User login
Consider the wider picture in relapsing remitting MS
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Consider his 40-year-old female patient who’s averse to vaccines, often misses appointments, and seems to be unable to take blood pressure drugs as prescribed. In this case, the best strategy may not be the drug with the highest efficacy.
“There’s no pharmaceutical insert that’s going to tell you what to do with all of this information,” John R. Rinker II, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “It’s important to not only know about the disease and the specifics of the pharmaceuticals, but also about the patient’s personal circumstances, their comorbidities, their social situation, and how it all ties together.”
Fortunately, he said, there are about two dozen medication options now available for RRMS. Noting that his scale is at best “a crude approximation of reality,” he said their efficacy runs the gamut from low (glatiramer acetate and beta-interferons) to high (cladribine, alemtuzumab). He places sphingosine-1 phosphate (SIP1) modulators in the mid-range in terms of efficacy and B cell-depleting agents and natalizumab toward the high side.
Why go low?
Why put someone on a low-efficacy drug? One reason is because they’re the safest options, he said, while the two highest-efficacy drugs – cladribine and alemtuzumab – are the least safe. But even the older, safer drugs can cause problems: Beta interferons can cause flu-like symptoms early on along with depression and miscarriage, and glatiramer acetate can spur injection site reactions and acute post injection syndrome “that can feel like a panic attack or even a heart attack.”
Dimethyl fumarate “is probably the easiest of the oral agents to initiate because there’s no extra doctor’s appointments. And there’s no concerns really about hair loss, liver failure, or birth defects,” he said. “But it’s one of the oral agents that has the most side effects associated with it.” Flushing is almost universal but “rarely a cause of discontinuation,” while gastrointestinal symptoms can lead to discontinuation.
Alemtuzumab, a high-efficacy drug that’s administered in two annual cycles, he said, is especially convenient but monthly labs are required for years to check for problems due to its dampening of the immune system. Patients on ocrelizumab must be closely monitored for the same reason.
There are other factors to consider. Lower-efficacy drugs tend to be better options in younger patients – “they’re more resilient, and they tend to recover a little bit better after their early relapses,” Dr. Rinker said.
The drugs are especially helpful in patients who recover well after their initial episodes and who have sensory instead of motor symptoms, he said.
The case for high efficacy
Higher-efficacy drugs are best for older patients and those with heavy disease burden.
What about the 40-year-old patient? She’s female (women get less sick from MS) and has low disease burden, suggesting that a lower-efficacy drug may be appropriate, he said. “On the other hand, she has an incomplete recovery, and she’s got spinal cord disease and motor symptoms, so the tendency is going to be more towards the higher-efficacy end of the [drug] spectrum.”
But which drug? S1P modulators aren’t a good option since they require redosing or titration if doses are missed: “It’s important that you don’t prescribe them to patients where you have concerns about compliance.”
Also, he said, “we don’t think we’re to the point that we’re willing to put her at risk of severe medical complications by putting her on medicines with a high monitoring burden like cladribine or alemtuzumab.”
The best option may be teriflunomide, a once-daily pill, he said. It’s forgiving if a patient misses a dose since the medication stays in the body for a long time.
“There’s no single right answer,” Dr. Rinker said. “But there are ways to eliminate a lot of the choices based upon what we know about the medications and what we know about the patient. Then we can tailor a specific range of medications for a specific patient.”
Dr. Rinker disclosed research support from GW Pharmaceuticals.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Consider his 40-year-old female patient who’s averse to vaccines, often misses appointments, and seems to be unable to take blood pressure drugs as prescribed. In this case, the best strategy may not be the drug with the highest efficacy.
“There’s no pharmaceutical insert that’s going to tell you what to do with all of this information,” John R. Rinker II, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “It’s important to not only know about the disease and the specifics of the pharmaceuticals, but also about the patient’s personal circumstances, their comorbidities, their social situation, and how it all ties together.”
Fortunately, he said, there are about two dozen medication options now available for RRMS. Noting that his scale is at best “a crude approximation of reality,” he said their efficacy runs the gamut from low (glatiramer acetate and beta-interferons) to high (cladribine, alemtuzumab). He places sphingosine-1 phosphate (SIP1) modulators in the mid-range in terms of efficacy and B cell-depleting agents and natalizumab toward the high side.
Why go low?
Why put someone on a low-efficacy drug? One reason is because they’re the safest options, he said, while the two highest-efficacy drugs – cladribine and alemtuzumab – are the least safe. But even the older, safer drugs can cause problems: Beta interferons can cause flu-like symptoms early on along with depression and miscarriage, and glatiramer acetate can spur injection site reactions and acute post injection syndrome “that can feel like a panic attack or even a heart attack.”
Dimethyl fumarate “is probably the easiest of the oral agents to initiate because there’s no extra doctor’s appointments. And there’s no concerns really about hair loss, liver failure, or birth defects,” he said. “But it’s one of the oral agents that has the most side effects associated with it.” Flushing is almost universal but “rarely a cause of discontinuation,” while gastrointestinal symptoms can lead to discontinuation.
Alemtuzumab, a high-efficacy drug that’s administered in two annual cycles, he said, is especially convenient but monthly labs are required for years to check for problems due to its dampening of the immune system. Patients on ocrelizumab must be closely monitored for the same reason.
There are other factors to consider. Lower-efficacy drugs tend to be better options in younger patients – “they’re more resilient, and they tend to recover a little bit better after their early relapses,” Dr. Rinker said.
The drugs are especially helpful in patients who recover well after their initial episodes and who have sensory instead of motor symptoms, he said.
The case for high efficacy
Higher-efficacy drugs are best for older patients and those with heavy disease burden.
What about the 40-year-old patient? She’s female (women get less sick from MS) and has low disease burden, suggesting that a lower-efficacy drug may be appropriate, he said. “On the other hand, she has an incomplete recovery, and she’s got spinal cord disease and motor symptoms, so the tendency is going to be more towards the higher-efficacy end of the [drug] spectrum.”
But which drug? S1P modulators aren’t a good option since they require redosing or titration if doses are missed: “It’s important that you don’t prescribe them to patients where you have concerns about compliance.”
Also, he said, “we don’t think we’re to the point that we’re willing to put her at risk of severe medical complications by putting her on medicines with a high monitoring burden like cladribine or alemtuzumab.”
The best option may be teriflunomide, a once-daily pill, he said. It’s forgiving if a patient misses a dose since the medication stays in the body for a long time.
“There’s no single right answer,” Dr. Rinker said. “But there are ways to eliminate a lot of the choices based upon what we know about the medications and what we know about the patient. Then we can tailor a specific range of medications for a specific patient.”
Dr. Rinker disclosed research support from GW Pharmaceuticals.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Consider his 40-year-old female patient who’s averse to vaccines, often misses appointments, and seems to be unable to take blood pressure drugs as prescribed. In this case, the best strategy may not be the drug with the highest efficacy.
“There’s no pharmaceutical insert that’s going to tell you what to do with all of this information,” John R. Rinker II, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “It’s important to not only know about the disease and the specifics of the pharmaceuticals, but also about the patient’s personal circumstances, their comorbidities, their social situation, and how it all ties together.”
Fortunately, he said, there are about two dozen medication options now available for RRMS. Noting that his scale is at best “a crude approximation of reality,” he said their efficacy runs the gamut from low (glatiramer acetate and beta-interferons) to high (cladribine, alemtuzumab). He places sphingosine-1 phosphate (SIP1) modulators in the mid-range in terms of efficacy and B cell-depleting agents and natalizumab toward the high side.
Why go low?
Why put someone on a low-efficacy drug? One reason is because they’re the safest options, he said, while the two highest-efficacy drugs – cladribine and alemtuzumab – are the least safe. But even the older, safer drugs can cause problems: Beta interferons can cause flu-like symptoms early on along with depression and miscarriage, and glatiramer acetate can spur injection site reactions and acute post injection syndrome “that can feel like a panic attack or even a heart attack.”
Dimethyl fumarate “is probably the easiest of the oral agents to initiate because there’s no extra doctor’s appointments. And there’s no concerns really about hair loss, liver failure, or birth defects,” he said. “But it’s one of the oral agents that has the most side effects associated with it.” Flushing is almost universal but “rarely a cause of discontinuation,” while gastrointestinal symptoms can lead to discontinuation.
Alemtuzumab, a high-efficacy drug that’s administered in two annual cycles, he said, is especially convenient but monthly labs are required for years to check for problems due to its dampening of the immune system. Patients on ocrelizumab must be closely monitored for the same reason.
There are other factors to consider. Lower-efficacy drugs tend to be better options in younger patients – “they’re more resilient, and they tend to recover a little bit better after their early relapses,” Dr. Rinker said.
The drugs are especially helpful in patients who recover well after their initial episodes and who have sensory instead of motor symptoms, he said.
The case for high efficacy
Higher-efficacy drugs are best for older patients and those with heavy disease burden.
What about the 40-year-old patient? She’s female (women get less sick from MS) and has low disease burden, suggesting that a lower-efficacy drug may be appropriate, he said. “On the other hand, she has an incomplete recovery, and she’s got spinal cord disease and motor symptoms, so the tendency is going to be more towards the higher-efficacy end of the [drug] spectrum.”
But which drug? S1P modulators aren’t a good option since they require redosing or titration if doses are missed: “It’s important that you don’t prescribe them to patients where you have concerns about compliance.”
Also, he said, “we don’t think we’re to the point that we’re willing to put her at risk of severe medical complications by putting her on medicines with a high monitoring burden like cladribine or alemtuzumab.”
The best option may be teriflunomide, a once-daily pill, he said. It’s forgiving if a patient misses a dose since the medication stays in the body for a long time.
“There’s no single right answer,” Dr. Rinker said. “But there are ways to eliminate a lot of the choices based upon what we know about the medications and what we know about the patient. Then we can tailor a specific range of medications for a specific patient.”
Dr. Rinker disclosed research support from GW Pharmaceuticals.
AT CMSC 2022
MS and family planning: Bring it up at every office visit
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – Just 2 days before she spoke in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, University of Colorado neurologist Anna Shah, MD, asked a 26-year-old patient with MS about whether she planned to have children. Absolutely not, the young woman replied. “I read online that I can give birth to a baby with MS, which is crazy.”
The patient didn’t understand the risk of having a child with MS – it’s thought to be 2%-5% if one parent has the condition – but she wouldn’t have learned the facts if Dr. Shah hadn’t asked the right questions. “It’s really important for us as a community to know how to be proactive with discussions [about pregnancy],” she said.
As she noted, an estimated 75% of patients with MS are women, most are diagnosed during prime child-bearing years, and many pregnancies in general – an estimated half – are not planned. And while a higher percentage of women with MS are having children than in the past, she said, misinformation remains common. In fact, physicians can be part of the problem.
Dr. Shaw highlighted a 2019 Italian survey that found that 16% of 395 people with MS reported that they were discouraged from having children, mainly by medical professionals, after their diagnosis. Seven percent said they never wanted to become parents because of their MS. A 2021 survey of 332 patients with MS in the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, found that 56% reported that MS played a role in their decisions about family planning, and 14% of those decided not to have children.
In regard to women of child-bearing age, Dr. Shah recommends that Open-ended, individualized questions are key. “We don’t know what patients don’t share with us,” she said.
Make sure to consider the timing of any plans to have children, she said. If the patient wants to have children within a year, talk about matters such as whether disease activity is well-controlled (6-12 months of good control is ideal) and whether current disease-modifying therapies are safe. Make sure to get a baseline prepartum MRI scan, she said.
If the patients don’t want to have children, make sure they are using a reliable strategy to avoid conception. Be aware that modafinil – “not one that immediately comes to mind” – may decrease the efficacy of oral contraceptives, she said, as can anticonvulsants (phenytoin, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, topiramate, and primidone). Oral contraceptives, meanwhile, may decrease levels of lamotrigine.
What if a patient has trouble conceiving? There are some hints in research that MS may boost the risk of infertility in women, Dr. Shah said. That’s why she recommends that colleagues consider referring a patient to an infertility specialist after attempting conception for 6 months as opposed to the general recommendation for 12 months.
Dr. Shah disclosed advisory board service (Genentech) and development of nonbranded educational programming through Novartis and the National Committee for Quality Assurance.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – Just 2 days before she spoke in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, University of Colorado neurologist Anna Shah, MD, asked a 26-year-old patient with MS about whether she planned to have children. Absolutely not, the young woman replied. “I read online that I can give birth to a baby with MS, which is crazy.”
The patient didn’t understand the risk of having a child with MS – it’s thought to be 2%-5% if one parent has the condition – but she wouldn’t have learned the facts if Dr. Shah hadn’t asked the right questions. “It’s really important for us as a community to know how to be proactive with discussions [about pregnancy],” she said.
As she noted, an estimated 75% of patients with MS are women, most are diagnosed during prime child-bearing years, and many pregnancies in general – an estimated half – are not planned. And while a higher percentage of women with MS are having children than in the past, she said, misinformation remains common. In fact, physicians can be part of the problem.
Dr. Shaw highlighted a 2019 Italian survey that found that 16% of 395 people with MS reported that they were discouraged from having children, mainly by medical professionals, after their diagnosis. Seven percent said they never wanted to become parents because of their MS. A 2021 survey of 332 patients with MS in the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, found that 56% reported that MS played a role in their decisions about family planning, and 14% of those decided not to have children.
In regard to women of child-bearing age, Dr. Shah recommends that Open-ended, individualized questions are key. “We don’t know what patients don’t share with us,” she said.
Make sure to consider the timing of any plans to have children, she said. If the patient wants to have children within a year, talk about matters such as whether disease activity is well-controlled (6-12 months of good control is ideal) and whether current disease-modifying therapies are safe. Make sure to get a baseline prepartum MRI scan, she said.
If the patients don’t want to have children, make sure they are using a reliable strategy to avoid conception. Be aware that modafinil – “not one that immediately comes to mind” – may decrease the efficacy of oral contraceptives, she said, as can anticonvulsants (phenytoin, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, topiramate, and primidone). Oral contraceptives, meanwhile, may decrease levels of lamotrigine.
What if a patient has trouble conceiving? There are some hints in research that MS may boost the risk of infertility in women, Dr. Shah said. That’s why she recommends that colleagues consider referring a patient to an infertility specialist after attempting conception for 6 months as opposed to the general recommendation for 12 months.
Dr. Shah disclosed advisory board service (Genentech) and development of nonbranded educational programming through Novartis and the National Committee for Quality Assurance.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – Just 2 days before she spoke in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, University of Colorado neurologist Anna Shah, MD, asked a 26-year-old patient with MS about whether she planned to have children. Absolutely not, the young woman replied. “I read online that I can give birth to a baby with MS, which is crazy.”
The patient didn’t understand the risk of having a child with MS – it’s thought to be 2%-5% if one parent has the condition – but she wouldn’t have learned the facts if Dr. Shah hadn’t asked the right questions. “It’s really important for us as a community to know how to be proactive with discussions [about pregnancy],” she said.
As she noted, an estimated 75% of patients with MS are women, most are diagnosed during prime child-bearing years, and many pregnancies in general – an estimated half – are not planned. And while a higher percentage of women with MS are having children than in the past, she said, misinformation remains common. In fact, physicians can be part of the problem.
Dr. Shaw highlighted a 2019 Italian survey that found that 16% of 395 people with MS reported that they were discouraged from having children, mainly by medical professionals, after their diagnosis. Seven percent said they never wanted to become parents because of their MS. A 2021 survey of 332 patients with MS in the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, found that 56% reported that MS played a role in their decisions about family planning, and 14% of those decided not to have children.
In regard to women of child-bearing age, Dr. Shah recommends that Open-ended, individualized questions are key. “We don’t know what patients don’t share with us,” she said.
Make sure to consider the timing of any plans to have children, she said. If the patient wants to have children within a year, talk about matters such as whether disease activity is well-controlled (6-12 months of good control is ideal) and whether current disease-modifying therapies are safe. Make sure to get a baseline prepartum MRI scan, she said.
If the patients don’t want to have children, make sure they are using a reliable strategy to avoid conception. Be aware that modafinil – “not one that immediately comes to mind” – may decrease the efficacy of oral contraceptives, she said, as can anticonvulsants (phenytoin, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, topiramate, and primidone). Oral contraceptives, meanwhile, may decrease levels of lamotrigine.
What if a patient has trouble conceiving? There are some hints in research that MS may boost the risk of infertility in women, Dr. Shah said. That’s why she recommends that colleagues consider referring a patient to an infertility specialist after attempting conception for 6 months as opposed to the general recommendation for 12 months.
Dr. Shah disclosed advisory board service (Genentech) and development of nonbranded educational programming through Novartis and the National Committee for Quality Assurance.
At CMSC 2022
Inebilizumab beneficial across genotypes in NMOSD
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – – including a common genetic variation linked to reduced response to anti-CD20 therapies, new research shows.
The phase 3 N-MOmentum Study previously showed safety and efficacy for inebilizumab over placebo in more than 200 adults with NMOSD.
A new analysis focused on participants who were carriers of either the F/F allele, which is known to reduce the effectiveness of certain monoclonal antibodies, or the rs396991 V-allele, which has not been associated with a reduced response.
Results showed no significant differences between the two carrier groups in NMOSD activity, including annual rates of new/enlarging T2 lesions, during the trial and up to 6 months after treatment with inebilizumab.
“These data illustrate how mechanistic precision in treatment design can help patients gain benefit from their regimen regardless of the genetic make-up of their immune systems,” coinvestigator Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, said in a press release.
“The combination of efficacy, safety, and ease of administration with twice-yearly infusions make this product an excellent choice for first-line therapy in NMOSD,” Dr. Cree said.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.
B-cell depletion
Inebilizumab has also been approved in China, Japan, and South Korea for the treatment of NMOSD, a rare and severe autoantibody-mediated disease of the central nervous system that includes NMO and related syndromes.
The drug’s B-cell depletion capability is credited with reducing inflammation, lesion formation, and astrocyte damage. The latter can cause severe effects in an NMOSD attack, affecting the optic nerve, spinal cord, and brain.
Manifestations can range from loss of vision to paralysis, loss of sensation, bladder and bowel dysfunction, nerve pain or respiratory failure. Attacks can also result in cumulative damage and disability, the researchers noted.
Results from the original double-blind trial of 230 adults with NMOSD showed that treatment with inebilizumab demonstrated efficacy and safety over placebo. However, questions have remained regarding the treatment’s effectiveness, specifically among patients with the FCGR3A (F/F) allele, a genetic variant that encodes the low-affinity Fc gamma receptor IIIa.
This genotype is known to reduce the effectiveness of certain monoclonal antibodies and anti-CD20 therapies, notably rituximab, in disorders such as NMOSD.
With up to 40% of White and Black individuals known to carry the F/F allele, inebilizumab was designed specifically with that risk in mind, with strong binding to the allele.
Although inebilizumab joins two other Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments for NMOSD – eculizumab and satralizumab – neither of those have a mechanism involving the FCGRA3 receptor. Therefore, those drugs are not a concern for individuals with those genotypes.
To evaluate inebilizumab’s effects among patients with the F/F allele, Dr. Cree and colleagues assessed data on a subset of 142 patients from the N-MOmentum trial.
The study included a 28-week randomized controlled period in which adults with NMOSD received either 300 mg of intravenous inebilizumab or placebo on days 1 and 15, followed by an optional open-label period of at least 2 years. During the open-label phase, all patients received 300 mg of IV inebilizumab every 26 weeks.
Of the 142 patients in the genetic analysis, 104 received inebilizumab and 38 received placebo. In addition, 68 group participants were carriers of the F/F allele, while 74 carried the rs396991 V-allele.
No significant differences
Prior to the trial, annualized attack rates (AARs) and disability, as assessed by change in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, were nominally higher in the V allele group from disease onset to trial enrollment.
During the trial’s first 6 months, AARs and annual rates of new/enlarging T2 lesions were nominally lower in inebilizumab-treated V allele participants compared with the F/F allele participants, although the differences were not statistically significant.
The AAR was 0.1 for the V allele group vs. 0.3 for the F/F allele group (hazard ratio, 0.40; P = .17). The annual rate of new/enlarging T2 lesions was 1.4 vs. 1.7 (risk ratio, 0.91; P = .88), respectively.
However, at the end of the randomized controlled period, there were no significant differences between the two genotype groups. There was also little difference in clinical metrics of NMOSD activity or B-cell depletion between the two genotype groups during the open-label period involving the long-term repeated inebilizumab dosing.
“Though greater B-cell depletion was observed in inebilizumab-treated V allele participants, compared with F/F participants during the first 6 months, no significant difference in NMOSD activity was observed during this time period,” the investigators reported.
“No differences in B-cell depletion or NMOSD disease activity were observed after 6 months of inebilizumab treatment,” they added.
Dr. Cree noted the study showed that, overall, inebiluzumab’s efficacy was not adversely affected by a polymorphism in the Fc gamma receptor. “These types of genetic analyses may help inform future screening mechanisms to tailor treatment strategies that can optimize the response rate for each patient,” he said.
Dr. Cree added the higher degree of disease activity among those carrying the alleles at baseline is notable and deserves further investigation. That finding “suggests that the presence of the F/F allele is to some extent protective of the detrimental effects the auto-antibody directed against aquaporin-4 that underlies NMOSD pathogenesis,” he said.
A new era?
Commenting on the study, Marcelo Matiello, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and associate director of the Neuromyelitis Optica clinic at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, said the findings provide valuable insights into risks for key patient subgroups.
“The data is quite important because we know that with other conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis, people with this particular genotype do have lower response and are more likely to be refractory,” said Dr. Matiello, who was not involved with the research.
He noted that rituximab is the most commonly used medication in the United States for NMOSD. “It’s not FDA approved, but because of extensive experience, and many case series and small prospective studies, most NMO patients are using rituximab,” Dr. Matiello said. However, the drug’s mechanism “can be compromised” by the F/F allele, he added.
The new findings “provide a good understanding that this medication would likely be superior to patients with this genotype,” he said.
“I think it’s a new era,” Dr. Matiello added. “Not only do we have approved medication for this very severe disease, but we can find out who can benefit most. So, I think this is exciting and is a major step in more individualized appropriate use.”
The study was funded by Horizon Therapeutics. Dr. Cree has consulted for Horizon Therapeutics. Dr. Matiello reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – – including a common genetic variation linked to reduced response to anti-CD20 therapies, new research shows.
The phase 3 N-MOmentum Study previously showed safety and efficacy for inebilizumab over placebo in more than 200 adults with NMOSD.
A new analysis focused on participants who were carriers of either the F/F allele, which is known to reduce the effectiveness of certain monoclonal antibodies, or the rs396991 V-allele, which has not been associated with a reduced response.
Results showed no significant differences between the two carrier groups in NMOSD activity, including annual rates of new/enlarging T2 lesions, during the trial and up to 6 months after treatment with inebilizumab.
“These data illustrate how mechanistic precision in treatment design can help patients gain benefit from their regimen regardless of the genetic make-up of their immune systems,” coinvestigator Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, said in a press release.
“The combination of efficacy, safety, and ease of administration with twice-yearly infusions make this product an excellent choice for first-line therapy in NMOSD,” Dr. Cree said.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.
B-cell depletion
Inebilizumab has also been approved in China, Japan, and South Korea for the treatment of NMOSD, a rare and severe autoantibody-mediated disease of the central nervous system that includes NMO and related syndromes.
The drug’s B-cell depletion capability is credited with reducing inflammation, lesion formation, and astrocyte damage. The latter can cause severe effects in an NMOSD attack, affecting the optic nerve, spinal cord, and brain.
Manifestations can range from loss of vision to paralysis, loss of sensation, bladder and bowel dysfunction, nerve pain or respiratory failure. Attacks can also result in cumulative damage and disability, the researchers noted.
Results from the original double-blind trial of 230 adults with NMOSD showed that treatment with inebilizumab demonstrated efficacy and safety over placebo. However, questions have remained regarding the treatment’s effectiveness, specifically among patients with the FCGR3A (F/F) allele, a genetic variant that encodes the low-affinity Fc gamma receptor IIIa.
This genotype is known to reduce the effectiveness of certain monoclonal antibodies and anti-CD20 therapies, notably rituximab, in disorders such as NMOSD.
With up to 40% of White and Black individuals known to carry the F/F allele, inebilizumab was designed specifically with that risk in mind, with strong binding to the allele.
Although inebilizumab joins two other Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments for NMOSD – eculizumab and satralizumab – neither of those have a mechanism involving the FCGRA3 receptor. Therefore, those drugs are not a concern for individuals with those genotypes.
To evaluate inebilizumab’s effects among patients with the F/F allele, Dr. Cree and colleagues assessed data on a subset of 142 patients from the N-MOmentum trial.
The study included a 28-week randomized controlled period in which adults with NMOSD received either 300 mg of intravenous inebilizumab or placebo on days 1 and 15, followed by an optional open-label period of at least 2 years. During the open-label phase, all patients received 300 mg of IV inebilizumab every 26 weeks.
Of the 142 patients in the genetic analysis, 104 received inebilizumab and 38 received placebo. In addition, 68 group participants were carriers of the F/F allele, while 74 carried the rs396991 V-allele.
No significant differences
Prior to the trial, annualized attack rates (AARs) and disability, as assessed by change in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, were nominally higher in the V allele group from disease onset to trial enrollment.
During the trial’s first 6 months, AARs and annual rates of new/enlarging T2 lesions were nominally lower in inebilizumab-treated V allele participants compared with the F/F allele participants, although the differences were not statistically significant.
The AAR was 0.1 for the V allele group vs. 0.3 for the F/F allele group (hazard ratio, 0.40; P = .17). The annual rate of new/enlarging T2 lesions was 1.4 vs. 1.7 (risk ratio, 0.91; P = .88), respectively.
However, at the end of the randomized controlled period, there were no significant differences between the two genotype groups. There was also little difference in clinical metrics of NMOSD activity or B-cell depletion between the two genotype groups during the open-label period involving the long-term repeated inebilizumab dosing.
“Though greater B-cell depletion was observed in inebilizumab-treated V allele participants, compared with F/F participants during the first 6 months, no significant difference in NMOSD activity was observed during this time period,” the investigators reported.
“No differences in B-cell depletion or NMOSD disease activity were observed after 6 months of inebilizumab treatment,” they added.
Dr. Cree noted the study showed that, overall, inebiluzumab’s efficacy was not adversely affected by a polymorphism in the Fc gamma receptor. “These types of genetic analyses may help inform future screening mechanisms to tailor treatment strategies that can optimize the response rate for each patient,” he said.
Dr. Cree added the higher degree of disease activity among those carrying the alleles at baseline is notable and deserves further investigation. That finding “suggests that the presence of the F/F allele is to some extent protective of the detrimental effects the auto-antibody directed against aquaporin-4 that underlies NMOSD pathogenesis,” he said.
A new era?
Commenting on the study, Marcelo Matiello, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and associate director of the Neuromyelitis Optica clinic at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, said the findings provide valuable insights into risks for key patient subgroups.
“The data is quite important because we know that with other conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis, people with this particular genotype do have lower response and are more likely to be refractory,” said Dr. Matiello, who was not involved with the research.
He noted that rituximab is the most commonly used medication in the United States for NMOSD. “It’s not FDA approved, but because of extensive experience, and many case series and small prospective studies, most NMO patients are using rituximab,” Dr. Matiello said. However, the drug’s mechanism “can be compromised” by the F/F allele, he added.
The new findings “provide a good understanding that this medication would likely be superior to patients with this genotype,” he said.
“I think it’s a new era,” Dr. Matiello added. “Not only do we have approved medication for this very severe disease, but we can find out who can benefit most. So, I think this is exciting and is a major step in more individualized appropriate use.”
The study was funded by Horizon Therapeutics. Dr. Cree has consulted for Horizon Therapeutics. Dr. Matiello reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – – including a common genetic variation linked to reduced response to anti-CD20 therapies, new research shows.
The phase 3 N-MOmentum Study previously showed safety and efficacy for inebilizumab over placebo in more than 200 adults with NMOSD.
A new analysis focused on participants who were carriers of either the F/F allele, which is known to reduce the effectiveness of certain monoclonal antibodies, or the rs396991 V-allele, which has not been associated with a reduced response.
Results showed no significant differences between the two carrier groups in NMOSD activity, including annual rates of new/enlarging T2 lesions, during the trial and up to 6 months after treatment with inebilizumab.
“These data illustrate how mechanistic precision in treatment design can help patients gain benefit from their regimen regardless of the genetic make-up of their immune systems,” coinvestigator Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, said in a press release.
“The combination of efficacy, safety, and ease of administration with twice-yearly infusions make this product an excellent choice for first-line therapy in NMOSD,” Dr. Cree said.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.
B-cell depletion
Inebilizumab has also been approved in China, Japan, and South Korea for the treatment of NMOSD, a rare and severe autoantibody-mediated disease of the central nervous system that includes NMO and related syndromes.
The drug’s B-cell depletion capability is credited with reducing inflammation, lesion formation, and astrocyte damage. The latter can cause severe effects in an NMOSD attack, affecting the optic nerve, spinal cord, and brain.
Manifestations can range from loss of vision to paralysis, loss of sensation, bladder and bowel dysfunction, nerve pain or respiratory failure. Attacks can also result in cumulative damage and disability, the researchers noted.
Results from the original double-blind trial of 230 adults with NMOSD showed that treatment with inebilizumab demonstrated efficacy and safety over placebo. However, questions have remained regarding the treatment’s effectiveness, specifically among patients with the FCGR3A (F/F) allele, a genetic variant that encodes the low-affinity Fc gamma receptor IIIa.
This genotype is known to reduce the effectiveness of certain monoclonal antibodies and anti-CD20 therapies, notably rituximab, in disorders such as NMOSD.
With up to 40% of White and Black individuals known to carry the F/F allele, inebilizumab was designed specifically with that risk in mind, with strong binding to the allele.
Although inebilizumab joins two other Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments for NMOSD – eculizumab and satralizumab – neither of those have a mechanism involving the FCGRA3 receptor. Therefore, those drugs are not a concern for individuals with those genotypes.
To evaluate inebilizumab’s effects among patients with the F/F allele, Dr. Cree and colleagues assessed data on a subset of 142 patients from the N-MOmentum trial.
The study included a 28-week randomized controlled period in which adults with NMOSD received either 300 mg of intravenous inebilizumab or placebo on days 1 and 15, followed by an optional open-label period of at least 2 years. During the open-label phase, all patients received 300 mg of IV inebilizumab every 26 weeks.
Of the 142 patients in the genetic analysis, 104 received inebilizumab and 38 received placebo. In addition, 68 group participants were carriers of the F/F allele, while 74 carried the rs396991 V-allele.
No significant differences
Prior to the trial, annualized attack rates (AARs) and disability, as assessed by change in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, were nominally higher in the V allele group from disease onset to trial enrollment.
During the trial’s first 6 months, AARs and annual rates of new/enlarging T2 lesions were nominally lower in inebilizumab-treated V allele participants compared with the F/F allele participants, although the differences were not statistically significant.
The AAR was 0.1 for the V allele group vs. 0.3 for the F/F allele group (hazard ratio, 0.40; P = .17). The annual rate of new/enlarging T2 lesions was 1.4 vs. 1.7 (risk ratio, 0.91; P = .88), respectively.
However, at the end of the randomized controlled period, there were no significant differences between the two genotype groups. There was also little difference in clinical metrics of NMOSD activity or B-cell depletion between the two genotype groups during the open-label period involving the long-term repeated inebilizumab dosing.
“Though greater B-cell depletion was observed in inebilizumab-treated V allele participants, compared with F/F participants during the first 6 months, no significant difference in NMOSD activity was observed during this time period,” the investigators reported.
“No differences in B-cell depletion or NMOSD disease activity were observed after 6 months of inebilizumab treatment,” they added.
Dr. Cree noted the study showed that, overall, inebiluzumab’s efficacy was not adversely affected by a polymorphism in the Fc gamma receptor. “These types of genetic analyses may help inform future screening mechanisms to tailor treatment strategies that can optimize the response rate for each patient,” he said.
Dr. Cree added the higher degree of disease activity among those carrying the alleles at baseline is notable and deserves further investigation. That finding “suggests that the presence of the F/F allele is to some extent protective of the detrimental effects the auto-antibody directed against aquaporin-4 that underlies NMOSD pathogenesis,” he said.
A new era?
Commenting on the study, Marcelo Matiello, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and associate director of the Neuromyelitis Optica clinic at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, said the findings provide valuable insights into risks for key patient subgroups.
“The data is quite important because we know that with other conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis, people with this particular genotype do have lower response and are more likely to be refractory,” said Dr. Matiello, who was not involved with the research.
He noted that rituximab is the most commonly used medication in the United States for NMOSD. “It’s not FDA approved, but because of extensive experience, and many case series and small prospective studies, most NMO patients are using rituximab,” Dr. Matiello said. However, the drug’s mechanism “can be compromised” by the F/F allele, he added.
The new findings “provide a good understanding that this medication would likely be superior to patients with this genotype,” he said.
“I think it’s a new era,” Dr. Matiello added. “Not only do we have approved medication for this very severe disease, but we can find out who can benefit most. So, I think this is exciting and is a major step in more individualized appropriate use.”
The study was funded by Horizon Therapeutics. Dr. Cree has consulted for Horizon Therapeutics. Dr. Matiello reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT CMSC 2022
Stem cell transplants for MS are a ‘reasonable option,’ but questions persist
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – .” But, he said, it remains unclear which patients should undergo the procedure.
An especially pressing question is “whether transplant is an alternative to our high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies” (DMTs) in some high-risk patients, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, director of experimental therapeutics at Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center, said in a presidential lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.
A handful of ongoing randomized controlled trials will bring answers, he said.
Stem cell therapy exists because there are gaps in MS treatment, Dr. Cohen said. “We have now more than 20 medications. However, none of these therapies is completely effective in all patients. In particular, there are some patients with very active disease who continue to have relapses or new MRI lesion activity despite treatment with all of the available therapies.”
And in progressive MS, the efficacy of a couple of agents is modest and mainly for people with ongoing focal lesion activity, he said. “Finally, all of these currently available therapies are intended primarily to prevent the accumulation of damage, and none of them directly promotes repair. So despite our progress in the field, there still are a number of unmet needs.”
‘Rebooting’ the immune system
Several types of stem cell therapy exist, including remyelination and anti-inflammatory therapy, Dr. Cohen said. In his lecture, he focused on immunoablative or myeloablative therapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
This “complicated, multistep procedure” involves first eliminating the immune system to get rid of pathogenic inflammatory cells. This “big component is actually the therapy for MS. It’s also the step that has the most potential complications,” he said.
According to Dr. Cohen, the next step has been described as “rebooting” the immune system.
Does this procedure help patients with MS? In relapsing MS, reports suggest there’s “almost complete abrogation of disease activity following transplant,” he said, “a benefit that’s lasted 5-10-15 years. In addition, there’s also a benefit on the accumulation of CNS damage as measured by whole brain atrophy.”
Recent data, he said, suggests that MS patients most likely to benefit are young, developed MS relatively recently, are still ambulatory, and have highly active MS despite treatment with first- and second-line agents.
However, there have only been two randomized controlled trials of stem cell transplantation versus DMT, and Dr. Cohen said both studies have limitations. The first one, from 2015, is very small, with just 21 subjects. The second study – from 2019 – is larger (n = 103), but some patients weren’t taking higher-efficacy DMTs.
Other research is more promising: Dr. Cohen highlighted a 2017 analysis that found patients with relapsing/remitting MS who underwent stem-cell transplantation were more likely to be symptom-free at 2 years (78%-83%) than those who took DMTs in clinical trials (13%-46%).
Clinical concerns
As for side effects of stem cell transplantation, Dr. Cohen said, “most patients have some adverse effects during the procedure itself. There may be an MS relapse or pseudorelapses in association with the mobilization and the conditioning regimens.”
A wide range of other adverse effects is possible before the immune system is reconstituted, he said, including reactivation of various virus infections, such as HPV, CMV or EPV (Epstein-Barr virus), secondary autoimmune phenomenon, and secondary malignancy. EPV infection is also common after transplant, and is “probably the most troublesome posttransplant complication from a management point of view,” he said.
“Thankfully, once the patient ... recovers from the transplant procedure, late adverse effects are relatively uncommon, the most common of which would be infertility,” he said. “There have been some reports of successful pregnancies following transplant, but it’s important to advise people who are considering transplant that most men and women have infertility after the procedure. So if they desire to have children afterward, they need to be counseled on necessary preparations to do that.”
What about progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), which seems a possible risk because of the suppression of the immune system? Dr. Cohen is aware of one case linked to a stem-cell transplant, and it may not have been caused by the procedure.
Cost is another potential obstacle, he noted. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society estimates that autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants cost $150,000 on average in the U.S., although the expense varies widely.
Unanswered questions
Moving forward, Dr. Cohen said it remains unclear how these procedures fare against the newest generations of DMTs in MS. Five phase 3 randomized controlled trials are now trying to clarify the matter, he said, by pitting stem-cell transplantation against various MS drugs – alemtuzumab, cladribine, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, and rituximab.
There are also unanswered questions about the best conditioning regimens in the transplants, he said, and lack of clarity about where to draw the line between eligible and ineligible patients with MS. “How many DMTs does the person have to fail? What’s the upper level of disability beyond which it is unlikely to be helpful and more likely to cause harm?”
He added: “A particular profile that we’re seeing increasingly at our center is someone with very active disease and onset who gets started on a high-efficacy therapy as their first therapy and effectively stops relapses and MRI lesion activity. But within a couple of years, we can tell that they’re already starting to accumulate disability. Is this someone for whom transplant might be useful, and by extension, is transplant appropriate as the first therapy in some patients? And beyond MS, is transplant a consideration for other autoimmune CNS disorders? There are lots of unanswered questions, which future studies will hopefully begin to address.”
Dr. Cohen reports consulting for Biogen, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Convelo, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline (now GSK), Janssen, Mylan, and PSI. He serves as an editor of Multiple Sclerosis Journal.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – .” But, he said, it remains unclear which patients should undergo the procedure.
An especially pressing question is “whether transplant is an alternative to our high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies” (DMTs) in some high-risk patients, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, director of experimental therapeutics at Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center, said in a presidential lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.
A handful of ongoing randomized controlled trials will bring answers, he said.
Stem cell therapy exists because there are gaps in MS treatment, Dr. Cohen said. “We have now more than 20 medications. However, none of these therapies is completely effective in all patients. In particular, there are some patients with very active disease who continue to have relapses or new MRI lesion activity despite treatment with all of the available therapies.”
And in progressive MS, the efficacy of a couple of agents is modest and mainly for people with ongoing focal lesion activity, he said. “Finally, all of these currently available therapies are intended primarily to prevent the accumulation of damage, and none of them directly promotes repair. So despite our progress in the field, there still are a number of unmet needs.”
‘Rebooting’ the immune system
Several types of stem cell therapy exist, including remyelination and anti-inflammatory therapy, Dr. Cohen said. In his lecture, he focused on immunoablative or myeloablative therapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
This “complicated, multistep procedure” involves first eliminating the immune system to get rid of pathogenic inflammatory cells. This “big component is actually the therapy for MS. It’s also the step that has the most potential complications,” he said.
According to Dr. Cohen, the next step has been described as “rebooting” the immune system.
Does this procedure help patients with MS? In relapsing MS, reports suggest there’s “almost complete abrogation of disease activity following transplant,” he said, “a benefit that’s lasted 5-10-15 years. In addition, there’s also a benefit on the accumulation of CNS damage as measured by whole brain atrophy.”
Recent data, he said, suggests that MS patients most likely to benefit are young, developed MS relatively recently, are still ambulatory, and have highly active MS despite treatment with first- and second-line agents.
However, there have only been two randomized controlled trials of stem cell transplantation versus DMT, and Dr. Cohen said both studies have limitations. The first one, from 2015, is very small, with just 21 subjects. The second study – from 2019 – is larger (n = 103), but some patients weren’t taking higher-efficacy DMTs.
Other research is more promising: Dr. Cohen highlighted a 2017 analysis that found patients with relapsing/remitting MS who underwent stem-cell transplantation were more likely to be symptom-free at 2 years (78%-83%) than those who took DMTs in clinical trials (13%-46%).
Clinical concerns
As for side effects of stem cell transplantation, Dr. Cohen said, “most patients have some adverse effects during the procedure itself. There may be an MS relapse or pseudorelapses in association with the mobilization and the conditioning regimens.”
A wide range of other adverse effects is possible before the immune system is reconstituted, he said, including reactivation of various virus infections, such as HPV, CMV or EPV (Epstein-Barr virus), secondary autoimmune phenomenon, and secondary malignancy. EPV infection is also common after transplant, and is “probably the most troublesome posttransplant complication from a management point of view,” he said.
“Thankfully, once the patient ... recovers from the transplant procedure, late adverse effects are relatively uncommon, the most common of which would be infertility,” he said. “There have been some reports of successful pregnancies following transplant, but it’s important to advise people who are considering transplant that most men and women have infertility after the procedure. So if they desire to have children afterward, they need to be counseled on necessary preparations to do that.”
What about progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), which seems a possible risk because of the suppression of the immune system? Dr. Cohen is aware of one case linked to a stem-cell transplant, and it may not have been caused by the procedure.
Cost is another potential obstacle, he noted. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society estimates that autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants cost $150,000 on average in the U.S., although the expense varies widely.
Unanswered questions
Moving forward, Dr. Cohen said it remains unclear how these procedures fare against the newest generations of DMTs in MS. Five phase 3 randomized controlled trials are now trying to clarify the matter, he said, by pitting stem-cell transplantation against various MS drugs – alemtuzumab, cladribine, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, and rituximab.
There are also unanswered questions about the best conditioning regimens in the transplants, he said, and lack of clarity about where to draw the line between eligible and ineligible patients with MS. “How many DMTs does the person have to fail? What’s the upper level of disability beyond which it is unlikely to be helpful and more likely to cause harm?”
He added: “A particular profile that we’re seeing increasingly at our center is someone with very active disease and onset who gets started on a high-efficacy therapy as their first therapy and effectively stops relapses and MRI lesion activity. But within a couple of years, we can tell that they’re already starting to accumulate disability. Is this someone for whom transplant might be useful, and by extension, is transplant appropriate as the first therapy in some patients? And beyond MS, is transplant a consideration for other autoimmune CNS disorders? There are lots of unanswered questions, which future studies will hopefully begin to address.”
Dr. Cohen reports consulting for Biogen, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Convelo, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline (now GSK), Janssen, Mylan, and PSI. He serves as an editor of Multiple Sclerosis Journal.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – .” But, he said, it remains unclear which patients should undergo the procedure.
An especially pressing question is “whether transplant is an alternative to our high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies” (DMTs) in some high-risk patients, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, director of experimental therapeutics at Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center, said in a presidential lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.
A handful of ongoing randomized controlled trials will bring answers, he said.
Stem cell therapy exists because there are gaps in MS treatment, Dr. Cohen said. “We have now more than 20 medications. However, none of these therapies is completely effective in all patients. In particular, there are some patients with very active disease who continue to have relapses or new MRI lesion activity despite treatment with all of the available therapies.”
And in progressive MS, the efficacy of a couple of agents is modest and mainly for people with ongoing focal lesion activity, he said. “Finally, all of these currently available therapies are intended primarily to prevent the accumulation of damage, and none of them directly promotes repair. So despite our progress in the field, there still are a number of unmet needs.”
‘Rebooting’ the immune system
Several types of stem cell therapy exist, including remyelination and anti-inflammatory therapy, Dr. Cohen said. In his lecture, he focused on immunoablative or myeloablative therapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
This “complicated, multistep procedure” involves first eliminating the immune system to get rid of pathogenic inflammatory cells. This “big component is actually the therapy for MS. It’s also the step that has the most potential complications,” he said.
According to Dr. Cohen, the next step has been described as “rebooting” the immune system.
Does this procedure help patients with MS? In relapsing MS, reports suggest there’s “almost complete abrogation of disease activity following transplant,” he said, “a benefit that’s lasted 5-10-15 years. In addition, there’s also a benefit on the accumulation of CNS damage as measured by whole brain atrophy.”
Recent data, he said, suggests that MS patients most likely to benefit are young, developed MS relatively recently, are still ambulatory, and have highly active MS despite treatment with first- and second-line agents.
However, there have only been two randomized controlled trials of stem cell transplantation versus DMT, and Dr. Cohen said both studies have limitations. The first one, from 2015, is very small, with just 21 subjects. The second study – from 2019 – is larger (n = 103), but some patients weren’t taking higher-efficacy DMTs.
Other research is more promising: Dr. Cohen highlighted a 2017 analysis that found patients with relapsing/remitting MS who underwent stem-cell transplantation were more likely to be symptom-free at 2 years (78%-83%) than those who took DMTs in clinical trials (13%-46%).
Clinical concerns
As for side effects of stem cell transplantation, Dr. Cohen said, “most patients have some adverse effects during the procedure itself. There may be an MS relapse or pseudorelapses in association with the mobilization and the conditioning regimens.”
A wide range of other adverse effects is possible before the immune system is reconstituted, he said, including reactivation of various virus infections, such as HPV, CMV or EPV (Epstein-Barr virus), secondary autoimmune phenomenon, and secondary malignancy. EPV infection is also common after transplant, and is “probably the most troublesome posttransplant complication from a management point of view,” he said.
“Thankfully, once the patient ... recovers from the transplant procedure, late adverse effects are relatively uncommon, the most common of which would be infertility,” he said. “There have been some reports of successful pregnancies following transplant, but it’s important to advise people who are considering transplant that most men and women have infertility after the procedure. So if they desire to have children afterward, they need to be counseled on necessary preparations to do that.”
What about progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), which seems a possible risk because of the suppression of the immune system? Dr. Cohen is aware of one case linked to a stem-cell transplant, and it may not have been caused by the procedure.
Cost is another potential obstacle, he noted. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society estimates that autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants cost $150,000 on average in the U.S., although the expense varies widely.
Unanswered questions
Moving forward, Dr. Cohen said it remains unclear how these procedures fare against the newest generations of DMTs in MS. Five phase 3 randomized controlled trials are now trying to clarify the matter, he said, by pitting stem-cell transplantation against various MS drugs – alemtuzumab, cladribine, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, and rituximab.
There are also unanswered questions about the best conditioning regimens in the transplants, he said, and lack of clarity about where to draw the line between eligible and ineligible patients with MS. “How many DMTs does the person have to fail? What’s the upper level of disability beyond which it is unlikely to be helpful and more likely to cause harm?”
He added: “A particular profile that we’re seeing increasingly at our center is someone with very active disease and onset who gets started on a high-efficacy therapy as their first therapy and effectively stops relapses and MRI lesion activity. But within a couple of years, we can tell that they’re already starting to accumulate disability. Is this someone for whom transplant might be useful, and by extension, is transplant appropriate as the first therapy in some patients? And beyond MS, is transplant a consideration for other autoimmune CNS disorders? There are lots of unanswered questions, which future studies will hopefully begin to address.”
Dr. Cohen reports consulting for Biogen, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Convelo, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline (now GSK), Janssen, Mylan, and PSI. He serves as an editor of Multiple Sclerosis Journal.
At CMSC 2022
MS and COVID-19: Conflicting signs on risk but some trends are clearer
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – While patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) don’t seem to be more likely to be infected with COVID-19, a neurologist told colleagues, the jury is still out over whether they face a higher mortality risk, especially if they take certain disease-modifying therapies (DMTs)
In regard to MS overall, “the data is conflicting, but any increased risk of mortality appears to be slight. And it appears to be chiefly the consequences associated with comorbidities as seen in other populations,” Joseph R. Berger, MD, said at the John F. Kurtzke Memorial Lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “If you’re old, if you’re infirm, if you have obesity and cardiovascular disease and underlying pulmonary disease, you’re at risk of dying yourself. It’s not so much the MS,” said Dr. Berger, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and chief of the multiple sclerosis division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dr. Berger had his own COVID-19 story to tell: He couldn’t attend the conference in person because he was quarantining in Portugal since he tested positive. At press time, he was faring well but had reported 4 days of intense back pain.
In regard to MS and COVID-19, Dr. Berger said consistent research suggests that There may be a very small increase in risk of MS relapse in patients with COVID-19, he said, but pseudorelapses are far more common. As for mortality, he highlighted a 2021 pooled analysis of 18 studies with 5,634 patients that suggested they had a crude death rate of 1.97%, standardized lethality ratio of 1.24, and a 24% increased risk of death.
Dr. Berger is skeptical of these findings, however, in light of overall death rate numbers. Early on in the pandemic, the fatality rate in China was estimated at 2.3%.
He said he’s more convinced by a retrospective 2021 German COVID-19 study that compared 551 patients with MS to 156,973 other patients and found lower rates of ICU admission (17.1% in patients with MS vs. 22.7% in those without it), ventilation (9.8% vs. 14.5%), and in‐hospital mortality (11.1% vs. 19.3%).
Meanwhile, a 2021 systematic review found no increase in mortality among 4,310 patients with MS (3% death rate, 20.7% hospitalization), but the death risk was highest among those on no DMTs and those taking anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. The COViMS Registry has reported similar findings regarding the anti-CD20 drugs rituximab and ocrelizumab, Dr. Berger noted, and a pooled study of Italian and French data links the monoclonal antibodies to more severe COVID. A 2021 aggregated study also linked the antibodies to increased risk of hospitalization and ICU admission.
“Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies appear to increase the risk of hospitalization and perhaps the acquisition of the virus, ICU admission, maybe death,” he said, with rituximab appearing to pose the most risk, followed by ocrelizumab and ofatumumab. “And it appears that the platform [older] therapies may be associated with lesser mortality.”
As for nondrug factors, Dr. Berger said, studies have linked higher risk to age, male sex, and comorbidities.
COVID-19 vaccines are another area of concern, he said. “The recommendation is to administer vaccination prior to the initiation of the anti-CD20s, alemtuzumab, and cladribine, and wait a period of time. Three months is ideal, maybe a little longer, because it appears that the antibody response seems to be best as your CD19 count starts to return.”
Finally, Dr. Berger noted that “passive vaccination” is now available via Evusheld (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) as a preexposure treatment for people with moderate to severe immune compromise who may not mount an effective immune response to COVID-19 vaccination or those who are allergic.
Dr. Berger reported multiple disclosures.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – While patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) don’t seem to be more likely to be infected with COVID-19, a neurologist told colleagues, the jury is still out over whether they face a higher mortality risk, especially if they take certain disease-modifying therapies (DMTs)
In regard to MS overall, “the data is conflicting, but any increased risk of mortality appears to be slight. And it appears to be chiefly the consequences associated with comorbidities as seen in other populations,” Joseph R. Berger, MD, said at the John F. Kurtzke Memorial Lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “If you’re old, if you’re infirm, if you have obesity and cardiovascular disease and underlying pulmonary disease, you’re at risk of dying yourself. It’s not so much the MS,” said Dr. Berger, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and chief of the multiple sclerosis division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dr. Berger had his own COVID-19 story to tell: He couldn’t attend the conference in person because he was quarantining in Portugal since he tested positive. At press time, he was faring well but had reported 4 days of intense back pain.
In regard to MS and COVID-19, Dr. Berger said consistent research suggests that There may be a very small increase in risk of MS relapse in patients with COVID-19, he said, but pseudorelapses are far more common. As for mortality, he highlighted a 2021 pooled analysis of 18 studies with 5,634 patients that suggested they had a crude death rate of 1.97%, standardized lethality ratio of 1.24, and a 24% increased risk of death.
Dr. Berger is skeptical of these findings, however, in light of overall death rate numbers. Early on in the pandemic, the fatality rate in China was estimated at 2.3%.
He said he’s more convinced by a retrospective 2021 German COVID-19 study that compared 551 patients with MS to 156,973 other patients and found lower rates of ICU admission (17.1% in patients with MS vs. 22.7% in those without it), ventilation (9.8% vs. 14.5%), and in‐hospital mortality (11.1% vs. 19.3%).
Meanwhile, a 2021 systematic review found no increase in mortality among 4,310 patients with MS (3% death rate, 20.7% hospitalization), but the death risk was highest among those on no DMTs and those taking anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. The COViMS Registry has reported similar findings regarding the anti-CD20 drugs rituximab and ocrelizumab, Dr. Berger noted, and a pooled study of Italian and French data links the monoclonal antibodies to more severe COVID. A 2021 aggregated study also linked the antibodies to increased risk of hospitalization and ICU admission.
“Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies appear to increase the risk of hospitalization and perhaps the acquisition of the virus, ICU admission, maybe death,” he said, with rituximab appearing to pose the most risk, followed by ocrelizumab and ofatumumab. “And it appears that the platform [older] therapies may be associated with lesser mortality.”
As for nondrug factors, Dr. Berger said, studies have linked higher risk to age, male sex, and comorbidities.
COVID-19 vaccines are another area of concern, he said. “The recommendation is to administer vaccination prior to the initiation of the anti-CD20s, alemtuzumab, and cladribine, and wait a period of time. Three months is ideal, maybe a little longer, because it appears that the antibody response seems to be best as your CD19 count starts to return.”
Finally, Dr. Berger noted that “passive vaccination” is now available via Evusheld (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) as a preexposure treatment for people with moderate to severe immune compromise who may not mount an effective immune response to COVID-19 vaccination or those who are allergic.
Dr. Berger reported multiple disclosures.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – While patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) don’t seem to be more likely to be infected with COVID-19, a neurologist told colleagues, the jury is still out over whether they face a higher mortality risk, especially if they take certain disease-modifying therapies (DMTs)
In regard to MS overall, “the data is conflicting, but any increased risk of mortality appears to be slight. And it appears to be chiefly the consequences associated with comorbidities as seen in other populations,” Joseph R. Berger, MD, said at the John F. Kurtzke Memorial Lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “If you’re old, if you’re infirm, if you have obesity and cardiovascular disease and underlying pulmonary disease, you’re at risk of dying yourself. It’s not so much the MS,” said Dr. Berger, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and chief of the multiple sclerosis division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dr. Berger had his own COVID-19 story to tell: He couldn’t attend the conference in person because he was quarantining in Portugal since he tested positive. At press time, he was faring well but had reported 4 days of intense back pain.
In regard to MS and COVID-19, Dr. Berger said consistent research suggests that There may be a very small increase in risk of MS relapse in patients with COVID-19, he said, but pseudorelapses are far more common. As for mortality, he highlighted a 2021 pooled analysis of 18 studies with 5,634 patients that suggested they had a crude death rate of 1.97%, standardized lethality ratio of 1.24, and a 24% increased risk of death.
Dr. Berger is skeptical of these findings, however, in light of overall death rate numbers. Early on in the pandemic, the fatality rate in China was estimated at 2.3%.
He said he’s more convinced by a retrospective 2021 German COVID-19 study that compared 551 patients with MS to 156,973 other patients and found lower rates of ICU admission (17.1% in patients with MS vs. 22.7% in those without it), ventilation (9.8% vs. 14.5%), and in‐hospital mortality (11.1% vs. 19.3%).
Meanwhile, a 2021 systematic review found no increase in mortality among 4,310 patients with MS (3% death rate, 20.7% hospitalization), but the death risk was highest among those on no DMTs and those taking anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. The COViMS Registry has reported similar findings regarding the anti-CD20 drugs rituximab and ocrelizumab, Dr. Berger noted, and a pooled study of Italian and French data links the monoclonal antibodies to more severe COVID. A 2021 aggregated study also linked the antibodies to increased risk of hospitalization and ICU admission.
“Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies appear to increase the risk of hospitalization and perhaps the acquisition of the virus, ICU admission, maybe death,” he said, with rituximab appearing to pose the most risk, followed by ocrelizumab and ofatumumab. “And it appears that the platform [older] therapies may be associated with lesser mortality.”
As for nondrug factors, Dr. Berger said, studies have linked higher risk to age, male sex, and comorbidities.
COVID-19 vaccines are another area of concern, he said. “The recommendation is to administer vaccination prior to the initiation of the anti-CD20s, alemtuzumab, and cladribine, and wait a period of time. Three months is ideal, maybe a little longer, because it appears that the antibody response seems to be best as your CD19 count starts to return.”
Finally, Dr. Berger noted that “passive vaccination” is now available via Evusheld (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) as a preexposure treatment for people with moderate to severe immune compromise who may not mount an effective immune response to COVID-19 vaccination or those who are allergic.
Dr. Berger reported multiple disclosures.
AT CMSC 2022
Non-White subjects are sparse in DMT trials for MS
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. -- Over 25 years of clinical research, phase 3 trials of approved disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) were overwhelmingly made up of White subjects, a new analysis finds, and many studies failed to report percentages of non-White subjects at all. Researchers also found that the websites of multiple major drug manufacturers don’t include any trial data about how medications may affect people of different races and ethnicities.
It’s clear that “non-White participants are significantly underreported and unrepresented,” said study corresponding author and Dell Medical School/The University of Texas at Austin neurologist Leorah Freeman, MD, PhD, in an interview.
The study was presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and published in Neurology.
“The lack of diversity in MS research is something that has been sporadically discussed in the past. By conducting this systematic review of MS phase 3 trials, we wanted to put numbers on this issue and review the evidence systematically,” Dr. Freeman said. “By doing so, we hoped to raise awareness about the problem of underreporting and underrepresentation of non-White participants in trials so that we, as a community involved in MS research, can start having the difficult conversations needed for change to occur.”
25 years of clinical research
The researchers reviewed 44 phase 3 studies from 1995-2020 that represented 45 trials. “We wanted to capture data from the very first global trials being conducted for the approval of MS DMTs, and the first was published in 1995,” Dr. Freeman said. “We were interested in understanding the impact of trial globalization over a long period of time on diversity of enrollment.”
The studies include trials of mainstays of MS treatment such as interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and others.
The researchers found that 17 (37.8%) of the trials did not report race or ethnicity, 14 (31.1%) reported race and ethnicity as proportion of White participants only, and 14 (31.1%) reported 2 or more races/ethnicities.
Of the 28 trials with racial breakdowns, the median percentage of White participants was 93.8% (range 78.5-99.6% across 28 studies), 1.9% for Black participants (range 0.1-8.1% across 14 studies), and 0.5% for Asian participants (range 0.1-14.5% across 11 studies).
The studies often failed to account for non-White subjects even though “Black people, in particular, have been shown to have a more severe disease course,” Dr. Freeman said.
A 2022 study of more than 2.6 million Southern California adults finds that prevalence of MS was similar among White and Black people at about 230 per 100,000. “Taken together with previous studies, these findings indicate that the burden of MS in the United States Black community has long been underrecognized,” the researchers wrote.
According to Dr. Freeman, it’s unclear why the studies were so dominated by White subjects. “Lack of awareness about the importance of this information likely explains why this information often goes unreported.”
She highlighted the TOWER (teriflunomide) and DEFINE and CONFIRM (dimethyl fumarate) studies as positive examples. “We noted the inclusion of trial sites in Asia and consequently a higher representation of Asian people with MS in those trials. We felt these studies were examples of how trial globalization can support better representation of underrepresented groups.”
And she noted that the ongoing CHIMES trial is examining the use of ocrelizumab in Black and Hispanic people with MS. “This study was designed in partnership with MS patients and advocacy groups to bridge gaps in clinical trial participation in these communities,” she said. “Innovative strategies were developed to increase participation of Black and Hispanic patients in this trial.”
What should happen next?
Going forward, Dr. Freeman said, “MS researchers, DMT manufacturers, sponsors, and publishers need to set better standards for racial and ethnic representation and reporting in trial publications.”
In an interview, epidemiologist Luisa N. Borrell, DDS, PhD, a professor who studies race and medicine at City University of New York, said the new study is valid and useful. She noted that it reflects the findings of a 2022 analysis of more than 20,500 clinical trials in the U.S. from 2000-2020: Only 43% reported racial/ethnic breakdowns, and the subjects were much more White than the population at large.
Possible reasons for the disparity include distrust among possible participants and lack of health literacy, she said, which are both “modifiable issues.”
Dr. Borrell added: “Clinical trials should aim to recruit populations affected by the outcome of interest. That would allow for the intervention to effectively treat those who need it the most. Moreover, the lack of diversity of trials brings issues of generalizability and transportability of the findings.”
No funding is reported. Dr. Freeman and some of the other study authors report various disclosures.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. -- Over 25 years of clinical research, phase 3 trials of approved disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) were overwhelmingly made up of White subjects, a new analysis finds, and many studies failed to report percentages of non-White subjects at all. Researchers also found that the websites of multiple major drug manufacturers don’t include any trial data about how medications may affect people of different races and ethnicities.
It’s clear that “non-White participants are significantly underreported and unrepresented,” said study corresponding author and Dell Medical School/The University of Texas at Austin neurologist Leorah Freeman, MD, PhD, in an interview.
The study was presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and published in Neurology.
“The lack of diversity in MS research is something that has been sporadically discussed in the past. By conducting this systematic review of MS phase 3 trials, we wanted to put numbers on this issue and review the evidence systematically,” Dr. Freeman said. “By doing so, we hoped to raise awareness about the problem of underreporting and underrepresentation of non-White participants in trials so that we, as a community involved in MS research, can start having the difficult conversations needed for change to occur.”
25 years of clinical research
The researchers reviewed 44 phase 3 studies from 1995-2020 that represented 45 trials. “We wanted to capture data from the very first global trials being conducted for the approval of MS DMTs, and the first was published in 1995,” Dr. Freeman said. “We were interested in understanding the impact of trial globalization over a long period of time on diversity of enrollment.”
The studies include trials of mainstays of MS treatment such as interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and others.
The researchers found that 17 (37.8%) of the trials did not report race or ethnicity, 14 (31.1%) reported race and ethnicity as proportion of White participants only, and 14 (31.1%) reported 2 or more races/ethnicities.
Of the 28 trials with racial breakdowns, the median percentage of White participants was 93.8% (range 78.5-99.6% across 28 studies), 1.9% for Black participants (range 0.1-8.1% across 14 studies), and 0.5% for Asian participants (range 0.1-14.5% across 11 studies).
The studies often failed to account for non-White subjects even though “Black people, in particular, have been shown to have a more severe disease course,” Dr. Freeman said.
A 2022 study of more than 2.6 million Southern California adults finds that prevalence of MS was similar among White and Black people at about 230 per 100,000. “Taken together with previous studies, these findings indicate that the burden of MS in the United States Black community has long been underrecognized,” the researchers wrote.
According to Dr. Freeman, it’s unclear why the studies were so dominated by White subjects. “Lack of awareness about the importance of this information likely explains why this information often goes unreported.”
She highlighted the TOWER (teriflunomide) and DEFINE and CONFIRM (dimethyl fumarate) studies as positive examples. “We noted the inclusion of trial sites in Asia and consequently a higher representation of Asian people with MS in those trials. We felt these studies were examples of how trial globalization can support better representation of underrepresented groups.”
And she noted that the ongoing CHIMES trial is examining the use of ocrelizumab in Black and Hispanic people with MS. “This study was designed in partnership with MS patients and advocacy groups to bridge gaps in clinical trial participation in these communities,” she said. “Innovative strategies were developed to increase participation of Black and Hispanic patients in this trial.”
What should happen next?
Going forward, Dr. Freeman said, “MS researchers, DMT manufacturers, sponsors, and publishers need to set better standards for racial and ethnic representation and reporting in trial publications.”
In an interview, epidemiologist Luisa N. Borrell, DDS, PhD, a professor who studies race and medicine at City University of New York, said the new study is valid and useful. She noted that it reflects the findings of a 2022 analysis of more than 20,500 clinical trials in the U.S. from 2000-2020: Only 43% reported racial/ethnic breakdowns, and the subjects were much more White than the population at large.
Possible reasons for the disparity include distrust among possible participants and lack of health literacy, she said, which are both “modifiable issues.”
Dr. Borrell added: “Clinical trials should aim to recruit populations affected by the outcome of interest. That would allow for the intervention to effectively treat those who need it the most. Moreover, the lack of diversity of trials brings issues of generalizability and transportability of the findings.”
No funding is reported. Dr. Freeman and some of the other study authors report various disclosures.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. -- Over 25 years of clinical research, phase 3 trials of approved disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) were overwhelmingly made up of White subjects, a new analysis finds, and many studies failed to report percentages of non-White subjects at all. Researchers also found that the websites of multiple major drug manufacturers don’t include any trial data about how medications may affect people of different races and ethnicities.
It’s clear that “non-White participants are significantly underreported and unrepresented,” said study corresponding author and Dell Medical School/The University of Texas at Austin neurologist Leorah Freeman, MD, PhD, in an interview.
The study was presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and published in Neurology.
“The lack of diversity in MS research is something that has been sporadically discussed in the past. By conducting this systematic review of MS phase 3 trials, we wanted to put numbers on this issue and review the evidence systematically,” Dr. Freeman said. “By doing so, we hoped to raise awareness about the problem of underreporting and underrepresentation of non-White participants in trials so that we, as a community involved in MS research, can start having the difficult conversations needed for change to occur.”
25 years of clinical research
The researchers reviewed 44 phase 3 studies from 1995-2020 that represented 45 trials. “We wanted to capture data from the very first global trials being conducted for the approval of MS DMTs, and the first was published in 1995,” Dr. Freeman said. “We were interested in understanding the impact of trial globalization over a long period of time on diversity of enrollment.”
The studies include trials of mainstays of MS treatment such as interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and others.
The researchers found that 17 (37.8%) of the trials did not report race or ethnicity, 14 (31.1%) reported race and ethnicity as proportion of White participants only, and 14 (31.1%) reported 2 or more races/ethnicities.
Of the 28 trials with racial breakdowns, the median percentage of White participants was 93.8% (range 78.5-99.6% across 28 studies), 1.9% for Black participants (range 0.1-8.1% across 14 studies), and 0.5% for Asian participants (range 0.1-14.5% across 11 studies).
The studies often failed to account for non-White subjects even though “Black people, in particular, have been shown to have a more severe disease course,” Dr. Freeman said.
A 2022 study of more than 2.6 million Southern California adults finds that prevalence of MS was similar among White and Black people at about 230 per 100,000. “Taken together with previous studies, these findings indicate that the burden of MS in the United States Black community has long been underrecognized,” the researchers wrote.
According to Dr. Freeman, it’s unclear why the studies were so dominated by White subjects. “Lack of awareness about the importance of this information likely explains why this information often goes unreported.”
She highlighted the TOWER (teriflunomide) and DEFINE and CONFIRM (dimethyl fumarate) studies as positive examples. “We noted the inclusion of trial sites in Asia and consequently a higher representation of Asian people with MS in those trials. We felt these studies were examples of how trial globalization can support better representation of underrepresented groups.”
And she noted that the ongoing CHIMES trial is examining the use of ocrelizumab in Black and Hispanic people with MS. “This study was designed in partnership with MS patients and advocacy groups to bridge gaps in clinical trial participation in these communities,” she said. “Innovative strategies were developed to increase participation of Black and Hispanic patients in this trial.”
What should happen next?
Going forward, Dr. Freeman said, “MS researchers, DMT manufacturers, sponsors, and publishers need to set better standards for racial and ethnic representation and reporting in trial publications.”
In an interview, epidemiologist Luisa N. Borrell, DDS, PhD, a professor who studies race and medicine at City University of New York, said the new study is valid and useful. She noted that it reflects the findings of a 2022 analysis of more than 20,500 clinical trials in the U.S. from 2000-2020: Only 43% reported racial/ethnic breakdowns, and the subjects were much more White than the population at large.
Possible reasons for the disparity include distrust among possible participants and lack of health literacy, she said, which are both “modifiable issues.”
Dr. Borrell added: “Clinical trials should aim to recruit populations affected by the outcome of interest. That would allow for the intervention to effectively treat those who need it the most. Moreover, the lack of diversity of trials brings issues of generalizability and transportability of the findings.”
No funding is reported. Dr. Freeman and some of the other study authors report various disclosures.
AT CMSC 2022
B-cell level may affect COVID booster efficacy in MS
Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with the B-cell-depleting medication rituximab who have not yet been vaccinated against COVID-19 should get the initial vaccination as soon as possible but wait to get a booster shot until B-cell levels increase, new research suggests.
In a prospective cohort study, 90% of patients taking rituximab whose B-cell level was at least 40 cells/mcL had a sufficient antibody response to the Pfizer vaccine, whereas among those with lower levels, the antibody response was significantly lower.
Results also showed a wide variation in the length of time needed for adequate B-cell restoration. Some patients needed a year or longer for levels to become adequate.
The findings led the hospital where the study was conducted to suspend rituximab therapy until patients could be vaccinated. The findings also prompted researchers to call for new guidelines on vaccine scheduling that are based on B-cell levels and not on the current criteria of length of time since last treatment.
“It’s meaningless to just go by some recommendation covering time since the last treatment,” study investigator Joachim Burman, MD, PhD, a consultant neurologist at Uppsala University Hospital and an associate professor at Uppsala University, both in Sweden, told this news organization.
“It’s misleading and potentially harmful for patients,” Dr. Burman said.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Finding the cutoff
Drugs such as rituximab target CD20, a protein found on the surface of B cells, resulting in B-cell depletion.
Rituximab is the most common MS therapy used in Sweden. The drug is approved in the United States to treat rheumatoid arthritis and some forms of cancer, but it is not approved for treatment of MS.
Prior research showed that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines was lower in patients receiving B-cell therapy than in the general population. That was not altogether surprising, given the fact that studies have found a similarly weakened antibody response to other vaccines.
But before now, there was no known B-cell threshold sufficient to mount an acceptable antibody response following COVID vaccination.
Researchers enrolled 67 patients in the study. Of those patients, 60 had received rituximab treatment, and seven had not.
Approximately 6 months after the last rituximab dose, the B-cell count was lower than 10/mcL for 40% of patients. In that group, rituximab treatment duration was the only factor significantly associated with slower B-cell mobilization (median duration, 4.0 years, vs. 2.1; P = .002).
Close monitoring needed
Six weeks after vaccination with tozinameran, the mRNA vaccine manufactured by Pfizer, 28% of patients failed to generate a sufficient antibody response. Among those patients, the median B-cell count was 22/mcL, versus 51/mcL for the remainder of the cohort (P < .001).
A cutoff value of 40/mcL rendered adequate levels of anti-spike immunoglobulin G antibodies in 90% of patients and a strong response in anti-RBD antibodies in 72%.
Study participants did register an adequate T-cell response to the vaccine, suggesting at least some level of protection.
Because MS patients are at increased risk for serious illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators recommend that patients with MS receive their initial COVID vaccines as soon as possible – but that they should hold off on receiving a booster until their B-cell counts reach 40/mcL.
Regarding when a clinician should re-vaccinate, “the results from our study strongly suggest that you should not do that right away or just follow some generic guideline,” Dr. Burman said.
“You should closely monitor the B-cell values, and re-vaccinate once those B- cells hit the level of 40 cells/mcL” he added.
Dr. Burman said he would expect that their findings would hold with the other mRNA vaccine and with any other B-cell therapy.
Too soon for B-cell measures?
Commenting for this news organization, Robert J. Fox, MD, staff neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS and vice-chair for research at the Neurological Institute at Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said the B-cell threshold identified in the study is much higher than what is typically seen in patients who undergo treatment with ocrelizumab, an anti-CD20 B-cell therapy approved in the United States for treating MS.
“Decisions about treatment interval need to balance efficacy in treating MS with safety, including response to vaccines,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the research.
“Given the unknown efficacy of these extended intervals, I don’t think we’re at the point of making management recommendations based upon B-cell counts,” he added.
And yet, Uppsala University Hospital, where the study was conducted, and other centers in Sweden decided to do just that. They suspended administering rituximab to patients with MS until the patients were vaccinated. For patients newly diagnosed with MS, therapy was initiated using another disease-modifying treatment, and for those who were due for a rituximab infusion, that treatment was delayed.
Only one patient experienced a mild MS relapse during the rituximab suspension, and that case went into remission within a week, Dr. Burman reported.
“Ever since the Bar-Or report showing that the humeral response to vaccines is markedly diminished in MS patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies, clinicians have been struggling to balance those safety concerns related to anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody treatments and the clinical benefit of this treatment class,” Dr. Fox said.
“Given the uncharted waters of the COVID pandemic, clinicians made judgments and decisions as best they could, given the paucity of data,” he noted.
“At this point, we don’t know which decisions were right or wrong, but I certainly don’t think we should judge clinicians for making decisions the best they could.”
The study was funded by the Engkvist Foundation, the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, and the Swedish Society for Medical Research. Dr. Burman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fox has received consulting fees from Genentech/Roche, Biogen, and other companies that promote MS therapies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with the B-cell-depleting medication rituximab who have not yet been vaccinated against COVID-19 should get the initial vaccination as soon as possible but wait to get a booster shot until B-cell levels increase, new research suggests.
In a prospective cohort study, 90% of patients taking rituximab whose B-cell level was at least 40 cells/mcL had a sufficient antibody response to the Pfizer vaccine, whereas among those with lower levels, the antibody response was significantly lower.
Results also showed a wide variation in the length of time needed for adequate B-cell restoration. Some patients needed a year or longer for levels to become adequate.
The findings led the hospital where the study was conducted to suspend rituximab therapy until patients could be vaccinated. The findings also prompted researchers to call for new guidelines on vaccine scheduling that are based on B-cell levels and not on the current criteria of length of time since last treatment.
“It’s meaningless to just go by some recommendation covering time since the last treatment,” study investigator Joachim Burman, MD, PhD, a consultant neurologist at Uppsala University Hospital and an associate professor at Uppsala University, both in Sweden, told this news organization.
“It’s misleading and potentially harmful for patients,” Dr. Burman said.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Finding the cutoff
Drugs such as rituximab target CD20, a protein found on the surface of B cells, resulting in B-cell depletion.
Rituximab is the most common MS therapy used in Sweden. The drug is approved in the United States to treat rheumatoid arthritis and some forms of cancer, but it is not approved for treatment of MS.
Prior research showed that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines was lower in patients receiving B-cell therapy than in the general population. That was not altogether surprising, given the fact that studies have found a similarly weakened antibody response to other vaccines.
But before now, there was no known B-cell threshold sufficient to mount an acceptable antibody response following COVID vaccination.
Researchers enrolled 67 patients in the study. Of those patients, 60 had received rituximab treatment, and seven had not.
Approximately 6 months after the last rituximab dose, the B-cell count was lower than 10/mcL for 40% of patients. In that group, rituximab treatment duration was the only factor significantly associated with slower B-cell mobilization (median duration, 4.0 years, vs. 2.1; P = .002).
Close monitoring needed
Six weeks after vaccination with tozinameran, the mRNA vaccine manufactured by Pfizer, 28% of patients failed to generate a sufficient antibody response. Among those patients, the median B-cell count was 22/mcL, versus 51/mcL for the remainder of the cohort (P < .001).
A cutoff value of 40/mcL rendered adequate levels of anti-spike immunoglobulin G antibodies in 90% of patients and a strong response in anti-RBD antibodies in 72%.
Study participants did register an adequate T-cell response to the vaccine, suggesting at least some level of protection.
Because MS patients are at increased risk for serious illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators recommend that patients with MS receive their initial COVID vaccines as soon as possible – but that they should hold off on receiving a booster until their B-cell counts reach 40/mcL.
Regarding when a clinician should re-vaccinate, “the results from our study strongly suggest that you should not do that right away or just follow some generic guideline,” Dr. Burman said.
“You should closely monitor the B-cell values, and re-vaccinate once those B- cells hit the level of 40 cells/mcL” he added.
Dr. Burman said he would expect that their findings would hold with the other mRNA vaccine and with any other B-cell therapy.
Too soon for B-cell measures?
Commenting for this news organization, Robert J. Fox, MD, staff neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS and vice-chair for research at the Neurological Institute at Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said the B-cell threshold identified in the study is much higher than what is typically seen in patients who undergo treatment with ocrelizumab, an anti-CD20 B-cell therapy approved in the United States for treating MS.
“Decisions about treatment interval need to balance efficacy in treating MS with safety, including response to vaccines,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the research.
“Given the unknown efficacy of these extended intervals, I don’t think we’re at the point of making management recommendations based upon B-cell counts,” he added.
And yet, Uppsala University Hospital, where the study was conducted, and other centers in Sweden decided to do just that. They suspended administering rituximab to patients with MS until the patients were vaccinated. For patients newly diagnosed with MS, therapy was initiated using another disease-modifying treatment, and for those who were due for a rituximab infusion, that treatment was delayed.
Only one patient experienced a mild MS relapse during the rituximab suspension, and that case went into remission within a week, Dr. Burman reported.
“Ever since the Bar-Or report showing that the humeral response to vaccines is markedly diminished in MS patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies, clinicians have been struggling to balance those safety concerns related to anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody treatments and the clinical benefit of this treatment class,” Dr. Fox said.
“Given the uncharted waters of the COVID pandemic, clinicians made judgments and decisions as best they could, given the paucity of data,” he noted.
“At this point, we don’t know which decisions were right or wrong, but I certainly don’t think we should judge clinicians for making decisions the best they could.”
The study was funded by the Engkvist Foundation, the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, and the Swedish Society for Medical Research. Dr. Burman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fox has received consulting fees from Genentech/Roche, Biogen, and other companies that promote MS therapies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with the B-cell-depleting medication rituximab who have not yet been vaccinated against COVID-19 should get the initial vaccination as soon as possible but wait to get a booster shot until B-cell levels increase, new research suggests.
In a prospective cohort study, 90% of patients taking rituximab whose B-cell level was at least 40 cells/mcL had a sufficient antibody response to the Pfizer vaccine, whereas among those with lower levels, the antibody response was significantly lower.
Results also showed a wide variation in the length of time needed for adequate B-cell restoration. Some patients needed a year or longer for levels to become adequate.
The findings led the hospital where the study was conducted to suspend rituximab therapy until patients could be vaccinated. The findings also prompted researchers to call for new guidelines on vaccine scheduling that are based on B-cell levels and not on the current criteria of length of time since last treatment.
“It’s meaningless to just go by some recommendation covering time since the last treatment,” study investigator Joachim Burman, MD, PhD, a consultant neurologist at Uppsala University Hospital and an associate professor at Uppsala University, both in Sweden, told this news organization.
“It’s misleading and potentially harmful for patients,” Dr. Burman said.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Finding the cutoff
Drugs such as rituximab target CD20, a protein found on the surface of B cells, resulting in B-cell depletion.
Rituximab is the most common MS therapy used in Sweden. The drug is approved in the United States to treat rheumatoid arthritis and some forms of cancer, but it is not approved for treatment of MS.
Prior research showed that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines was lower in patients receiving B-cell therapy than in the general population. That was not altogether surprising, given the fact that studies have found a similarly weakened antibody response to other vaccines.
But before now, there was no known B-cell threshold sufficient to mount an acceptable antibody response following COVID vaccination.
Researchers enrolled 67 patients in the study. Of those patients, 60 had received rituximab treatment, and seven had not.
Approximately 6 months after the last rituximab dose, the B-cell count was lower than 10/mcL for 40% of patients. In that group, rituximab treatment duration was the only factor significantly associated with slower B-cell mobilization (median duration, 4.0 years, vs. 2.1; P = .002).
Close monitoring needed
Six weeks after vaccination with tozinameran, the mRNA vaccine manufactured by Pfizer, 28% of patients failed to generate a sufficient antibody response. Among those patients, the median B-cell count was 22/mcL, versus 51/mcL for the remainder of the cohort (P < .001).
A cutoff value of 40/mcL rendered adequate levels of anti-spike immunoglobulin G antibodies in 90% of patients and a strong response in anti-RBD antibodies in 72%.
Study participants did register an adequate T-cell response to the vaccine, suggesting at least some level of protection.
Because MS patients are at increased risk for serious illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators recommend that patients with MS receive their initial COVID vaccines as soon as possible – but that they should hold off on receiving a booster until their B-cell counts reach 40/mcL.
Regarding when a clinician should re-vaccinate, “the results from our study strongly suggest that you should not do that right away or just follow some generic guideline,” Dr. Burman said.
“You should closely monitor the B-cell values, and re-vaccinate once those B- cells hit the level of 40 cells/mcL” he added.
Dr. Burman said he would expect that their findings would hold with the other mRNA vaccine and with any other B-cell therapy.
Too soon for B-cell measures?
Commenting for this news organization, Robert J. Fox, MD, staff neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS and vice-chair for research at the Neurological Institute at Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said the B-cell threshold identified in the study is much higher than what is typically seen in patients who undergo treatment with ocrelizumab, an anti-CD20 B-cell therapy approved in the United States for treating MS.
“Decisions about treatment interval need to balance efficacy in treating MS with safety, including response to vaccines,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the research.
“Given the unknown efficacy of these extended intervals, I don’t think we’re at the point of making management recommendations based upon B-cell counts,” he added.
And yet, Uppsala University Hospital, where the study was conducted, and other centers in Sweden decided to do just that. They suspended administering rituximab to patients with MS until the patients were vaccinated. For patients newly diagnosed with MS, therapy was initiated using another disease-modifying treatment, and for those who were due for a rituximab infusion, that treatment was delayed.
Only one patient experienced a mild MS relapse during the rituximab suspension, and that case went into remission within a week, Dr. Burman reported.
“Ever since the Bar-Or report showing that the humeral response to vaccines is markedly diminished in MS patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies, clinicians have been struggling to balance those safety concerns related to anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody treatments and the clinical benefit of this treatment class,” Dr. Fox said.
“Given the uncharted waters of the COVID pandemic, clinicians made judgments and decisions as best they could, given the paucity of data,” he noted.
“At this point, we don’t know which decisions were right or wrong, but I certainly don’t think we should judge clinicians for making decisions the best they could.”
The study was funded by the Engkvist Foundation, the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, and the Swedish Society for Medical Research. Dr. Burman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fox has received consulting fees from Genentech/Roche, Biogen, and other companies that promote MS therapies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Commentary: COVID-19 Treatment and Disease-Modifying Therapies in MS, June 2022
One of the invisible treatment concerns is the effect of disease-modifying therapies (DMT) on vaccination, vaccination hesitancy, recurring COVID-19 variants and their ability to elude detection, and the protection of PWMS. This includes our ability to treat vaccinated PWMS if breakthrough recurrent infection occurs and identify how best to mitigate risk for recurrent infection. Prior comments have explored the impact of varied DMT on B-cell–related antibody response. With little surprise, a decreased SARS-CoV-2 antibody level is the major contributor to breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated PWMS taking various DMT, with a third vaccine dose significantly reducing the risk for infection. A prospective study (N = 1705) by Sormani and colleagues examined PWMS taking various DMT who received two doses of the BNT162b2 (BioNTech-Pfizer) (n = 1391) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna, aka CX-024414) (n = 314) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, with most receiving a third dose. After the second dose, the only significant factor associated with risk for breakthrough infection was low antibody level (hazard ratio [HR] 0.51; P < .001), with the third dose reducing the risk for infection by 56% (HR 0.44; P = .025) during the Omicron COVID-19 wave.
In another recent prospective study, Cabeza and colleagues noted that ocrelizumab-treated PWMS who received a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose had a boosted T-cell response, but there was no additive effect on the maximal T-cell response. The study included PWMS taking DMT (ocrelizumab, n = 24; fingolimod, n = 12; or no DMT, n = 10) and healthy controls (n = 12), all of whom received three SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses (BioNTech-Pfizer or Moderna). The SARS-CoV-2–specific T-cell response in patients treated with ocrelizumab was comparable to that in PWMS who were not treated with DMT and to that in healthy controls after the second SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. However, the third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination had no additive effect on T-cell response, but it did induce a booster response (P < .05).
The relationship and interplay of both T-cell and B-cell responses to viral infection is important to understand and appreciate. However, for PWMS who have had, do have, or will experience breakthrough infection, early use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies (mAb) was effective and safe in treating acute COVID-19 in PWMS treated with fingolimod or ocrelizumab. Manzano and colleagues reported on an observational study including 23 PWMS, most of whom had completed the initial COVID-19 vaccine series before infection and were either untreated or treated with fingolimod+ ocrelizumab and then received anti–SARS-CoV2 mAbs (bamlanivimab + etesevimab, casirivimab + imdevimab, sotrovimab, or an undocumented formulation) for treatment of active COVID-19. In this study, 74% of PWMS were able to be managed as outpatients (median duration to mAb receipt, 4 days), and 48% of PWMS recovered from COVID-19 within 7 days after mAb receipt, with no clinical MS relapses documented during or shortly after COVID-19 (median follow-up, 18 days). No adverse events or deaths were reported in this series.
Pivotal trials and package insert information affect DMT choice and dosing, the timing of ongoing treatment, and the awareness of efficacy and potential adverse reactions. Foley and colleagues demonstrated that switching to once-every-6-weeks (QW6) dosing of natalizumab from a stable dosing of once every 4 weeks (QW4) was safe, without any clinically meaningful loss of efficacy in most patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). In the phase 3b NOVA trial (N = 499), patients with RRMS receiving stable intravenous natalizumab QW4 dosing were randomly assigned to continue QW4 (n = 248) or switch to QW6 (n = 251) natalizumab dosing. The mean number of new or newly enlarging T2 hyperintense lesions at 72 weeks was 0.20 (95% CI 0.07-0.63) with natalizumab QW6 vs 0.05 (95% CI 0.01-0.22) with natalizumab QW4, with only two of the PWMS developing 25 or more lesions; this contributed to most of the excess lesions in the QW6 dosing regimen. The safety profile was similar for both the regimens.
Both DMT choice and vaccine-related antibody production matter. Various DMT have different and problematic impact on antibody production and response, and unrecognized immune deficiency or poor antibody response are problematic as variant COVID-19 strains continue to evolve. Protection against both MS disease activity and infections from variants remain a complex issue. Establishing and maintaining protection are important. Identifying PWMS who are at high risk for poor or sustained antibody response is important in addition to the ongoing effective treatment of MS. The landscape of available DMT choice, treatment paradigms, and COVID-19 variants and COVID-19 family protection continues to evolve.
One of the invisible treatment concerns is the effect of disease-modifying therapies (DMT) on vaccination, vaccination hesitancy, recurring COVID-19 variants and their ability to elude detection, and the protection of PWMS. This includes our ability to treat vaccinated PWMS if breakthrough recurrent infection occurs and identify how best to mitigate risk for recurrent infection. Prior comments have explored the impact of varied DMT on B-cell–related antibody response. With little surprise, a decreased SARS-CoV-2 antibody level is the major contributor to breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated PWMS taking various DMT, with a third vaccine dose significantly reducing the risk for infection. A prospective study (N = 1705) by Sormani and colleagues examined PWMS taking various DMT who received two doses of the BNT162b2 (BioNTech-Pfizer) (n = 1391) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna, aka CX-024414) (n = 314) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, with most receiving a third dose. After the second dose, the only significant factor associated with risk for breakthrough infection was low antibody level (hazard ratio [HR] 0.51; P < .001), with the third dose reducing the risk for infection by 56% (HR 0.44; P = .025) during the Omicron COVID-19 wave.
In another recent prospective study, Cabeza and colleagues noted that ocrelizumab-treated PWMS who received a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose had a boosted T-cell response, but there was no additive effect on the maximal T-cell response. The study included PWMS taking DMT (ocrelizumab, n = 24; fingolimod, n = 12; or no DMT, n = 10) and healthy controls (n = 12), all of whom received three SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses (BioNTech-Pfizer or Moderna). The SARS-CoV-2–specific T-cell response in patients treated with ocrelizumab was comparable to that in PWMS who were not treated with DMT and to that in healthy controls after the second SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. However, the third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination had no additive effect on T-cell response, but it did induce a booster response (P < .05).
The relationship and interplay of both T-cell and B-cell responses to viral infection is important to understand and appreciate. However, for PWMS who have had, do have, or will experience breakthrough infection, early use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies (mAb) was effective and safe in treating acute COVID-19 in PWMS treated with fingolimod or ocrelizumab. Manzano and colleagues reported on an observational study including 23 PWMS, most of whom had completed the initial COVID-19 vaccine series before infection and were either untreated or treated with fingolimod+ ocrelizumab and then received anti–SARS-CoV2 mAbs (bamlanivimab + etesevimab, casirivimab + imdevimab, sotrovimab, or an undocumented formulation) for treatment of active COVID-19. In this study, 74% of PWMS were able to be managed as outpatients (median duration to mAb receipt, 4 days), and 48% of PWMS recovered from COVID-19 within 7 days after mAb receipt, with no clinical MS relapses documented during or shortly after COVID-19 (median follow-up, 18 days). No adverse events or deaths were reported in this series.
Pivotal trials and package insert information affect DMT choice and dosing, the timing of ongoing treatment, and the awareness of efficacy and potential adverse reactions. Foley and colleagues demonstrated that switching to once-every-6-weeks (QW6) dosing of natalizumab from a stable dosing of once every 4 weeks (QW4) was safe, without any clinically meaningful loss of efficacy in most patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). In the phase 3b NOVA trial (N = 499), patients with RRMS receiving stable intravenous natalizumab QW4 dosing were randomly assigned to continue QW4 (n = 248) or switch to QW6 (n = 251) natalizumab dosing. The mean number of new or newly enlarging T2 hyperintense lesions at 72 weeks was 0.20 (95% CI 0.07-0.63) with natalizumab QW6 vs 0.05 (95% CI 0.01-0.22) with natalizumab QW4, with only two of the PWMS developing 25 or more lesions; this contributed to most of the excess lesions in the QW6 dosing regimen. The safety profile was similar for both the regimens.
Both DMT choice and vaccine-related antibody production matter. Various DMT have different and problematic impact on antibody production and response, and unrecognized immune deficiency or poor antibody response are problematic as variant COVID-19 strains continue to evolve. Protection against both MS disease activity and infections from variants remain a complex issue. Establishing and maintaining protection are important. Identifying PWMS who are at high risk for poor or sustained antibody response is important in addition to the ongoing effective treatment of MS. The landscape of available DMT choice, treatment paradigms, and COVID-19 variants and COVID-19 family protection continues to evolve.
One of the invisible treatment concerns is the effect of disease-modifying therapies (DMT) on vaccination, vaccination hesitancy, recurring COVID-19 variants and their ability to elude detection, and the protection of PWMS. This includes our ability to treat vaccinated PWMS if breakthrough recurrent infection occurs and identify how best to mitigate risk for recurrent infection. Prior comments have explored the impact of varied DMT on B-cell–related antibody response. With little surprise, a decreased SARS-CoV-2 antibody level is the major contributor to breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated PWMS taking various DMT, with a third vaccine dose significantly reducing the risk for infection. A prospective study (N = 1705) by Sormani and colleagues examined PWMS taking various DMT who received two doses of the BNT162b2 (BioNTech-Pfizer) (n = 1391) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna, aka CX-024414) (n = 314) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, with most receiving a third dose. After the second dose, the only significant factor associated with risk for breakthrough infection was low antibody level (hazard ratio [HR] 0.51; P < .001), with the third dose reducing the risk for infection by 56% (HR 0.44; P = .025) during the Omicron COVID-19 wave.
In another recent prospective study, Cabeza and colleagues noted that ocrelizumab-treated PWMS who received a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose had a boosted T-cell response, but there was no additive effect on the maximal T-cell response. The study included PWMS taking DMT (ocrelizumab, n = 24; fingolimod, n = 12; or no DMT, n = 10) and healthy controls (n = 12), all of whom received three SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses (BioNTech-Pfizer or Moderna). The SARS-CoV-2–specific T-cell response in patients treated with ocrelizumab was comparable to that in PWMS who were not treated with DMT and to that in healthy controls after the second SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. However, the third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination had no additive effect on T-cell response, but it did induce a booster response (P < .05).
The relationship and interplay of both T-cell and B-cell responses to viral infection is important to understand and appreciate. However, for PWMS who have had, do have, or will experience breakthrough infection, early use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies (mAb) was effective and safe in treating acute COVID-19 in PWMS treated with fingolimod or ocrelizumab. Manzano and colleagues reported on an observational study including 23 PWMS, most of whom had completed the initial COVID-19 vaccine series before infection and were either untreated or treated with fingolimod+ ocrelizumab and then received anti–SARS-CoV2 mAbs (bamlanivimab + etesevimab, casirivimab + imdevimab, sotrovimab, or an undocumented formulation) for treatment of active COVID-19. In this study, 74% of PWMS were able to be managed as outpatients (median duration to mAb receipt, 4 days), and 48% of PWMS recovered from COVID-19 within 7 days after mAb receipt, with no clinical MS relapses documented during or shortly after COVID-19 (median follow-up, 18 days). No adverse events or deaths were reported in this series.
Pivotal trials and package insert information affect DMT choice and dosing, the timing of ongoing treatment, and the awareness of efficacy and potential adverse reactions. Foley and colleagues demonstrated that switching to once-every-6-weeks (QW6) dosing of natalizumab from a stable dosing of once every 4 weeks (QW4) was safe, without any clinically meaningful loss of efficacy in most patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). In the phase 3b NOVA trial (N = 499), patients with RRMS receiving stable intravenous natalizumab QW4 dosing were randomly assigned to continue QW4 (n = 248) or switch to QW6 (n = 251) natalizumab dosing. The mean number of new or newly enlarging T2 hyperintense lesions at 72 weeks was 0.20 (95% CI 0.07-0.63) with natalizumab QW6 vs 0.05 (95% CI 0.01-0.22) with natalizumab QW4, with only two of the PWMS developing 25 or more lesions; this contributed to most of the excess lesions in the QW6 dosing regimen. The safety profile was similar for both the regimens.
Both DMT choice and vaccine-related antibody production matter. Various DMT have different and problematic impact on antibody production and response, and unrecognized immune deficiency or poor antibody response are problematic as variant COVID-19 strains continue to evolve. Protection against both MS disease activity and infections from variants remain a complex issue. Establishing and maintaining protection are important. Identifying PWMS who are at high risk for poor or sustained antibody response is important in addition to the ongoing effective treatment of MS. The landscape of available DMT choice, treatment paradigms, and COVID-19 variants and COVID-19 family protection continues to evolve.
Abortion debate may affect Rx decisions for pregnant women
Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.
The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.
This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.
With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.
Instead, a scenario may arise in which the patient – and their physician – may opt not to treat at all with an otherwise lifesaving medication, experts told this news organization.
The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions
A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.
Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.
More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.
Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.
Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.
Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
Chilling effect on prescribing
Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*
However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.
Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.
Certain teratogenic medications are associated with a high risk of abortion even though this isn’t their primary use, noted Christina Chambers, PhD, MPH, co-director of the Center for Better Beginnings and associate director with the Altman Clinical & Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego.
“I don’t think anyone would intentionally take these drugs to induce spontaneous abortion. But if the drugs pose a risk for it, I can see how the laws might be stretched” to include them, said Dr. Chambers.
Methotrexate, a medication for autoimmune disorders, has a high risk of spontaneous abortion. So do acne medications such as isotretinoin.
Patients are usually told they’re not supposed to get pregnant on these drugs because there’s a high risk of pregnancy loss and risk of malformations and potential learning problems in the fetus. But many pregnancies aren’t planned, said Dr. Chambers. “Patients may forget about the side effects or think their birth control will protect them. And the next time they refill the medication, they may not hear about the warnings again.”
With a restrictive abortion law or ban in effect, a woman might think: “I won’t take this drug because if there’s any potential that I might get pregnant, I won’t have the option to abort an at-risk pregnancy.” Women and their doctors, for that matter, don’t want to put themselves in this position, said Dr. Chambers.
Rheumatologist Megan Clowse, MD, who prescribes several medications that potentially cause major birth defects and pregnancy loss, worries about the ramifications of these accumulating bans.
“Methotrexate has been a leading drug for us for decades for rheumatoid arthritis. Mycophenolate is a vital drug for lupus,” said Dr. Clowse, associate professor of medicine at Duke University’s division of rheumatology and immunology.
Both methotrexate and mycophenolate pose about a 40% risk of pregnancy loss and significantly increase the risk for birth defects. “I’m definitely concerned that there might be doctors or women who elect not to use those medications in women of reproductive age because of the potential risk for pregnancy and absence of abortion rights,” said Dr. Clowse.
These situations might force women to use contraceptives they don’t want to use, such as hormonal implants or intrauterine devices, she added. Another side effect is that women and their partners may decide to abstain from sex.
The iPLEDGE factor
Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.
For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.
With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.
Nevertheless, as a physician who regularly prescribes medications like isotretinoin in women of childbearing age, “it’s terrifying to me that a woman wouldn’t have the option to terminate the pregnancy if a teratogenic effect from the medication caused a severe birth defect,” said Dr. Murase.
Dermatologists use other teratogenic medications such as thalidomide, mycophenolate mofetil, and methotrexate for chronic dermatologic disease like psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.
The situation is especially tricky for dermatologists since most patients – about 80% – never discuss their pregnancy with their specialist prior to pregnancy initiation. Dr. Murase recalls when a patient with chronic plaque psoriasis on methotrexate in her late 40s became pregnant and had an abortion even before Dr. Murase became aware of the pregnancy.
Because dermatologists routinely prescribe long-term medications for chronic diseases like acne, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis, it is important to have a conversation regarding the risks and benefits of long-term medication should a pregnancy occur in any woman of childbearing age, she said.
Fewer women in clinical trials?
Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.
A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.
The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.
This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.
Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.
The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
The upside of restrictions?
If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.
Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.
If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.
This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”
Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”
Talking to patients about choices
Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.
Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.
Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.
“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.
To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.
In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”
When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”
Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”
Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.
*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .
Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.
The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.
This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.
With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.
Instead, a scenario may arise in which the patient – and their physician – may opt not to treat at all with an otherwise lifesaving medication, experts told this news organization.
The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions
A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.
Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.
More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.
Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.
Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.
Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
Chilling effect on prescribing
Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*
However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.
Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.
Certain teratogenic medications are associated with a high risk of abortion even though this isn’t their primary use, noted Christina Chambers, PhD, MPH, co-director of the Center for Better Beginnings and associate director with the Altman Clinical & Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego.
“I don’t think anyone would intentionally take these drugs to induce spontaneous abortion. But if the drugs pose a risk for it, I can see how the laws might be stretched” to include them, said Dr. Chambers.
Methotrexate, a medication for autoimmune disorders, has a high risk of spontaneous abortion. So do acne medications such as isotretinoin.
Patients are usually told they’re not supposed to get pregnant on these drugs because there’s a high risk of pregnancy loss and risk of malformations and potential learning problems in the fetus. But many pregnancies aren’t planned, said Dr. Chambers. “Patients may forget about the side effects or think their birth control will protect them. And the next time they refill the medication, they may not hear about the warnings again.”
With a restrictive abortion law or ban in effect, a woman might think: “I won’t take this drug because if there’s any potential that I might get pregnant, I won’t have the option to abort an at-risk pregnancy.” Women and their doctors, for that matter, don’t want to put themselves in this position, said Dr. Chambers.
Rheumatologist Megan Clowse, MD, who prescribes several medications that potentially cause major birth defects and pregnancy loss, worries about the ramifications of these accumulating bans.
“Methotrexate has been a leading drug for us for decades for rheumatoid arthritis. Mycophenolate is a vital drug for lupus,” said Dr. Clowse, associate professor of medicine at Duke University’s division of rheumatology and immunology.
Both methotrexate and mycophenolate pose about a 40% risk of pregnancy loss and significantly increase the risk for birth defects. “I’m definitely concerned that there might be doctors or women who elect not to use those medications in women of reproductive age because of the potential risk for pregnancy and absence of abortion rights,” said Dr. Clowse.
These situations might force women to use contraceptives they don’t want to use, such as hormonal implants or intrauterine devices, she added. Another side effect is that women and their partners may decide to abstain from sex.
The iPLEDGE factor
Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.
For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.
With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.
Nevertheless, as a physician who regularly prescribes medications like isotretinoin in women of childbearing age, “it’s terrifying to me that a woman wouldn’t have the option to terminate the pregnancy if a teratogenic effect from the medication caused a severe birth defect,” said Dr. Murase.
Dermatologists use other teratogenic medications such as thalidomide, mycophenolate mofetil, and methotrexate for chronic dermatologic disease like psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.
The situation is especially tricky for dermatologists since most patients – about 80% – never discuss their pregnancy with their specialist prior to pregnancy initiation. Dr. Murase recalls when a patient with chronic plaque psoriasis on methotrexate in her late 40s became pregnant and had an abortion even before Dr. Murase became aware of the pregnancy.
Because dermatologists routinely prescribe long-term medications for chronic diseases like acne, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis, it is important to have a conversation regarding the risks and benefits of long-term medication should a pregnancy occur in any woman of childbearing age, she said.
Fewer women in clinical trials?
Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.
A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.
The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.
This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.
Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.
The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
The upside of restrictions?
If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.
Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.
If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.
This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”
Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”
Talking to patients about choices
Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.
Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.
Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.
“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.
To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.
In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”
When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”
Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”
Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.
*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .
Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.
The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.
This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.
With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.
Instead, a scenario may arise in which the patient – and their physician – may opt not to treat at all with an otherwise lifesaving medication, experts told this news organization.
The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions
A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.
Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.
More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.
Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.
Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.
Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
Chilling effect on prescribing
Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*
However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.
Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.
Certain teratogenic medications are associated with a high risk of abortion even though this isn’t their primary use, noted Christina Chambers, PhD, MPH, co-director of the Center for Better Beginnings and associate director with the Altman Clinical & Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego.
“I don’t think anyone would intentionally take these drugs to induce spontaneous abortion. But if the drugs pose a risk for it, I can see how the laws might be stretched” to include them, said Dr. Chambers.
Methotrexate, a medication for autoimmune disorders, has a high risk of spontaneous abortion. So do acne medications such as isotretinoin.
Patients are usually told they’re not supposed to get pregnant on these drugs because there’s a high risk of pregnancy loss and risk of malformations and potential learning problems in the fetus. But many pregnancies aren’t planned, said Dr. Chambers. “Patients may forget about the side effects or think their birth control will protect them. And the next time they refill the medication, they may not hear about the warnings again.”
With a restrictive abortion law or ban in effect, a woman might think: “I won’t take this drug because if there’s any potential that I might get pregnant, I won’t have the option to abort an at-risk pregnancy.” Women and their doctors, for that matter, don’t want to put themselves in this position, said Dr. Chambers.
Rheumatologist Megan Clowse, MD, who prescribes several medications that potentially cause major birth defects and pregnancy loss, worries about the ramifications of these accumulating bans.
“Methotrexate has been a leading drug for us for decades for rheumatoid arthritis. Mycophenolate is a vital drug for lupus,” said Dr. Clowse, associate professor of medicine at Duke University’s division of rheumatology and immunology.
Both methotrexate and mycophenolate pose about a 40% risk of pregnancy loss and significantly increase the risk for birth defects. “I’m definitely concerned that there might be doctors or women who elect not to use those medications in women of reproductive age because of the potential risk for pregnancy and absence of abortion rights,” said Dr. Clowse.
These situations might force women to use contraceptives they don’t want to use, such as hormonal implants or intrauterine devices, she added. Another side effect is that women and their partners may decide to abstain from sex.
The iPLEDGE factor
Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.
For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.
With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.
Nevertheless, as a physician who regularly prescribes medications like isotretinoin in women of childbearing age, “it’s terrifying to me that a woman wouldn’t have the option to terminate the pregnancy if a teratogenic effect from the medication caused a severe birth defect,” said Dr. Murase.
Dermatologists use other teratogenic medications such as thalidomide, mycophenolate mofetil, and methotrexate for chronic dermatologic disease like psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.
The situation is especially tricky for dermatologists since most patients – about 80% – never discuss their pregnancy with their specialist prior to pregnancy initiation. Dr. Murase recalls when a patient with chronic plaque psoriasis on methotrexate in her late 40s became pregnant and had an abortion even before Dr. Murase became aware of the pregnancy.
Because dermatologists routinely prescribe long-term medications for chronic diseases like acne, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis, it is important to have a conversation regarding the risks and benefits of long-term medication should a pregnancy occur in any woman of childbearing age, she said.
Fewer women in clinical trials?
Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.
A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.
The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.
This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.
Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.
The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
The upside of restrictions?
If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.
Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.
If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.
This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”
Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”
Talking to patients about choices
Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.
Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.
Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.
“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.
To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.
In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”
When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”
Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”
Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.
*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .
Multiple sclerosis type and female sex predict worsening lower urinary tract symptoms
Key clinical point: Female sex and progressive forms of multiple sclerosis (MS) are the prognostic factors for worsening lower urinary tract symptoms in patients with MS, with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction being a contributor to disease progression.
Major finding: A higher bowel/bladder functional system (FS) score, indicating worsening symptoms and functions, was significantly associated with female vs male sex (P = .001) and progressive vs relapsing-remitting MS type (P ≤ .001), with each point increase in the bowel/bladder FS score during follow-up visit at 1 year being associated with an increased risk of worsening disability over the subsequent year (area under curve 0.63).
Study details: This prospective study evaluated 802 patients with clinically isolated syndrome or MS.
Disclosures: This research was funded by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, US National Institutes of Health, and Valhalla Foundation. Some authors declared receiving consulting and advisory board fees, research support, or personal compensation or serving on boards of trustees or on advisory boards for various sources.
Source: Kaplan TB et al. Challenges to longitudinal characterization of lower urinary tract dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2022;62:103793 (Apr 10). Doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2022.103793
Key clinical point: Female sex and progressive forms of multiple sclerosis (MS) are the prognostic factors for worsening lower urinary tract symptoms in patients with MS, with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction being a contributor to disease progression.
Major finding: A higher bowel/bladder functional system (FS) score, indicating worsening symptoms and functions, was significantly associated with female vs male sex (P = .001) and progressive vs relapsing-remitting MS type (P ≤ .001), with each point increase in the bowel/bladder FS score during follow-up visit at 1 year being associated with an increased risk of worsening disability over the subsequent year (area under curve 0.63).
Study details: This prospective study evaluated 802 patients with clinically isolated syndrome or MS.
Disclosures: This research was funded by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, US National Institutes of Health, and Valhalla Foundation. Some authors declared receiving consulting and advisory board fees, research support, or personal compensation or serving on boards of trustees or on advisory boards for various sources.
Source: Kaplan TB et al. Challenges to longitudinal characterization of lower urinary tract dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2022;62:103793 (Apr 10). Doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2022.103793
Key clinical point: Female sex and progressive forms of multiple sclerosis (MS) are the prognostic factors for worsening lower urinary tract symptoms in patients with MS, with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction being a contributor to disease progression.
Major finding: A higher bowel/bladder functional system (FS) score, indicating worsening symptoms and functions, was significantly associated with female vs male sex (P = .001) and progressive vs relapsing-remitting MS type (P ≤ .001), with each point increase in the bowel/bladder FS score during follow-up visit at 1 year being associated with an increased risk of worsening disability over the subsequent year (area under curve 0.63).
Study details: This prospective study evaluated 802 patients with clinically isolated syndrome or MS.
Disclosures: This research was funded by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, US National Institutes of Health, and Valhalla Foundation. Some authors declared receiving consulting and advisory board fees, research support, or personal compensation or serving on boards of trustees or on advisory boards for various sources.
Source: Kaplan TB et al. Challenges to longitudinal characterization of lower urinary tract dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2022;62:103793 (Apr 10). Doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2022.103793