Search

Low serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] and low sunlight exposure are known risk factors for the development of multiple sclerosis. Add-on vitamin D supplementation trials in established multiple sclerosis have been inconclusive. The effects of vitamin D supplementation to prevent multiple sclerosis is unknown. We aimed to test the hypothesis that oral vitamin D3 supplementation in high-risk clinically isolated syndrome (abnormal MRI, at least three T2 brain and/or spinal cord lesions), delays time to conversion to definite multiple sclerosis, that the therapeutic effect is dose-dependent, and that all doses are safe and well tolerated. We conducted a double-blind trial in Australia and New Zealand. Eligible participants were randomized 1:1:1:1 to placebo, 1000, 5000 or 10 000 international units (IU) of oral vitamin D3 daily within each study centre (n = 23) and followed for up to 48 weeks. Between 2013 and 2021, we enrolled 204 participants. Brain MRI scans were performed at baseline, 24 and 48 weeks. The main study outcome was conversion to clinically definite multiple sclerosis based on the 2010 McDonald criteria defined as either a clinical relapse or new brain MRI T2 lesion development. We included 199 cases in the intention-to-treat analysis based on assigned dose. Of these, 116 converted to multiple sclerosis by 48 weeks (58%). Compared to placebo, the hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for conversion were 1000 IU 0.87 (0.50, 1.50); 5000 IU 1.37 (0.82, 2.29); and 10 000 IU 1.28 (0.76, 2.14). In an adjusted model including age, sex, latitude, study centre and baseline symptom number, clinically isolated syndrome onset site, presence of infratentorial lesions and use of steroids, the hazard ratios (versus placebo) were 1000 IU 0.80 (0.45, 1.44); 5000 IU 1.36 (0.78, 2.38); and 10 000 IU 1.07 (0.62, 1.85). Vitamin D3 supplementation was safe and well tolerated. We did not demonstrate reduction in multiple sclerosis disease activity by vitamin D3 supplementation after a high-risk clinically isolated syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) are an inflammation of the central nervous system associated with autoantibodies to aquaporin-4. We have undertaken a clinic-based survey of NMOSD in the Australia and New Zealand populations with the aim of characterising the clinical features and establishing the value of recently revised diagnostic criteria. Cases of possible NMOSD and age and sex-matched controls with multiple sclerosis (MS) were referred from centres across Australia and New Zealand. Cases were classified as NMOSD if they met the 2015 IPND criteria and remained as suspected NMOSD if they did not. Clinical and paraclinical data were compared across the three groups. NMOSD was confirmed in 75 cases and 89 had suspected NMOSD. There were 101 controls with MS. Age at onset, relapse rates and EDSS scores were significantly higher in NMOSD than in MS. Lesions and symptoms referable to the optic nerve were more common in NMOSD whereas brainstem, cerebellar and cerebral lesions were more common in MS. Longitudinally extensive spinal cord lesions were seen in 48/71 (68%) of cases with NMOSD. Elevations of CSF, white cell count and protein were more common in NMOSD. We have confirmed a clinical pattern of NMOSD that has been seen in several geographical regions. We have demonstrated the clinical utility of the current diagnostic criteria. Distinct patterns of disease are evident in NMOSD and MS, but there remains a large number of patients with NMOSD-like features who do not meet the current diagnostic criteria for NMOSD and remain a diagnostic challenge.

Objectives: We have undertaken a clinic-based survey of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSDs) in Australia and New Zealand to establish incidence and prevalence across the region and in populations of differing ancestry., Background: NMOSD is a recently defined demyelinating disease of the central nervous system (CNS). The incidence and prevalence of NMOSD in Australia and New Zealand has not been established., Methods: Centres managing patients with demyelinating disease of the CNS across Australia and New Zealand reported patients with clinical and laboratory features that were suspicious for NMOSD. Testing for aquaporin 4 antibodies was undertaken in all suspected cases. From this group, cases were identified who fulfilled the 2015 Wingerchuk diagnostic criteria for NMOSD. A capture-recapture methodology was used to estimate incidence and prevalence, based on additional laboratory identified cases., Results: NMOSD was confirmed in 81/170 (48%) cases referred. Capture-recapture analysis gave an adjusted incidence estimate of 0.37 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.39) per million per year and a prevalence estimate for NMOSD of 0.70 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.78) per 100 000. NMOSD was three times more common in the Asian population (1.57 (95% CI 1.15 to 1.98) per 100 000) compared with the remainder of the population (0.57 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.65) per 100 000). The latitudinal gradient evident in multiple sclerosis was not seen in NMOSD., Conclusions: NMOSD incidence and prevalence in Australia and New Zealand are comparable with figures from other populations of largely European ancestry. We found NMOSD to be more common in the population with Asian ancestry., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MHB has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards and travel sponsorship from Novartis, BioCSL, Genzyme and Biogen Idec. MBo has received travel sponsorship and honoraria from Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, Novartis, BiogenIdec and Roche. BJB has received honoraria as a board member for GlaxoSmithKline, Biogen Idec, ViiV Healthcare and Merck Serono, has received speaker honoraria from ViiV Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbott, AbbVie and Biogen Idec, has received travel sponsorship from Abbott and ViiV Healthcare and has received research support funding from EIi Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, ViiV Healthcare and Merck Serono. SAB has received honoraria for attendance at advisory boards and travel sponsorship from Bayer Schering Pharma, BiogenIdec, Merck Serono, Novartis and Sanofi-Genzyme, has received speaker honoraria from Biogen Idec and Genzyme, is an investigator in clinical trials sponsored by Biogen Idec, Novartis and Genzyme and was the recipient of an unencumbered research grant from Biogen Idec. HB has received honoraria for serving on scientific advisory boards for Biogen Idec, Novartis and Sanofi-Genzyme, has received conference travel sponsorship from Novartis and Biogen Idec, has received honoraria for speaking and acting as Chair at educational events organised by Novartis, Biogen Idec, Medscape and Merck Serono, serves on steering committees for trials conducted by Biogen Idec and Novartis, is chair (honorary) of the MSBase Foundation, which has received research support from Merck Serono, Novartis, Biogen Idec, Genzyme Sanofi and CSL Biopharma and has received research support form Merck Serono. WMC has been the recipient of travel sponsorship from, and provided advice to, Bayer Schering Pharma, BiogenIdec, Novartis, Genzyme, Sanofi-Aventis, BioCSL and Merck Serono. RCD has received research funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, MS Research Australia, Star Scientific Foundation, Pfizer Neuroscience, Tourette Syndrome Association, University of Sydney and the Petre Foundation and has received honoraria from Biogen Idec and Bristol-Myers Squibb as an invited speaker. MjF-P has received travel sponsorship from Biogen Australia and New Zealand. RH has received honoraria, educational support and clinic funding from Novartis, Biogen Idec, Genzyme and BioCSL. AGK has received scientific consulting fees and/or lecture honoraria from Bayer, BioCSL, BiogenIdec, Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis and Teva. TJK has received travel sponsorship from Novartis, BioCSL, Novartis, Merck Serono and BiogenIdec, has received speaker honoraria from Biogen Idec, BioCSL, Merck Serono, Teva, Genzyme and Novartis, has received research support from Biogen Idec, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer Schering Pharma and Merck Serono and has received scientific consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline China, Biogen Idec and Novartis. JK has received remuneration for advisory board activities and presentations from Bayer Healthcare, Biogen Idec, BioCSL, Genzyme and Novartis. CK has received travel support, honoraria and advisory board payments from Biogen Idec, Bayer,Genzyme, Novartis and Serono. JL-S has received unencumbered funding as well as honoraria for presentations and membership on advisory boards from Sanofi-Aventis, Biogen Idec, Bayer Health Care, CSL, Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis Australia and Teva. RALM has received honoraria for attendance at advisory boards and travel sponsorship from Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen Idec, CSL, Merck Serono, Novartis and Sanofi-Genzyme. MPMa has received travel sponsorship, honoraria, trial payments, research and clinical support from Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen Idec, BioCSL, Genzyme, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis Genzyme. DFM has received honoraria for attendance at advisory boards from Biogen Idec and Novartis, and travel sponsorship from Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen Idec and Sanofi-Genzyme. PAMcC has received honoraria or travel sponsorship from Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis and Biogen Idec. JAP has received travel sponsorship, honoraria for presentations and membership on advisory boards from Biogen Idec and Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. JDP has received honoraria for seminars or advisory boards from Teva, Biogen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, Merck, Bayer and research grants or fellowships from Merck, Novartis, Bayer, Biogen, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva. SWR has received travel sponsorship, honoraria, trial payments, research and clinical support from Aspreva, Baxter, Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen Idec, BioCSL, Genzyme, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis Genzyme and Servier, and is a director of Medical Safety Systems Pty Ltd. CPS has received travel sponsorship from Biogen Idec, Novartis and Bayer Schering Pharma. IS has received remuneration for Advisory Board activities from Biogen, CSL and Bayer Schering Pharma and educational activities with Biogen, CSL and travel sponsorship from Biogen, Novartis and Bayer Schering Pharma. MS has received research support from Novartis, Biogen Idec and BioCSL. JSp has received honoraria for lectures and participation in advisory boards, and travel sponsorship from Novartis, BioCSL, Genzyme and Biogen Idec. BVT has received travel sponsorship from Novartis and Bayer Schering Pharma. AV and the University of Oxford hold patents and receive royalties for antibody testing. PW and the University of Oxford hold patents for antibody assays and have received royalties, has received speaker honoraria from Biogen Idec and Euroimmun AG and travel grants from the Guthy-Jackson Charitable Foundation. EW has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from Biogen Idec and Novartis, travel sponsorship from Biogen Idec, Bayer Schering Pharma and Teva and is an investigator in clinical trials funded by Biogen Idec and Teva. DA, SBh, SBl, KB, MBr, WBr, WBu, CSB, CCM, LC, AC, CD, KD, DF, DG, SHa, APDH, SHe, SHo, SJ-S, AJK, M-WL, CL, CO’G, MPM, CS, RS, JSt, AV, SV, MWa, RJW, RCW, MWo and EMY report no disclosures., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a potentially life-changing immune mediated disease of the central nervous system. Until recently, treatment has been largely confined to acute treatment of relapses, symptomatic therapies and rehabilitation. Through persistent efforts of dedicated physicians and scientists around the globe for 160 years, a number of therapies that have an impact on the long term outcome of the disease have emerged over the past 20 years. In this three part series we review the practicalities, benefits and potential hazards of each of the currently available and emerging treatment options for MS. We pay particular attention to ways of abrogating the risks of these therapies and provide advice on the most appropriate indications for using individual therapies. In Part 1 we review the history of the development of MS therapies and its connection with the underlying immunobiology of the disease. The established therapies for MS are reviewed in detail and their current availability and indications in Australia and New Zealand are summarised. We examine the evidence to support their use in the treatment of MS., (Crown Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In Part 2 of this three part review of multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment with a particular focus on the Australian and New Zealand perspective, we review the newer therapies that have recently become available and emerging therapies that have now completed phase III clinical trial programs. We go on to compare the relative efficacies of these newer and emerging therapies alongside the existing therapies. The effectiveness of β-interferon in the treatment of different stages and the different disease courses of MS is critically reviewed with the conclusion that the absolute level of response in term of annualised relapse rates (where relapses occur) and MRI activity are similar, but are disappointing in terms of sustained disability progression for progressive forms of the disease. Finally we review the controversial area of combination therapy for MS. Whilst it remains the case that we have no cure or means of preventing MS, we do have a range of effective therapies that when used appropriately and early in the disease course can have a significant impact on short term and longer term outcomes., (Crown Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In this third and final part of our review of multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment we look at the practical day-to-day management issues that are likely to influence individual treatment decisions. Whilst efficacy is clearly of considerable importance, tolerability and the potential for adverse effects often play a significant role in informing individual patient decisions. Here we review the issues surrounding switching between therapies, and the evidence to assist guiding the choice of therapy to change to and when to change. We review the current level of evidence with regards to the management of women in their child-bearing years with regards to recommendations about treatment during pregnancy and whilst breast feeding. We provide a summary of recommended pre- and post-treatment monitoring for the available therapies and review the evidence with regards to the value of testing for antibodies which are known to be neutralising for some therapies. We review the occurrence of adverse events, both the more common and troublesome effects and those that are less common but have potentially much more serious outcomes. Ways of mitigating these risks and managing the more troublesome adverse effects are also reviewed. Finally, we make specific recommendations with regards to the treatment of MS. It is an exciting time in the world of MS neurology and the prospects for further advances in coming years are high., (Crown Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)