Podcast appearances and mentions of carol cruzan morton

Strawberries had both male and female parts, like most plants, until several million years ago. This may seem like a long time ago, but it actually means strawberries have some of the youngest sex chromosomes around. What are the advantages of splitting a species into two sexes? Host Sarah Crespi interviews freelance journalist Carol Cruzan Morton about her story on scientists' journey to understanding the strawberry's sexual awakening. In 2016, experimental Zika vaccines were swiftly developed in response to the emergence of serious birth defects in the babies of infected woman. Two years after the height of Zika cases, there's so little spread of the virus in the Americas that it has stymied vaccine trials. Researchers hope to overcome this hurdle with “human challenge experiments”—vaccinating people, then intentionally infecting them with Zika to see whether they're protected from the virus. Meagan Cantwell talks with staff writer Jon Cohen about his news story that highlights the risks and rewards of human challenge experiments. This week's episode was edited by Podigy. Download a transcript of this episode (PDF) Listen to previous podcasts. About the Science Podcast [Image: Public domain; Music: Jeffrey Cook]

Strawberries had both male and female parts, like most plants, until several million years ago. This may seem like a long time ago, but it actually means strawberries have some of the youngest sex chromosomes around. What are the advantages of splitting a species into two sexes? Host Sarah Crespi interviews freelance journalist Carol Cruzan Morton about her story on scientists’ journey to understanding the strawberry’s sexual awakening. In 2016, experimental Zika vaccines were swiftly developed in response to the emergence of serious birth defects in the babies of infected woman. Two years after the height of Zika cases, there’s so little spread of the virus in the Americas that it has stymied vaccine trials. Researchers hope to overcome this hurdle with “human challenge experiments”—vaccinating people, then intentionally infecting them with Zika to see whether they’re protected from the virus. Meagan Cantwell talks with staff writer Jon Cohen about his news story that highlights the risks and rewards of human challenge experiments. This week’s episode was edited by Podigy. Download a transcript of this episode (PDF) Listen to previous podcasts. About the Science Podcast [Image: Public domain; Music: Jeffrey Cook]

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Ninety of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller.   Welcome to the weird world of the U.S. pharmaceutical market. A few outrageous cases of drug price gouging have made the headlines, but in multiple sclerosis, a more serious concern is the steady annual rise in cost of all disease-modifying therapies, or DMTs. So says Dr. Daniel Hartung, a researcher at the Oregon State University/Oregon Health and Science University College of Pharmacy. In a recent study, he found that MS drug prices over time outpaced both inflation and similar biologics. It’s not just the new drugs. As each more expensive DMT comes to market, the prices of older drugs also race to catch up. It’s affecting the drugs available to patients and causing other concerns.   Interviewer – Carol Morton Can you tell me what questions you were asking and why?   Interviewee – Daniel Hartung Sure. So the study that we did had its origin after having some conversations with some neurologists at OHSU about increasing frequency of seeing their patients facing larger and larger, not only cost sharing and copays from the insurance companies for drugs for MS, but also increasing restrictions, typically from insurance companies in kind of what medications they were supposed to take first prior to perhaps failing one, then going to another medication for MS. And so this is all kind of happening in the context of what they were seeing as just higher prices for some of these medications.   And so what we decided to do is…no one's really done this…is look at in a systematic way the trajectory of pricing for MS drugs, essentially since their approval until we went through the end of 2013. And to look at what the just general trend was, try to figure out if there were certain specific factors that were associated with higher prices over time, like the approval of newer agents, things like that. That was kind of the general objective of the study.   MSDF And then how did you go about conducting this study? Is it hard to find that data?   Dr. Hartung It can be. So I'm fortunate to have access to some data set that has longitudinal pricing data for pharmaceuticals for the past 30 years or so. And so from my perspective, it wasn't difficult. But essentially we used this data set that collected average wholesale price, as well as wholesale acquisition cost, so kind of the two usual, most common (I'll call them) sticker prices for drugs. And so this data set for all medications, it kind of tracked pricing of medications over time. And so that was the core data set for our analysis.   MSDF And so you pulled the multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies out of that. How many did you look at?   Dr. Hartung So in our study we looked at 11 medications for MS. They included the three what are typically called platform therapies that have been on the market for about 20 years now. Those include Avonex, Copaxone, and Betaseron, and just followed them through time, through the approval of several other new agents, like Tysabri. And then there's in the last five to six or seven years, the FDA has approved several agents that can be taken orally, Gilenya, Aubagio, and Tecfidera now. And there was a couple other kind of miscellaneous agents that were kind of variants of the interferons and things like that.   MSDF And then what did you find?   Dr. Hartung Well, there are several interesting things, but I think one of the most striking things is that the prices for the platform therapies, Avonex, Betaseron, and Copaxone, were pretty stable for at least 10 years from their approval in early to mid-90s. And then, essentially what we observed is that new agents that came on the market, starting with Rebif in about 2001, came out, and they were usually priced about 20% to 30% higher than the existing therapies. And what we observed is that when these new agents came out or approved, that these higher prices, the cost or the price of kind of the platform therapies quickly escalated to almost match the price of the newer agents that were approved. And this pattern kind of repeated itself and actually became more intense when the newer oral agents came on the market in the last five or six years.   So the cumulative effect of that is in the early 2000s, Copaxone, Betaseron, and Avonex were priced about $10,000 to $15,000 a year. And at the end of our study, all of the agents that are currently approved were priced between $50,000 and $60,000 per year. And so we tried to quantify kind of the rate of increase and compare that with other kind of benchmarks: inflation, prescription drug inflation. What we found is that the price increase for those agents was well above what you'd expect for not only just general inflation, but also prescription drug inflation.   MSDF MS drugs, the cost of all of them, not just the new ones, are increasing at a rate higher than any other drug category?   Dr. Hartung In addition to looking at kind of standard metrics of inflation, we compared the price increases for the platform therapies to what we considered kind of comparable biologics. So we looked at a class of medications called tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, which are used for immunologic conditions like rheumatoid arthritis. And what we found is that the price increases for the platform therapies for MS increased substantially and significantly above price increases for those medications for the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor. So from our study, from our perspective, prices increased higher than they did for these TNF inhibitors.   We haven't really compared them across other classes of drugs, but there are some new publications that have looked at price increases for other agents, such as in other classes like insulin, drugs for diabetes, and cancer agents as well. The numbers are slightly different, but the trajectories look pretty similar. So in the last, you know, 10 years, there's been almost it seems like a logarithmic increase in the price of many of these agents and classes.   MSDF So is this a case of a system that has incentives that maybe aren't as well matched to patient needs as they should? What's going on here?   Dr. Hartung I mean, that's a good question. Definitely there's a system. The market-based system for pharmaceuticals in the United States is incredibly dysfunctional in that it's very dissimilar from any other kind of consumer market for technology, phones, cars, things like that, where you typically see prices go down after a while. And you don't see that in health care or in drugs. You see just prices increase. And so there's a dysfunction that just kind of is core to the economics of health care.   And then I think there is an element of pharmaceutical industries pricing these agents essentially what the market will bear. Now my opinion is that a lot of the aggressive increases in price were initially seen with some of the cancer agents. And so I think that in that field there is a kind of pushing of the envelope for many anti-cancer drugs that's now has proliferated to other classes of drugs, including MS agents.   The other element that's kind of unclear and adds to the murkiness to this is that, you know, our study and other studies that have looked at what I'm calling pricing of the agents use average wholesale or WAC and with some sort of adjustments for rebates or discounts. So typically third party payers or pharmaceutical benefits managers will negotiate with pharmaceutical industry to lower the cost of the agent for the payer. But all that information is typically proprietary, and so it's really difficult to know what the actual cost of the medication is, unless you're paying cash. If you're paying cash, then the cost is going to be pretty close to the price that's set. So people who don't have insurance are paying the most, and the people with insurance, Medicaid, any sort of governmental insurance, they're paying typically AWP minus a certain proportion or WAC plus a proportion percentage essentially based on the rebate that they get.   So that adds a little bit of kind of uncertainty. Pharmaceutical industry may come back to say that, you know, we're giving pretty good discounts on certain medications in certain payers, but from the data we have and the pricing data, there's just been this aggressive increasing in prices. And we don't know if it's being mitigated by increasing rebates and discounts over time. So it's complicated.   MSDF What do you hope people will do with this information? It does sound like a complicated system that's almost unapproachable for the individual patient or individual doctor. What can people start doing now? Where does the responsibility or responsibilities lie?   Dr. Hartung You know, I think that the data we generated in our study has been useful for some of the advocacy groups in the multiple sclerosis community. So the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has been using it to try to, you know, advocate or perhaps political reforms or some other meaningful reforms in kind of how these things are reimbursed, things like that. Drug prices has been in the news quite a bit over the last several years, and now even more with the election season in full tilt. And so I think a lot of the candidates are talking about potential solutions to the issue.   From the patient's perspective, they're in a real quandary in a sense that even a sharp move with the Affordable Care Act to a lot of high deductible, high cost sharing plans where if your monthly cost of a MS agent is $5,000, you pay 20% of it until you hit your deductible. You know, that's $1,000 at the pharmacy, and that's a pretty big out-of-pocket cost that you face. So I think that there's some, you know, movement in the advocacy groups to try to…especially working with insurance companies to make sure that access is open because these medications are incredibly individualized. And there's not really good predictors of who will respond to each type of medication, and they're all different. Some of them are administered subcutaneously, intramuscularly, orals, and so there's some patient preferences that fall into play here as well as the price. And so I think there's been some movement and some discussion making sure that access to all the agents is relatively easy for patients.   But from a solutions to the pricing situation, you know, I think we're still kind of in discussion phases about what we can do as a country to kind of deal with this issue because it's not exclusive to the MS drugs.   MSDF So what's next with you? Are you following up on this?   Dr. Hartung So from our perspective, the group that I worked with, the two neurologists' project, we just submitted a grant, well, it was in January, that we hope to be competitive and hope to get that's looking at how these high drug prices actually affect patients in terms of their medication taking and potentially adverse outcomes because they're not taking their medication. Either they're hitting access restrictions from insurance companies or they just can't afford or have problems with the cost sharing or something like that, and so trying to quantify how this is affecting patients. And so from a research perspective, I think that's kind of our next move.   My colleagues, my two neurologist colleagues, they're really active in kind of speaking with representatives at the state about the issue, bringing it to increased visibility from our elected officials as well as making sure that the MS Society is aware of kind of the current status of the pricing trajectory. So we've been updating our graph that we published as new agents come online and things like that.   MSDF Can you give us a couple of the updates you've made since the study?   Dr. Hartung They haven't been dramatic, but there's been a couple new agents that have been approved. And I guess most notably is that the first generic drug for MS was approved, I believe, last April. So a generic for Copaxone came online. I think there's two manufacturers of it. When it came online, there was one. And so I think it was priced just modestly lower than the brand name Copaxone. But something interesting also just dealing with Copaxone, which is the number one MS drug in terms of sales, so when Copaxone lost its patents and lost its kind of patent disputes, in preparation for that, Teva released a different formulation of Copaxone.   So Copaxone is traditionally a daily injection. And so they released a three-times-a-week higher strength injection and basically switched everyone from the once-a-day to the three-times-a week 40-mg injection. And so I think a large proportion of patients who were originally on the once-daily Copaxone were switched to the 40-mg three-times-a-week Copaxone. So that really to some extent mitigated if there's any sort of savings due to this new generics in the field, kind of really mitigated any kind of savings due to the new generic as most people are now on the 40-mg three-times-a-week product. And the generic is not substitutable for the 40-mg three-times-a-week product. So that's a very common tactic in pharmaceutical industry approach to try to like sustain their franchise with a particular drug that's going off patent.   But the big questions are the ones that don't have a good answer. Essentially, what do patients do about this? What do we do as a society to deal with this issue? And you know, there's been proposals that have been put out by different elected officials and other folks about, you know, we should allow Medicare to aggressively and directly negotiate with pharmaceutical industry on price. We should allow importation of medications from other countries, similar industrialized countries like Canada. So the United States pays by far and away the highest prices than any other country in the world. And so many people think that we should be able to import these drugs that are the same drugs that are going to Canada into the United States. You know, some people suggest that there should be some sort of forms of price control. You know, maybe medications shouldn't be allowed to increase 10% a year or something like that.   And so all of these are being kind of discussed and played out and the pros and cons are weighed. And whenever you talk about limiting price increases, the usual response you get from industry is that any constraint on the amount of money that they're able to make and the profits that they're able to make for their shareholders is going to have some sort of effect on kind of future innovation potentially. Whether that comes to bear or not is unclear, but that's usually the number one response you get is that we need to have these high profits in place because it's an incredibly risky endeavor that we're doing. Only a very small proportion of drugs that are under development actually make it through the developmental process and are approved and make it to market. So any constraint on profits is going to have an effect in terms of future innovations and future breakthrough medications and things like that. Incentives are a big…they are real. And so that is something that needs to be weighed carefully in kind of any solution, essentially. I don't think it's the best solution, but just people are talking about a wide variety of things, I think.   MSDF I appreciate your raising all these issues and going through the study. Is there anything else that I haven't asked that you wanted to add or emphasize as take-home lessons? Something to mitigate the rage, I don't know… [laughter]?   Dr. Hartung Yeah, well I mean there's been a lot with all this, you know, the Valeant Pharmaceutical issue and the other company, Martin Shkreli guy who's castigated for increasing the price of this drug for toxoplasmosis by like 5,000% and buying the company and jacking up the price. That's a separate phenomenon of what is happening. But I think the outrage over that type of exploitation of the dysfunctional pharmaceutical market kind of masks and kind of hides the other issues that are happening on a consistent and aggressive basis in terms of just regular 6% to 10% increases in price on a year-to-year basis for drugs that a lot of people use, like drugs for diabetes or MS products, cancer agents, things like that. And so, you know, you have these really highly visible cases of really dramatic increases that are kind of morally outrageous. They draw your attention from the real and kind of moderate but aggressive and year in, year out, increases that are seen across the board in a lot of different agents. And that's where our focus should be essentially.   MSDF That's helpful. Well, thank you so much.   Dr. Hartung Yeah. My pleasure.   [transition music]   MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Ninety of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations.   Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.   [outro music]   We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.   For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Eighty-nine of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller.   Today's interview features Dr. Charity Evans, assistant professor of pharmacy at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada. After a drug is on the market, systematically evaluating hospital admissions and the reasons for them can add new evidence for its effectiveness or adverse effects. By using clinical data from the British Columbia MS database and linking it to health system databases for MS patients, Dr. Evans evaluated the effect of beta-interferon on hospital event rates compared to those not on beta-interferon. She tells us what led up to this study.   Interviewee – Charity Evans This was part of a larger study that was looking at long-term effects of beta-interferons, and we wanted to see if there was any impact of the interferons on hospitalization rates.   Interviewer – Dan Keller And what did you do to look at it?   Dr. Evans So we used data from two different sources in British Columbia. We had a clinical data set that has collected clinical data on patients since 1980, and then we linked that with health administrative data in BC; so we were able to get information on individual’s hospitalizations as well as the drugs that they were taking, and we used that to see if there was any effect of the beta-interferons on their hospitalization rates.   MSDF And this was per patient per month or year, some time frame?   Dr. Evans Yup. We actually looked at each individual patient in this study on a monthly basis; and so we each month said did you have any hospitalizations this month, yes or no, or how many did you have? And then we looked at their drug exposure, and we did that in two different ways; so we looked at were you on drug at that time that we were measuring you – so monthly – and we were looking at cumulative drug exposure, so how much drug had you been exposed to prior to that time, as well.   We actually found that there wasn’t any differences between the people who had been exposed to beta-interferon either currently or cumulatively compared to those who had no exposure to beta-interferon on the hospitalization rates.   MSDF But what about any individual outcomes?   Dr. Evans So with a secondary analysis, we also looked at specific reasons for hospitalizations, and we did find that there did seem to be a beneficial effect of the beta-interferons on hospitalizations related to respiratory diseases; so those individuals who had a higher cumulative exposure to beta-interferon over time actually had less hospitalizations for respiratory diseases.   MSDF Does that take into account both infectious diseases as well as anything respiratory, like COPD or any other things that would affect the lungs?   Dr. Evans Yup, that includes all of them. We did look at kind of the specific diagnosis for these patients and the majority were respiratory infections, so things like pneumonia or influenza.   MSDF Do you have any idea what might account for that?   Dr. Evans We have two thoughts. The first one is because the majority of hospitalizations were due to infections, we know that the beta-interferons have antiviral activity, so we thought is it this kind of an antimicrobial or immunoregulatory effect that the interferons were resulting in these lower hospitalization rates. And then the second one is a far less scientific thought, but we also wondered if people who are on drug, are they seen by healthcare professionals more regularly than someone who isn’t, and if that’s the case are they receiving more messages about preventative strategies for these types of infections; so when it’s flu season, are these people hearing more about the flu shots and getting a flu shot more than someone who maybe doesn’t see a healthcare professional as much?   MSDF Could the interferon, because it’s working on their MS, have any beneficial effect in terms of neuromuscular function of respiratory muscles?   Dr. Evans That one I wouldn’t be able to comment on specifically yet.   MSDF Can you sort of dissect this by looking at patients on other disease-modifying therapies, which if they had the same reduction in respiratory might say that it’s not a direct antiviral effect but could be neurologic or healthcare access?   Dr. Evans Yeah, that would definitely be the way to do it. This study specifically looked at the interferons; again, that was how the study was designed, but for sure if you included glatiramer acetate, as well, or some of the newer agents. At the time of this study for sure we didn’t have enough long-term data on the newer agents to be able to include them, but that’s certainly something that we’d be looking at in the future.   MSDF So where do you take this in the future?   Dr. Evans So we are, as you suggest, wanting to look at the newer agents and seeing if there is any impact of that, as well, so that would probably be the next step that we would do.   MSDF If it were a direct antiviral effect, wouldn’t you expect to see it on other viral diseases? But I guess they’re much less common so events might be less.   Dr. Evans And this might just be a complete chance finding, as well. Respiratory infections are more common in MS to begin with, so we didn’t notice it with other types of infections. But this is a secondary outcome so we weren’t looking specifically for this, so it might be something that if we tease out a study that that was a primary endpoint we might find differences, as well.   MSDF If there was no overall effect on hospitalizations but there was a lower level of hospitalization for respiratory problems, was there an increase in other things that accounted for this zeroing out?   Dr. Evans We didn’t see any statistically significant increases in any of the other areas.   MSDF Sort of the difference between mortality and all-cause mortality, I’m sort of thinking, in the same way that you don’t want to prevent one and raise the other.   Dr. Evans Right, yeah. You know, our findings did kind of coincide with right around the time where the 21-year followup of the initial pivotal trials of the beta-interferons came out where they did show a lower mortality related to respiratory infections, as well. Our findings kind of fit with that, as well, but as for the specific reason why I can’t say for sure.   MSDF Can you reach any conclusions or recommendations?   Dr. Evans Well, we didn’t see a beneficial effect of the interferons on hospitalizations, but I think it was also reassuring in that we didn’t see a spike in any kind of hospitalizations, or we didn’t see one particular type of hospitalization occurring. And so I think that is a good sign that there don’t seem to be any serious long-term effects or adverse effects that are happening with the interferons. So this is just kind of another, I guess, support for that, that these seem like they’re pretty safe drugs over the long term.   MSDF Very good, thanks.   Dr. Evans Thanks.   [transition music]   MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Eighty-nine of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations.   Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.   [outro music]   We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.   For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.

Full transcript: [intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Eighty-eight of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller. You may have heard of transcranial magnetic stimulation, a treatment for migraine, neuropathic pain, and treatment-resistant depression using an electromagnet positioned on the scalp. Dr. John Hart, a professor of neurology and neurotherapeutics at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, is now testing another electrical technique called transcranial direct current stimulation, or tDCS, as well as alternating current to improve cognition in brain disorders, potentially including MS. An even more directed form, called high definition tDCS, allows more precise targeting of brain areas. The experimental procedure involves placing electrodes strategically on the outside of the head. We spoke in his office about how he's going about developing the technique and how it may eventually be combined with other therapeutic modalities. Interviewer – Dan Keller You're working in transcranial direct current stimulation. Basically, what is it; how does it work or be applied? Interviewee – John Hart tDCS is short for that. You'll have an electrode – actually it's a sort of small doughnut, so it's not such electrodes that people think of tiny little electrodes – and you place one on one part of the scalp area, and then another part, and you're basically going to pass current through the head in a sort of diffuse, generalized way, not very specific, from that one electrode to the other. Recently, a new sort of area has been developed, a new cap system approach called high definition transcranial direct current stimulation. It's an EEG cap with EEG electrodes on them, and you can pass current out one electrode and draw it in a variety of other electrodes. So you can target it to specific areas where it's coming out, and you can also direct it as to where it goes through to multiple, depending on how specific or not, brain regions that you're going to have the electrode come out. So if you want to hit one spot, you can go out one and bring it in its surrounders and keep all the current there, or you can go from one place to another. And in some instances, we're able to throw it – sort of like throwing your voice – down the deep structures and sort of hit those as a way of stimulating. The other part about it is the direct current part. We also do alternating currents, or HD TACS, and we can do frequencies and other things, too. So I feel that this has got a fair amount of promise and flexibility as a way to externally stimulate brain areas pretty safely. It does a little tingling to your scalp kind of side effects in terms of application. MSDF What kind of currents and voltages does it involve? Dr. Hart Right now normally in tDCS in the big things, we do 2 milliamps ballpark. We find that 1 milliamp is about where we're functioning now at the high definition, and right now we're doing studies with it where we're playing around with the amps and different frequencies to see – since it's relatively a new technique – what sort of effects you get. So … it's so new there's not a ton of papers out about it for me to tell you where we're going to land, will there be a dose-response curve? We're doing those studies right now.   MSDF You've said that you’re interested, in general, in cognition across all sorts of brain disorders—Alzheimer's, MS, others. What's the hypothesis for using this kind of stimulation? Dr. Hart Well, in my primary research area I do word retrieval and knowledge retrieval and storage, so we've mapped out in that example a circuit of the pre-SMA, the pre-supplementary motor area, and the caudate and the thalamus that's involved in retrieving a memory. So when I say desert and humps, does that make you think of a specific object? When camel pops into your head, we mapped out with fMRI, EEG depth, and electrodes this sort of electrical pattern of that retrieval circuit to effectively pull up that memory. So the way we've been doing it, we came up with this circuit in normal people, and we've seen certain disease states where it's dysfunctional, and MS happens to be one of them. So we're directing, right now, our current to the pre-SMA and trying to stimulate that circuit to hopefully have a less functional circuit become more functional, where it can pull out the signal to noise and fire off the right rhythms or get their rhythms in a correct pattern that are not there. Psychiatry's done a lot better in terms of treatments, because a lot of the disorders are based on neurotransmitters and neurotransmitter states, that a drug will affect those neurotransmitters, and it hits all the areas, because it's more the transmitter than the place. Cognition has a lot to do with place and connectivity. Drugs, we've not got a ton of them as the primary cognitive treatment because they don't go to a specific place, and they don't effectively change that specific area's connectivity and/or its links. I have a big study we just finished with RTMS [repetitive transcranial magnet stimulation] in PTSD [posttraumatic stress disorder]. I look at the fact that having worked as an electrician of cognition for years, that that's what the circuit is, and the best way for me to change cognitive status in the way that it's lined up its focal networks is probably not showering a brain with drug that won’t go to specific areas but maybe targeting things like electrical and magnetic current. MSDF In terms of MS or other diseases, have you done any clinical studies so far? Dr. Hart So we're right in the middle of doing some MS patients preliminarily. And I don't get excited easily – I'm normally a pessimist, I think, at heart for these things. We've had some encouraging results in having people not on meds or who have failed meds or not had a response to meds that we've looked at retrieving memory in both word retrieval and in episodic memory retrieval and seen some improvements that have been relatively reasonably long-lasting from my point of view, lasting over months. But we've only at this point done about 5 or 6 people and we're enrolling more folks. We had a grant proposal in and we needed to get more folks to do a bigger trial. We're doing some placebo and then add people later to also see how much of this is a fair sort of setup as a placebo effect versus not. So we're advancing getting more and more folks into those stages now. And we've tried a few folks with TBI [traumatic brain injury]. MSDF How long do you apply the treatment. Is it a one-shot deal and what's the residual effect? You said you've had benefit up to months, is that from a series or from just once? Dr. Hart We're doing one-shot now as a way of figuring out dosing and effectiveness, since it's a relatively new device. The way we're doing the treatments for folks is to do 20-minute sessions and 10 of those over a 2-week period. So once a day, 20 minutes, for a total of 10 sessions. And that has seem to have been from animal studies and some other folks in the literature reasonable time and reasonable number of sessions at this point. We're going to figure out and look at more about adjusting dose, dose response, will we need boosters if it starts fading, and things like that. Its affect fades, because in essence these folks are not treated with modafinil or stimulants that we're doing this, so we're not doing it in conjunction with that. So they're not receiving what are typical cognitive treating medications in MS. So that's a plus side, and that we haven't had any serious any sort of residual side effect things at this point. So if it lasted several months and you had to reapply a booster thing, compared to taking amphetamines or some of the other pro-amphetamine drugs, I think the upside is reasonable enough to say that compared to that, it would be a reasonable issue if you came in 4 times a year if that's what we need to do. But we'll see as we keep following folks. MSDF If it works as you said, kind of separates out the signal from noise, essentially boosts the signal, the signal is gone when you turn it off or when someone leaves the treatment room. So what do you think, something's happening biochemically, or what's it doing that gives you a long-lasting effect? Dr. Hart When we just finish our RTMS trial for post-traumatic stress disorder, one of our interesting findings was the length of time, or the time when the effect lasts, or how long it lasts and continues. So there are some studies on electrical stimulation in animal models that suggests that what it does is set up a state called meta-plasticity. And the meta-plasticity in the animal models support the fact that long-term potentiation and synaptic potentials that can be set up down the road are actually benefited from the electrical stimulation. And that's what's encouraged us a little bit looking at stuff to see why these things last, because the first thing always like a single-shot, it fades off, it fades away. Luckily, for some of this stuff we have some guidance from animal models. And this meta-plasticity phenomena has been noted for a continue – or delayed almost – effect of when you see improvement because of this. I think it's a state potential change that long-term potentiation can occur down the road. That's our best guess at this point. MSDF You said besides direct current stimulation, you're also trying alternating current. With a direct current, you probably would not get anything analogous to a magnetic stimulation because you wouldn’t set up a magnetic field. Do you see differences between your direct current stimulation and your alternating current stimulation? Dr. Hart We sure have – and I must admit none of this has been published yet because we're trying to set parameters. Initially, the enthusiasm for alternate current stimulation waned a lot, I think, for folks for any of these things, because it didn't seem to be nearly as effective as direct current. And I think as a lot of this stuff initially was done in normals. And I'm not so sure that when you have patients with a disease state, depending on what the disease state is, that I'm willing to sort of say that alternating current is not necessarily going to be useful or not. Also, this is very directional, so here's anode and cathode. So you can take the same current, same electrodes, change the directionality and get different effects. And typically people that found those things in the motor system were pretty noticeable. In cognitive systems, we haven't seen that as much, that when we flip the direction of the current, that we're getting the opposite effects—so instead of enhancing a performance in something, that we're knocking it out. So I think once we look at sort of these things, every new approach has to be taken really as a start from scratch, do the hard work of just what we're doing, change the amplitudes, change the parameters, change the direction in a nice, safe way in single shots, and which we've been doing, and then record pre- and post. We do a lot of electophys measures, but also cognitive measures and other sorts of measures to see how each one of these effects things, and do we have something that I would hope one day I'll be writing electrical prescriptions. And I'll say you should get F4 to CZ current at 1 milliamp or 0.5 milliamps, or whatever I wind up doing, for 10 sessions, 20 minutes. Or, no, my god, look at this, we've got to go from here to here at a different milliamp. Once we start looking at that, I think to me also frequencies are very important; can I send different frequencies instead of milliamps. We're going to discover a lot of different things work differently, especially in diseases that are not a homogeneous thing. Brain disease is not like liver cancer. Hepatocytes, it's like how many hepatocytes are not working and how big is the tumor? No, not having a good thalamus is very different than not having a functional motor cortex, you just see entirely different results. So I think it's going to be a lot more complicated, but I think doing it in a systematic way in normals, and then applying it to certain disease states gives us our best chance at coming up with primary or as adjunct treatments to other ways we're going to be treating diseases that have cognitive problems. MSDF It doesn't seem surprising that the polarity wouldn't matter, because not all the neurons, dendrites, and synapses are lined up in one direction; they're going in all different directions, so even their polarity is different. It seems like zapping it in one direction for one, but the opposite direction for the other anyway. Dr. Hart We've actually done stuff with EEG measures and fMRI measures, and done these things called Granger causality models. So how much does, say, one time point predict an activation or a change in the other time point? And in an area that we thought was really this guy is telling that guy what to do, we found that most of those were predominantly a lot of two-way interactions that are constantly going on, and there's a lot of feedback between these systems. And I always try to think like neurons and think electrically, and I can do it for about a couple hours and then my head starts really hurting. And in reality, I think the simplistic: Turn this light switch on and that you have a serial processing circuit is not really how electrically two neurons are always working together, or talking to each other, or keeping a tone or a level up. So I think you're right, I learn a lot every day. It's been sort of a cool job to figure out, yeah, that makes sense, because really it's an interactive set of neuronal firings. MSDF Do you see any role for combining it with drugs that have ionotropic effects? Dr. Hart Yeah, I do. And the other part of that is going to be really, to me, which I think has been a problem with a lot of approaches to cognition and treating them, the timing of when and how you add different therapies together are going to be very, very important. Even now to say, all right, let's say I want to do a behavioral therapy with HD [high definition?] tDCS, well do you do it during it, do you do the HD tDCS continually? Do you pre-prep the brain by doing that first, and then doing cognitive rehabilitation strategies and therapies? I think we glibly just put things together without thinking that there might be an order to this. So right now we're looking at what's called state changes. We're not the first folks to do this, but some people say before you do tDCS, and that's before this HD stuff, you do a little RTMS first to set the state of the neurons in that area so they're more receptive to whatever you're going to do with the tDCS. MSDF Just to be clear on it, RTMS is repetitive transcranial magnet stimulation. Dr. Hart So I think we're looking at kind of like, you know what, you get your pre-meds before you get your chemo so you don't vomit or do this or that. We might be finding ways that electrically how we're going to, or even you use meds prior to a treatment electrically, or vice versa, that that timing is going to be where the money is in terms of working out what are going to be the most effective therapies. MSDF What have we missed? I realize it's still pretty early, but is there anything important to add? Dr. Hart I think the way we've done it is not going to always be available, in that we came from a circuit that we worked out, and we have an idea as to what we were trying to do. And we're measuring all these brain rhythms as outcome measures, so I know when I'm supposed to see alpha and beta rhythms to do that. And I think what's going to happen is we're not always going to have these circuits, we're going to have a spot. Like we've talked a little bit, shall we try to hit the hippocampus? And what other diseases would you do these things in? And the question's going to be when you're doing that, or doing that as a general approach, how do you smartly do it, when you really are not sure about the circuit? We don't have a ton of really well worked out cognitive circuits in an active state of doing things. We have a lot of functional connectivity rest states, and you say I'd like to amp up that connectivity. I don't know what that does functionally, if you electrically take a rest state that normally is when your eyes close and add current to it. So I think while we've targeted this in the two areas that we're using electrical therapy in, post-traumatic stress disorder and this, and the things we've chosen, we built it off of normal studies. The things we've got to be careful about, thoughtful about, and open-minded to at the same time about, is what if we want to treat something different than this? We want to do working memory, we want to do episodic memory, we want to do frontal behavioral problems. And if we don't have a circuit, try our best to get the most reasonable pre/post measures. Do single shots just to see what it does in a transient state, and then sort of work our way through the fact that at least a reasonable pre/post model and start thinking of this not as one-size-fits-all, but may be 0.5 milliamps, maybe TACS, maybe pink noise, maybe whatever sort of way you want to deal with it. It's going to take a lot more thought, I think, than people might casually say, hey, got some electrodes? I mean, what bugs me right now is you can set up your own tDCS device off the internet, one of them using a car battery – 2 pieces of metal and some wire. And I highly would tell all those out there, which I know none of your listeners, don't do that. So when people started sort of exploring around in what they're going to do, I hope as we take this field further that we need to do it in a systematized fashion and a thoughtful way, because there's a lot of information you can get when something doesn't work. So you know what, I didn't change a thing here when I did this. Well, I would like to know that, you know, is somebody else trying to do it, and try to collect this information that might be useful to other people trying to do things. Saying, you know what, we did this electrodes, these are these things in normals or whatevers and didn't get a response, to try to come up with a way that we've got to take it for the fact that it's like a med. It's going to have schedules, it's going to have doses. So if you're taking it twice a day at 5 mg or 6 times a day at 40 mg, working all that out is going to clearly need to be done in a reasonable, thoughtful way. MSDF I appreciate it, thanks. Dr. Hart Oh, thank you so much, I really appreciate your interest. [transition music] MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Eighty-eight of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. [outro music] We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.

[intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Eighty-seven of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller. Animal data, laboratory studies, and even some human evidence suggest that restricting caloric intake may have a salutary effect on diseases that involve inflammation, possibly including MS. I spoke with Dr. Ellen Mowry of Johns Hopkins University at last fall's ECTRIMS meeting in Barcelona about the rationale for testing caloric restriction in patients with MS and a study that she's carrying out in this regard. Interviewee – Ellen Mowry Laura Piccio and Anne Cross at Wash U, among others, looked at calorie restriction in a mouse model of MS, EAE. And they were able to show that reducing calories prior to the disease reduces the disease and/or its severity. And there are a lot of other in vitro data, other mouse models, and even some human data from other patient populations suggesting that intermittent fasting or intermittent calorie restriction not only reduces inflammation, but may improve oxidative stress handling in mitochondrial function. So we were really interested in whether the ecological observation that the incidence of MS increasing sort of is tied to the same time period in obesity epidemic and that Langer-Gould has showed, among others, that childhood obesity, especially in girls, seems to be a risk factor for MS. So could we be just eating too much, and is that sort of contributing to a burden of MS risk or to a worse prognosis? So we're doing a trial—it's funded by the National MS Society—of a controlled feeding trial where we're randomizing people to either continuing a sort of traditional western diet at the same level of calories they would need to maintain their current weight; to eating that diet most days, but two days a week having only 25% of their caloric needs for that day; or to a group where that same number of calories or percentage of calories is restricted, but spread out over a week. So we should be able to look at the relative impact of just weight reduction, for example, versus the timing of calorie intake to some extent. And we're also really curious to see like when we're done with the early phase of that study, which is eight weeks and we'll be providing foods to people, whether or not patients can sustain that diet afterwards for a longer period of time. Because I think there's really great building rationale for evaluating diet as a potential modifier of the disease. But the other side of studying diet and dietary modifications in people with MS is that we don't know how to encourage people and help them participate in meaningful lifestyle changes that are sustainable. So I think we need to look at that carefully as well. Interviewer – Dan Keller Is there any gradient of incidence of MS by BMI? Dr. Mowry So Annette's study really showed a pretty strong impact of adolescent obesity in girls on MS risk with I would think about a fourfold increase in the odds of developing MS if you were an extremely obese adolescent girl compared to a normal or underweight. And other studies have looked at this as well and shown a very similar set of results. So I would call it sort of a fourth environmental risk factor for MS. I think enough studies have shown a similar association that we can consider that a likely risk factor at this point. MSDF In your study on caloric restriction, are you giving any thought to the composition of the diet? Or are you going to be heavy on carbohydrates, minimize fats, the reverse? Dr. Mowry So we're actually aiming for the 50th percentile of the typical American diet for all the macronutrients, fat, carbo, and protein. The reason is we really want to study the concept of caloric restriction in isolation, and in particular, in a pilot study where you don't have a huge number of people, you can't alter too many things, or there's going to be too much noise and you're not going to know what is what. So certainly I think looking at the macronutrient content of the diet as a separate study would be very interesting and informative, but in this study we're actually trying to control, to just sort of keep it at like what typical Americans are eating. So we're really isolating the effects of the timing of calorie and the amount of calorie intake. MSDF What have we missed or is important to add or interesting? Dr. Mowry I'm just really encouraged, I think, that the MS community is getting more interested in diet and even exercise and other lifestyle modifications that might be important for people with MS. And Ruth Ann Marrie's work looking at comorbidities in MS and demonstrating that people with MS, who are otherwise healthy, are at lower risk of bad outcomes than people who have comorbid illnesses like diabetes and hypertension and that sort of stuff means that we maybe should be focusing on promoting the overall health of our patients, too, to sort of prevent or minimize the effect of some of these comorbid illnesses. So I think it's really a great step that we're starting to think about investigating diet and exercise in our patients. MSDF Good. I appreciate it. Thanks. Dr. Mowry Thank you very much. Full transcript: [transition music] MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Eighty-seven of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. [outro music] We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.

Full transcript: [intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Eighty-Six of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller. A hallmark of multiple sclerosis is a new brain lesion. The active inflammation normally goes away in about 4 to 6 weeks, disappearing from contrast-enhanced detection by MRI scans. More recently, in some people with MS, researchers have found smaller longer-lasting inflammatory lesions outside the brain, in the surrounding lining called the leptomeninges, as well as evidence that they may play a role in progressive disease. The tiny compartments are associated with more severe disability, worse outcomes, and nearby gray matter demyelination. Dr. Pavan Bhargava, a neuroimmunology fellow at the Johns Hopkins University MS Center in Baltimore, Maryland, has started a phase I trial to slow progressive disease by targeting the B cells in these follicles. He is testing an anti-B cell antibody called rituximab, using the drug intrathecally—that is, injecting it directly into the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with primary or secondary progressive MS, so that more of it reaches the inflamed pockets in the brain lining. We spoke at the ECTRIMS meeting last fall in Barcelona, where he described to me the rationale for this experimental treatment approach. Interviewee – Pavan Bhargava In 2004, what was noted was that in autopsies of MS patients, there were collections of lymphoid cells in the meninges, and these aggregates of lymphoid cells were noted to abut areas of the cortex that demonstrated demyelination. So this suggested that possibly these collections of B and T lymphocytes that were in the meninges might be driving some of the cortical demyelination that is seen commonly in patients who have progressive MS. So the idea behind using rituximab intrathecally is that we want to, first of all, get as much rituximab as possible into the CSF [cerebral spinal fluid] and into the brain, because when we give rituximab IV, less than 0.1% usually gets into the CNS [central nervous system]. So we're trying to target the B cells that are found in these lymphoid follicles, and we're trying to get as much of the rituximab into the CNS as possible. So that's the rationale behind using intrathecal rituximab in progressive MS patients. Interviewer – Dan Keller Do the patients you're selecting just have visible leptomeningeal lesions, or do they have to have abnormal CSF – IgG elevated or oligoclonal bands – or how are you selecting them? Dr. Bhargava So in our trial, we are selecting patients using an MRI finding that was described now a couple of years ago that on a time-delayed post-contrast flare image, in about a third of MS patients you can actually see contrast-enhancing lesions, not in the brain parenchyma, but actually in the leptomeninges. And a recent paper from the NIH showed that in a couple of these patients who had contrast-enhancing leptomeningeal lesions, when they came to autopsy they could identify clusters of lymphocytes and macrophages that corresponded to these contrast-enhancing leptomeningeal lesions. So in our study, we're basically screening progressive MS patients with an MRI, and are only including patients in this study who do have evidence of these leptomeningeal contrast-enhancing lesions, because we feel that this is a marker of leptomeningeal inflammation in these patients.   MSDF And have you run any patients yet? Dr. Bhargava So we have 5 patients currently in the study, of whom 4 have actually completed their treatment phase of the trial. And our goal in this study is to enroll 12 patients. And the primary outcome is safety. So, you know, we want to know that using rituximab intrathecally in MS is safe. But our secondary outcomes include looking at the change in the MRI lesions that we noted at baseline, and then we're also going to look at the change in immune populations in the CSF and some biomarkers for axonal damage and chemokines that are associated with these lymphoid follicles. MSDF Are these lesions similar to ones in the brain parenchyma that come and go, or will you be sure that your treatment is what caused any difference? Dr. Bhargava So these lesions that we note on the MRI in the meninges, unlike lesions in the brain parenchyma, where you note contrast enhancement when they're new and active, and then about 4 to 8 weeks later, they stop taking up contrast, the lesions in the meninges continue to enhance for years. So there's data that these can continue to remain the same and enhance for over 3 years. So that's really why we decided to use this as a secondary endpoint, because we have not seen changes in these lesions over time. And so if we actually saw a change, it might suggest that it was secondary to our intervention. MSDF Since this is a phase I trial, do you have a control group, or you're just looking at the ones you're treating? Dr. Bhargava Yeah, so because this is a phase I trial and the primary outcome is just safety, this is open-label, and so everyone in this trial is going to receive intrathecal rituximab. MSDF When do you expect to see any results, or have you? Dr. Bhargava We will be analyzing all this data once we've accrued the patients, and we're hoping to complete recruitment in the next 3 to 4 months, and then we follow all these patients for a year. So probably at some time towards the end of next year [2016] we should have results from the trial. MSDF Is this a test of concept, not only of rituximab but of what these leptomeningeal lesions mean? Dr. Bhargava So yes and no. In a way, there's a proof of concept because if we were to see changes in these lesions that otherwise remain really stable, that might suggest that a drug that could possibly deplete B cells makes a change in these leptomeningeal lesions. But it's also possible that perhaps B cells are not a sufficient target, or that we're not able to deplete B cells that are within these structures. And so, you know, there are some confounding factors that possibly could lead to this trial not being successful. But this is what we plan to look at is, if we actually see a change in these lesions, then to us that would be a kind of a proof of concept that rituximab might be able to effect these leptomeningeal lymphoid aggregates. MSDF Is there evidence that these aggregates are pathogenic? Dr. Bhargava There is evidence in terms of previous studies where they looked in autopsies in both primary progressive and secondary progressive patients. They found that people who had evidence of meningeal follicles had more cortical demyelination compared to those who did not. So that is indirect evidence that perhaps these follicles play a role in disease progression and may be pathogenic. We don't have direct evidence yet in patients who have been, say, prospectively followed to suggest that these lesions are causing damage. MSDF Are these aggregates solely B cell, or what else is there? Dr. Bhargava You know, these aggregates have B cells, but they also have plasma cells, they have follicular helper T cells, and they have follicular dendritic cells. So there are multiple cell populations that make up these follicles, and each of these populations produce factors that keep this follicle going. And so perhaps disrupting just one component of this follicle may not be sufficient, and we may need to then expand our targets and try to target multiple cell populations at the same time. MSDF I suppose, though, if you do interrupt the sort of chain of events, it may be sufficient to break one link. Dr. Bhargava Right. That's our hope with this trial is that taking out maybe one key player in this follicle might be sufficient to then disrupt this vicious cycle, but only time will tell. MSDF Is there evidence that lymphoid aggregates may exist in the meninges in people without any evidence of any disease? Dr. Bhargava We don't know the answer for that for sure, but in the study from the NIH, they didn't really see these contrast-enhancing lesions in healthy volunteers. So that would suggest that perhaps these are not found in healthy people without disease. MSDF I'm just thinking in terms of normal brain protective mechanisms, whether things like this fight off disease. Dr. Bhargava That really would need a study looking at the meninges in people who pass away from other diseases; in, say, not autoimmune diseases. And the reason why this is such a fairly recent discovery is just because when pathologists used to look at brains at autopsy, they would just rip off the meninges and throw those away and just look at the brain. So I'm sure this question could be answered, but right now we don't know. There is actually some emerging evidence that perhaps these follicles might be seen in other CNS immune diseases, for example, Rasmussen's encephalitis. There was a study from our center where they noted presence of possible B cell follicles in biopsy material from patients with Rasmussen's encephalitis, and so it's possible that this might happen in other autoimmune disorders. But this process of ectopic lymphoid neogenesis seems to happen mostly in autoimmune diseases, like type 1 diabetes or Sjögren's syndrome or rheumatoid arthritis, and so it seems to be related to autoimmunity. MSDF If this pans out what you're doing now, would rituximab be pursued, or do you foresee other monoclonals coming along that may be more appropriate to carry forward? Dr. Bhargava I think part of that would depend on what we see in this study, and if we don't see a robust effect then we might switch to a different target. And also, you know, we may want to target more than just the B cells. You know, there are other therapies coming down the pipeline, like anti-CD19, which targets a broader range of the B cell lineage, and then perhaps we might try to target like, say, plasma cells. So I do foresee that if we continue with intrathecal therapy, we would end up trying to use other monoclonals, as well. MSDF Is this a feasible technique in many patients, a wide array, or is it very specialized and would have to be restricted? Dr. Bhargava It is not really that difficult to perform, because we basically are performing a lumbar puncture and are injecting the drug through a lumbar puncture, and so it should be feasible. Of course, it is still an invasive procedure. However, if we really did see a benefit from this, then I think it would probably be worth that effort and risk. MSDF Have we missed anything, or anything important to add on the topic? Dr. Bhargava It's important to continue to try to understand how this process is affecting the brain and whether it's actually causing damage. And I think more studies looking at perhaps imaging to see how these lesions are affecting the brain parenchyma around them may give us more insights into how pathogenic these lesions are. And then I think from our study we might begin to understand whether we're able to actually make a difference to these lesions that we're seeing. MSDF Very good, I appreciate it, thank you. Dr. Bhargava Thank you. [transition music] MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Eighty-Six of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. [outro music] We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.

Full Transcript: [intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Eighty-five of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller. Many MS patients will require a change of drug therapy over the course of their disease, possibly because of relapse or tolerability. At last fall's ECTRIMS conference in Barcelona, I spoke with Eva Havrdová MD PhD, professor of neurology and head of the MS Center at Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic, about when and how to change therapy. I first asked her how she detects a need to change therapy because of a suboptimal response. Interviewee – Eva Havrdová It's very difficult to find the right solution for each patient, but as to our opinion, the best thing is to really start early treatment and monitor closely the patient. It means that you look not only at relapses or progression. It's too late. We also look at MRI after six months after starting treatment. And I think it is now quite proven that, if the patient has either relapse or new MRI activity, the response in the first year is suboptimal and the treatment should be already changed. Interviewer – Dan Keller So you have a very high suspicion? Dr. Havrdová Yes, definitely very high suspicion. And you can add some quality of life measures. You can add cognitive measures. You can ask the patient, what’s the level of fatigue. And of course, all this together brings you to the solution to change the treatment. MSDF Do you generally find that you will pick something sooner on MRI then by patient report? Dr. Havrdová Yes, of course, because the events on MRI occur 10 times more frequently. But on the other hand, as to regulations for reimbursement, I cannot change the treatment just based on MRI in our country. So definitely in the future, this will be an option. But we need more data to prove to the sick fund that it's really worth doing it because if you do these changes and find optimal treatment for patients early, then the patient stays at work, and of course, the cost effectiveness of the drugs increases. MSDF I suppose that depends on having a unified system, which is not built into silos. You know, when you get one payer here and one payer there; they don't care what's coming out of the other guy's pocket. Dr. Havrdová Yeah, yeah, of course. It's very difficult; and therefore, I think we need guidelines. And one of the ECTRIMS activities is to start working on some guidelines, and I hope next year we will have it. MSDF So what do you do when you find something that would raise your suspicion or prompt you to do something different? Dr. Havrdová We monitor the patient even more closely, in three-month intervals. And very often we see that the patient develops a relapse after some MRI activity occurs. So we can change the treatment. MSDF Do you often escalate the present drug? Or switch drugs immediately? Dr. Havrdová We have to start with injectables in our country, not with oral drugs, which is the mainstream now in other countries. And we hope we will also push our authorities to this strand because patients, of course, want orals. On the other hand, the safety of injectables is well-proven for more than 20 years. So for those especially who want to get pregnant, the safety is number one. And we try to switch as early as possible, because if another relapse comes, the relapse may be disabling, and we are just losing time in the brain of the patient. And as you know, here at ECTRIMS, the one day before, the health of brain was promoted in MS. And we would like to stick to this idea. MSDF So it sounds like you change drugs, not escalate the present drug? Dr. Havrdová The escalation means the change as well. So we try not to switch within the first line, but we want to see more effect. Just because of intolerability or some known adherence of patient on injectables, we can switch within the line if there is no activity of the disease itself. Or if there are neutralizing antibodies on interferon, we can switch to Copaxone. But on the other hand, it was now published, based on data in MS base, which is a big registry of real world data, that it's really worth escalating to the higher efficacy drugs because you can reach much better effect. MSDF Over the years, do most patients require some change? Dr. Havrdová Most of them do, though there are patients who are completely stable and not developing higher EDSS steps on injectables, but it's less than 25% of them. MSDF Is there any way to generalize and say what the time course is? Or is it so variable? Dr. Havrdová No, it's very variable. And we do not know if it is based just on genes or on environment or lifestyle changes the patient is willing to undertake. We do not know yet. MSDF So I don't know if you can generalize because each country is different, but do you have some scheme or algorithm in mind about how you would escalate therapy? Dr. Havrdová The problem is if the patient is not responding to the second line or higher efficacy therapy, because we then have to switch within that line. And we do not know if he doesn't respond to anything we have. We do not know what to do. So we cannot switch or jump from one treatment to the other after six months of treatment, because you have to allow the treatment to have an effect. So at least six or nine months is okay. If the patient is not responding, then you can jump to other treatment. But hopefully the patient will respond to the third or fourth treatment, because it's not without limitations. MSDF Is combination therapy every indicated? Dr. Havrdová Not yet. I have thought many years ago that neurologists are just reluctant to use combination therapies, but now there were some trials, and it's not showing that effect. So it's not like in oncology. Though the principle is so clear, that you can combine drugs with various mechanisms of action decrease, some side effects, and increase the efficacy. Oncologists do that. We don't have drugs in the multiple sclerosis with this potential yet. MSDF Right. In hypertension they've just assumed they're always going to have two or three drugs, and same thing now with diabetes and things like that. But I guess this would be a big conceptual breakthrough for neurologists? Dr. Havrdová Yeah, and doesn't seem to be today's issue. MSDF What has been tried in combination? Dr. Havrdová The first combination which was tried was natalizumab and interferon. And it seems that it didn't work. And then, of course, it was also a small trial, natalizumab plus glatiramer acetate, and nothing just to safety was, of course, seen that. And some others, but nothing really. MSDF When there's an acute exacerbation, do you overlap steroids with the ongoing drug? Dr. Havrdová Yes, of course. Yes. It was proven that it's safe, and it's okay. MSDF So there is a combination, but short-term? Dr. Havrdová Yeah, it's a short-term combination. And definitely it helps because all the underlying immunomodulating drugs do not work against the acute relapse. MSDF What have we missed or is important to add on the topic? Dr. Havrdová I think that neurologists have to be aware, and of course, pharmacovigilent. You have to know the mechanism of action of the drug; you have to know the adverse events possible and how to prevent them—how to monitor the patient to be safe. [transition music] MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Eighty-five of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. [outro music] We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.  

[intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Eighty-four of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller. People with MS take disease modifying therapies, or DMTs, for years. But is it possible to stop the drugs at some point or at least take a drug holiday? I spoke last fall at the ECTRIMS meeting in Barcelona with Dr. Ilya Kister, an assistant professor in the MS Care Center at the New York University School of Medicine. He has looked at various studies and registries that shed light on the question, and he discusses the utility and limitations of using observational data from big data sets. Interviewer – Dan Keller People know a lot about starting DMTs, but not about stopping. And, I take it, there's not much been looked at yet in terms of could you stop and what happens. Interviewee – Ilya Kister Yes, that’s a question that patients often ask, and clinicians certainly wonder about. Is it safe to stop the drug? When is it safe to stop it? And all the literature that I’ve seen on stopping the DMTs has basically analyzed the reasons for stopping them. The reasons for non-adherence—why did patient not want to continue—but there is very little data on actually what happened in terms of disease course. It’s just an observational study, you know. Do those patients continue to have relapses? Do they have more relapses or less? The only exception is natalizumab, where we have, you know, more than a dozen—probably two dozen—articles looking at what happens when you stop the drug. But that’s a little kind of almost an exceptional circumstance. There is a question of disease rebound and such. With the other drugs, very little to no data. So, so one wonders whether it’s an okay thing to do. MSDF What are the pros versus cons of stopping? Dr. Kister I think you can make almost equally appealing arguments on both sides. The arguments to continue the drugs, the main ones, are that relapses are unpredictable, and even though they’re less common as people age, we do see patients in practice, even in their 60s, who have relapses. And there was a recent study that showed that about 30% of secondary progressive MS patients have relapses. So, presumably, the drugs which work to decrease the risk of relapse would be helpful to reduce the risk of relapse even in those circumstances as well. But that’s not entirely clear, because they were never shown to be beneficial, truly, in the secondary progressive patients or in the older patients, because older patients are, by and large, excluded from all the studies. So we really don’t have any high-level data on these subpopulations. So the reasons to continue would be to try to prevent relapses, even in older patients. And the reasons to stop would be that the relapses are kind of few and far between. It may be not worth the hassle, and maybe the disadvantages of continuing in DMT long-term outweigh the theoretical risk of decreasing relapse rates. So it’s in a clinical equipoise situation, as far as I am concerned. MSDF How have you looked at this issue? Dr. Kister This is just kind of our individual practice, and many people may agree or not agree with it. This is not really based on our studies, but generally speaking, patients after age 60 who haven’t had relapses or MRI activity for at least five years, I do have a discussion with them and kind of feel them out whether they’re interested in stopping or not. And the reactions vary widely. You know, some people are very attached to their drug. They feel like it’s helping them and protecting them and has done good for them, and they don’t even want to think about stopping. And some people are very tired from being treated for many years. They don’t necessarily see the advantages of it, and they’re very willing to consider stopping and take you up on the offer. They just need a blessing to do this, because the doctor says to stop. You know, there are people in between who are kind of vacillating and not sure. But this is a population that I would consider stopping the drug. But now, about two weeks ago, we received the news that we have funding for study, wherein we’ll randomize patients. Some will continue on whatever drug they were on, and some will stop. And then this way we’ll actually collect, in a more rigorous fashion, the data of actually what happens to those patients. And that’s a study where the primary investigator is Dr. John Corboy from the University of Colorado in Denver. And there are six sites across the states that were approved for this, and where NYU is one of the six sites, and maybe a few more sites will be added. So this is our best hope, I think, to conduct, not a randomized clinical trial of starting a drug, but a randomized clinical trial of stopping a drug, which has been done in other fields, most important in oncology, a little bit in psychology, but not in neurology or in MS, as far as I know. MSDF But short of that, you've done a database study and looked at people who have stopped? Dr. Kister Yes, though that was a study that was just presented at this ECTRIMS meeting. And there we used a very large international registry called the MS Base, which has over 30,000 patients enrolled in it, so, and dozens of countries. And it's open to any investigator in the world who is interested, and he can contribute patient data. Obviously, it's patient consent, and many patients are interested in contributing their data to the registry. So because the registry is so large, we were able to include for this study almost 500 patients who met our criteria, which were fairly rigorous. We required that patients be on some drug for three years; have no relapses for at least five years, because we want to exclude active patients; and be followed for at least three years. Three years is more than most clinical trials, which are one to two years. But we really wanted to see what happened to them this time. And we excluded people who went from one DMT to another within three months. So this was the crux of this study. We looked at this—485 patients to be exact—and we followed them. And the minimum was three years, but the median was almost five years. And we found that in this population during this followup of almost five years, 36% of patients had at least one relapse. And 31% of patients had a confirmed disability progression, meaning three months apart they had a worsening of EDSS. And almost half of the patients have restarted a DMT, but not right after stopping, but two years or more after. That was the average time to restart. So that was the main kind of result. So when you talk to the patient, you try to kind of lay out the data for them, you know, this is the numbers you can use, I think. Even though somebody hasn't had relapses for five years or more, they still are at risk of relapses. And what we found was a predictor of relapses was age and EDSS. The younger patient and less disabled patients who we think are typically probably more in the relapsing phase, rather than in the secondary progressive phase, were more at risk for relapses. So for younger patients, I would be much more wary of stopping the drug, even if they have been relapse-free for years, than in an older patient. So that's one result of the study. But there was a second component of this study which was interesting, I thought, wherein we compared the people who stopped the drug with the people who continued on the drug, and we matched them. There is a technique called propensity score matching. So we matched the people who stopped and the people who stayed. And the two groups were almost identical. All the parameters, like age, disability, how long they've been on the drugs, proportion of times they've been on the drug, their gender—very, very similar according to most of the variables. And we followed them through time, and the mean followup for both groups was about five years. And we found, a little bit counterintuitively, that people who stopped the drugs did not have any more relapses than people who did not stop the drug. If you think that the drugs are protective, you will expect some effect; we didn't see any effect whatsoever. There was absolutely no effect. But interestingly enough, the people who stayed on the drug tended to progress, to show confirmed disability progression, a little less. They were at less risk of disability progression, about 40% compared to people who stopped. So it's a little hard to interpret this data. It may be that the drugs actually have some cumulative effect and maybe continue, and that does delay disability progression. That would be a very favorable interpretation as far as clinicians are concerned and the rational to continue. But it may be that people who stayed on the drug were really in some what we call unmeasured confounders. They had some reasons why they stayed, and they are not really entirely comparable to the people who stopped. Maybe they were a little more, for whatever reasons, considered to be more active by the clinician, and that's why they kept them on the drugs. So maybe there're intrinsically different groups with intrinsically different disability progression, and that is the reason for the finding. So this is where we stand right now, and this goes to show kind of the utility and the limitations of using observational data sets. The utility is that we're able to basically run that kind of a pseudo-trial, if you will, comparing the stoppers and stayers, and run it for many years. We actually have data six, seven years after stopping the drug, which is almost not possible with randomized clinical trials. And we're able to use this data. In fact, to power the clinical trial that I talked about earlier, because we can predict how many people are expected to have relapses at this age and such. And the limitation that there are known unmeasured confounders, and that there're biases in who continues to be observed and who is not, and we cannot control for that without randomization. MSDF Now, from your study, it looked like people who had been off of a DMT for more than two years had a higher relapse rate. Is there any possibility of having a drug holiday? Or, when someone comes off drug, a silent insult happens that you only see later, so you really have to not give them a holiday? Dr. Kister Well, it's a hard question to answer. They had a higher risk of disability progression, not relapses in this study. The curves begin to diverge after about two years. It was more of a long-term effect. So, you know, one wonders. But the counter argument to what you are describing is maybe there's a cumulative effect, that you really have to stay on the drug for long periods of time in order to see. And if you stop and have a holiday, you kind of wash out that possibility. So the answer is, we really don't know whether it's okay or not to give holidays. It's definitely not okay in actively relapsing patients, especially if they're on strong drugs like natalizumab or even Gilenya or even interferon. That's pretty clear. So but as far as the patients who hadn't had relapses for a long period of time, we don't know. It remains to be seen. MSDF Is there a continuing effect of any drugs, such as monoclonals, like alemtuzumab, where you might get a tail effect even after stopping it, which would essentially be your accumulative effect? Dr. Kister I think that is, you know, a very important point that we talked about stopping the drugs, but we really have to specify which drug we're stopping. Because drugs like alemtuzumab have been shown to have an effect that lasts for four years or more. And I think at this conference they will show data for even longer term effect of alemtuzumab. I've seen some posters to that effect. So those drugs have an effect on the immune system that persists. Some chemo treatments as well, you know, a stem-cell transfer. It's not something you do every year; it's something you've done once, and you see the effect that lasts for a long period of time. So I think a lot depends on the mechanisms of the drug, you know, how long they're expected to affect the immune system for. Something like natalizumab that washes out within three months or so, and you don't really see, you know, effect on the receptor level than you'll be after about three or four months. We don't really…you wouldn't expect it to work beyond that time, and it really doesn't. It only lasts that long. And other drugs, there is a sustained loss of T cells and B cells for a long period of time, and perhaps that's why there's a clinical effect that lasts for many years. MSDF Have we missed anything? Or is there anything important or interesting to add on the topic? Dr. Kister I think your interest was in observational data sets, and I think MS Base registry and others, like NARCOMS registry, they show the power of, kind of all of the people power. It's not the big pharma who is collecting the data, which is very important and has a big role, obviously. It's actual clinicians and actual patients who volunteer their data. And I think patients should be gratified to see that their data is used to actually come up with some insight as to advantage them, come back to the patients and answer some of the questions they had. So I think those databases are very important. MSDF I appreciate it. Thank you. Dr. Kister Thank you very much. [transition music] MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Eighty-four of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. [outro music] We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.

[intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Eighty-three of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller. For years, MS researchers have been looking for a measure of MS progression and disability that would be meaningful to clinicians, clinical researchers, patients, and the regulatory agencies that approve new drugs, such as the Food and Drug Administration. To this end, people have looked to composite endpoints that are sensitive to small changes in patient condition and comparable across studies. At the ECTRIMS conference last fall in Barcelona, I met with Dr. Jerry Wolinsky, professor of neurology and director of the MS Research Group at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, who leads us along the path to develop a useful measure incorporating composite endpoints. Interviewer – Dan Keller In terms of assessing progression and disability in MS, is there some advantage to having composite endpoints as opposed to the standard tests we’ve looked at? Interviewee – Jerry Wolinsky There are several different ways to think about composite endpoints. So one of the things that was introduced almost several decades ago was MSFC functional composite. So this was using three different ways of looking at different components of disability in patients with MS. One was a test of cognition. One was a test of fine motor skills in the upper extremities. And one was a test of walking abilities/walking speed. That particular composite looked very attractive. There was a fair amount of theoretical and practical work behind instituting the composite, and it was used in a number of trials. And it was based on some very important, I think, kind of statistical analysis. So what it allowed one to do was to take patients either in a given study or across studies and try to normalize the data that you would get from those patients into something called a z-score, which is a way of ranking and evaluating how far across the group of patients people were scattered. And then one could conceptually add up the z-scores and have a composite number, and a single number that you could use to analyze trial data. It seemed to be rather sensitive, and it seemed to work well. But the z-score is very dimensionless, and it makes little sense to the practicing clinician, or certainly to patients, to know that you’re minus-two or minus-five or plus-two, and that maybe this has moved by two-hundredths of a point from the time you started in the study until you got to the end of the study. So, highly sensitive, seemed very reproducible, maybe even a way to look across studies at different results, but neither patients or physicians and, most importantly, the FDA thought that this would be useful in day-to-day practice. So, while we’ve tested that kind of approach in multiple studies, it just hasn’t worked. But it did set up the notion that we could get a little bit more quantitative in things that could be useful on a daily basis, even using some of the same components of that MSFC. So instead of thinking about how fast could one person walk compared to another, we said, how fast can a person walk using a timed walk of a fixed distance and at one point in time? And then say how much change over an interval of time would represent something that was likely to be reproducible and, more importantly, likely to be correlated with some measure of quality of life that also was deteriorating? So then we got to the notion–and this was really best utilized thus far in the trials of 4-aminopyridine in terms of registration studies there–to say could you show a 20% improvement or more in this timed walk over an interval of time? And in that study, a certain number of patients were able to show it, and there was also some correlative data done to show that that amount of improvement correlated with things which were meaningful to the individual. And so I think that helped facilitate getting that drug through the registration process with the FDA. One of the things that my colleagues and I did in looking at one of the trials in progressive disease, specifically the trial of rituximab in primary progressive MS, where we had the data that goes into the MSFC, because it had been collected in the study, was to try to develop a number of different composites. And actually, when you think about it, the main score that we use to rate studies is the EDSS score, and it itself is a composite. It takes into account graded changes in fine motor skills in what we would call the cerebellar system, in the pyramidal system, in the sensory systems, and cognitive systems. It’s just that the boundaries in moving in these individual functional scales are a little bit more subjective in terms of going from a zero to a one, two, or three. And then the scale itself is rather complicated in terms of how it put together to come to the final score, the extended disability status score. But it’s very well accepted by neurologists, and it’s accepted by the regulatory authorities as the standard. So we took our standard changes on EDSS, which in this particular study had not shown efficacy across the group as a whole. So we looked at that in the placebo arm, and didn’t contaminate that with the treated arm, to say what was the rate of change on the EDSS alone? But then we also said, what about a 20% change over baseline that had occurred in an individual patient over intervals of testing and not just one that occurred at a particular setting compared to baseline, but one that continued to be seen at the next 3 months and the next 3 months. So it looked like it was a sustained change in the same way that we use EDSS now in trials to talk about sustained or accumulated permanent disability, at least over some interval of time. So we said, okay, we can construct a progression curve based on that. And then we said, what does that look like? And said, well, this has some dimensions to it that are interesting. And we did the same thing with the Timed 25-Foot Walk, and we didn’t fool around with the PASAT [Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test] the cognitive measure because nobody likes it. Patients don’t appreciate it, and it’s a rather prolonged and not a simple test to use. And this is one that probably could be easily changed out with other cognitive tests that are probably as reliable and easier to complete. And we looked at how did patients progress using that change in the timed walk and said, well, that’s interesting too. And then we went into the group as a whole and said, okay, how many patients changed on the EDSS over three months, confirmed? How many over six months, confirmed? How many did this on the Timed 25-Foot Walk? Did it cross the 20% threshold? How many did this on the 9-Hole Peg Test and, again, crossing the 20% threshold? And who were these patients, more importantly? So then we could develop series of Venn diagrams–if you will, circles–that showed who did it on just one test, who did it on all tests, who did it on two tests? And looked to see could we get a larger and larger proportion of the population that were showing progression? And the answer is: We could. And for some tests, the incremental change was small, and for other tests the incremental change was relatively large. But when we looked at the results of the study, then, using different kinds of composites, you fail just on EDSS; you fail on EDSS, or you fail on Timed 25-Foot Walk; you fail on Timed 25-Foot Walk or 9-Hole Peg Test—we don’t care about EDSS in that one—you fail on all three. We could see that we could increase the sensitivity, that is, the number of people who were showing progression, using these kinds of composites, and hoped, therefore, that we could increase the sensitivity to drug effect. So then we did the next step, which was to take both the placebo arm and the treated arms and say, okay, how did the curves change? So the overall curve showed no statistical benefit with the EDSS, until you went to subgroup analysis. And that was reported in the original paper. But when we modeled this, of course, the overall didn’t show the statistical effect. That’s where we were starting from. When we added in the Timed 25-Foot Walk, it looked like there was a better split. In fact, the effect size for the treatment improved. And this was not across subgroups, but across the entire population. Interestingly enough, we probably got the biggest punch by throwing out the EDSS and just using the 9-Hole Peg Test and the Timed 25-Foot Walk. That has some advantages, because they can be done by anyone. In fact, they probably could be done remotely, or we probably could convert it to how many steps a day did you take and have your watch feed the message to us over the course of a day. There are a number of interesting different approaches that can be taken to this kind of concept, and some of these are being pursued by a collaborative group spearheaded through the NIH, as well as a private consortium, looking at newer ways to measure progression. The good news is, I’m sure we’ll find things that are more sensitive. The good news is, I’m sure we’ll find things that are easier to apply. Another part of the good news is that the additional work increasingly is carried out with some representatives from the regulatory authorities to give us a feeling for what they really want to see. And what they would like to see is not just that we have composites that are sensitive and reproducible, but each of those composites that, before using them, has been shown to have some relevance for what patients complain of and what patients are looking for. So that’s the good news. The bad news is we have to not only develop them, validate them, show that they work, we’ll probably have to constantly be comparing them back, in our future trials, to the standard, until we get our first drug that really works in these new, validated approaches that are being taken. MSDF Do you think that different drugs will show you different effects on different parameters within the composite score, or do things pretty much move in synchrony? Dr. Wolinsky You know, because multiple sclerosis is such a heterogeneous disease—heterogeneous in many ways, but the simplest one to think about is the lesions don’t exactly form in a way that suits us as trialists. So, many of the lesions are silent for whatever it is we’re trying to test, no matter how carefully we test for them except maybe with really high resolution MRI. So it depends where in the real estate the lesion has hit. So it’s easy to imagine that a relatively small lesion in the cerebellum particularly well-situated could cause some slowing of the ability to do the 9-Hole Peg Test, and yet it might take a very large lesion in the frontal lobe to do the same effect in that system. In the same way, it may take just a small lesion in a pyramidal pathway, either in the spinal cord or in the internal capsule, to cause a significant change in the 25-Foot Walk and do nothing in the 9-Hole Peg Test. So, conceptually, we want to be able separately test—or relatively separately; the brain is fairly interconnected—separately test as many systems as we can and build upon them. Usually with these composites, you don’t lose too much by adding composites, as long as they’re truly independent of each other. As they become more interdependent, then the more you add, you may lose some of your ability to find small changes statistically. They’ll cancel out. MSDF Even though these are composites, you’re still interested in the separate parameters? I mean, it looks like one parameter could offset another, and your composite score could be neutral, even though you have larger changes in the separate parameters. Dr. Wolinsky What you’re trying to do, if you’re setting up your composites correctly, is not to have them cancel. And with the z-score we talked about before, it can cancel. With a composite, where you’re expecting each of the scales to be moving in a particular ordinal fashion that is going from better to worse, you don’t care where the worst comes from, if you’re saying we’ll take worse in any system. Where it gets tricky is, once you get good at that, then you might want to say, well, you get two points for getting worse in the walking system, because that’s more correlated with whether or not someone’s employable than it is if it’s in, let’s say, bladder measures, which we don’t have quantitatively—well, we do, but they’re just harder to apply—or perhaps on using other visual pathway measures that have yet to be introduced into the composites very well. [transition music] MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Eighty-three of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. [outro music] We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.

[intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Eight-two of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller. Depression affects as many as 50 percent of people with MS during their lifetimes. But according to Dr. Adam Kaplin, a psychiatrist in the Johns Hopkins MS Center in Baltimore, it is treatable to a large extent, and with good results. Dr. Kaplin studies the immune basis of depression and cognitive impairment, specifically in MS and central nervous system-related autoimmune diseases. We met in Baltimore. Interviewer – Dan Keller Let’s talk about depression in multiple sclerosis. Is it a reaction to someone having a chronic disease, or is there something more going on because of the disease? Interviewee – Adam Kaplin It’s a great question, and what I will tell you is one of my patients says to me that you’re either stressed, or you’re dead. We all have stress going on, and it’s always possible to look at something in our life and say, ah, that’s what caused the trouble. But we know now, in multiple sclerosis, the depression is due primarily and dramatically significantly to the inflammation going on in the brain that causes all of the symptoms that you see in MS, such as cognitive impairment, or weakness/numbness/tingling, autonomic nervous system dysfunction; all of those are effects of the MS on the CNS. And in the case of depression, it is similar. It’s not a character flaw. It’s not a personal weakness. And just to, you know, clarify, one of the best pieces of evidence we have for that is, number 1, that people who are depressed with MS, it does not correlate with their EDSS scores. It doesn’t correlate with their level of disabilities. So if it was you know, gee, it’s just a matter of stress, then those people who are in wheel chairs or on ventilators should be depressed, and those people who are upright and walking around shouldn’t. But in fact, I think the key element is that this is one of the, as they often say, silent symptoms of MS. It occurs to 50% of patients across their lifetime. And it is important you know for people to understand that this is not something that people aren’t rising to the occasion, or those kinds of things. MSDF Is depression accompanying MS more prevalent than in the general population, and how serious is it? Dr. Kaplin You know people often ask why, as a neuropsychiatrist, why study MS? And I say, you know, why did Willie Sutton rob banks? That’s where the money is. MS has the highest rate of clinical depression of any medical neurological or surgical disease. Again, 50% of people, following the diagnosis of MS, will have a clinical depression. We can talk about what that is. And it turns out that that’s in any clinic you go into – neurology clinic – that’s one in four patients. If you go out to the waiting room, one in four patients will be suffering from a clinical depression. MSDF How serious a problem is it? What aspects of life does it affect? Does it affect everything, and how serious is it? Dr. Kaplin I think what is often misunderstood about the depression in MS is, I would argue, that it has the highest morbidity and mortality of any of the symptoms of MS, in the sense that it is the third leading cause of death in the largest study that looked at, across the lifespan, what causes death in people with MS, [found] a study out of Canada, where it’s more prevalent because of the higher elevation and the lower vitamin D levels, probably. And it is absolutely the case that seven-and-a-half times the rate – the suicide rate in MS – to the general population. And in fact, in the studies that were done, 30% of people with multiple sclerosis will have thoughts of suicide at some point during their life. Ten percent – fully 10% will attempt suicide. And that lethality is profound. But if it doesn’t kill you, it is important to understand that it has significant, significant morbidity associated with it. Just to begin with, the number one correlate of quality of life of patients—more important than their pain, or more important than their cognitive impairment, or weakness, or other symptoms—the number one correlate of the quality of life of the patient is their depression or whether they are depressed or not. And it’s similarly the number one quality of life of the care givers—not whether they have to push them around in a wheelchair, it is whether their loved one is suffering from a clinical depression. So it has significant morbidity and mortality associated with it. MSDF Are there aspects of serious depression in MS that are very characteristic? Any different from other severe depression? Or can it be recognized in the same way with the same diagnostic criteria? Dr. Kaplin There actually are some specifics to MS, although that hasn’t been well-published. I can be clear about things that are well-supported by the literature, and then those that are my clinical experiences. What I can tell you is that the way we diagnose depression in MS is the same way we diagnose depression in people without MS, which is you have to have 5 of 9 symptoms greater than two weeks, one of which must be either decreased mood or decreased interest. And we remember it by SIG-EM-CAPS, the nine symptoms. Trouble with sleep, where people are often having early morning awakenings or hypersomnia where they just sleep all day. Loss of interest, people’s get up and go has gotten up and gone. Feelings of guilt or worthlessness – and that’s a big problem, because patients who are depressed as a result of that often won’t seek help. You have to ask about it. They won’t volunteer it. And loss of energy or fatigue; low mood – that’s the sadness part; concentration problem; appetite changes, either increased or decreased weight; and psychomotor retardation, they’re not their normal bubbly self; and thoughts of death or suicide. With MS, what I will tell you, I find that patients with MS often, rather than sadness, have very frequently irritability. That tends to be more common. And sleep is usually decreased, not increased, so I see very frequently increased early morning awakening and those kinds of things. One pearl, though, to keep in mind is – or two pearls – if you’re trying to make the diagnosis of depression in somebody with MS, the first thing to do, because there are overlapped symptoms like fatigue, like concentration problems between depression and MS, so there is frequently, in up to 80% of people, will have diurnal variations in their moods; so usually worst in the morning and better at night. Sometimes it’s reversed, but you know that person has the same life circumstance, the same disease circumstance in the evening that they did in the morning, but their mood has changed dramatically, often, with MS with these cyclical changes. And that’s a good indication that it’s not demoralization; it’s depression. The other thing is ask the loved one. Get an outside informant, because nobody gets the brunt of it quite like the family. And they know that person, and if the family member says the one thing I hear so often, this is not the person I married, then you’re pretty much on the right track if you’re thinking about depression. MSDF How amenable to treatment is depression in MS? Dr. Kaplin I think that that is probably one of the key aspects is to understand that it is very treatable. So my expectation when patients come to me and I diagnose them with depression is that I will get them a hundred percent well with respect to those SIG-EM-CAPS symptoms, back to their baseline. And it’s very hard to get patients a hundred percent well from their gait problems; a hundred percent well from their cognitive problems. And, again, what I tell people is, look, I can’t tell you whether your cognitive impairment is due to the depression or due to the MS, or maybe it’s 10% depression/90% MS or 90% depression/10% MS. But I can promise you this: treating the depression, the depression is much more amenable to treatment. We don’t have good treatments for cognitive impairment in MS to reverse the cognitive impairment, but boy, we can reverse it if it’s a symptom of depression. What’s really exciting now is that we are now understanding more and more that many of the treatments you use for depression end up being good nerve tonics. So, there was a double-blind placebo-controlled study of fluoxetine demonstrating that, in patients who weren’t depressed with MS, they had fewer gadolinium-enhancing lesions over 24 weeks. And then there was the FLAME study in a related kind of way looking at fluoxetine as a way of significantly enhancing the recovery of hemiplegic stroke patients. So it turns out that I wasn’t so misguided in thinking that studying the immune basis of depression would be important, because as it turns out, our treatments actually do have an effect on the nervous system and the immune system for general types of depression as well. MSDF That sort of covers the SSRI class. What about tricyclic antidepressants? What about SNRIs? Do those fit in? Dr. Kaplin Yes, so absolutely. So the topic of how to choose and select the right treatment for patients with MS is … we could spend an hour and just sort of get only the highlights done there. But generally there’re sort of two strategies. One is to use a medication that has the fewest side effects, so that you won’t have drug-drug interactions with the patient if they’re on a numerous medicines for other concerns—their other symptoms and syndromes—that the antidepressant won’t interfere with it. And so along those lines, escitalopram and sertraline have the fewest drug-drug interactions. You essentially don’t need to look up drug-drug interactions if your patient is on one of those two medicines. The other approach is to say let’s choose a medicine that will have favorability with respect to the side effects, will be beneficial for the problems that the patient has. So a classic example is duloxetine is FDA-approved, not just for depression, not just for anxiety, but also for neuropathic and musculoskeletal pain. So here you’re talking about one treatment that will help you with the fact that your patient, their depression will get better; their neuropathic pain will get better if they have migraines—which are often a comorbidity—that will also benefit the neuropathic pain from that as well. And you know you will get two birds with one stone, as it were. And then the tricyclics, as you had asked about, we’ve had a lot of experience with them. They also will benefit in terms of the urinary incontinence problem. They are strongly anticholinergic, and so you can also benefit in terms of preventing the urinary/bowel problems. So really Cymbalta as just sort of son-of-tricyclics, has some fewer side effects, but doesn’t, therefore, cover some of the things that the tricyclics will. MSDF As you alluded to earlier, the depression in MS may largely be a result of immune processes going on—inflammation, cytokines, things like that. So how well do the disease-modifying therapies of MS attack the depression? Dr. Kaplin You know you mentioned cytokines. So that is another way that we know that this is due to the inflammation—the depression in MS—and not just other things, because for instance, interferon-alpha used to treat patients with hepatitis C will cause depression in upwards of 20 to 25% of people who take it, not when they first start it, but within you know a week to two weeks after starting it, you know, then up to eight weeks. So that’s just one cytokine, and in MS, all of the cytokines get activated. And similarly, interferon-beta that’s used, or Copaxone, you know, the ABCR drugs that we’ve used to try to—you know, with great effect since 1993—to slow the exacerbations down in MS; they don’t stop the inflammation, they just alter it. And so not surprisingly, they do not have antidepressant properties. But when you look at something like Tysabri, we actually have not published this yet. We did present it at a MS conference but working in collaboration with Biogen. We are going to publish shortly data that shows that, in a double-blind placebo-controlled study of adding natalizumab to Avonex, or adding placebo to Avonex, those patients who were depressed to begin with show a dramatic and statistically significantly decrease in their depression as a result of the natalizumab. So natalizumab is actually quite a good antidepressant—we have data for it—because that really does shut the inflammation down in the brain, and since that’s causing the depression in MS, that’s what benefits them. MSDF Just to clarify, natalizumab is a good antidepressant in MS. Dr. Kaplin Exactly right. That’s exactly right. Although, you know, it’s good that you clarified that. What’s interesting is that now that people are beginning to appreciate the role of the immune system in idiopathic depression, people are beginning to say, hmm, maybe we should be looking at these anti-inflammatories and seeing if the anti-inflammatories benefit patients with depression. Now, nobody has tried natalizumab, but TNF-alpha inhibitors have actually been tried. There was a study out of Emory looking at using TNF-alpha inhibitors for refractory depression. And I think coming down the road there will be more and more studies that begin to show the role of anti-inflammatories for not all, but some people with refractory depression. MSDF Yes, I’ve seen some studies on anti-inflammatories—traditional ones, NSAIDS sort of things—presented a German study at a neurology conference. Didn’t do too much. Dr. Kaplin Yes. What I can tell you is that not all NSAIDs are created equal. Celecoxib actually now has five studies that are placebo-controlled that have shown its benefit for depression or bipolar disorder. And so when added to antidepressant by itself: No. But when added to fluoxetine or—I can’t remember what other; it might have been sertraline—it clearly had a statistically significant improvement in the depression response, celecoxib. But not all NSAIDs are created the same. MSDF What about non-drug therapies, cognitive behavioral therapy, even just physical activity? And, if someone’s depressed, isn’t it hard to get them up and do physical activity? Dr. Kaplin Well, I’m so glad brought that up, because I’d be remiss to forget that. So all of the data says, look, therapies like cognitive behavioral therapy are effective for mild and moderate depression. Antidepressants are effective as well. The data shows that the antidepressants work quicker, but that the combination of antidepressants and psychotherapy is much better than either one alone. So that’s a crucial issue. And to make sense of what has happened—and often when people are depressed, they’ve been depressed, and that’s caused damage to their professional life and personal life, and having someone help them sort of, depending how long the depression’s been going on, sort of talk them through, coach them through, how to get back up and going. However, in severe depression, you can talk till the cows come home. If your patient is so depressed that basically they have this tunnel vision, and all of the options that are in front of them, the kind of mental flexibility that you need for CBT to work, for instance, it will not work if you patient is really severely depressed. You have to get them started with the antidepressant, which really then serves as a catalyst for the psychotherapy to kick in. And then the aspect of exercise, you can’t really pick a topic related to MS where the answer isn’t exercise. Cognitive impairment, absolutely exercise is beneficial. Depression, exercise is beneficial. It stimulates growth hormones that have positive neurological effects on the CNS, as well as on the peripheral nervous system and body. What I tell people, again, is that if your patient is severely depressed, they’re not going just go back out and start running. So you’ve got to begin to have a plan where you say, look, we’re going to begin this medicine. As you start to be able to have the ability to you know maybe push yourself more than you might usually and just sort of walk down the block, and then you know walk for a mile and then start jogging for a mile and sort of build up to it, that’s very beneficial. MSDF Are there barriers to recognizing and/or treating depression both on the patient’s side and on the physician’s side? Dr. Kaplin The big barrier on the physician’s side is, you know, don’t ask, don’t tell. So if you don’t think of depression, or worse, if the neurologist says, well, I went into neurology not psychiatry, you know, this whole depression thing, that’s not my bailiwick, that’s not my responsibility, you’re missing the fact that this is —first of all, this is very rewarding. There’s nothing else that you could treat that gets a patient from being non-functional, sitting at home, not taking care of the family, not working, in a bed to fully functional, taking care of the family, back at work, like treating the depression can. But also it is. It affects all aspects. It affects the patient’s compliance with all your other medicines. It affects their ability to exercise, etc., etc. So, you know, you’ve got to think of it. And then you have to know something about treating it. One of the big problems with neurologists when they treat depression is that they don’t appreciate the fact that the goal is to get that patient a hundred percent well, because you sort of have this sigma curve where, if you get them 50% well, they’re still in that sort of steep portion of the curve where something comes along—an MS attack or you even a viral infection—and they will slip right down that curve. Whereas, if you can push them way out into the hundred percent well, that’s great. Now you can’t always do it with one medicine. You take the dose as high as the patient can tolerate, where the side effects don’t become worse than the depression you’re trying to treat. But then you might need to add another medicine, an augmenting agent or something, so you’ve got to make sure you recognize it and treat it. And then, what I always tell my colleagues—and my colleagues at Hopkins are wonderful; they do appreciate you know you’re treating the whole patient, not just you know their reflex arcs and that kind of stuff—and what they are very good at is, if the patient is depressed and suicidal, that is the psychiatric equivalent of a heart attack. So then they will get in touch with me and we’ll work together. So if you’ve got someone who’s suicidal, you really want to get in touch. Unless you have the utmost experience and confidence in treating the worst cases of depression, you probably want to get a psychiatrist involved, or mental health professional involved, to help coordinate the care for someone like them. MSDF Very good! I appreciate it. [transition music] MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Eighty-two of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. [outro music] We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.

[intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Eighty-one of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller. The science of pharmacogenomics can help identify those genetic variants that are associated with a high or low risk for experiencing an adverse drug reaction or a beneficial therapeutic response. While at the ECTRIMS conference in Barcelona last fall, I spoke with Kaarina Kowalec, a postdoctoral fellow in the Pharmacoepidemiology in MS research group at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. We discussed the potential for using pharmacogenomics to optimize the risk/benefit profile in a patient's favor, focusing first on the risk of liver injury with interferon-beta. Interviewer – Dan Keller How are you using pharmacogenomics to assess the risk for interferon-beta-induced liver injury? Interviewee – Kaarina Kowalec Yes, essentially we have two groups of patients. We have ones that have had the drug reaction and then the other ones that have been exposed to the same drug, but do not have the drug reaction. And so we take a saliva sample from all of them, and then we’re basically looking for genetic markers that would either increase or decrease the risk of having the drug reaction. And so by recruiting all these patients, we can use their saliva or their DNA to study whether or not they have some kind of genetic variant or genetic marker that would protect them from having the drug reaction. MSDF Are you doing genome-wide association studies or looking for specific markers? Dr. Kowalec Yes, we’re doing two-fold actually. So the first one is a candidate gene study. So this is looking at a more targeted approach to looking for genes that, based on previous literature, would be likely to be involved in the mechanism of predisposing to liver injury from interferon. So either this is related to interferon the way that it’s degraded in the body, the response towards interferon is regulated, or it can be related to the liver toxicity side. So there’s a lot of other studies that have been done looking at the genetic basis of liver toxicity from, say, flucloxacillin, amoxicillin clavulanates, a few other thrombin inhibitors, and some other cancer therapies. And so from that information we can look at those genes in our cohort. So that’s sort of the targeted approach. And then secondly, we’re doing more of a hypothesis-free type of approach, which is a general genome-wide association study. So this is where you look at every gene in the human genome, so over 20,000 genes. In each gene, you would look at, say, a few different markers within each gene. So we have a total of 1.7 million different markers that we’re looking at to see if they modify the risk of experiencing liver toxicity. MSDF Are you also doing the basic investigation, essentially heat maps, to see what genes are induced or suppressed when interferon is given? Dr. Kowalec No, so that would be, I guess, more microarray or gene expression. I think that would be sort of the next stage. If we could isolate one gene that would be involved, then we could I think then look at the expression of the gene, because, of course, that would be also important to see if interferon has any direct effect on turning on or turning off or reducing or increasing the level of a certain gene. But that would be probably for the next project, I think. MSDF Are you trying to develop a risk assessment model? Dr. Kowalec Yes, so essentially kind of like a test. So it would be once a new patient would come into clinic and, say, they were going to start one of the interferons, we could take their clinical and demographic information, like whether or not they were female, whether or not they were within a certain age group, whether or not they drinked, whether or not they took different concomitant medications; and then, as well, take a spit sample from them. And then, hopefully, within a few hours or a day or so we could tell them whether or not they would fit into a low risk or a high risk of having the drug reactions. So then the clinical decision by the neurologist or the nurses could then decide what medications they should go on. Of course, if they were in the low risk category, put them on that drug. And then if they were in the high risk, then maybe suggest something else, or still go on the medication and maybe just have more blood work done to monitor them a little more closely. MSDF Where does this stand? Developing a model is a long process. Has it started yet? Dr. Kowalec We’re in the discovery phase, so I’m going to be presenting the discovery phase where we’re initially trying to find the markers. And so we’ll finish this up within the next few months, and then the validation phase, which is basically where we would want to replicate these findings in an independent international cohort. So we have another cohort of patients that are from the US, as from Europe. That will probably take about a year or so. And then from there you could maybe implement it into the clinic, but likely the goal with looking at interferon-induced liver injury might be that we would use this information to study drug reaction with the newer medications. Because the new oral medications come into being used more, interferon might be used less, and so this just might provide some pilot work, I guess, for some of the newer oral medications. MSDF Will all this focus always on liver, or are there other toxicities that you would look at? Dr. Kowalec There’s definitely quite a few areas that I would want to look at. One, of course, is probably in the mind of most clinicians and patients as well would be PML or progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy with natalizumab and then also with some of the newer medications as well. That would be probably the one, you know, stands out in most people’s mind that would be the likely area to study to see if we can reduce the incidence of that type of more severe drug reaction for sure. Some of the new medications definitely suppress the levels of white blood cells quite a bit, but that still kind of also ties in with PML. Mitoxantrone is not used quite as much, but it’s got a limited amount of use, because it’s associated with not only leukemia but also with inducing heart toxicity. That’s another area that would be frightening, obviously, for a lot of people. But I think those would be sort of how you could kind of round out what areas would be next likely drug reactions that would be needed to be studied. MSDF Do these kinds of investigations require networks of collaborating centers or databases? Dr. Kowalec One center definitely can’t do it all. In order to get the number of cases that you need of the drug reaction, you probably get maybe 5 to 10 per center, and so you probably need somewhere in the range of 60 to 100. And so what we did was, because of the really strong network that we have in Canada of the Canadian MS Clinics, we use that, as well as we capitalized on another drug reaction surveillance network called the Canadian Pharmacogenomics Network for Drug Safety. Using those two different networks, we were able to recruit enough patients to form our discovery cohort. And then for the replication cohort, we used some of our connections in the US and then abroad. But definitely it’s a multicenter type of study, for sure. MSDF Can these sorts of models be used also for predicting who will respond best to a drug, not only worst? Some drugs are taken from the market, because you get adverse reactions, but they work for some people who don’t have adverse reactions, and that’s a loss. Dr. Kowalec Yes, it’s definitely unfortunate, and even in the case of natalizumab, where it was taken off market because of PML, there were obviously patients who were so passionate about having this drug available to them that they were able to get that decision reversed and just released on a more stringent, I guess, criteria. I’ve never heard of a drug being put back on the market because of pharmacogenetic findings or because someone was able to find a marker that would prevent people from having a drug reaction. I think that, for example, the FDA or Health Canada or any of the European agencies I don’t believe that they would feel comfortable enough with letting a drug back out there knowing that, even if they found some kind of genetic marker. Two drugs, ximelagatran (7:17) and one other cancer therapy, they were taken off the market because of liver toxicity concerns. And what’s interesting is that it was about a similar incidence as what interferon-beta-induced liver injury was. But, of course, with MS there wasn’t many medications, so that’s probably why interferon was probably allowed to stay on the market. But those drugs were taken off the market, and then they found some genetic markers, but they weren’t quite as strong, I guess, as they were hoping. And so it was not going to work as a predictive risk model or as a predictive genetic test, so they weren’t going to be allowed back on the market. But I think the ideal time to look at these types of genetic markers would be probably in some of the final stages of, say, clinical trial testing. And maybe pharmaceutical companies might be doing this, I’m not sure, but to look at these types of genetic markers in those stages would be really beneficial, because if you see them as they’re developing them, you could offer them as kind of like a companion diagnostic type of test, so whenever they would release the drug. Usually these drug reactions don’t actually occur until you’ve treated probably ten to fifteen thousand people, so that’s the other difficulty. So maybe another stage would be to just do sort of like an active surveillance to sort of recruit patients as they’re on the drug and just monitor all of them. But, of course, that takes a lot of money and takes a lot of time, so you need the funding for that type of study. MSDF This would be like a Phase 4 post-marketing study. Dr. Kowalec Yes, exactly. And they do that, right. They do a lot of active surveillance for drug reactions whenever a new drug comes onto market. But to actually develop some kind of predictive biomarker test at the same time, is not really done pretty readily, at least to my knowledge. So it would be great, because if you see how much money goes into developing every drug, you know, and if we want to keep it on the market, then maybe that’s what you have to do. MSDF People are developing in vitro liver assays. I guess that’s an early stage sort of thing before they go through a whole development process. Dr. Kowalec Yes, exactly. And that will definitely help as our technology certainly gets a lot better in the future, and we can study the liver much more readily, especially in people with MS. Just studying MS as a disease on its own is really difficult, and so studying the liver is very low down the list. And so we don’t even know really if MS affects the liver on its own, so that could be another entire study. MSDF Anything important to add? Dr. Kowalec You know, I really hope that we eventually get to a day where patients can take a drug that’s really effective. We’re definitely getting there. We’re definitely getting drugs that are more effective, but at the caveat that they definitely are more toxic. That’s definitely unfortunate, because the patients are scared, right? These side effects are fatal sometimes and are really very worrisome. And I can give one anecdotal experience that I had with a patient that experienced liver injury from interferon. And I’ve certainly had a lot of people that didn’t really believe that this drug reaction was all that important sometimes to study. And I met this one patient that experienced it, and she said, you know, I’m not really worried about this drug reaction itself. It’s just I don’t know what has happened to my liver. I know this one instance is over, but now for the rest of my life, I’m scared of every drink that I have or every time I want to take an acetaminophen pill for a headache or a fever or whatnot. If they don’t have to worry about one additional thing, you know, they’re already worried about how MS is going to affect their life. If we can maybe eliminate something like this, it’ll help some patients. MSDF Very good, thank you. Dr. Kowalec Thank you. [transition music] MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Eighty-one of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. [outro music] We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.  

Full transcript: [intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Eighty of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller. Interferon beta is a well-known and long used treatment for relapsing-remitting MS, but it's not without potential problems for some patients. While at the ECTRIMS conference in Barcelona last fall, I spoke with Kaarina Kowalec, a post-doctoral fellow in the Division of Neurology at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. We discussed interferon beta and other drugs and their potential for liver toxicity. Interviewer – Dan Keller In terms of liver toxicity of interferon beta, what's the problem? Interviewee – Kaarina Kowalec I would say that about 1 in 50 patients that are exposed to this drug will experience a side effect known as drug-induced liver injury, or liver toxicity, essentially; it's an abnormality in their blood work. Most times it'll just go back down to normal and everything is fine, but in the rare occurrence sometimes it can lead to more severe outcomes such as needing a liver transplant, sometimes even liver failure, and sometimes even death. That's definitely a very rare scenario, but it certainly is an issue, and it's definitely a worry for some patients and definitely for clinicians, as well. MSDF Also, it's not only interferon, a lot of drugs have liver effects. Is that right, new drugs especially? Dr. Kowalec It's the number one reason that drugs are taken off the market, and it's usually one of the top concerns for any new drug that's entering into the market. Obviously, the liver has many different functions, but one being that it detoxify foreign components like drugs like interferon, like alcohol, food, many different things. So it definitely plays a major role, that's why it's usually effected so much.   MSDF What are some of the factors that affect both efficacy and toxicity of drugs in general? Dr. Kowalec You know, if you see it kind of a pie chart, the genetic component can be pretty variable. So from person to person, it could be anywhere from a few percent to up to 50 to 60%. But the rest of that pie, I guess, is made up of variation in how much of an enzyme we make that needs to detoxify the drug, as well as our age, our BMI—how much we weigh—how tall we are, whether or not we're male or female. There's a variety of different demographic-type factors that come into play, as well. It's definitely very difficult to predict who will have a safe and effective response to a drug. MSDF Does polypharmacy play a role, especially you had mentioned enzymes; things that induce or suppress enzymes? Dr. Kowalec Yeah, definitely. So in the case of an interferon, there's some evidence to suggest that interferon might suppress some of the cytochrome, or drug-metabolizing enzymes. And in that case if they were taking any additional medications, such as like Tylenol (acetaminophen) or ibuprofen, that could create an issue because interferon is inhibiting the enzymes that are necessary to detoxify the acetaminophen, then obviously the body might have trouble with just acetaminophen on its own. MSDF All interferon betas, do they vary in their effects? Dr. Kowalec Yes. The versions that people with MS get as a drug therapy, there is a few different variations. So I guess half of them are made in a Chinese hamster ovary cell line, and then the other half are made in an E. coli cell line. So there are differences in the immunogenicity of those two forms, so the ones that are made in the animal cell lines are more similar to the version that we would all make endogenously, whereas the versions that are made in the E. coli cell lines are different, they're slightly more immunogenic. They're just more foreign than what we would normally make. MSDF Is it a difference in amino acid sequence, or glycosylation, or both? Dr. Kowalec Yeah, exactly. So the amino acid sequence is slightly different for the E. coli cell line versions, as well as the E. coli version is not glycosylated. So, again, that's why it's a little bit different than the human version. MSDF Do you know some of the mechanisms by which interferon betas cause liver injury? Dr. Kowalec So how it causes liver injury exactly is certainly unknown, and that's definitely an area of which I'm trying to figure out. There's two sort of competing theories, I guess. One is that interferon, because we make it endogenously, but this version is obviously still different than the version we make, it might be that obviously in MS they have an aberrant immune system; they could be recognizing the interferon as being a foreign agent and its attacking it, and then some of the cytokines that are released might be targeting the liver. So that's one theory. The other theory is that once interferon is incorporated into the cell, it might have some sort of direct effect on the mitochondria, and so it might be that it's reducing the energy metabolism of the cell and causing harm into the liver. But which of those two, we're not sure yet. MSDF Do you know risk factors for liver injury, and as they are picked up by aminotransferase elevations? Dr. Kowalec Yes. And some of the risk factors that we know for interferon-induced liver injury are related to gender, age. Sometimes it's polypharmacy, so whether or not they're taking acetaminophen or ibuprofen. One study will come out that'll say that there is an effect, one study comes out there's no effect, so it's still a little bit unclear. With gender, we know that for males they are more likely to have some of the more minor transient elevations in the aminotransferases, whereas females are more likely to be at risk for the more severe symptomatic hepatitis, or liver injury, I guess. MSDF And is it equally prevalent, or there's different gender prevalences? Dr. Kowalec I would say that overall when we looked at all the genders together, it was about the same, about 1 in 50, or 2% or so. I would say that if you're looking at just severe injury, the effect that's more symptomatic, something that a patient would actually notice, it's likely that females are more susceptible. MSDF What about duration of treatment, does that have an effect; early, late, how long? Dr. Kowalec Yeah, typically it's quite quick that they would experience this. So the median time is about the first 3 months is the greatest risk period—I guess probably 3 to 6 months – but it certainly can still occur later on, say even 2 to 5 years, or even 7 years later on, so that's why it's still really necessary to remain diligent on testing their liver aminotransferase levels even later on, even like I said, 5 to 7 years after being on treatment. The effect doesn't seem to go away, for some people anyways. MSDF I suppose while you're taking it you're getting older, and also you probably have different medications coming in and out. Dr. Kowalec Yeah, and it's not even just the other pharmaceutical therapies that you're taking, it could also be your diet, how much you exercise. There's a lot of things that can affect the liver aminotransferases, unfortunately, so sometimes it can be difficult to determine whether or not it's actually interferon beta that's the causative agent. MSDF What should patients be looking for? Dr. Kowalec You know, I think just staying up with a healthy lifestyle; not drinking excessively, eating the right foods, making sure that whatever therapies that you are taking are compatible with interferon. Your neurologist or your clinician will advise you on those areas anyways, and also keeping an open dialog with your neurologist in that you know exactly what the risks are with taking any medication. And most times your clinician will be able to tell you everything that'll be possible side effects, so just keeping an open dialog with the clinicians, I think, is great. MSDF Are there symptoms which might raise concern? Dr. Kowalec You know, I mean sort of the typical things that we think of with liver issues, like jaundice, abdominal pain—they're really like, I mean, abdominal pain that can be a symptom from many different things, right? Malaise, same thing. Really I would say jaundice is probably one of the things that would stick out in my mind to most people as having an issue with your liver, right? By the time you notice symptoms, it certainly is in the more severe end, so usually you have something else that would precede that, like the abnormal blood work. So most people don't get to that stage, which is good. MSDF Is there something physicians should be doing or looking out for? Dr. Kowalec No, I would say they're doing a really great job with just monitoring the blood work. They know that once typically patients get to 5 times the upper limit of normal for ALT, or the liver aminotransferase, that's when it's recommended that they stop the drug. So normally because they are tested quite often for the blood work abnormalities, the clinicians are really going to go about monitoring by lowering the dose of the drug or just stopping them, and then slowly titrating them back on again. They still have many options if they experience the side effects, so they're doing a great job with monitoring. MSDF Is this becoming less of a problem with new drugs, vis-à-vis, interferon beta itself? Dr. Kowalec I believe almost all of the new oral medications have all had some case reports of having liver injury associated with them, which is unfortunate. But, again, like I said, most drugs will use the liver in order to be detoxified, it's not, I guess, surprising that this is happening. So I think that we definitely need to study the theory. And that's sort of why we're studying interferon beta, because there's so many people that have taken it, there's enough people that we can study, whereas the new medications, they haven't reached sort of that level yet; they don't have 20 years of data yet. So that's why interferon beta really represents a really great way to study this type of side effect, because now hopefully maybe some of these findings we can apply to the new medications that are going to be more relevant in the future. MSDF Have you been able to see whether a history of interferon beta affects susceptibility to liver injury with any of the newer drugs? Dr. Kowalec I've seen a few patients that have had liver toxicity from interferon, and then gone on to take, say, glatiramer, and they have had that same reaction, or Copaxone. Individual clinic, they've seen it, but they just haven't had many publications on that, so it's sort of unclear, I guess, right now. I guess I should still say in the wider literature in other liver toxicity from, say, like antibiotics, there are some common mechanisms. It seems like that some people, that if they have it to one drug, they have it to multiple drugs. So there could be some underlying, I guess, common mechanisms between all of them. MSDF It would be hard to separate out whether it's a function of the patient being susceptible liver to liver injury from almost anything, versus having a history specifically of beta-interferon. Dr. Kowalec Yeah, we don't know the long-term effects of interferon beta, we don't know really what happens to them in the long run. We can only really follow the ones that have had the really severe outcomes, like liver transplant, for example. But people that experience the more minor elevations, or even the level that we study, most often we see that the liver enzymes go back down to normal. But, you know, we're only looking at this for maybe 5 to 7 years, and then after that we don't know what happens. And then, of course, then once they get older, you would expect that things might go downhill and they might have more issues. MSDF Have we missed anything important? Dr. Kowalec This is an area that with respect to toxicity with the MS medications, it's definitely an area that is not as well studied, because, of course, the overall goal is to have an effective treatment. If we have an effective and safe treatment, that's the end goal, but that's not always what happens, because we can't sort of have everything that we really need. And so I think studying these areas is definitely really important, because although patients want their disability to be prevented, they're willing to take a lot of risk. And they shouldn't have to, they should be able to have an effective treatment that is safe, as well. So I think by studying these adverse drug reactions more often, I think we'll hopefully get to that end goal eventually. MSDF Very good, thank you. [transition music] Thank you for listening to Episode Eighty of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. [outro music] We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.  

[intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Seventy-nine of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller. Wouldn't it be great to be able to predict who will develop MS? Then those people could be followed prospectively, possibly medication could eventually avert the disease, and at least some medical planning could be done early. Immunologist Dr. Nancy Monson, an associate professor in the department of neurology and neurotherapeutics at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, has developed a promising diagnostic test for relapsing-remitting MS that looks at unique antibody gene mutation signatures in B cells in cerebrospinal fluid. Interviewee – Nancy Monson We can identify with 86-92% accuracy patients who either have MS or will develop MS in the future. Interviewer – Dan Keller How long is the future? Dr. Monson So the longest patient we've tracked so far is 17 months out. MSDF And how quickly might this turn into MS? Dr. Monson As soon as immediate. It kind of depends on, you know, what the patient's history has been really in that respect. MSDF This is tested so far on a pretty small cohort, is that right? Dr. Monson No, we tested it on three different smaller cohorts here at UT Southwestern. And then when DioGenix licensed the IP on MS PreCISe, they actually took it to clinical trials, and we're writing that workup now. And that was 300 patients in that trial. MSDF It looks like there's very good sensitivity, but what's the specificity in terms of other kinds of neurological diseases, inflammatory diseases, anything else? Dr. Monson Right. So we're just starting to figure that out. So the accuracy is based on comparing true patients who convert or evolve to MS versus patients who do not. That's where the accuracy mathematics comes from. But in that respect, the control patients that we've looked at so far, the majority of them have very low scores to no score detectable at all in those patients. But some of them do have higher scores. And we don't understand that yet, because we don't really understand any CNS disease for that matter and how the immune system is operating in there. But we're working on trying to expand the control cohorts that we can really kind of nail down, you know, which ones they'll be different from and which ones they won't be different from. MSDF Is it worth doing healthy controls also? Dr. Monson Not really. Healthy controls are always really low, and so I don't think that's a very fair comparer because it's just not very stringent, right? It's not very hard to be able to figure out who are the healthy donors with MS PreCISe. But when you start looking at people that mimic MS, like people with sarcoidosis and people with neuromyelitis optica, you know, then, you start to really have a rigorous ability to test MS PreCISe. And it's quite possible, when we start expanding those kind of control cohorts, the mimics of MS, that the MS PreCISe scoring mechanism will have to be adjusted to kind of push those different control groups away from the MS group and distinguish the two better. MSDF When we talk about these gene mutation signatures, what are you really looking at? Or for? Dr. Monson So if you think about B cells in the blood, they produce antibodies, which are designed to survey the entire body for infection. Okay? So the way that they do that is to have a really great ability to bind to infectious agents or foreign agents in your body. So the mechanism that a B cell uses to do that is called somatic hypermutation or affinity maturation. And what that means is just fancy immunology speak for saying that they incorporate mutations into their antibody genes in order to bind to their targets better, okay? So it makes them more effective in being able to find them and to stick to them. So we've done an initial look at the different antibody genes that were being used by MS patients versus our control cohorts, and didn't really see that the genes themselves were that different that they were using. So then we thought, well, maybe it's the somatic hypermutations that they're putting into those genes that are really different from what we see in the controls, and that's what turned out to be true. So it turns out that there is a family of antibody genes that incorporate these somatic hypermutations allowing them to bind to their target better that we don't see in healthy people or people with other neurological diseases. In fact, in some cases some of these codons will accumulate mutations up to seven times more than what we see in control cohorts. And that's what MS PreCISe is based on, is the accumulation of those mutations into those six codons. So the more mutations there are in those six codons, the higher the MS PreCISe score you get, and the more likely it is that you actually have MS. MSDF Are you essentially losing tolerance here, because of the hypermutation there's more chance that you're going to start to recognize self-antigens? Dr. Monson So we have actually taken the antibodies that have these somatic hypermutations in those six codons and looked to see if they bind to human brain tissue. And it turns out that they absolutely do, hands down. We've tested 38 of those so far, and 90% of them bind to neurons in the brain. So we know they bind to self-antigens, right? But that doesn't necessarily mean that they've lost tolerance or that they're proinflammatory, for example. It's possible that the B cells that are making these antibodies are actually somehow able to quiet the immune system. We don't know yet because we haven't been able to do those experiments to see. But obviously, when you see a lot of B cells that are reactive to the brain, right, that they're antibodies are reacted to the brain, that is an alarm to us that they have probably overstepped their boundaries, have not gone to school correctly and done what they're supposed to do. But we still have some experiments to do to make sure that that's what's going on with it. MSDF I suppose that leads to a question of, are they pathogenic in themselves? Or are they bystanders or regulatory somehow else? Dr. Monson Right. That's a really good question, and we don't know the answer to that. There're some experiments we can do to start testing that, but it's very tricky to do those experiments, particularly in the mouse models we have right now. We're not going to give these antibodies to people and see if they get MS, right? So you have to do all that testing in animals or in vitro. And because no one prior to this time has ever actually been able to demonstrate that antibodies from B cells of any type in MS patients actually bind to brain tissue, I mean, this is completely undiscovered country. We're kind of out there on our own trying to figure out how to best ask those questions, and it's a little bit tricky. But I'm fortunate to have a lot of really brilliant people that work with me, and so we'll work on trying to figure out how we can test that in the best way. MSDF It seems that people have been looking for years for the antigen or antigens that are being reacted against in MS. Can you isolate anything and try to stimulate these B cells to nail down what the antigen might be? Or because they're so hypermutable, they might react to anything and then expand on their own anyway? Dr. Monson Well, we know that they don't recognize all targets, right? So we just published a paper in November of this past year, actually it was October when it came out online. But what that shows is that these MS PreCISe-based antibodies bind to neurons and astrocytes in the gray matter of the human brain. And they don't bind to other tissues. They don't bind to other cell type. They are really fairly specific to neurons and glia in the brain. So we know that part of it already. But the question is, you know, what are they doing there? And is it just an epiphenomenon (is what they call it, right)? Is it just a bystander effect that we're even able to find them? So we just don't know the answers to those questions yet. But all those are good possibilities. MSDF Does this depend on the natural propensity of the immune system to create a lot of diversity, generate diversity, because it seems like what you're talking about are all replacement or substitution mutations within these codon hot spots? If you had a deletion or frame shift or something else, you wouldn't see it, because they're not even functional, I assume? Dr. Monson Right. That's exactly right. You got that right. MSDF Is there any value in combining MRI with the antibody gene signatures for a higher predictive power? Dr. Monson So let me be very clear. This test is not meant to replace MRI. MRI is a gold standard in the field. It is essential for physicians to be able to understand the disease and to come up with a plan for how to treat those patients. This is just meant to be a very powerful, supportive, preclinical diagnostic tool to help them base their decisions appropriately. So that's what we're mostly excited about. So, yeah, absolutely. Combined with MRI, I think it'll do an even better job. We actually in the clinical trial we just finished, it's not published yet, what we showed was that when you combine MS PreCISe with oligoclonal banding, the OCB test, that actually you can boost the accuracy of MS PreCISe up to 96% when you combine it with OCB. So that tells us, also, at a scientific level that not only are the genetics of the antibodies important to drive disease, but also that the antibodies probably plays a role in their conversion to MS as well. MSDF Based on the efficacy of rituximab that's been shown, and what you've been finding, is there any thought to doing something more permanent, like using CAR T cells to eliminate B cells almost permanently? Dr. Monson So as a B cell biologist, it's really somewhat offensive to think that we are going to get rid of B cells in all these people, and they're going to be able to be okay with that. We rely a lot on B cells differentiating into plasma cells and living in the bone marrow and making antibodies against things that we see all the time. But when we start depleting B cells from people long-term, it's possible that their humoral immunity, which is composed partly of the B cells and their antibody products, will not be able to fight newer infections because, you know, there's no new B cells to learn about those new infections. So no, I don't think it's a wise decision that we continue to use rituximab and ocrelizumab. I think that they are the next step. They're a transitional stage that we need before we can get to the true gold standard, which would be a way to deplete just the B cells that are involved in pathogenesis of the disease. My stump on that would be that we should be making B cell depleting antibodies that only recognize those B cells that carry the MS PreCISe antibodies, and those are the B cells we should be getting rid of. But we have a lot of work to do to be able to show that they really are the ones that drive evolution to MS. MSDF What is MS PreCISe? Is this a commercial test now? Dr. Monson So MS PreCISe is its commercial name, but it has not been rolled out yet. It's just beginning into a CLIA lab right now. So hopefully within the next year, it will be an orderable test. MSDF One thing I noticed in one of your papers was you said it wasn't feasible at the time the paper was written to be doing this en masse because it was a very tedious procedure. So does this test essentially make it more feasible? Dr. Monson Yeah. The way we discovered MS PreCISe was actually looking at the antibody genetics of single B cells, which we sequenced using Sanger sequencing. Sanger sequencing is a very elegant immunogenetics-type method. So we spent about a year and a half re-tooling that technology to use next-generation sequencing. So now all we need to do is get a spinal fluid from a patient, and then we extract the DNA directly from that, and we sequence from the entire pool instead. And actually, what's nice about it is we also get a much deeper database from each single patient because we see all of the DNA from that sample now instead of just the few B cells we were able to sort before. It's really nice in that respect because we get a much broader idea of the repertoire. So that is what MS PreCISe is based on is being able to use next-generation sequencing now to really pull those antibody genetics out of individual patients. MSDF What are the unanswered questions at this point? Dr. Monson Well, there are a lot. But I think the one that strikes me the most is whether or not we can pull the antibody gene signature out of the blood. If we can do that, it would get rid of all these spinal fluid taps that our patients have to undergo right now. And so we're working really hard to see if we can find a way to pull them out of the blood so we don't have to do these spinal fluid samplings any more. That's probably our biggest one. The other thing that we're really interested in, once we can find the signature in the blood, it shouldn't be too hard for us, then, to start asking questions about whether or not family members have a higher risk of getting MS. Which is probably one of the primary questions I get from patients all the time: Can you test my daughter? You know, I'm worried about her maybe getting MS someday. And so that motivates us to think, yeah, we got to get this test ready in the blood so we can start asking those kind of questions. I also think MS PreCISe will be a good monitoring tool. I mean, maybe we do keep treating patients with rituximab, but we don't re-treat them unless they're MS PreCISe score starts to creep back up again. So we're hoping that it's a way to also monitor efficacy of different drugs for that matter. So those are the things we're really working on pretty hard right now. MSDF Great. I appreciate it. Thanks. Dr. Monson Sure. Thank you. [transition music] MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Seventy-nine of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. [outro music] We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.

Full Transcript: [intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Seventy-eight of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller. A lot can be learned about pregnancy and MS by tracking pregnant women and their offspring over time. Dr. Dessa Sadovnick, a professor of medical genetics and neurology at the University of British Columbia in Canada, has started such a registry with international colleagues. I spoke with her at the World Congress of Neurology in Santiago, Chile, in November, where she described these efforts and what a very focused registry can tell us. Interviewee – Dessa Sadovnick I'm not talking about a general registry. What I'm talking about is a pregnancy and outcome registry. So this is not just taking people who have MS and trying to keep track of them. This is looking at actual pregnancy outcomes and what happens to the children after. So it's a very specific type of registry. Interviewer – Dan Keller It seems like there's a multitude of variables you can look at. What sorts of things are you going to be tracking if you get this going? Dr. Sadovnick Well, I think the important factor is that just because you have a disease such as multiple sclerosis doesn't mean you're immune from other factors that can affect pregnancy outcome and child development. So in addition to knowing about drug therapies, disease course, other exposures related to your MS, it's also important to know about your previous pregnancy history, your family history, your basic demographics, including your ethnic background, comorbid diseases which you may also have with the MS. All these factors can affect pregnancy outcome and child health. MSDF Will you be looking at the mother's longitudinally? Or only the children? Dr. Sadovnick Ideally, we'd like to be able to look at the mothers up to a year post-partum, and then follow the children longitudinally. Because there are situations where children do not have a certain disease that the mother may have, but over time, they might be found to have some late onset problems, for example, related to learning disabilities or something like that. MSDF Can you separate those out by biological cause or environmental cause? They're in a household with people who have a disease and have to deal with it. Dr. Sadovnick Well, we know for a fact in terms of MS that there is certainly no transmissibility within a household. We have done a lot of work over the years that show very clearly that the excess of MS you find within biological relatives of people who have MS is very clearly due to genetic sharing, not shared family environment. So from that point of view of the child inheriting MS, we're not looking at the family environment. Obviously, there're many psychological issues and many socioeconomic issues related to having a parent who has a chronic disabling disorder. And the impact this could have on child development must, of course, be taken into consideration. But what I'm trying to look at here is more the general factors in terms of, if the mother is exposed to a disease-modifying therapy at the time of conception or in early gestation, and if there is an adverse outcome in the pregnancy, is that necessarily correlated? Or could that have happened for many other reasons? Similarly, if the child develops problems down the road, could that be related, maybe, to the uterine environment because the mother has an autoimmune disease? Which does not mean the child gets an autoimmune disease, but maybe, in some way, it impacts the autoimmunity long-term? MSDF How long would you have to track children? And how many would you have to track to get meaningful numbers? Dr. Sadovnick Well, this is obviously always a concern, and you would have to track a sizable number. But when you consider how many people there are with MS in North America, and if you could do a centralized registry, I think it's realistic that you follow them at least for a few years after delivering. Once they start reaching their developmental milestones, you can get some ideas. But I think the main factor is that we're always saying, therapy is not indicated if you're contemplating a pregnancy. And this causes many issues for many people. But the evidence for this is so scarce. And my big concern is that, are we really being overly cautious? And we won't know this if every adverse outcome is automatically trying to be related to exposures either at conception or in the early parts of gestation. MSDF Pregnancy itself is immunosuppressive, but it seems women have a rebound after delivery. So what goes on with treatment during pregnancy? Is it okay to stop treatment if they're naturally going to be somewhat immunosuppressed? Dr. Sadovnick This is one of the big areas that we really don't have information, and we need good information. Obviously, if you look at a series of women, what seems to happen is especially in the third trimester, they seem to do better. And then, of course, once you deliver and their hormonal changes take place, there's an increase of relapses after delivery within the first three months. That's not to say women can't have relapses while they're pregnant. That is not to say that women are going to have relapses necessarily after delivery. But if you look at large numbers, this is the pattern. The question then comes up, if you have a relapse while you're pregnant, how severe is the relapse? And how should it be treated? There're no set guidelines. The same way as after delivery, a big factor is whether the mother's breastfeeding or not breastfeeding. In today's society, you're really encouraged to breastfeed, but that could have impacts on how you treat a relapse. The other big issue in terms of pregnancy-related relapses is something that we also experience when we look at people who have MS and they're going into menopause. And that is, are the symptoms really an MS relapse? Or could they be pregnancy-related? If you have a symptom, say you have urinary problems, say you have balance problems, say you have fatigue, how do you measure if this is specifically an MS relapse versus just part of either the later stages of pregnancy, the early stages of pregnancy, or living with a newborn child? There is really nothing concrete on how to measure what's a true relapse, what's a pseudo-relapse. And there are no really specific guidelines on how to treat these symptoms during gestation and immediately after delivery. This is an area that we really need to develop. One of the things that we have been able to do is a lot of people are interested in this topic, but it's never been looked at in a formalized manner using experts from many different areas. So about a year and a half ago, I put together a meeting of a group of people who are interested in reproduction and child health. And we received some funding to have a two-day meeting from the Canadian Institute of Health Research, as well as some money from Teva Neurosciences and Biogen Idec. And what we did is we had a two-day workshop basically saying, is there a need to learn more about this area? And if there is, how can all these specialists work together to try to develop knowledge-based information? So we gave our little virtual network, which has no ongoing funding; it's basically people just working voluntarily. We've given it the name of MS CERCH, which is Center of Excellence for Reproduction and Child Health. And we've put together a voluntary working group. And where we're at right now is we've actually just had a paper published in Obstetrics and Gynecology, the American main journal. They also call it a Green Journal, but it's not neurology. Just talking about limitations, guidelines, what we know and what we don't know about reproduction and child health. So this was published the end of 2014. We're currently working with the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology to try to have our paper turned into some guidelines for people with multiple sclerosis. We've also just recently as a group published a paper talking about why there is a need for a disease-specific registry rather than a treatment-specific registry. We are also just submitted a manuscript looking at all the issues dealing with males with MS in terms of reproduction and child health, because the focus, of course, is on females. But there're still a lot of males out there, and they face many issues that have not been addressed. And we're in the process of trying to get some funding for the first-ever grant to look prospectively at the occurrence of peripartum depression in both mothers and fathers who have multiple sclerosis, a topic that's never been looked at before. So from our two-day meeting, which was quite casual and informal, we have been able to move forward, and as a group, had some concrete outcomes. And we're hoping that we're be able to move forward with this group, hopefully obtain appropriate funding, and we're be able to, maybe, really come up with some knowledge-based information for people with MS who are contemplating reproduction. Another major area of concern is we're more frequently now identifying the pediatric population with multiple sclerosis. The focus on this population has largely been the recognition that MS does occur in the pediatric population. But what's happening is as years are progressing, this pediatric population is evolving into a population who are capable of reproduction. How diagnosis of pediatric MS can impact not only reproductive ideas, but also just behavior in teenagers, and how all this is interrelated is not known as well. So it's a whole other area that we really need to understand. MSDF Are you looking for buy in from clinicians in all of North America? Or restricted to Canada? Or worldwide? Dr. Sadovnick Ideally, we'd like worldwide. Realistically, right now in our group, we're basically clinicians who are in Canada and the US. We have some buy in from some clinicians in Europe, and it's the obvious problem when you don't have resources, the buy in has to be voluntary. So we do have strong connections between Canada and the US, and we're working forward to try to make this a topic that is more at the forefront. MSDF You have a pretty good system of linked databases in Canada. Can that help you with this? I mean, you know diagnoses and pharmacy and death records and hospital visits and everything else. Dr. Sadovnick Linked databases are a very important resource, but they are exactly what they are: linked databases. You're not dealing with the actual people. You're dealing with how the information has been recorded. So while for some purposes linked databases are extremely important, and there's been a lot of work published out of Canada, including with our group in British Columbia using the BC record linkages. They are informative. But it's not the same as actually dealing with the actual people, because record linkage cannot tell you everything you need to know about the person. Just to use an example in terms of pregnancy outcome. You can identify a woman who has MS. You can look at when she had prescriptions filled for her disease-modifying therapy, for example. You can look at if any birth defects were registered for the child. But what you don't know is, did this mother have previous pregnancy losses? Registries only have live births. Does the mother have a family history of some relative with a certain disease? Could the mother have comorbid diseases that for some reason are not linked into her medical history? Maybe she's moved from another country. Maybe she doesn't have the health coverage. So there's a lot of issues with record linkage. And I think it's very important to know that it has strengths and limitations. But it's not the actual end of everything. The other issue with record linkage is it's someone's interpretation. For example, if it's recorded through record linkage that you have a given disease, it's assumed that all the appropriate diagnostic tests have been done. But is that necessarily the case? Could the person who's actually doing the coding reading from the records make that assumption? So you have to be careful. Years ago when I started in clinical genetics, we had a BC health surveillance registry. And the idea was to basically identify any children who had been within the hospital system in the first seven years of their life. And it was a provincial recording system. But the truth of the matter was is when we went back, and I spent a lot of time working with colleagues going back and reviewing the actual forms from which the data was collected, and the amount of errors you would find. Even in something as simple as MS, looking at cause of death. If you look at record linkage, sometimes it doesn't always note the cause of death the person had MS. Sometimes if there's asphyxia, the question is, was it just asphyxia? Is it related to the MS? Is it from something else? Another issue is very often people who have a specific disease like multiple sclerosis and they die, the real cause of death is ignored. Very often we know that cancer, for example, is underdiagnosed in a person with a specific disease like MS. Just because you're having bladder problems, it's often attributed to MS, where in fact, you could actually have bladder cancer, as an example, or bowel cancer. So if you look at all these data, I think it's important to realize that record linkage is a very useful tool, but it is not the only tool that should be used. MSDF Finally, where does this all stand? You mentioned that you have people doing it on a voluntary basis. Do you foresee something more formal? Dr. Sadovnick We're trying to get something more formal in North America. Obviously, funding is the issue. And right now we're trying to get the drug companies to realize that, if they would work together to have a proper pregnancy registry, it might be in everybody's interest, rather than just assuming that the drugs are not advised during pregnancy or when trying to conceive. The problem with all these registries is that where does the money come from? In Canada, we have a very interesting scenario right now where they're trying to put together a registry of people who have multiple sclerosis in Canada. This has nothing to do with pregnancy. This is just, who has multiple sclerosis in Canada? A registry with minimal data sets. And this started with the Canadian Institute of Health Informatics. This has been going on for quite a few years, and I'm on both the technical and the medical advisory committee for this. But the problem is, who's going to fund it? The concept was to enlist the ministries of health to get involved and fund it, but each ministry of health has its own issues in each province, and their interests are different. So even though the concept there was to try to get a cross-Canada registry for people who have MS, funding after many years of trying is still a major obstacle. It's a big issue, but this is why I'm hoping at least if we can focus on the idea of pregnancy, maybe through some research funding or company funding, we'll be able to at least get a pilot started that will start to answer some of these questions. A lot of money is being spent by each drug company looking at their treatment-specific pregnancy registries. And if we could get them to realize that if they all work together, we might get somewhere. It would be nice. [transition music] MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Seventy-eight of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. [outro music] We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.

Full transcript: [intro music] Host — Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Seventy-seven of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller. Pregnancy and the postpartum period present special concerns to women with MS. Dr. Annette Langer-Gould, a neurologist and epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente in Los Angeles, investigates ways to lessen the risk of relapses in these women. We discussed the effects of breastfeeding, among other topics, when we met at the ECTRIMS meeting last fall in Barcelona. Interviewer – Dan Keller In terms of pregnancy and breastfeeding in MS, what are you looking at? Interviewee – Annette Langer-Gould We're studying modifiable risk factors for postpartum relapses in women with multiple sclerosis. And specifically, we are looking at starting therapy shortly after delivery, whether that can reduce the risk of postpartum relapses, whether breastfeeding, particularly breastfeeding exclusively, could reduce the risk of postpartum relapses, and whether vitamin D levels play any role in increasing or decreasing the risk of postpartum relapses. MSDF And are these women who are on disease-modifying therapy throughout pregnancy or not? Dr. Langer-Gould No. In our population, a little over 60% were treated prior to pregnancy. But we do have a decent number of women who had decided to never go on disease-modifying therapies before, and almost all of them stopped disease-modifying therapies either shortly before or when they find out that they're pregnant. MSDF In terms of each of those outcomes, what are you finding? Dr. Langer-Gould We haven't analyzed the data for the vitamin D yet, but in the German pregnancy registry, we just published the data in exclusive breastfeeding, and once again showed that exclusive breastfeeding does protect against postpartum relapses. In that population, actually 96% of the women had been on some sort of DMT prior to pregnancy, and none of them were treated throughout pregnancy. We also found that resuming DMTs does not seem to have a big effect on reducing the risk of relapses, particularly in the first six months postpartum. MSDF Is that in women who are exclusively breastfeeding or not? Dr. Langer-Gould Ah, so that's a good question. So there is no good safety data on taking the medications during breastfeeding. And therefore, many clinicians and most patients are concerned about potential theoretical risks. So behaviors are actually mutually exclusive. Women typically will either breastfeed or resume medications early in the postpartum course. The other thing we find in the Kaiser population is that there are still a fair number of women who neither breastfeed exclusively or resume their medications, which presents sort of an interesting opportunity. If we could show that one or the other behaviors is protective, perhaps we could encourage either exclusive breastfeeding or resuming DMT. MSDF If women are not breastfeeding, do you have an idea of the time course of resumption of risk for relapse? Dr. Langer-Gould Yes, so the concern about postpartum relapses really is about having a relapse in the first three to four months postpartum. If we look over at the whole pregnancy year, and that's about 30% to 40% of women. So this is actually still the best defined risk period for having a relapse and actually the only clear trigger—with perhaps the exception of upper respiratory tract infections—of relapses. So we know that having just had a baby or having an upper respiratory tract infection is a pretty strong predictor of having a relapse. So it presents sort of a unique opportunity to also look at other biological factors, like vitamin D, which is why we're interested in it, to see if any of these things have a strong role in relapses as well. MSDF If women are breastfeeding postpartum, what is the hormonal profile like? Is this almost like an extension of pregnancy? Dr. Langer-Gould For women who breastfeed exclusively, meaning that they breastfeed to the point of suppressing their ovaries and not resuming menstruation—so that essentially there's no regular meal that's being replaced by formula or by table food in the baby—they have very high prolactin levels. So it's actually a little bit different than being postmenopausal, in the sense that they have very high prolactin levels. And they have incredibly low nonpulsatile FSH and LH levels. In the postmenopausal period, there occurs a very high FSH and LH levels. The similarity, though, is that they both have bottomed-out estradiol and progesterone levels, in both women who are breastfeeding to the point of suppressing menses and also postmenopausal women. And of course the other similarity is that there's no ovulation occurring, either during pregnancy, during exclusive breastfeeding, or after menopause. MSDF So it sounds like breastfeeding is really a hypothalamic pituitary suppressant as opposed to in menopause, where you still have those cranking away, but just no response from the ovaries. Dr. Langer-Gould Correct. MSDF Can this be used in any clinical sense? Do you see an application? Dr. Langer-Gould The most obvious direct way to translate these findings is that that, if you have a woman with MS in front of you and she is pregnant and she tells you she'd like to breastfeed, we certainly have no good reason to discourage her. And that if anything, I would suggest that the data we've already published would point to the fact that we may want to encourage exclusive breastfeeding, provide them with lactation counseling, and also sort out exactly what the optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding may be for these women. Is it really only eight weeks, which we had defined arbitrarily? Or does longer duration of exclusive breastfeeding have additional suppressive properties? And that would, of course, have implications in the United States for things like maternity leave and work accommodations to allow that to continue, if it has a strong therapeutic effect for the mother. MSDF What's the relapse rate among postmenopausal women compared to postpartum women? Dr. Langer-Gould So relapse rate declines with age. And so it typically in postmenopausal women, although there's not great data, we would expect them to have relapse rates of less than 0.3 per year, Annualized relapse rates of less than 0.3 per year. And in postpartum women, that first three to four months, the annualized relapse rate exceeds one. MSDF But men also have a decline in relapse rate as they age, too. So you can't attribute it to lower estradiol. Dr. Langer-Gould Exactly. Yeah, I think it's far more complicated than just a simple sex hormone effect. You know, that was sort of our first instinct from pregnancy or the reason pregnancy must be protective. It has to have something to do with estradiol or the very high progesterone levels. And that's what prompted the postpartum study and also the estradiol randomized control trial. And both of those, of course, disappointingly have been negative. In isolation, the sex hormones associated with the protective effect of pregnancy don't really have a protective effect on inflammation. It's probably more of a combination of factors that play into modulating the immune response. MSDF Where do you go from here? Dr. Langer-Gould I think that if we are able to reproduce the findings, looking at this population-based source, that early resumption of DMTs is not particularly helpful, but perhaps it may be later in the postpartum year, and that exclusive breastfeeding is, again, protective, then I think the next step really is to establish the safety of some of these medications during lactation. For several of them, there's really no biologically plausible reason to think that they would have an effect on the baby, as they're not likely to be absorbed through the gut or enter into the baby's bloodstream. Examples of that would be the large molecules like Copaxone, the interferons, and also the infusion medications, Tysabri (natalizumab), and rituximab as well. Although you may be able to detect them in breast milk, they are such large molecules that they would not diffuse across the baby's stomach and into the bloodstream. Think about it. If the mom has to take it as a pill, it is very likely to be transmitted to the baby. If the mom has to take it as an infusion or injection, very unlikely that oral route through the baby would have any effect. MSDF How sensitive is this effect to, as you said, exclusive breastfeeding? Can you start introducing formula, or it's all or none? Dr. Langer-Gould That's a really good question. So we did look at that also in the German pregnancy registry. So first of all, women tend to have very defined behavior. They tend to decide to supplemental feed with formula very, very early, before they've even established their full milk supply. So to back up even further, a healthy woman gives birth to her child. Usually menstruation will resume two months after delivery, not one month. So it does take the HPA gonadal axis a little chance to recover from those high-circulating hormones of pregnancy. And in women who introduce supplemental feedings, particularly early, we also see the very same thing; that they will resume their period at two months postpartum. Actually, most of the work done in this field has been done by nutritionists who are in developing countries who are interested in knowing what you should do if you see a starving mother and a starving baby. Who should you feed? It turns out that if you feed the baby, the mother's ovarian function will resume. So any regular supplemental feedings and very quickly their prolactin levels will drop. The pulsatility of the FSH and LH secretion will return. Ovulation returns, and so does menses. It's essentially sending the mother's body a signal that the baby no longer needs nutrition from the mom to survive, so she's ready to have another child. So the right thing to do in that situation would be feed the mom, and let her nurse the child. Biologically, it's very interesting. Even though some breastfeeding is better than none for the baby, in terms of the effect on the mother's HP [hypothalamic-pituitary] ovarian axis, some supplemental feeding is just like all supplemental feeding. MSDF Have we missed anything or anything interesting to add? Dr. Langer-Gould So I guess I would say just in general, women's, and now even men's, desire to have naturally-born children has taken on a new significance with a lot of the small molecule agents, because we need to consider family planning and discuss it much earlier, as small molecules are likely to have an effect even if they get pregnant accidentally on the developing fetus. This is a challenge we haven't had before, because large molecules won't cross the placenta in the first trimester. And the first trimester is the critical period for organ development. So it's sort of new era for MS neurologists, where we really, really have to think carefully about which medication we put them on if they're planning on having children soon. So I’d strongly encourage that you have that conversation very early and have it with every followup visit. I typically will ask them, are you planning on having children within the next two years? And if they say, no, I ask what kind of birth control they're on, or in some cases they're in same-sex couples. That's obviously an exception. And if they are not on a reliable form of birth control, I think you need to think twice about giving the small-molecule agents—so the pills, basically. MSDF Should MS neurologists work with high-risk OB/GYNs? Dr. Langer-Gould I think for the most part it's not necessary, because women with MS, they don't have abnormal complications at pregnancy. I think there are certainly situations that we're running into now. If they get pregnant accidentally on fingolimod, teriflunomide, or Tysabri, we do need to work with them, mostly for the baby. So you may want to do more intense early screening if the mother is culturally open to the idea of having an abortion. You may want to do more fetal ultrasounds, perhaps even a fetal MRI, if there's suspicion of major malformations early on in pregnancy. And also for the Tysabri, really, it's not so much about organogenesis, but if they've had later exposure to Tysabri during pregnancy, which unfortunately on occasion has been necessary to control rebound disease activity during pregnancy, that, you know, we have seen hematological abnormalities in some of these children, so far none with clinical complications. Only one child had a subclinical intraventricular hemorrhage that resolved. It's still concerning. Our experience is very small, and we would certainly highly recommend that those women give birth in a hospital that has a neonatal intensive care unit available and a pediatrician on call to examine the child and also make sure that the child doesn't have a severe thrombocytopenia or anemia at birth. MSDF Do the different drugs have different risks for fetal malformations or other dysfunctions? Dr. Langer-Gould Yes. So teriflunomide, or Aubagio, is the most concerning medication because if a woman gets pregnant on that accidentally, it is, you know, a category X drug because it can interfere with neural tube development. And although you can chelate to get the medication out very quickly, the safety data from other indications, you know, the rheumatoid arthritis and lupus literature, is not particularly reassuring in terms of fetal outcomes. So I think that's sort of the number one to stay away from if a woman is planning on getting pregnant. And it's also one where, you know, there is some concern, although not strong evidence, that it may also affect the offspring of men with MS who are on the medication. In terms of the other ones, of course, again, small molecules in fingolimod has about a 15% to 16% major fetal malformation risk with early pregnancy exposure. It has a very long half-life. So even if they stop the medicine the minute they find out they're pregnant, it takes over two months for it to be cleared, which means that the baby has seen it now through the entire first trimester. That can have significant effects, both on cardiac and brain development. And then with dimethyl fumarate, we haven't seen—now of course, this is a very new drug, so we don't have nearly as much experience—we have not seen any major malformations, but there was concern in the animal models that it could interfere with cognitive development. In particular, the rats had maze-finding difficulty. MSDF Is alemtuzumab indicated at all? It seems to have a long tail. Dr. Langer-Gould I'm not sure what the half-life of alemtuzumab, but it's probably similar to other monoclonal antibodies, which is usually around 15 to 20 days. So monoclonal antibodies don't cross the placenta in the first trimester, because it's a very large molecule. So large molecules only get across if there's an active transport system. For antibodies, there is an active transport system, because it's very important that the child be born with a high dose of antibodies received from the mother to help protect them during the early part of their infancy while their own immune system is still developing. So we see maternal antibodies being transported, and of course, monoclonal antibody medications would be dragged along with that during second trimester. And it goes up in elliptical fashion, with very, very high amounts being pumped across the placenta in third trimester. And they also, of course, have a very delayed clearance mechanism, both the fetus really has no clearance mechanism, and then even the neonate has a very slow clearance mechanism. So in TNF alpha studies, if the drug is given during third trimester, it's typically not cleared until about six to nine months postpartum. So you also have to be concerned that a baby exposed would have some of that medication hanging around during the early neonatal period and give some thought to whether or not their immunization scheme would need to be adjusted, as the cautionary tale there would be TNF alpha exposure during pregnancy. There was a case reported of a woman who had very severe rheumatological disease, had discussed with her rheumatologist the potential risks and benefits of taking it throughout pregnancy, opted to take it throughout pregnancy. And then living in an endemic area for tuberculosis, the baby got the BCG vaccine and got disseminated mycobacterium and died. And that, you know, was probably directly related to impaired immunity from the TNF alpha antagonist. And sure enough, the baby was born with fairly high cord levels and also had very high levels still remaining in the blood in the neonatal period. So it's not just once the baby's born, it's like the drug is out. So drugs like alemtuzumab and rituximab, the way in which they work, even though the drug could be long gone, but the effect of the medication works very long time. So those are actually good choices for women with highly active disease who are planning on getting pregnant. And you have concerns about rebound. I mean, we typically use rituximab because it's obviously much safer than alemtuzumab and seems to do a fairly good job. But you know, these aren't medications we should be giving while they're pregnant, but probably not a big effect in crossing the placenta and on the baby if they're used prior to pregnancy. MSDF If they can plan that well and get a pulse of that early, and then get pregnant a few months later. Dr. Langer-Gould Yes. Yeah, that's always the trick, right? And they do get pregnant accidentally on just about everything we put them on. So the infrequent infusion medications is the easiest because you can ask about last menstrual period. And you can ask about birth control use, and you can do a pregnancy test the day of, a quick urine dipstick and find out so that you don't accidentally infuse a pregnant woman. Of course with Tysabri, when you're giving them an infusion every month, it gets a little tricky. Usually people just kind of get tired of it. The nurses forget. The doctor forgets to order it, although it's not necessarily bad practice if you know you have a patient who is not on a reliable form of birth control. MSDF Very good. I appreciate it. Thank you. Dr. Langer-Gould You're welcome. [transition music] MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Seventy-seven of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. [outro music] We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.  

[intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Seventy-five of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller. Today's interview features Elaine Kingwell, a research associate at the University of British Columbia in Canada. She and her colleagues have gathered and recently published incidence and prevalence figures for people with MS in the province. I spoke with Dr. Kingwell at the ECTRIMS meeting in Barcelona in October to find out the reason for the study and to explore the changing trends she found and their significance. Interviewer – Dan Keller What prompted you to do this study? Interviewee – Elaine Kingwell In British Columbia, we know that Canada has got a high incidence and prevalence rate of MS, but we don't actually have the numbers, so we've been doing a lot of research on MS in British Columbia for many, many years. But we don't have the incidence numbers for BC, and also the prevalence is out of date – the estimates that we have – so it really was time to get an idea on how many people we have in BC. And also, we wanted to look at change over time, and we have access to some amazing administrative databases in BC and also had some algorithms that we could use that have been validated, so that we could identify people with MS in the databases. MSDF Why are these numbers important? Dr. Kingwell It's important for lots of different reasons. For instance, it's important to monitor trends over time. We're able to do that in BC, because we have data going back several years. And so, it's important to see if populations are changing, so that we can get some clues about whether environmental factors might be changing. And also, for the prevalence estimates, it's important to know how many people have MS in the province, so that healthcare planning can be done wisely and resources. MSDF How do you go about looking at this? Dr. Kingwell So as I mentioned, we did use the health administrative databases in BC, which are big databases that collect data on the whole population. A number of different databases were combined, including hospital admissions and physician visits. It's all claims data, so that when someone goes to see their physician, a billing claim gets put in with their diagnosis. So we use these codes to identify people with MS. And we basically estimated the number of people with MS [over] several years – one year at a time – so that we could look at change over time for prevalence. And we also estimated the incidence, the number of new cases each year, starting in '96 right up until 2008. MSDF What did you find in terms of incidence and prevalence? Dr. Kingwell Well we found the incidence and prevalence are both high. The incidence was around 7.8 per 100,000 per year, and the prevalence was around 180 to 200 per 100,000 in 2008. So they were both high, what is relatively high compared to other places in the world and similar to rates that have been found in Europe, in Northern Europe, and other parts of Canada, as well. MSDF And the prevalence is increasing over time? Dr. Kingwell Yeah, we found that it increased quite significantly by about 4.7% per year, so a big increase. It also shifted in the predominant age of people, so that the peak prevalence age was around in the mid-40s in the 1990s, and it's now shifted up into the mid-50s. So the population of people with MS is getting older in BC. We also saw with incidence … quite differently, the incidence was not changing over time, so it stayed relatively stable; it did fluctuate as incidence always does. But over time, on average, it stayed the same. MSDF Are those two pieces combined—increasing prevalence and older age—good news? Dr. Kingwell I don't know if any of it's good news. It means that we have an older population that are probably requiring more care, as they get older, for the MS, as well as, of course, comorbidities they may have. So, it's certainly something that healthcare planners need to be aware of. And we have an aging population, in general, in Canada, as we do in other parts of the world, but we have a lot more people with MS at an older age. MSDF But doesn't that mean they're surviving longer? Dr. Kingwell That's the good news part, yeah. And it does mean that, because we're not seeing a change in incidence, the most likely explanation is that the survival is better. People are surviving longer with MS. We're seeing an increase in survival for the whole population, but we're also seeing an increase in survival for people with MS. MSDF What about the gender ratio in terms of prevalence but also in terms of survival? Dr. Kingwell We're seeing a gradual increase in the number of women relative to men in prevalence. That's most likely due to the fact that women do survive longer than men, on average, of course that's highly variable. But on average, they survive longer than men. And so, if you've got an aging population and three-quarters of the people with MS are women, then you're going to find the number of women are increasing. MSDF How did the socioeconomic status affect the findings? Dr. Kingwell Yeah, so we did actually look at socioeconomic status. It was measured at the neighborhood level, so not the individual level. It's linked into the databases by postal code. We did find that there were more people with MS in the higher levels of socioeconomic status, but the absolute differences were not that great. And, when we looked at this, it was not linked or adjusted for other factors. So there's so many things that can be attached to socioeconomic status and, of course, age is one of them, and your age is greatly related to whether you have MS or not. And so, there are other possible explanations, so we don't put a lot of emphasis on that. When we look at socioeconomic status, we really think that you need to design a study specifically to look at that. MSDF Could you look at the use of disease-modifying drugs according to socioeconomic status? Dr. Kingwell We could, and we have actually looked at that in other studies. Again, as a kind of an adjustment factor or something to bear in mind when we're looking at lots of variables at once, we find there's the same kind of trend that people in the higher levels tend to be on drug more often. But again, the absolute numbers are very small, and it could totally be related to age or other factors that are not adjusted in. MSDF Were the data there to be able to look at early initiation of disease-modifying drugs and any effects it may have had? Dr. Kingwell Well for this particular study – in the incidence and prevalence study – we looked at just whether people had ever had drug. We looked at the incident population to see if they'd had it in the last three years or so—that's the three years from their first claim, which is close to when they're first diagnosed or recognized as having MS. And for the prevalent population, we looked at whether they'd ever had MS. So we were able to tell that about a third of the cases had had a disease-modifying drug. And this study did start way back in the early 90s and then mid-90s for the incidence cases. So, you would expect it to be a lower rate because the drugs were just starting to become available in the mid-90s. So we didn't look at the actual start date of the drug for this particular study; we certainly are able to look at that because we have access to the databases to look at those kinds of questions, and we are looking at those kinds of questions in other studies. MSDF Can you put your findings in context to other studies at other latitudes, locals, healthcare systems? Dr. Kingwell Yeah, that's a complicated question. Certainly as studies are similar to the findings from some other studies. In particular, in Canada, there's been some very similar studies done in Manitoba and Nova Scotia where we've used exactly the same algorithm that was validated in those provinces led by Dr. Ruth Ann Marrie from the University of Manitoba. So, we found that prevalence and incidence estimates are very similar, and the findings and the change over time are also very comparable. When we look at some of the other countries, there are some similar findings in other places, but they vary a lot. When it comes to latitude, of course, we didn't have a big latitude gradient in our study; we were just looking in BC, and most of the people in BC live in one area around they're concentrated in the south of the province. But certainly there's a lot of variation in findings. But in order to get a look at the change over time, you really need to look within the same population on more than one occasion rather than comparing between populations over time. It's really difficult to make that comparison. MSDF Do you have a particularly good situation in BC in that you can link databases of diagnostic codes, physician visits, hospitalizations, pharmacy benefits, things like that that may not exist in other places with a less coordinated system? Dr. Kingwell Yeah, definitely. We are in a situation where we have access to some amazing databases. Many of the provinces in Canada have the same or similar databases, so it is like that. We also have the great situation that we have a clinical database in BC too where we've been collecting data on MS patients over a very long period of time. And we can link that data into the administrative databases, so we have the depth of the clinical data that we can link in the breadth of the administrative data, which has really put us in a very strong position to look at these long-term followup studies. MSDF Is it pretty smooth to be able to delve into these databases, or do you have any regulatory barriers like, in the US, we have all these HIPAA things. Do you have a problem with de-identifying or anything like that? Dr. Kingwell It's certainly not smooth. It can actually take us several years to access this data. It's a long process. It's a lot of paperwork for all of the reasons that…or some of the reasons you just mentioned. The data is actually all handled through…when we're at UBC, it's handled through Population Data BC, which is kind of the center between the Ministry of Health and the databases. And they strip all the identifiers off, so that by the time we receive any data … we, of course, have to go through a lot of privacy concerns and justification before we get any data sets. All the names and the numbers are removed, so that we don't know who anybody is in our database. Even when we're linking our clinical data, of course, everything is completely anonymized by the time we work on anything like that. MSDF What kind of conclusions can you draw from what you've found so far? Dr. Kingwell One of the main conclusions, I think, is that the incident population has leveled off, apparently, in BC. We started measuring incidence in 1996, and it's possible there were changes in incidence before that, but we can say that in the last 13 years – up to 2008 – that the number of cases has leveled off, which is good news it's not increasing. We also can say that the number of prevalent cases, on the other hand, is increasing a lot, so that the services need to be aware of that that there's going to be a demand on the healthcare system, there already is. And also that our results are very similar to as seen in other parts of Canada and comparable. The other main conclusion I would draw is that this study really shows how you can utilize these types of databases and reliable algorithms and ways of identifying people with MS in order to monitor the number of people and also changes over time. And also can give us some information about the people with MS and what kinds of drugs they're taking because we're linked into the PharmaNet databases, and we can do that too. So there's lots of questions we can answer about the population in British Columbia. [transition music] MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Seventy-five of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. [outro music] We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.  

[intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Seventy-four of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller. Today's interview features Dr. Markus Reindl, an Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Innsbruck Medical University in Innsbruck, Austria. We discuss autoantibodies to myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein, or MOG, a protein component of myelin. These anti-MOG antibodies are particularly important in pediatric demyelinating diseases. Interviewer – Dan Keller First of all, why don't you define MOG for our audience. Interviewee – Markus Reindl MOG is myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein, and it's a myelin protein which was discovered about 30 years ago. It is of enormous interest to people working in neuroimmunology, because it's one of the main autoantigens used in experimental models for multiple sclerosis. And about 20 to 30 years ago, a lot of people started to work on autoantibodies against MOG in the field of MS because it was suspected to be a key autoantigen. And at that time, there were a lot of papers published with somewhat contradictory results. About five years, six years ago, the interest of MOG was rediscovered again when people developed more specific assays to detect these antibodies. And surprisingly, it was found that they're not present in classical multiple sclerosis but rather in pediatric demyelinating diseases, such as acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, ADEM, or neuromyelitis spectrum disorders. MSDF And what does finding anti-MOG antibodies tell you? Dr. Reindl At the moment, it just tells you that if you have these antibodies the risk that you develop MS is minor. So it points to the direction of a different demyelinating disease, which is in most cases monophasic with a good outcome. Or if it's recurrent, it's often recurrent optic neuritis on multiphasic ADEM. Altogether, all this with a good recovery from relapse. Severe disease causes are rare. MSDF So in the early stages of MS – something like clinically isolated syndrome – does MOG tell you which direction to go in if you find it? Dr. Reindl Usually if you have a clinically isolated syndrome that fulfills the current criteria for multiple sclerosis, looking at the MRI or at the cerebrospinal fluid, it will typically be negative for MOG and autoantibodies, so it's just an exclusion criteria. If you look at the CIS [clinically isolated syndrome], whether it could go to the direction of multiple sclerosis or not, if MOG antibodies are present, the answer would be rather not. MSDF Does it fit into neuromyelitis optica, especially seronegative, where there's no anti-aquaporin-4 antibodies? Dr. Reindl Yes, it can also be observed in cases with neuromyelitis optica that are aquaporin-4 antibodies negative, particularly in pediatric cases, and often in cases that present with simultaneous optic neuritis and transverse myelitis at onset. So the classical description of neuromyelitis optica by Devic back in the 19th century would rather have been a MOG antibody positive case than an aquaporin-4 antibody positive case. And the pathology of both diseases is entirely different. So in aquaporin-4 mediated neuromyelitis optica, you have an astrocytopathy under high risk of future relapses and disease deterioration. Whereas in the case of MOG antibodies, it's often monophasic, and the recovery is much better. MSDF So it sounds like anti-MOG antibodies are not just a marker, but they're actually pathognomonic or pathogenic of the disease. Dr. Reindl This is currently under investigation. So what we know from neuropathology there are currently five cases – if I'm correct, or as far as I know – that have been analyzed for neuropathology. These were in most biopsies/autopsies where MOG antibodies were present. And their pathology was in multiple sclerosis type II pathology, which points to the direction of antibody-mediated pathology. So from a neuropathological point of view, looks like MS. If you look at the clinical criteria that are currently valid for multiple sclerosis, it's clearly not MS. If you look at the pathogenesis, this is currently under investigation. From the in vitro studies, we know that these antibodies can, of course, activate compliment. They also have an affect on oligodendrocyte cell function. In vivo models are currently ongoing, and I expect there to be more results by next year on this. MSDF What is the clinical utility at this point? Is it ready for clinical use, or what more needs to be done? Dr. Reindl I think particular people working in the pediatric field are using it more and more. Because if you look, for an example, at ADEM, earlier this year we published a study that children with ADEM that are positive for MOG antibodies they have certain features in neuroradiology but also in their clinical presentation and their clinical recovery, which could aid the clinician. In particular, in the European countries, many laboratories are now setting up assays for MOG antibodies and using it in clinical routine. What has to be done now is better development of the assay, a comparison of the assays like it has been done for aquaporin-4 antibodies, like international validation experiments. We're currently setting up such an experiment for next year, together with the people in Oxford and other centers. But, my expectation would be that this antibody would have a similar use like aquaporin-4 antibody has. Also, aquaporin-4 antibodies are more specific for a specific type of disease. MSDF You've discussed anti-MOG antibodies in terms of diagnosis. You mentioned prognosis, better course. Can they be useful for following therapy? Do the antibodies actually disappear with immunosuppression, or are they always present? Dr. Reindl The point is in the monophasic cases the antibodies disappear anyway. So, I guess in 70% to 80% of all patients – particular the pediatric patients – they have these antibodies at disease onset at high titers, and with time they disappear. They only are persistent if there is a bad recovery or if there's a recurrent disease cause, like recurrent optic neuritis would be an excellent example for this. If you look at therapies, of course, therapies like plasma exchange or corticosteroid used at high doses will lead to a disappearance or a drop of antibody titers. I think we have no really long-term experience, at the moment, because these antibodies were just discovered a few years ago, until long-term studies are ongoing. MSDF Is there any work on what triggers these antibodies; whether there's exposure of antigens, what agents may be involved—environmental, genetic, viral? Dr. Reindl This is the $100 million question. Of course, we would be happy to know it. It's the similar situation like with aquaporin-4 antibodies. Also there we still don't know it. What is particular interesting is that this is most frequently observed in children at the age under 10 years. These are children that are frequently exposed to infections – the respiratory infections and other infection – therefore it's highly likely that the underlying cause is infectious. But at the moment, as far as I know, there were a couple of studies, at least, but no real systematic study using a lot of patients and with a good epidemiological setup. MSDF If there's an infectious agent, is it that it is causing damage to myelin, which is exposing antigens, or there's some crossreactivity with the infecting agent itself? Dr. Reindl Both things I think could be possible. The animal models tell us a lot of this. This is work published by Hartmut Wekerle’s group three years ago where they discovered that in transgenic animals – animals that are transgenic for MOG T cells – gut bacteria activate these T cells that go into the brain, and then MOG is released, transported out by dendritic cells to the cervical lymph nodes. And at this stage, the antibodies are induced and built. So it's a rather secondary phenomenon, which is caused by T-cell damage and T-cell destruction. I could imagine that a similar phenomenon could also help in the human situation, particularly if you consider ADEM, which has large lesions, a lot of inflammation going on there. I think it's highly likely that antigen is released, and MOG is one of the most antigenic components of the central nervous system. MSDF So what are the big lines of research right now – two or three of them – or the big questions that people are approaching? Dr. Reindl At the moment, of course, a better developmental definition of the assay—I guess this is one of the most important—is we're working together – a lot of laboratories, a couple of groups – to improve our assays to come to a common standard and to develop an assay which could be used by different laboratories in the world. The second is, of course, to better define the clinical and neuropathological diagnosis of the patients presenting with these antibodies. Because at the moment, it's rather diffuse. You have children with ADEM, you have children with optic neuritis, children with myelitis. You have adults with NMO-like symptoms. And to put this together in a better way is, of course, highly challenging, and this is work ongoing at the moment. I think we will have more results of this by the next year. And of course, the third thing is just to look better at the long-term prognosis of these patients. How these antibodies fits in their long-term prognosis, if they are rather beneficial or not. And this is also work that only can be clarified using larger cohorts of patients and international studies. MSDF So is it fairly rare to find anti-MOG antibodies? Dr. Reindl In adults, yes. In children, no. So if you look at children presenting with demyelinating syndromes, from our own ongoing study cohort in Germany and Austria—we know it's about a third of all children presenting with demyelinating syndromes—more than a third have these antibodies. If you look at adults, it's much more rare. I guess it's about 5% or less. MSDF Well, thank you very much. Dr. Reindl You're most welcome. [transition music] MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Seventy-four of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Msdiscovery.org is part of the non-profit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is vice president of scientific operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller. [outro music]

Full Transcript: [intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Seventy-three of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller. Today's interview features Donna Osterhout, a cell biologist at Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, New York, USA. Dr. Osterhout talks about a new way of looking at myelin-making cells, which move and change shape in dramatic ways. Current MS drugs take aim at preventing new immune damage. In the future, researchers hope to figure out how to repair myelin and restore function. But first, let’s look at new content on MS Discovery Forum. Spring brings rain, flowers, and a bouquet of scientific meetings related to multiple sclerosis. See the list at msdiscovery.org under the tab “professional resources.” MSDF sent the only journalist to cover the recent meeting of the American Society of Neurochemistry in Denver, but you can count on a blitz of news from the media pack at the next meeting on the calendar – the American Academy of Neurology in April, happening this year in Vancouver, BC, Canada. The number of research papers about multiple sclerosis has doubled in the last 10 years, and many findings are first reported at meetings before publication. Moving on, let’s sample a few of the new papers we found in our weekly PubMed search of the world’s largest medical library, the National Library of Medicine. You can link to each week’s list of curated papers at msdiscovery.org. Related to this week’s podcast, a new paper reviews the latest research about the molecular cues that allow precursor cells to mature and go through the stages of making myelin. These cues come from axons and from other surrounding tissue. Clinical drug development efforts focus on overcoming inhibitory cues, such as with the experimental agent anti-LINGO-1, now completing phase 2 clinical trials for MS and acute optic neuritis by Biogen. The review authors suggest future drugs to repair myelin could boost permissive and promotional cues, which may go wrong in disease. The paper is published by researchers at the Virginia Commonwealth School of Medicine in the journal Experimental Neurology. Another report updates the Cochrane systematic review on teriflunomide, a daily oral medication for relapsing remitting MS marketed under the brand name Aubagio by Sanofi Genzyme. Cochrane’s systematic reviews are ranked among the highest level of medical evidence, because of the rigorous independent analysis of multiple studies, including randomized controlled trials. The authors write that, as a single drug, the high dose of teriflunomide was as effective as interferon beta 1-a, while the low dose was less effective. They recommended longer follow-up analyses and noted that the available evidence was low-quality, as well as subject to bias, in part because all studies were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. In general, side effects were mild to moderate and do not usually lead to treatment being stopped, but the higher dose is more prone to cause these side effects. The study is available in the Cochrane Library. The final editor’s pick this week takes a fresh look at how medical images transform a patient’s view of her own body. The paper describes an artistic collaboration between Devan Stahl, a bioethicist at Michigan State University with multiple sclerosis, and her sister Darian Goldin Stahl, a printmaker. The resulting art – some of it life sized – superimposes Devan’s narrative and MRI images with body photos. Devan wrote in the paper that the art collaboration has made it easier to talk about her MS. The paper is published in the journal Medical Humanities. If you're in town for the big Neurology meeting, you can catch Darian’s artist talk on April 17 at 2 pm at Malaspina Printmakers in Vancouver, Canada. [transition music] And now to our interview. We caught up with Donna Osterhout in Denver, Colorado at the March meeting of the American Society for Neurochemistry. She organized a symposium that told a new story about myelin-making cells. In different labs, researchers started looking for clues in the radical shape changes that occur in the cells in their normal process of making myelin. These oligodendrocyte precursor cells sprout “arms” to reach out and touch neighboring axons. Then they push out slabs of fatty membrane and wrap them around and anchor them to the axons. In multiple sclerosis and other demyelinating diseases, the immune system attacks this myelin wrap, and the cells cannot keep up with repair. The unprotected axons may be damaged or destroyed, causing the worsening disability of MS. Learning how the cells make myelin may pave the way toward new therapeutic agents to repair demyelinated axons and restore function. Dr. Osterhout spoke with our executive editor, Carol Cruzan Morton. Interviewer – Carol Cruzan Morton So we are here, in Denver, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Neurochemistry, and you've put together a very interesting panel on a new way of looking at myelin. So can you sort of set the scene for us when you're talking about the myelin research that you're working on? Interviewee – Donna Osterhout Well, myelin is a specialized membrane that is wrapped around axons; it occurs in the last step of development. And oligodendrocyte progenitor cells are the cells that form myelin. They are going to migrate out through the developing brain and they're going to extend processes that come in contact with axons that need to be myelinated. And when they get the appropriate signals, they are going to start a process by which they synthesize and extend a large membrane, which wraps around this axon many times and compacts and forms myelin. The way that this happens has been a mystery thus far, but recent research suggests that there has to be a lot of rearrangements of the internal cytoskeleton for this to happen. And so the symposium was organized to talk about how the cytoskeleton might be changing to allow for this membrane wrapping and myelin formation. MSDF Can you tell me more about the cytoskeleton? Dr. Osterhout The cytoskeleton is comprised of specialized proteins within cells, and every cell has a cytoskeleton; it gives it shape, but it also allows it to migrate, differentiate, and extend processes, so cells wouldn't be able to do much without a cytoskeleton. And in the case of oligodendrocytes, there are a lot of cytoskeletal rearrangements that occur to allow for myelination. MSDF Can you tell me more about the emerging view about how myelination may be working based on this new way of looking at it? Dr. Osterhout Initially, we know that there are early signals that trigger extensive process outgrowth from these cells. Once the axon sends a signal to the oligodendrocyte progenitor cell, they start to put out many, many processes, synthesize myelin proteins, and make this big membrane that will wrap around the axon. What winds up happening is that in the past everybody thinks that we've needed a driving force so that something pushes this forward, and it had been thought that perhaps the actin cytoskeleton was the driving force behind this. The newer research indicates that initially you have to have signals that trigger the process outgrowth, but this is followed by an actual disassembly of the actin cytoskeleton. So it's somewhat opposite of what we had thought previously. MSDF Can you tell me more about the steps that are involved in the process of myelinating that you and your colleagues have been discovering? Dr. Osterhout Well, the initial step is the activation of a cellular kinase called Fyn tyrosine kinase; this is the earliest step in the differentiation of these progenitor cells. Fyn will be activated by any number of signals from the axon including, for example, glutamate that's released. And once Fyn is active, it initiates a rearrangement of cytoskeletal proteins called microtubules in order to facilitate process outgrowth so we can extend processes to form this membrane. In later stages, then we have Fyn helping to trigger the synthesis of myelin proteins, and then you start to get other proteins active that will disassemble the actin cytoskeleton. There is even some evidence that perhaps myelin basic protein can do this. So Fyn signaling will turn on early and promote the synthesis of myelin basic protein, and then myelin basic protein will proceed down these processes and help to disassemble the actin cytoskeleton so the membrane can wrap around the axon. MSDF Can you describe what the cells look like when they're going through this process? Dr. Osterhout Well, this is really interesting to study, especially in vitro. You can set up myelinating cultures of oligodendrocyte progenitor cells. They're very simple cells, they're like bipolar, two to three processes, and that's the earliest progenitor that we might look at. But once you trigger differentiation, they start to put out processes in a somewhat predictable manner. They will first extend five processes, and then these five processes start branching And they produce these intricate branches. At some point these mature cells will actually look like a lace doily; they are spectacular with the cell body in the center and all these highly branched processes surrounding it. And then you see a transformation of these processes into this huge membrane sheet, and in the absence of an axon it's just going to cover the tissue culture dish; it's amazing how large this can get. But if you had an axon in the culture, this membrane sheet would just form myelin. They would form a myelin segment wrapping around the axon. MSDF That’s so interesting. And then can you say, adding to that picture, the steps that are happening in those process that you and your colleagues have been discovering? Dr. Osterhout So when you have the initial process outgrowth, you have Fyn tyrosine kinase active, and that facilitates the initiation and that extensive process outgrowth. But the transition between the process outgrowth and the formation of membrane sheets is going to be the disassembly of the actin cytoskeleton. MSDF And that's the big news is that the actin cytoskeleton is breaking down instead of pushing the myelin forward as it's making its multiple wraps around? Dr. Osterhout Yes, this seems to be the way that this is happening mechanistically. The formation of that myelin membrane requires the actin disassembly, and two of the speakers that we had in our symposium gave evidence to this, using several different experimental systems. And then ultimately when you're going to anchor this myelin sheath, and you can get some specializations in the axonal membrane, and this is what one of the speakers talked about, anchoring the perinodal loops, kind of the ends of the myelin segment. And so we have a process by which we have extensive process outgrowth triggered by Fyn. Then once you get the process outgrowth, you have actin disassembly and you form these membrane sheets, and then they would wrap around the axon, forming myelin, and then you would stabilize it with special proteins in the axon that stabilize the ends at the perinodal loops. MSDF So what does this have to do with diseases like multiple sclerosis? Dr. Osterhout That's a very good question. If we understand what goes on in development, then we might be able to predict how we could facilitate this process in a demyelinating disease like multiple sclerosis. We do have oligodendrocyte progenitor cells in our brain and spinal cord. They persist as a population throughout adulthood. And any time you have a lesion or a trauma to the brain, and especially if you get demyelination, then you'll have these cells migrate to the area of demyelination. And if we can encourage them to remyelinate, they would undergo the same steps. We have shown evidence that the inflammation and other conditions in a demyelinating disease upregulates chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans, and these can actually inhibit the process outgrowth and remyelination by oligodendrocytes, because they ultimately inhibit the activation of Fyn kinase. So if you're considering a disease process, you want to stimulate these steps. And you want to look for agents that might trigger and make sure that these steps proceed, or neutralize things that would be present in the lesion that would inhibit this. MSDF One interesting aspect of your work, and perhaps of science more generally, is that some of these discoveries with relevance to multiple sclerosis come from your work on spinal cord injury. Can you talk about how that works in science? Dr. Osterhout Well, spinal cord injury is another type of lesion, it's a specialized lesion; you have damage to axons as well as demyelination due to trauma. But in diseases in general in the brain and the spinal cord, whenever you have an injury process or inflammation or some kind of destruction of tissue, you get an inflammation and immune influx, and you will get a process called reactive gliosis. And this is common to many diseases that you see in the brain. For example, you can see it easily in spinal cord injury, it's been well documented. You can see these proteoglycans' reactive gliosis in multiple sclerosis, you can see it in Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and other conditions, because they all have a common element that you've got some kind of inflammation occurring and tissue destruction occurring at a specific place. MSDF Getting back to multiple sclerosis and the work on how cells myelinate axons, what are the next big questions that you and your colleagues are asking? Dr. Osterhout Well, there still are a lot of questions about exactly how this myelination process is accomplished even during development; we don't fully understand all of the triggers that would activate this process. And, likewise, we don't always understand things that might inhibit this process. So we need to more fully characterize what's going on in development so that we can take a look at it in the remyelinating situations, either in spinal cord injury, or multiple sclerosis, or any other demyelinating condition. MSDF Well, that's really interesting. Well, thank you for taking the time to explain the research. Dr. Osterhout And thank you for your interest; it's been my pleasure. [transition music] MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Seventy-three of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. [outro music]  

Transcript: [intro music] Host — Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Seventy-two of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller. Today's interview features Nathaniel Lizak, a young Australian investigator from the University of Melbourne who gave the first talk at the recent meeting in New Orleans of the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis, or ACTRIMS. Mr. Lizak discusses new findings showing that moderately advanced and advanced multiple sclerosis are more unpredictable than anyone knew, but worsening disability may be slowed by highly effective therapies. But first, let’s look at new content on Msdiscovery.org. Our latest data visualization shows statistical snapshots of MS worldwide. Survey data from the MS International Federation show that, as of 2013, the estimated number of people in the world with MS increased to 2.3 million, or about 33 people with MS for every 100,000 people. But MS rates and access to care vary widely from country to country, as you can see from the data visualization. In a new job posting, the Stanford-affiliated Santa Clara Valley Medical Center Department of Neurology seeks a general neurologist. Subspecialty training in MS, movement disorders, or vascular neurology is preferred. You can post your job at MSDF at no charge to reach researchers and clinicians specializing in MS and related demyelinating disorders. [transition music] And now to our interview. Australian medical student, Nathaniel Lizak, and his academic mentors took a second look at how disease progresses in people with moderate and advanced MS and what can be done about it. Researchers are looking for better measures of disability, but the most common one is the Expanded Disability Status Scale or EDSS for short. Lizak and colleagues looked at worsening disease from several starting points, using an international registry known as MSBase that tracks medical record data on nearly 38,000 people with MS. They divided people in three epochs ranging from EDSS 3.0 (where people are moderately disabled but are fully ambulatory) to EDSS 6.0 and higher (where people need assistance to walk short distances). An older study suggested a steady worsening of disease after EDSS 3.0, which Lizak and co-workers questioned. Executive editor, Carol Cruzan Morton, spoke with him about their findings. Interviewer – Carol Cruzan Morton We are here at the ACTRIMS meeting in New Orleans, and you opened the conference with a really interesting paper. I wanted you to explain a little bit about what you were asking and why. What area of MS, what questions you are addressing? Interviewee – Nathaniel Lizak So we did this work under the MSBase group, which is an MS-based cohorts; it is an international really large study that has data from over 30,000 patients worldwide. We have access to all of their data, and we really thank our contributors throughout the world who have provided this. We decided – because we have so much power with so many numbers and so much data from patients – to look at the latest stages of multiple sclerosis which, so far, haven't really been that well explored. There have been three studies in the past which looked at disability and how it progresses in what they have called the moderately advanced stage of multiple sclerosis. So yeah, we looked at disability accumulation in the later stage of multiple sclerosis moderately advanced, which is defined before as between the EDSS steps of 3.0 or 4.0 and 6.0, and we wanted to look at what predicts how the disability accumulates, because a lot of the previous studies didn't really suggest anything really changes disability. There is this notion amongst doctors that once it hits these thresholds the trajectory is set, and there is nothing you can do to help patients. We didn't believe that. We were hoping there was something you can still do for patients, even once they have already accumulated substantial amounts of disability. We set this up to look at just how much variability there is in these later stages of disease and what we can do to take it from going really fast to going really slow, to preventing patients from getting even worse. We used our cohorts, ran lots of statistics, and we found some very interesting results. The first is that this late stage of disease is quite independent from what happens before. How many relapses people have early in the disease, how fast they got to the early disability landmarks, how fast they accumulated disability, if they were on therapy in the past—all of those things don't really seem to impact what happens later on in the disease. That is what we call the amnesic disease phenomenon. That is something that has already been explored in the past. We kind of confirmed that and saw that, that happens at lots of stages in multiple sclerosis. What is more interesting, though, is that we still found that patients have a lot of variability in what happens to them, even after they have accumulated substantial disability. So in technical terms, after EDSS 3.0, 4.0, and 6.0, there is still a lot of variability in what happens to patients after they have reached these steps, after they have already obtained disability. That suggestion that after the threshold the disease is set doesn't seem to be at all the case. That is all we observed in our patients. We had over 3,400 patients— we had 3,415 patients exactly. So it is quite I think, generalizable, our results. There is a lot of variation in what will happen at these later stages of disease. MSDF You can't predict what happens next. And it is different. Mr. Lizak It is different for everyone. It is independent of what happened before, and almost nothing predicts what is going to happen next. The only things that we found which did predict such as how does disability progress in these later stages, the first one was how many relapses they are having now. Not before, not early in the disease, but how many relapses are they now having per year at these later stages? We found that more relapses later in the disease still contribute to disability. That wasn't something that the other studies had actually shown, and I think that is to do with their methodology more than anything else. I think we are confirming that relapses are still important, inflammation is still important, we still need to treat it, no matter how far along the disability line the patients are. The relapse is still a problem. A more exciting thing that we found was that the immunomodulatory medications that the disease modifying therapies, the higher efficacies ones, the new medications, the longer patients are on those in the later stages of disease—so again, after those landmarks, after EDSS 3.0, 4.0, and 6.0—he longer patients are on those after they have gone into that disability the lower their likelihood of progressing even further to EDSS 6.0 and 6.5, which is mobility issues needing unilateral assistance or a walking stick, EDSS 6.0 or bilateral walking assistance EDSS 6.5. So those are pretty, obviously, important to patients in being able to move around without needing any aid. We found that we can prevent patients from getting to these later disability stages with longer time on disease therapies later on in the disease. So the conclusion we got from this is patients should continue being treated later in multiple sclerosis. Of course, it's always a risk/benefit calculation. You always need to take the side effects into consideration and look at the patient that you are seeing. It is not a blanket rule, but there are countries in the world where it's by policy you can't give therapies later on in disease after EDSS 4.0. New Zealand is one example. In other places in the world, it is just practice to stop giving treatments later in multiple sclerosis, and we are suggesting no there still is a benefit and you should be weighing that up when considering whether or not to continue patients on therapy, whether to start them on stronger therapies. There is evidence that we can still slow down how the disability will accumulate. That was our main message. We were a bit surprised to find out it was not what we were expecting, but we are very happy that we found such results. MSDF In your study, what drugs were categories as the high efficacy? Mr. Lizak I don't remember exactly every single drug, but we just put into two groups. The low efficacy being primarily the initial very first-line drugs, so interferon, glatiramer acetate, and teriflunomide; everything else categorizes as high-efficacy therapy, so natalizumab, fingolimod, alemtuzumab, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, mitoxantrone, I might be missing a few. By no means are we saying that one therapy is better than another. We're just looking at the class effect of the really strong medications. We don't yet have the power to say this is the best medication after EDSS 6.0, this is the best medication after EDSS 4.0, or don't go on that one. We're just trying to say that the stronger perhaps second-line therapies often used second-line do have a better effect in this later period of disease, and doctors should be considering that when deciding what treatments their patients should go on, and patients should obviously be made aware of that as well. MSDF The idea that things that happen before don't affect the later stages seems on the surface to be at odds with the idea that progressive disease starts early, like treat early. Mr. Lizak …to try to treat disease as early as possible. I don't think it is at odds. There's been a lot of work, so far, to say that the earlier you treat your patients the better. We agree with all of that. We are not saying treating later is any better. Probably believe that treating earlier is better, but what we are saying is: a) continue treating, and don't stop treating. I completely agree that all of the patients that we found that after EDSS 3.0, 4.0, and 6.0 improved with more therapy after those landmarks, still probably did better earlier on in their phase of disease with therapy then. But I guess what we saw is the therapy they had earlier in disease won't make an impact now. You need to continue treating these patients for them to have an improvement. We still absolutely encourage the earlier treatment, the better. That evidence is beyond doubt in multiple sclerosis. We are definitely not challenging that. We completely agree with that. Our evidence just goes and takes it one step further of, the earlier the better, but it is not too late. MSDF Now you are doing this study in the context of a clinical practice. How has that changed – or has it changed – how people with MS are treated in the decision making? Mr. Lizak The thing is, first of all, I am a medical student, so I don't make any of the decisions. Secondly, where we are based in Melbourne, Australia, there is already a tendency to treat patients later on in disease. Obviously we haven't published the results yet, so we haven't seen how much of an affect it will have worldwide. Perhaps now we will begin to start changing things. But in Australia where nothing was studied, no one was surprised to find that this was the case. All the doctors there already treat their patients later on in the disease. So it just confirmed that what they are doing is correct. No one has yet drastically changed how they are treating patients. We hope though that, say countries like New Zealand whereby policy after a certain EDSS score, after EDSS 4.0, after moderate disability has been accumulated, you can't put patients on disease-modifying therapy anymore—we hope that is where we will have the biggest impact. MDSF When you gave your talk, you talked about the earlier study. There wasn’t an appreciation for the variability. How did you come to ask that question in the first place? Mr. Lizak I have to give credit to my supervisor, as well as the whole MS based team that was behind this study, and obviously they conceptualized it a lot more than I: Dr. Thomas Kalincik and Helmut Butzkueven, in particular. But a lot of doctors, particularly our team, are not happy with that graph. Which it looks like everyone after EDSS 3.0 has the same trajectory. We looked at this, and we thought we wanted to do a study to prove this wrong. We didn't know exactly what we were going to find. We actually proved that what they first suggested of disease being independent to be quite correct. But they just missed the variance in the second half. It is independent, but it is still really variable. We looked at the graphs carefully, and we looked at the study carefully, and we made the note of they only have a mean value on that top half, they don't show how much variability there may or may not be in disease. We got confused. We said it is unlikely that patients have no variability at all after EDSS 3.0, and we decided not only are we going to look at what predicts the later disease, but we need to know just how variable is this disease this late, and we found that it is extremely variable. After EDSS 6.0, patients might go straight through to worse disability, and many will improve, and many will stay stable for many years. We were just unhappy with the message that the graph gave. Then we tried to scrutinize exactly where can we change this message, where can we improve this. MDSF That’s great. What questions are your colleagues asking you here about the study? Mr. Lizak I have had a lot of questions about this study, some more helpful than others. A lot of people have asked how will this change management? And I think we have just spoken a little bit about that. I am asked, as well, how do you tell patients that we can no longer predict their disease? We used to think that we could and now we just outright can't predict their disease and that is something that is going to be difficult to tell the patients. I think you need to frame it differently. It is not we can't predict how your disease is going to go, it is, we have hope for making it better. You might have been doing not so well up until now, but we still have hope to continue fighting. We haven't given up yet. And I think that is what we need to be framing it as. That is one of the questions I have gotten the most. A lot of people have asked about why we chose certain therapies, and there is very little evidence about which therapy is high and which therapy is low. We just used the available studies as well as the clinical experience and just compared how much they reduced relapse rates and so on. It was partly based on intuition and observation. It could be the case that some therapies should have been classified differently to what we did, but it is very hard to tell at this stage. Even then, even looking at the list, you should be mindful that a therapy that we classified as high efficacy might have actually been bringing that group down. And maybe should have been a low efficacy therapy, and maybe a low efficacy therapy was the only one working in that group, and it should have been in the high efficacy group. So obviously, be very careful when you look at that. At that strata, it is not meant to be telling anyone I should be on that drug or I shouldn't be on that drug. It is just meant to be saying that strong medications are better in this stage, but the decision of the medication should be a decision made entirely by the patient and their doctor, and it should only be used to influence and it shouldn't be taken any more than that. MDSF Is rituximab in your …. I was going to say before a B cell therapy. Mr. Lizak I don't think we have many patients on rituximab, but we would have had quite a few. Yes, because it was used quite extensively. MDSF Thanks. Is there anything else that I haven't asked or that you wanted to add? Mr. Lizak Rituximab wasn't the high efficacy group. I should mention that. Yes. Thank you for the fantastic opportunity to showcase the work we have been doing. I obviously have to give credit to everyone at MSBase who conceptualized and gave patients the study. We couldn't have done it without the help of our collaborators worldwide. [transition music] MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Seventy-two of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. The data visualization was developed by Jean Mercier of Khawai Data Visualization at Khawai.com. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. [outro music]   We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.      

[intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Seventy of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller. In today's interview, we'll talk with Dr. Brian Weinshenker of the Mayo Clinic about new diagnostic criteria for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and how it differs from MS. The new criteria build upon and broaden the definition of NMO that was based, in part, on the presence of antibodies to aquaporin-4. But to begin, let’s sample a few of the new studies we found in our weekly PubMed search of the world’s largest medical library, the National Library of Medicine. You can link to each week’s list of curated papers at msdiscovery.org. On topic with our interview, an international team led by researchers in Tianjin, China, found a unique group of people with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, or NMOSD, who carried autoantibodies to both aquaporin-4 and myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein or MOG, a minor component of myelin. Among the 125 patients, 10 were double positive for both sets of antibodies, and 14 were positive only for MOG. The double-positive patients had a worse disease course, most having MS-like brain lesions and more disability. Those with only MOG antibodies had a milder disease and less disability. If verified in other studies, the findings may help predict the clinical course of NMOSD or even define a new phenotype somewhere between the two very different diseases of NMOSD and MS. The authors say their paper also raises a new challenge of how to diagnose and treat such patients. Three double-negative patients did not respond to rituximab, a highly effective anti-B cell therapy used off label for MS and NMO. The study is published in the journal Science China Life Sciences. For people with MS and other demyelinating conditions, bladder issues can play an oversized role in the quality of life. A pair of review articles addresses the “neurogenic bladder.” One from Duke University researchers in North Carolina, USA, recommend an evaluation known as urodynamics, calling it the gold standard in helping to break down the complex problem into basic and treatable factors. In the other paper, researchers from Western University in Ontario, Canada, review the 16 different ways to measure patient reported outcomes for neurogenic bladder, and how to choose the best one to track patients’ quality of life. Both reviews are published in the journal Translational Andrology and Urology. In the news section, MS Discovery Forum correspondent Stephani Sutherland wrote about the recent negative results of fingolimod in a large Phase 3 clinical trial of people with primary progressive MS. Even in failure, studies can be informative and can help researchers design better investigations to test potential therapeutics for progressive disease. Now, let’s move on to our drug development database. The drugs with important additions and changes are daclizumab, fingolimod, and ocrelizumab. One update reflects findings presented at last month’s ECTRIMS conference in New Orleans suggesting that in primary progressive MS, the experimental drug ocrelizumab reduces disease activity in subgroups of individuals with and without gadolinium-enhancing images at baseline. [transition music] And now to our interview. It’s been 11 years since neuromyelitis optica, or NMO, was redefined as a separate disease from MS. Thanks to the discovery of the first biomarker for NMO, an antibody against aquaporin-4, diagnostic criteria for neuromyelitis optica, or NMO, were revised. In today's discussion, Dr. Brian Weinshenker of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, USA, lays out further revisions to the criteria and the reasons for them. He uses a couple of terms that may warrant definition. One is IgG, which is immunoglobulin G, a particular class of antibody. Other terms are seropositive, meaning, in this case, the presence of antibodies to aquaporin-4, and conversely, seronegative, the absence of such antibodies. Finally, ADEM, A-D-E-M, is acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, a sudden, widespread attack of inflammation in the brain and spinal cord, usually seen in children. I spoke with Dr. Weinshenker at the ECTRIMS meeting last fall in Barcelona about the new consensus diagnostic criteria for NMO. Interviewer – Dan Keller Is there something that was lacking before? Interviewee – Brian Weinshenker Well, the first diagnostic criteria for neuromyelitis optica were proposed by our group at Mayo Clinic in 1999. And in 2006, with the advent of the first diagnostic biomarker for neuromyelitis optica, an antibody which we now know is directed against aquaporin-4 – I’ll call it aquaporin-4 IgG – the criteria were revised. But there was a need to revise them. We became increasingly confident in this diagnostic biomarker, and it was possible to make an earlier diagnosis, often after the very first symptom. So that was one key driving factor. And furthermore, with the advent of this biomarker, we’ve appreciated that the spectrum of this disease is far broader than we had previously recognized. And there are a number of clinical syndromes that were previously not recognized as being part of the neuromyelitis optica spectrum that we now know are, and those needed to be integrated. Another key factor was the fact that a number patients that we recognize have this same condition now did not meet the old criteria. For example, you had to have both optic neuritis and myelitis to make this diagnosis, and we recognize some patients with this condition have just recurrent myelitis or just recurrent optic neuritis; they wouldn’t have satisfied the criteria. So those were the key reasons that drove developing new criteria. MSDF What are some of the new criteria? Dr. Weinshenker The first important point is that we’ve eliminated distinction between neuromyelitis optica – that is, having optic neuritis and myelitis – and having some of these more limited forms or unusual forms of the disease with brain lesions. And we’ve used the term neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder to refer to all of them. Second aspect of the diagnostic criteria is that we’ve stratified them based on whether or not you have this biomarker, the aquaporin-4 IgG. And we’ve separately defined patients with that biomarker and those without, the largest group being those with the biomarker. So in the patients with this biomarker, we really require only one clinical syndrome. The clinical criteria are very, very liberal, and we don’t even require, say, for myelitis, as we had before, we used to require having a long spinal cord lesion. We now recognize that about 10 to 20% of patients do not have those kind of long spinal cord lesions when they have a myelitis, so we no longer require it if you have that biomarker. But we’ve left open a category that we call seronegative neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, because some patients who meet all of the various clinical criteria’s, even the strictest clinical criteria, seem to be seronegative for this biomarker. We recognize that’s a heterogeneous group of patients; some of them ultimately will become seropositive. In some of those patients, we’re recognizing other antibodies that seem to be associated with a similar clinical syndrome, so I think, ultimately, we may create new silos based on those biomarkers, but when these criteria were developed, it was felt to be premature to include other antibodies as diagnostic biomarkers. So we’ve grouped them into this group of seronegative NMO spectrum disorder. But we’re much more strict in that category. We do require two clinical syndromes – two different clinical syndromes – and in some situations we do require additional MRI criteria in order to meet those criteria. MSDF Okay, because it was sounding like you were being so liberal about it people could lack this symptom and that symptom and antibody, but, in this case, if they’re lacking antibody, they need other criteria to qualify. Dr. Weinshenker That’s correct; both clinical and radiologic criteria. And we also have exclusionary – well, I shouldn’t say exclusionary. There are no exclusionary criteria. We refer to them as red flags. If you have certain characteristics that would make it more likely that you have MS, which is the major competing diagnosis, or if you have certain comorbidities like, say, cancer or sarcoidosis – we know sarcoidosis can sometimes mimic neuromyelitis optica – we add that as a note of caution, but strictly, no criteria is considered exclusionary for a diagnosis of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. MSDF Would other systemic autoimmune states also fall into the category of red flags: we’re going to have to decide whether it really is NMO or not? Dr. Weinshenker Actually, that used to be excluded by some people that if patients had systemic lupus or Sjögren's disease they were excluded, but we recognize that patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder have an excess of those other autoimmune diseases. We very frequently detect comorbid disease, so we actually say that, say, a diagnosis of lupus or Sjögren's actually increases the chances that his patient has neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder if they present, say, with optic neuritis or myelitis. The old literature was replete with patients who were described as having lupus myelitis. Actually the majority of those patients actually have comorbid neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. So it’s no longer an exclusionary criterion. MSDF There used to be a requirement for bilateral optic nerve involvement? Is that right? Has that gone by the wayside? Dr. Weinshenker Yes, this is before there were actually formal criteria, but yes, that was considered to be, say, a red flag that you might be dealing with neuromyelitis optica compared to standard MS. We recognize that that applies to a relatively small percentage of patients, so it doesn’t really appear in these current diagnostic criteria, but certainly it would not exclude it. And I would say that it does add to the suspicion that someone has neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder compared to MS. MSDF What about pediatric neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder? Dr. Weinshenker We did have several people, who were pediatrics experts, on our international panel and, in general, it was felt that the same criteria that we’ve applied to adults can be applied to children. We do recognize that certain brain syndromes are relatively more common in children, and there is one caveat, that is, in pediatric multiple sclerosis, sometimes patients will have long spinal cord lesions, and that’s one of the criteria that adds to the suspicion that somebody has NMO spectrum disorder as to MS. It may be somewhat less reliable in children. MSDF Is there any confounding or concern about ADEM in children? Dr. Weinshenker Well, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder can be associated with brain lesions that can be interpreted as ADEM. They can be large, tumefactive, extensive. Brain biopsy, which is not part of the criteria that we use for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, can sometimes differentiate ADEM – standard ADEM – from the ADEM-like lesions that occur in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, so yes, it can be a diagnostic problem. But generally speaking, if one relies on the other criteria – the presence of optic neuritis and myelitis, which can occur in both ADEM and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder – usually one can come to a clinical diagnosis. But there are some situations that can be confusing and occasionally additional tools, even brain biopsy, can be necessary to make a definitive diagnosis. MSDF If serologic testing is not available, do you still require the two other criteria to make the diagnosis? Dr. Weinshenker We propose that, for now, if serologic testing is not available – and there aren’t many places in the world where it’s strictly unavailable; it is offered worldwide – that you rely on the criteria for the seronegative and satisfy those criteria of seronegative NMO spectrum disorder. MSDF Are the criteria fairly straightforward that any neurologist up-to-speed can interpret them and use them clinically? Dr. Weinshenker Yes. We have designed these so that they can be used by neurologists in standard practice. Obviously, they don’t cover every single possibility, and there are complex patients where consultation will be necessary, but these are designed to be as good any diagnostic criteria can be. I think one has to realize that diagnostic criteria are for typical patients with conditions, and there are rare situations in difficult-to-interpret situations where one does need this kind of consultation. MSDF What about other historical terminology, and what kind of recommendations have you made vis-à-vis that? Dr. Weinshenker This has been a confusing element of the literature. For example, one term used in Asia, where it was recognized that you can have a relapsing condition that primarily targets the optic nerves and spinal cord was often referred to as Asian or Japanese opticospinal MS. And historically, this has been a very important contribution. I think our colleagues in Asia were the first to recognize that this relapsing condition was distinct from MS and may be something different, but the terminology was confusing. It was called opticospinal MS. Was this MS or something distinct from MS? And was it the same as neuromyelitis optica? And the panel felt that this term is no longer useful in clinical practice, and it doesn’t distinguish from multiple sclerosis. So it was felt all of those patients could be probably put into either the NMO spectrum disorder category or multiple sclerosis category, proposed that, for clinical practice, that terminology be eliminated. MSDF This is a good way to make the diagnoses, but it leads into the question of then what do you do? And next week’s podcast will focus on new clinical approaches to looking at NMO. [transition music] Thank you for listening to Episode Seventy of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Heather McDonald curated the MSDF drug database updates. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I’m Dan Keller. [outro music]

Full Transcript [intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Sixty-Seven of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller. We’ll hear from Neda Razaz, a doctoral candidate at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, on her research looking at what it means for child development when a parent has MS. The findings may help parents and health care professionals define strategies and services for children when needed.  First, let’s check out a few of the 70 new research papers we found in the last week. You cn see each week’s list of curated papers at msdiscovery.org. There’s a large and confusing cast of players in demyelinating diseases, such as MS and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. But if the central nervous system was a stage set in a spaghetti Western movie, at least everyone knows the bad guys wearing black hats would be the T cells, right? Hold your horses, say the German and U.S. authors of a review paper in the journal Trends in Immunology. New findings in the last year reframe the story. Some T cells wear white hats. In fact, the central nervous system may need T cells to limit opportunistic infection, inflammation, and damage. Some MS drugs may work by redirecting T cell behavior. Side effects of other MS drugs may come from blanket suppression of all T cells. Now is the time to cue the theme from the movie Jaws. In the history of life on Earth, the kind of myelin that researchers are trying to protect and restore in people with MS and related disorders first showed up in a family of shark-like fish and skates and rays. The first true myelin basic protein seems to have originated in this family of cartilaginous fish, called chondrichthyans, or their ancestors. This information comes from an article in a special issue on myelin evolution in the journal Brain Research. A third paper that caught our attention looks at modern myelin. Almost every cell in the body has little energy packs called mitochondria. That’s true with brain cells, including the oligodendrocytes that make the myelin membrane that wraps around axons. Researchers from Norway say they have shown, for the first time, mitochondria moving into the myelin wrap. They also report that oligodendrocyte mitochondria are smaller, slower, and move less often than those in astrocytes and neurons. Now, to our drug development database. The drugs with important updates this week are fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, interferon beta-1a, mitoxantrone, and natalizumab. One update summarizes a press release indicating that a generic version of fingolimod has been launched in Russia. [transition music] And now to our interview. The University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, has a strong program in MS. We spoke with several of their researchers at the ECTRIMS meeting in Barcelona last fall. Today Neda Razaz, a PhD candidate, fills us in on her work on the impact of living with a parent with MS on child development or wellbeing Interviewee – Neda Razaz I study a group of parents with MS and their children, and we actually use health administrative databases to capture our cohort of interest. Interviewer – Dan Keller And what were the outcomes of interest, and how did you assess them? Razaz So, for one particular study that was actually published recently, we were interested in child developmental outcome at kindergarten. So I used the Early Child development instrument, which is a routinely collected database by kindergarten teachers in their classroom. And the specific instrument measured children’s wellbeing from social, emotional, and physical wellbeing. And that was our outcome of interest for that particular study. MSDF What did you find? Razaz I actually found that children who have a parent with MS were doing as well as children without a parental MS, so having a parent with MS was not associated with adverse developmental outcome. MDSF Was any aspect of parental mental health associated with children’s outcomes? Razaz Actually, yes. In the study, when we did a sensitivity analysis, we found that, in parents who had mental health condition, children were at higher risk of developing some adverse developmental outcomes, specifically in their social and emotional domains of their development. MSDF Could you tell if these parental mental health aspects had anything to do with the MS Razaz We didn’t specifically look at that, but it is very well-known in the literature that mental health is highly associated with MS. So we kind of feel that it’s not the MS particular; it’s the comorbidities that come with MS that might have an impact on the child. MSDF Did it matter whether it was the father or the mother with the issues? Razaz We did look at gender specifics, and in one study we did find that having a father with MS who had a coexisting mental health morbidity was also having an impact on child developmental outcome. Specifically for the fathers, it was their emotional wellbeing. But, however, for most of our studies we probably didn’t have enough fathers to be able to see a meaningful difference. MSDF Could you get a handle on alcohol use? Razaz No, I – we didn’t specifically at that, no. MSDF In the case of maternal MS, did it matter whether the disease was present during pregnancy, or if it arose sometime later in childhood development? Razaz We didn’t specifically examine the timing of the maternal MS onset, so I can’t comment on that specifically, but our inclusion criteria was that MS had to occur some time before the child reached five years of age. And 60% of our MS cohort had their first onset of MS after their pregnancy MSDF Does that give you any clue into the child’s duration of exposure to these issues? Razaz We did look at that, and in one study we found that there was a significant association between the duration of the child’s exposure to parental MS and adverse developmental outcome. And I actually feel that’s a very important question, and I’m exploring this further in my future studies as well. MSDF Can you put this into context? How does it compare to parental issues in other diseases? Razaz Some of our findings are broadly consistent with other chronic illnesses and is actually a specific meta-analysis looking at children who have parents with medical illnesses found that, overall, these children higher rates of internalizing behavior such as anxiety, depression, compared to children who don’t have parents with MS. However, most of these studies, their study population were adolescents, and it’s kind of different from ours kindergarten-aged children. So that might explain some of the differences in the findings that we found. So maybe being that young, at age five, is too early to have any impacts. And also maybe the parents with MS, their disease is not as advanced MSDF Are you or someone else going to follow these children as they age?   Razaz I am interested in actually – you know, my future studies I would like to do a longitudinal study of following these children until older ages; so at least until the time they are 18, and see whether they have a different rates of mental health disorder compared to children who don’t have a parent with MS. I’m interested in, like, specifically living with a parent with a chronic illness. MSDF What are the implications of your findings, and can you make any recommendations? Razaz While other studies are needed to confirm our findings, we believe that health professional need to be aware of the effect of mental health morbidity that is commonly associated with MS and its impact on their families. And we believe that mental illness such as anxiety and depression among MS patients should suggest the need for appropriate support for their children, because these children seem to be at higher risk of having some adverse developmental outcomes. MSDF What have we missed or is important to add? Razaz So I just want to say that these studies represent the first important steps in making a difference in MS. We are describing and exploring association, however; we and others in the field need to know if intervention at any way can make a real difference in the lives of parents and their kids. MSDF Whom would the intervention involve? Razaz The intervention should be family-centered intervention, having the MS patient and also the other parent and other children in the household. So it shouldn’t be individualistic, and it should be the whole family as well. MSDF Very good! I appreciate it. Thanks. Razaz Thank you very much. MSDF Two months after this interview, in late December, the findings were published in the journal Multiple Sclerosis. The paper is free and open to non-subscribers, and you can find a link to it on the podcast page on msdiscovery.org. There you can also find links to be papers and drug development database. [transition music] MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Sixty-Seven of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Heather McDonald curated the MSDF drug database updates. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller. [outro music]

[intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Sixty-Three of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the Podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller. We’ve just passed the winter solstice. What better time than the shortest daylight hours of the year to check in with research at the University of British Columbia on sunlight and MS? Today we talk with Dr. Helen Tremlett who is exploring sun exposure over a person’s life course and how that syncs with their MS risk and disease course. In the weekly papers section on the MS Discovery Forum, this week’s list includes nearly 150 newly published research reports that could lead to better understanding and treatment of MS and related disorders. We selected four papers as editor’s picks. In one paper, researchers think they may have the first experimental evidence that MS may start with damage or loss of myelin-making cells in the brain and spinal cord. In this new mouse model of progressive MS, experimentally damaged brain cells make it hard for the mice to walk. The mice recover when their brain cells repair on their own. Six months later, the MS-like disease returns. In the study, the team showed that nanoparticles targeting the autoimmune reaction prevent the second phase of the disease. The study shows support for an “inside-out” model of MS. That’s different from the “outside-in” model, in which some aspect about the immune system goes wrong and then initiates the attack on myelin-making cells. The paper is published in Nature Neuroscience by collaborating researchers from Northwestern University and the University of Chicago. To grow and be healthy, all human cells need a signaling molecule named mTOR, named for the mammalian target of rapamycin. That’s true for myelin-making cells, or oligodendrocytes, as listeners may remember from an earlier podcast interview with Dr. Wendy Macklin. The ability to make myelin seems to depend on a key part known as mTOR complex 1, also called its raptor subunit. In a very basic advance, scientists have determined the atomic architecture of the raptor, or mTORC1, piece. The details are reported in the journal Science and provide a structural basis for studying mTORC1 function. In another editor’s pick, a review of cases of pediatric neuromyelitis optica, or NMO, showed that new international diagnostic guidelines applied well to children. Unfortunately, they also found that children with NMO have delayed treatment and worse short-term outcomes compared to those with MS. The authors urged immediate adoption of the guidelines to select the best treatment and improve outcomes. In the fourth editor’s pick, researchers found a potential new target to protect axons in a mouse model of neurodegeneration in multiple sclerosis. The target is a pore in the mitochondria, the cellular battery that provides energy. They designed a molecule to block the pore and showed it helped protect neurons and improved the mice’s mobility, all with minimal immunosuppression. The paper by mostly UK researchers is published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry. Now, let’s take a look at the latest Drug Development Pipeline updates. The drugs with important additions and changes are dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, and rituximab. One update reflects findings from post-hoc analysis of clinical trial data showing that the positive effects of fingolimod are apparent quite soon –within months – after initiation of treatment. [transition music] And now to our interview. I spoke with Professor Helen Tremlett, Canada research chair in neuroepidemiology and multiple sclerosis at the University of British Columbia when we were at the ECTRIMS conference in Barcelona in October. She has been studying sun exposure over the course of the lifetime and its relation to MS risk. While MS may affect an individual's likelihood to go out in the sun, studies may also need to consider the influence of sun exposure before the disease develops. Interviewer – Dan Keller What are you doing in this area? Interviewee – Helen Tremlett So I was presenting at ECTRIMS yesterday on a really interesting study based out of the Nurses' Health Study, and this was a collaboration from my group in Vancouver and Harvard School of Public Health; and that's Alberto Ascherio's group and Sandy Munger. So we were looking at sun exposure over the life course and associations with multiple sclerosis. So here we were looking at both aspects of the spectrum, if you can imagine; we were looking at sun exposure and future risk of multiple sclerosis, but also once an individual has developed multiple sclerosis, we were looking at the impact that potentially has on an individual in terms of their propensity to go outdoors in the daylight hours, outdoors in the sun. MSDF Right. So it may be the cart is before the horse in that sense; not that sun exposure is causing it, but their disability is causing less sun exposure? Dr. Tremlett We were looking at both sides of the equation. And I think it is important, particularly in a disease such as MS where onset of MS is a little bit fuzzy, I think, to look at sun exposure of the life course is important, and certainly our findings are indicating that. Because you want to know sunlight exposure in MS risk, but you also want to know, once someone's developed multiple sclerosis, how that influences their behavior outdoors and what implications that has if you're then trying to design the study to look at what causes MS. You need to be really careful who you recruit, because if that person has already changed their behavior, then that may influence your findings, and you're not then actually looking at what causes MS at all, you're just looking at a consequence of the disease. So I guess that's the first part of why we wanted to do that. And the second part is if having MS, if having a chronic condition, does influence your propensity or ability or desire to go outside, what consequence could that have for your health in terms of maybe your serum vitamin D levels or your melatonin levels, and that may have a consequence in terms of long-term health. MSDF You segmented people by where they were and at what ages. Dr. Tremlett It was pretty interesting. So, first of all, over ages 5 to 15, we found there that there was a 48% lower risk of MS for women living in high, relative to low, ambient UVB areas during their sort of childhood and early adolescent years. So that was pretty interesting. But we found, kind of to our surprise because it goes against other studies that are out there, we found that time spent outdoors in summer or winter wasn't significantly associated with MS risk in that age group, 5 to 15 years. But what we didn't realize is that it wasn't until we combined that outdoor behavior with the UVB, then we could see that there was an association. So we found that less time spent outdoors in summer in low ambient UVB areas—that was associated with a two-fold increased risk of multiple sclerosis. That was an important step for us; I mean, it might, you know, sound obvious to combine those two, but it was an important step because other studies in smaller geographical areas such as Tasmania, or there's a study out of Norway in a small region of Norway, they can find an association between time spent outdoors in summer/winter and MS risk. But I think we couldn't find it in the US, because the US is at such a diversity of latitudes – the study spanned over 14 US states – so it wasn't until we looked at that outdoor behavior in context of ambient UVB that we could find the association. And then, I suppose, our next step was to look at outdoor behavior over the life course. And this was really interesting, that we found some avoidance behavior was apparent in later life in multiple sclerosis. And maybe that comes as no surprise to people, but I think our numbers are interesting to put a concrete figure on it. So, for instance, by age 50, our MS cases were 60% less likely to report high relative to low outdoor exposure compared to controls, and that was in winter and in summer. So the bottom line is people with MS, once they have MS, are not going outside as much, so they're not getting that UVB exposure, so potentially they're not making that vitamin D and serum vitamin D. And then the winter exposure's important as well, because potentially they're not getting the same melatonin production and inhibition, and that may have a really important role in terms of immunology, the circadian rhythm and your sleep cycle, which, again, all knocks back into overall health and immunology of MS. And there have been some presentations actually at this conference looking into melatonin and its association with relapses in MS, and that's pretty interesting. MSDF There's even some emerging thought that sleep is essential for good brain function in terms of taking out the garbage – glymphatics and things like that. So melatonin disturbances may actually have some further consequences in an inflammatory brain disease. Dr. Tremlett And there's some interesting studies, not that we did but others have done, looking at shift work and risk of MS. And shift work may be associated with increased risk of MS. Maybe melatonin ties into that as well. MSDF Is there also potentially an effect, besides on vitamin D and melatonin, that sun exposure itself has an effect on the immune system, maybe suppressing it? Dr. Tremlett Yeah, modulating it in some way. No, absolutely. We don't really know the mechanism. I mean, the obvious one would be sun on human skin at the right time of year on the right skin color can result in really high levels of serum vitamin D being produced. Sunlight exposure the minute it actually hits the skin surface can have a direct immunomodulatory effect. And then, obvious, sun hitting the eye. Melatonin is one of the pathways in there that may then impact the immune system. MSDF Is it possible to make any conclusions or even recommendations at this point? Dr. Tremlett No. It's an observational study, and we do actually need to do more analysis on this group of individuals. The main recommendations we could make from this study is informing how to design future studies, and also two things you could take from this in terms of recommendations. First of all, we saw sun avoidance behavior in individuals once they've developed multiple sclerosis. That's really important because it really means that if you want to look at what is causing MS, do not take serum vitamin D levels or look at skin cancer risk, for instance, in individuals who already have MS, because they've already changed in compare to controls, adding further somehow differences are related to what causes MS, because these individuals have already changed their behavior because they've got a chronic disease. So that's the first statement, which might be a no-brainer for some people, but it's amazing how many studies are still published like that in the MS literature at the moment. And I suppose the second piece is trying to understand if we are going to do an interventional study, what time period in an individual's life or within a population do you need to target in order to change the course and prevent the disease from occurring? And we're trying to understand that more, looking beyond the window age 5 to 15, look more into adulthood to see if ambient UVB is associated with MS risk later in life and into adulthood. And others have shown that there does seem to be an association even into adulthood, which is exciting because if you do want to do an intervention study, then you haven't necessarily missed the boat because you've not intervened during childhood. But, I mean, the real question is how do you intervene and what with? And that's another topic in itself. MSDF We'll leave that for another day. Thank you. Dr. Tremlett Thank you very much. [transition music] Next week, we'll continue our discussion with Professor Tremlett when she'll talk about her preliminary studies on pediatric MS patients and their gut microbiomes. Until then, thank you for listening to Episode Sixty-Three of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This Podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Heather McDonald curated the MSDF drug database updates. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller. [outro music]

[intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Sixty-Three of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the Podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller. We’ve just passed the winter solstice. What better time than the shortest daylight hours of the year to check in with research at the University of British Columbia on sunlight and MS? Today we talk with Dr. Helen Tremlett who is exploring sun exposure over a person’s life course and how that syncs with their MS risk and disease course. In the weekly papers section on the MS Discovery Forum, this week’s list includes nearly 150 newly published research reports that could lead to better understanding and treatment of MS and related disorders. We selected four papers as editor’s picks. In one paper, researchers think they may have the first experimental evidence that MS may start with damage or loss of myelin-making cells in the brain and spinal cord. In this new mouse model of progressive MS, experimentally damaged brain cells make it hard for the mice to walk. The mice recover when their brain cells repair on their own. Six months later, the MS-like disease returns. In the study, the team showed that nanoparticles targeting the autoimmune reaction prevent the second phase of the disease. The study shows support for an “inside-out” model of MS. That’s different from the “outside-in” model, in which some aspect about the immune system goes wrong and then initiates the attack on myelin-making cells. The paper is published in Nature Neuroscience by collaborating researchers from Northwestern University and the University of Chicago. To grow and be healthy, all human cells need a signaling molecule named mTOR, named for the mammalian target of rapamycin. That’s true for myelin-making cells, or oligodendrocytes, as listeners may remember from an earlier podcast interview with Dr. Wendy Macklin. The ability to make myelin seems to depend on a key part known as mTOR complex 1, also called its raptor subunit. In a very basic advance, scientists have determined the atomic architecture of the raptor, or mTORC1, piece. The details are reported in the journal Science and provide a structural basis for studying mTORC1 function. In another editor’s pick, a review of cases of pediatric neuromyelitis optica, or NMO, showed that new international diagnostic guidelines applied well to children. Unfortunately, they also found that children with NMO have delayed treatment and worse short-term outcomes compared to those with MS. The authors urged immediate adoption of the guidelines to select the best treatment and improve outcomes. In the fourth editor’s pick, researchers found a potential new target to protect axons in a mouse model of neurodegeneration in multiple sclerosis. The target is a pore in the mitochondria, the cellular battery that provides energy. They designed a molecule to block the pore and showed it helped protect neurons and improved the mice’s mobility, all with minimal immunosuppression. The paper by mostly UK researchers is published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry. Now, let’s take a look at the latest Drug Development Pipeline updates. The drugs with important additions and changes are dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, and rituximab. One update reflects findings from post-hoc analysis of clinical trial data showing that the positive effects of fingolimod are apparent quite soon –within months – after initiation of treatment. [transition music] And now to our interview. I spoke with Professor Helen Tremlett, Canada research chair in neuroepidemiology and multiple sclerosis at the University of British Columbia when we were at the ECTRIMS conference in Barcelona in October. She has been studying sun exposure over the course of the lifetime and its relation to MS risk. While MS may affect an individual's likelihood to go out in the sun, studies may also need to consider the influence of sun exposure before the disease develops. Interviewer – Dan Keller What are you doing in this area? Interviewee – Helen Tremlett So I was presenting at ECTRIMS yesterday on a really interesting study based out of the Nurses' Health Study, and this was a collaboration from my group in Vancouver and Harvard School of Public Health; and that's Alberto Ascherio's group and Sandy Munger. So we were looking at sun exposure over the life course and associations with multiple sclerosis. So here we were looking at both aspects of the spectrum, if you can imagine; we were looking at sun exposure and future risk of multiple sclerosis, but also once an individual has developed multiple sclerosis, we were looking at the impact that potentially has on an individual in terms of their propensity to go outdoors in the daylight hours, outdoors in the sun. MSDF Right. So it may be the cart is before the horse in that sense; not that sun exposure is causing it, but their disability is causing less sun exposure? Dr. Tremlett We were looking at both sides of the equation. And I think it is important, particularly in a disease such as MS where onset of MS is a little bit fuzzy, I think, to look at sun exposure of the life course is important, and certainly our findings are indicating that. Because you want to know sunlight exposure in MS risk, but you also want to know, once someone's developed multiple sclerosis, how that influences their behavior outdoors and what implications that has if you're then trying to design the study to look at what causes MS. You need to be really careful who you recruit, because if that person has already changed their behavior, then that may influence your findings, and you're not then actually looking at what causes MS at all, you're just looking at a consequence of the disease. So I guess that's the first part of why we wanted to do that. And the second part is if having MS, if having a chronic condition, does influence your propensity or ability or desire to go outside, what consequence could that have for your health in terms of maybe your serum vitamin D levels or your melatonin levels, and that may have a consequence in terms of long-term health. MSDF You segmented people by where they were and at what ages. Dr. Tremlett It was pretty interesting. So, first of all, over ages 5 to 15, we found there that there was a 48% lower risk of MS for women living in high, relative to low, ambient UVB areas during their sort of childhood and early adolescent years. So that was pretty interesting. But we found, kind of to our surprise because it goes against other studies that are out there, we found that time spent outdoors in summer or winter wasn't significantly associated with MS risk in that age group, 5 to 15 years. But what we didn't realize is that it wasn't until we combined that outdoor behavior with the UVB, then we could see that there was an association. So we found that less time spent outdoors in summer in low ambient UVB areas—that was associated with a two-fold increased risk of multiple sclerosis. That was an important step for us; I mean, it might, you know, sound obvious to combine those two, but it was an important step because other studies in smaller geographical areas such as Tasmania, or there's a study out of Norway in a small region of Norway, they can find an association between time spent outdoors in summer/winter and MS risk. But I think we couldn't find it in the US, because the US is at such a diversity of latitudes – the study spanned over 14 US states – so it wasn't until we looked at that outdoor behavior in context of ambient UVB that we could find the association. And then, I suppose, our next step was to look at outdoor behavior over the life course. And this was really interesting, that we found some avoidance behavior was apparent in later life in multiple sclerosis. And maybe that comes as no surprise to people, but I think our numbers are interesting to put a concrete figure on it. So, for instance, by age 50, our MS cases were 60% less likely to report high relative to low outdoor exposure compared to controls, and that was in winter and in summer. So the bottom line is people with MS, once they have MS, are not going outside as much, so they're not getting that UVB exposure, so potentially they're not making that vitamin D and serum vitamin D. And then the winter exposure's important as well, because potentially they're not getting the same melatonin production and inhibition, and that may have a really important role in terms of immunology, the circadian rhythm and your sleep cycle, which, again, all knocks back into overall health and immunology of MS. And there have been some presentations actually at this conference looking into melatonin and its association with relapses in MS, and that's pretty interesting. MSDF There's even some emerging thought that sleep is essential for good brain function in terms of taking out the garbage – glymphatics and things like that. So melatonin disturbances may actually have some further consequences in an inflammatory brain disease. Dr. Tremlett And there's some interesting studies, not that we did but others have done, looking at shift work and risk of MS. And shift work may be associated with increased risk of MS. Maybe melatonin ties into that as well. MSDF Is there also potentially an effect, besides on vitamin D and melatonin, that sun exposure itself has an effect on the immune system, maybe suppressing it? Dr. Tremlett Yeah, modulating it in some way. No, absolutely. We don't really know the mechanism. I mean, the obvious one would be sun on human skin at the right time of year on the right skin color can result in really high levels of serum vitamin D being produced. Sunlight exposure the minute it actually hits the skin surface can have a direct immunomodulatory effect. And then, obvious, sun hitting the eye. Melatonin is one of the pathways in there that may then impact the immune system. MSDF Is it possible to make any conclusions or even recommendations at this point? Dr. Tremlett No. It's an observational study, and we do actually need to do more analysis on this group of individuals. The main recommendations we could make from this study is informing how to design future studies, and also two things you could take from this in terms of recommendations. First of all, we saw sun avoidance behavior in individuals once they've developed multiple sclerosis. That's really important because it really means that if you want to look at what is causing MS, do not take serum vitamin D levels or look at skin cancer risk, for instance, in individuals who already have MS, because they've already changed in compare to controls, adding further somehow differences are related to what causes MS, because these individuals have already changed their behavior because they've got a chronic disease. So that's the first statement, which might be a no-brainer for some people, but it's amazing how many studies are still published like that in the MS literature at the moment. And I suppose the second piece is trying to understand if we are going to do an interventional study, what time period in an individual's life or within a population do you need to target in order to change the course and prevent the disease from occurring? And we're trying to understand that more, looking beyond the window age 5 to 15, look more into adulthood to see if ambient UVB is associated with MS risk later in life and into adulthood. And others have shown that there does seem to be an association even into adulthood, which is exciting because if you do want to do an intervention study, then you haven't necessarily missed the boat because you've not intervened during childhood. But, I mean, the real question is how do you intervene and what with? And that's another topic in itself. MSDF We'll leave that for another day. Thank you. Dr. Tremlett Thank you very much. [transition music] Next week, we'll continue our discussion with Professor Tremlett when she'll talk about her preliminary studies on pediatric MS patients and their gut microbiomes. Until then, thank you for listening to Episode Sixty-Three of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This Podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Heather McDonald curated the MSDF drug database updates. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller. [outro music]

[intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Sixty-One of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the Podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller. In this podcast, Dr. Yanming Wang of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, discusses a solution to the vexing problem of how to track changes in myelin in the brain and spinal cord, a measurement believed to be especially important for new candidate drugs to restore this insulating sheathing around axons. First, here are some new items in the MS Discovery Forum. A new data visualization showcases the collaborations among authors who published papers reporting the results of clinical trials in progressive forms of multiple sclerosis in the last 30 years. You can find the network map on msdiscovery.org under “Research Resources.” You can mouse over circles in the graphic to find researchers' names. Click and drag the circles to animate the map and reveal connections. In research news, a Swedish team took the first steps toward finding potential disease markers in the immune cells of asymptomatic people with MS and with seasonal allergies. The study pinpointed three key proteins that may transform normally protective T cells into ones that attack myelin in the case of MS. The three proteins are transcription factors, which glom on to DNA and control which genes turn on and off. According to data from genome studies, the proteins are more common in genetic regions associated with disease, strengthening the case for their role in MS. Finally, the three proteins act differently in people with immune-related diseases, including multiple sclerosis, according to tests on blood samples. Ultimately, the researchers want to learn if they can detect multiple sclerosis and other autoimmune conditions much earlier. [transition music] And now to our interview. MSDF caught up with Dr. Yanming Wang last month at the 2015 World Congress of Neurology meeting in Santiago, Chile. We discussed his solution to what has been a missing link in MS research and practice; that is, how to image myelin -- not just lesions on an MRI, but how to tag the substance itself using a biomarker for molecular imaging called M-E-D-A-S, or "mee-das." Going beyond diagnosis, Dr. Wang told us it may eventually allow clinicians to get a better handle on disease progression and efficacy of treatments. Interviewer – Dan Keller You had referred to molecular imaging of myelin as the missing link. Why is this the missing link? Interviewee – Yanming Wang Because molecular imaging has really transformed how we practice medicine today, and it has become a standard care for virtually many neurological diseases. However, in multiple sclerosis, there's still no effective imaging technique in place that can help physicians to monitor not just for diagnosis, but also to monitor the disease progression. MSDF And would this be useful also in monitoring potential therapies? Dr. Wang Exactly. There's a lack of imaging technique that allow people to monitor the drug efficacy, particularly for those drugs that try to repair the myelin damage in the CNS. MSDF How would this differ from MRI imaging, what you see there, versus having a radioactive biomarker? Dr. Wang Currently, MRI is the commonly used imaging modality in MS, however MRI provides only anatomical information and also detect brain lesions. However, those lesions detected on MRI are not specific for myelin pathology. MSDF You do have a compound now, [11C]MeDAS, which would be specific for myelin. Is that right, is it very specific for myelin? Dr. Wang Exactly. It's very specific for myelin, because the advantage it has over MRI is that that is truly a molecular imaging modality which uses myelin-specific radiotracers that allow to quantitatively monitor the myelin damage and myelin distribution in the brain. So for this reason, we developed a specific radiotracer that can selectively bind to myelin with high affinity, so that we could directly image the myelin distribution. MSDF How quickly does it reach the CNS and you can image? Dr. Wang It takes minutes, literally, for the radiotracer to penetrate the BBB and enter the brain, and then the whole process takes only 60 minutes. MSDF Can you briefly describe your rat model where you're using lysolecithin as an MS model, and then what you did with your marker? Dr. Wang Lysolecithin model is an established model of focal demyelination in the brain, so we used that model to test our compounds to monitor the demyelination and remyelination. So after injection of MeDAS, the compounds could readily enter the brain and selectively bind to the myelin. And then at the peak of the disease, which is a peak of the demyelination, the brain uptake of the compounds is lowest, versus when the brain is recovered, then the brain uptake of the compounds is increased. So this demonstrated the in vivo specificity of the radiotracer for myelin. MSDF And you can image myelin on the way down and on the way up; you have this hepatocyte growth factor which causes some remyelination? Dr. Wang Right, exactly. In collaboration with my colleague, Bob Miller. So we'd use this imaging modality to see if we can monitor the drug efficacy for remyelination. So we'd give this HGF, which is a growth factor that promotes remyelination, and then we could use this imaging technique just to monitor the increase of remyelination after the drug treatment. MSDF Everything right now is in animals. Do you have plans for any human trials? Dr. Wang Yes, we are working on this paperwork required by FDA to put these compounds in humans. MSDF Is the compound so far nontoxic; it's diamino stilbene, is that right? Does it have any estrogenic effects or other toxic effects? Dr. Wang No. We have done systematic toxicity studies and there's any adverse effects in animal models so far. MSDF What do you see as the clinical utility of this if it enters the human realm? Dr. Wang It's going to be a very powerful tool for diagnosis and prognosis, and also particularly for evaluation of drug efficacy. As you know, currently pharmaceutical companies and academic investigators are all trying to develop new drugs that can repair myelin damage in order to restore the biological functions. However, there's a lack of imaging tools in place that allow them to monitor such myelin repair therapies, and this could provide the missing link for this endeavor. MSDF Does PET imaging with this compound correlate at all with what's seen on MRI, especially in a kinetic sense following time course? Dr. Wang Well, yes. In the wonderful publication in Annual Neurology a couple years ago, we did demonstrate that this PET imaging technique can be used as an imaging marker that correlates with the disease progression in terms of the severity of the symptoms in animal models, in the EAE models. The EAE rat, for example, its appearance, the relapsing or remitting stage, and that we could use this imaging marker to correlate nicely with the symptoms. And this is one of important application if we put this into clinical use. MSDF Is this compound the end-all and be-all, or are you developing others, or have some gone by the wayside for various reasons? Dr. Wang This compound, and also this imaging technique, could be used not just only in MS, but can also be used in many other neurological diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injury, and stroke, for example, because all of these neurological diseases are associated to some degree with the myelin damage. MSDF Have we missed anything important, anything to add? Dr. Wang Again, I think the imaging technique, particularly molecular imaging technique based on positron emission tomography, is lagged behind in the field of neurological diseases because of the complexities of the brain and the lack of molecular probes that could advance our understanding, also facilitate the drug discovery. MSDF I appreciate it. Thank you. Dr. Wang Oh, thank you very much then. [transition music] MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Sixty-One of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This Podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Heather McDonald curated the MSDF drug database updates. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller. [outro music]

[intro music]  Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Fifty-Nine of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller. In our previous podcast, you heard about a group of leading MS researchers and clinicians calling for a big change in improving care for people with MS. The new report, called Brain Health – Time Matters in MS, makes the case for a therapeutic strategy to minimize disease activity. The report advises early diagnosis and treatment, and regular monitoring of disease activity. The report urges patients, physicians, health care payers, and policy makers to support the goal of life-long brain health. In this podcast, another one of the report authors, Dr. Helmut Butzkueven, talks about what the new treatment target means for patients and their doctors in the real world. This is one of our extra podcasts from the big MS meeting in Barcelona talking about ways that evidence from research can be translated now into better MS outcomes But first, here are some new items in the MS Discovery Forum. Every week, MSDF lists the latest scientific papers on MS and related disorders, with links to the abstracts on PubMed. Of more than 110 new studies published last week, we selected three as editor’s picks. MS has been traditionally viewed as a T cell–driven disease, but a new paper from Canadian researchers introduces another villain—a rogue type of B cell in people with MS that may fuel inflammation in two ways. This may be why general B cell depletion seems to work so well in MS and may lead to more targeted treatments. In a new twist on dietary fat and autoimmune disease, German researchers report that certain fats work through gut microbes to exert both good and bad effects. In mice, they found certain fats were protective against inflammatory fats. They have moved on to testing in healthy humans and hope to study the impact in people with MS. A cost-effectiveness study from Spain says do not judge a drug by its price alone. Glatiramer acetate may be more expensive than interferon-beta, but fewer relapses and reduced spasticity may make it more cost effective. Interesting, but you can be sure this fuller economic look will not be the last word on drug costs. [transition music] And now to our interview with Dr. Helmut Butzkueven, who directs the MS services at the Royal Melbourne Hospital and the Box Hill Hospital in Melbourne, Australia. We spoke with him at the recent European Committee for Treatment and Research in MS, or ECTRIMS, meeting in Barcelona about the Brain Health report that was launched at the meeting. The main thrust of the report – aimed at the broad MS community – is that time matters in MS. The report lays out several goals to maximize brain health over the lifetime. A critical one is early intervention. Interviewee – Helmut Butzkueven We know that early disease activity sets up long-term problems. However, early disease activity is often relatively silent to the eye. It’s not silent to the eye of the MRI machine and other monitoring tools that we have. So we would like clinicians and patients, not actually just in early disease, but starting right from the start to have a proactive monitoring approach to jointly assess their disease activity and take action if things are not going well. Interviewer – Dan Keller How much of an emergency is it? If someone finds out they have a cancer diagnosis, they rush to a surgeon, oftentimes. If they find out they have high cholesterol, they might take a year or two to decide to get on a statin. So what’s the time frame we’re talking about here? Dr. Butzkueven I think the appropriate time frame to think about is months, actually. We think that an MRI scan should be performed approximately every 12 months to assess disease activity, to assess how your current treatment is performing. So it’s not seconds or minutes; thankfully, multiple sclerosis isn’t exactly like an acute stroke or a heart attack. But it’s also not a time, particularly early in the disease when you could be setting up these kind of strategies, to just leave people be. We need to, when we first see patients, articulate our monitoring goals. MSDF And how quickly should someone, when they’re referred and there’s a putative diagnosis, get that scan initially? Dr. Butzkueven As soon as possible. I mean, scans are crucial, obviously, for diagnosis – accurate diagnosis, as well as for setting up the monitoring phase, because the first scan can then be compared to the next scan, and so on. MSDF What other goals are there for treatment and management? Dr. Butzkueven The key things that we want to really focus on, apart from what we’ve already discussed which is early diagnosis and articulating a treatment and monitoring plan to maximize brain health, is a joint approach. So for people with MS and doctors to both be empowered to jointly manage the disease. So this includes, of course, increasing consultation time, giving people time to discuss their MS with their managing team. I think this kind of move away from paternalistic medicine, to empowering patients to be part of the management process to self-manage is hugely important. That’s just in step with the modern world. The other thing is more indirect. Across the world, we face huge differences in access to disease-modifying drugs. Some of us living in the United States and Australia in Germany, Switzerland are luckier than others. And we really need to provide evidence to government that disease-modifying drugs are worth funding. MSDF Or else what happens? Dr. Butzkueven Else people, and ultimately governments, incur the costs of markedly worse disability. MSDF To empower patients takes certain knowledge and, I suppose, permissions or rapport with the physician. And to empower the physician, I suppose, takes knowledge, evidence, consult. So are these two different things? Do they move in parallel, but they require different activity? Dr. Butzkueven Yes, they do. Of course they do. To some extent, changing practice in an interaction can come from either side of the interacting party, but certainly patients, on the whole, probably need to be more demanding. They need to have access to evidence, and I’m going to say something controversial, to actually help assess the clinical care that they are receiving. So people should say, for example, if this report, the evidence suggests that perhaps we should be doing something else. What do you think? Physicians, as I said, need to be strongly encouraged to have a priori a specific plan. If you were someone with MS, and we saw you for the first time in our clinic, we should be telling you what the goals are. We should be telling you what our scheme of monitoring is going to be to maximize your outcome, to maximize your brain health. MSDF What kind of a role can longitudinal databases play in changing policy? Dr. Butzkueven They’re really the only source of long-term data. MS is a disease which you’re going to have for decades, once you’re diagnosed with it, and it likely will cause you and your government very significant costs over that time. But those costs can only be measured if we measure those outcomes, and the only way to really measure them is longitudinally. So databases embedded in the real-world healthcare collecting just a minimum of information on as many MS patients as possible can be enormously powerful, doing the sums in the first place, actually understanding how much disability there is; how much can be prevented with appropriate treatment strategies; and, dare I say it, how much money government could save. MSDF MRIs are now a powerful tool. Other medical specialties have had all sorts of invasive measures in the past. You could take biopsies of skin, breast, prostate, liver. You never had an assessment tool this powerful, but now this one is fairly noninvasive. It’s completely noninvasive. What can it tell you? I mean, people look for lesions, but there’s much more to be derived. Dr. Butzkueven Yes, of course. Lesions is still a key outcome, but the other thing is brain shrinkage – brain atrophy. So we, increasingly, understand that people who are experiencing significant brain loss – brain tissue loss – early in their MS will do worse, in the long-term. So here we have another target for monitoring. And people might say, well, I do an MRI scan, but there are no lesion changes reported. There’s no volume changes reported. But this world is changing rapidly. Image recognition analysis tools are advancing very quickly. I predict, within two or three years, routine MRI will actually spit out these metrics for us. At the moment, a lot of reporting, unfortunately, in the world is still what we would call qualitative rather than quantitative. But we’re going to start seeing those numbers, and we need to be ready to act on them. MSDF How much faster does the brain, in an MS patient without treatment, atrophy or lose volume compared to an age-matched control? Dr. Butzkueven So this is a question that I can answer in two ways, I think, to illustrate the concept. I could say it’s five to seven times faster. What I’m talking about there is averages, medians if you like. What I should be saying is that it could be anything. Your trajectory, as an MS patient, could be exactly within the normal range, I mean, sadly – particularly over the age of 30 – all of us lose a bit of brain volume a year: 0.3%, 0.4%. In MS, that could be your trajectory, and that would be fantastic. On the other hand, you could the person losing 3%, 4% – 10 times, 15 times normal. And we could pick that within a year or two, and that is the time to intervene, not when that ultimately results five, six, ten years later in progressive disease. MSDF You’ve made the analogy of managing MS to a new car and its warranty. Can you tell me about that? Dr. Butzkueven I was really just trying to say that plans for keeping things well, keeping things in shape, are quite prominent in society. So this analogy is simple. You buy a new car. What you get with it is a service book. The service book gives you a plan for managing your car. At 6 months, there’ll be a little tire change, oil change; 12 months there’ll be a major service, and so on. And the thing is, as a customer, I mean, you buy the car. It’s already there. It’s the same thing. We want clinicians and patients to demand and to deliver a plan. This is how we’re going monitor your MS to maximize the health of your brain. MSDF So this is your 6 month service. This is your 12 month service. Dr. Butzkueven Exactly. So, for example, in might be we will see you every 6 months, and we’ll do a neurological examination. We might do a particular cognitive test. We will do a repeat MRI scan, ideally on the same machine, once a year. We will be looking for the following: we will take action if things are going badly. If things are going well, then we’re reassured. But we need people with MS to demand this, and we need clinicians to deliver these plans. MSDF I don’t mean to make light of the situation of having the disease, but I think people respond well to something they already know, like a service plan. Dr. Butzkueven Yes, sure. I guess that’s why I’m using that analogy. Maybe we should say we need a service plan for MS. MSDF Is there anything we’ve missed or important to add? Dr. Butzkueven Nothing. We’ve covered the key recommendations of the report: access to early diagnosis, consideration of early treatment, a service plan, empowerment of people with MS to actually have accurate information, and being empowered in shared decision-making, and finally, the health economics situation, powered by clinicians – more and more clinicians – collecting long-term outcomes data on people with MS. MSDF And the Brain Health report is freely available, and we will link to it. I appreciate it. Thank you. Dr. Butzkueven It’s a pleasure. Thank you for talking with me. [transition music] MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Fifty-Nine of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Heather McDonald curated the MSDF drug database updates. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller. [outro music]

[intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode 58 of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller. A group of people are calling for a big change in improving care for people with MS. There may be no cure for MS yet, but there are a lot of ways to improve their outcomes. In this podcast, one of the ringleaders, Dr. Gavin Giovannoni, talks about a new push to use long-term brain health as a goal in MS treatment. The new report, called Brain Health, makes the point that time matters in MS. The authors draw on more than 300 research studies to show evidence that brain tissue can be preserved with early and effective treatment, and regular monitoring of disease activity. The report urges patients, physicians, health care payers, and policy makers to support the goal of life-long brain health. This podcast gives you the main take-home points from the Brain Health initiative, launched at the recent MS meeting in Barcelona, Spain. We will have extra podcasts for you in the coming weeks about other ways that evidence from research can be translated now into better MS outcomes. But first, here are some new items in the MS Discovery Forum. In the discussion section, a team of graduate students wants to hear from people with MS and their families. The team is from Santa Clara University, located in the heart of Silicon Valley in California. They have a class project to design a software product to assist people impacted by MS. Help them out by completing their survey. Coming up on our meetings and events list is next week’s World Congress of Neurology in Santiago, Chile. MSDF will be there gathering new podcast interviews. If you, too, will be at the conference and would like to meet with us – or if you’re interested in being interviewed about your research for a future podcast – please email us at editor@msdiscovery.org. The meeting list includes many specialty conferences and seminars of all the different kinds of scientific expertise that goes into understanding MS, from immunology to myelin biology, genetics, and brain and spinal cord imaging. Please add your meetings, workshops, and seminars. This is just one of the ways that MSDF shares information across the many different specialty areas to advance treatments for MS. Help us by adding other MS-research-related events. It’s free to post. Our Drug-Development Pipeline contains 44 investigational and approved agents for MS. Last week, we added results from one new trial, we updated subject matter from four other trials, and we added eight other pieces of information to the database. One update summarizes findings gathered from a 15-year follow-up visit for participants in the PRISMS interferon beta-1a trial. [transition music] And now to our interview with Dr. Gavin Giovannoni, head of neurology at Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry in the U.K. We spoke with him at the recent European Committee for Treatment and Research in MS, or ECTRIMS, meeting in Barcelona about the Brain Health report that was launched at the meeting. The main thrust of the report – aimed at a broad audience of MS community members – is that time matters in MS. Interviewer – Dan Keller In terms of the Brain Health report, can you give me a broad overview of what the intent was and what you hope to accomplish? Interviewee – Gavin Giovannoni I mean, the real issue is to try to raise awareness and use it as a platform for trying to get policy changed. And the target audience is just the MS community, as well as health care providers, payers, politicians, etc. And one of the things we’re beginning to realize now as we have more effective therapies, and we begin to learn more about MS, is that we are compromising the health of our patients by not treating them quickly enough or manage them quickly enough. I mean, there are large delays in patients being diagnosed, getting access to treatment, and when they’re on treatment, they’re not being monitored actively. And there’s now emerging data that if you’re on a therapy, and you’ve got ongoing disease activity, you don’t do very well in the long-term. So the idea is to try and encourage people to treat to a target, monitor, and escalate rapidly. So it’s really trying not to waste time, too, essentially. And we borrow the term, “Time is Brain” from “Time Matters” from the stroke, where we know that, you know, every minute counts. And we would like to get the attitude across to people who are treating MS that every week, every month counts. MSDF At the initial diagnosis, how quickly should things move along, scanning, treatment? Dr. Giovannoni I mean, we’ve got guidelines within our socialist healthcare system, the NHS, to get the diagnostic phase over with in a four-week period. If you’ve got the disease, it’s very anxiety-inducing, the whole process. In reality, you’d like to get it over with in days. And then you need to start the counseling and education process. And I think you can’t rush people onto therapy within days because the holistic approach is people got to understand their disease, the implications of the illness, the prognosis. They’ve got to come to terms with it as well before you can actually start discussing the implications of therapy, which may be life-long. So I’m not talking about this is like stroke – you have that thirteen minutes – I think you need to try and shorten the whole process and be active about it, not be passive. Most clinicians in the world now just monitor their patients clinically. They don’t monitor them with MRI scans. They just wait for them to break through. Sometimes they accept minor relapses as just being part of the disease, and I think now that we’ve got more effective therapies, we shouldn’t be accepting any breakthrough activity. We should be escalating people to more effective therapies. And the data is becoming really strong that active disease, in the form of relapses or MRI activity, does portend a poor prognosis, so you want to switch it off. MSDF The report laid out some specific goals. Can you delineate some of those? Dr. Giovannoni The main goal is speeding up the whole process, so a rapid diagnosis, rapid initiation of treatment, monitoring, rapid escalation or possibly even flipping the pyramid – if they’ve got a bad prognostic profile, give the more effective therapies. Also, collect data so by monitoring, you hopefully will change behavior. And then the other thing that’s hidden is the cost effectiveness of these treatments. So, we need to make systems available to provide these drugs at cost effective prices, particularly in countries that are resource poor. It’s fine talking about North America and Europe – relatively wealthy areas of the world – where we have insurance systems to pay for these expensive new emerging therapies. But if you just to any of the developing countries, people with the disease don’t have access to disease-modifying treatments. We’re just letting the disease run its natural course, and I find that very upsetting. There’s a whole literature and emerging dataset on brain health from, mainly, the dementia – Alzheimer's field – and some of it’s applicable to MS: getting patients to stop smoking; they must exercise regularly, try to avoid drugs that affect cognition, avoid excessive alcohol, sleep properly. Comorbidities must be managed actively. By that I mean hypertension, diabetes, etc. So there’s all that lifestyle, comorbidity issues that also need to be focused on. It’s basically making neurologists and healthcare professionals aware that there’s more to the brain in MS than just inflammation. We need to think of it holistically and take it seriously. MSDF What do you see as some of the barriers to implementing all these things that you’re recommending? Dr. Giovannoni The barriers I wish I could answer it easily. I mean, we know that there’s slow adoption of innovation. Certain fields are more slow at adopting innovation than others, and I think neurologists, intrinsically, are quite conservative. And up until we had therapies in MS, we were just diagnosticians and giving prognoses. Now that we’ve got treatments, we need to adapt to the fact that we’ve got therapies that can make a difference to people with MS. So the slow adoption is attitude, culture, and regulatory hurdles. There’s cost hurdles. Health insurance companies don’t pay for our monitoring, in large parts of the world, so you’re going to have to fight with them to be able to monitor with MRI scans. Patients themselves – try and nudge them to stop smoking and eat properly and exercise. It’s easier said than done. I mean, this is a global population issue, and you know, why should people with MS be any different to the general population. So it’s not easy. We need to think creatively about how we get this done. MSDF But it sounds like nihilism should be passé, if in the past, all you could do was diagnose and hope for the best. Now that’s really not the situation. Dr. Giovannoni Yes, but I think there’s another form of nihilism. And so in the past, we had therapeutic nihilism where we didn’t give any therapies. I think we’ve got a form of subliminal nihilism in the sense; we put people on less effective therapies. We’re not monitoring them, but their disease remains active. I call it smoldering MS. Unless we monitor with sensitive MRI techniques, possibly other monitoring, we’re not picking up the smoldering MS. And so I think we’re potentially leaving a whole generation of people with smoldering MS to obviously a better outcome than they would have had with no therapy, but not as good an outcome if they would be as connected to more effective therapies. So that the subliminal nihilism, I just thought about that term, it kind of captures what I’m trying to, because, you know, what we see affects behavior. If we don’t see it, we don’t change our behavior. So part of this report is to make people observe, measure, monitor. And if they see activity, hopefully, it’ll change their behavior. MSDF In so many specialties, people say, well, I don’t treat lab values. I don’t treat images. I treat patients. But in this case, it seems like you do intervene when there is an imaging change. Dr. Giovannoni Yes, because we now have data, so this has got to be evidence-driven. And we’re not saying every recommendation in the policy report’s got unclad evidence about it. There is some weakness in the evidence base, but we think the evidence base is strong enough to make the recommendations. And we’ve actually put into the report that where there isn’t enough evidence, we need to generate more evidence. And to be honest with you, we need a population study comparing people managed with routine care versus patients treated to target with rapid escalation. MSBase has kind of done that without the MRI monitoring, because they don’t have MRI data in their database. They’re just looking at the clinical, letting people break through with relapses versus relapse-free, in those that are rendered activity-free clinically, do much, much better. And I think that tells us that if we were using MRI, it will even be better. So at least we know that MRI activity is a surrogate for relapses. And there’s also scientific principle. We know, under the microscope, inflammatory lesions are not benign. They’re associated with transected axons, neuronal loss, etc. So it’s hard to deny the scientific principle of allowing lesions to continue to be active. To me it makes no biological sense. And this is not new. We’re just stealing the ideas from rheumatology and nephrology. They treat to target. They try and suppress inflammation as much as possible, and they’ve had incredible success. And they didn’t do it from an evidence base; they did it from a scientific principle. And, as they collected their data in registries, they confirmed what the science showed. Long-term follow-up with these patients has shown that if you treat to target in rheumatoid arthritis and with rapid escalation, you protect joints. And joint replacements now in rheumatoid patients has plummeted by more than 80 percent. I think our metric will have to be walking sticks and wheelchairs. We’ll see the use of walking sticks and wheelchairs plummet. Maybe employment – that’s the other thing we’re trying to highlight is most of the early disability in MS is not physical, it’s cognitive. And the early unemployment rates that occur before people become physically disabled are driven by cognitive problems which manifest as cognitive fatigue. So, you know, what we’re trying to do is also shift people’s attention away from just physical disability and think about cognition, which is an early disability. And hopefully, if we can treat people as early as possible, we’ll protect their cognition and allow them to continue working. So maybe the metric should be employment, as one of the metrics. MSDF So many reports in all areas come out and they’re sort of one-shot deals. Do you have a plan for giving this thing legs so that it’s not just buried once it came out? Dr. Giovannoni Yes, so we’ve got a whole lot of initiatives following on this. We’ve put together a grant application package. We’ve got a dissemination plan, both at a regional and international level. We’ll also want it connected to audit tools, so provide some audit tools where you can actually audit—measure—what we’re trying to achieve and, hopefully, use that as a quality metric. We think we if can start measuring, people will change their behavior. We also want to create an audit tool for people with MS to audit their own service. So in other words, they will go in and say, am I being monitored? How am I being monitored, just clinically or with MRI? And ask the right questions, and, hopefully, activating patients to ask their clinicians to be monitored may also change behavior. We don’t want it to be a name and shame type thing. We want it to be a positive thing, by measuring, we’ll change behavior, so that’s what we want to do. The only thing, though, it can’t be done quickly. We need to get buy in from the whole community, so we’ll have to have an engagement program to get there. Get a competition going, international competition where people can provide creative ideas to try and help with viral dissemination. So get an infographic or a movie or a play or a book or a poem, something that can go viral. And then we’re going to, hopefully, have funding to update the report. We are going to have a very active website where people can download the report. And we’re going to try and create content around Brain Health. Another thing we’re going to be doing is looking for funding to translate it into other languages. We’ve already had requests from several non-English speaking nations for translations. So the Dutch want it translated. South America wants it in Spanish. We’ve had a request from the Japanese, Russians. And so if we can get it translated, we’re probably not going to get the whole document translated. We’re going to make executive summaries, one for patient focused, one for clinicians, one for policy makers. And we’ll, hopefully, get those translated into multiple languages. MSDF MSDF will put the link on the site so that people can access it in English now. Is there anything to add or we’ve missed? Dr. Giovannoni I think we’ve got to start changing the behavior of neurologists in the sense that we need to make them think of their responsibility for looking after people with MS’s brains. We tend to focus on making them relapse free. If we actually shifted the target away from being relapse free but maintaining brain health, so these people can age as normally as possible – we’re not trying to say that people with MS will age normally, but we need our brains for when we get older. So if they start taking responsibility for the holistic management of MS, I think we’ll get the momentum going where people will be much more actively managing MS. [transition music] MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode 58 of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Heather McDonald curated the MSDF drug database updates. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. MSdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller. [outro music]

[intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Fifty-Seven of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller. This week’s podcast comes to you from last week’s big MS meeting in Barcelona, Spain, with an interview with Dr. Timothy Vollmer, who gives his take on the early results of a large Phase 3 study of ocrelizumab for primary progressive MS. The experimental drug blocks circulating B cells. We will have several extra meeting-related podcasts for you in the next two weeks. In the next one, Dr. Gavin Giovannoni talks about a new push to use long term brain health as a goal in MS treatment. And Dr. Vollmer will return in the coming weeks to discuss the Denver treatment experience with another B cell blocking drug, rituximab. But first, here are some new items in the MS Discovery Forum. Every week MSDF lists the latest scientific papers related to MS with links to the abstracts on PubMed. Of nearly 100 new studies published last week, we selected three as editor’s picks. Two of our editor’s picks come from a larger collection on MS in JAMA Neurology. One study reports on an equivalence clinical trial comparing a generic glatiramer acetate, Synthon, with Copaxone, the branded glatiramer acetate, for relapsing remitting MS. A global team of investigators found equivalent efficacy, safety, and tolerability in the randomized, controlled trial. The findings provide reassurance about well-made generics for patients and neurologists, say other researchers in an editorial. But the whole idea of generics is to make a dent in the skyrocketing costs of MS drugs, and the generic is priced at $63,000 a year instead of $65,000 and $74,000 for the two versions of the branded drug. Another paper in the same JAMA Neurology checked to see what the vitamin D levels of nearly 1500 people treated with interferon beta-1B might say about the course of their disease. Higher vitamin D levels were associated with fewer new active lesions in the mostly white, mostly female patients with relapsing remitting MS, but there was no correlation with clinical disability or brain atrophy. Our third editor’s pick is a paper investigating the cancer risk from cladribine compared to other MS disease modifying treatments. A large Phase 3 study showed the experimental drug to be highly effective in relapsing remitting MS, with nearly half of patients showing no evidence of disease activity after two years and two courses of the treatment. But it was refused a license by the European Medicines Agency in 2013. Now, based on their new meta-analysis of eleven studies, the authors say they cannot confirm nor deny a cancer risk, and that cladribine should be investigated further as an MS therapy. Our drug development pipeline contains 44 investigational and approved agents for MS. Last week, we added results from two new trials, we updated information from 16 other trials, and we added 20 other pieces of information. Trial updates include findings about ocrelizumab’s ability to reduce relapses and minocycline’s capacity to reduce the risk of conversion to MS after an initial demyelinating event. [transition music] And now to our interview with Dr. Timothy Vollmer, Professor of Neurology and Medical Director of the Rocky Mountain MS Center at the University of Colorado in Denver. When we met at the European Committee for Treatment and Research in MS, or ECTRIMS, meeting in Barcelona, Dr. Vollmer laid out how results of the ORATORIO trial of ocrelizumab shed light on two hypotheses of what goes wrong in primary progressive MS, and which one is most likely. Interviewee – Timothy Vollmer There currently are two hypotheses for what drives primary progressive disease. One is that it’s like relapsing disease, and it’s driven by inflammation. And the other one is that it’s a noninflammatory disease that’s being driven by neurodegeneration and has a separate biology. Now that we have positive results from the ORATORIO study, which is a study of ocrelizumab which is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that deletes B lymphocytes from circulation, given that this is the very first time we’ve ever succeeded, it’s telling us very important thing, and that is: inflammation does drive primary progressive MS. And the other important message from here is that this study studied a significantly younger patient population with primary progressive MS than all the other studies. The mean age was around 44. The reason that’s important is because, epidemiologically, we see a decrease in inflammatory activity as a function of age, and older patients often don’t express any evidence of that. And so far, in all the primary progressive studies, especially the OLYMPUS trial, those patient populations don’t respond to anything. So it’s telling us that we can treat primary progressive MS, but you’ve got to start early. Interviewer – Dan Keller That seems to be the message overall in MS, in general, though. Dr. Vollmer Yes it is. And the reason is, is because MS results in an accelerated brain volume loss, and brain volume loss is going to translate into disability, at some point, for almost everybody. Maintaining brain volume so that you can age normally late in life is a critical goal, not just in MS, but in other neurological diseases. MSDF Does that brain volume loss or other changes in the brain relate to really the onset of the progressive phase? Dr. Vollmer The answer is yes and no. From a statistical standpoint, it’s very hard to sort of identify a specific point in the process of brain volume loss that you can say, okay, they’re going to transition into progressive disease. That’s probably due to the fact that the mechanisms that underlie reserve capacity in brains may vary a little bit from patient to patient, and that they have different capacity to compensate for this injury. The other complication is that MS, as a multifocal disease, is not necessarily distributed evenly throughout the nervous system, though. In some patients, they have a relatively small amount of disease, but it’s in the neck, and they’re still highly disabled. And because of that very complicated pattern for it, it is hard just to use one global measure to predict how patients are going to be from a disability standpoint. MSDF Do the results of the ORATORIO study give us more confidence in pursuing the B cell as an important effector in MS? Dr. Vollmer Absolutely. The converging data, now, both in progressive forms and in relapsing forms, says the B cell is playing a critical role. There are CD20-positive T cells, and so there’s still some discussion whether the drug may be having an effect on those, but in the most recent reports, it does decrease those with first administration, but then they recover very quickly. And at subsequent administrations of the anti-CD20, they’re not deleted. So that pattern suggests to me it’s not an effect on T cells, it’s an effect on B cells which remain suppressed for months after a single injection. MSDF CD20 is on B cells but, as I understand, not on plasmablasts or plasma cells. So what is the relative contribution of B cell biology versus just antibody? Dr. Vollmer A major difference is that plasmablasts and plasma cells are not very good antigen presenting cells. Whereas, B cells, if they can engage the antigen that their B cell receptor is targeted for, become extremely effective antigen presenting cells: the most effective antigen presenting cells in the body. And they can be about ten thousand times more effective that dendritic cells or macrophages. So that’s why I think that, given the fact that the most effective therapies we’ve currently studied right now are all B cell based therapies, I think it’s telling us is that the B cell is playing that critical role, and most likely, that is in both cytokine release and in antigen presentation in the brain. MSDF From the ORATORIO study, what more do you want to see? The data is just coming out, and they’re going to do a bunch of analyses. What sort of things should they be looking at? Dr. Vollmer Well, they have a number of other clinical measures, and I believe they also have some patient reported outcomes, so I’d be very interested to see if the patients actually perceive a benefit as measured by those PROs. They have the timed twenty-five foot walk out, which they reached and was statistically significant. They had sustained disability progression at both three and six months which was statistically significant. And they reported brain volume loss was decreased in the ocrelizumab treated patients and was statistically significant. We would like to know more about the inflammatory markers in the patients and the correlation between having baseline evidence of disease activity, such as a gadolinium enhancing lesion, and the probability of response to therapy. MSDF What about the time course of response to the therapy? It seems like it’s more rapid than you would expect if an insult sometime in the past led to what you see today. But the ocrelizumab results seem to be on a faster track than that. Dr. Vollmer Well, the reason I believe that is, is because, as I said before, they really pushed down the median age in their population to much younger patients. And again, in long term studies that have looked at gadolinium enhancing disease activity, we do see it in primary progressive disease. So it’s not true, in my view, that primary progressive MS patients have a different MRI pattern. In studies that actually controlled for observer bias, where the neurologist didn’t have a chance to look with an MRI scan, but made the decision whether it was progressive or not progressive disease based on clinical history, which is the only way that we really can do it, then the previously reported biases of having nonspecific noninflammatory MRIs disappears. And that paper was published about six years ago. So, I think that we have a lot of built in biases, as a field, when you think about MS, and, unfortunately, those biases are often not supported by objective data. And yet, they do make their way into the literature, mainly because they don’t control for age. And when comparing progressive patients, relapsing patients, or primary progressive patients to relapsing patients the fundamental difference is progressive patients tend to be 10 to 15 years older on average than the relapsing patients they’re comparing them to. And it’s that age difference that explains most of the differences that people talk about. It’s not the fact they have a different form of the disease. MSDF Anything else to add on this that we’ve missed? Dr. Vollmer As I said, we need to get subset analysis out of the ORATORIO study to see just which age group and demographic the patients really got the most benefit. My suspicion is we’re going to again find it’s the younger patients that show the biggest effect, again emphasizing that starting early in the disease with therapy is a key issue. And, again, I think it’s going to argue that you need to use highly effective therapies as early as possible, in order to get the best effect. MSDF Very good, thank you. Dr. Vollmer Thank you. [transition music] MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Fifty-Seven of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Heather McDonald curated the MSDF drug database updates. Msdicovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for multiple sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Holly Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send a comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I’m Dan Keller. [outro music]  

Transcript [intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Fifty-Six of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller. This week’s podcast features an interview with Dr. Gavin Giovannoni who discusses the first experimental drug to show some benefit in a progressive form of multiple sclerosis in a major trial. The drug is ocrelizumab, and the trial is called ORATORIO. But first, here are some new items in the MS Discovery Forum. The ocrelizumab findings were the big news at last week’s large international MS meeting in Barcelona, Spain. Our Research Roundup highlights other breaking stories from the meeting. Stay tuned for more in the days to come. We’ll be rolling out in-depth stories on some research themes we followed at the meeting. And we will have some extra meeting-related podcasts for you in the next two weeks. Every week, MSDF lists the latest scientific papers related to MS, with links to the abstracts on PubMed. Of 138 new studies published last week, we selected three as editor’s picks. In one study, a British team found a new reason why remyelination fails in disease. When damaged axons lose their myelin sheath, as in multiple sclerosis, they strike up a conversation with immature myelin-making cells. The axons reach out with new synapses to order the cells to grow up and make new myelin. If axons can’t call for help, as also may happen in MS, the myelin-making cells cannot respond. The team made their discovery in rat brains. They also found new synapses and telltale signaling molecules in postmortem brain lesion samples from people with MS. In another paper, a Spanish group looked at other factors that may block the brain’s ability to repair itself after inflammatory damage. A pair of molecules, known as semaphorins, may block myelin-making cells from coming to the rescue of damaged axons. The findings come from human tissue samples and may hold promise as targets for future treatment. Our third editor’s pick paper looks at factors influencing the intention to exercise and the execution of exercise among people with multiple sclerosis. A Danish team did an extensive review of rehabilitation and sports medicine literature. They found that health professionals can help on both fronts. Our Drug-Development Pipeline contains 44 investigational and approved agents for MS. Last week, we added two new findings from clinical trials, we updated information from another trial, and we added 10 other pieces of information to the database. The drugs with important additions are alemtuzumab, dalfampridine, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, idebenone, natalizumab, and teriflunomide. One update summarizes the finding that fingolimod induces the expression of neuroprotective factors by human astrocytes. [transition music] And now to our interview with Dr. Gavin Giovannoni, head of neurology at Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry in the U.K. We spoke with him at the recent European Committee for Treatment and Research in MS, or ECTRIMS, meeting in Barcelona about the Brain Health report that was launched at the meeting and about the ORATORIO trial of ocrelizumab in primary progressive MS. We'll cover the Brain Health report in future podcasts with him and other authors of the report. But today, Dr. Giovannoni lays out the methodology of ORATORIO, which may explain some of the very good reduction in disease progression, observed in this trial for the first time in primary progressive MS. Interviewer – Dan Keller In the ORATORIO trial, what was the aim, and I guess what's the big outcome? Interviewee – Gavin Giovannoni Well, the ORATORIO trial is essentially a phase III trial of depleting anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody called ocrelizumab in primary-progressive MS. As you're aware, almost every trial done in primary-progressive MS has been negative. And then the motivation behind the ocrelizumab trial was based on the rituximab trial; ocrelizumab is a follow-on and rituximab is more humanized, so that should come with fewer side effects like infusion reactions and anti-drug antibodies. In that rituximab trial, there was a subgroup of the population that responded. These were people that are younger and had MRI activity. So when we designed the ocrelizumab ORATORIO trial, we tried to enrich the study for young people and people that were more active, more enhancing lesions, and we did that. So the population is younger, and the proportion of patients with gadolinium-enhancing lesions at baseline was about a quarter of them. And we also made sure that all the patients had an abnormal CSF spinal fluid. The reason for that is in the Copaxone glatiramer acetate trial, patients who didn't have an abnormal CSF behaved very differently to those with an abnormal CSF, so we wanted to make sure that we had a homogeneous population. And we made sure they had oligoclonal bands or raised IgG in the spinal fluid simply because we we're trying to target a B cell response; so those that are CSF-negative may not be responsive to a B cell therapy. Lots of features of this trial that we try to wait to make it positive, so we're really, really excited about the results, that people on ocrelizumab had an approximately 25% reduction in confirmed disease progression on EDSS compared to patients on placebo. And it was an event-driven, so the trial wasn't designed to be a fixed time point, it was designed as soon as you got enough events; it was like an adaptive trial, so it was quite cleverly designed in that regard. So it's great news. Now whether the trial was positive because ocrelizumab is a more effective therapy than the others, or because it's targeting something special like the B cell, at the moment is not known. The only way we're going to find that out is if we do another primary-progressive trial with another highly effective therapy and see what happens there. But this is fantastic news for people with progressive MS. If you follow any patient forums or blogs or whatever, the most frustrated, depressed group is the primary-progressive patients; they've been neglected for years, decades. I think that's the big news, we now will have a therapy which we can offer them. The one unknown, though, is maybe this result has been driven by a particular subgroup, and I think the regulators and the payers will want to get that data from us. Because if it is driven by a particular subgroup, they may limit the license and the payment for that particular subgroup, the responder group. And so I can't talk to that yet, because most of the subgroup and post-hoc analyses haven't been done. But potentially maybe like the rituximab trial, there will be a proportion of the patients that have characteristic features that are more responsive to the drug, and drive the trial results compared to the other group. And if that is the case, then it's still good news regardless. MSDF As it stands now, it seems like the indication would be for people with abnormal CSF, oligoclonal bands, or elevated IgG. Is there any thought that this drug may work possibly by the same mechanism even if you're not seeing abnormal CSF? Dr. Giovannoni The spinal fluid tests aren't 100% perfect, so there are people who will have false-negative results. But I've always been a big proponent of the hypothesis that the oligoclonal response in the spinal fluid is something key to this disease. We see that response in infectious diseases like neurosyphilis, measles, rubella panencephalitis, herpes; it's really a signature of its common to infectious diseases, which is why I'm still a supporter of the hypothesis that MS may be an infectious disease. You do find that in a few other autoimmune diseases, particularly the paraneoplastic plastic syndromes, that it's a signature of an intrathecal B cell response. And this drug targets B cells. One thing it doesn't target, though, it's the long-lived plasma cell, and so CD20 actually stops being expressed, even on plasmablasts, so as soon as you go from the mature B cell to plasmablast to plasma cells, you don't deplete those with anti-CD20. So we know from rituximab data that the oligoclonal bands persist, so we need longer punctures, you don't get rid of those. But until we have long-term followup, we don't know. Maybe drugs that target the plasmablast and the plasma cell will be more effective than rituximab. We don't have any of those drugs available in MS yet. There's one that's being developed, it's anti-CD19; CD19 gets expressed onto the plasmablast and some plasma cells, and there are some specific markers for plasma cells. But if you gave those to people with MS, you'd probably deplete them of their antibody-producing cells and make them a gamma globulin anemic. Then you'd have to probably then start supplementing with gamma globulin, so it gets quite complicated. But at the moment, the drug will be licensed, I think, for continuous use every 6 months; it won't be induction therapy. Some of the data would suggest you could potentially use it as induction therapy, so, you know, do 2 years and then wait and see if the disease comes back. But the way the drug's been developed at the moment is for continuous maintenance use. There are some concerns; can you continue to use it in the B cell depletion forever? And that's going to have to be answered with the open-label extension studies. MSDF Since plasma cells persist and oligoclonal bands persist, if I understood you correctly, do you think that the pathology is mediated through antibody, or this depletion of B cells is acting in a different way, that the B cells are interacting either with T cells or on their own doing something? Dr. Giovannoni I mean, there is pretty good evidence from the pathology literature that antibodies are very important in MS. So whether or not you accept it, there is pathological classifications of the top 1 to 4. And there is antibody and complement activation in MS lesions, and there is emerging evidence that so-called grey matter lesions and subpial lesions on the surface are particularly driven by antibody and complement. So I do think they are pathogenic. And so you may get rid of the focal inflammatory lesions that appear to be T cell-driven, whereas the cortical subpial lesions may be antibody-driven. So you may be getting rid of one pathology and not all the pathologies, which is why I remain a little bit skeptical still about whether or not this anti-CD20-depleting antibody will be effective in the long-term. So we may need additional treatment to target plasma cells. And what you've got to ask yourself really is what's driving those oligoclonal bands. We know they are highly selected, so they're not just there. They're oligoclonal, they've undergone selection by hypermutation, so there's some antigen driving them. They respond to something, and we just haven't been able to find out what they respond to. They are pathogenic, and if we do find the cause of MS, that will almost certainly begins to cause the disease. An analogy would be herpes encephalitis; if somebody's had a herpes infection, then you take those oligoclonal bands out and you absorb them against the antigen from herpes, you remove almost all the antibodies. So they are antigen-specific in the infectious space. We've tried for years to find out what those bands react against in MS, and we haven't found it. There's several groups still working on it, and I would encourage them to continue working it, because that may be where the action is. MSDF The ORATORIO data was only begun to be analyzed very recently. You had mentioned that you were going to be doing subgroup analyses. Are there other analyses yet to come? Dr. Giovannoni I mean, the headline results are probably in main secondary outcomes, and there's less of tertiary outcomes. We need to do subgroup analyses trying to look at brain atrophy, the time course of the progressions. I'm very interested in second progressions, because I have this theory that early progressions in progressive disease is not driven by inflammation that occurs in this epoch, it's in the past; so inflammation a year or two ago is driving progression now. And so when you design these progressive trials, a large number of people progress early. And I think it's nothing to do with the trials because it's happened before the trial. So what you then need to do is look at progressions in the future to see if they flatline or stabilize. So there's lots of luck. I think we need to play around with the data, look at the first and second confirmed progressions, incorporate the brain MRI activity as the confounder. There's lots to do, tons to do. But it's good news. The excitement about those analyses are generated because you've got a positive result. MSDF Picking up on this idea that what you see today is the result of an insult that happened sometime before, what is the time course that you see using ocrelizumab in terms of benefit; is it so rapid that it questions whether what you said is what's operating? Dr. Giovannoni Yes, it's too rapid. When you see the survival curves, they go flat very early, so this is actually saying something else which is really surprising me, which is why I think some of the activity may be driven by an anti-inflammatory, because we know that anti-inflammatory drugs have an effect quite quickly. So that's why I'm suspicious that the positive result is driven by an inflammatory core of patients, and those with the more neurodegenerative or previous inflammation are unlikely to respond. That's my worry with the drug. But let's see what their subgroup analyses show. MSDF Anything we've missed or important to add on that? Dr. Giovannoni What I want to mention to people with the disease is they shouldn't overhype expectations. The simple reason is when you've got progressive disease you've already lost reserve, so that's why you're progressing. So in early relapsing disease, you make recovery from attacks because you've got ability to recover, a reserve. And so early on you stabilize or improve, and later on you slow down progression. So I'm trying to tell people with the disease if you do go into this therapy, don't expect to improve or get better. You're much more likely to progress more slowly, which you won't notice. It's hard in an individual to say they're progressing more slowly, or you'll plateau out and stabilize. I think that must be the expectation, rather than improvement. And I think we need to manage those expectations, that people may not at a personal level find a big dramatic response in terms of their disability on the drug. MSDF But this sounds like – getting back to the discussion of the Brain Health report – where you should diagnosis and treat rather quickly. At least now if someone comes in with primary-progressive, there may be at some point something to do from the start. Dr. Giovannoni Yeah. Well, it's like with any neurodegenerative disease, the sooner you treat the more you've got to protect, and the later you treat the less you've got to protect. So this would be a call to get primary-progressive disease diagnosed as soon as possible and treat as soon as possible. And if you look at the diagnostic delay in primary-progressive disease, it's probably worse than relapsing disease. People often go years before being diagnosed. So we're going to have to sharpen up the referral pathways and the diagnostic pathways in primary-progressive disease to get that timeless brain concept across there, too. [transition music] Thank you for listening to Episode Fifty-Six of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Heather McDonald curated the MSDF drug database updates. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations. MSDiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller. [outro music]

[intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Fifty-Five of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller. This week’s Podcast features an interview with Dr. Michael Levy, who discusses the status of regenerative stem cell therapies for multiple sclerosis. But first, here are some new items in the MS Discovery Forum. Our lead story last week looked at a way to prevent a rare but dangerous viral brain infection that can be a side effect of certain drugs. The risk of infection limits the people who can take natalizumab to prevent the inflammatory brain attacks of relapsing-remitting MS. Two new papers propose vaccinating people against the virus. Experts are still debating the underlying biology, but they say the approach should be tested in people. Every week, MSDF lists the latest scientific papers related to MS, with links to the abstracts on PubMed. Of more than 100 new studies published last week, we selected three as editor’s picks. One study comes from the Italian registry of pediatric MS patients treated with natalizumab. Researchers evaluated 101 boys and girls. Natalizumab was safe, well tolerated, and effective, they report. Time on the drug varied, but the overall mean was about three years. Most of the patients switched because of a poor response to first-line drugs, such as interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate. The patients’ sera were assessed for anti-JC virus antibodies to prevent the rare but dangerous brain infection associated with natalizumab. Two other studies caught our eye this week. One goes into the new insights from live imaging in the central nervous systems of mice. The authors outline potential applications that could lead to therapies to protect or restore myelin. Another study asked if spasticity of lower limbs could be helped with anodal transcranial direct current stimulation in 20 MS patients. The answer is no, based on the results of the small randomized double-blind clinical trial. This is not to be confused with another noninvasive technique that seems to reduce spasticity, called transcranial magnetic stimulation. Our Drug-Development Pipeline contains 44 investigational and approved agents for MS. Last week, we added an extensive meta-analysis of clinical trials, we updated information on three trials, and we added 16 other pieces of information. The drugs with important additions are alemtuzumab, daclizumab, dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, GNbAC1, interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, laquinimod, mitoxantrone, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, and teriflunomide. One update reflects the finding that ocrelizumab slows disease progression in primary progressive MS, the first drug to do so, as described in the drug-maker’s news release. Another update reflects a meta-analysis by the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis group. It compares 39 different clinical trials involving more than 25,000 patients to rank benefits and acceptability of 15 different MS drugs. Doctors and patients need even better information to make decisions, the authors conclude. They call for more randomized studies directly comparing active agents, no more placebo-controlled studies, and long-term followup of all drug studies. The MSDF team is attending this week’s ECTRIMS meeting in Barcelona, Spain. If you, too, will be at the conference and would like to meet with us – or if you’re interested in being interviewed about your research for a future podcast – please email us at editor@msdiscovery.org. [transition music] And now to our interview with Dr. Michael Levy, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University. We met in his office to talk about stem cell regenerative therapies – what the aims are and where things stand. Interviewer – Dan Keller Let's talk about regenerative stem cell therapies, but I suppose the first thing to make clear is nothing is approved yet, is that right? Interviewee – Michael Levy Nothing is even closed to being approved. There are many trials in progress in multiple sclerosis and in spinal cord injury, which is a related demyelinating condition in which stem cells are being tested, and this is worldwide, probably over 20 studies that are ongoing. MSDF What are some of the goals? Dr. Levy The goals are twofold. In multiple sclerosis in particular, the two goals are to recover function and to neuroprotect against future insults. So in spinal cord injury, for example, there's only one goal which is recovery of function, because they don't have to worry about future insults. MSDF Now no one really has the exact idea, or I guess there's many ideas, of how these would work – whether the cells would actually replace lost cells, whether there's secreted trophic factors – so are people looking at them specifically in those areas, or whatever works at this time, then they'll figure out why? Dr. Levy It certainly started off with the mechanism in mind that the cells would replace lost tissue. That was really how things started. But as they've evolved, patients have responded in part to many different types of stem cell therapies, and none of them have involved replacing lost tissue. And so there are probably many different mechanisms involved, and it's evolved into exactly what you've described, a phenomenon of wow, this really works, let's continue it and let's try to figure out what's going on in parallel. MSDF Is there also a thought that the stem cells really are just providing a supportive environment, or even a supportive structure, for natural processes to proceed if they have the right setting? Dr. Levy Oh, sure. There are some studies where the stem cells only survive, or are only around, detectable, for about one hour, and then beyond that they can't be detected, but yet they provide some significant long-lasting benefits. So exactly how they do that is not clear. MSDF Are you familiar with the mouse experiments of Jeanne Loring at Scripps; she had taken human pluripotent stem cells in a mouse model and they were gone after a week, but then the mice got up and walked around and seemed to look perfectly normal. Dr. Levy So definitely mouse models have recapitulated what we've seen in humans, which is that the stem cells provide some sort of benefit. Whether it's secretion of trophic factors, or neuroprotection or replacement of tissue, or what they call neural bridging, allowing neurons to communicate through in the alternative circuit, this is true in mice, too. So whatever is happening in humans is probably also going on in these mice. MSDF Specifically in the MS area, what are people or companies doing? Dr. Levy Specifically in MS, the most common trial that's being conducted now is testing mesenchymal stem cells--taking them from that patient, usually from the hip, purifying them in the lab, and then injecting them back into the patient, either into the bloodstream or into the spinal fluid. Initially, the goal was to try to replace lost tissue, but now the goal has evolved, and what these studies are really looking for is sort of the 6-month or 12-month outcome to see if patients recover better, have fewer relapses, and better outcomes. MSDF Now mesenchymal stem cells in themselves are not going to turn into the lost kinds of cells you really want to replace, but they do have immunomodulatory effects, is that right? Dr. Levy That's the thought. So mesenchymal stem cells are all the cells in the bone marrow that don't turn into blood cells, either red or white blood cells; it's the rest of the matrix. And in the lab, you can turn them into neuronal cells and supportive cells that you find in the brain, but that doesn't happen when you put them into spinal cord or brain; they don't tend to differentiate into neural tissue. And so they are doing something else, and part of that is probably neuromodulatory. Correct. MSDF Besides mesenchymal stem cells, people are looking at a little more differentiated cells, oligodendroglial precursor cells--you obviously want to remyelinate. Do you have an idea of what's going on with those and has there been success there? Dr. Levy So all the studies using neural stem cells and neuroglial stem cells are currently being conducted in spinal cord injury. And in spinal cord injury there is a component of demyelination, and they're hoping that those oligos migrate to that area that is demyelinated and that it will remyelinate the lesion. So all MS patients should keep an eye on those studies to see how those turn out. MSDF The difference there is you can identify an area of lesion. In the brain, you don't know exactly where lesions are going to come up, and lesions disappear also. Dr. Levy MS patients tend to have dozens of lesions, and many could be in the same pathway. So even if you remyelinate one, there could be one upstream or downstream of that lesion that's still impairing the function. In spinal cord injury, there is just one lesion, and they're trying to remyelinate just that one; you're correct about that. MSDF Are you familiar with the work by Basil Sharrack in England? There were about 10 patients, I think. They did myeloablative therapy and autologous bone marrow transplants, essentially as they called it, rebooting the immune system. That's obviously a stem cell therapy in a sense. Dr. Levy Absolutely, it is a stem cell therapy. The thought there is – exactly like you said – rebooting the immune system; taking out only the most immature stem cells that haven't been exposed to whatever the trigger of their disease was, taking those stem cells out and sparing them, holding them in the lab, then getting rid of the rest of the immune system in the patient's body and reintroducing those stem cells back; as you said, rebooting the immune system to see if we could return their immune system back to the pre-MS state and see if that has a better outcome. And, generally, those types of studies where we're really ablating the immune system have tended to have good outcomes; some patients are able to come off of therapy for years, but ultimately the disease comes back. And it could be years; it could be five, even up to ten years. And so we really have to understand why that is. If there's another environmental exposure or if there is just something really genetically encoded into the immune cells. MSDF Or, for example, if there's an EBV etiology, the Epstein-Barr virus is still there probably Dr. Levy That's right, so EBV may be that environmental trigger. MSDF One thing I don't understand about that is they reported, I think, in Science Translational Medicine, that people who had pretty significant disability – you know, using a wheelchair – could then walk again. It seems rebooting the immune system should not do anything to reverse or restore neural function. Dr. Levy That would be my expectation, too. So in any study where we're looking at effects on the immune system, I wouldn't expect the nervous system to have such a dramatic recovery either. That was a surprise. MSDF What else is there to say about stem cell therapy's messages to physicians who are asked about it, messages to patients who are interested in it at this point? Dr. Levy At this point, I would say that the verdict is still out, that the studies need to be completed, and that there are a lot of companies out there offering "stem cell therapies" to patients with MS, who are just looking for anything to improve their function. And that can be dangerous, because we don't really understand this science works, and there have been some bad outcomes reported in the literature from patients who are seeking this type of care from clinics offering "stem cell therapies." And I would just caution patients and caution doctors to wait until these studies are done and we have a better sense of how they work. MSDF There seems to be a lot of fly-by-night operations on the internet and overseas, and things like that, but even with legitimate trials I would guess there could be bad outcomes. What sorts of dangers are there in stem cell therapy? Dr. Levy There are two. One is that the stem cells will develop into tumors, because these stem cells are now able to proliferate, that's one of their features. So a concern is that they're going to proliferate uncontrollably into a tumor. And the second concern is that you're reintroducing a foreign cell – in some of the trials they're foreign cells – and that might trigger a relapse. So if you inject it directly into the spinal cord, could you then cause another inflammatory event in the spinal cord targeting those stem cells? So those are the two major concerns. MSDF Is there anything important to add, or that we've missed? Dr. Levy No, I would say that pretty much covers it. MSDF Well, thank you. [transition music] Thank you for listening to Episode 55 of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This Podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Heather McDonald curated the MSDF drug database updates. MSDiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our president and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is vice president of scientific operations. MSDiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances. We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org. For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller. [outro music]

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Thirty-Two of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.   This week’s podcast features an interview with Dr. David Holtzman of Washington University in St. Louis about how a protein implicated in Alzheimer’s disease may also have a role in MS progression. But to begin, here's a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   We recently added a new data visualization to our growing collection. This one organizes every ongoing MS clinical trial—142 of them—into an interactive bubble chart. The size of each bubble represents the sample size of the trial, and the color indicates if the compound has been used to treat MS before. You can organize the chart 10 different ways, including by phase, compound, and sponsor. Go to the “Research Resources” section of our page and click on “data visualizations” to view it.   Yet another Phase 2 trial on autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant was published last week. We reported on this trial’s results and how it was different from previous trials we covered. Like the last two studies we reported on, this current study yielded very encouraging results. To view all of the stem cell stories, go to the “news and future directions” section of our website and look for any story with an image of a mouse in a little white lab coat.   New research from the journal Neurology suggests that imaging measurements of the spinal cord and retina independently correlate to disability. Specifically, damage in the two structures was related to visual acuity and to the patient’s ability to discern vibration sensation. The authors suggested that clinicians may want to incorporate scans of the spinal cord and retina into their routine practice.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. David Holtzman is Chairman of the Department of Neurology at Washington University. He met with MSDF senior science journalist, Carol Cruzan Morton, at a recent Keystone meeting in Taos, New Mexico, to discuss how his work on apolipoprotein Ein Alzheimer's disease may be relevant to MS.   Interviewee – David Holtzman Most of my career has been focused on trying to understand the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease, as well as to develop better diagnostic and treatment methods. However, in doing that – in trying to study the science behind that disease – I've also worked a lot on how normal brain function might be related to not only Alzheimer's disease but just some of the proteins that are involved in both Alzheimer's disease and related disorders.   Interviewer – Carol Cruzan Morton We're at the Keystone meeting on neuroinflammation in Taos, New Mexico, and at the talk this morning you mentioned that there might be a connection between the ApoE and this protein involved in Alzheimer's and MS. Can you talk a little bit more about how that protein works normally in an Alzheimer's, and how you came to make that connection to multiple sclerosis?   Dr. Holtzman Sure. Apolipoprotein E first just in terms of a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease ApoE is present as a protein in all of our bodies. It's made in the brain; it's made by the liver; it's at very high levels in the bloodstream. ApoE plays a role in the bloodstream in transporting lipids around the body. It turns out, though, that if the only thing it did was to transport lipids in the blood then you would probably only need to produce it in the liver so that it was secreted into the blood. But interestingly, it's also produced in several other organs: the ovary, the testes, the brain, and a few other places. So in those other organs, it doesn't probably have exactly the same function that it does when it's made by the liver. But the form of the lipoprotein that's in the brain that ApoE is within is somewhat different than it is, for example, in the bloodstream. It's in what's called HDL or high-density lipoproteins in the brain.   MSDF That's a good thing, right?   Dr. Holtzman That's the good cholesterol. That's the good cholesterol in the blood. In the brain, it's not entirely clear what these HDL lipoprotein particles are really doing. So, for example, if ApoE is absent from the brain of a person, and there are people that have genetic mutations, they have no ApoE in their body…   MSDF Completely gone.   Dr. Holtzman Completely gone. And they have developed serious problems with cholesterol buildup in their arteries because they can't clear big lipoprotein particles from their blood, but their brain is okay, no problem. The people are born normal; brain is okay. And there are probably other proteins in the brain that may be able to takeover for its function in the brain; whereas in the blood that's not the case.   MSDF And when it goes wrong in Alzheimer's, what's happening…?   Dr. Holtzman So that's a different issue. So in Alzheimer's disease, there's no lack of ApoE. In humans, there's three different flavors of ApoE: ApoE2, ApoE3, or ApoE4. And there's a very, very subtle difference between the ApoE2, 3, and 4; just really, really small difference. So brain function in people that are of different ApoE types is normal when they're born and when they grow up and as adults. But for some reason – which we'll talk about in a moment – when people have the ApoE4 form of ApoE, it causes a higher risk for Alzheimer's disease probably because it's promoting the buildup of one of the proteins that's really important in causing Alzheimer's disease earlier. So this amyloid protein that builds up in Alzheimer's is strongly influenced by the form of ApoE that you produce. So if you make the E4 form, it's probably because amyloid doesn't get cleared away as well; it builds up earlier. And if you have the ApoE2 form, which is protective against Alzheimer's disease, it pushes out the development of amyloid deposition until very old ages, if ever. That may be something that's related to Alzheimer's disease that's distinct from what it might do in other diseases of the brain like MS, for example.   MSDF How did you make that connection to MS?   Dr. Holtzman Right. So over the years, there's been a number of scientists and physicians around the world who have studied the many possible functions of ApoE in the body. And for gosh it's been about 30 years or so, there's been reports that one of the things that ApoE does is to influence inflammatory cells: T cells, macrophages, etc.   MSDF All over the body or in the brain and spine?   Dr. Holtzman Yeah, in different locations actually. It's never been completely clear exactly what ApoE is doing to the immune system. A lot of studies individually show effects, but it's not entirely clear what it's doing. And so, I got interested in this personally a few years ago there was a prominent paper published suggesting that one of the things that ApoE does to the immune system outside the brain is to help present antigens to the immune system if they contain lipids. And so, that caught my attention because, one, ApoE carries lipids. And just naively I thought well if it helps present lipid antigens in multiple sclerosis the antigens that are being attacked generally are the lipid related antigens.   MSDF The myelin.   Dr. Holtzman The myelin, right, exactly. So I thought well that seems, you know, maybe there's something to this that one could study in relation to MS because of that.   MSDF And then how did you go about asking those question? Where did you start?   Dr. Holtzman Basically, I thought alright, well a lot of people who work on MS if they use animal studies use the model EAE. So we thought well some of my colleagues at Washington University have been using the EAE model for years – like many people have – and so we thought well the obvious experiment to try first is just compare animals that express ApoE in their body versus those that don't. And simply ask the question is there anything different about EAE in an animal that lacks ApoE or not? And so, first, we started working with Anne Cross and then later with Greg Wu together who are experts in using animal models of MS. And ultimately published findings showing – and a few other groups have worked on this, as well – showing that there appears to be decreased clinical severity of EAE in a slightly later onset of disease in animals that lack ApoE.   MSDF And what does that tell you…there might be a role or…?   Dr. Holtzman Obviously many other studies would need to be done to know if it has a role in human MS. But once we found that, particularly Greg's lab began to ask the question well if that's true what's the mechanism? If there is a mechanism that we could hone in on, is that something that seems logical based on what we actually know about ApoE already? And so, the things that kind of came out of our first series of studies was that – unlike what I initially had thought from this earlier paper – it doesn't appear that ApoE is modifying antigen presentation of cells or the ability of T cells to react against the brain. But something once T cells do get in the brain to attack myelin and other components, there's something about that ApoE is acting on at that point. It could be that it's involved in allowing the myelin to repair, or alternatively it could be that when T cells get into the brain and interact with other cells in the brain – like other immune cells like microglial cells or dendritic cells – that that interaction is altered by ApoE within the brain. That might make sense given that ApoE is highly expressed by macrophages outside the brain, and inside the brain it's highly expressed by what are called activated microglial cells. So kind of the macrophages of the brain. So that's where we kind of are now, and I think there's a lot more studies that could be done to really understand both that interaction as well as whether human ApoE causes the same effect that we saw in animals as mouse ApoE. Because they're not exactly the same; they're similar but not the same.   MSDF Is there other evidence connecting ApoE or its various forms with MS?   Dr. Holtzman There are human studies that have been done trying to ask the very simple questions of is the ApoE4, which is a risk factor for Alzheimer's, is that over represented in MS? Or is the ApoE2 form, which is under represented in Alzheimer's, is that protective against MS? And the studies on this some have suggested effects, some haven't. There's no clear answer. But I think if ApoE is involved in MS, it would be less likely to be involved in whether you get MS but more likely involved in the progression of the disease. And I know in the MS field one of the big areas now – now that there's so many studies and as well as treatments that have emerged that are quite effective at suppressing the initial phases of MS, the immune response phases – a lot the work is going into understanding this prolonged progressive phase of MS. And that's where ApoE could be important in sort of the repair and recovery of neurons and axons, for example. Because the fact it transports lipids between cells, maybe it has something to do with recovery of the brain after injury. And that's been speculated on for some time, although not as much work on that has been done in MS.   MSDF Has it been speculated on in MS or MS and Alzheimer's both or…?   Dr. Holtzman No, it's been speculated on after a variety of different brain injuries that it plays a role in redistributing lipids in the brain after injury, and that might be promoting recovery. So one possibility that still hasn't really been tested that I'm aware of in models of MS or in human MS is to whether that really happens for ApoE in the human brain or animal models.   MSDF Can that be tested now?   Dr. Holtzman Absolutely, absolutely. Those are some of the studies that I think are really critical as the next step.   MSDF Is it conceivable that the body of knowledge for Alzheimer's research on ApoE might yield a treatment for progressive MS?   Dr. Holtzman It's possible. I mean a lot of the understanding of what ApoE might be doing in the brain has really expanded because people have been studying Alzheimer's disease and its relationship with ApoE. So I can't imagine it wouldn't help with that because we've learned a lot so far.   MSDF Are there other treatments in the pipeline for Alzheimer's related to ApoE?   Dr. Holtzman There are. There's not too many things yet that have reached human trials, but there are groups trying to alter the level of ApoE in the brain or to alter its receptors in the brain as potential treatments for affecting Alzheimer's disease. So yeah, I mean those are the kind of things, as they advance, depending on what's found in regard to the relationship between ApoE and MS could be tried in MS. I don't see why not.   MSDF That's interesting. What else should I be asking?   Dr. Holtzman I think what scientifically what I think is really important to still sort out in this area is that when the innate immune cells of the brain – the microglial cells or even macrophages when they get into the brain – they produce tremendous levels of ApoE when that happens. And I think understanding what that protein is really doing in that setting could provide insight into future treatments. So that's what I think is really fascinating to try to understand.   MSDF Well if it happens in Alzheimer's, as well, it happens before the blood-brain barrier breaks down and then after it, it sounds like.   Dr. Holtzman Well, in MS, it's probably occurring after there's cell entry into the brain. But the upregulation of ApoE by these innate immune cells is much higher in MS than it is in Alzheimer's disease.   MSDF Oh, is that right?   Dr. Holtzman Yeah, yeah.   MSDF That's interesting. That's even more interesting.   Dr. Holtzman Yeah, I know. That's why it's really, really fascinating. I think one of the figures from the paper that we published last year from Greg's lab showed that the level of ApoE increasing in microglial cells versus similar cells that are present in the spleen of an animal is like 25 times higher in the setting of an EAE model than normal. So it's really, really high. Is it really doing anything, or is it just a byproduct? I suspect it probably is doing something. So that's what I think would be really interesting to figure out.   MSDF Thanks. Well I appreciate your taking time out at the Keystone meeting to talk with MS Discovery Forum.   Dr. Holtzman Yeah, it's great. Well good luck. MS is such a…the treatments that have been evolving are so exciting compared to Alzheimer's disease where we don't yet have good treatments. So I think there will be soon, but I think it's a great opportunity to even advance for ...   MSDF Is there a chance that the reverse could be true? That treatments existing for MS would be helpful in Alzheimer's?   Dr. Holtzman That's a good question. I don't know if any of the frequently used ones where you're preventing cell entry into the brain necessarily would be useful for Alzheimer's. But like one of the new drugs, Tecfidera, this oral medication does do some interesting things to cells in the brain that might be useful in a disease like Alzheimer's. So maybe there will be some things that we can translate.   MSDF I appreciate it. Thank you so much.   Dr. Holtzman Thank you.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Thirty-Two of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Robert Finn. Msdiscovery.org is part of the non-profit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is vice president of scientific operations.   Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.   We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.   [outro music]