Search

Cladribine has been approved for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) and its administration results in a long-lasting depletion of lymphocytes. As lymphopenia is known to hamper immune responses to vaccination, we evaluated the immunogenicity of the influenza vaccine in patients undergoing cladribine treatment at different stages vs. controls. The antibody response in 90 cladribine-treated MS patients was prospectively compared with 10 control subjects receiving platform immunotherapy (NCT05019248). Serum samples were collected before and six months after vaccination. Response to vaccination was determined by the hemagglutination-inhibition test. Postvaccination seroprotection rates against influenza A were comparable in cladribine-treated patients and controls (H1N1: 94.4% vs. 100%; H3N2: 92.2% vs. 90.0%). Influenza B response was lower in the cladribine cohort (61.1% vs. 80%). The increase in geometric mean titers was lower in the cladribine group vs. controls (H1N1: +98.5 vs. +188.1; H3N2: +225.3 vs. +300.0; influenza B: +40.0 vs. +78.4); however, titers increased in both groups for all strains. Seroprotection was achieved irrespective of vaccination timing and lymphocyte subset counts at the time of vaccination in the cladribine cohort. To conclude, cladribine-treated MS patients can mount an adequate immune response to influenza independently of treatment duration and time interval to the last cladribine administration.

Background and Objectives: B cell-depleting antibodies were proven as effective strategy for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). The monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab was approved in 2017 in the United States and in 2018 in the European Union, but despite proven efficacy in randomized, controlled clinical trials, its effectiveness in the real-world setting remains to be fully elucidated. In particular, most study patients were treatment naive or switched from injectable therapies, whereas oral substances or monoclonal antibodies made up >1% of previous treatments., Methods: We evaluated ocrelizumab-treated patients with RMS enrolled in the prospective cohorts at the University Hospitals Duesseldorf and Essen, Germany. Epidemiologic data at baseline were compared, and Cox proportional hazard models were applied to evaluate outcomes., Results: Two hundred eighty patients were included (median age: 37 years, 35% male patients). Compared with using ocrelizumab as a first-line treatment, its use as a third-line therapy increased hazard ratios (HRs) for relapse and disability progression, whereas differences between first- vs second-line and second- vs third-line remained smaller. We stratified patients according to their last previous disease-modifying treatment and here identified fingolimod (FTY) (45 patients, median age 40 years, 33% male patients) as a relevant risk factor for ongoing relapse activity despite 2nd-line (HR: 3.417 [1.007-11.600]) or 3rd-line (HR: 5.903 [2.489-13.999]) ocrelizumab treatment, disability worsening (2nd line: HR: 3.571 [1.013-12.589]; 3rd line: HR: 4.502 [1.728-11.729]), and occurrence of new/enlarging MRI lesions (2nd line: HR: 1.939 [0.604-6.228]; 3rd line: HR: 4.627 [1.982-10.802]). Effects were persistent throughout the whole follow-up. Neither peripheral B-cell repopulation nor immunoglobulin G levels were associated with rekindling disease activity., Discussion: Our prospectively collected observational data suggest suboptimal effectiveness of ocrelizumab in patients switching from FTY compared with those switching from other substances or having been treatment naive. These findings support previous studies indicating abated effectiveness of immune cell-depleting therapies following FTY treatment in patients with RMS., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class IV evidence that for patients with RMS, previous treatment with FTY compared with previous treatment with other immunomodulating therapies decreases the effectiveness of ocrelizumab., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology.)

Objective: Neurological manifestations of autoimmune connective tissue diseases (CTD) are poorly understood and difficult to diagnose. We here aimed to address this shortcoming by studying immune cell compositions in CTD patients with and without neurological manifestation., Methods: Using flow cytometry, we retrospectively investigated paired cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood samples of 28 CTD patients without neurological manifestation, 38 CTD patients with neurological manifestation (N-CTD), 38 non-inflammatory controls, and 38 multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, a paradigmatic primary neuroinflammatory disease., Results: We detected an expansion of plasma cells in the blood of both N-CTD and CTD compared to non-inflammatory controls and MS. Blood plasma cells alone distinguished the clinically similar entities N-CTD and MS with high discriminatory performance (AUC: 0.81). Classical blood monocytes indicated higher disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients. Surprisingly, immune cells in the CSF did not differ significantly between N-CTD and CTD, while CD4 + T cells and the CD4 + /CD8 + ratio were elevated in the blood of N-CTD compared to CTD. Several B cell-associated parameters partially overlapped in the CSF in MS and N-CTD. We built a machine learning model that distinguished N-CTD from MS with high discriminatory power using either blood or CSF., Conclusion: We here find that blood flow cytometry alone surprisingly suffices to distinguish CTD with neurological manifestations from clinically similar entities, suggesting that a rapid blood test could support clinicians in the differential diagnosis of N-CTD., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Given the varying severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the rapid spread of Severe-Acute-Respiratory-Syndrome-Corona-Virus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), vaccine-mediated protection of particularly vulnerable individuals has gained increasing attention during the course of the pandemic., Methods: We performed a 1-year follow-up study of 51 ocrelizumab-treated patients with multiple sclerosis (OCR-pwMS) who received COVID-19 vaccination in 2021. We retrospectively identified 37 additional OCR-pwMS, 42 pwMS receiving natalizumab, 27 pwMS receiving sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators, 59 pwMS without a disease-modifying therapy, and 61 controls without MS (HC). In OCR-pwMS, anti-SARS-CoV-2(S)-antibody titers were measured prior to the first and after the second, third, and fourth vaccine doses (pv2/3/4). The SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell response was analyzed pv2. SARS-CoV-2 infection status, COVID-19 disease severity, and vaccination-related adverse events were assessed in all pwMS and HC., Results: We found a pronounced and increasing anti-SARS-CoV-2(S)-antibody response after COVID-19 booster vaccinations in OCR-pwMS (pv2: 30.4%, pv3: 56.5%, and pv4 90.0% were antibody positive). More than one third of OCR-pwMS without detectable antibodies pv2 developed positive antibodies pv3. 23.5% of OCR-pwMS had a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, of which 84.2% were symptomatic. Infection rates were comparable between OCR-pwMS and control groups. None of the pwMS had severe COVID-19. An attenuated humoral immune response was not associated with a higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection., Discussion: Additional COVID-19 vaccinations can boost the humoral immune response in OCR-pwMS and improve clinical protection against COVID-19. Vaccines effectively protect even OCR-pwMS without a detectable COVID-19 specific humoral immune response, indicating compensatory, e.g., T cell-mediated immunological mechanisms., Competing Interests: MR received speaker honoraria from Novartis, Bayer Vital GmbH, Roche, Alexion, and Ipsen and travel reimbursement from Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, Merz, Genzyme, Teva, Roche, and Merck. MK received travel grants from Merck Serono and Biogen, MB served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis and Genzyme and has received conference travel support from Biogen and Novartis. He serves on steering committees for trials conducted by Novartis. His institution has received research support from Biogen, Merck and Novartis, HPH has received fees for consulting, speaking, and serving on steering committees from Bayer Healthcare, Biogen, GeNeuro, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Opexa, Receptos Celgene, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, CSL Behring, Octapharma, and Teva, with approval from the Rector of Heinrich-Heine-University, OA received personal fees from Alexion, Bayer Healthcare, Biogen, Celgene, Merck Serono, MedImmune, Novartis, Roche, Teva, and Zambon, PA received compensation for serving on Scientific Advisory Boards and/or speaker honoraria and/or travel support from Novartis, Teva, Biogen, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen Cilag, Merz Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Allergan, Bayer Healthcare, Esai, UCB and Glaxo Smith Kline, Roche; he received research support from Novartis, Biogen, Celgene, Teva, Merz Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, and Roche, TR reports grants and personal fees from Sanofi-Genzyme; personal fees from Biogen; personal fees and nonfinancial support from Merck Serono; personal fees from Roche; and personal fees from Teva, outside the submitted work. NM has received honoraria for lecturing and travel expenses for attending meetings from Biogen Idec, GlaxoSmith Kline, Teva, Novartis Pharma, Bayer Healthcare, Genzyme, Alexion Pharamceuticals, Fresenius Medical Care, Diamed, and BIAL, and has received financial research support from Euroimmun, Fresenius Medical Care, Diamed, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, and Novartis Pharma. SGM received honoraria for lecturing and travel expenses for attending meetings from Almirall, Amicus Therapeutics Germany, Bayer Health Care, Biogen, Celgene, Diamed, Genzyme, MedDay Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, ONO Pharma, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Chugai Pharma, QuintilesIMS, and Teva. His research is funded by Almirall, Amicus Therapeutics Germany, Biogen, Diamed, Fresenius Medical Care, Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, ONO Pharma, Roche, and Teva, DK received travel grants from GeNeuro and Merck, refund of congress participation fees from GeNeuro, Merck and Servier, consulting fees from Grifols, payment for lectures from Grifols, support for research projects from Teva. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Räuber, Willison, Korsen, Kölsche, Golombeck, Plaack, Schüller, Huntemann, Rolfes, Schroeter, Nelke, Regner-Nelke, Förster, Ringelstein, Barnett, Hartung, Aktas, Albrecht, Ruck, Melzer, Meuth and Kremer.)

Objective: Intravenous methylprednisolone is the standard treatment for a multiple sclerosis relapse; however, this fails to improve symptoms in up to one quarter of patients. Immunoadsorption is an accepted treatment for refractory relapses, but prospective comparator-controlled studies are missing., Methods: In this observational study, patients with steroid-refractory acute multiple sclerosis relapses receiving either six courses of tryptophan-immunoadsorption or double-dose methylprednisolone therapy were analysed. Outcomes were evaluated at discharge and three months later. Immune profiling of blood lymphocytes and proteomic analysis were performed by multi-parameter flow cytometry and Olink analysis, respectively (NCT04450030)., Results: 42 patients were enrolled (methylprednisolone: 26 patients; immunoadsorption: 16 patients). For determination of the primary outcome, treatment response was stratified according to relative function system score changes ("full/best" vs. "average" vs. "worse/none"). Upon discharge, the adjusted odds ratio for any treatment response ("full/best" + "average" vs. "worse/none") was 10.697 favouring immunoadsorption (p = 0.005 compared to methylprednisolone). At follow-up, the adjusted odds ratio for the best treatment response ("full/best" vs. "average" + "worse/none") was 103.236 favouring IA patients (p = 0.001 compared to methylprednisolone). Similar results were observed regarding evoked potentials and quality of life outcomes, as well as serum neurofilament light-chain levels. Flow cytometry revealed a profound reduction of B cell subsets following immunoadsorption, which was closely correlated to clinical outcomes, whereas methylprednisolone had a minimal effect on B cell populations. Immunoadsorption treatment skewed the blood cytokine network, reduced levels of B cell-related cytokines and reduced immunoglobulin levels as well as levels of certain coagulation factors., Interpretation: Immunoadsorption demonstrated favourable outcomes compared to double-dose methylprednisolone. Outcome differences were significant at discharge and follow-up. Further analyses identified modulation of B cell function as a potential mechanism of action for immunoadsorption, as reduction of B cell subsets correlated with clinical improvement., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Vaccination has proven to be effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission and severe disease courses. However, immunocompromised patients have not been included in clinical trials and real-world clinical data point to an attenuated immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) receiving immunomodulatory therapies., Methods: We performed a retrospective study including 59 ocrelizumab (OCR)-treated patients with MS who received SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Anti-SARS-CoV-2-antibody titres, routine blood parameters and peripheral immune cell profiles were measured prior to the first (baseline) and at a median of 4 weeks after the second vaccine dose (follow-up). Moreover, the SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell response and peripheral B cell subsets were analysed at follow-up. Finally, vaccination-related adverse events were assessed., Results: After vaccination, we found anti-SARS-CoV-2(S) antibodies in 27.1% and a SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell response in 92.7% of MS cases. T cell-mediated interferon (IFN)-γ release was more pronounced in patients without anti-SARS-CoV-2(S) antibodies. Antibody titres positively correlated with peripheral B cell counts, time since last infusion and total IgM levels. They negatively correlated with the number of previous infusion cycles. Peripheral plasma cells were increased in antibody-positive patients. A positive correlation between T cell response and peripheral lymphocyte counts was observed. Moreover, IFN-γ release was negatively correlated with the time since the last infusion., Conclusion: In OCR-treated patients with MS, the humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is attenuated while the T cell response is preserved. However, it is still unclear whether T or B cell-mediated immunity is required for effective clinical protection. Nonetheless, given the long-lasting clinical effects of OCR, monitoring of peripheral B cell counts could facilitate individualised treatment regimens and might be used to identify the optimal time to vaccinate., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MK received travel grants from Merck Serono and Biogen. LR received travel reimbursements from Merck Serono and Sanofi Genzyme. MP's research is funded by the German Multiple Sclerosis Society North Rhine-Westphalia (DMSG), Novartis and the programme "Innovative Medizinische Forschung" (IMF) of the Medical Faculty of the University of Muenster. MB served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis and Genzyme and has received conference travel support from Biogen and Novartis. He serves on steering committees for trials conducted by Novartis. His institution has received research support from Biogen, Merck and Novartis. H-PH has received fees for consulting, speaking and serving on steering committees from Bayer Healthcare, Biogen, GeNeuro, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Opexa, Receptos Celgene, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, CSL Behring, Octapharma and Teva, with approval from the Rector of Heinrich-Heine-University. OA received personal fees from Alexion, Bayer Healthcare, Biogen, Celgene, Merck Serono, MedImmune, Novartis, Roche, Teva and Zambon, and he received research support from the German Science Foundation (DFG) and the German Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Technology (BMBF), outside of the submitted work. PA received compensation for serving on Scientific Advisory Boards and/or speaker honoraria and/or travel support from Novartis, Teva, Biogen, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen Cilag, Merz Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Allergan, Bayer Healthcare, Esai, UCB and Glaxo Smith Kline, Roche; he received research support from Novartis, Biogen, Celgene, Teva, Merz Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen and Roche. NM has received honoraria for lecturing and travel expenses for attending meetings from Biogen Idec, GlaxoSmith Kline, Teva, Novartis Pharma, Bayer Healthcare, Genzyme, Alexion Pharamceuticals, Fresenius Medical Care, Diamed and BIAL, and has received financial research support from Euroimmun, Fresenius Medical Care, Diamed, Alexion Pharmaceuticals and Novartis Pharma. TR reports grants from German Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Technology, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Sanofi-Genzyme; personal fees from Biogen; personal fees and non-financial support from Merck Serono; personal fees from Roche; and personal fees from Teva, outside the submitted work. SGM received honoraria for lecturing and travel expenses for attending meetings from Almirall, Amicus Therapeutics Germany, Bayer Health Care, Biogen, Celgene, Diamed, Genzyme, MedDay Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, ONO Pharma, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Chugai Pharma, QuintilesIMS and Teva. His research is funded by the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Else Kröner Fresenius Foundation, German Academic Exchange Service, Hertie Foundation, Interdisciplinary Center for Clinical Studies (IZKF) Muenster, German Foundation Neurology, and by Almirall, Amicus Therapeutics Germany, Biogen, Diamed, Fresenius Medical Care, Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, ONO Pharma, Roche and Teva. DK received travel grants from GeNeuro and Merck, refund of congress participation fees from GeNeuro, Merck and Servier, consulting fees from Grifols, payment for lectures from Grifols, support for research projects from Teva and was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Cladribine is a synthetic deoxyadenosine analogue approved for the treatment of highly active relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). Cladribine is considered to be a semi-selective immune-reconstitution therapy (IRT) that induces long-term remission following short course of treatment. Here, we evaluated the effect of cladribine on immune cell reduction and reconstitution during the first two years of treatment., Methods: We analyzed our longitudinal, prospective, real-world cohort of 80 cladribine-treated RMS patients from two tertiary centers in Germany. Laboratory testing was conducted monthly and included evaluation of cellular as well as soluble parameters. Laboratory outcomes were correlated with infectious adverse events (AEs) and clinical or paraclinical disease activity., Results: Selective alterations in immune cell populations occurred following cladribine treatment, with the most marked effects observed in year two of treatment. Specifically, a rapid reduction in CD56 + natural killer cells (nadir: month 1 (year 1) and 14 (year 2); -37 and -41% from baseline) was followed by a greater reduction in CD19 + B cells (nadir: month 2 and 14; -81 and -82%); a moderate effect on CD4 + (nadir: month 3 and 15; -48 and -61%) and CD8 + T cells (nadir: month 5 and 18; -40 and -48%). Despite the marked effect on B cells, immunoglobulin levels were unaffected. There was no or minimal effect on thrombocytes and innate immune cells. Clinical and paraclinical disease activity was unrelated to the observed immune alterations. Lymphopenia was the most commonly observed AE (86.3% of patients; grade III-IV lymphopenia: 38.8%). The cumulative incidence of infections was 55% with cladribine treatment, which were mostly mild or moderate. In total, 19 herpes infections developed in 8 (10%) cladribine-treated patients; all cases were dermatomal and 94.7% of the herpetic infections occurred during a period of lymphopenia., Conclusions: The immunophenotyping data obtained in our real-world setting are comparable to those demonstrated in pivotal clinical trials and provide further evidence that cladribine may represent a form of IRT. However, regarding the side-effect profile of cladribine, severe lymphopenia (exceeding grade II CTCAE) was more frequent, which may have prompted the development of herpes infections. Of note, lymphocyte dynamics did not correlate with clinical and paraclinical measures of disease activity in the two-year follow-up period., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The current range of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) has placed more importance on the accurate monitoring of disease progression for timely and appropriate treatment decisions. With a rising number of measurements for disease progression, it is currently unclear how well these measurements or combinations of them can monitor more mildly affected RRMS patients., Objectives: To investigate several composite measures for monitoring disease activity and their potential relation to the biomarker neurofilament light chain (NfL) in a clearly defined early RRMS patient cohort with a milder disease course., Methods: From a total of 301 RRMS patients, a subset of 46 patients being treated with a continuous first-line therapy was analyzed for loss of no evidence of disease activity (lo-NEDA-3) status, relapse-associated worsening (RAW) and progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA), up to seven years after treatment initialization. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for time-to-event analysis. Additionally, a Cox regression model was used to analyze the effect of NfL levels on outcome measures in this cohort., Results: In this mildly affected cohort, both lo-NEDA-3 and PIRA frequently occurred over a median observational period of 67.2 months and were observed in 39 (84.8%) and 23 (50.0%) patients, respectively. Additionally, 12 out of 26 PIRA manifestations (46.2%) were observed without a corresponding lo-NEDA-3 status. Jointly, either PIRA or lo-NEDA-3 showed disease activity in all patients followed-up for at least the median duration (67.2 months). NfL values demonstrated an association with the occurrence of relapses and RAW., Conclusion: The complementary use of different disease progression measures helps mirror ongoing disease activity in mildly affected early RRMS patients being treated with continuous first-line therapy., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

A critical issue in the management of relapsing MS (RMS) is the discontinuation of disease-modifying treatments (DMT) due to lack of efficacy, intolerability or impending risks. With new therapeutic agents introduced into the treatment of RMS, immediate- and long-term consequences of sequential drug use, as well as the effect of the sequence in which the drugs are given, are unclear but may affect efficacy, adverse events, and long-term immunocompetence. In the absence of clinical studies specifically addressing these concerns, observations from clinical practice are of particular value in guiding current management algorithms. Prompted by a study published by Ferraro et al. in this journal, we set out to provide an overview of the published real-world evidence on the effectiveness and safety of switching from fingolimod to another DMT in patients with active RMS. Seventeen publications reporting relevant information were identified. The literature suggests that immune cell depletion induced by alemtuzumab or ocrelizumab is associated with an increased risk of relapse and worsening disability in patients switching from fingolimod compared to patients switching from other therapeutic agents. However, the evidence reported for natalizumab and cladribine is inconclusive. While shortening of the washout period may limit early disease reactivation after fingolimod discontinuation, there is no strong evidence that the duration of the washout period or the absolute lymphocyte count at baseline are predictors of attenuated long-term efficacy. Further real-world studies are required to better understand outcomes among patients who are under-represented in controlled trials., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Oral cladribine has been approved for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) yet real-world evidence regarding its effectiveness and safety remains scarce., Objective: To evaluate efficacy and safety outcomes of MS patients following induction of cladribine., Methods: We evaluated our prospective cohort of cladribine-treated MS patients from two tertiary centres in Germany. Relapses, disability worsening and occurrence of new or enlarging T2-hyperintense magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions were assessed as well as lymphocyte counts and herpes virus infections., Results: Among 270 patients treated with cladribine, we observed a profound reduction of both relapses and new or enlarging MRI lesions. Treatment appeared more efficacious, especially in patients without previous therapy or following platform substances. Patients switching from natalizumab were prone to re-emerging disease activity. Among patients following dimethyl fumarate pre-treatment, severe lymphopenia was common and associated with increased rates of herpes virus manifestations., Conclusion: Overall, we observed an efficacy and safety profile of cladribine consistent with data from the phase 3 clinical trial. However, patients switching from natalizumab experienced suboptimal disease control beyond rebound activity following cessation of natalizumab. Furthermore, dimethyl fumarate pre-treatment was associated with a profound risk of developing severe lymphopenia and subsequent herpes virus infections.

Objectives: Alemtuzumab is effective in patients with active multiple sclerosis but has a complex safety profile, including the development of secondary autoimmunity. Most of patients enrolled in randomised clinical trials with alemtuzumab were either treatment naïve or pretreated with injectable substances. Other previous disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) were not used in the study cohorts, and therefore, associated risks might yet remain unidentified., Methods: We retrospectively evaluated a prospective dual-centre alemtuzumab cohort of 170 patients. We examined the baseline characteristics as well as safety and effectiveness outcomes, including the time to first relapse, the time to 3 months confirmed disability worsening and the time to secondary autoimmunity., Results: The regression analysis showed that, among all previously used DMTs, the pretreatment with fingolimod (n=33 HRs for the time to first relapse (HR 5.420, 95% CI 2.520 to 11.660; p<0.001)) and for the time to worsening of disability (HR 7.676, 95% CI 2.870 to 20.534; p<0.001). Additionally, patients pretreated with fingolimod were more likely to experience spinal relapses (55% vs 10% among previously naïve patients; p<0.001) and had an increased risk of secondary autoimmunity (HR 5.875, 95% CI 2.126 to 16.27; p<0.001)., Conclusion: In the real-world setting, we demonstrated suboptimal disease control and increased risk of secondary autoimmunity following alemtuzumab, among patients previously treated with fingolimod. These data can provide guidance for improving MS therapeutic management., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SP: received travel grants from Sanofi Genzyme and Merck Serono, lecturing honoraria from Sanofi Genzyme, Mylan Healthcare, and Biogen, and research support from Diamed, Merck Serono, and the German Multiple Sclerosis Society Northrhine-Westphalia. TR: received travel grants and financial research support from Genzyme and Novartis and received honoraria for lecturing from Roche, Merck, Genzyme, Biogen and Teva. RP: received honoraria for lecturing and travel expenses for attending meetings from Alexion, Bayer Health Care, Biogen, Merck Serono, Mylan, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Teva; has received research funding from Novartis. LR: received travel grants from Merck Serono and Sanofi-Genzyme. MP: received speaker honoraria and travel reimbursements from Novartis. CK: received travel grants from TEVA, compensation for serving on Scientific Advisory Boards for Novartis, and speaker honoraria from Biogen, Genzyme, and Merck Serono. BW: received grants from the German Ministry of Education and Research, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Dietmar Hopp Foundation and Klaus Tschira Foundation, grants and personal fees from Merck Serono, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis pharmaceuticals, and personal fees from Bayer, Biogen, Teva Pharma. LK: received compensation for serving on Scientific Advisory Boards for Genzyme, Janssen, Novartis, and Roche. She received speaker honoraria and travel support from Biogen, Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche and TEVA. She receives research support from the German Ministry for Education and Research, the German Research Foundation, the IZKF Münster, IMF Münster, Biogen, Novartis, and Merck Serono. CK: received honoraria for lecturing and travel expenses for attending meetings from Almirall, Merck Serono, Desitin, Sanofi-Genzyme, Biogen, Teva, Bayer, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Siemens, Eisai, Biotronik, Roche, Stago, Ever Pharma, CSL Behring, Mylan, MedDay Pharmaceuticals, Amgen. HW: received compensation for serving on Scientific Advisory Boards/Steering Committees for Bayer Healthcare, Biogen Idec, Sanofi Genzyme, Merck Serono, and Novartis. He received speaker honoraria and travel support from Bayer Vital GmbH, Bayer Schering AG, Biogen, CSL Behring, EMD Serono, Fresenius Medical Care, Genzyme, Merck Serono, Omniamed, Novartis, and Sanofi Aventis. He received compensation as a consultant from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme. HW also received research support from Bayer Healthcare, Bayer Vital, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Sanofi US and Teva. SGM: received honoraria for lecturing and travel expenses for attending meetings from Almirall, Amicus Therapeutics Germany, Bayer Health Care, Biogen, Celgene, Diamed, Genzyme, MedDay Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, ONO Pharma, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Chugai Pharma, QuintilesIMS, and Teva. His research is funded by the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Else Kröner Fresenius Foundation, German Academic Exchange Service, Hertie Foundation, Interdisciplinary Center for Clinical Studies (IZKF) Muenster, German Foundation Neurology and by Almirall, Amicus Therapeutics Germany, Biogen, Diamed, Fresenius Medical Care, Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, ONO Pharma, Roche, and Teva., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

In the recent past, a plethora of drugs have been approved for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). These therapeutics are mainly confined to immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive strategies but do not sufficiently address remyelination and neuroprotection. However, several neuroregenerative agents have shown potential in pre-clinical research and entered Phase I to III clinical trials. Although none of these compounds have yet proceeded to approval, understanding the causes of failure can broaden our knowledge about neuroprotection and neuroregeneration in MS. Moreover, most of the investigated approaches are characterised by consistent mechanisms of action and proved convincing efficacy in animal studies. Therefore, learning from their failure will help us to enforce the translation of findings acquired in pre-clinical studies into clinical application. Here, we summarise trials on MS treatment published since 2015 that have either failed or were interrupted due to a lack of efficacy, adverse events, or for other reasons. We further outline the rationale underlying these drugs and analyse the background of failure to gather new insights into MS pathophysiology and optimise future study designs. For conciseness, this review focuses on agents promoting remyelination and medications with primarily neuroprotective properties or unconventional approaches. Failed clinical trials that pursue immunomodulation are presented in a separate article.

Objective: To report 77 patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who developed skin-related adverse events (AEs) following treatment with cladribine., Methods: We evaluated our prospective bicentric cladribine cohort. Cladribine-treated patients with a skin AE were identified., Results: Two hundred thirty-nine cladribine-treated patients with MS were evaluated. Seventy-seven patients (32%) showed at least 1 skin AE at median 1 month after cladribine initiation (range: 1-12). Within first 3 months following last cladribine exposition, hair thinning (n = 28, 12%), skin rash (n = 20; 8%), mucositis (n = 13, 5%), and pruritus (n = 6, 3%) were observed. Furthermore, 35 patients (15%) developed herpes virus infections (time since last cladribine exposition: median 83 [range: 10-305]). In 15 patients, herpes zoster infection was severe (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) and required hospitalization. Delayed skin AEs (≥3 months after a cladribine treatment cycle) involved 1 case of leukocytoclastic vasculitis and 2 cases of alopecia areata. Finally, 2 patients presented with in total 3 isolated precancerous lesions (1 leukoplakia simplex and 2 actinic keratosis) and 1 patient developed a squamous cell carcinoma., Conclusion: Skin AEs are common in patients with MS treated with cladribine. Until risk management plans have been adjusted to include these phenomena, clinicians should perform a thorough clinical follow-up and in suspicious cases seek early interdisciplinary support. In light of the observed delayed skin reactions, we further emphasize the necessity of careful clinical surveillance of cladribine-treated patients for yet undescribed secondary autoimmune events., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class IV evidence that skin-related AEs are frequent in patients with MS following cladribine in a real-world setting., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology.)

In the past decades, multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment has experienced vast changes resulting from major advances in disease-modifying therapies (DMT). Looking at the overall number of studies, investigations with therapeutic advantages and encouraging results are exceeded by studies of promising compounds that failed due to either negative or inconclusive results or have been interrupted for other reasons. Importantly, these failed clinical trials are informative experiments that can help us to understand the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying MS. In several trials, concepts taken from experimental models were not translatable to humans, although they did not lack a well-considered pathophysiological rationale. The lessons learned from these discrepancies may benefit future studies and reduce the risks for patients. This review summarizes trials on MS since 2015 that have either failed or have been interrupted for various reasons. We identify potential causes of failure or inconclusiveness, looking at the path from basic animal experiments to clinical trials, and discuss the implications for our current view on MS pathogenesis, clinical practice, and future study designs. We focus on anti-inflammatory treatment strategies, without including studies on already approved and effective DMT. Clinical trials addressing neuroprotective and alternative treatment strategies are presented in a separate article.

Objective: To provide first real-world experience on patients with MS treated with the B cell-depleting antibody ocrelizumab., Methods: We retrospectively collected data of patients who had received at least 1 treatment cycle (2 infusions) of ocrelizumab at 3 large neurology centers. Patients' characteristics including premedication, clinical disease course, and documented side effects were analyzed., Results: We could identify 210 patients (125 women, mean age ± SD, 42.1 ± 11.4 years) who had received ocrelizumab with a mean disease duration of 7.3 years and a median Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 3.75 (interquartile range 2.5-5.5; range 0-8). Twenty-six percent of these patients had a primary progressive MS (PPMS), whereas 74% had a relapsing-remitting (RRMS) or active secondary progressive (aSPMS) disease course. Twenty-four percent of all patients were treatment naive, whereas 76% had received immune therapies before. After ocrelizumab initiation (median follow-up was 200 days, range 30-1,674 days), 13% of patients with RRMS/aSPMS experienced a relapse (accounting for an annualized relapse rate of 0.17, 95% CI 0.10-0.24), and 5% of all patients with MS experienced a 12-week confirmed disability progression. Treatment was generally well tolerated, albeit only short-term side effects were recorded, including direct infusion-related reactions and mild infections., Conclusions: We provide class IV evidence that treatment with ocrelizumab can stabilize naive and pretreated patients, indicating that ocrelizumab is an option following potent MS drugs such as natalizumab and fingolimod. Further studies are warranted to confirm these findings and to reveal safety concerns in the longer-term follow-up., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class IV evidence that for patients with MS, ocrelizumab can stabilize both treatment-naive and previously treated patients., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology.)