The Effect of Cannabis-Based Medicine on Neuropathic Pain and Spasticity in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis and Spinal Cord Injury: Study Protocol of a National Multicenter Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Disease or acquired damage to the central nervous system frequently causes disabling spasticity and central neuropathic pain (NP), both of which are frequent in multiple sclerosis (MS) and spinal cord injury (SCI). Patients with MS and SCI often request treatment with cannabis-based medicine (CBM). However, knowledge about effects, side effects, choice of active cannabinoids (Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD) alone or in combination), and doses of CBM remains limited. Using a double-blind, parallel design in a national multicenter cohort, this study examines the effect of CBM on spasticity and NP. Patients are randomized to treatment with capsules containing either THC, CBD, THC and CBD, or placebo. Primary endpoints are patient-reported pain and spasticity on a numerical rating scale. Other endpoints include quality of life and sleep, depression and anxiety, and relief of pain and spasticity. Side-effects of CBM are described. In a sub-study, the pharmacodynamics (PD) and pharmacokinetics (PK) of oral capsule CBM are examined. We expect that the study will contribute to the literature by providing information on the effects and side-effects of CBD, THC, and the combination of the two for central neuropathic pain and spasticity. Furthermore, we will describe the PD/PK of THC and CBD in a patient population

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cannabis‐based medicine in a patient population included in a randomized, placebo‐controlled, clinical trial

Abstract Information on the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of orally administered cannabis‐based medicine (CBM) in capsule formulation in patient populations is sparse. In this exploratory study, we aimed to evaluate the PK and PD in a probable steady state of CBM in neuropathic pain and spasticity in a population of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Of 134 patients participating in a randomized, double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled, trial, 23 patients with MS (17 female) mean age 52 years (range 21–67) were enrolled in this substudy. They received oral capsules containing Δ9‐tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, n = 4), cannabidiol (CBD, n = 6), a combination (THC&CBD, n = 4), or placebo (n = 9). Maximum doses were 22.5 mg (THC) and 45 mg (CBD) a day divided into three administrations. PD parameters were evaluated for pain and spasticity. Blood samples were analyzed using an ultra‐high‐performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometer after protein precipitation and phospholipid removal. PK parameters were estimated using computerized modeling. The variation in daily dose and PK between individuals was considerable in a steady state, yet comparable with previous reports from healthy controls. Based on a simulation of the best model, the estimated PK parameters (mean) for THC (5 mg) were Cmax 1.21 ng/mL, Tmax 2.68 h, and half‐life 2.75 h, and for CBD (10 mg) were Cmax 2.67 ng/mL, Tmax 0.10 h, and half‐life 4.95 h, respectively. No effect was found on the PD parameters, but the placebo response was considerable. More immediate adverse events were registered in the active treatment groups compared with the placebo group

Rituximab vs Ocrelizumab in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis

Importance: Ocrelizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeted against CD20+ B cells, reduces the frequency of relapses by 46% and disability worsening by 40% compared with interferon beta 1a in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). Rituximab, a chimeric monoclonal anti-CD20 agent, is often prescribed as an off-label alternative to ocrelizumab. Objective: To evaluate whether the effectiveness of rituximab is noninferior to ocrelizumab in relapsing-remitting MS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was an observational cohort study conducted between January 2015 and March 2021. Patients were included in the treatment group for the duration of study therapy and were recruited from the MSBase registry and Danish MS Registry (DMSR). Included patients had a history of relapsing-remitting MS treated with ocrelizumab or rituximab, a minimum 6 months of follow-up, and sufficient data to calculate the propensity score. Patients with comparable baseline characteristics were 1:6 matched with propensity score on age, sex, MS duration, disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale), prior relapse rate, prior therapy, disease activity (relapses, disability accumulation, or both), magnetic resonance imaging lesion burden (missing values imputed), and country. Exposure: Treatment with ocrelizumab or rituximab after 2015. Main outcomes and Measures: Noninferiority comparison of annualized rate of relapses (ARRs), with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.63 rate ratio. Secondary end points were relapse and 6-month confirmed disability accumulation in pairwise-censored groups. Results: Of the 6027 patients with MS who were treated with ocrelizumab or rituximab, a total of 1613 (mean [SD] age; 42.0 [10.8] years; 1089 female [68%]) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis (898 MSBase, 715 DMSR). A total of 710 patients treated with ocrelizumab (414 MSBase, 296 DMSR) were matched with 186 patients treated with rituximab (110 MSBase, 76 DMSR). Over a pairwise censored mean (SD) follow-up of 1.4 (0.7) years, the ARR ratio was higher in patients treated with rituximab than in those treated with ocrelizumab (rate ratio, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.4; ARR, 0.20 vs 0.09; P <.001). The cumulative hazard of relapses was higher among patients treated with rituximab than those treated with ocrelizumab (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.5-3.0). No difference in the risk of disability accumulation was observed between groups. Results were confirmed in sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: In this noninferiority comparative effectiveness observational cohort study, results did not show noninferiority of treatment with rituximab compared with ocrelizumab. As administered in everyday practice, rituximab was associated with a higher risk of relapses than ocrelizumab. The efficacy of rituximab and ocrelizumab administered at uniform doses and intervals is being further evaluated in randomized noninferiority clinical trials.

Rituximab vs ocrelizumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

IMPORTANCE Ocrelizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeted against CD20+ B cells, reduces the frequency of relapses by 46% and disability worsening by 40% compared with interferon beta 1a in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). Rituximab, a chimeric monoclonal anti-CD20 agent, is often prescribed as an off-label alternative to ocrelizumab. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether the effectiveness of rituximab is noninferior to ocrelizumab in relapsing-remitting MS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This was an observational cohort study conducted between January 2015 and March 2021. Patients were included in the treatment group for the duration of study therapy and were recruited from the MSBase registry and Danish MS Registry (DMSR). Included patients had a history of relapsing-remitting MS treated with ocrelizumab or rituximab, a minimum 6 months of follow-up, and sufficient data to calculate the propensity score. Patients with comparable baseline characteristics were 1:6 matched with propensity score on age, sex, MS duration, disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale), prior relapse rate, prior therapy, disease activity (relapses, disability accumulation, or both), magnetic resonance imaging lesion burden (missing values imputed), and country. EXPOSURE Treatment with ocrelizumab or rituximab after 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Noninferiority comparison of annualized rate of relapses (ARRs), with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.63 rate ratio. Secondary end points were relapse and 6-month confirmed disability accumulation in pairwise-censored groups. RESULTS Of the 6027 patients with MS who were treated with ocrelizumab or rituximab, a total of 1613 (mean [SD] age; 42.0 [10.8] years; 1089 female [68%]) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis (898 MSBase, 715 DMSR). A total of 710 patients treated with ocrelizumab (414 MSBase, 296 DMSR) were matched with 186 patients treated with rituximab (110 MSBase, 76 DMSR). Over a pairwise censored mean (SD) follow-up of 1.4 (0.7) years, the ARR ratio was higher in patients treated with rituximab than in those treated with ocrelizumab (rate ratio, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.4; ARR, 0.20 vs 0.09; P < .001). The cumulative hazard of relapses was higher among patients treated with rituximab than those treated with ocrelizumab (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.5-3.0). No difference in the risk of disability accumulation was observed between groups. Results were confirmed in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION In this noninferiority comparative effectiveness observational cohort study, results did not show noninferiority of treatment with rituximab compared with ocrelizumab. As administered in everyday practice, rituximab was associated with a higher risk of relapses than ocrelizumab. The efficacy of rituximab and ocrelizumab administered at uniform doses and intervals is being further evaluated in randomized noninferiority clinical trials