Search

Background: Rituximab is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody approved for non Hodgkin lymphoma and rheumatoid arthritis. It is being considered for the treatment of MS. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of rituximab for MS treatment. Data collec

Background and Objectives: The complement system is known to play a role in multiple sclerosis (MS) pathogenesis. However, its contribution to disease progression remains elusive. The study investigated the role of the complement system in disability progression of patients with primary progressive MS (PPMS)., Methods: Sixty-eight patients with PPMS from 12 European MS centers were included in the study. Serum and CSF levels of a panel of complement components (CCs) were measured by multiplex enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay at a baseline time point (i.e., sampling). Mean (SD) follow-up time from baseline was 9.6 (4.8) years. Only one patient (1.5%) was treated during follow-up. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions adjusted for age, sex, and albumin quotient were performed to assess the association between baseline CC levels and disability progression in short term (2 years), medium term (6 years), and long term (at the time of the last follow-up)., Results: In short term, CC played little or no role in disability progression. In medium term, an elevated serum C3a/C3 ratio was associated with a higher risk of disability progression (adjusted OR 2.30; 95% CI 1.17-6.03; p = 0.040). By contrast, increased CSF C1q levels were associated with a trend toward reduced risk of disability progression (adjusted OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.17-0.98; p = 0.054). Similarly, in long term, an elevated serum C3a/C3 ratio was associated with higher risk of disability progression (adjusted OR 1.81; 95% CI 1.09-3.40; p = 0.037), and increased CSF C1q levels predicted lower disability progression (adjusted OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.17-0.86; p = 0.025)., Discussion: Proteins involved in the activation of early complement cascades play a role in disability progression as risk (elevated serum C3a/C3 ratio) or protective (elevated CSF C1q) factors after 6 or more years of follow-up in patients with PPMS. The protective effects associated with C1q levels in CSF may be related to its neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory properties.

Background: We aimed to investigate the potential of serum biomarker levels to predict disability progression in a multicentric real-world cohort of patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS)., Methods: A total of 141 patients with PPMS from 18 European MS centres were included. Disability progression was investigated using change in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score over three time intervals: baseline to 2 years, 6 years and to the last follow-up. Serum levels of neurofilament light chain (sNfL), glial fibrillar acidic protein (sGFAP) and chitinase 3-like 1 (sCHI3L1) were measured using single-molecule array assays at baseline. Correlations between biomarker levels, and between biomarkers and age were quantified using Spearman's r. Univariable and multivariable linear models were performed to assess associations between biomarker levels and EDSS change over the different time periods., Results: Median (IQR) age of patients was 52.9 (46.4-58.5) years, and 58 (41.1%) were men. Median follow-up time was 9.1 (7.0-12.6) years. Only 8 (5.7%) patients received treatment during follow-up. sNfL and sGFAP levels were moderately correlated (r=0.43) and both weakly correlated with sCHI3L1 levels (r=0.19 and r=0.17, respectively). In multivariable analyses, levels of the three biomarkers were associated with EDSS changes across all time periods. However, when analysis was restricted to non-inflammatory patients according to clinical and radiological parameters (n=64), only sCHI3L1 levels remained associated with future EDSS change., Conclusions: Levels of sNfL, sGFAP and sCHI3L1 are prognostic biomarkers associated with disability progression in patients with PPMS, being CHI3L1 findings less dependent on the inflammatory component associated with disease progression., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Simultaneous comparisons of multiple disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) over an extended follow-up are lacking. Here we emulate a randomised trial simultaneously comparing the effectiveness of six commonly used therapies over 5 years., Methods: Data from 74 centres in 35 countries were sourced from MSBase. For each patient, the first eligible intervention was analysed, censoring at change/discontinuation of treatment. The compared interventions included natalizumab, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide, interferon beta, glatiramer acetate and no treatment. Marginal structural Cox models (MSMs) were used to estimate the average treatment effects (ATEs) and the average treatment effects among the treated (ATT), rebalancing the compared groups at 6-monthly intervals on age, sex, birth-year, pregnancy status, treatment, relapses, disease duration, disability and disease course. The outcomes analysed were incidence of relapses, 12-month confirmed disability worsening and improvement., Results: 23 236 eligible patients were diagnosed with RRMS or clinically isolated syndrome. Compared with glatiramer acetate (reference), several therapies showed a superior ATE in reducing relapses: natalizumab (HR=0.44, 95% CI=0.40 to 0.50), fingolimod (HR=0.60, 95% CI=0.54 to 0.66) and dimethyl fumarate (HR=0.78, 95% CI=0.66 to 0.92). Further, natalizumab (HR=0.43, 95% CI=0.32 to 0.56) showed a superior ATE in reducing disability worsening and in disability improvement (HR=1.32, 95% CI=1.08 to 1.60). The pairwise ATT comparisons also showed superior effects of natalizumab followed by fingolimod on relapses and disability., Conclusions: The effectiveness of natalizumab and fingolimod in active RRMS is superior to dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide, glatiramer acetate and interferon beta. This study demonstrates the utility of MSM in emulating trials to compare clinical effectiveness among multiple interventions simultaneously., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors report the following relationships: speaker honoraria, advisory board or steering committee fees, research support and/or conference travel support from Acthelion (EKH, RA), Almirall (MT, FG, RB, CRT, JLS-M), Bayer (MT, AL, PS, RA, MT, CB, JL-S, EP, VVP, RB, DS, RA, JO, JLSM, SH, CR, AGK, TC, NS, BT, MS, CAS), BioCSL (TK, AGK, BT), Biogen (TK, TS, DH, EKH, MT, GI, AL, MG, PD, PG, VJ, AVW, FG, PS, DF, RA, RH, CB, JLS, EP, VVP, FG, RB, RA, CRT, JP, JO, MB, JLSM, SH, CR, CSh, OGerlach, AGK, TC, BS, NS, BT, MS, HB), Biologix (RA), BMS/Celgene (EKH, AL), Genpharm (RA), Genzyme-Sanofi (TK, EKH, MT, GI, AL, MG, PD, PG, AVW, FG, PS, DF, RA, RH, MT, CB, JLS, EP, EP, VVP, FG, RB, RB, DS, CRT, JP, JO, MB, JLSM, SH, O Gerlach, AGK, HB), GSK (RA), Innate Immunotherapeutics (AGK), Lundbeck (EP), Merck / EMD (TK, DH, EKH, MT, GI, AL(Merck Serono), MG, PD, PG, VJ, AVW, PS, DF, RA, RH, MT, CB, JLS, EP, VVP, FG, RB, DS, RA, JO, MB, JLSM, CR, FM, O Gerlach, AGK, TC, BS, MS, HB), Mitsubishi (FG),Novartis (TK, TS, DH, EKH, MT, GI, AL, MG, PD, PG, VJ, AVW, FG, PS, DF, RA, RH, MT, CB, JLS, EP, VVP, FG, RB, DS, RA, CRT, JP, JO, MB, JLSM, SH, CR, FM, CSh, OG, AGK, TC, NS, BT, MS, HB), ONO Pharmaceuticals (FG), Roche (TK, EKH, AL, MT, CB, VVP, BT), Teva (TK, DH, EKH, MT, GI, AL, MG, PD, PG, VJ, FG, PS, DF, RH, MT, CB, JLS, VVP, RB, DS, RA, JP, JO, JLSM, CR, AGK, TC, MS, CAS), WebMD (TK), UCB (EP)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Some studies comparing primary and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS, SPMS) report similar ages at onset of the progressive phase and similar rates of subsequent disability accrual. Others report later onset and/or faster accrual in SPMS. Comparisons have been complicated by regional cohort effects, phenotypic differences in sex ratio and management and variable diagnostic criteria for SPMS., Methods: We compared disability accrual in PPMS and operationally diagnosed SPMS in the international, clinic-based MSBase cohort. Inclusion required PPMS or SPMS with onset at age ≥18 years since 1995. We estimated Andersen-Gill hazard ratios for disability accrual on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), adjusted for sex, age, baseline disability, EDSS score frequency and drug therapies, with centre and patient as random effects. We also estimated ages at onset of the progressive phase (Kaplan-Meier) and at EDSS milestones (Turnbull). Analyses were replicated with physician-diagnosed SPMS., Results: Included patients comprised 1872 with PPMS (47% men; 50% with activity) and 2575 with SPMS (32% men; 40% with activity). Relative to PPMS, SPMS had older age at onset of the progressive phase (median 46.7 years (95% CI 46.2-47.3) vs 43.9 (43.3-44.4); p<0.001), greater baseline disability, slower disability accrual (HR 0.86 (0.78-0.94); p<0.001) and similar age at wheelchair dependence., Conclusions: We demonstrate later onset of the progressive phase and slower disability accrual in SPMS versus PPMS. This may balance greater baseline disability in SPMS, yielding convergent disability trajectories across phenotypes. The different rates of disability accrual should be considered before amalgamating PPMS and SPMS in clinical trials., Competing Interests: Competing interests: IR served on scientific advisory boards for Novartis and Merck, and received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Biogen, Teva, Sanofi Genzyme, and Merck. A-LN received grants from MS Research Australia; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Biogen; grants and personal fees from Merck Serono; personal fees from Teva and Novartis; and nonfinancial support from Roche and Sanofi Genzyme. GI received speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Roche, Almirall, and Teva. SE received speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, and Teva. FP received speaker honoraria and advisory board fees from Almirall, Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva, and research funding from Biogen, Merck, FISM (Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla), Reload Onlus Association, and the University of Catania. DH received speaker honoraria and consulting fees from Biogen, Merck, Teva, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Novartis, and support for research activities from Biogen and the Czech Ministry of Education (project PROGRES Q27/LF1). EVH received honoraria or research support from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Teva; has been a member of advisory boards for Actelion, Biogen, Celgene, Merck Serono, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme; and received research support from the Czech Ministry of Education (project PROGRES Q27/LF1). MG received consulting fees from Teva Canada Innovation, Biogen, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme; lecture payments from Teva Canada Innovation, Novartis, and EMD; and research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. PD served on editorial boards for, and has been supported to attend meetings by, EMD, Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, and Teva Neuroscience; he holds grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the MS Society of Canada, and received funding for investigator-initiated trials from Biogen, Novartis, and Genzyme. FG’M received honoraria or research funding from Biogen, Genzyme, Novartis, Teva Neurosciences, Mitsubishi, and ONO Pharmaceuticals. AL received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities from Biogen, Merck Serono, Mylan, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva; her institutions have received research grants from Novartis (in the past 4 years). PG served on advisory boards for Novartis, EMD Serono, Roche, Biogen Idec, Sanofi Genzyme, and Pendopharm; received grant support from Genzyme and Roche; and received research grants for his institution from Biogen Idec, Sanofi Genzyme, and EMD Serono. MPA received honoraria as a consultant on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Bayer Schering, Merck, Teva, and Sanofi-Aventis, and received research grants by Biogen, Bayer Schering, Merck, Teva, and Novartis. PS served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen Idec and Teva; received funding for travel and speaker honoraria from Biogen Idec, Merck, Teva, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, and Bayer; and received research grants for her institution from Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. DF received travel grants and/or speaker honoraria from Merck, Teva, Novartis, Biogen, and Sanofi Genzyme. KB received honoraria and consulting fees from Biogen, Teva, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, Merck, CSL, and Grifols. JL-S received travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Roche, and Merck; her institution received honoraria for talks and advisory board commitments, as well as research grants from Biogen, Merck, Roche, Teva, and Novartis. RA received honoraria as a speaker and for serving on scientific advisory boards from Bayer, Biogen, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi Genzyme. CB received conference travel support from Biogen, Novartis, Bayer Schering, Merck, and Teva, and participated in clinical trials by Sanofi-Aventis, Roche, and Novartis. VVP received travel grants from Merck, Biogen, Sanofi, Celgene, Almirall, and Roche; his institution received research grants and consultancy fees from Roche, Biogen, Sanofi, Celgene, Merck, and Novartis Pharma. MT received travel grants from Novartis, Bayer Schering, Merck, and Teva, and participated in clinical trials by Sanofi-Aventis, Roche, and Novartis. DM received speaker honoraria for advisory board service and travel grants from Almirall, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva. CR-T received research funding, compensation for travel, or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, and Almirall. DLS received honoraria as a consultant on scientific advisory boards from Bayer Schering, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis, and compensation for travel from Novartis, Biogen, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and Merck. FG received an institutional research grant from Biogen and Sanofi Genzyme; served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis, Merck, Sanofi Genzyme, and Roche; and received funding for travel and speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck, and Sanofi-Aventis. MS participated in, but did not receive honoraria for, advisory board activity for Biogen, Merck, Bayer Schering, Sanofi-Aventis, and Novartis. RB received speaker honoraria from Bayer Schering, Biogen, Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, and Teva; research grants from Bayer Schering, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, and Teva; and congress, travel, and accommodation expense compensations from Almirall, Bayer Schering, Biogen, Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, and Teva. RA received conference travel support from Novartis, Teva, Biogen, Bayer, and Merck, and participated in clinical trials by Biogen, Novartis, Teva, and Actelion. JLS-M received travel compensation from Novartis and Biogen; received speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Almirall, Bayer, and Teva; and participated in a clinical trial by Biogen. JP received travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Genzyme, and Teva, and speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme and Teva. TC-T received speaking or consulting fees and/or travel funding from Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva. GL received travel and/or consultancy compensation from Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, Teva, Merck, Novartis, Celgene, and Biogen. JO received research funding from the MS Society of Canada, the National MS Society, Brain Canada, Biogen Idec, Roche, and EMD Serono, and personal compensation for consulting or speaking from EMD Serono, Sanofi Genzyme, Biogen Idec, Roche, Celgene, and Novartis. AA received personal fees and speaker honoraria from Teva, Merck, Biogen Gen Pharma, Roche, Novartis, Bayer, and Sanofi Genzyme, and received travel and registration grants from Merck, Biogen Gen Pharma, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Bayer. HB received compensation for consulting, talks, and advisory or steering board activities from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Genzyme, Alfred Health, and Oxford Health Policy Forum, and research support from Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Merck, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Pennycook Foundation, and MS Research Australia MB served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis, and Genzyme, received conference travel support from Biogen and Novartis, and serves on steering committees for trials conducted by Novartis; his institution received research support from Biogen, Merck, and Novartis. EC Cristiano received honoraria as a consultant on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Bayer Schering, Merck, Genzyme, and Novartis, and participated in clinical trials or other research projects by Merck, Roche, and Novartis. SH received honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis, Bayer Schering, and Sanofi, and travel grants from Novartis, Biogen Idec, and Bayer Schering. GI received compensation for travel, accommodations, and meeting expenses from Bayer Schering, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, and Teva. LK received research support from Acorda, Actelion, Allozyne, BaroFold, Bayer HealthCare, Bayer Schering, Bayhill Therapeutics, Biogen, Elan, European Union, Genmab, Gianni Rubatto Foundation, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, MediciNova, Merck, Novartis, Novartis Research Foundation, Roche, Roche Research Foundation, Sanofi-Aventis, Santhera, the Swiss MS Society, the Swiss National Research Foundation, Teva Neuroscience, UCB, and Wyeth. BW-G participated in speakers' bureaus and/or served as a consultant for Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, Genentech, Celgene/Bristol Meyers Squibb, Sanofi Genzyme, Bayer, Janssen, and Horizon; received grant/research support from these same agencies; and serves on editorial boards for BMJ Neurology, Children, CNS Drugs, MS International, and Frontiers Epidemiology. BVW received research and travel grants and honoraria for advisory and speaking fees from Bayer Schering, Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Teva. TK served on scientific advisory boards for BMS, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Merck, and Biogen, and the steering committee for the Brain Atrophy Initiative by Sanofi Genzyme; received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Novartis, Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL, and Merck; and received support for research or educational events from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene, and Merck., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Over the decades, several natural history studies on patients with primary (PPMS) or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) were reported from international registries. In PPMS, a consistent heterogeneity on long-term disability trajectories was demonstrated. The aim of this study was to identify subgroups of patients with SPMS with similar longitudinal trajectories of disability over time., Methods: All patients with MS collected within Big MS registries who received an SPMS diagnosis from physicians (cohort 1) or satisfied the Lorscheider criteria (cohort 2) were considered. Longitudinal Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores were modelled by a latent class growth analysis (LCGA), using a non-linear function of time from the first EDSS visit in the range 3-4., Results: A total of 3613 patients with SPMS were included in the cohort 1. LCGA detected three different subgroups of patients with a mild (n=1297; 35.9%), a moderate (n=1936; 53.6%) and a severe (n=380; 10.5%) disability trajectory. Median time to EDSS 6 was 12.1, 5.0 and 1.7 years, for the three groups, respectively; the probability to reach EDSS 6 at 8 years was 14.4%, 78.4% and 98.3%, respectively. Similar results were found among 7613 patients satisfying the Lorscheider criteria., Conclusions: Contrary to previous interpretations, patients with SPMS progress at greatly different rates. Our identification of distinct trajectories can guide better patient selection in future phase 3 SPMS clinical trials. Additionally, distinct trajectories could reflect heterogeneous pathological mechanisms of progression., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AS received research support from MSBase. JL received research support from Innosuisse—Swiss Innovation Agency, Biogen and Novartis; he served on advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis, Roche and Teva. SV received consulting and lecture fees, travel grants and research support from Biogen, Celgene, Genentech, Genzyme, Medday Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and Teva Pharma. MT has served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis, Roche and Genzyme; has received speaker honoraria and travel support from Biogen Idec, Sanofi-Aventis, Merck Serono, Teva, Genzyme and Novartis; and has received research grants for her institution from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono and Novartis. JH has received honoraria for serving on advisory boards for Biogen, Sanofi-Genzyme and Novartis; and speaker’s fees from Biogen, Novartis, Merck Serono, Bayer-Schering, Teva and Sanofi-Genzyme. He has served as PI for projects or received unrestricted research support from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, TEVA, Sanofi-Genzyme and Bayer-Schering; his MS research is funded by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Brain Foundation. RH is an employee of Biogen and holds a stock. FP is an employee of Biogen. MM has served on scientific advisory board for Biogen Idec and Teva; and has received honoraria for lecturing from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Sanofi-Aventis and Teva. NK-H has received honoraria for lecturing and participating in advisory councils, travel expenses for attending congresses and meetings, and financial support for monitoring the Danish Multiple Sclerosis Treatment Register from Bayer-Schering, Merck Serono, Biogen Idec, Teva, Sanofi-Aventis and Novartis. PSS has served on scientific advisory boards for Merck Serono, Teva, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis and Biogen Idec; has received research support from Biogen Idec, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis; and received speaker honoraria from Merck Serono, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi-Aventis, Biogen Idec and Genzyme. TS received compensation for serving on scientific advisory boards, honoraria for consultancy and funding for travel from Biogen; and speaker honoraria from Novartis. AvdW reported receiving grants from National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Novartis, Roche and MS Research Australia; and personal fees from Biogen, Merck, Novartis and Roche. DH received compensation for travel, speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Biogen, Novartis, Merck Healthcare (Darmstadt, Germany), Bayer, Sanofi, Roche and Teva, as well as support for research activities from Biogen. She was also supported by the Charles University: Cooperation Program in neuroscience. EH received honoraria/research support from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novars, Roche and Teva; has been a member of advisory boards for Actelion, Biogen, Celgene, Merck Serono, Novars and Sanofi Genzyme. MG received consulting fees from Teva Canada Innovation, Biogen, Novartis and Genzyme Sanofi; and lecture payments from Teva Canada Innovation, Novartis and EMD. He has also received a research grant from Canadian Institutes of Health Research. SE received speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche and Teva. FG received honoraria or research funding from Biogen, Genzyme, Novartis, Teva Neurosciences, Mitsubishi and ONO Pharmaceuticals. OG has nothing to disclose. MT received travel grants from Novartis, Bayer-Schering, Merck and Teva; and has participated in clinical trials by Sanofi Aventis, Roche and Novartis. SO has nothing to disclose. OS has received honoraria and consulting fees from Bayer Schering, Novartis, Merck, Biogen and Genzyme companies. VVP received travel grants from Merck Healthcare (Darmstadt, Germany), Biogen, Sanofi, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Almirall and Roche. His institution has received research grants and consultancy fees from Roche, Biogen, Sanofi, Merck Healthcare (Darmstadt, Germany), Bristol Meyer Squibb, Janssen, Almirall and Novartis Pharma. MJS received consulting fees, speaker honoraria, and/or travel expenses for scientific meetings from Alexion, Bayer Healthcare, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi and Teva. JP accepted travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Genzyme and Teva; and speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme and Teva. RA received honoraria as a speaker and for serving on scientific advisory boards from Bayer, Biogen, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi-Genzyme. PAM received speakers fees and travel grants from Novartis, Biogen, T’évalua and Sanofi. RG has nothing to disclose. SM has received a MENACTRIMS clinical fellowship grant (2020). TC-T received speaking/consulting fees and/or travel funding from Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva. CZ has nothing to disclose. KdG has nothing to disclose. JLS-M accepted travel compensation from Novartis, Merck and Biogen; speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Almirall, Bayer and Teva; and has participated in clinical trials by Biogen, Merck and Roche. BY and SK have nothing to disclose. MPS has received consulting fees from Biogen, Merck, Teva, Genzyme, Roche, Novartis, GeNeuro and MedDay. TK reported receiving grants from MS Research Australia and grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Biogen; personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi Genzyme and Merck; personal fees from Roche, Novartis, WebMD Global, Teva and BioCSL; and grants from NHMRC, MS Research Australia, ARSEP-OFSEP, UK MS Society and Medical Research Future Fund. HB’s institution (Monash University) received compensation for consulting, talks, and advisory/steering board activities from Alfred Health, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche and UCB pharma; research support from Biogen, Merck, Roche, MS Australia, National Health and Medical Research (Australia) and the Medical Research Future Fund (Australia), the Pennycook Foundation, Novartis and Roche. He has received personal compensation for steering group activities from Oxford Health Policy Forum., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Objectives: To evaluate the rate of return of disease activity after cessation of multiple sclerosis (MS) disease-modifying therapy., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study from 2 large observational MS registries: MSBase and OFSEP. Patients with relapsing-remitting MS who had ceased a disease-modifying therapy and were followed up for the subsequent 12 months were included in the analysis. The primary study outcome was annualized relapse rate in the 12 months after disease-modifying therapy discontinuation stratified by patients who did, and did not, commence a subsequent therapy. The secondary endpoint was the predictors of first relapse and disability accumulation after treatment discontinuation., Results: A total of 14,213 patients, with 18,029 eligible treatment discontinuation epochs, were identified for 7 therapies. Annualized rates of relapse (ARRs) started to increase 2 months after natalizumab cessation (month 2-4 ARR 0.47, 95% CI 0.43-0.51). Commencement of a subsequent therapy within 2-4 months reduced the magnitude of disease reactivation (mean ARR difference: 0.15, 0.08-0.22). After discontinuation of fingolimod, rates of relapse increased overall (month 1-2 ARR: 0.80, 0.70-0.89) and stabilized faster in patients who started a new therapy within 1-2 months (mean ARR difference: 0.14, -0.01 to 0.29). The magnitude of disease reactivation for other therapies was low but reduced further by commencement of another treatment 1-10 months after treatment discontinuation. Predictors of relapse were a higher relapse rate in the year before cessation, female sex, younger age, and higher EDSS score. Commencement of a subsequent therapy reduced both the risk of relapse (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.72-0.81) and disability accumulation (0.73, 0.65-0.80)., Discussion: The rate of disease reactivation after treatment cessation differs among MS treatments, with the peaks of relapse activity ranging from 1 to 10 months in untreated cohorts that discontinued different therapies. These results suggest that untreated intervals should be minimized after stopping antitrafficking therapies (natalizumab and fingolimod)., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class III that disease reactivation occurs within months of discontinuation of MS disease-modifying therapies. The risk of disease activity is reduced by commencement of a subsequent therapy., (© 2022 American Academy of Neurology.)

Objective: To investigate pregnancy-related disease activity in a contemporary multiple sclerosis (MS) cohort., Methods: Using data from the MSBase Registry, we included pregnancies conceived after 31 Dec 2010 from women with relapsing-remitting MS or clinically isolated syndrome. Predictors of intrapartum relapse, and postpartum relapse and disability progression were determined by clustered logistic regression or Cox regression analyses., Results: We included 1998 pregnancies from 1619 women with MS. Preconception annualized relapse rate (ARR) was 0.29 (95% CI 0.27-0.32), fell to 0.19 (0.14-0.24) in third trimester, and increased to 0.59 (0.51-0.67) in early postpartum. Among women who used fingolimod or natalizumab, ARR before pregnancy was 0.37 (0.28-0.49) and 0.29 (0.22-0.37), respectively, and increased during pregnancy. Intrapartum ARR decreased with preconception dimethyl fumarate use. ARR spiked after delivery across all DMT groups. Natalizumab continuation into pregnancy reduced the odds of relapse during pregnancy (OR 0.76 per month [0.60-0.95], p=0.017). DMT re-initiation with natalizumab protected against postpartum relapse (HR 0.11 [0.04-0.32], p<0.0001). Breastfeeding women were less likely to relapse (HR 0.61 [0.41-0.91], p=0.016). 5.6% of pregnancies were followed by confirmed disability progression, predicted by higher relapse activity in pregnancy and postpartum., Conclusion: Intrapartum and postpartum relapse probabilities increased among women with MS after natalizumab or fingolimod cessation. In women considered to be at high relapse risk, use of natalizumab before pregnancy and continued up to 34 weeks gestation, with early re-initiation after delivery is an effective option to minimize relapse risks. Strategies of DMT use have to be balanced against potential fetal/neonatal complications., (© 2021 American Academy of Neurology.)

ABO blood groups have recently been related to COVID19 infection. In the present work, we performed this analysis using data from 412 COVID19 patients and 17796 blood donors, all of them from Gipuzkoa, a region in Northern Spain. The results obtained confirmed this relation, in addition to showing a clear importance of group O as a protective factor in COVID19 disease, with an OR = 0.59 (CI95% 0.481-0.7177, p<0.0001) while A, B and AB are risk factors. ABO blood groups are slightly differently distributed in the populations and therefore these results should be replicated in the specific areas with a proper control population., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Rituximab is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody approved for non Hodgkin lymphoma and rheumatoid arthritis. It is being considered for the treatment of MS., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of rituximab for MS treatment., Data Collection: Studies were selected if they were clinical trials, irrespective of the dosage or combination therapies., Main Results: Four studies with a total of 599 patients were included. One assessed the efficacy of rituximab for primary progressive (PP) MS while the other three focused on relapsing-remitting (RR) MS. In the PPMS study, rituximab delayed time to confirmed disease progression (CDP) in pre-planned sub-group analyses. The increase in T2 lesion volume was lower in the rituximab group at week 96 compared with placebo. For the RRMS studies, an open-label phase I study found that rituximab reduced the annualized relapse rate to 0.25 from pre-therapy baseline to week 24, while in the randomized placebo-controlled phase II trial, annualized relapse rates were 0.37 in the rituximab group and 0.84 in the placebo group (p = 0.04) at week 24. Rituximab dramatically reduced the number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions on brain MRI scans for both RRMS studies. Off-label rituximab as an add-on therapy in patients with breakthrough disease on first-line agents was associated with an 88% reduction when comparing the mean number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions prior to and after the treatment. Although frequent adverse events classified as mild or moderate occurred in up to 77% of the patients, there were no grade 4 infusion-related adverse events. AUTHOR’S CONCLUSION: Despite the frequent mild/moderate adverse events related to the drug, rituximab appears overall safe for up to 2 years of therapy and has a substantial impact on the inflammatory disease activity (clinical and/or radiological) of RRMS. The effect of rituximab on disease progression in PPMS appears to be marginal.

We describe a patient with multiple intracranial tuberculomas resistant to standard care with antituberculosis drugs and corticosteroids who responded well to thalidomide. Adjunctive thalidomide may have a role in the management of refractory intracranial tuberculomas, although it should be used conservatively owing to its potential adverse events.

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with breakthrough disease on immunomodulatory drugs are frequently offered to switch to natalizumab or immunosuppressants. The effect of natalizumab monotherapy in patients with breakthrough disease is unknown., Methods: This is an open-label retrospective cohort study of 993 patients seen at least four times at the University of California San Francisco MS Center, 95 had breakthrough disease on first-line therapy (60 patients switched to natalizumab, 22 to immunosuppressants and 13 declined the switch [non-switchers]). We used Poisson regression adjusted for potential confounders to compare the relapse rate within and across groups before and after the switch., Results: In the within-group analyses, the relapse rate decreased by 70% (95% CI 50,82%; p<0.001) in switchers to natalizumab and by 77% (95% CI 59,87%; p<0.001) in switchers to immunosuppressants; relapse rate in non-switchers did not decrease (6%, p =  0.87). Relative to the reduction among non-switchers, the relapse rate was reduced by 68% among natalizumab switchers (95% CI 19,87%; p = 0.017) and by 76% among the immunosuppressant switchers (95% CI 36,91%; p = 0.004)., Conclusions: Switching to natalizumab or immunosuppressants in patients with breakthrough disease is effective in reducing clinical activity of relapsing MS. The magnitude of the effect and the risk-benefit ratio should be evaluated in randomized clinical trials and prospective cohort studies.