Choosing MS Treatments From the Therapeutic Armamentarium

VANCOUVER—When selecting a therapy for a patient with multiple sclerosis (MS), drug adherence, side effects, and the patient’s risk of aggressive disease are among the considerations that may influence treatment choice, said Scott Newsome, DO, Director of Neurology Outpatient Services and the Neurology Infusion Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. Patients’ risk tolerance, desire to pursue pregnancy, and John Cunningham virus (JCV) antibody status also can affect the treatment decision.

Scott Newsome, DO

“I wish we had a cookbook recipe. I wish we were able to say, … ‘This is what you’re going to go on, this is what we’re going to expect,’ but that’s not the case. Maybe one day it will be the case, but until then we have to look at many different factors in choosing therapies,” Dr. Newsome said at the 68th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Two Decades of Advances

The FDA first approved an MS therapy, interferon beta-1b, in 1993. Now, more than 10 treatments with various routes of administration and mechanisms of action have FDA approval, including a new injectable agent approved in May. Additional promising therapies are on the horizon.

“The world of MS therapeutics is evolving and becoming more complicated,” and neurologists have an “ongoing need to balance efficacy, safety, and tolerability of therapeutic interventions for each patient,” Dr. Newsome said.

Dr. Newsome hopes that in the future, biomarkers will help clinicians identify which specific treatments are the best options for each patient. In addition, more research is needed to determine the best time to start a new drug after a patient develops lymphopenia on another MS therapy, and to better understand how prior treatment with other agents affects the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) and other adverse outcomes, he said.

With current therapies, “treating early and having a low threshold to escalate therapy is very important,” Dr. Newsome said. Monitoring relapses and MRI activity may be helpful when evaluating the efficacy of a newly initiated therapy. If a patient has subclinical disease activity six to 12 months after starting a therapy, many clinicians switch therapies and consider treatments that have different mechanisms of action. If a patient develops one small T2 lesion a year out from starting a therapy, he or she does not necessarily need to switch therapies, however. “These drugs are not cures, so you have to look at various factors when you’re thinking about switching or escalating,” Dr. Newsome said. If a patient has a definite relapse, poor recovery from a relapse, disability progression, or robust MRI activity, even when the patient is asymptomatic, clinicians should consider switching therapies.

Risk of Aggressive Disease

Recommendations published in 2013 by the Canadian MS Working Group along with other groups have noted that patients who are male or African American, have an older age at MS onset, or have motor, cerebellar, sphincter, or brainstem involvement are more likely to have aggressive MS. Frequent relapses, poor recovery from relapses, high MRI lesion burden at presentation, brain atrophy, and a low level of vitamin D also are associated with more aggressive disease. Thus, if a patient is African American, does not recover well from a transverse myelitis attack, and has 15 lesions on MRI, including many that are gadolinium-enhancing, with a high spinal cord lesion load, the patient is at high risk of aggressive disease. “When I see this demographic, this phenotype, I’m thinking maybe we need to start with a stronger immune therapy,” said Dr. Newsome.

Based on a cross-comparison of results from the drugs’ pivotal trials, newer medications seem more effective. Head-to-head trials are the only way to establish drug equivalence or superiority, however. With newly diagnosed MS, especially aggressive MS, many clinicians first prescribe an oral agent or an IV therapy instead of an earlier injectable therapy, with the aim of preventing future disability, Dr. Newsome said.

Injectable, Oral, and IV Therapies

Injectable agents include interferon agents (IFN beta-1a, PEG IFN beta-1a, and IFN beta-1b) and glatiramer acetate. In phase III trials, the interferon agents and glatiramer acetate reduced relapses by about 30%, compared with placebo. They also affected MRI activity and had a modest effect on 12-week disability progression, as measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), with reductions in the range of about 30% to 40%, compared with placebo.

More recently approved oral and infusion agents may be good options for patients who develop injection fatigue, which can affect adherence, or who have breakthrough disease activity on injectable therapies, Dr. Newsome said. Fingolimod, the first approved oral therapy, is given once daily. Teriflunomide is administered once daily, and two doses are available. Dimethyl fumarate, the newest oral medication, has a mechanism of action similar to that of glatiramer acetate, but also has a unique mechanism of action in that it activates a transcriptional pathway that may help with oxidative and metabolic stress in MS. It is given twice daily.

In clinical trials, fingolimod and dimethyl fumarate reduced patients’ annualized relapse rate by more than 50%, compared with placebo. The 14-mg dose of teriflunomide reduced relapses by 32%. The oral medications had a robust effect on MRI activity. They also reduced 12-week disability progression, compared with placebo (32% reduction with fingolimod, 30% with teriflunomide, and 38% with dimethyl fumarate).

Natalizumab, an IV therapy that targets VLA-4 antigen on immune cells, reduced patients’ annualized relapse rate by 68% and had a robust effect on MRI activity, compared with placebo, in a phase III trial. Treatment reduced 12-week disability progression by 42%. Alemtuzumab, another IV treatment, depletes mature B and T cells, and infusions are needed only once per year. Initial treatment is 12 mg/day for five consecutive days. The following year, patients receive the same dosing for three days. Afterwards, many clinicians monitor patients and do not treat patients further unless they observe relapses or MRI activity, Dr. Newsome said. In two phase III trials, treatment with alemtuzumab reduced relapses by about 50% and had a robust effect on MRI activity, compared with treatment with interferon beta-1a given three times per week. In addition, alemtuzumab significantly reduced disability progression in one of the phase III trials, Dr. Newsome said.

Daclizumab is a fully humanized monoclonal antibody that targets CD25 on T cells. The FDA approved the therapy, an injection administered by the patient monthly, on May 27. In a phase III trial, daclizumab reduced patients’ annualized relapse rate by 45%, compared with interferon beta-1a given once per week. It also reduced disability progression at six months by 27% and had a robust effect on MRI activity (65% reduction in new gadolinium-enhancing lesions), compared with interferon beta-1a.

The Importance of Laboratory Monitoring

“The higher the potency and efficacy of the drugs, the greater the risk” of adverse events, Dr. Newsome said. Laboratory monitoring is critical. “With all of the therapies that we have available today, with the exception maybe of glatiramer acetate, you need to check labs routinely,” he said. Complete blood counts with differential to monitor patients’ absolute lymphocyte counts and liver function tests “are the bare minimum” needed to monitor patients on most of these drugs, he said.

Certain therapies require additional safety monitoring. For example, patients treated with alemtuzumab require monthly blood work and urine tests. Patients must undergo cardiac monitoring when initiating treatment with fingolimod. With natalizumab, the serum JCV antibody test reliably stratifies patients’ risk of PML over time. Individual MS drugs are associated with a range of minor and major adverse events. Certain therapies may unmask or reactivate infections, cause secondary autoimmunity, or increase the risk of rare opportunistic infections.

The Future

Ocrelizumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody that targets CD20+ B cells, is a potential future therapy that is delivered as an infusion every six months. In two relapsing-remitting MS phase III trials, ocrelizumab reduced patients’ annualized relapse rate by close to 50%, compared with interferon beta-1a given three times per week. It also reduced disability progression by around 40% and had a robust effect on MRI activity (> 90% reduction in new gadolinium-enhancing lesions), compared with interferon beta-1a. Ocrelizumab was also found to reduce disability progression at three and six months (24% and 25%, respectively) and reduce worsening in walking speed in patients by 29% in primary progressive MS, compared with placebo.

Investigators also are evaluating strategies for remyelination. Despite the increasing number of available agents, more therapies are needed. “We need more medications and more interventions that impact neurodegeneration and have the potential to repair damage,” Dr. Newsome said.

—Jake Remaly

VANCOUVER—When selecting a therapy for a patient with multiple sclerosis (MS), drug adherence, side effects, and the patient’s risk of aggressive disease are among the considerations that may influence treatment choice, said Scott Newsome, DO, Director of Neurology Outpatient Services and the Neurology Infusion Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. Patients’ risk tolerance, desire to pursue pregnancy, and John Cunningham virus (JCV) antibody status also can affect the treatment decision.

Scott Newsome, DO

“I wish we had a cookbook recipe. I wish we were able to say, … ‘This is what you’re going to go on, this is what we’re going to expect,’ but that’s not the case. Maybe one day it will be the case, but until then we have to look at many different factors in choosing therapies,” Dr. Newsome said at the 68th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Two Decades of Advances

The FDA first approved an MS therapy, interferon beta-1b, in 1993. Now, more than 10 treatments with various routes of administration and mechanisms of action have FDA approval, including a new injectable agent approved in May. Additional promising therapies are on the horizon.

“The world of MS therapeutics is evolving and becoming more complicated,” and neurologists have an “ongoing need to balance efficacy, safety, and tolerability of therapeutic interventions for each patient,” Dr. Newsome said.

Dr. Newsome hopes that in the future, biomarkers will help clinicians identify which specific treatments are the best options for each patient. In addition, more research is needed to determine the best time to start a new drug after a patient develops lymphopenia on another MS therapy, and to better understand how prior treatment with other agents affects the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) and other adverse outcomes, he said.

With current therapies, “treating early and having a low threshold to escalate therapy is very important,” Dr. Newsome said. Monitoring relapses and MRI activity may be helpful when evaluating the efficacy of a newly initiated therapy. If a patient has subclinical disease activity six to 12 months after starting a therapy, many clinicians switch therapies and consider treatments that have different mechanisms of action. If a patient develops one small T2 lesion a year out from starting a therapy, he or she does not necessarily need to switch therapies, however. “These drugs are not cures, so you have to look at various factors when you’re thinking about switching or escalating,” Dr. Newsome said. If a patient has a definite relapse, poor recovery from a relapse, disability progression, or robust MRI activity, even when the patient is asymptomatic, clinicians should consider switching therapies.

Risk of Aggressive Disease

Recommendations published in 2013 by the Canadian MS Working Group along with other groups have noted that patients who are male or African American, have an older age at MS onset, or have motor, cerebellar, sphincter, or brainstem involvement are more likely to have aggressive MS. Frequent relapses, poor recovery from relapses, high MRI lesion burden at presentation, brain atrophy, and a low level of vitamin D also are associated with more aggressive disease. Thus, if a patient is African American, does not recover well from a transverse myelitis attack, and has 15 lesions on MRI, including many that are gadolinium-enhancing, with a high spinal cord lesion load, the patient is at high risk of aggressive disease. “When I see this demographic, this phenotype, I’m thinking maybe we need to start with a stronger immune therapy,” said Dr. Newsome.

Based on a cross-comparison of results from the drugs’ pivotal trials, newer medications seem more effective. Head-to-head trials are the only way to establish drug equivalence or superiority, however. With newly diagnosed MS, especially aggressive MS, many clinicians first prescribe an oral agent or an IV therapy instead of an earlier injectable therapy, with the aim of preventing future disability, Dr. Newsome said.

Injectable, Oral, and IV Therapies

Injectable agents include interferon agents (IFN beta-1a, PEG IFN beta-1a, and IFN beta-1b) and glatiramer acetate. In phase III trials, the interferon agents and glatiramer acetate reduced relapses by about 30%, compared with placebo. They also affected MRI activity and had a modest effect on 12-week disability progression, as measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), with reductions in the range of about 30% to 40%, compared with placebo.

More recently approved oral and infusion agents may be good options for patients who develop injection fatigue, which can affect adherence, or who have breakthrough disease activity on injectable therapies, Dr. Newsome said. Fingolimod, the first approved oral therapy, is given once daily. Teriflunomide is administered once daily, and two doses are available. Dimethyl fumarate, the newest oral medication, has a mechanism of action similar to that of glatiramer acetate, but also has a unique mechanism of action in that it activates a transcriptional pathway that may help with oxidative and metabolic stress in MS. It is given twice daily.

In clinical trials, fingolimod and dimethyl fumarate reduced patients’ annualized relapse rate by more than 50%, compared with placebo. The 14-mg dose of teriflunomide reduced relapses by 32%. The oral medications had a robust effect on MRI activity. They also reduced 12-week disability progression, compared with placebo (32% reduction with fingolimod, 30% with teriflunomide, and 38% with dimethyl fumarate).

Natalizumab, an IV therapy that targets VLA-4 antigen on immune cells, reduced patients’ annualized relapse rate by 68% and had a robust effect on MRI activity, compared with placebo, in a phase III trial. Treatment reduced 12-week disability progression by 42%. Alemtuzumab, another IV treatment, depletes mature B and T cells, and infusions are needed only once per year. Initial treatment is 12 mg/day for five consecutive days. The following year, patients receive the same dosing for three days. Afterwards, many clinicians monitor patients and do not treat patients further unless they observe relapses or MRI activity, Dr. Newsome said. In two phase III trials, treatment with alemtuzumab reduced relapses by about 50% and had a robust effect on MRI activity, compared with treatment with interferon beta-1a given three times per week. In addition, alemtuzumab significantly reduced disability progression in one of the phase III trials, Dr. Newsome said.

Daclizumab is a fully humanized monoclonal antibody that targets CD25 on T cells. The FDA approved the therapy, an injection administered by the patient monthly, on May 27. In a phase III trial, daclizumab reduced patients’ annualized relapse rate by 45%, compared with interferon beta-1a given once per week. It also reduced disability progression at six months by 27% and had a robust effect on MRI activity (65% reduction in new gadolinium-enhancing lesions), compared with interferon beta-1a.

The Importance of Laboratory Monitoring

“The higher the potency and efficacy of the drugs, the greater the risk” of adverse events, Dr. Newsome said. Laboratory monitoring is critical. “With all of the therapies that we have available today, with the exception maybe of glatiramer acetate, you need to check labs routinely,” he said. Complete blood counts with differential to monitor patients’ absolute lymphocyte counts and liver function tests “are the bare minimum” needed to monitor patients on most of these drugs, he said.

Certain therapies require additional safety monitoring. For example, patients treated with alemtuzumab require monthly blood work and urine tests. Patients must undergo cardiac monitoring when initiating treatment with fingolimod. With natalizumab, the serum JCV antibody test reliably stratifies patients’ risk of PML over time. Individual MS drugs are associated with a range of minor and major adverse events. Certain therapies may unmask or reactivate infections, cause secondary autoimmunity, or increase the risk of rare opportunistic infections.

The Future

Ocrelizumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody that targets CD20+ B cells, is a potential future therapy that is delivered as an infusion every six months. In two relapsing-remitting MS phase III trials, ocrelizumab reduced patients’ annualized relapse rate by close to 50%, compared with interferon beta-1a given three times per week. It also reduced disability progression by around 40% and had a robust effect on MRI activity (> 90% reduction in new gadolinium-enhancing lesions), compared with interferon beta-1a. Ocrelizumab was also found to reduce disability progression at three and six months (24% and 25%, respectively) and reduce worsening in walking speed in patients by 29% in primary progressive MS, compared with placebo.

Investigators also are evaluating strategies for remyelination. Despite the increasing number of available agents, more therapies are needed. “We need more medications and more interventions that impact neurodegeneration and have the potential to repair damage,” Dr. Newsome said.

—Jake Remaly

VANCOUVER—When selecting a therapy for a patient with multiple sclerosis (MS), drug adherence, side effects, and the patient’s risk of aggressive disease are among the considerations that may influence treatment choice, said Scott Newsome, DO, Director of Neurology Outpatient Services and the Neurology Infusion Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. Patients’ risk tolerance, desire to pursue pregnancy, and John Cunningham virus (JCV) antibody status also can affect the treatment decision.

Scott Newsome, DO

“I wish we had a cookbook recipe. I wish we were able to say, … ‘This is what you’re going to go on, this is what we’re going to expect,’ but that’s not the case. Maybe one day it will be the case, but until then we have to look at many different factors in choosing therapies,” Dr. Newsome said at the 68th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Two Decades of Advances

The FDA first approved an MS therapy, interferon beta-1b, in 1993. Now, more than 10 treatments with various routes of administration and mechanisms of action have FDA approval, including a new injectable agent approved in May. Additional promising therapies are on the horizon.

“The world of MS therapeutics is evolving and becoming more complicated,” and neurologists have an “ongoing need to balance efficacy, safety, and tolerability of therapeutic interventions for each patient,” Dr. Newsome said.

Dr. Newsome hopes that in the future, biomarkers will help clinicians identify which specific treatments are the best options for each patient. In addition, more research is needed to determine the best time to start a new drug after a patient develops lymphopenia on another MS therapy, and to better understand how prior treatment with other agents affects the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) and other adverse outcomes, he said.

With current therapies, “treating early and having a low threshold to escalate therapy is very important,” Dr. Newsome said. Monitoring relapses and MRI activity may be helpful when evaluating the efficacy of a newly initiated therapy. If a patient has subclinical disease activity six to 12 months after starting a therapy, many clinicians switch therapies and consider treatments that have different mechanisms of action. If a patient develops one small T2 lesion a year out from starting a therapy, he or she does not necessarily need to switch therapies, however. “These drugs are not cures, so you have to look at various factors when you’re thinking about switching or escalating,” Dr. Newsome said. If a patient has a definite relapse, poor recovery from a relapse, disability progression, or robust MRI activity, even when the patient is asymptomatic, clinicians should consider switching therapies.

Risk of Aggressive Disease

Recommendations published in 2013 by the Canadian MS Working Group along with other groups have noted that patients who are male or African American, have an older age at MS onset, or have motor, cerebellar, sphincter, or brainstem involvement are more likely to have aggressive MS. Frequent relapses, poor recovery from relapses, high MRI lesion burden at presentation, brain atrophy, and a low level of vitamin D also are associated with more aggressive disease. Thus, if a patient is African American, does not recover well from a transverse myelitis attack, and has 15 lesions on MRI, including many that are gadolinium-enhancing, with a high spinal cord lesion load, the patient is at high risk of aggressive disease. “When I see this demographic, this phenotype, I’m thinking maybe we need to start with a stronger immune therapy,” said Dr. Newsome.

Based on a cross-comparison of results from the drugs’ pivotal trials, newer medications seem more effective. Head-to-head trials are the only way to establish drug equivalence or superiority, however. With newly diagnosed MS, especially aggressive MS, many clinicians first prescribe an oral agent or an IV therapy instead of an earlier injectable therapy, with the aim of preventing future disability, Dr. Newsome said.

Injectable, Oral, and IV Therapies

Injectable agents include interferon agents (IFN beta-1a, PEG IFN beta-1a, and IFN beta-1b) and glatiramer acetate. In phase III trials, the interferon agents and glatiramer acetate reduced relapses by about 30%, compared with placebo. They also affected MRI activity and had a modest effect on 12-week disability progression, as measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), with reductions in the range of about 30% to 40%, compared with placebo.

More recently approved oral and infusion agents may be good options for patients who develop injection fatigue, which can affect adherence, or who have breakthrough disease activity on injectable therapies, Dr. Newsome said. Fingolimod, the first approved oral therapy, is given once daily. Teriflunomide is administered once daily, and two doses are available. Dimethyl fumarate, the newest oral medication, has a mechanism of action similar to that of glatiramer acetate, but also has a unique mechanism of action in that it activates a transcriptional pathway that may help with oxidative and metabolic stress in MS. It is given twice daily.

In clinical trials, fingolimod and dimethyl fumarate reduced patients’ annualized relapse rate by more than 50%, compared with placebo. The 14-mg dose of teriflunomide reduced relapses by 32%. The oral medications had a robust effect on MRI activity. They also reduced 12-week disability progression, compared with placebo (32% reduction with fingolimod, 30% with teriflunomide, and 38% with dimethyl fumarate).

Natalizumab, an IV therapy that targets VLA-4 antigen on immune cells, reduced patients’ annualized relapse rate by 68% and had a robust effect on MRI activity, compared with placebo, in a phase III trial. Treatment reduced 12-week disability progression by 42%. Alemtuzumab, another IV treatment, depletes mature B and T cells, and infusions are needed only once per year. Initial treatment is 12 mg/day for five consecutive days. The following year, patients receive the same dosing for three days. Afterwards, many clinicians monitor patients and do not treat patients further unless they observe relapses or MRI activity, Dr. Newsome said. In two phase III trials, treatment with alemtuzumab reduced relapses by about 50% and had a robust effect on MRI activity, compared with treatment with interferon beta-1a given three times per week. In addition, alemtuzumab significantly reduced disability progression in one of the phase III trials, Dr. Newsome said.

Daclizumab is a fully humanized monoclonal antibody that targets CD25 on T cells. The FDA approved the therapy, an injection administered by the patient monthly, on May 27. In a phase III trial, daclizumab reduced patients’ annualized relapse rate by 45%, compared with interferon beta-1a given once per week. It also reduced disability progression at six months by 27% and had a robust effect on MRI activity (65% reduction in new gadolinium-enhancing lesions), compared with interferon beta-1a.

The Importance of Laboratory Monitoring

“The higher the potency and efficacy of the drugs, the greater the risk” of adverse events, Dr. Newsome said. Laboratory monitoring is critical. “With all of the therapies that we have available today, with the exception maybe of glatiramer acetate, you need to check labs routinely,” he said. Complete blood counts with differential to monitor patients’ absolute lymphocyte counts and liver function tests “are the bare minimum” needed to monitor patients on most of these drugs, he said.

Certain therapies require additional safety monitoring. For example, patients treated with alemtuzumab require monthly blood work and urine tests. Patients must undergo cardiac monitoring when initiating treatment with fingolimod. With natalizumab, the serum JCV antibody test reliably stratifies patients’ risk of PML over time. Individual MS drugs are associated with a range of minor and major adverse events. Certain therapies may unmask or reactivate infections, cause secondary autoimmunity, or increase the risk of rare opportunistic infections.

The Future

Ocrelizumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody that targets CD20+ B cells, is a potential future therapy that is delivered as an infusion every six months. In two relapsing-remitting MS phase III trials, ocrelizumab reduced patients’ annualized relapse rate by close to 50%, compared with interferon beta-1a given three times per week. It also reduced disability progression by around 40% and had a robust effect on MRI activity (> 90% reduction in new gadolinium-enhancing lesions), compared with interferon beta-1a. Ocrelizumab was also found to reduce disability progression at three and six months (24% and 25%, respectively) and reduce worsening in walking speed in patients by 29% in primary progressive MS, compared with placebo.

Investigators also are evaluating strategies for remyelination. Despite the increasing number of available agents, more therapies are needed. “We need more medications and more interventions that impact neurodegeneration and have the potential to repair damage,” Dr. Newsome said.

—Jake Remaly