbol Digit Modalities Test score was 49.0 in patients without a black hole and 42.9 in patients with at least one black hole.

Study details: A prospective study of 226 patients with MS.

Disclosures: The investigators had no disclosures and conducted their study without financial support.

Citation: Özakbas S et al. CMSC 2019, Abstract IMG02.

Key clinical point: Neutrophil levels may decline in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) who have been on fingolimod for 2 or more years.

Major finding: In a cohort of patients continuously treated with fingolimod for at least 2 years, neutrophils declined over 6 months by about 9%, from an average of 3,698.56 cells per microliter to 3,336.13 cells per microliter.

Study details: Analysis of interim, 6-month data from the ongoing, open-label, phase 4 FLUENT study, which is a 12-month, prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized study to assess changes in the immune cell profiles of patients with relapsing MS who receive fingolimod. The interim results include data from 216 treatment-experienced patients and 166 treatment-naive patients.

Disclosures: Novartis funded the study, and four of the authors are Novartis employees. Dr. Cree disclosed consulting fees from Novartis and other pharmaceutical companies. His coauthors disclosed consulting fees, speaking fees, research support, and serving on advisory boards for pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

Citation: Mao-Draayer Y et al. CMSC 2019, Abstract DXM03.

Key clinical point: Neutrophil levels may decline in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) who have been on fingolimod for 2 or more years.

Major finding: In a cohort of patients continuously treated with fingolimod for at least 2 years, neutrophils declined over 6 months by about 9%, from an average of 3,698.56 cells per microliter to 3,336.13 cells per microliter.

Study details: Analysis of interim, 6-month data from the ongoing, open-label, phase 4 FLUENT study, which is a 12-month, prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized study to assess changes in the immune cell profiles of patients with relapsing MS who receive fingolimod. The interim results include data from 216 treatment-experienced patients and 166 treatment-naive patients.

Disclosures: Novartis funded the study, and four of the authors are Novartis employees. Dr. Cree disclosed consulting fees from Novartis and other pharmaceutical companies. His coauthors disclosed consulting fees, speaking fees, research support, and serving on advisory boards for pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

Citation: Mao-Draayer Y et al. CMSC 2019, Abstract DXM03.

Key clinical point: Neutrophil levels may decline in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) who have been on fingolimod for 2 or more years.

Major finding: In a cohort of patients continuously treated with fingolimod for at least 2 years, neutrophils declined over 6 months by about 9%, from an average of 3,698.56 cells per microliter to 3,336.13 cells per microliter.

Study details: Analysis of interim, 6-month data from the ongoing, open-label, phase 4 FLUENT study, which is a 12-month, prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized study to assess changes in the immune cell profiles of patients with relapsing MS who receive fingolimod. The interim results include data from 216 treatment-experienced patients and 166 treatment-naive patients.

Disclosures: Novartis funded the study, and four of the authors are Novartis employees. Dr. Cree disclosed consulting fees from Novartis and other pharmaceutical companies. His coauthors disclosed consulting fees, speaking fees, research support, and serving on advisory boards for pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

Citation: Mao-Draayer Y et al. CMSC 2019, Abstract DXM03.

Andrew R. Pachner, MD is the Murray B. Bornstein professor of neurology at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and director of the Multiple Sclerosis Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. We spoke to Dr. Pachner about his research into the molecular processes of multiple sclerosis (MS) and the potential impact on patient management.

What do we know about the molecular processes behind relapsing-remitting and progressive MS?

DR. PACHNER:  The progress--in terms of molecules--has not been rapid in the field of MS. The only molecular biomarker we use in practice is oligoclonal bands or other measures of immunoglobulin production in the nervous system, and that biomarker was described in 1942. So, it has been a long time since we have seen a relevant molecule that we can use clinically.

But there has been a lot of progress in the general field of neuroinflammation. MS is one of a large number of diseases that results in neuroinflammation and demyelination.

One thing we have learned over time is that there are many different subtypes of MS. They probably have some shared molecular processes, but they also are likely to have divergent molecular processes.

Over the past 5 to 10 years, researchers have been interested in trying to dissect some of the molecular aspects of MS to identify biomarkers that can, in turn, differentiate subtypes of MS. This will help to identify different ways of treating MS that are optimal for individual patients. It is clear that each patient is quite different and unlikely to be standardized in the way they respond to treatment.

The degree to which relapsing-remitting and progressive MS are differentiated on the molecular level is dependent on how much influence there is of the immune system in the periphery. When MS first starts in a patient, the brain has either no or a very primitive immune system, and then over time it changes, and it becomes much more immune-oriented and populated by immune cells and molecules. So, there’s a trend over time of the central nervous system becoming increasingly populated by immune cells and able to make immune molecules.

What has your recent research on murine models representing these disease patterns shown?

DR. PACHNER:  Even though in humans there is a continuum from relapsing remitting to progressive, it is not like they are completely separate. Frequently in the middle of relapsing-remitting disease there is some progression over time.

In mouse models, we like things to be very clear and separate. We try to make things as simple as possible because of the complexity of the nervous and immune systems.

The simple model for the relapsing-remitting disease is experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), the most commonly studied model of neuroinflammation.

For the progressive form of MS, we use the Theiler’s virus model, which is a type of virus called the picornavirus that is injected into the brain of mice resulting in a slowly progressive, chronic viral infection that looks very much like progressive MS.

In EAE, the disease is induced by presenting an antigen to the peripheral immune system, allowing cells from the peripheral immune system to enter into the central nervous system. It is a manifestation of inflammation and the immune response is in the periphery. In the Theiler’s model, it is a localized process within the central nervous system because the virus is injected directly into the brain.

We found that in EAE the pattern is very much dominated by what happens in the periphery and the injury is very transient. There are cells that enter the nervous system that cause inflammation and damage, but there are also processes that downregulate those cells and processes and eventually the animal improves--similar to an MS attack.

By contrast, in the Theiler’s model there is progressive injury that is dominated by two molecular processes in the central nervous system that we do not see in relapsing-remitting MS or in EAE, and that is the activation of Type 1 interferons and also a very pronounced immunoglobulin production along with all the molecules that help support plasma cells making immunoglobulin.

These are two different animal models that provide us insight into how the central nervous system can be injured in the course of neuroinflammation and they look to be very different in how they manifest themselves, both in the periphery and in the central nervous system.

How may these new findings impact the future management and treatment of MS?

DR. PACHNER:  When I see a patient with MS, I tell them that we absolutely need to focus on your own disease and how it responds, rather than taking too much guidance from MS as a whole. Because each patient with MS is different.

One of the things that we have tried to do is to identify molecular markers that might help us in management and treatment. As an example, we have learned that some patients who present with their first episode of MS do very poorly. These patients have many more attacks and/or have very aggressive progression in terms of their disability so that they potentially could be in a wheelchair within a few years. Other patients have what we call a benign variant MS. These patients may have an initial episode that is not that different than the other patient, but this type of patient may not have anything else for the rest of their life.

We would like to have some differentiation of those two types of patients. In the first example you can try to be very aggressive and minimize the neuroinflammation with powerful immune-suppressing drugs that have a high risk of causing side effects, such as cancer or opportunistic infections, but on the other hand may have a high benefit in preventing future inflammatory events and progressive injury. But that would not be the correct treatment choice for the second patient example.

It would be nice to tailor treatment to a predictive biomarker. That is something we have been working very hard on. Based on some of the animal models, we have identified a molecular signature of inflammatory MS that is very predictive of future events and we are hoping that that will help us differentiate patients. In other words, not just treat every MS patient the same, but identify whether they need a very powerful immunosuppressant drug, or a mildly immunosuppressant drug, or no treatment at all.

If you have a patient who has one attack and never has any other problem with their MS, then they do not need to be on any treatment. Unfortunately, we do not have predictive value at this point for any molecule or any other attribute of the patient at this point in time. We are trying to remedy that.

That is one very practical aspect of our work in trying to understand the biology of the disease better--identifying molecules that are associated with future damage and inflammation and using those in a predictive manner in patients to guide treatment.

Another important aspect is the attempt to understand the biology of neuroinflammation and how it causes both demyelination and progressive injury to neurons.

References:

Pachner AR, DiSano K, Royce DB, Gilli F. Clinical utility of a molecular signature in inflammatory demyelinating diseases. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm.2019;6(1):e520.

Andrew R. Pachner, MD is the Murray B. Bornstein professor of neurology at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and director of the Multiple Sclerosis Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. We spoke to Dr. Pachner about his research into the molecular processes of multiple sclerosis (MS) and the potential impact on patient management.

What do we know about the molecular processes behind relapsing-remitting and progressive MS?

DR. PACHNER:  The progress--in terms of molecules--has not been rapid in the field of MS. The only molecular biomarker we use in practice is oligoclonal bands or other measures of immunoglobulin production in the nervous system, and that biomarker was described in 1942. So, it has been a long time since we have seen a relevant molecule that we can use clinically.

But there has been a lot of progress in the general field of neuroinflammation. MS is one of a large number of diseases that results in neuroinflammation and demyelination.

One thing we have learned over time is that there are many different subtypes of MS. They probably have some shared molecular processes, but they also are likely to have divergent molecular processes.

Over the past 5 to 10 years, researchers have been interested in trying to dissect some of the molecular aspects of MS to identify biomarkers that can, in turn, differentiate subtypes of MS. This will help to identify different ways of treating MS that are optimal for individual patients. It is clear that each patient is quite different and unlikely to be standardized in the way they respond to treatment.

The degree to which relapsing-remitting and progressive MS are differentiated on the molecular level is dependent on how much influence there is of the immune system in the periphery. When MS first starts in a patient, the brain has either no or a very primitive immune system, and then over time it changes, and it becomes much more immune-oriented and populated by immune cells and molecules. So, there’s a trend over time of the central nervous system becoming increasingly populated by immune cells and able to make immune molecules.

What has your recent research on murine models representing these disease patterns shown?

DR. PACHNER:  Even though in humans there is a continuum from relapsing remitting to progressive, it is not like they are completely separate. Frequently in the middle of relapsing-remitting disease there is some progression over time.

In mouse models, we like things to be very clear and separate. We try to make things as simple as possible because of the complexity of the nervous and immune systems.

The simple model for the relapsing-remitting disease is experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), the most commonly studied model of neuroinflammation.

For the progressive form of MS, we use the Theiler’s virus model, which is a type of virus called the picornavirus that is injected into the brain of mice resulting in a slowly progressive, chronic viral infection that looks very much like progressive MS.

In EAE, the disease is induced by presenting an antigen to the peripheral immune system, allowing cells from the peripheral immune system to enter into the central nervous system. It is a manifestation of inflammation and the immune response is in the periphery. In the Theiler’s model, it is a localized process within the central nervous system because the virus is injected directly into the brain.

We found that in EAE the pattern is very much dominated by what happens in the periphery and the injury is very transient. There are cells that enter the nervous system that cause inflammation and damage, but there are also processes that downregulate those cells and processes and eventually the animal improves--similar to an MS attack.

By contrast, in the Theiler’s model there is progressive injury that is dominated by two molecular processes in the central nervous system that we do not see in relapsing-remitting MS or in EAE, and that is the activation of Type 1 interferons and also a very pronounced immunoglobulin production along with all the molecules that help support plasma cells making immunoglobulin.

These are two different animal models that provide us insight into how the central nervous system can be injured in the course of neuroinflammation and they look to be very different in how they manifest themselves, both in the periphery and in the central nervous system.

How may these new findings impact the future management and treatment of MS?

DR. PACHNER:  When I see a patient with MS, I tell them that we absolutely need to focus on your own disease and how it responds, rather than taking too much guidance from MS as a whole. Because each patient with MS is different.

One of the things that we have tried to do is to identify molecular markers that might help us in management and treatment. As an example, we have learned that some patients who present with their first episode of MS do very poorly. These patients have many more attacks and/or have very aggressive progression in terms of their disability so that they potentially could be in a wheelchair within a few years. Other patients have what we call a benign variant MS. These patients may have an initial episode that is not that different than the other patient, but this type of patient may not have anything else for the rest of their life.

We would like to have some differentiation of those two types of patients. In the first example you can try to be very aggressive and minimize the neuroinflammation with powerful immune-suppressing drugs that have a high risk of causing side effects, such as cancer or opportunistic infections, but on the other hand may have a high benefit in preventing future inflammatory events and progressive injury. But that would not be the correct treatment choice for the second patient example.

It would be nice to tailor treatment to a predictive biomarker. That is something we have been working very hard on. Based on some of the animal models, we have identified a molecular signature of inflammatory MS that is very predictive of future events and we are hoping that that will help us differentiate patients. In other words, not just treat every MS patient the same, but identify whether they need a very powerful immunosuppressant drug, or a mildly immunosuppressant drug, or no treatment at all.

If you have a patient who has one attack and never has any other problem with their MS, then they do not need to be on any treatment. Unfortunately, we do not have predictive value at this point for any molecule or any other attribute of the patient at this point in time. We are trying to remedy that.

That is one very practical aspect of our work in trying to understand the biology of the disease better--identifying molecules that are associated with future damage and inflammation and using those in a predictive manner in patients to guide treatment.

Another important aspect is the attempt to understand the biology of neuroinflammation and how it causes both demyelination and progressive injury to neurons.

References:

Pachner AR, DiSano K, Royce DB, Gilli F. Clinical utility of a molecular signature in inflammatory demyelinating diseases. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm.2019;6(1):e520.

Andrew R. Pachner, MD is the Murray B. Bornstein professor of neurology at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and director of the Multiple Sclerosis Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. We spoke to Dr. Pachner about his research into the molecular processes of multiple sclerosis (MS) and the potential impact on patient management.

What do we know about the molecular processes behind relapsing-remitting and progressive MS?

DR. PACHNER:  The progress--in terms of molecules--has not been rapid in the field of MS. The only molecular biomarker we use in practice is oligoclonal bands or other measures of immunoglobulin production in the nervous system, and that biomarker was described in 1942. So, it has been a long time since we have seen a relevant molecule that we can use clinically.

But there has been a lot of progress in the general field of neuroinflammation. MS is one of a large number of diseases that results in neuroinflammation and demyelination.

One thing we have learned over time is that there are many different subtypes of MS. They probably have some shared molecular processes, but they also are likely to have divergent molecular processes.

Over the past 5 to 10 years, researchers have been interested in trying to dissect some of the molecular aspects of MS to identify biomarkers that can, in turn, differentiate subtypes of MS. This will help to identify different ways of treating MS that are optimal for individual patients. It is clear that each patient is quite different and unlikely to be standardized in the way they respond to treatment.

The degree to which relapsing-remitting and progressive MS are differentiated on the molecular level is dependent on how much influence there is of the immune system in the periphery. When MS first starts in a patient, the brain has either no or a very primitive immune system, and then over time it changes, and it becomes much more immune-oriented and populated by immune cells and molecules. So, there’s a trend over time of the central nervous system becoming increasingly populated by immune cells and able to make immune molecules.

What has your recent research on murine models representing these disease patterns shown?

DR. PACHNER:  Even though in humans there is a continuum from relapsing remitting to progressive, it is not like they are completely separate. Frequently in the middle of relapsing-remitting disease there is some progression over time.

In mouse models, we like things to be very clear and separate. We try to make things as simple as possible because of the complexity of the nervous and immune systems.

The simple model for the relapsing-remitting disease is experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), the most commonly studied model of neuroinflammation.

For the progressive form of MS, we use the Theiler’s virus model, which is a type of virus called the picornavirus that is injected into the brain of mice resulting in a slowly progressive, chronic viral infection that looks very much like progressive MS.

In EAE, the disease is induced by presenting an antigen to the peripheral immune system, allowing cells from the peripheral immune system to enter into the central nervous system. It is a manifestation of inflammation and the immune response is in the periphery. In the Theiler’s model, it is a localized process within the central nervous system because the virus is injected directly into the brain.

We found that in EAE the pattern is very much dominated by what happens in the periphery and the injury is very transient. There are cells that enter the nervous system that cause inflammation and damage, but there are also processes that downregulate those cells and processes and eventually the animal improves--similar to an MS attack.

By contrast, in the Theiler’s model there is progressive injury that is dominated by two molecular processes in the central nervous system that we do not see in relapsing-remitting MS or in EAE, and that is the activation of Type 1 interferons and also a very pronounced immunoglobulin production along with all the molecules that help support plasma cells making immunoglobulin.

These are two different animal models that provide us insight into how the central nervous system can be injured in the course of neuroinflammation and they look to be very different in how they manifest themselves, both in the periphery and in the central nervous system.

How may these new findings impact the future management and treatment of MS?

DR. PACHNER:  When I see a patient with MS, I tell them that we absolutely need to focus on your own disease and how it responds, rather than taking too much guidance from MS as a whole. Because each patient with MS is different.

One of the things that we have tried to do is to identify molecular markers that might help us in management and treatment. As an example, we have learned that some patients who present with their first episode of MS do very poorly. These patients have many more attacks and/or have very aggressive progression in terms of their disability so that they potentially could be in a wheelchair within a few years. Other patients have what we call a benign variant MS. These patients may have an initial episode that is not that different than the other patient, but this type of patient may not have anything else for the rest of their life.

We would like to have some differentiation of those two types of patients. In the first example you can try to be very aggressive and minimize the neuroinflammation with powerful immune-suppressing drugs that have a high risk of causing side effects, such as cancer or opportunistic infections, but on the other hand may have a high benefit in preventing future inflammatory events and progressive injury. But that would not be the correct treatment choice for the second patient example.

It would be nice to tailor treatment to a predictive biomarker. That is something we have been working very hard on. Based on some of the animal models, we have identified a molecular signature of inflammatory MS that is very predictive of future events and we are hoping that that will help us differentiate patients. In other words, not just treat every MS patient the same, but identify whether they need a very powerful immunosuppressant drug, or a mildly immunosuppressant drug, or no treatment at all.

If you have a patient who has one attack and never has any other problem with their MS, then they do not need to be on any treatment. Unfortunately, we do not have predictive value at this point for any molecule or any other attribute of the patient at this point in time. We are trying to remedy that.

That is one very practical aspect of our work in trying to understand the biology of the disease better--identifying molecules that are associated with future damage and inflammation and using those in a predictive manner in patients to guide treatment.

Another important aspect is the attempt to understand the biology of neuroinflammation and how it causes both demyelination and progressive injury to neurons.

References:

Pachner AR, DiSano K, Royce DB, Gilli F. Clinical utility of a molecular signature in inflammatory demyelinating diseases. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm.2019;6(1):e520.

Vaccination is not a risk factor for multiple sclerosis (MS), according to an analysis published July 30 in Neurology. Although the results suggest that vaccination is associated with a lower likelihood of incident MS within the following 5 years, “these data alone do not allow for any conclusion regarding a possible protective effect of vaccinations regarding the development of MS,” wrote Alexander Hapfelmeier, PhD, of the Technical University of Munich and colleagues.
 

Technical University of Munich

In recent years, researchers have proposed and investigated various potential environmental risk factors for the development of MS. Vaccination is one proposed environmental risk factor, but case reports and small studies have yielded conflicting results about its association with incident MS.

To examine this question more closely, Dr. Hapfelmeier and colleagues performed a systematic retrospective analysis of ambulatory claims data held by the Bavarian Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians. They reviewed the data to identify patients with new-onset MS and at least two ICD-10 diagnoses of the disorder. They next identified two control cohorts of participants diagnosed with other autoimmune diseases: Crohn’s disease and psoriasis. Finally, they randomly selected a third control cohort of patients without any of these diagnoses and matched them by age, sex, and district to patients with MS in a 5:1 ratio. Eligible participants were younger than 70 years.

Dr. Hapfelmeier and colleagues reviewed the incidence and frequency of vaccinations (such as those targeting tick-borne encephalitis, human papillomavirus, and influenza virus) in all cohorts. They created unconditional logistic regression models to assess the association between vaccination and MS. They also created separate models to contrast the MS cohort with each of the control cohorts.

The researchers included 12,262 patients with MS, 19,296 patients with Crohn’s disease, 112,292 patients with psoriasis, and 79,185 participants without these autoimmune diseases in their analysis. They found 456 participants with Crohn’s disease and psoriasis, 216 participants with MS and psoriasis, 48 participants with Crohn’s disease and MS, and 2 participants with Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and MS. Dr. Hapfelmeier and colleagues allocated these participants to each of the respective cohorts and did not analyze them differently because of the comparatively small sample sizes.

The investigators analyzed the occurrence of vaccination in all participants during the 5 years before first diagnosis. Among patients who received vaccination, the odds ratio of MS was 0.870 in participants without autoimmune disease, 0.919 in participants with Crohn’s disease, and 0.973 in participants with psoriasis. Decreased risk of MS was most notable for vaccinations against influenza and tick-borne encephalitis. The results were consistent regardless of time frame, control cohort, and definition of MS.

The subjective definition of the MS cohort was a limitation of the study, but the authors addressed it by also using several strict definitions of that cohort. Another limitation is that the source data may reflect entry errors and incorrect coding.

A grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research Competence Network MS supported the study. The authors had no conflicts that were relevant to the topic of the study.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hapfelmeier A et al. Neurology. 2019 Jul 30. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008012.

Vaccination is not a risk factor for multiple sclerosis (MS), according to an analysis published July 30 in Neurology. Although the results suggest that vaccination is associated with a lower likelihood of incident MS within the following 5 years, “these data alone do not allow for any conclusion regarding a possible protective effect of vaccinations regarding the development of MS,” wrote Alexander Hapfelmeier, PhD, of the Technical University of Munich and colleagues.
 

Technical University of Munich

In recent years, researchers have proposed and investigated various potential environmental risk factors for the development of MS. Vaccination is one proposed environmental risk factor, but case reports and small studies have yielded conflicting results about its association with incident MS.

To examine this question more closely, Dr. Hapfelmeier and colleagues performed a systematic retrospective analysis of ambulatory claims data held by the Bavarian Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians. They reviewed the data to identify patients with new-onset MS and at least two ICD-10 diagnoses of the disorder. They next identified two control cohorts of participants diagnosed with other autoimmune diseases: Crohn’s disease and psoriasis. Finally, they randomly selected a third control cohort of patients without any of these diagnoses and matched them by age, sex, and district to patients with MS in a 5:1 ratio. Eligible participants were younger than 70 years.

Dr. Hapfelmeier and colleagues reviewed the incidence and frequency of vaccinations (such as those targeting tick-borne encephalitis, human papillomavirus, and influenza virus) in all cohorts. They created unconditional logistic regression models to assess the association between vaccination and MS. They also created separate models to contrast the MS cohort with each of the control cohorts.

The researchers included 12,262 patients with MS, 19,296 patients with Crohn’s disease, 112,292 patients with psoriasis, and 79,185 participants without these autoimmune diseases in their analysis. They found 456 participants with Crohn’s disease and psoriasis, 216 participants with MS and psoriasis, 48 participants with Crohn’s disease and MS, and 2 participants with Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and MS. Dr. Hapfelmeier and colleagues allocated these participants to each of the respective cohorts and did not analyze them differently because of the comparatively small sample sizes.

The investigators analyzed the occurrence of vaccination in all participants during the 5 years before first diagnosis. Among patients who received vaccination, the odds ratio of MS was 0.870 in participants without autoimmune disease, 0.919 in participants with Crohn’s disease, and 0.973 in participants with psoriasis. Decreased risk of MS was most notable for vaccinations against influenza and tick-borne encephalitis. The results were consistent regardless of time frame, control cohort, and definition of MS.

The subjective definition of the MS cohort was a limitation of the study, but the authors addressed it by also using several strict definitions of that cohort. Another limitation is that the source data may reflect entry errors and incorrect coding.

A grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research Competence Network MS supported the study. The authors had no conflicts that were relevant to the topic of the study.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hapfelmeier A et al. Neurology. 2019 Jul 30. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008012.

Vaccination is not a risk factor for multiple sclerosis (MS), according to an analysis published July 30 in Neurology. Although the results suggest that vaccination is associated with a lower likelihood of incident MS within the following 5 years, “these data alone do not allow for any conclusion regarding a possible protective effect of vaccinations regarding the development of MS,” wrote Alexander Hapfelmeier, PhD, of the Technical University of Munich and colleagues.
 

Technical University of Munich

In recent years, researchers have proposed and investigated various potential environmental risk factors for the development of MS. Vaccination is one proposed environmental risk factor, but case reports and small studies have yielded conflicting results about its association with incident MS.

To examine this question more closely, Dr. Hapfelmeier and colleagues performed a systematic retrospective analysis of ambulatory claims data held by the Bavarian Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians. They reviewed the data to identify patients with new-onset MS and at least two ICD-10 diagnoses of the disorder. They next identified two control cohorts of participants diagnosed with other autoimmune diseases: Crohn’s disease and psoriasis. Finally, they randomly selected a third control cohort of patients without any of these diagnoses and matched them by age, sex, and district to patients with MS in a 5:1 ratio. Eligible participants were younger than 70 years.

Dr. Hapfelmeier and colleagues reviewed the incidence and frequency of vaccinations (such as those targeting tick-borne encephalitis, human papillomavirus, and influenza virus) in all cohorts. They created unconditional logistic regression models to assess the association between vaccination and MS. They also created separate models to contrast the MS cohort with each of the control cohorts.

The researchers included 12,262 patients with MS, 19,296 patients with Crohn’s disease, 112,292 patients with psoriasis, and 79,185 participants without these autoimmune diseases in their analysis. They found 456 participants with Crohn’s disease and psoriasis, 216 participants with MS and psoriasis, 48 participants with Crohn’s disease and MS, and 2 participants with Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and MS. Dr. Hapfelmeier and colleagues allocated these participants to each of the respective cohorts and did not analyze them differently because of the comparatively small sample sizes.

The investigators analyzed the occurrence of vaccination in all participants during the 5 years before first diagnosis. Among patients who received vaccination, the odds ratio of MS was 0.870 in participants without autoimmune disease, 0.919 in participants with Crohn’s disease, and 0.973 in participants with psoriasis. Decreased risk of MS was most notable for vaccinations against influenza and tick-borne encephalitis. The results were consistent regardless of time frame, control cohort, and definition of MS.

The subjective definition of the MS cohort was a limitation of the study, but the authors addressed it by also using several strict definitions of that cohort. Another limitation is that the source data may reflect entry errors and incorrect coding.

A grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research Competence Network MS supported the study. The authors had no conflicts that were relevant to the topic of the study.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hapfelmeier A et al. Neurology. 2019 Jul 30. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008012.

Key clinical point: Managing comorbid psychiatric disorders in patients with MS could reduce the burden of functional GI disorders.

Major finding: Approximately 42% of patients with MS report functional GI disorders.

Study details: A survey of 6,312 participants in the North American Research Committee on MS Registry.

Disclosures: The study had no sponsor. Dr. Marrie had no disclosures, but other researchers had financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, such as Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and Teva.

Citation: Marrie RA et al. CMSC 2019, Abstract QOL13.

Key clinical point: Managing comorbid psychiatric disorders in patients with MS could reduce the burden of functional GI disorders.

Major finding: Approximately 42% of patients with MS report functional GI disorders.

Study details: A survey of 6,312 participants in the North American Research Committee on MS Registry.

Disclosures: The study had no sponsor. Dr. Marrie had no disclosures, but other researchers had financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, such as Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and Teva.

Citation: Marrie RA et al. CMSC 2019, Abstract QOL13.

Key clinical point: Managing comorbid psychiatric disorders in patients with MS could reduce the burden of functional GI disorders.

Major finding: Approximately 42% of patients with MS report functional GI disorders.

Study details: A survey of 6,312 participants in the North American Research Committee on MS Registry.

Disclosures: The study had no sponsor. Dr. Marrie had no disclosures, but other researchers had financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, such as Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and Teva.

Citation: Marrie RA et al. CMSC 2019, Abstract QOL13.