Intense immunosuppression in chronic progressive multiple sclerosis: the Kaiser study

Adverse effects of immunotherapies for multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease of the central nervous system that affects mainly young adults (two to three times more frequently in women than in men) and causes significant disability after onset. Although it is accepted that immunotherapies for people with MS decrease disease activity, uncertainty regarding their relative safety remains.

OBJECTIVES

To compare adverse effects of immunotherapies for people with MS or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), and to rank these treatments according to their relative risks of adverse effects through network meta-analyses (NMAs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, two other databases and trials registers up to March 2022, together with reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included participants 18 years of age or older with a diagnosis of MS or CIS, according to any accepted diagnostic criteria, who were included in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined one or more of the agents used in MS or CIS, and compared them versus placebo or another active agent. We excluded RCTs in which a drug regimen was compared with a different regimen of the same drug without another active agent or placebo as a control arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods for data extraction and pairwise meta-analyses. For NMAs, we used the netmeta suite of commands in R to fit random-effects NMAs assuming a common between-study variance. We used the CINeMA platform to GRADE the certainty of the body of evidence in NMAs. We considered a relative risk (RR) of 1.5 as a non-inferiority safety threshold compared to placebo. We assessed the certainty of evidence for primary outcomes within the NMA according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate or high.

MAIN RESULTS

This NMA included 123 trials with 57,682 participants. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Reporting of SAEs was available from 84 studies including 5696 (11%) events in 51,833 (89.9%) participants out of 57,682 participants in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of SAEs, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 18 additional people would have a SAE compared to placebo. Low-certainty evidence suggested that three drugs may decrease SAEs compared to placebo (relative risk [RR], 95% confidence interval [CI]): interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (0.78, 0.66 to 0.94); dimethyl fumarate (0.79, 0.67 to 0.93), and glatiramer acetate (0.84, 0.72 to 0.98). Several drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo: moderate-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.08, 0.88 to 1.31); low-certainty evidence for ocrelizumab (0.85, 0.67 to 1.07), ozanimod (0.88, 0.59 to 1.33), interferon beta-1b (0.94, 0.78 to 1.12), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (0.96, 0.80 to 1.15), natalizumab (0.97, 0.79 to 1.19), fingolimod (1.05, 0.92 to 1.20) and laquinimod (1.06, 0.83 to 1.34); very low-certainty evidence for daclizumab (0.83, 0.68 to 1.02). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the other drugs: low-certainty evidence for cladribine (1.10, 0.79 to 1.52), siponimod (1.20, 0.95 to 1.51), ofatumumab (1.26, 0.88 to 1.79) and rituximab (1.01, 0.67 to 1.52); very low-certainty evidence for immunoglobulins (1.05, 0.33 to 3.32), diroximel fumarate (1.05, 0.23 to 4.69), peg-interferon beta-1a (1.07, 0.66 to 1.74), alemtuzumab (1.16, 0.85 to 1.60), interferons (1.62, 0.21 to 12.72) and azathioprine (3.62, 0.76 to 17.19). Withdrawals due to adverse events Reporting of withdrawals due to AEs was available from 105 studies (85.4%) including 3537 (6.39%) events in 55,320 (95.9%) patients out of 57,682 patients in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of withdrawals, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 31 additional people would withdraw compared to placebo. No drug reduced withdrawals due to adverse events when compared with placebo. There was very low-certainty evidence (meaning that estimates are not reliable) that two drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo, assuming an upper 95% CI RR limit of 1.5: diroximel fumarate (0.38, 0.11 to 1.27) and alemtuzumab (0.63, 0.33 to 1.19). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the following drugs: low-certainty evidence for ofatumumab (1.50, 0.87 to 2.59); very low-certainty evidence for methotrexate (0.94, 0.02 to 46.70), corticosteroids (1.05, 0.16 to 7.14), ozanimod (1.06, 0.58 to 1.93), natalizumab (1.20, 0.77 to 1.85), ocrelizumab (1.32, 0.81 to 2.14), dimethyl fumarate (1.34, 0.96 to 1.86), siponimod (1.63, 0.96 to 2.79), rituximab (1.63, 0.53 to 5.00), cladribine (1.80, 0.89 to 3.62), mitoxantrone (2.11, 0.50 to 8.87), interferons (3.47, 0.95 to 12.72), and cyclophosphamide (3.86, 0.45 to 33.50). Eleven drugs may have increased withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo: low-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.37, 1.01 to 1.85), glatiramer acetate (1.76, 1.36 to 2.26), fingolimod (1.79, 1.40 to 2.28), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (2.15, 1.58 to 2.93), daclizumab (2.19, 1.31 to 3.65) and interferon beta-1b (2.59, 1.87 to 3.77); very low-certainty evidence for laquinimod (1.42, 1.01 to 2.00), interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (1.54, 1.13 to 2.10), immunoglobulins (1.87, 1.01 to 3.45), peg-interferon beta-1a (3.46, 1.44 to 8.33) and azathioprine (6.95, 2.57 to 18.78); however, very low-certainty evidence is unreliable. Sensitivity analyses including only studies with low attrition bias, drug dose above the group median, or only patients with relapsing remitting MS or CIS, and subgroup analyses by prior disease-modifying treatments did not change these figures. Rankings No drug yielded consistent P scores in the upper quartile of the probability of being better than others for primary and secondary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found mostly low and very low-certainty evidence that drugs used to treat MS may not increase SAEs, but may increase withdrawals compared with placebo. The results suggest that there is no important difference in the occurrence of SAEs between first- and second-line drugs and between oral, injectable, or infused drugs, compared with placebo. Our review, along with other work in the literature, confirms poor-quality reporting of adverse events from RCTs of interventions. At the least, future studies should follow the CONSORT recommendations about reporting harm-related issues. To address adverse effects, future systematic reviews should also include non-randomized studies.

Rationale for off-label treatments use in primary progressive multiple sclerosis: A review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Until recently, few therapeutic options, other than symptomatic treatment, were available for patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS). Ocrelizumab is the only approved treatment in this indication, and only since 2017. However, many patients in France are receiving off-label treatments for PPMS, mainly rituximab, mycophenolate mofetil, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, and azathioprine.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate published data concerning the efficacy of these five treatments frequently used as off-label disease-modifying therapies.

METHODS

We reviewed and summarized the studies published in Pubmed since the inception of the database.

RESULTS

Evidence from randomized controlled trials is lacking to support the use of these treatments as disease-modifying therapies in PPMS.

CONCLUSION

The literature lacks dedicated studies to support the off-label use of these disease-modifying therapies in PPMS. However, some limited data are available in the literature suggesting that the use of rituximab and cyclophosphamide could potentially be of some interest in specific subpopulations.

Cyclophosphamide treatment in active multiple sclerosis

OBJECTIVE

Cyclophosphamide (CYC) is an alkylating agent with immunosuppressive effect by inhibiting DNA synthesis and producing apoptosis used in many autoimmune diseases, including multiple sclerosis (MS). Here, we analyze the efficacy of CYC treatment in relapsing-remitting (RRMS) and active secondary progressive MS (SPMS) in our center with a monthly scheme.

METHODS

Patients with MS treated with CYC and a follow up of at least 36 months were eligible for inclusion. All participants had received a standard CYC regimen. The EDSS score mean annualized relapse rate (ARR) and progression index (PI) were measured as efficacy outcomes at 12, 24, and 36 months. Outcomes were also analyzed comparing disease course and activity.

RESULTS

A total of 16 patients were included (50% male, 18.75% RRMS and 81.25% SPMS). EDSS remained stable along the follow-up period, with 62.5% improving or maintaining the same EDSS score at 12 months. PI decreased 14% and 21% at 12 and 24-36 months of follow-up, respectively. ARR decreased 20% after 12 months, 19% after 24 months, and 30.23% after 36 months. Median differences in ARR were higher in patients with high relapse activity (0.60 vs 0.07, p = 0.001) and malignant course (0.60 vs 0.17, p = 0.027). PI also differed with higher mean differences in patients with high relapse activity (0.70 vs 0.03, p = 0.016) and malignant course (1.17 vs 0.03, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

CYC continues to be a valid therapeutic option, especially in regions with limited access to high-efficiency therapies particularly in patients with high relapsing activity and malignant course.

Evaluating the Effects of Dietary Interventions on Disease Progression and Symptoms of Adults with Multiple Sclerosis: An Umbrella Review

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease of the central nervous system. The role of diet in the progression of MS and severity of symptoms remains unclear. Various systematic literature reviews (SRs) have reported the effects of single nutrients on MS progression or the role of dietary factors on specific symptoms of MS. Narrative reviews have examined the effects of various dietary patterns in MS populations. An umbrella review was undertaken to collate the findings from review articles and evaluate the strength of the scientific evidence of dietary interventions for people living with MS. Scientific databases including MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library were systematically searched up to April 2019. Review articles and meta-analyses were included if they examined the effect of any dietary intervention in adult populations with MS. Outcomes included MS progression indicated by relapses, disability, MRI activity and disease classification, and MS symptoms. Characteristics and findings from both review articles and their included primary studies were extracted and summarized. A total of 19 SRs and 43 narrative reviews were included. Vitamin D and PUFAs were the most commonly studied interventions. Across SR studies, vitamin D supplementation had no significant effect on relapses, MRI, or disability progression; however, an inverse association was found between vitamin D status and disability scores through observational studies. Effects of PUFA supplementation on major outcomes of MS progression were inconsistent across review articles. Other interventions less commonly studied included vitamin, mineral, and herbal supplementation and varying dietary patterns. Strong consistent evidence is lacking for dietary interventions in persons with MS. The body of evidence is primarily focused around the isolation of individual nutrients, many of which demonstrate no effect on major outcomes of MS progression. Stronger food-focused studies are required to strengthen the evidence.

Highly Aggressive Multiple Sclerosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Newly introduced disease-modifying therapies offer greater efficacy than previous therapies but also have serious side effects. This article reviews factors useful in identifying those at risk of developing aggressive relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) and therapies available for treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several factors predict aggressive MS, including demographic factors, relapses, symptom characteristics, MRI activity, and other biomarkers. These can be used to select patients for more aggressive therapies, including natalizumab, alemtuzumab, fingolimod, and ocrelizumab. Additional off-label treatments are available for patients with severe disease. The benefits and side effects of these treatments must be considered when making therapeutic decisions.

SUMMARY

Selecting patients who are most appropriate for aggressive therapy involves considering risk factors for poor outcomes, early recognition of treatment failure, balancing treatment efficacy and side effects, and sharing the decision with patients to assist them in making optimal treatment choices. Vigilance for signs of treatment failure and early switching to more aggressive therapy are important components in optimal care.

Pharmacotherapy in Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: An Overview

Multiple sclerosis is an immune-mediated inflammatory disease of the central nervous system characterised by demyelination, neuroaxonal loss and a heterogeneous clinical course. Multiple sclerosis presents with different phenotypes, most commonly a relapsing-remitting course and, less frequently, a progressive accumulation of disability from disease onset (primary progressive multiple sclerosis). The majority of people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, after a variable time, switch to a stage characterised by gradual neurological worsening known as secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. We have a limited understanding of the mechanisms underlying multiple sclerosis, and it is believed that multiple genetic, environmental and endogenous factors are elements driving inflammation and ultimately neurodegeneration. Axonal loss and grey matter damage have been regarded as amongst the leading causes of irreversible neurological disability in the progressive stages. There are over a dozen disease-modifying therapies currently licenced for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, but none of these has provided evidence of effectiveness in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Recently, there has been some early modest success with siponimod in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis and ocrelizumab in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Finding treatments to delay or prevent the courses of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis is an unmet and essential goal of the research in multiple sclerosis. In this review, we discuss new findings regarding drugs with immunomodulatory, neuroprotective or regenerative properties and possible treatment strategies for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. We examine the field broadly to include trials where participants have progressive or relapsing phenotypes. We summarise the most relevant results from newer investigations from phase II and III randomised controlled trials over the past decade, with particular attention to the last 5 years.

Neurotherapeutic Strategies for Multiple Sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is the most common disabling neurologic disease of young adults. There are now 16 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved disease-modifying therapies for MS as well as a cohort of other agents commonly used in practice when conventional therapies prove inadequate. This article discusses approved FDA therapies as well as commonly used practice-based therapies for MS, as well as those therapies that can be used in patients attempting to become pregnant, or in patients with an established pregnancy, who require concomitant treatment secondary to recalcitrant disease activity.

Double-Blind Controlled Randomized Trial of Cyclophosphamide versus Methylprednisolone in Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic options are limited in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS). Open-label studies suggested efficacy of monthly IV cyclophosphamide (CPM) without induction for delaying progression but no randomized trial was conducted so far.

OBJECTIVE

To compare CPM to methylprednisolone (MP) in SPMS.

METHODS

Randomized, double-blind clinical trial on two parallel groups. Patient with SPMS, with a documented worsening of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score during the last year and an EDSS score between 4·0 and 6·5 were recruited and received one intravenous infusion of treatment (CPM: 750 mg /m2 body surface area-MP: 1g) every four weeks for one year, and every eight weeks for the second year. The primary endpoint was the time to EDSS deterioration, when confirmed sixteen weeks later, analyzed using a Cox model.

RESULTS

Due to recruitment difficulties, the study was terminated prematurely after 138 patients were included (CPM, n = 72; MP, n = 66). In the CPM group, 33 patients stopped treatment prematurely, mainly due to tolerability, compared with 22 in the MP group. Primary endpoint: the hazard ratio for EDSS deterioration in the CPM in comparison with the MP group was 0.61 [95% CI: 0·31-1·22](p = 0·16). According to the secondary multistate model analysis, patients in the CPM group were 2.2 times more likely ([1·14-4.29]; p = 0.02) to discontinue treatment than those in the MP group and 2.7 times less likely (HR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.17-0.84; p = 0.02) to experience disability progression when they did not stop treatment prematurely. Safety profile was as expected.

CONCLUSION

Although the primary end-point was negative, secondary analysis suggested that CPM decreases the risk of progression in SPMS, but its use may be limited by low tolerability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00241254.

Primary progressive multiple sclerosis: current therapeutic strategies and future perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the central nervous system with heterogeneous features. Primary progressive (PP) MS is a rare disease subtype characterized by continuous disability worsening from onset. No disease-modifying therapy is currently approved for PP MS due to the negative or inconsistent results of clinical trials conducted on a wide range of interventions, which are reviewed in the present paper. Areas covered: The features and results of randomized trials of disease-modifying treatments for PP MS are discussed, including immunosuppressants, immunomodulators, monoclonal antibodies, and putative neuroprotective agents. Expert commentary: The recent encouraging results of the ocrelizumab trial in PP MS, the first to reach the primary disability endpoint, indicate B cells as a promising therapeutic target to prevent disease progression. Other emerging treatment strategies include cell metabolism modulation and inflammatory pathways inhibition, which are being investigated in several ongoing phase II and III placebo-controlled trials. Future PP MS trials will need to systematically include efficacy endpoints other than physical disability alone, such as cognition, quality of life, advanced MRI measures and molecular biomarkers.

[Cell depletion and myoablation for neuroimmunological diseases]

BACKGROUND

The treatment of autoimmune disorders of the nervous system is based on interventions for the underlying immune phenomena.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize concepts of cell depletion and myeloablation studied in the context of neuroimmunological disorders.

METHOD

Evaluation of the available literature on multiple sclerosis as the most widely studied neuroimmunological entity.

RESULTS

Three concepts have been introduced: classical immunosuppressants, such as azathioprine, mitoxantrone and cyclophosphamide exert general lymphopenic effects and thereby moderately decrease disease activity. Myeloablative regimens combined with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation have a profound and in most cases long-lasting impact on autoimmunity at the cost of potentially life-threatening side effects. Alemtuzumab (anti-CD52), rituximab and ocrelizumab (both anti-CD20) are depleting antibodies directed against certain lymphocyte subsets and substantially ameliorate disease activity in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Ocrelizumab also shows efficacy in the primary progressive form of multiple sclerosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the presented cell-depleting and myeloablative therapies are highly effective treatment options but are also accompanied by significant risks. In the context of the increasing number of alternative immunomodulatory options the indications for use should be cautiously considered.

Immunopathogenesis and immunotherapeutic approaches in multiple sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis is an organ-specific autoimmune disease, characterized pathologically by cell-mediated inflammation, demyelination and variable degrees of axonal loss. Although inflammation is considered central to the pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis, to date, the only licensed and hence widely used multiple sclerosis immunotherapies are interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate and mitoxantrone. This review discusses the immunopathogenesis of multiple sclerosis, focusing on a number of emerging immunotherapies. A number of new approaches likely to manipulate the immunopathogenesis of multiple sclerosis and which may ultimately allow for the development of more effective immunotherapy are also highlighted.

Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Different therapeutic strategies are available for treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) including immunosuppressants, immunomodulators, and monoclonal antibodies. Their relative effectiveness in the prevention of relapse or disability progression is unclear due to the limited number of direct comparison trials. A summary of the results, including both direct and indirect comparisons of treatment effects, may help to clarify the above uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the relative efficacy and acceptability of interferon ß-1b (IFNß-1b) (Betaseron), interferon ß-1a (IFNß-1a) (Rebif and Avonex), glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, azathioprine, intravenous immunoglobulins, and long-term corticosteroids versus placebo or another active agent in participants with MS and to provide a ranking of the treatments according to their effectiveness and risk-benefit balance.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane MS Group Trials Register, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports. The most recent search was run in February 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that studied one of the 11 treatments for use in adults with MS and that reported our pre-specified efficacy outcomes were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Identifying search results and data extraction were performed independently by two authors. Data synthesis was performed by pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis that was performed within a Bayesian framework. The body of evidence for outcomes within the pairwise meta-analysis was assessed according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate, or high quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-four trials were included in this review, in which 17,401 participants had been randomised. Twenty-three trials included relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) (9096 participants, 52%), 18 trials included progressive MS (7726, 44%), and three trials included both RRMS and progressive MS (579, 3%). The majority of the included trials were short-term studies, with the median duration being 24 months. The results originated mostly from 33 trials on IFNß, glatiramer acetate, and natalizumab that overall contributed outcome data for 9881 participants (66%).From the pairwise meta-analysis, there was high quality evidence that natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) were effective against recurrence of relapses in RRMS during the first 24 months of treatment compared to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.43; OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.71, respectively); they were more effective than IFNß-1a (Avonex) (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.36; OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.60, respectively). IFNß-1b (Betaseron) and mitoxantrone probably decreased the odds of the participants with RRMS having clinical relapses compared to placebo (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99; OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.54, respectively) but the quality of evidence for these treatments was graded as moderate. From the network meta-analysis, the most effective drug appeared to be natalizumab (median OR versus placebo 0.29, 95% credible intervals (CrI) 0.17 to 0.51), followed by IFNß-1a (Rebif) (median OR versus placebo 0.44, 95% CrI 0.24 to 0.70), mitoxantrone (median OR versus placebo 0.43, 95% CrI 0.20 to 0.87), glatiramer acetate (median OR versus placebo 0.48, 95% CrI 0.38 to 0.75), IFNß-1b (Betaseron) (median OR versus placebo 0.48, 95% CrI 0.29 to 0.78). However, our confidence was moderate for direct comparison of mitoxantrone and IFNB-1b vs placebo and very low for direct comparison of glatiramer vs placebo. The relapse outcome for RRMS at three years' follow-up was not reported by any of the included trials.Disability progression was based on surrogate markers in the majority of included studies and was unavailable for RRMS beyond two to three years. The pairwise meta-analysis suggested, with moderate quality evidence, that natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) probably decreased the odds of the participants with RRMS having disability progression at two years' follow-up, with an absolute reduction of 14% and 10%, respectively, compared to placebo. Natalizumab and IFNß-1b (Betaseron) were significantly more effective (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.78; OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.70, respectively) than IFNß-1a (Avonex) in reducing the number of the participants with RRMS who had progression at two years' follow-up, and confidence in this result was graded as moderate. From the network meta-analyses, mitoxantrone appeared to be the most effective agent in decreasing the odds of the participants with RRMS having progression at two years' follow-up, but our confidence was very low for direct comparison of mitoxantrone vs placebo. Both pairwise and network meta-analysis revealed that none of the individual agents included in this review were effective in preventing disability progression over two or three years in patients with progressive MS.There was not a dose-effect relationship for any of the included treatments with the exception of mitoxantrone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review should provide some guidance to clinicians and patients. On the basis of high quality evidence, natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) are superior to all other treatments for preventing clinical relapses in RRMS in the short-term (24 months) compared to placebo. Moderate quality evidence supports a protective effect of natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) against disability progression in RRMS in the short-term compared to placebo. These treatments are associated with long-term serious adverse events and their benefit-risk balance might be unfavourable. IFNß-1b (Betaseron) and mitoxantrone probably decreased the odds of the participants with RRMS having relapses, compared with placebo (moderate quality of evidence). The benefit-risk balance with azathioprine is uncertain, however this agent might be effective in decreasing the odds of the participants with RRMS having relapses and disability progression over 24 to 36 months, compared with placebo. The lack of convincing efficacy data shows that IFNß-1a (Avonex), intravenous immunoglobulins, cyclophosphamide and long-term steroids have an unfavourable benefit-risk balance in RRMS. None of the included treatments are effective in decreasing disability progression in patients with progressive MS. It is important to consider that the clinical effects of all these treatments beyond two years are uncertain, a relevant point for a disease of 30 to 40 years duration. Direct head-to-head comparison(s) between natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) or between azathioprine and IFNß-1a (Rebif) should be top priority on the research agenda and follow-up of the trial cohorts should be mandatory.

Role of immunosuppressive therapy for the treatment of multiple sclerosis

Immunosuppressives have been used in multiple sclerosis (MS) since 1966. Today, we have many treatments for the relapsing forms of the disease, including 8 US Food and Drug Administration-approved therapies, with more soon to be introduced. Given the current treatment landscape what place do immunosuppressants have in combating MS? Trial work and our experience suggest that immunosuppressives still have an important role in treating MS. Cyclophosphamide finds use in treating patients with severe, inflammatory relapsing remitting MS or those suffering from a fulminant attack. We tend to employ mycophenolate mofetil as an add-on to injectable therapy for patients experiencing breakthrough activity. Some progressive (primary progressive multiple sclerosis or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis) patients may stabilize after treatment with either cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate. We rarely employ mitoxantrone because of potential cardiac or carcinogenic effects. We prefer to use cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate mofetil in preference to methotrexate because evidence of efficacy is limited for this drug. We have less experience with azathioprine, but it may be an alternative for patients with limited options who are unable to tolerate conventional therapies.

Cyclophosphamide in multiple sclerosis: scientific rationale, history and novel treatment paradigms

For patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), there are currently six approved medications that have been shown to alter the natural course of the disease. The approved medications include three beta interferon formulations, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab and mitoxantrone. Treating aggressive forms of RRMS and progressive disease forms of MS still presents a great challenge to neurologists. Intense immunosuppression has long been thought to be the only feasible therapeutic option. In patients with progressive forms of MS, lymphoid tissues have been detected in the central nervous system (CNS) that may play a critical role in perpetuating local inflammation. Agents that are currently approved for patients with MS have no or very limited bioavailability in the brain and spinal cord. In contrast, cyclophosphamide (CYC), an alkylating agent, penetrates the blood-brain barrier and CNS parenchyma well. However, while CYC has been used in clinical trials and off-label in clinical practice in patients with MS for over three decades, data on its efficacy in very heterogeneous groups of study patients have been conflicting. New myeloablative treatment paradigms with CYC may provide a therapeutic option in patients that do not respond to other agents. In this article we review the scientific rationale that led to the initial clinical trials with CYC. We will also outline the safety, tolerability and efficacy of CYC and provide neurologists with guidelines for its use in patients with MS and other inflammatory disorders of the CNS, including neuromyelitis optica (NMO). Finally, an outlook into relatively novel treatment approaches is provided.

Lights and shadows of cyclophosphamide in the treatment of multiple sclerosis

Cyclophosphamide (cy) is an alkylating agent used to treat malignancies and immune-mediated inflammatory nonmalignant processes. It has been used as a treatment in cases of worsening multiple sclerosis (MS). Cy is currently used for patients whose disease is not controlled by beta-interferon or glatiramer acetate as well as those with rapidly worsening MS. The most commonly used regimens involve outpatient IV pulse therapy given with or without corticosteroids every 4 to 8 weeks. Side effects include nausea, headache, alopecia, pain, male and women infertility, bladder toxicity, and risk of malignancy. Previous studies suggest that cy is effective in patients in the earlier stages of disease, where inflammation predominates over degenerative processes. Given that early inflammatory events appear to correlate with later disability, a major question is whether strong anti-inflammatory drugs, such as cy, will have an impact on later degenerative changes if given early in the disease to halt inflammation.

The sad plight of multiple sclerosis research (low on fact, high on fiction): critical data to support it being a neurocristopathy

The literature for evidence of autoimmunity in multiple sclerosis (MS) is analysed critically. In contrast to the accepted theory, the human counterpart of the animal model experimental autoimmune demyelinating disease, experimental allergic encephalomyelitis (EAE), is not MS but a different demyelinating disorder, i.e. acute disseminated encephalomyelitis and acute haemorrhagic leucoencephalitis. Extrapolation of EAE research to MS has been guided largely by faith and a blind acceptance rather than sound, scientific rationale. No specific or sensitive immunological test exists that is diagnostic of MS despite the extensive application of modern technology. Immunosuppression has failed to have any consistent effect on prognosis or disease progression. The available data on MS immunotherapy are conflicting, at times contradictory and are based on findings in animals with EAE. They show predominantly a 30% effect in relapsing/remitting MS which suggests powerful placebo effect. Critical analysis of the epidemiological data shows no association with any specific autoimmune diseases, but does suggest that geographic factors and age at development posit an early onset possibly dependent on environmental influences. Certain neurological diseases are, however, found in association with MS, namely hypertrophic peripheral neuropathy, neurofibromatosis-1, cerebral glioma, glioblastoma multiforme and certain familial forms of narcolepsy. These share a common genetic influence possibly from genes on chromosome 17 affecting cell proliferation. A significant number of these disorders are of neural crest origin, the classical example being abnormalities of the Schwann cell. These and other data allow us to propose that MS is a developmental neural crest disorder, i.e. a cristopathy, implicating glial cell dysfunction with diffuse blood-brain barrier breakdown. The data on transcription factor SOX10 mutations in animals may explain these bizarre clinical associations with MS and the phenotypic variability of such alterations (Cossais et al. 2010). Research directed to the area of neural crest associations is likely to be rewarding.

Chemotherapeutics in the treatment of multiple sclerosis

The likely pathogenic mechanisms of multiple sclerosis (MS) provide a sound rationale for investigating the efficacy of drugs possessing immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory properties. With proven efficacy, safety and tolerability, interferon beta formulations and glatiramer acetate have become the mainstay of initial treatment for patients with relapsing forms of MS. More recently, natalizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb) against the cellular adhesion molecule α4-integrin, has been employed for patients with an inadequate response or lack of tolerability to an alternate MS therapy, or as initial therapy for patients with severe disease. Various agents initially developed for oncological indications, either as chemotherapeutics or mAbs, may also have current or future uses in MS treatment. Mitoxantrone is currently the only chemotherapeutic agent approved for treatment of MS in the United States, while in parts of Europe azathioprine is approved and widely used for MS treatment. Other chemotherapeutics that have been tested in MS to date include cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, cladribine, and the mAbs alemtuzumab and rituximab. While there has been varying evidence of efficacy for these compounds, each appears to be associated with serious risks that require careful consideration and management. Given the risks that have been demonstrated for available chemotherapeutic agents and while long-term postmarketing safety data are still not available for those agents in development, it seems prudent to carefully assess the possible use of chemotherapeutics in the treatment of MS. A thorough risk-benefit analysis is becoming increasingly important in the assessment of therapeutic options for this disabling disease.

Intravenous mitoxantrone and cyclophosphamide as second-line therapy in multiple sclerosis: An open-label comparative study of efficacy and safety

The study's aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous cyclophosphamide (CTX) and mitoxantrone (MITO) as second-line therapy in a clinical sample of active relapsing-remitting (RR) or secondary-progressive (SP) multiple sclerosis subjects. MITO was administered at a dosage of 8 mg/m(2) monthly for 3 months, then every 3 months, until a dosage of 120 mg/m(2) was reached. CTX was administered at a dosage of 700 mg/m(2) monthly for 12 months, then bimonthly for another 24 months. We used the Kaplan-Meier curves to assess time to the first relapse in RR and SP patients with relapses, and time to progression on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) in all the patients. MRI was assessed at baseline and after 12 months. Moreover, side effects were recorded. Seventy-five patients received MITO (31 RR, 44 SP) and 78 CTX (15 RR, 63 SP). The two groups differ only in terms of a significantly higher proportion of RR patients in the MITO group. After a mean follow-up of 3.6 years there was no significant difference in terms of time to the first relapse (MITO 2.6 years, CTX 2.5 years; p=0.50), whereas time to disease progression was slightly shorter in MITO than in CTX group (MITO 3.8 years, CTX 3.6 years; p=0.04). After 12 months of treatment, active MRI scans were reduced by 69% in MITO and 63% in CTX patients (p=0.10). Discontinuation due to side effects was more frequent in CTX patients. However, the overall tolerability profile was acceptable in both groups.

Immunosuppression: Promises and failures

The author participated very early in the use of immunosuppressors in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. He reviews evidence which support their use. IV Methylprednisolone, azathioprine and mitoxantrone are supported in their use by evidence of a level appropriate to the date of their generation while Cyclosporine A and Cyclophosphamide are not. The author also reviews the benefits and side effects of each of these medications, insisting on a practical approach to their use. The author concludes that since immunomodulators have been approved, the use of the immunosuppressors has been reduced, however there is a strong possibility that their use will be rekindled in association with immunomodulatory medications.

Failure of allogeneic bone marrow transplantation to arrest disease activity in multiple sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is thought to be an autoimmune disease in which activated T-cells initiate a macrophage mediated destruction of CNS myelin. Bone marrow transplantation (BMT) is currently being evaluated in the treatment of MS in patients with aggressive disease activity. Autologous BMT could potentially reset the immune response to myelin antigens leading to immune tolerance and decreased disease activity. Allogeneic transplantation could reconstitute the immune system potentially arresting the progression of autoimmune disease. The purpose of this paper is to report a patient with MS who underwent allogeneic BMT for chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) and showed continued evidence of active demyelinating disease by clinical and radiologic criteria over a period of two years. While this is only a single case report with inherent limitations, it suggests that the immune mediated destruction of CNS myelin in MS may not be prevented or aborted by immune system reconstitution, and is consistent with the idea that immune mediated tissue destruction in MS could be targeted against an abnormal antigen. Multiple Sclerosis 2007; 13: 1071—1075. http://msj.sagepub.com

The safety profile of cyclophosphamide in multiple sclerosis therapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cyc) is an alkylating agent used to treat malignancies and autoimmune diseases, such as lupus nephritis, rheumatoid arthritis and immune-mediated neuropathies. Over the past 40 years, Cyc has also been applied to treat multiple sclerosis (MS) and the effective stabilisation of rapidly progressive forms of MS has been demonstrated in several studies. Cyc has a dose-dependent bimodal effect on the immune system. High doses have been demonstrated to induce an anti-inflammatory immune deviation (i.e., suppression of T helper 1 and enhancement of T helper 2 activity), affect CD4CD25(high) regulatory T cells and establish a state of marked immunosuppression. Data from the literature suggest that Cyc is particularly indicated in the treatment of young MS patients, suffering from a very active inflammatory disease characterised by frequent relapses and rapid accumulation of disability and displaying gadolinium-enhancing lesions on brain magnetic resonance. The most common Cyc-based therapeutic protocol applied in MS consists of monthly intravenous pulses for 1 year followed by bimonthly pulses for the second year, with or without prior infusion of corticosteroids. This protocol is usually well tolerated by the patients. Indeed, most of the side effects (mild alopecia, nausea and vomiting, cystitis) are dose dependent, transient and completely reversible. Definitive amenorrhoea is observed only in older female patients (aged > 40 years). Cyc has a safety and efficacy profile similar to that of mitoxantrone and can be used in patients whose disease is not controlled by IFN-beta or glatiramer acetate. Short course (6-12 months) of Cyc therapy can precede the initiation of immunomodulatory treatment in selected patients with an aggressive MS onset.

Cyclophosphamide for multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis is a presumed cell-mediated autoimmune disease of the central nervous system. Cyclophosphamide (CFX) is a cytotoxic and immunosuppressive agent, used in systemic autoimmune diseases. Controversial results have been reported on its efficacy in MS. We conducted a systematic review of all relevant trials, evaluating the efficacy of CFX in patients with progressive MS.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was to determine whether CFX slows the progression of MS.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane MS Group Trials Register (searched June 2006), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3 2006), MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2006), EMBASE (January 1988 to June 2006) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical effect of CFX treatment in patients affected by clinically definite progressive MS.CFX had to be administered alone or in combination with adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) or steroids. The comparison group had to be placebo or no treatment or the same co-intervention (ACTH or steroids)

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently decided the eligibility of the study, assessed the trial quality and extracted data. We also contacted study authors for original data.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 461 identified references, we initially selected 70: only four RCTs were included for the final analysis. Intensive immunosuppression with CFX (alone or associated with ACTH or prednisone) in patients with progressive MS compared to placebo or no treatment (152 participants) did not prevent the long-term (12, 18, 24 months) clinical disability progression as defined as evolution to a next step of Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score. However, the mean change in disability (final disability subtracted from the baseline) significantly favoured the treated group at 12 (effect size - 0.21, 95% confidence interval - 0.25 to -0.17) and 18 months (- 0.19, 95% confidence interval - 0.24 to - 0.14) but favoured the control group at 24 months (0.14, CI 0.07 to 0.21). We were unable to verify the efficacy of other schedules. Five patients died; sepsis and amenorrhea frequently occurred in treated patients (descriptive analysis).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to achieve all of the objectives specified for the review. This review shows that the overall effect of CFX (administered as intensive schedule) in the treatment of progressive MS does not support its use in clinical practice.

Childhood multiple sclerosis: a review

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune demyelinating disorder of the central nervous system (CNS) that is increasingly recognized as a disease that affects children. Similar to adult-onset MS, children present with visual and sensory complaints, as well as weakness, spasticity, and ataxia. A lumbar puncture can be helpful in diagnosing MS when CSF immunoglobulins and oligoclonal bands are present. White matter demyelinating lesions on MRI are required for the diagnosis; however, children typically have fewer lesions than adults. Many criteria have been proposed to diagnose MS that have been applied to children, mostly above 10 years of age. The recent revisions to the McDonald criteria allow for earlier diagnosis, such as after a clinically isolated event. However, children are more likely than adults to have monosymptomatic illnesses. None of the approved disease-modifying therapies used in adult-onset MS have been approved for pediatrics; however, a few studies have verified their safety and tolerability in children. Although children and adults with MS have similar neurological symptoms, laboratory (cerebrospinal fluid) data, and neuroimaging findings, the clinical course, pathogenesis, and treatment of childhood onset MS require further investigation.

Diagnosis and management of multiple sclerosis: case studies

Although substantial capabilities have emerged in the ability to globally manage patients who have MS, clinicians continue to be confronted with formidable challenges. Reduction in disease activity and its impact on dis-ability progression remains the central objective of disease-modifying therapy and most current MS research initiatives. Nevertheless, the principal factors that determine the day-to-day limitations on functional capabilities(activities of daily living, work performance, quality of life, and so forth)are a derivative of the pathophysiology of the disease process itself. The substrate for these limitations is inherent in the pathology of demyelination and axonal dysfunction. Identifying measures that can optimize the performance and fidelity of axonal conduction mechanisms may translate into a reduction in MS-related symptoms. Chronic neurologic disease management (with MS representing a signature example) can be optimized when all members of the care team (including patients and their families) collaborate in the co-ordination of interdisciplinary care models that address all aspects of suffering.

Mitoxantrone versus cyclophosphamide in secondary-progressive multiple sclerosis: a comparative study

Fifty secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) patients who had lost one or more EDSS points in the prior two years were selected to receive either cyclophosphamide (25 patients, 13 females, 12 males, F/M = 1.08; mean age: 42.4 years; mean disease duration: 13.3 years; mean EDSS at study entry: 5.7) or mitoxantrone (25 patients, 14 females, 11 males, F/M = 1.27; mean age: 38.2 years; mean disease duration: 11.5 years; mean EDSS at study entry: 5.5). SPMS patients were treated for two years with clinical evaluation (relapse rate, disability progression) every three months and radiological imaging (conventional magnetic resonance imaging) before therapy initiation and at the end of the first and second years of therapy. Safety profile and costs of the two therapeutic protocols were also analysed. In terms of clinical and radiological measures the drugs exerted a quite identical effect on both, and produced a significant reduction in both relapse rate (mitoxantrone Mito): p = 0.001, cyclophosphamide (Cy): p = 0.003) and disability progression (Mito: p = 0.01; Cy: p = 0.01). Subgroups of mitoxantrone- and cyclophosphamide-responding patients were identified (14/25 and 17/25, respectively) and were characterized by a significantly shorter duration of the secondary progressive phase of the disease. In these subgroups, the improvement in the EDSS score at the end of therapy was highly significant (p<0.0001 for Mito, p = 0.0004 for Cy). The safety profiles of both drugs were acceptable; however, the Cy-based therapy protocol was significantly less expensive. We conclude that Cy should be considered as a therapeutic option in rapidly deteriorating SPMS patients.

A randomized blinded trial of combination therapy with cyclophosphamide in patients-with active multiple sclerosis on interferon beta

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with pulse cyclophosphamide given with methylprednisolone (MP) and interferon beta (IFNbeta)-Ia in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with active disease during IFNbeta monotherapy.

METHODS

This was a randomized, single-blind, parallel-group, multicenter trial in MS patients with a history of active disease during IFNbeta treatment. Patients were randomized to either cyclophosphamide 800 mg/m2 plus methylprednisolone 1 g IV (CY/MP) or methylprednisolone once a month for six months and then followed for an additional 18 months. All patients received three days of methylprednisolone 1 g IV at screening and 30 mcg IFNbeta-Ia IM weekly for the entire 24 months. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in the mean number of gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) lesions. Secondary clinical endpoints included time to treatment failure.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients were randomized to treatment: 30 to CY/MP and 29 to MP Change from baseline in the number of Gd+ lesions was significantly different between treatment groups at three (P =0.01), six (P =0.04) and 12 months (P =0.02), with fewer lesions in the CY/MP group. The cumulative rate of treatment failure was significantly lower in the CY/MP group compared with the MP group (rate ratio =0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.75; P =0.011). CY/MP treatment was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy with CY/MP and IFNbeta-Ia decreased the number of Gd+ lesions and slowed clinical activity in patients with previously active disease on IFNbeta alone.

[Treatment of progressive multiple sclerosis with monthly pulsed cyclophosphamide-methylprednisolone: predictive factors of treatment response]

INTRODUCTION

Cyclophospamide is used in the treatment of progressive multiple sclerosis. We were looking for predictive indicators of treatment response.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty-seven patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis and seven others with primary progressive received monthly infusions of cyclophosphamide (750mg/m2) and methylprednisolone (500mg). During the year before cyclophosphamide the EDSS had worsened one point in all patients with or without surimposed relapses. Evaluation was based on EDSS change at 6, 12, 24 months and 5 years.

RESULTS

Among secondary progressive patients, 91 per 100 (43/47) were stable or improved at 12 months, 65 per 100 (26/40) at 24 months and 22 per 100 (5/23) at 5 years. Annual relapse rate decreased from 0.81 before treatment to 0.48 during treatment and 0.12 after treatment (p<0.001). At 24 months, efficacy was correlated to a progressive phase lasting less than 5 years (p<0.01) and to a rapid increase of EDSS of at least 2 points the year before treatment (p<0.05). There were no influences of age, EDSS and surimposed relapses at the beginning of treatment, and other immunoactive drugs administrated before cyclophosphamide. There was no significant difference in quality of response to treatment between patients with primary progressive and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis.

CONCLUSION

Cyclophosphamide appears to be more efficient in early stage of progressive multiple sclerosis independently of age, relapses or neurological disability scale.

Immunosuppressive treatment in multiple sclerosis

Immunosuppressive therapy has been used to treat multiple sclerosis (MS) for over 30 years based on the hypothesis that MS is a T cell-mediated autoimmune disease. The most commonly used immunosuppressive agents in MS are azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and mitoxantrone. Since the interferons and glatiramer acetate have become widely used in MS, immunosuppressive agents have found a role given as combination therapy or as monotherapy in instances where the interferons and glatiramer acetate are not effective in controlling the disease. Like the interferons and glatiramer acetate, immunosuppressive drugs are most efficacious in stages of MS that have an inflammatory component as evidenced by relapses and/or gadolinium-enhancing lesions on MRI or in patients in earlier stages of disease where inflammation predominates over degenerative processes in the CNS. There is no evidence of efficacy in primary progressive MS or later stages of secondary progressive MS. In our studies of cyclophosphamide, we have found that although it is a general immunosuppressant that affects both T cell and B cell functions, cyclophosphamide has selective immune effects in MS by suppressing IL-12- and Th1-type responses and enhancing Th2/Th3 responses (IL-4, IL-10, TGF-beta; eosinophils in peripheral blood). Cyclophosphamide and mitoxantrone are the most common immunosuppressive drugs used in patients with rapidly worsening MS whose disease is not controlled by beta-interferon or glatiramer acetate.

The argument against the use of cyclophosphamide and mitoxantrone in the treatment of multiple sclerosis

Mitoxantrone (MITX) and cyclophosphamide (CPM) are potent immunosuppressive agents with efficacy in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). Both agents appear effective in those patients with active inflammatory disease but are probably less effective in patients with a secondary progressive (SP) course dominated by a degenerative component. Given these agents are effective patients with active inflammation the question arises as to whether they are more effective than high dose interferon therapy. Interferon beta administered at high dose and high frequency suppresses enhancing lesions by as much as 90% and brings about a 35% decrease in relapse rates in addition to decreasing the progression of disability. Interferons have an excellent safety profile even after years of administration. What then is the advantage of immunosuppressive agents such as cyclophosphamide and mitoxantrone over safer and still effective treatments? The answer lies in the magnitude of effect in those with the most active and aggressive disease states. While interferons are safe and effective in those with mild or moderate inflammatory disease states, they are probably not sufficient to bring about control in disease that is highly active and resilient. Both mitoxantrone and cyclophosphamide have the ability to suppress inflammation that may be resistant to therapy with more conservative agents. Given the safety profile of these agents their use should be restricted to those patients with aggressive disease resistant to treatment with more conservative agents.

Safety and tolerability of cyclophosphamide 'pulses' in multiple sclerosis: a prospective study in a clinical cohort

To assess the safety and tolerability of cyclophosphamide (CTX) 'pulse' therapy in progressive or very active multiple sclerosis (MS), we reviewed our experience in a cohort of MS patients who have been treated and prospectively followed-up in our Department since 1997. One hundred and twelve patients received intravenous CTX in monthly 'pulses' for 12 months at the dosage of 700 mg/m2 of body surface, then bimonthly for another 12 months. We evaluated the frequency and the severity of side-effects, as well as overall tolerability by the patient perspective using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Side-effects resulted in the discontinuation of therapy in 20 (18%) cases. Serious side-effects were observed in 24 patients (21.4%), most commonly definitive amenorrhea (33.3% of fertile women), hypogammaglobulinemia (5.4%), and hemorrhagic cystitis (4.5%). Malignancies were diagnosed in four (3.6%) subjects, three of whom were previously treated with azathioprine (AZA). Finally, 81.8% of the patients judged the treatment regimen as very or relatively acceptable and tolerable. Our data point to a reasonable safety and tolerability of CTX 'pulse' therapy. Further trials are needed to definitively assess the efficacy of CTX as an alternative therapeutic option for progressive or very active MS.

Treatment of progressive forms of multiple sclerosis by cyclophosphamide: a cohort study of 490 patients

There are no generally effective disease-modifying drugs for progressive forms of multiple sclerosis (MS). Some MS centres use cyclophosphamide (CYC) in secondary progressive (SP) forms of MS, especially after interferon beta-1b (INFbeta-1b) treatment failure. Moreover, there are currently no approved drugs for primary progressive (PP) MS. Using the collected data of patients with progressive MS, we studied clinical patterns that predicted a good response to CYC treatment. Secondly, we compared the therapeutic response of SPMS and PPMS patients to the treatment. Data from 490 MS patients were collected. All patients presented an SP (n = 362) or PP (n = 128) form of the disease and 476 had been treated for at least one year with a monthly pulse of CYC associated with methylprednisolone (MP). CYC treatment was justified because of at least a 1-point worsening on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) during the previous year. The EDSS score was assessed at baseline and after 6 months (M6) and 12 months (M12) of treatment. After 12 months of CYC treatment, 78.6% of SPMS and 73.5% of PPMS patients had stabilised or had an improved EDSS score. Response to CYC was not significantly different in the two progressive forms of MS. Twenty-two patients presented noticeable drug side effects, one of whom withdrew from the treatment due to intolerance. Patients with an improved EDSS at M12 had a shorter mean progressive time course (5.1 years) than patients who stabilised or worsened (7.1 years) (p = 0.02). We also observed that poor responders at M6 were also poor responders at M12 (p < 0.001). This large cohort study showed that CYC treatment was well tolerated and suggested that a better response occurred in cases with a short progressive time course. We did not find any difference in treatment response between the two progressive forms of MS. To date, no treatment is approved for PPMS and we therefore propose a trial to test the use of CYC treatment early in the course of the disease in PPMS patients with disability progression.

Disease-modifying Therapies for Multiple Sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is likely an autoimmune disorder, although this remains unproven. Immunotherapeutic treatments have been shown to be helpful, especially in relapsing forms of the illness, but the treatments are incomplete, and many patients continue to worsen over time, even with standard therapy. Immunotherapies presently available appear to have their greatest effect when used early in the course of the illness. In relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), there is overwhelming Class I data from large clinical trials that supports the use of interferon-beta-1a (IFNbeta-1a), interferon-beta-1b (IFNbeta-1b), and glatiramer acetate. Comparative data are limited, and results published in different trials support the idea that treatment outcomes with the various drugs are more similar than different. Decisions about treatment choice should be tailored to the needs of the individual patient. With the exception of a small number of patients with benign MS, all RRMS patients should be treated with one of the interferons or glatiramer acetate. There are Class I data consistent with the idea that higher dose or more frequent administration of interferon-beta (IFNbeta) is associated with better clinical outcome and reduced progression of changes on brain MRI scans. The duration of this effect is not clear, and higher dose with more frequent administration is associated with higher cost, more side effects, and greater production of interferon antibodies. Interferon antibodies possibly reduce efficacy of IFNbeta in RRMS and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS). Clinically isolated syndromes (CIS) of demyelination in the central nervous system can be reliably diagnosed, and the risk of further episodes of demyelination is consistent with the diagnosis of RRMS stratified by use of brain MRI scans. Patients at high risk of developing RRMS after CIS achieve significant benefit after treatment with IFNbeta-1a, and initiation of therapy after CIS should be given strong consideration. There are no similar data for IFNbeta-1b or glatiramer acetate, but logic would dictate a similar response with these agents. In SPMS, there are Class I data that treatment with IFNbeta-1a or IFNbeta-1b has a significant effect on progression of brain MRI lesions, but clinical outcomes are less clearly affected. It is justifiable to treat SPMS patients with IFNbeta. Mitoxantrone may be effective in slowing progression of SPMS, and its risks are moderate. It should be used in patients with SPMS, but potential long-term risks must be discussed with the patient in detail. Results of treatment of SPMS in advanced cases (Extended Disability Status Score greater than 6.5, or restricted to wheelchair) is mostly unknown. These patients are at high risk of developing infections, especially if they use indwelling catheters, and the use of agents that induce immunosuppression may be risky. There are no effective therapies for primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS). Although PPMS patients are frequently treated with one or more therapeutic agents, there is no medical justification for this now.

Prevention of autoimmune attack and disease progression in multiple sclerosis: current therapies and future prospects

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an important cause of progressive neurological disability, typically commencing in early adulthood. There is a need for safe and effective therapy to prevent the progressive central nervous system (CNS) damage and resultant disability that characterize the disease course. Increasing evidence supports a chronic autoimmune basis for CNS damage in MS. In the present study, we review current concepts of autoimmune pathogenesis in MS, assess current therapies aimed at countering autoimmune attack and discuss potential therapeutic strategies. Among currently available therapies, beta-interferon and glatiramer acetate have a modest effect on reducing relapses and slowing the accumulation of disability in relapsing-remitting MS. Beta-interferon is of doubtful efficacy in secondary progressive MS and appears to aggravate primary progressive MS, possibly by increasing antibody-mediated CNS damage through inhibition of B-cell apoptosis. Mitoxantrone may reduce relapses and slow disability progression in relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive MS, but its use is limited by the risk of cardiomyopathy. There are currently no effective treatments for primary progressive MS. Many therapies that are effective in the animal model, experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), are either ineffective in MS or--in the case of gamma-interferon, lenercept and altered peptide ligands--actually make MS worse. This discrepancy may be explained by the occurrence in MS of defects in immunoregulatory mechanisms, the integrity of which is essential for the efficacy of these treatments in EAE. It is likely that the development of safe, effective therapy for MS will depend on a better understanding of immunoregulatory defects in MS.

Treatment of multiple sclerosis with cyclophosphamide: critical review of clinical and immunologic effects

Cyclophosphamide is an alkylating agent used to treat malignancies and immune-mediated inflammatory non-malignant processes such as lupus nephritis and immune-mediated neuropathies. It has been studied as a treatment for multiple sclerosis (MS) for the past 30 years and is used by physicians in selected cases of progressive or worsening MS. Review of published reports suggests that it is efficacious in cases of worsening MS that have an inflammatory component as evidenced by relapses and/or gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or in patients in earlier stages of disease where inflammation predominates over degenerative processes in the central nervous system (CNS). There is no evidence of efficacy in primary progressive MS or later stages of secondary progressive MS. Although a general immunosuppressant that affects both T- and B-cell function, cyclophosphamide has selective immune effects in MS by suppressing IL-12 and Th1-type responses and enhancing Th2/Th3 responses (IL-4, IL-10, TGF-beta; eosinophils in peripheral blood). Side effects include nausea, alopecia, infertility, bladder toxicity and risk of malignancy. The most commonly used regimens involve every 4- to 8-week outpatient i.v. pulse therapy given with or without corticosteroids and are usually well-tolerated by patients. Cyclophosphamide is currently used in patients whose disease is not controlled by beta-interferon or glatiramer acetate and those with rapidly worsening MS.

Cyclophosphamide for multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis is a presumed cell-mediated autoimmune disease of the central nervous system. Cyclophosphamide (CFX) is a cytotoxic and immunosuppressive agent, used in systemic autoimmune diseases. Controversial results have been reported on its efficacy in MS. We conducted a systematic review of all relevant trials, evaluating the CFX efficacy in patients with progressive MS.

OBJECTIVES

The main objectives were to determine whether CFX slows the disease progression.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register) were systematically searched. References list of retrieved studies and conference abstracts on the main meetings on Multiple Sclerosis were handsearched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical effect of CFX treatment in patients affected by clinically definite progressive MS. CFX had to be administered alone or in combination with ACTH or steroids. The comparison group had to be placebo or no treatment or the same co intervention (ACTH or steroids) The main outcome criteria were : progression of disability (defined as an increase of 0.5 point in Kurtzke Extended Disability Status Scale (EDSS) for patients with baseline EDSS > or = 6 and 1 for EDSS < or = 5.5), differences of disability between treatment-control groups and the number of patients with side effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The identified references were reviewed by two reviewers who independently decided the eligibility of the study, extracted and summarized data and assessed the trial's quality. The statistical analysis was performed using the Cochrane RevMan software and analyzed using Cochrane MetaView.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 326 identified references, 80 were selected for full review, only four RCTs were selected for the final analysis. Intensive immunosuppression with CFX (alone or associated with ACTH or prednisone) in patients with progressive MS compared to placebo or no-treatment (152 participants) did not prevent the long -term (12-18-24 months) risk to evolution to a next step of EDSS. However, the mean change in disability (final disability subtracted from the baseline) significantly favoured the treated group at 12 (effect size - 0.21; C. I. - 0.24, - 0.17) and 18 months (- 0.19; C. I. - 0.24, - 0.14). We were not able to verify the efficacy of other schedules. Five patients died; sepsis and amenorrhea frequently occurred in treated patients (descriptive analysis).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Only limited objectives were reached. This review shows a role of CFX in the treatment of progressive MS, but less toxic schedules must be considered, before its use in the clinical practice.

The effect of immunosuppressive protocols on spontaneous CNS remyelination following toxin-induced demyelination

Glial cell transplantation is a potential therapy for human demyelinating disease, though obtaining large numbers of human myelinating cells for transplantation remains a major stumbling block. Autologous transplantation is currently not possible, since the adult human CNS is not a good source of oligodendrocyte precursors, and long-term immunosuppression of engrafted allogeneic or xenogeneic cells is therefore likely to be necessary. Immunosuppressive drugs may need to be used in situations where more recent, active areas of demyelination are undergoing endogenous remyelination. It is therefore pertinent to establish the extent to which immunosuppressive protocols will suppress spontaneous remyelination. In order to investigate this issue, we created demyelinating lesions in the spinal cord of adult rats and compared the extent of remyelination in animals receiving different immunosuppressive treatments. In animals given only cyclosporin A, there was no difference in the extent of either Schwann cell or oligodendrocyte remyelination of ethidium bromide-induced demyelinating lesions. However, in animals given cyclophosphamide, either alone or in combination with cyclosporin, there was a significant reduction in the extent of oligodendrocyte-mediated remyelination. These results demonstrate that cyclophosphamide is deleterious to oligodendrocyte remyelination and for this reason should be used with caution in patients with demyelinating disease.

Effect of monthly intravenous cyclophosphamide in rapidly deteriorating multiple sclerosis patients resistant to conventional therapy

Fourteen consecutive clinically definite relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) patients were treated with monthly intravenous cyclophosphomide (CTX) for 6 months. All had experienced severe dinical deterioration during the 12 months prior to treatment with CTX despite treatment with conventional immunomodulating agents and intravenous methylprednisolone. Treatment with CTX led to improvement and neurologic stability within 6 months which was sustained for at least 18 months after the onset of treatment with CTX. Therapy with CTX was well tolerated. CTX may be of benefit in MS patients who experience rapid clinical worsening and are resistant to conventional therapy.

Systematic review of immunomodulatory drugs for the treatment of people with multiple sclerosis: Is there good quality evidence on effectiveness and cost?

OBJECTIVE

To review the clinical effectiveness and costs of a range of disease modifying drugs in multiple sclerosis. Drugs included are azathioprine, cladribine, cyclophosphamide, intravenous immunoglobulin, methotrexate, and mitoxantrone.

METHODS

Electronic databases and bibliographies of related papers were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews, and experts and pharmaceutical companies were contacted for further information. Inclusion and quality criteria were assessed, data extraction undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer, with discrepancies being resolved through discussion. Costs were obtained and cost-effectiveness papers sought.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. Evidence for the clinical effectiveness of the drugs showed some reductions in relapse rates and/or progression to disability for people with MS, although benefits may be lessened by wide ranging side effects. Annual drug costs/patient are estimated to range from 60 pounds to 10200 pounds. No cost effectiveness studies were found.

CONCLUSION

Evidence for the effectiveness of these drugs in multiple sclerosis is problematic because there are few good quality trials for each drug. Trials often have methodological limitations and use different treatment regimes, patient groups, and outcome measures. Well conducted trials using outcome measures with clinical significance for groups of patients with different types of multiple sclerosis and long term follow up are needed if the evidence base of treatment for the disease is to be improved.

Immunomodulatory drugs for multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of clinical and cost effectiveness

Uncertainties about the clinical and cost effectiveness of immunomodulatory drugs for multiple sclerosis (MS), as well as concerns about funding treatment, continue to influence their use. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales has been appraising the evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of IFN-beta and glatiramer to provide guidance to the NHS. It has proved a difficult task. This paper is an update of our systematic review which assesses the evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of a range of immunomodulatory drugs for MS, including azathioprine, IFN-beta, cladribine, cyclophosphamide, glatiramer, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), methotrexate and mitoxantrone. Searches of electronic databases (such as Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library) and bibliographies of related papers, as well as consultation with experts, for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and direct reports of RCTs revealed 26 studies of clinical effectiveness and eight economic evaluations that met the criteria for inclusion. The quality of the evidence was often poor, affected by methodological limitations. Evidence on the clinical effectiveness of immunomodulatory drugs showed some clinical effect, with reductions in relapse rates and/or progression to disability for people with MS. However, benefits from these drugs may be lessened by side effects. Assessment of cost effectiveness was limited to IFN-beta and glatiramer, showing that any benefit from these drugs was achieved at very high cost. The inadequacies in the evidence of clinical and cost effectiveness on some immunomodulatory drugs for the treatment of people with MS necessitate further rigorous RCTs and comparative economic evaluations of different alternatives.

Treatment of progressive multiple sclerosis with pulse cyclophosphamide/methylprednisolone: response to therapy is linked to the duration of progressive disease

OBJECTIVE

To determine if there are variables linked to responsiveness to pulse cyclophosphamide/methylprednisolone therapy in progressive Multiple Sclerosis (MS).

BACKGROUND

MS is a presumed autoimmune disease of the CNS in which immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory treatments are being used. We have treated patients with the progressive form of MS using a regimen consisting of pulse cyclophosphamide/methylprednisolone that is given as an outpatient at 4 - 8 week intervals similar to lupus nephritis protocols.

DESIGN/METHODS

We investigated a series of 95 consecutive progressive MS patients treated in an open label fashion in an effort to identify factors linked to response to treatment. Clinical outcome measures included status at 12 months and time to failure determined by EDSS change and global physician impression. For each endpoint, associations were examined between outcome and patient characteristics including gender, age at onset of disease and treatment, EDSS 1 year previously and at start of treatment, duration of MS, previous treatment, age at onset and duration of progression, and primary vs secondary progressive MS.

RESULTS

Of the variables studied, age, gender, age at onset, and age at treatment did not correlate with response to therapy. The most significant variable that correlated with response was length of time the patient was in the progressive phase (P=0.048, 12 month change in EDSS; P=0.017, risk for time to failure). Patients that improved on therapy at 12 months had progressive disease for an average of 2.1 years prior to treatment, whereas those stable or worse had progressive disease for 5.0 and 4.1 years respectively. There was a trend (P=0.08) favoring positive clinical responses in secondary progressive as opposed to primary progressive patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that progressive MS may become refractory to immunosuppressive therapy with time and early intervention when patients enter the progressive stage should be considered. Furthermore, in trials of immunosuppressive agents for progressive MS, duration of progression should be considered as a randomization and analysis variable.

Effect of open label pulse cyclophosphamide therapy on MRI measures of disease activity in five patients with refractory relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the response to cyclophosphamide (CTX) of five patients who failed an average three treatments with multiple other therapeutic agents, using serial monthly MRI measures.

METHODS

Five patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) and documented MRI disease activity were started on monthly pulse intravenous CTX at a dose of 1 g/m2. CTX was administered without an induction phase according to the protocol similar to the treatment of lupus nephritis. The five patients were followed with monthly MRI and clinical evaluation for a mean of 28 months.

RESULTS

All the patients showed a rapid reduction in the contrast-enhancing lesion frequency and in three patients there was a decrease in the T2 lesion load within the first 5 months after starting CTX treatment. The administration of CTX during overnight hospitalization was safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that aggressive immunosuppressive therapy may be useful in some rapidly deteriorating refractory patients and further controlled study should be considered in order to full evaluate this type of treatment as a potential therapy in MS.

Treatment of multiple sclerosis: recent trials and future perspectives

In the past year, further evidence establishing the usefulness of beta interferons and glatiramer in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis has been advanced. Interferon-beta-1b was also shown to be efficacious in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. This and other trials of symptomatic treatments are reviewed. Based on an appraisal of recent experimental studies, future promising approaches to intervene in the chain of immunopathogenetic events are discussed.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of extracorporeal photopheresis in chronic progressive multiple sclerosis

Extracorporeal photopheresis is a safe therapy for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and may have efficacy in certain autoimmune disorders. We performed a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of monthly photopheresis therapy in 16 patients with clinically definite multiple sclerosis (MS). All patients had progressed during the preceding year with entry Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores between 3.0 and 7.0. Patients received photopheresis or sham therapy for 1 year and were followed for an additional 6 to 12 months. Patients were clinically evaluated by three disability scales: (1) EDSS; (2) Ambulation index and (3) Scripp's quantitative neurologic assessment. No serious side effects occurred in either group. There were no differences between the photopheresis and sham therapy groups by the disability measures. Additionally, there were no differences in progression of MRI plaque burden or evoked potential latencies. In this limited study, photopheresis was found to be safe but did not significantly alter the course of chronic progressive MS.