Natalizumab in Multiple Sclerosis: Long-Term Management

Natalizumab is a monoclonal antibody highly effective in the treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients. Despite its effectiveness, there are growing concerns regarding the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), a brain infection caused by John Cunningham virus (JCV), particularly after 24 doses and in patients who previously received immunosuppressive drugs. Long-term natalizumab treated, immunosuppressive-pretreated, and JCV antibody-positive patients are asked to rediscuss natalizumab continuation or withdrawal after 24 doses. Until now, there has not been a clear strategy that should be followed to avoid PML risk and in parallel reduce clinical and radiological rebound activity. In this review, we analyzed the results of clinical trials and case reports in relation to the following situations: natalizumab continuation, natalizumab discontinuation followed by full therapeutic suspension or switch to other first or second line MS treatments. Quitting all MS treatment after natalizumab increases MS activity occurrence. The results regarding the therapeutic switch are not homogeneous, so at the moment there are no established guidelines regarding natalizumab treatment after 24 administrations; the choice is currently based on the professional experience of the neurologist, and on patients’ clinical features and preferences

Alemtuzumab long-term immunologic effect: Treg suppressor function increases up to 24 months

To analyze changes in T-helper (Th) subsets, T-regulatory (Treg) cell percentages and function, and mRNA levels of immunologically relevant molecules during a 24-month follow-up after alemtuzumab treatment in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS)

The still under-investigated role of cognitive deficits in PML diagnosis

Background: Despite cognitive deficits frequently represent the first clinical manifestations of Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy (PML) in Natalizumab-treated MS patients, the importance of cognitive deficits in PML diagnosis is still under-investigated. The aim of the current study is to investigate the cognitive deficits at PML diagnosis in a group of Italian patients with PML. Methods: Thirty-four PML patients were included in the study. The demographic and clinical data, the lesion load and localization, and the longitudinal clinical course was compared between patients with (n = 13) and without (n = 15) cognitive deficit upon PML suspicion (the remaining six patients were asymptomatic). Clinical presentation of cognitive symptoms was described in detail. Result: After symptoms detection, the time to diagnosis resulted to be shorter for patients presenting with cognitive than for patients with non cognitive onset (p = 0.03). Within patients with cognitive onset, six patients were presenting with language and/or reading difficulties (46.15%); five patients with memory difficulties (38.4%); three patients with apraxia (23.1%); two patients with disorientation (15.3%); two patients with neglect (15.3%); one patients with object agnosia (7.7%), one patient with perseveration (7.7%) and one patient with dementia (7.7%). Frontal lesions were less frequent (p = 0.03), whereas temporal lesions were slightly more frequent (p = 0.06) in patients with cognitive deficits. The longitudinal PML course seemed to be more severe in cognitive than in non cognitive patients (F = 2.73, p = 0.03), but differences disappeared (F = 1.24, p = 0.29) when balancing for the incidence of immune reconstitution syndrome and for other treatments for PML (steroids, plasma exchange (PLEX) and other therapies (Mefloquine, Mirtazapine, Maraviroc). Conclusion: Cognitive deficits at PML onset manifest with symptoms which are absolutely rare in MS. Their appearance in MS patients should strongly suggest PML. Clinicians should be sensitive to the importance of formal neuropsychological evaluation, with particular focus on executive function, which are not easily detected without a formal assessment

Management of breakthrough disease in patients with multiple sclerosis: when an increasing of Interferon beta dose should be effective?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In daily clinical setting, some patients affected by relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS) are switched from the low-dose to the high-dose Interferon beta (IFNB) in order to achieve a better control of the disease.</p> <p>Purpose</p> <p>In this observational, post-marketing study we reported the 2-year clinical outcomes of patients switched to the high-dose IFNB; we also evaluated whether different criteria adopted to switch patients had an influence on the clinical outcomes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients affected by RRMS and switched from the low-dose to the high-dose IFNB due to the occurrence of relapses, or contrast-enhancing lesions (CELs) as detected by yearly scheduled MRI scans, were followed for two years. Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, as well as clinical relapses, were evaluated during the follow-up period.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 121 patients switched to the high-dose IFNB. One hundred patients increased the IFNB dose because of the occurrence of one or more relapses, and 21 because of the presence of one or more CELs, even in absence of clinical relapses. At the end of the 2-year follow-up, 72 (59.5%) patients had a relapse, and 51 (42.1%) reached a sustained progression on EDSS score. Overall, 85 (70.3%) patients showed some clinical disease activity (i.e. relapses or disability progression) after the switch.</p> <p>Relapse risk after increasing the IFNB dose was greater in patients who switched because of relapses than those switched only for MRI activity (HR: 5.55, p = 0.001). A high EDSS score (HR: 1.77, p < 0.001) and the combination of clinical and MRI activity at switch raised the risk of sustained disability progression after increasing the IFNB dose (HR: 2.14, p = 0.01).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In the majority of MS patients, switching from the low-dose to the high-dose IFNB did not reduce the risk of further relapses or increased disability in the 2-year follow period.</p> <p>Although we observed that patients who switched only on the basis on MRI activity (even in absence of clinical attacks) had a lower risk of further relapses, larger studies are warranted before to recommend a switch algorithm based on MRI findings.</p

Neutralizing antibodies explain the poor clinical response to Interferon beta in a small proportion of patients with Multiple Sclerosis: a retrospective study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against Interferon beta (IFNβ) are reported to be associated with poor clinical response to therapy in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. We aimed to quantify the contribution of NAbs to the sub-optimal response of IFNβ treatment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We studied the prevalence of NAbs in MS patients grouped according to their clinical response to IFNβ during the treatment period. Patients were classified as: group A, developing ≥ 1 relapse after the first 6 months of therapy; group B, exhibiting confirmed disability progression after the first 6 months of therapy, with or without superimposed relapses; group C, presenting a stable disease course during therapy. A cytopathic effect assay tested the presence of NAbs in a cohort of ambulatory MS patients treated with one of the available IFNβ formulations for at least one year. NAbs positivity was defined as NAbs titre ≥ 20 TRU.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seventeen patients (12.1%) were NAbs positive. NAbs positivity correlated with poorer clinical response (<it>p </it>< 0.04). As expected, the prevalence of NAbs was significantly lower in Group C (2.1%) than in Group A (17.0%) and Group B (17.0%). However, in the groups of patients with a poor clinical response (A, B), NAbs positivity was found only in a small proportion of patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The majority of patients with poor clinical response are NAbs negative suggesting that NAbs explains only partially the sub-optimal response to IFNβ.</p