Sustained Accumulation Of Disability Research Articles

Serum neurofilament-light concentration and real-world outcome in MS

BackgroundPrognostication in multiple sclerosis (MS) remains challenging. Biomarkers capable of providing this information at diagnosis would be valuable in shaping therapeutic decisions. Measurement of neurofilament light (NfL) has shown promise in predicting clinical outcomes in established MS, but its ability to predict outcomes in real-world cohorts at diagnosis requires further validation. MethodsWe used linear regression to evaluate the relationship between serum NfL (sNfL), measured at the time of diagnosis with short-term (1-year) and medium-term (5-year) clinical outcomes in 164 people with MS from a real-world, population-based cohort. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to analyse the association between sNfL and subsequent hazard of relapse or sustained accumulation of disability (SAD). Analyses were adjusted for age and disease-modifying treatment (DMT). ResultssNfL concentration at diagnosis was modestly associated with baseline EDSS score (β = 0.272, 95% CI 0.051 to 0.494, p = 0.016). However, no significant associations were found between baseline sNfL and odds of relapse at 12-months, 5-year EDSS change, or the hazard of relapse or SAD over 5 years follow-up. Dichotomising baseline sNfL according to the median sNfL did not change these findings. ConclusionssNfL appears to be of limited clinical utility in predicting future irreversible neurological disability in a largely untreated real-world population, and remains insufficiently validated to shape treatment decisions at the time of diagnosis. Further studies may be needed for sNfL to be considered as a prognostic marker in the MS clinic. However the masking effect of DMTs on the natural disease trajectory will continue to pose challenges.

Evoked potentials can predict future disability in people with clinically isolated syndrome.

The aim was to evaluate whether the addition of evoked potentials (EPs) which evaluate brainstem function to the EP score improves its ability to predict disease progression in people with clinically isolated syndrome (pwCIS). For 94 pwCIS, data on disease activity and progression after 2.9 (1.4-4.1) years of follow-up were available. Baseline characteristics included magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters, visual EPs, auditory EPs, somatosensory EPs of the median and tibial nerves, vestibular evoked myogenic potentials and tongue somatosensory EPs. A multivariable regression model including age, sex, total number of T2 lesions on baseline MRI and EP score >13 showed that the total number of T2 lesions on baseline MRI and EP score >13 increase the likelihood for sustained accumulation of disability (SAD). After controlling for age, sex and the total number of T2 lesions on baseline MRI, the hazard of SAD for participants with EP score >13 is 4.093 times that of participants with EP score ≤13. EP score >13 also increases the likelihood for progression measured with a composite measure of progression which uses the Expanded Disability Status Scale, the nine-hole peg test and the timed 25-ft walk (exp(B)=5.577, 95% confidence interval1.520-20.468, P=0.01). The addition of EPs that evaluate brainstem function to the EP score enables prediction of the progression of disability in pwCIS.

Clinical Outcomes of Escalation vs Early Intensive Disease-Modifying Therapy in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis

Uncertainty remains about how aggressively to treat early multiple sclerosis. High-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are often reserved for individuals expressing poor prognostic features at baseline. To analyze long-term outcomes in a population-based cohort according to initial treatment strategy. In this cohort study, data were derived from January 1998 to December 2016, and analysis was performed in January 2017. From a total of 720 patients prescribed a DMT, 592 (82%) were included in analysis. Reasons for exclusion were first treated elsewhere or privately (n = 39), clinical trial participant (n = 25), and insufficient clinical data (n = 45). Patients were classified according to first-line treatment strategy: high-efficacy (early intensive treatment [EIT]) or moderate-efficacy DMT (escalation [ESC]). Primary outcome was 5-year change in Expanded Disability Status Scale score. Secondary outcome was time to sustained accumulation of disability (SAD). Models were adjusted for sex, age at treatment, year of starting DMT, and escalation to high-efficacy treatment in the ESC group. Mean (SD) age of 592 patients at symptom onset was 27.0 (9.4) years. Mean (SD) 5-year change in Expanded Disability Status Scale score was lower in the EIT group than the ESC group (0.3 [1.5] vs 1.2 [1.5]); this remained significant after adjustment for relevant covariates (β = -0.85; 95% CI, -1.38 to -0.32; P = .002). Median (95% CI) time to SAD was 6.0 (3.17-9.16) years for EIT and 3.14 (2.77-4.00) years for ESC (P = .05). For those within the ESC group who escalated to high-efficacy DMT as second-line treatment, median (95% CI) time to SAD was 3.3 years (1.8-5.6; compared with EIT group log-rank test P = .08). After adjustment for relevant covariates, there was no difference in hazard of SAD between the groups. However, 60% of those who escalated to high-efficacy DMTs were observed to develop SAD while still receiving initial moderate-efficacy treatment before escalation. In a real-life setting, long-term outcomes were more favorable following early intensive therapy vs first-line moderate-efficacy DMT. Contemporary surveillance strategies and escalation protocols may be insufficiently responsive. This finding is particularly relevant as patients in real-world practice are typically selected for an EIT approach to therapy on the basis of clinical and radiological features predictive of a poor outcome. These data support the need for a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Drug safety evaluation of alemtuzumab for multiple sclerosis

Introduction: Alemtuzumab is a humanised anti-CD52 mAb which has recently been licensed for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis in Europe.Areas covered: The efficacy and safety of alemtuzumab from open label, Phase II and Phase III trials is reported.Expert opinion: Alemtuzumab causes rapid and profound complement mediated lysis of circulating lymphocytes and allows beneficial modulation of the immune system during a subsequent reconstitution phase. Clinical trials have demonstrated superior efficacy against an active comparator, with reduction in annualised relapse rates and sustained accumulation of disability at 3 years and sustained efficacy at 5 years. The main adverse effects are mild to moderate infusion reactions, an increased incidence of mild to moderate infections and autoimmune adverse events. Thyroid disorders are the most common form of autoimmune adverse events, occurring in approximately one third of patients. Overt Graves’ hyperthyroidism represents approximately half of these cases. Careful patient selection and structured monitoring programs allow for effective patient management resulting in a favourable risk benefit profile.

Alemtuzumab: A Place in Therapy for Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis

Alemtuzumab is a humanized mononclonal antibody known to cause rapid depletion of B-and T-cell lymphocytes. Subsequent repletion of these lymphocytes leads to changes in adaptive immunity. Alemtuzumab is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of B-cell lymphocytic leukemia but has been investigated off-label in recent years for treatment of autoimmune diseases, including multiple sclerosis (MS). In MS treatment, alemtuzumab is administered as pulsed therapy, given once daily initially for 5 consecutive days and then for 3 consecutive days at 12-month intervals. Alemtuzumab has recently been compared to interferon beta 1-a in one phase II and two phase III trials in patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Results from the studies show alemtuzumab compared to interferon beta 1-a is associated with a greater reduction in the risk of sustained accumulation of disability and is more effective in reducing disease relapse rates. The treatment of MS continues to be a healthcare challenge due to the modest clinical benefit and adverse effect profiles of available disease modifying treatment options. Available data suggest alemtuzumab may offer better efficacy outcomes compared to traditional disease modifying therapies in patients with MS. However, the agent has not been compared to other new disease modifying medications that have been recently introduced.

Alemtuzumab for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis after disease-modifying therapy: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial

The anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab reduces disease activity in previously untreated patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of alemtuzumab compared with interferon beta 1a in patients who have relapsed despite first-line treatment. In our 2 year, rater-masked, randomised controlled phase 3 trial, we enrolled adults aged 18-55 years with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and at least one relapse on interferon beta or glatiramer. Eligible participants were randomly allocated in a 1:2:2 ratio by an interactive voice response system, stratified by site, to receive subcutaneous interferon beta 1a 44 μg, intravenous alemtuzumab 12 mg per day, or intravenous alemtuzumab 24 mg per day. Interferon beta 1a was given three-times per week and alemtuzumab was given once per day for 5 days at baseline and for 3 days at 12 months. The 24 mg per day group was discontinued to aid recruitment, but data are included for safety assessments. Coprimary endpoints were relapse rate and time to 6 month sustained accumulation of disability, comparing alemtuzumab 12 mg and interferon beta 1a in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00548405. 202 (87%) of 231 patients randomly allocated interferon beta 1a and 426 (98%) of 436 patients randomly allocated alemtuzumab 12 mg were included in the primary analyses. 104 (51%) patients in the interferon beta 1a group relapsed (201 events) compared with 147 (35%) patients in the alemtuzumab group (236 events; rate ratio 0·51 [95% CI 0·39-0·65]; p<0·0001), corresponding to a 49·4% improvement with alemtuzumab. 94 (47%) patients in the interferon beta 1a group were relapse-free at 2 years compared with 278 (65%) patients in the alemtuzumab group (p<0·0001). 40 (20%) patients in the interferon beta 1a group had sustained accumulation of disability compared with 54 (13%) in the alemtuzumab group (hazard ratio 0·58 [95% CI 0·38-0·87]; p=0·008), corresponding to a 42% improvement in the alemtuzumab group. For 435 patients allocated alemtuzumab 12 mg, 393 (90%) had infusion-associated reactions, 334 (77%) had infections (compared with 134 [66%] of 202 patients in the interferon beta 1a group) that were mostly mild-moderate with none fatal, 69 (16%) had thyroid disorders, and three (1%) had immune thrombocytopenia. For patients with first-line treatment-refractory relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, alemtuzumab could be used to reduce relapse rates and sustained accumulation of disability. Suitable risk management strategies allow for early identification of alemtuzumab's main adverse effect of secondary autoimmunity. Genzyme (Sanofi) and Bayer Schering Pharma.

Efficacy and Safety Results from Comparison of Alemtuzumab and Rebif(R) Efficacy in Multiple Sclerosis I (CARE-MS I): A Phase 3 Study in Relapsing-Remitting Treatment-Naive Patients (S01.006)

Objective: Compare alemtuzumab and interferon beta-1a (IFNB-1a) on top-line clinical efficacy and safety outcomes in the phase 3 pivotal study: CARE-MS I. Background Alemtuzumab is an anti-CD52 humanized monoclonal antibody that alters the circulating lymphocyte pool. Design/Methods: CARE-MS I was a 2-year, randomized, rater-blinded, active-comparator, trial comparing alemtuzumab to IFNB-1a in active, treatment-naive relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) patients. Alemtuzumab treatment was 12mg/day iv for 5 days at study start and 3 days one year later. IFNB-1a treatment was 44 mcg SC 3-times weekly for 24 months. Primary efficacy endpoints were relapse rate and time to 6-month sustained accumulation of disability (SAD). Results: 581 patients from 98 centers in 16 countries were randomized 2:1 to alemtuzumab or IFNB-1a. Mean age was 33; mean EDSS was 2; mean time since first episode was 2 years. Alemtuzumab reduced relapse rate by 55% compared to IFNB-1a (p Conclusions: Alemtuzumab significantly reduces the relapse rate in RRMS patients compared to an active comparator. Effect on disability accumulation was not significantly different, possibly due to the very low incidence of disability accumulation in the sample overall. The safety profile for alemtuzumab was consistent with previous studies. These results suggest the potential for alemtuzumab to be a meaningful addition to treatment options for RRMS, if approved. Supported by: Genzyme, a Sanofi company and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals. Disclosure: Dr. Coles has received personal compensation for activities with Genzyme Corporation, GlaxoSmithKline, Inc., and Merck Serono as a consultant and/or speaker. Dr. Coles has received research support from Genzyme Corportation. Dr. Brinar has nothing to disclose. Dr. Arnold has received personal compensation for activities with Bayer Healthcare, Biogen Idec, Genentech, Inc., NeuroRx Research, Roche Diagnostics Corporation, Schering, Serono, Inc., and Teva Neuroscience. Dr. Arnold Dr. Arnold has received research support from Bayer Healthcare, Biogen Idec, Genentech, Inc., NeuroRx Research, Roche Diagnostics Corporation, Schering, Serono, Inc., and Teva Neuroscience. Dr. Cohen has received personal compensation for activities with Biogen Idec, Eli Lilly & Company, Novartis, and Vaccinex. Dr. Cohen has received research support for activities with Biogen Idec, BioMS, Genzyme Corporation, Novartis, Synthon, and Teva Neuroscience. Dr. Confavruex has received personal compensation for activities with Biogen Dompe, Biogen Idec, Gemacbio, Genzyme Corporation, Hertie Foundation, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Neuroscience, UCB Pharma, Bayer Schering, and Merck Serono. Dr. Confavruex has received research support from Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals, and Teva Neuroscience. Dr. Fox has received personal compensation for activities with Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Biogen Idec, EMD Serono, Genzyme Corporation, Novartis, Opexa Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc, and Teva Neuroscience. Dr. Fox has received personal compensation in an editorial capacity for Neura. Dr. Fox has received research support from Biogen Idec, Eli Lilly & Company, EMD Serono, Genzyme Corporation, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Roche Diagnostics Corporation, Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Teva Neuroscience. Dr. Hartung has received personal compensation for activities with Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Biogen Idec, BioMS, Genzyme Corporation, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis and Teva as a speaker and/or consultant. Dr. Havrodova has received personal compensation for activities with Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Biogen Idec, Genzyme Corporation, GlaxoSmithKline, Inc., Novartis, Merck, Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Serono, Inc., and Teva as consultant, speaker and/or advisory board participant. Dr. Selmaj has received personal compensation for activities with Genzyme, Ono, and Biogen Idec. Dr. Weiner has received personal compensation for activities with Biogen Idec, Novartis, Serono, Inc., Teva Neurosciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Nasvax, Xenoport and Genzyme Corporation as consulting and/or speaking activities. Dr. Weiner has received research support from Merck Serono. Dr. Giovannoni has received personal compensation for activities with Bayer-Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Biogen Idec, Five Prime Therapeutics, Inc, Genzyme Corporation, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono, Novartis, Teva Neuroscience, Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals and Vertex Pharmaceuticals as a speaker, consultant and/or serving on data monitoring boards. Dr. Stojanovic has nothing to disclose. Dr. Lake has received personal compensation for activities with Genzyme as an employee. Dr. Margolin has received personal compensation for activities with Genzyme Corporation as an employee. Dr. Panzara has received personal compensation for activities with Biogen Idec as an employee.Dr. Panzara holds stock and/or stock options in Biogen Idec. Dr. Compston has received personal compensation for activities with Genzyme Corporation as a speaker. Dr. Compston has received research support from Genzyme Corporation.

Efficacy and Safety Results from Comparison of Alemtuzumab and Rebif(R) Efficacy in Multiple Sclerosis II (CARE-MS II): A Phase 3 Study in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Patients Who Relapsed on Prior Therapy (S01.004)

Objective: Evaluate the effect of alemtuzumab on relapse and disability versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a (SC IFNB-1a) in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients who have relapsed on prior therapy. Background Alemtuzumab was significantly more effective than SC IFNB-1a in two clinical trials with treatment-naive RRMS patients. Treatment options are limited for RRMS patients experiencing disease activity during therapy, and few controlled studies have been conducted to determine their appropriate management. Design/Methods: CARE-MS II is a 2-year rater-blinded trial with RRMS patients who have relapsed during prior therapy. Alemtuzumab treatment was 12 mg/day (or 24 mg/day in an exploratory cohort) by intravenous administration for 5 days at study start and 3 days one year later. IFNB-1a treatment was 44 mcg SC 3-times weekly throughout the study. Entry criteria included 18-55 years of age, MS symptom onset within 10 years, and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score ≤5. Primary endpoints include relapses adjudicated by an independent panel and time to sustained accumulation of disability assessed by blinded evaluators. Results: 840 patients from 180 centers in 23 countries were randomized. Baseline characteristics (mean) were: age 35 years; disease duration 3.9 years; EDSS 2.7; with 1.6 and 2.7 relapses in 1 and 2 years prior to study entry, respectively. The most common prior MS therapies were interferon-beta (78.6%) or glatiramer acetate (32.5%); less than 5% of patients had received other prior MS therapy (some patients received more than one therapy). Conclusions: Database lock and study analysis will occur in late 2011. The principal efficacy and safety results will be presented. ®Rebif is a registered trademark of EMD Serono, Inc. Supported by: Genzyme, a Sanofi company and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals. Disclosure: Dr. Cohen has received personal compensation for activities with Biogen Idec, Eli Lilly & Company, Novartis, and Vaccinex. Dr. Cohen has received research support for activities with Biogen Idec, BioMS, Genzyme Corporation, Novartis, Synthon, and Teva Neuroscience. Dr. Twyman has received personal compensation for activities with Genzyme Corporation as a consultant, speaker and participant on advisory boards. Dr. Twyman has received research support from Genzyme Corporation. Dr. Arnold has received personal compensation for activities with Bayer Healthcare, Biogen Idec, Genentech, Inc., NeuroRx Research, Roche Diagnostics Corporation, Schering, Serono, Inc., and Teva Neuroscience. Dr. Arnold Dr. Arnold has received research support from Bayer Healthcare, Biogen Idec, Genentech, Inc., NeuroRx Research, Roche Diagnostics Corporation, Schering, Serono, Inc., and Teva Neuroscience. Dr. Coles has received personal compensation for activities with Genzyme Corporation, GlaxoSmithKline, Inc., and Merck Serono as a consultant and/or speaker. Dr. Coles has received research support from Genzyme Corportation. Dr. Confavruex has received personal compensation for activities with Biogen Dompe, Biogen Idec, Gemacbio, Genzyme Corporation, Hertie Foundation, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Neuroscience, UCB Pharma, Bayer Schering, and Merck Serono. Dr. Confavruex has received research support from Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals, and Teva Neuroscience. Dr. Fox has received personal compensation for activities with Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Biogen Idec, EMD Serono, Genzyme Corporation, Novartis, Opexa Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc, and Teva Neuroscience. Dr. Fox has received personal compensation in an editorial capacity for Neura. Dr. Fox has received research support from Biogen Idec, Eli Lilly & Company, EMD Serono, Genzyme Corporation, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Roche Diagnostics Corporation, Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Teva Neuroscience. Dr. Hartung has received personal compensation for activities with Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Biogen Idec, BioMS, Genzyme Corporation, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis and Teva as a speaker and/or consultant. Dr. Havrodova has received personal compensation for activities with Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Biogen Idec, Genzyme Corporation, GlaxoSmithKline, Inc., Novartis, Merck, Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Serono, Inc., and Teva as consultant, speaker and/or advisory board participant. Dr. Selmaj has received personal compensation for activities with Genzyme, Ono, and Biogen Idec. Dr. Weiner has received personal compensation for activities with Biogen Idec, Novartis, Serono, Inc., Teva Neurosciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Nasvax, Xenoport and Genzyme Corporation as consulting and/or speaking activities. Dr. Weiner has received research support from Merck Serono. Dr. Miller has received personal compensation for activities with Allergan, Bayer, Biogen Idec, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Forest, Novartis, Sanofi Aventis, and Teva as a speaker. Dr. Miller has received research support from Allergan, Biogen Idec, Genzyme, Elan, Teva, Novartis, Ono, Sanofi Aventis, EMD Serono, and Roche-Genetech. Dr. Lake has received personal compensation for activities with Genzyme as an employee. Dr. Margolin has received personal compensation for activities with Genzyme Corporation as an employee. Dr. Panzara has received personal compensation for activities with Biogen Idec as an employee.Dr. Panzara holds stock and/or stock options in Biogen Idec. Dr. Compston has received personal compensation for activities with Genzyme Corporation as a speaker. Dr. Compston has received research support from Genzyme Corporation.