Podcast appearances and mentions of robert finn

Schulden, Beinbruch, ein Selbstmord: Hier stecken verdächtig viele gute Jockeys in der Krise. Als Ersatzmann bekommt Robert Finn unerwartet seine große Chance. Alles läuft glänzend, bis auch für ihn eine Pechsträhne beginnt. Von Dick Francis Mit Marc Hosemann, Sascha Maria Icks, Hans-Peter Hallwachs, Sylvester Groth u.a. Komposition: Pierre Oser Regie: Walter Adler SWF/MDR 2000 Podcast-Tipp: Das war Morgen - Science-Fiction-Hörspiele aus den 1960er bis 1990er Jahren https://1.ard.de/daswarmorgen Von Dick Francis.

A brand is more than a logo, a color palette, and a smartly crafted tagline. When properly articulated and carefully implemented, a brand can help guide strategic business decisions. Building a brand of this strength is a journey that requires a disciplined approach. Labelmaster, a 50-year-old company is currently on such a journey and their goal is nothing short of a brand that will drive growth for decades to come. Robert Finn, Vice President of Marketing, Product Management and Analytics with Labelmaster sat down with us to share his insights, lessons learned so far, and some behind-the-scenes work the company has done. Learn more about Labelmaster at: https://www.labelmaster.com/ Find more great healthcare marketing content: https://www.hitmc.com/

Join us on on the conversation between Ambassador Robert Finn (the first U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan after the U.S. invasion), Best-seller Author Ahmed Rashid (author of five books including ‘Taliban' (2000) which was translated into 40 languages and sold 1.5 million copies in English alone and ‘Jihad – The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia' (2002), and Brigadier General (r) Peter B. Zwack when they discuss the current situation in Afghanistan and the prospects of the country. ---This Virtual Briefing Series event was originally hosted on  September 1st, 2021.Music by Joseph McDade.Upcoming events: https://network2020.org/upcoming-events/Follow us at:Twitter: @Network2020LinkedIn: Network 20/20Facebook: @network2020Instagram: @network_2020Follow us at:Network2020.orgTwitter: @Network2020LinkedIn: Network 20/20Facebook: @network2020Instagram: @network_2020

JB Scott & Robert Finn are back for another edition of the Last Minute Thoughts podcast - this time recapping the big game. How will Rams history remember Super Bowl LVI? Will the deadly duo of Aaron Donald and Von Miller goes down as leaders on a historic defense? JB & Rob also give a preview for what to expect over the off-season. The Rams are expected to lose a number of assistant coaches and will have to work diligently to fill the voids. Will free agency pull apart the offensive line, similar to what happened to the LA unit after the 2019 Super Bowl? Who should Los Angeles make it a priority to re-sign, and what needs does this team have heading into 2022? Should we expect LA to fill these holes through the draft, or are developmental players already on the roster for that purpose? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Robert Finn and JB Scott breakdown everything you need to know for the matchup 24-hours before the game. You can listen below or in your favorite podcast app. But first, the rumor mill is churning - and it seems Sean McVay could be considering a jump from the sidelines to the broadcasting booth. What would an early retirement for McVay mean to the future of the Rams? Rob and JB each throw out a name that could potentially replace the coach should he leave the team. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The LA Rams face the SF 49ers on Sunday at 3:40 PM at SoFi Stadium. For a last minute preview of the game, Robert Finn and JB Scott of Turf Show Times jump on the mics again to discuss what happened in Tampa Bay last week and what could happen on Sunday at SoFi. Subscribe! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Robert Finn and JB Scott give their final Last Minute Thoughts of the 2021 regular season. Will Rams-49ers meet again in the playoffs? Perhaps not if the Rams knock them out first! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Previewing Rams vs. Ravens as LA looks to win the NFC West. The Los Angeles Rams have won four games in a row and are now freshly in the lead in the race for the NFC West. The team's win streak coincides with a three-game losing streak by the Arizona Cardinals, which means LA could wrap up a division championship as soon as the weekend. For that to be possible, the Rams will need to beat the Baltimore Ravens on the road - and a well-coached Ravens squad will not easily cede victory on their home field. Robert Finn and JB Scott breakdown everything you need to know for this late-season battle in Baltimore. Listen to the podcast here or in your favorite app. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The LA Rams must beat the Arizona Cardinals on Monday Night if they really want to keep their NFC West title aspirations alive. Robert Finn and JB Scott get together once again to talk about their last minute thoughts on the game. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Robert Finn delivers his last minute thoughts on Rams-Packers Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Rams play the Titans on Sunday Night Football. Listen to Robert Finn and JB Scott deliver their last minute thoughts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Every week, one day before the Rams game, Robert Finn and JB Scott record their LAST MINUTE THOUGHTS on the teams, the matchups, and what to expect from LA's next contest. That is the 0-6 Detroit Lions on Sunday, featuring the return of Jared Goff. Plus Rob and JB talk about Rob Havenstein's new contract details and what that means for making a move before the trading deadline. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Matthew Stafford plays against his former squadron. The Lions take on the Rams in Los Angeles, and Jeremy and Ryan get you ready for the big game with help from Turf Show Times' Robert Finn (@robertfinnisme). They take a look over how the Rams have fared in their season thus far, how Stafford has impressed and what this matchup means as Stafford reunites with the Lions and Jared Goff against his former coach Sean McVay. They give you all you need to know to get ready for Sunday's showdown. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Since President Joe Biden pulled U.S. troops out of Afghanistan, many are sorting through whether a withdrawal was really necessary. Regardless, the decision marks a decided end to a long and protracted war, which began during 9/11. Amb. Robert Finn joins Julian Zelizer in this week's episode to analyze the decision and its effects in this week's episode. A former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Finn is a former lecturer on Turkish literature at Princeton University's Department of Near Eastern Studies and Ertegun Professor of Turkic Studies. His distinguished foreign service career includes posts at U.S. missions in Turkey and as ambassador to Afghanistan and Tajikistan.

Do Turkey’s political and social upheavals following that country’s 1980 military coup have anything to tell us about Turkey under President Erdogan today? Journalist Ece Temelkuran believes so, and in her new novel, “The Time of Mute Swans,” she tells a story of post-coup Ankra in which divisions and bloodshed blur the lines between right and wrong, truth and falsehood, beauty and ugliness. Listen to a conversation about authoritarianism and literature with Temelkuran, distinguished American diplomat and Turkish literature scholar Robert Finn, and the Institute's own Soner Cagaptay. Near East PolicyCast: Conversations on Middle East issues from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Fifty of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.   This week’s podcast features Dr. David Tabby, who discusses the use of balance vests in people with MS. But first here are some new items in the MS Discovery Forum.   According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 65 such articles were published last week. We selected one of these articles as an Editor’s Pick. It’s a large case-control study in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation demonstrating that MS is associated with more than a six-fold increase in the risk of venous thromboembolism. To see this week’s articles, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers.   Our Drug-Development Pipeline includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. During the month of July, we added 6 new trials, we updated information on 6 other trials, and we added 56 other pieces of information. The drugs with important additions and changes are alemtuzumab, dalfampridine, dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, GNbAC1, interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, masitinib, natalizumab, rituximab, RPC1063, and teriflunomide. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdiscovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline.   [transition music]   And now to the interview. Dr. David Tabby is an adult general practice neurologist with a subspecialty in multiple sclerosis in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. He was formerly associated with Drexel University College of Medicine. We spoke about balance vests for people with conditions that impair their balance. He first describes what the vest is.   Interviewee – David Tabby       The balance vest looks like a bulletproof vest; it's a black nylon vest that's worn over the torso like a typical vest. And it was discovered by accident, I suppose, by a physical therapist from California called Cindy Horn who was treating people with Parkinson's disease, and she was troubled by the fact that these people tended to be forward-flexed at the hip and walk like they're looking at the floor. So she wondered if she put some weights on their back, if she could tip them more upright. And she did that and it worked, but she also discovered that people had better balance. Falls is a major cause of morbidity and even mortality in Parkinson's disease, so this was big.   So the next step was that she developed a system to figure out how to maximize the weighting of the torso, consisting of perturbations – pushes really – of the shoulders forward or back or side to side, twisting the pelvis and seeing the rebound to that, and figuring out by trial and error a way of using weights to dampen those oscillations really. She worked on it for years; this process started about 15 years ago, I think, maybe more than that now. And then she realized that there were other people besides Parkinson's patients who could benefit from it. Multiple sclerosis patients turned out to be a big one, but other types of people with cerebellar disorders, and ataxias, and even peripheral neuropathy; if the problem was balance, it seemed like the balance vest could make a difference.   Interviewer – Dan Keller           What about for vestibular dysfunction, maybe those 20% of people who shaking their head doesn't fix the problem?   Dr. Tabby I don't think we have a lot of data on vestibular patients, but that's important. It's not exactly the topic of this talk, but we've had some really great results in post-concussive injury. My theory on this is that kind of everything doesn't work right after concussion, you have to think consciously about all these things that used to be automatic, including walking. And if you imagine that you only have a finite supply of mental energy to expend on different tasks, if you're expending a lot of that on balancing, there's not as much left for thinking and talking and other normal cognitive tasks. So we've seen unexpectedly some significant improvements in cognitive function from people who had concurrent balance disorders freeing up, if you will, their cognitive reserve to do what it's supposed to do instead of worry about why you're not falling over.   MSDF Is there a proposed mechanism here; is it only dampening oscillations or is there some sort of perceptual thing that it's enhancing, or how's it working?   Dr. Tabby This is not known, there are only theories at this point. I had started on a study while I was still at Drexel with the Department of Physical Therapy who had built a device for measuring sitting balance; you know, taking the entire lower extremity out of the equation. It's basically like a chair without legs on a half dome. So if you don't have a disorder, in fairly short order you can teach yourself how to sit on the chair and not fall over. It sits on a very sensitive pressure plate, and then you can measure how much deviation there is from the exact center point. Your feet are strapped so you can't move them around, and you're supposed to hold your arms over your chest, so you have your torso and head to move around. Then you try to do certain exercise. You're looking at a screen that has a big circle on it and you're supposed to roll your center of gravity forward maybe to 3 o'clock on a clock face, and 6 o'clock, and 9 o'clock, and go back to the center, and you can see how much progress you're making.   And we had started on an experiment to put the balance vest on people and see if they did better with the balance vest with the lower extremity, you know, taken out of the equation. We didn't collect enough data to make a conclusion about that. I think it's really fascinating, though, because if you carry your cell phone in your shirt pocket, doesn't that change the vector forces about your torso, but somehow we don't seem to fall over over that. Maybe it does change things but it's not big enough to notice. We need a lot of research into determining what the exact mechanism of action is for the vest, because there's a lot of question marks about it right now.   MSDF So how do they fit this vest, adjust it? How long does it take?   Dr. Tabby An experienced physical therapist can do a good fitting probably in 30 to 45 minutes, sometimes a little longer than that depending on how severe the problem is. We generally video the patient before, during, and after of some more objective confirmation of the changes. There are tests both in standing still and also walking. We would like to bring some more quantification into that process about ways to get data about walking, like a pressure plate that you walk over and times the interval between heel strikes and variability from the center line, but that's all in the future. It's been very just pragmatic right now. Patients almost always leave from their fitting session knowing that they could balance and walk much better than when they came in, and they're all anxious to get their permanent vest soon. It's accomplished with quarter pound and half pound weights, and to be honest, I don't know how to do it; I didn't get trained, so I don't know exactly all the principles involved, you know, where you put the weight, how far from the midline you put the weight. Do you put it up high on the torso, do you put it low on the torso?   MSDF So counting the weights and the vest, how much extra weight is a patient carrying around, and does that become a burden?   Dr. Tabby We don't use more than 2 lbs of weight, and then the vest itself is about 2 lbs. Now we're also working on a t-shirt or an undershirt, a close-fitting athletic-type shirt that we can incorporate the weights right into that. That's really nice because it can be worn under any clothing at all, and the complaint about it being hot won't be as relevant. It does not include a lumbar brace, as this standard brace does. A lot of patients like the brace, though, they think that that contributes somewhat to the sense of balance that they get.   MSDF For an MS patient – and I realize they vary a lot in their disability – is it fairly easy to put this on once they have it?   Dr. Tabby Some might require help. It zippers and tightens up with Velcro straps, so it takes some coordination to get it on.   MSDF Is there any residual effect? I mean, you said they have an immediate effect, but once they take it off is there any benefit or do they always have to wear it?   Dr. Tabby I'm so glad you asked that, because a lot of patients find that they can wear it intensively for two or three days and then not wear it for a day or two and still have carryover benefit. Exactly how that works, I'm not sure either, but that's what they say.   MSDF You've used this with patients. How many in your practice have been trying it?   Dr. Tabby We have over a hundred in the last five or six years.   MSDF Is there any downside?   Dr. Tabby You have to change your wardrobe. I'm kidding a little bit, but I do have a patient… You know, the vest comes in every shade of black that you want, so she changed her wardrobe to only include black so the vest doesn't look strange. You know, if you wear big, loose clothing, you could probably have it under something and it might not be obvious. You know, the fashion sense is an issue, the weight by the end of the day and the temperature.   MSDF Sounds like those are all things that can be worked out sort of cosmetically; color and different fabric eventually or something.   Dr. Tabby Yes.   MSDF Have you done any of the research on this, or you've just been using it? I see there's actually a fair bit published about it.   Dr. Tabby We have a trial that we're working out the kinks of now. We wanted to do a trial with other medications that might help with walking; I'm not sure it's going to be feasible to do that, but just accumulating other types of data that doesn't exist right now, like great systems for measuring body position and movement with small wearable sensors on the body, as well as pressure plates on the floor that you can walk along a pathway. We'd like to do more specific research in specific conditions. Of course, my interest is mainly in MS, but I know I've been able to help other patients with it. You know, it's important if this therapy is going to help more people, that there be as much published as possible that shows that this is a real phenomenon; it's worthy of patients' and physicians' attention.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Fifty 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]

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Forty-nine of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.   This week’s podcast features Dr. Hugh Rosen of the Scripps Research Institute. But first here are some new items in the MS Discovery Forum.   If you’re an MS researcher, you may want to keep an eye on our Bulletin Board section, where we post a variety of news items that may be of interest. One of the items we posted this week is directly related to Dr. Rosen’s work. It’s a notice that a phase 3 trial of a sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulator called RPC1063 has started recruiting twelve hundred patients with relapsing remitting MS in the US. RPC1063 had its origins in Dr. Rosen’s lab.   We also recently added a notice of another clinical trial to the Bulletin Board. That one’s a phase 2 trial of oral laquinimod in primary progressive MS. And a third new Bulletin Board announcement is a request for information from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute to identify patient registries and research groups with established cohorts of patients for potential collaborative research opportunities on comparative effectiveness research in MS treatment.   To read any of these announcements, go to msdiscovery.org and click first on Professional Resources and then on Bulletin Board. And if you have an announcement you think may be of interest to MS researchers, please send it to editor@msdiscovery.org. We won’t post purely promotional press releases, but if we judge the notice to be of general interest, we’ll be happy to post it at no charge.   In other news, it was a relatively slow week in published MS research. According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, only 22 such articles were published last week. Typically at least 40 MS-related peer-reviewed articles are published weekly, and we’ve seen some weeks with more than a hundred. To see the weekly lists going back to March 2012, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers.   Our Drug-Development Pipeline includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. This past week we added 2 new trials and 7 other pieces of information. The drugs with important additions are dalfampridine, fingolimod, masitinib, and natalizumab. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdiscovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Hugh Rosen studies chemical and biological approaches to the molecular mechanisms regulating lymphocyte trafficking. I met with him in his office at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California.   Interviewer – Dan Keller We're talking about mostly new compounds, S1P1 receptor compounds; the prototype now I suppose is fingolimod. What's in development and do they appear to offer advantages?   Interviewee – Hugh Rosen So, firstly, let me disclose that I am a cofounder of a biotechnology company called Receptos that has licensed an S1PR1 agonist from the Scripps Research Institute, so I have and my institution have a significant interest in this particular field.   Sphingosine 1-phosphate receptors act in a number of ways to modulate immune tissue damages in both autoimmune diseases and in viral infections. They've proven to be particularly efficacious in multiple sclerosis. Gilenya, of course discovered by Yoshitomi in Japan and developed by Novartis, has proven to be a clinically useful compound in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. And it appears to do so, at least in part, by altering the ability of lymphocytes to recirculate, and thus lymphocytes to reach the target tissues where they, in fact, produce demyelinating damage to the white matter of the central nervous system, and then the signs and symptoms of multiple sclerosis. So clearly these are useful compounds.   Gilenya, of course, is not a selective small molecule, it is an agonist of four of the five high affinity receptors for sphingosine 1-phosphate – S1P1, 3, 4, and 5 – and some of the associated side effects may be attributable in part to activity of Gilenya on other receptors like the S1P3 receptor that are not required for modulation in the treatment of multiple sclerosis.   MSDF I see that it's referred to as an immunomodulator, not necessarily referred to as a receptor agonist. Does it not have pure agonist effect? Does it have any effects either because of the other receptors or at that same S1P1 receptor?   Dr. Rosen No. In fact, Gilenya when phosphorylated is a full agonist of the sphingosine 1-phosphate receptors, and the newer compounds that are much more selective are also agonists of the sphingosine 1-phosphate 1 receptor. And some of the effects on them for cyto-mediated by downmodulation of the receptor, but I don't use the term modulators or immunomodulators because of the activity on the sphingolipid receptors per se, I use the term immunomodulator because of some of the unique advantages that we've demonstrated in model systems and in man about altering the activity of the sphingosine 1 receptor, because one of the beauties of immunomodulation is to blunt the immune response that causes collateral damage to the tissues whilst leaving sufficient of the immune response intact to allow protection from opportunistic pathogens – bacteria, viruses, and yeasts.   So one of the most striking features that we found – and these have been in some experiments done as a collaboration between my laboratory and the laboratory of Professor Michael Oldstone here at Scripps – has been in the area of influenza; pandemic influenza causes significant collateral tissue damage by having an overactive immune response. What we show is that the sphingosine 1-phosphate 1 receptor blunts that immune response and blunts the amplification of cytokines and chemokines so that you protect from the collateral tissue damage, but you leave intact the ability to mount protective, sterilizing T cell and B cell immunity to the virus. So you can eradicate the virus, sterilize it, you can provide a long-term memory both on the T-lymphocyte side as well as on the antibody side; there's class switching, there's affinity maturation, there are good protective immunity that is produced, and all this while blunting the immune response.   This is the Holy Grail as we think about treating patients, because the window for patients with autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis is that window between effective blunting of the immune response and the prevention of deleterious opportunistic infections that can have life-threatening consequences. So one of the advantages that I suspect we will see over time is that the sphingosine 1-phosphate agonists will prove to be particularly well-tolerated and have a wide window between the ability to limit tissue damage and progression of RRMS, and the need to protect patients from intercurrent infections or subclinical infections that become expressed later.   MSDF Do the other sphingosine 1-phosphate receptors interfere with lymphocyte trafficking also, or do they have other effects which nonselective ligands would then induce these adverse effects through them, or do they also have some effect in terms of trafficking?   Dr. Rosen They don't have significant effects on lymphocyte trafficking the way that S1PR1 does, both from the chemical approaches and the genetic evidence. S1P1 is clearly a toggle switch for lymphocyte trafficking. S1P2 is involved in the maintenance of hearing and in the function of vascular smooth muscle, so it regulates blood pressure. S1P3 is involved in cardiac contractility and also in the control of coronary artery caliber and the control of the airways, so S1P3 agonism is not a useful thing, it's actually quite deleterious. S1P4 and 5 have really no rate-limiting functions, at least of which I am aware, so there may be some redundancy and may not play a critical role in the modulation of health and disease.   MSDF Do you see compounds coming along which will be more selective and therefore not lead to the adverse effects so much? And if so, are these compounds chemically similar or do they have different structures to attach to the receptor, the S1P1?   Dr. Rosen These are clearly different structures, they're structurally very distinct from Gilenya and from each other. Novartis have a backup called siponimod. Actelion had a compound but it's only being used in psoriasis called ponesimod. Receptos has a compound now known as ozanimod – formerly known as RPC1063 – that is in two phase 3 studies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, a two-year study called RADIANCE and a one-year study called SUNBEAM, both of which are enrolling twelve hundred patients each.   MSDF And the RADIANCE trial results looked pretty good; I mean, you had 85, 90% effects at 12 to 24 weeks or even at a year in terms of relapse rate. Does this look like the next compound to emerge?   Dr. Rosen I think it's likely that ozanimod will be the next compound to be submitted for the regulatory process here in the United States and probably in Europe as well. The pleasing thing about the phase 2 data for ozanimod was, in fact, both the strong efficacy signal and a very well-tolerated safety profile; in fact the adverse effect profile of ozanimod and placebo were, in fact, indistinguishable and overlapping in the phase 2 studies. In addition, this very well-tolerated, favorable safety profile has been replicated in a highly successful phase 2 study in ulcerative colitis called TOUCHSTONE that was released recently. So clearly this is a mechanism of immunomodulation that could well prove to be useful for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, but also in a range of other autoimmune diseases where treatments are hard to come by.   MSDF Even with Gilenya, I think there have been reports of a couple of cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, so it gives a nice balance between immune surveillance and inhibiting T cell trafficking, but it seems like not a perfect balance. Does it look like that margin will be narrowed in the future with other compounds?   Dr. Rosen It's possible that it will be. I think the critical point to bear in mind is that real-world experience in tens of thousands of patients with hundreds of thousands of patient-years is really ultimately what is required to define these very rare events that on occasions do occur, and preexisting treatments with other immune-modifying agents such as Tysabri, for instance, may predispose to issues being seen later with PML. And I think that we always have to say that long-term patient experience and physician comfort are ultimately the best guides to the risk-benefit ratio.   MSDF I think you've identified something like four compounds in development, those are some that I had seen. Are there others, or these are really the ones to focus on at this point for people to keep an eye on?   Dr. Rosen There may well be others that are further behind. There have been a number of others that have had safety signals, particularly liver enzyme elevations, and significant first-dose cardiac effects. Arena have a compound that has recently completed a phase 1 multiple-dosing study and will go on to phase 2. So, you know, there are additional compounds and there will be additional compounds. Ultimately, patients do best when the best compounds appear, and the only way one knows that is to test them in man over the long-haul and define that risk-benefits for patients. And, you know, these multiple efforts really reflect the fact that a field has advanced, and that advancing field really does improve through intelligent intervention our ability to offer patients a better set of choices and a better set of long-term outcomes, which is what we're all about.   MSDF We're still focusing here on RRMS, none of this applies to the progressive phase. Is there anything coming along there?   Dr. Rosen You know, there's been one trial in primary-progressive; this was the Gilenya trial which didn't meet its endpoints. It may be that the mechanisms in rapidly progressive MS are a little different and that we don't yet, I think, understand the pathogenesis of that rather different presentation. So I'm not aware of a good alternate approaches to that, but that doesn't mean that the understanding isn't there for that to happen over time, it simply means that I'm not yet aware of it.   MSDF Finally, in secondary-progressive MS, we can understand what's going on, what led to it; if you limit relapses, that's good. But does it look like primary and secondary really may be overlapping but not the same disease?   Dr. Rosen I think there may be balances of pathogenesis where you can intervene more easily in some than in others. Clearly the sphingosine 1-phosphate agonists work particularly well by inhibiting the movement of lymphocytes into the brain. The movement of lymphocytes from the perivascular cuff into the parenchyma, into the white matter, where the demyelination proceeds. However, in parallel in multiple sclerosis, there are also events where there is collateral damage to neurons; we see axonal severing, we see elements of neuronal loss. Certainly with the sphingosine 1-phosphate agonists, there is some evidence that there is a diminution of cortical thinning over time with treatment, and that may be a really good thing.   I think that the neurodegenerative components is one that is hard to get a handle on right now, and that I think that these differences will become more obvious with early treatments of the immunopathology of multiple sclerosis. And that may well separate the autoimmune inflammatory damage and its sequelae from neurodegenerative mechanisms that may be entrained, and I think we will learn a lot from looking at those subsets of patients over time, particularly as more, better, and earlier treatment modalities allow the avoidance of significant damage in most patients.   MSDF Is there anything important we've missed or you'd like to add?   Dr. Rosen You know, I think for all of us who try to work at this interface of therapeutics, we do so because disease is, in fact, personal. We all know patients, we've all seen the multigenerational impact and depredations of multiple sclerosis on friends and family. And I think this is the very strong underlying motivator that drives us as scientists and as physician scientists to really try and bear in mind that the basic mechanisms and the basic therapeutic approaches that we pursue ultimately need a safe and effective human face to change the lives of patients in a positive way.   MSDF Very good. Thank you.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Forty-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 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]

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller  Hello, and welcome to Episode Forty-eight of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.   This week’s podcast features Dr. Bruce Cree on the EPIC, CLIMB, and SUMMIT clinical trials in MS. But first here are some new items in the MS Discovery Forum.   We're very happy to report that MSDF has received three generous grants that will allow us to continue our mission: to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about MS and related conditions in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines. Genzyme has given us two grants. One will allow us to continue producing this weekly podcast for another year, and the other will allow us to develop an additional 12 monthly data visualizations. And Biogen has given us a grant for general operating support. None of these grants will interfere with our editorial freedom, and you can continue to count on MSDF to be an independent source of unbiased MS news.   A conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts several weeks ago sponsored by Orion Bionetworks outlined the progress and challenges in turning computational modeling into actionable knowledge in MS and other brain disorders. Allison Provost, who is Orion’s scientific program manager, has written a blog post describing the parts of the conference of particular interest to MS researchers. You can find her post by going to msdiscovery.org and clicking first on News and Future Directions and then on Blogs.   According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 50 such articles were published last week. To see the list, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers. We selected three of those papers as Editors’ Picks. Two of them are comprehensive review articles: one on biomarkers in MS and the other on MS immunogenetics. The third is an evidence-based consensus guideline on the use of MRI in MS diagnosis.   Our Drug-Development Pipeline includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. This past week we added 1 new trial, we updated information on 3 other trials, and we added 13 other pieces of information.  The drugs with important additions and changes are alemtuzumab, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, natalizumab, and rituximab. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdiscovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Bruce Cree is a neurologist at the University of California, San Francisco. MSDF Executive Editor, Bob Finn, caught up with Dr. Cree in his office at UCSF’s Mission Bay Campus shortly after a departmental seminar entitled “An EPIC CLIMB to the SUMMIT.”    Interviewer – Bob Finn Dr. Cree, welcome.   Interviewee – Bruce Cree Thank you.   MSDF Now EPIC, CLIMB, and SUMMIT are acronyms for three MS clinical studies. So first, what's EPIC, what's CLIMB, what's SUMMIT?   Dr. Cree Great question. So the EPIC study is a long-term observational study now in its 11th year at UC San Francisco. It's a a cohort study of multiple sclerosis patients who have been followed annually for the last 11 years. And this cohort initially had about 517 participants, and now – in its 11th year – we have about 91% of those patients coming back for ongoing assessments. The assessments include annual MRI scans, as well as clinical assessments and the blood draws for biomarker studies.   The CLIMB study is a similar related study that was developed independently at the Brigham and Women’s Children's Hospital in Boston under the directorship there of Howard Weiner. And it is also a long-term followup study. And now, after about seven years, that study has some 217 patients who have been retained out of the original cohort.    SUMMIT is the idea of bringing together long-term, well-curated observational cohorts from multiple sites. And the first iteration of SUMMIT will involve investigators from Basal, Amsterdam, UCSF, and Harvard who will merge together their long-term observational cohorts into a larger study. And the hope here is that we will obtain greater statistical power and be able to answer some of the more pressing questions about MS therapeutics, outcome measures, and utility of both conventional and nonconventional MRI in assisting with the diagnosis and management of patients.   MSDF So in the EPIC study, I'm struck by the fact that you've been able to retain 91% of your patients after 11 years; whereas in the CLIMB study they've lost 90% of their patients in just 7 years. How do you account for that difference?   Dr. Cree The EPIC study has had a great amount of support for long-term followup and subject retention. And we've gone to great lengths to keep our participants interested in the study and wanting to come back. And we have a terrific group of study coordinators who work day and night to maintain contact with our patients, inform them about why it's important for them to participate in the study. And we've even done outreach where we've gone to people's homes to perform evaluations in their homes where they were too ill to come in, as happens with multiple sclerosis as people develop more advanced disability. So we have very good retention as a consequence of the hard efforts made on behalf of the overall study by the coordinators and other members of the team.    MSDF Now you've used several measures of disease progression in the EPIC study, as have others in other studies. There's the EDSS, there's the MSFC, and there are several other measures. But let's talk about the EDSS first. That's probably the most commonly used measures, and it's also the one that people seem to love to hate.    Dr. Cree Yes.   MSDF Can you tell me about the EDSS and what its advantages and disadvantages are?   Dr. Cree Yeah, so the Expanded Disability Status Scale of Kurtzke is an ingenious scale that was really intended to describe where patients are at during the course of their lifespan. And it's a 10-point scale with half-point increment changes after the score of 1. And this scale has been adopted for use as the disability outcome measure in all MS clinical trials. The scale has a fair amount of inter-rater variability, which makes it challenging to administer. Because anytime you have a scale where there's a fair amount of variability it gets harder to interpret change. We did look at the EDSS systematically and looked at change over the first few years in the study and used that as a predictor for long-term disability transitions. We also looked at harder endpoints in the EDSS such as the time it takes for patients to go from no systems, disease onset, to the time where they require a cane to ambulate.    You mentioned the MSFC, the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite. This is a set of scales that were developed for use in multiple sclerosis that included the Timed 25-Foot Walk, which is a measurement of how fast somebody can walk 25 feet. That is clinically relevant because the speed at which somebody walks correlates quite well with the distance they can walk. So the faster you can walk 25 feet the longer you can walk. The 9-Hole Peg Test is a test of upper arm coordination and function. And the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test is a test of cognitive function that measures specifically the tension and processing speed.    So we looked at these things, and we set up thresholds based on other clinical work that were considered to be clinically meaningful changes. So with respect to the Timed 25-Foot Walk and 9-Hole Peg Test, we were looking for a 20% worsening in function over the course of the trial. And with respect to the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test – or PASAT – we were looking at the reliable change index for that outcome. And so these have been validated outcomes that are related to actual disability.   So we looked at all of these measures. And what we found was that when we looked at our relapsing MS patients about half of the patients experienced worsening in terms of EDSS change over 10 years. For the patients who had progressive multiple sclerosis, about 70% of them worsened. And then for these more stringent measures with respect to the MSFC components, we found lower proportions of patients with relapsing MS in secondary progressive or primary progressive disease had worsening in those outcomes, as well. So those were our endpoints for the study; they're clinical endpoints.   MSDF One of the things I noticed in your talk was that there was a great deal of overlap between the EDSS and the overall MSFC score; whereas there wasn't much overlap between the individual components of the MSFC score. What is the significance of that?   Dr. Cree Well the EDSS is itself a composite measure, and people tend to forget that. Especially earlier on in the scores that go from 0 to about 4, there you have 6 functional scale scores that contribute to the overall EDSS. That includes assessment of vision, brain stem function, motor function, sensory function, cerebellar function, bowel and bladder function, and cerebral function. And those separate functional scale scores are scored independently and then are summarized into an EDSS score between 0 and 4. After that, the EDSS score becomes really much more of an assessment of how far patients can walk until they have hit the major disability milestones of an EDSS of 6, which is walking with a cane, 6.5 a walker, 7 a wheelchair, or 8 bed bound.    MSDF So why is there a lot of overlap between EDSS and MSFC but not so much overlap between the components of MSFC?   Dr. Cree So when you look at the MSFC, you have two measures to the MSFC that are looking at motor function: the 9-Hole Peg Test and the Timed 25-Foot Walk. They can also be measures of cerebellar function. Both of things are very well measured in the EDSS by the functional scale scores for pyramidal and cerebellar function. The PASAT is not as well measured in the EDSS, although we have a cerebral functional scale score it's not a very precise measure, and there's a weakness associated with EDSS. Whereas in the MSFC, it's a very precise measurement.    When we look at the individual MSFC scores themselves, you can have patients who worsen in terms of walking, patients who worsen in terms of arm function, and patients who worsen in terms of cognitive function. And there is some degree of overlap in those three domains but not complete. And that just underscores how MS will affect different individuals differently. Some people have more ambulatory impairment, other people have more upper limb function impairment, and still other people have more cognitive impairment.   MSDF You made an interesting analogy to rheumatology in the treatment MS: the question of whether you should treat to no evidence of disease activity. I wonder if you can talk about that analogy and the NEDA, or no evidence of disease activity, goal.   Dr. Cree Sure. So in rheumatology in the 1990s, the discussion at that time had to do with how to treat rheumatoid arthritis. And this concept was advanced, which was a treat-to-target approach. The idea of using increasingly effective therapies to silence and suppress any evidence of active rheumatoid arthritis. And this strategy turned out to be extremely effective in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. And instead of waiting for people to develop more disability, initiation of early highly effective treatments and really suppressing all joint inflammation became the current standard of therapy. And this has resulted in significant improvements in long-term disability in patients who are living with rheumatoid arthritis.    So taking that example and extending it to the field of multiple sclerosis, the idea here is that you have evidence of active multiple sclerosis on MRI scans such as gad-enhancing lesions and new T2 lesions; and evidence of relapses, which are clinical manifestation of acute inflammation; and disability progression, which is looking at the EDSS score and saying okay well if we have a combined measure that looks all of these things, and we try to suppress disease activity perhaps we're going to wind up with better outcomes. And so, this metric of no evident disease activity is defined as no evidence of relapses, no evidence of disability progression by the EDSS, and no evidence of MRI disease activity.    And it was originally developed in the context of clinical trials; specifically the pivotal trial of the natalizumab versus placebo study. And a certain proportion of patients in that study met this criteria of no evidence of disease activity. Subsequently, with more recent trials, other compounds have also been looked at and compared to their placebo or active comparator controls. And in each of these studies, you can see differences between treatments with respect to the proportion of patients with no evident disease activity.    The field of MS today is considering use of no evident disease activity as a therapeutic strategy or goal so that one would escalate therapy to the point where you see no evident disease activity. And the hypothesis here is that if you are able to effectively reach no evident disease activity that that is similar to putting patients in remission or preventing further disability from occurring. So we were very interested to find out whether there was long-term prognostic value of this marker, no evident disease activity.    And so, within the EPIC study, we looked at no evident disease activity over the first two years of the trial, and there was a proportion of our patients from this study who met those criteria: who had no change in terms of disability, no change in terms of clinical relapses, and no evidence of active multiple sclerosis by MRI scan. And we thought that that group would have a better outcome overall than the rest of the cohort. To our surprise, we found that there was no predictive value of no evident disease activity on any of the clinical markers that we looked at for 10 years.    So these patients had exactly the same risk for disability progression as patients who had evidence of active multiple sclerosis. And this was very perplexing; we just didn't really understand why that would be the case until we really started to look at the impact of treatment and use of escalation therapy in our cohort. And I think that when you look at the influence of therapeutic intervention in multiple sclerosis the effect size of therapeutic intervention is so great that other markers of biological disease activity such as new lesions wind up being minimized by the therapeutic impact. And as a consequence, things that might have been predicted based on natural history studies – such as brain volume loss, new lesions – become less apparent as having clinical meaning over a 10-year period of time because of the dominant influence of therapeutic intervention.    With respect to the no evidence disease activity, one of the questions that I think needs to be answered is do we really have the best markers for this? And if we are going to use a treat-to-target approach, are the things that are currently being looked at in no evident disease activity the right things to look at? And there is now interest in looking at other markers, as well, looking in incorporating, for example, brain volume into the no evident disease activity. And it will remain to be determined whether other ways of looking at no evident disease activity wind up performing better as a long-term predictor.   MSDF So when you're confronted with an individual patient – a new patient early in their course of disease – every neurologist is confronted the question of whether you start them with an interferon and escalate as they progress, or whether you start them with a highly active therapy. How do you make that decision, and how does the evidence from EPIC inform that decision?   Dr. Cree That's a great question, and I think this is probably one of the most provocative aspects of this long-term study. In EPIC, we used the escalation strategy where we began with so called platform therapies; drugs that are used as disease-modifying therapies that have been around for a long time, specifically the interferons and glatiramer acetate. And in the event that patients experienced relapses or had other markers of worsening such as brain volume loss, many of those patients were escalated onto what we would consider to be high-potency therapies. Drugs like natalizumab or medications that are off-label but still used in treatment of multiple sclerosis like rituximab or cyclophosphamide.    So we used this escalation strategy in this cohort. And what we found was the following. Treatment escalation was not associated with improved outcomes. In fact, treatment escalation was associated with worse outcomes in some patients. Now, why would that be the case? Well there's probably a confounder there of the indication to treat so that the patients who were getting escalation therapy are doing worse, and so they get the escalation therapy. So what we don't know from this study is if those patient hadn't gotten escalation therapy how would they have fared? We can't answer that question. That would require a randomized controlled trial.    But what this study does provide is this provocative idea that perhaps escalation therapy was really too little too late. That we were identifying a group of people who were at high risk of disability progression, but we weren't really setting things back to restore them onto a normal pathway and certainly not to prevent long-term disability. And this raises the idea that perhaps we should be utilizing these higher-potency therapies earlier. Now, that type of approach – the maximal efficacy approach – doesn't have data yet to support its use, but there are a few provocative studies that suggest that high-potency therapy might be associated with better outcomes. And we have the recent results of the cladribine study in clinically isolated syndrome where we had the best data yet for use of a broad-spectrum immune suppressant in terms of venting, time to the next clinical or radiographic event in patients who have presented with a first demyelinating event. And that study out performed all prior trials in clinically isolated syndrome so raises the question should be using an aggressive therapy right from the get-go?   And then, we have the alemtuzumab pivotal trial where alemtuzumab was compared head-to-head versus interferon beta-1a twice weekly in newly diagnosed patients. And in that study, alemtuzumab also out performed interferon beta-1a on many of the short-term markers of inflammatory disease activity. And we recently saw long-term data with alemtuzumab indicating that those patient do really quite well over a four-year period of time. So actually midterm data.    So we have a few lines of evidence to suggest that perhaps we should be using these high-potency therapies earlier. What we don't know is the relative risk-to-benefit profile. Certainly these higher-potency therapies carry greater risk to the individual subjects who are treated with these medications. And what we ultimately have to determine is whether those risks at a population level are worth the potential benefits of using a greater potency therapy early on in the course of MS.    It's my opinion that it's unlikely that the pharmaceutical industry is going to answer this question for us definitively. This type of approach to compare escalation therapy to high-potency therapy or maximal efficacy therapy from the get-go will require quite a bit of time of followup – at least five years if not longer – and will require large studies. So it seems to me unlikely to be endorsed by the pharmaceutical industry. It also seems unlikely that it's going to be sponsored by national organizations such as the National Institute for Neurological Disease and Stroke because of the extremely high costs associated with this type of clinical trial.    So that raises the question how are we going to answer this pressing unmet and unanswered question? And I think observational studies such as EPIC will be able to do this when merged together with other long-term followup cohorts. Today we have treatments that we didn't have 10 years ago, for example, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab. These medications are currently being used in clinical practice. And I think we should be responsible for aggregating data on the patient experience with these medications, putting it into a systematized process for analysis, and aggregating this type of data across multiple centers. And that really is the goal of SUMMIT, which is going to involve pooling together our patient experience with our existing cohort, as well as new cohorts from UCSF, from Harvard, from Basal, from Amsterdam, and hopefully from many other MS centers as well. And then, with that pooled data, we'll hopefully be able to answer this question in a meaningful way.    MSDF Well, Dr. Cree, thank you very much.    Dr. Cree My pleasure.    [transition music]   MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Forty-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 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]      

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Forty-Seven of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.   This week’s podcast features the second part of a two-part interview with Dr. Hans Lassmann, who discusses oxidative stress as a mechanism of tissue injury in progressive MS. But first, here are some of the new items in the MS Discovery Forum.   According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 56 such articles were published last week. To see the list, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers. We selected two of those papers as Editors’ Picks. One of them includes revised guidelines from the Association of British Neurologists on prescribing disease-modifying treatments for MS. The other describes an international consensus on diagnostic criteria for neuromyelitis optica and related disorders.   Our Drug-Development Pipeline includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. During the month of June, we added 10 new trials, we updated information on 6 other trials, and we’ve added 67 other pieces of information. The drugs with important additions and changes are alemtuzumab, cladribine, cyclophosphamide, daclizumab, dalfampridine, dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, idebenone, interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, laquinimod, rituximab, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdiscovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline.   [transition music]   Now to our interview with Dr. Hans Lassmann of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria. Last week we spoke about biomarkers, and this week we’ll discuss oxidative stress as a mechanism of tissue injury in progressive MS.   Interviewer – Dan Keller What's interesting there at this point?   Interviewee – Hans Lassmann The big problem in multiple sclerosis is that we have very good therapies for the early stage of multiple sclerosis, and they all interfere with the inflammation and the immune system. But when the patients have reached a progressive stage of the disease, then all these therapies are currently noneffective. So the key points were to define what are actually the mechanisms of inflammation and tissue injury in the progressive stage of multiple sclerosis, and there are still a lot of open questions. It is clear that even in the progressive stage there is an inflammatory process, and this inflammatory process is associated with active tissue damage. From that certainly we cannot definitely conclude that the inflammatory process drives the tissue damage; however, it's clearly associated.   Now, we were then very interested to see what are the mechanisms of tissue injury. And this involves, first of all, studies on the nature of the inflammatory process. And here what we found is that in the progressive stage of multiple sclerosis the inflammatory reaction is predominantly hidden within the central nervous system behind a repaired blood-brain barrier. So that means this inflammatory process is no longer really under control of the peripheral immune system. And also, the therapies which we have currently mainly interfere with immune functions in the periphery, and they have actually very little access to an inflammatory process which is taking place within the central nervous system.   So that means that new drugs have to be developed and tested which actually exert an antiinflammatory or some neuroprotective action directly within the central nervous system. And there are now a number of the large companies fully engaged in this process, and there are new candidates coming up, which will have to be tested in proper clinical trials in patients with progressive MS.   The second question, which we have mainly addressed during the last year, was the mechanisms how the tissue damage is induced. And in this regard, we concentrated on cortical lesions in multiple sclerosis, which are very, very specific for the disease. And we compared in gene expression studies these cortical lesions not only with normal controls but also with inflammatory controls. And we used here a disease which has very similar inflammatory infiltrates, as you see in multiple sclerosis brain, but doesn't lead to the MS typical demyelination, and this is tuberculous meningitis. And then we also used as a control for neurodegeneration Alzheimer's disease just to see what is a reaction in gene expression due to degeneration of neurons.   And when we did that, actually it was interesting to see that there were relatively few genes which were specifically changed in their expression in multiple sclerosis patients in comparison to these other disease controls. And these genes were, in part, associated with inflammatory processes. A large part of the genes were associated with a more or less single pathway of tissue injury, which includes oxidative injury leading to mitochondrial injury and its secondary consequences. And then, there were also some genes involved which were MS specifically related to tissue regenerative processes.   We have then looked in further detail, and it now turns out that this cascade of oxidative injury leading to mitochondrial dysfunction and with that to a state of energy deficiency is actually one of the major driving forces of neurodegeneration in the progressive stage of multiple sclerosis. So this oxidative injury is, in part, driven by the inflammatory process. But it is also augmented by factors which are related to age of the patients and to the accumulation of lesion burden due to the chronic disease.   So here the central portion is the activation of microglial cells which can, on the one hand, be activated in the inflammatory process, but they also get activated when tissue is damaged due to completely different causes. And they also get activated just simply in an aging process. And in this respect, then they get activated in a pro-oxidative form. And then, the tissue injury can further be propagated through additional age-related changes, including, for instance, the accumulation of iron in the central nervous system and also obviously the chronic microglia activation due to retrograded and anterograde degeneration when lesions already present within the central nervous system.   MSDF Are the microglia just overdoing what they normally would be expected to do? I mean macrophages use oxidative systems to get rid of pathogens.   Dr. Lassmann Yeah, this is absolutely true. That is a key element of microphage and microglia function. And this is exaggerated in both the aging process, as well as in the chronic inflammatory state like multiple sclerosis. The question only remains what is really driving this massive microglia activation in MS, which is even more and more pronounced than even in very severe other inflammatory diseases of the central nervous system.   MSDF Can you identify or has anyone identified factors that disappear with aging or are increased with aging that may lead to this state?   Dr. Lassmann That is also not really very clear now. I think one interesting aspect is that this massive microglia activation in the direction of oxidative stress you don't really see in rodents and even not in primate experimental models; you see it in humans. And the reason for that is not completely clear, but it may very well be that environmental factors actually play a major role. I think one of the major differences between humans and these experimental animals is that the experimental animals are genetically very homogenous; they are generally inbred strains. And the second is that they are kept under a very constant pathogen-free environment. And this is very different in a human situation, and these animals also have a very … standardized diet. Now this is completely different in human situations, and there are certainly many factors, including peripheral infections but also including diet changes, and many other factors can actually have an influence on microglia in the central nervous system.   MSDF And experimental animals also have optimized diets; people have figured out the nutrients they need I suppose. They're getting a good diet compared to people who knows how everybody is eating these days.   Dr. Lassmann Yes, that's absolutely the case. They have a standardized diet, and they certainly are not exposed to very much of the fats, for instance, which we take into when we eat fat pork meat.   MSDF Do any of the antiinflammatory agents modify the course? Things like lipoxygenase inhibitors and things like that? Not necessarily NSAIDs but now that you bring up fats?   Dr. Lassmann I think there is certainly an aspect behind that is that lifestyle control certainly has a beneficial effect. One can just see that in a way that environmental lifestyle factors, which actually also increase the risk for vascular injury or other things, will be certainly deleterious in a patient with progressive multiple sclerosis where the brain is already damaged due to the original disease process and where the functional reserve capacity of the brain is already partially exhausted. So in that case, even minor changes – which are related to lifestyle or aging – will have a more dramatic effect in such a brain than in a normal aging brain.   MSDF Finally, circling back to something you said at the beginning, in progressive MS I think you said that the immune system the cells have now entered the brain, but the blood-brain barrier has – once again – become a real barrier. So do you really have an immune response running autonomously in the brain no longer subject to any sort of peripheral control?   Dr. Lassmann Yeah, this is certainly a very important open question. We know that the inflammatory cells are present within the central nervous system in the progressive stage and that they are associated with the degenerative processes and the demyelination. We know currently very little about the exact phenotype and functional activation of the inflammatory cells within the central nervous system. This is actually a large research project, which is running currently in my lab, to try to define exactly the functional polarization of the cells within the MS lesions and to determine their activation state, their proliferation rate, and so on.   What we can say from our preliminary data on that is that they are present, they are in part activated. They also express certain transcription factors, which would be associated with a proinflammatory state in the central nervous system. However, overall all these changes are relatively small in comparison to an acute, for instance, virus-induced inflammatory process in the brain. So it seems to be that there is a slow and low-grade activation state which, however, could be completely sufficient to drive the degenerative process in the patients. But that is not the final answer yet.   [transition music]   MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Forty-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 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]      

Hello, and welcome to Episode Forty-Six of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.   This week’s podcast features the first part of a two-part interview with Dr. Hans Lassmann, who discusses biomarkers in multiple sclerosis. But first, here are some of the new items in the MS Discovery Forum.   According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 61 such articles were published last week. To see the list, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers. We selected two of those papers as Editors’ Picks. One, on the prevalence of pain in MS, found that around two-thirds of MS patients experience pain, and this symptom is associated with disability, depression, and especially anxiety. The other editor’s pick is a study of a toxin produced by Clostridium perfringens, a common bacterium often found in the gut that produces an MS-like disease in sheep. This epsilon toxin selectively kills oligodendrocytes while preserving all other neural elements.   Our Drug-Development Pipeline includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. During the past week we added 2 new trials and 5 other pieces of information. The drugs with important additions are dalfampridine, dimethyl fumarate, and fingolimod. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdiscovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Hans Lassmann of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria, is one of the most prolific and highly respected MS researchers in the world. In this first part of a two part interview, Dr. Lassmann discusses biomarkers in MS and related conditions such as neuromyelitis optica and how the two conditions may differ important for therapy.   Interviewer – Dan Keller Let’s talk about new markers in MS or differentiating conditions from MS. What’s coming along, and what do we know now?   Interviewee – Hans Lassmann Well, there has been a very important development during the last years. And this was the technical development of assays which can really identify pathogenic autoantibodies which can modify the inflammatory process in the central nervous system. The major trick behind was that these assays are, in essence, based on cells which are transfected with the respective antigen, and so they express the respective antigen on the surface of the cell. And one can now identify those autoantibodies which really bind to the surface of the cell and are pathogenic, in comparison to those antibodies which recognize epitopes, for instance, within the cells, which cannot be reached by the antibodies in the in vivo situation, and which, therefore, are not pathogenic.   MSDF Can you give me some examples of these kinds of antibodies?   Dr. Lassmann So the first antibody which was the antibody against aquaporin 4, which has been shown to be associated with neuromyelitis optica, at least with a large fraction of patients with neuromyelitis optica. And this antibody then was very well characterized, and it turned out that it is directed against aquaporin 4, which is a water channel in astrocytes. And when patients have these antibodies on the background of an inflammatory disease in the central nervous system, these antibodies can reach their astrocytic targets and destroy the astrocytes, which then leads to secondary demyelination and neurodegeneration.   Having these antibodies, it was then possible to define the clinical spectrum of the disease, and it turned out that it is very strictly associated with neuromyelitis optica, but that the spectrum of the disease is broader than only affecting the spinal cord and the optic nerve. So these patients actually have also lesions in other regions of the brain. But they are still different from those lesions which you see multiple sclerosis.   It was then also possible to define the clinical spectrum of the disease. And, again, differences to multiple sclerosis became very clear. And, finally, it was also possible to then look in these patients with these aquaporin 4 antibodies how they respond to the current treatment strategies which have been established for multiple sclerosis. And it turned out that several of the key therapies for multiple sclerosis, including interferons but also natalizumab or fingolimod, can actually make the disease worse in patients with neuromyelitis optica.   So that was the first example that a disease which has originally been defined as a disease in the spectrum of multiple sclerosis has emerged as a separate and distinguishable disease which requires also different treatment in the patients.   MSDF It seems like neuromyelitis optica has components of autoimmune disease. So why do these compounds that work in MS potentially make the condition worse in NMO?   Dr. Lassmann This is currently not yet clear. One possibility is that the action of pathogenic antibodies makes the difference. The immune mechanisms are certainly different in a purely T-cell mediated disease, in comparison to disease which is mediated by a combination of T-cells and antibodies. And that could possibly explain why differences are seen.   There is another possibility is that some of these drugs actually stimulate the B-cell response or increase the B-cell response in the peripheral blood, and with that possibly also the antibody response. So, in that case, the T-cell mediated inflammation would be suppressed, but the antibody-mediated effects would be enhanced. And that could certainly also play a role. But these are, at the present moment, not proven.   MSDF But even in MS there’s evidence for B-cell trafficking and B-cell participation, but it seems to be less important or am I off base?   Dr. Lassmann No, this is a very interesting question. There is clearly a B-cell component in multiple sclerosis, and it has also been shown that depleting B-cells, for instance, with an antibody against CD20 can actually have a very good therapeutic effect in multiple sclerosis. However, we have to keep in mind that B-cells not only produce antibodies, but they have also other immunological functions. So one function, for instance, is that they help the T-cells, for instance, by very efficient antigen presentation. So by eliminating B-cells, you get also a decrease of the T-cell response. But this is not only one possibility. There are other possibilities that B-lymphocytes actually can also produce cytokines – proinflammatory cytokines – which may directly act on the tissue and damage the tissue independent from antibodies.   MSDF Getting back to NMO, if someone tests negative for antibody, but has clinical signs, does that rule out NMO or are you just not detecting antibodies or is it always required or not?   Dr. Lassmann So it rules out an aquaporin 4 antibody associated form of NMO, but a fraction of NMO patients – it’s around between 10 and 20% – which have a clinical presentation of NMO, but have no antibodies against aquaporin 4. There is currently very much effort to define what is the mechanism in these patients. And it turned out that a fraction of these aquaporin 4 antibody-negative NMO patients actually have antibodies against myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein.   And this leads, actually now, to a second type of disease which can be separated from multiple sclerosis. These are patients with high titers of pathogenic antibodies against myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein. Now, again, these patients, when you look at them at pathology, you would clearly define the disease as multiple sclerosis because they have inflammation, and they have very selective primary demyelination. And this is different from what you see in NMO where the astrocyte pathology is the earliest event. But in those patients with the MOG antibodies, its demyelination sort of hallmark, actually, of multiple sclerosis…of the disease process in multiple sclerosis.   However, when you now analyze these patients with mock antibodies, clinically you see that the clinical presentation is different from the classical presentation of multiple sclerosis patients. These antibodies are, for instance, frequent in children with inflammatory demyelinating disease of a spectrum of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis or relapsing disseminated encephalomyelitis or even patients with a disease similar to relapsing, remitting multiple sclerosis. This is in children.   In adults, you find these antibodies in a fraction of NMO patients. But there are also other patients who have a disease which is more similar to what is seen in multiple sclerosis, with the exception that they have relatively large and aggressive lesions, and also that they have, relatively frequently, lesions in the brain stem such as, for instance, the pons or the medulla oblongata. And, again, it seems to be that here a new disease entity appears which can be separated from multiple sclerosis.   Regarding therapy of these patients, we don’t have yet the data which we need to have. It can be speculated that the therapeutic response may possibly be more similar to those patients with NMO in comparison to the classical MS patients, but to know that we would have to have much larger cohorts of patients who have been treated with the different regimes.   MSDF Do some of these do worse on the typical MS treatments such as natalizumab or fingolimod?   Dr. Lassmann These data currently are not yet existing. It’s also because, due to these possible problems related to NMO, generally now, patients with mock-antibody-associated diseases are more likely to be treated with global immunosuppression or with rituximab, so the anti-CD20 antibody. And clinicians are very reluctant to use these therapies which have been shown to make disease worse in NMO in these mock patients. So we don’t have the data, currently.   MSDF Are there separate etiologies, does it look like here, the MOG versus classical MS?   Dr. Lassmann This comes to the important question about the etiology of MS in general. We have to admit that we don’t know what is the real etiology of multiple sclerosis. It is thought to be an autoimmune disease, but this is not finally proven. It may also be associated with infections – Epstein-Barr virus infection is, for instance, one possible example. And there are certainly other theories also, which discuss completely different mechanisms of disease pathogenesis in multiple sclerosis. It is clearly that all these diseases, including NMO, mock antibody associated disease, and MS are chronic inflammatory diseases. But what drives the inflammation is currently not yet known.   MSDF Is it possible there’s an initial insult to oligodendrocytes which then sort of precipitate a chain reaction cascade?   Dr. Lassmann This is also one of the theories which is put forward, but one has to say that with a bit caution, because there are experimental models where you can actually destroy oligodendrocytes in the central nervous system which do not lead to an autoimmune disease which is somehow related or similar to multiple sclerosis.   MSDF Anything interesting or important to add on the subject, in this context?   Dr. Lassmann I think what is now of interesting new research line is to search for additional autoantibodies in the population of multiple sclerosis patients. There are indications from pathology that there are certainly more patients who may have pathogenic autoantibodies, in comparison to those patients which now can be identified as NMO or mock-autoantibody-associated disease. There is a relatively recent study suggesting that another channel, a potassium channel on oligodendrocytes and astrocytes, the KIR4.1 channel, may also be a target for pathogenic autoantibodies in multiple sclerosis. Here, however, we are still in the very early stage because the test systems are not yet fully reproducible. And we will see in the future whether this antibody association with the KIR4.1 antibody really holds true in MS patients. And if that’s the case, what patients are they and whether they differ in any way in their clinical presentation or also response to therapy.   MSDF Is there a way to survey patients and essentially see what commonalities they have in antibody reactivity, and zero in on it that way, looking at a wide array of antibodies in various patients and seeing if they have reactivities in common?   Dr. Lassmann I think this is valid as a second step. But there is another alternative strategy which is now very well established also for other diseases, including paraneoplastic diseases or other autoimmune diseases. In that case, one can actually take the sera of the patients, and there are now new technologies developed where you can put these sera, for instance, on brain sections – normal brain sections – of either humans or animals and test whether they bind to specific structures.   This has been tried for nearly 30 years now, but only recently, new technologies became available which make that in a much more specific way. And this has been very successful in identifying new diseases which are associated with antibodies against a variety of neurotransmitter receptors or ion channels. So they certainly, in general, have not the spectrum of multiple sclerosis. They may have epilepsy. They may have psychosis. They may have motor neuron diseases, other things. But, on the other hand, the same technique can also be used to identify in multiple sclerosis patients whether some of them have actually antibodies which bind to brain tissue. And when that is established, one can actually then isolate the specific protein with the antibodies out of the brain tissue, and then, with modern molecular biology technology, can identify the antigen.   This is a strategy which has very nicely and very successfully shown for other diseases. And this was also, in principle, the strategy how people found evidence for these, for instance, KIR4.1 antibodies and also for the NMO antibodies.   MSDF Finally, do you envision being able to develop specific treatments if you find out specific autoantibodies or causes of some of these conditions?   Dr. Lassmann It may very well be. I think there are two dimensions on that. The one dimension is that such patients have pathogenic autoantibodies, and that certainly will have implications for therapy. That means that you will try to block the pathogenic action of the antibodies in general. In that case, it doesn’t make a difference whether the antibody is now directed against a neuron or against an astrocyte or against an oligodendrocyte. And this is a strategy which is actually now already approached in many different conditions, and neuromyelitis optica certainly is a disease where this is relatively advanced in this respect.   Now, the other possibility would be to try to find therapies which are then counteracting specifically the destruction of the particular cells which contain the antigen. So it can very well be that, for instance, an antibody against a neurotransmitter receptor will have a different implication on neuronal function, in comparison to an antibody against an astrocyte or an oligodendrocyte. Here, if these are just blocking antibodies and not antibodies which destroy the tissue, one can actually then try also symptomatic therapies with interfering with these channels directly.   MSDF Is there any thought towards trying to induce tolerance or clonal deletion of the pathogenic clones?   Dr. Lassmann This is obviously the dream of immunologists, and it would be extremely attractive. And it works extremely well in inbred mouse models with a very well-defined disease induction process. The strategy is very dangerous in a genetically heterogeneous population and also in a disease process which may be induced by different mechanisms. So, in that case, the big danger is that this tolerizing strategy in certain patients, for instance, with a certain histocompatibility genetics, actually is counterproductive and increases the immune response. And this is actually a problem which is very, very difficult to solve, in the aim of translating this mouse data into humans.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Forty-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 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]    

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Forty-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. Simon Hametner, who discusses the role of iron in multiple sclerosis. But first, here are some of the new items on the MS Discovery Forum.   According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 59 such articles were published last week. To see the list, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers. We selected two of those papers as Editors’ Picks. One, published in Nature Reviews Neurology proposes a definition of aggressive multiple sclerosis as well as a treatment algorithm. The other editor’s pick, published in the journal Neurology, reports on a randomized, placebo-controlled study on patients switching from natalizumab to fingolimod, concluding that shorter washout periods may be better.   Our Drug-Development Pipeline includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. During the past week we added 3 new trials, we updated information on 2 other trials, and we added 9 other pieces of information. The drugs with important additions and changes are daclizumab, dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, interferon beta-1a, laquinimod, and natalizumab. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdiscovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Simon Hametner works with Hans Lassmann at the Medical University of Vienna in Austria. We spoke about iron accumulation in MS in cells of the central nervous system and what iron may be doing.   Interviewer – Dan Keller Let's talk about iron and neurodegeneration. What specifically are you looking at?   Interviewee – Simon Hametner We are looking at the formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded brain tissue from multiple sclerosis patients and controls, and we're looking, for example, at iron in these tissues. We're also looking now at proteins which are engaged in the management of iron in these tissues, for example, now.   MSDF What are you finding different in MS patients that you don't see in healthy people?   Dr. Hametner So we see iron accumulation, for example, in microglia and macrophages in MS, which are related to MS lesions. There are, for example, some MS lesions which have macrophages around those lesions, and we don't see much of iron in macrophages and microglia in healthy control tissue. We also see iron loss in multiple sclerosis because the iron is normally stored in oligodendrocytes in the controls. And this is also the case for MS, but in MS we also see a loss of this iron in the oligodendrocytes, especially at the oligodendrocytes which are closed to MS lesions.   MSDF Do you know the mechanism of why you're seeing these differences in iron?   Dr. Hametner We are now performing the research to find about these mechanisms. We have some prior indications, for example, hephaestin upregulation on oligodendrocytes in the vicinity of the lesions, but these data were not so straightforward. We are now also looking for ferroportin; ferroportin is an iron exporter of glial cells, it's actually ubiquitously expressed in mammalian cells. And all the glial cells also can express ferroportin, and we found it also in the oligodendrocytes; we now undertake this research. We think that oligodendrocytes really upregulate ferroportin and hephaestin in order to export iron.   MSDF Is the iron detrimental?   Dr. Hametner It depends. We don't think that it is, per se, detrimental; we see loads of iron in the deep grey matter nuclei and it seems that the brain can handle that quite well. But if there is even a minor amount of iron in the extracellular space even in the ferrous form – because iron normally is stored in the ferric and the trivalent form in ferritin – but if we see even minor amounts in the ferrous form, then it might be detrimental at very low amounts actually.   MSDF Is this a result or a marker of what's going on, or does it really contribute somehow to the disease?   Dr. Hametner This is a very interesting question. We think that iron really colocalizes or is found and accumulated at sites where things are going on with these lesions which accumulate iron in the microglia and macrophages around them. On the other hand, you can detect it very nicely with magnetic resonance imaging today. So we think that on the one hand it does play a role in the disease pathogenesis, and on the other hand we think that we can detect really these sites of iron accumulation, for example, around MS lesions.   MSDF Are you doing this only on fixed patient tissue, or do you have animal models of this; how are you exploring it?   Dr. Hametner We have this fixed material on the MS, and I think it's really important to also characterize the human material in very detail to perform all the necessary analysis to characterize what's going on in the human tissue. But, of course, as you mentioned animal models, it's very important to look at the EAE models. And collaboration partners have done that from McGill University in Montreal, Juan Zarruk and Sam David, and we are collaborating with them. And actually now they have been looking at some iron transporters and we are looking at exactly the same iron transporters now in the MS tissue. And they have found it in the same cell types, these iron transporters, in the EAE model being upregulated in the course of EAE as we see now in the MS tissues actually. So we really look for confirmation also from animal models from our collaboration partners.   MSDF And does this work with various kinds of animal models, or is it restricted to the EAE?   Dr. Hametner This survey has now been performed on the EAE, so it is a mock EAE actually and that they have performed a relapsing-remitting mock EAE in the chronic EAE model, and they have characterized those proteins, but they also do spinal cord injury models and they have performed a very interesting experiment on iron-loading in macrophages in the course of spinal cord injury where the iron gets into the macrophages possibly from a hemoglobin source from erythrocytes in the traumatic lesional tissue. And we think that regardless of the source of iron, it has these detrimental effects in the macrophages and triggers them to have a pre-inflammatory – or so to speak, M1 state – and are detrimental to the surrounding tissue.   MSDF This is macrophages or also microglia?   Dr. Hametner So in the spinal cord injury model, it was mainly macrophages. In the acute phases of the EAE at the peak of the disease, it was also mainly macrophages, but later they also found iron in the animal model within microglia, as we do also in MS. We have these early lesions where there are a bunch of macrophages in these classical active lesions, and these are mainly macrophages, and if they are iron-loaded, it is in the macrophages. But for the later lesions for these chronic active lesions which have this iron ring around the lesion, we find it also within macrophages but also microglia.   MSDF So does this change the oxidative environment inside the macrophage?   Dr. Hametner That's a good question. We think that it does change something with the macrophages because they seem to die. So we have these dying macrophages in the EAE model, as they have observed it, but in the MS we saw this dystrophic microglia at the lesion edge. So these are microglia which are highly iron-loaded probably for some time, and they have these nice processes. And if these processes get those beads and the process fragmentation and these process budding and blips in the processes, we call them senescent or that dystrophic microglia. And we have indications that this is really related to the iron load of this microglia. And then they get diminished towards the inactive centers of the lesion. So we think that at the edge of chronic active or slowly expanding MS lesions, these get iron-loaded in microglia and they don't handle it quite well, and then they die and get diminished towards the inactive centers.   MSDF So when they die, do they release this and is it affecting other cells?   Dr. Hametner We believe so. We think more or less that it is necessarily released into the extracellular space if an iron-loaded cells just dies by necrosis, or apoptosis, or something in between. So it is just released into the extracellular space. It has to be taken up by other cells; for example, other microglia, or other macrophages, or even astrocytes; it seems that it is really liberated. But, of course, it is hard to say whether iron within a specific microglia has been acquired by some other microglia which has died, or by some oligodendrocyte which has died, or even another source. But the fact is although we are sure that they have really accumulated lots of iron, and given actually the concentration of iron in these microglia and the surrounding tissue, we do think that there must be other sources than only oligodendrocytes by which iron gets into these microglia.   MSDF Where do you go from here? What do you see the steps in the research?   Dr. Hametner  I think it is necessary to characterize these rings around lesions which have these iron-loaded microglia and macrophages, to characterize at which disease phases these rings occur, and, of course, this is very interesting because you can use it in vivo. Because one of the things we are really sure is that we can image iron within microglia at the lesion edge of those lesions very nicely at 7 Tesla of magnetic resonance imaging; we are very sure that this is iron then within microglia and macrophages. And if we can relate pathologically the disease mechanisms or the degenerative actions going on in these lesions to the presence of iron, we then can also relate our in vivo findings from MRI with the things which are going on there, like neural degeneration and demyelination, for example.   MSDF Do you find that the iron-sensitive MRI imaging correlates with duration of the disease or stage or clinical condition?   Dr. Hametner Yes, we think so from our pathological material. So we think that in the progressive stage of MS, there are these lesions which are the slowly-expanding lesions, and they have these chronic activity, chronic demyelinating activity at the lesion edge. And we think it's a typical feature of progressive MS. It remains to be determined whether this also holds true in vivo. If you make an MRI, an iron-sensitive MRI, and you look for iron rings around MS lesions, for example, by susceptibility-weighted imaging or by quantitative susceptibility mapping or even Ultrastar imaging, if you look at these iron rings around lesions, it remains to be determined at which disease phase is, because in the pathological material we have more of the chronic cases and we have very few relapsing-remitting. So we cannot say what's really going on in the relapsing-remitting disease because we don't have this material pathologically.   MSDF Right, you would have to find people in various stages who probably died from something else; they're not going to be advanced MS patients at that point. Is there some relationship of your findings to the idea of oxidative stress?   Dr. Hametner Yes, we have these overactivity for malondialdehyde or E06, which is this antibody against oxidized phospholipids, and we have found actually by working performed partly in this lab that there is a higher activity for oxidative stress of various glial cells in the lesions. But as for the microglial degeneration, we did not see so many microglia being positive for these markers. So the microglia, they seem to die, but we only have these morphological features of dystrophic or senescent microglia actually from the pathological side. On adjacent side, if you stain for iron and you stain for oxidized phospholipids, you see partly that there is a 1:1 colocalization. But we don’t see these always actually.   I think what's really clear is that there is lots of oxidative stress in MS lesions, but even in early MS lesions which on iron stainings don't have so much iron, because on these early lesions we actually see predominant iron loss. If you have a very highly active MS lesion in the early stages, you see iron loss, and you will see also oxidative damage there. So there is also other factors leading to oxidative stress, like NADPH oxidase, for example, the p22phox, the functional subunit of NADPH oxidase, which we have shown in this lab that it is upregulated on macrophages and microglia, but also in the absence of iron.   MSDF What tips the balance between loss and iron accumulation?   Dr. Hametner That's an interesting question, actually a complicated one. You're right, we see on the one hand iron loss, and we see iron accumulation. So in the early stages, we see iron loss around MS lesions, in the MS lesions, because oligodendrocytes try to get rid of their intracellular iron possibly to prevent the iron efflux or iron liberation, which is uncontrolled if there is demyelination and oligodendrocyte degeneration actually. So we think that inflammation in the early phases of the disease leads to this efflux, which we think also involves not only oligodendrocytes, but also astrocytes. So we now think actually that oligodendrocytes probably efflux the iron towards astrocytes, and those astrocytes then might efflux it towards the periphery even. So I think inflammation is an obvious candidate to trigger this upregulation of iron efflux mechanisms.   I think what drives the iron accumulation within the microglia at the lesion edges is a different story. We think that these are two unrelated processes. On the one hand you have these iron loss mechanisms, the iron efflux mechanisms from the oligos leading to iron loss in early MS lesions, and this seems to be a protective phenomenon; this is, so to speak, a protective reaction of the glial cells against oxidative stress. But in later lesions, in chronic active lesions with this iron accumulation within microglia and macrophages, and we don't think that they are really correlated. So we think these are two distinct processes going on in MS, probably even in two distinct phases of the disease.   MSDF Is there anything interesting to add?   Dr. Hametner I think the really crucial question is now to find out about the source of iron for microglia and macrophages, and even to find out about the source of iron for the oligodendrocytes. We are not so sure whether this is really transferrin-bound iron entering the brain and being loaded in oligodendrocytes, as you find it in control tissue, control brains. And we don't think that this is only this iron from the oligodendrocytes which is then loaded into the microglia and macrophages; we think there are additional sources possibly from the vasculature.   MSDF Very good, thank you.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Forty-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 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]  

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Forty-Four 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. Monika Bradl, who discusses animal models of neuromyelitis optica, NMO. But first, here are some of the new items on the MS Discovery Forum.   According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 69 such articles were published last week. To see the list, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers. We selected two of those papers as Editors’ Picks. One – on the use of MRI in NMO –included no fewer than 48 co-authors, a veritable Who’s Who of prominent MS researchers. The other editor’s pick, which had “only” 36 co-authors, was a large study providing strong evidence that disease-modifying treatment reduces disability worsening events in clinically isolated syndrome and early MS. . [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Monika Bradl is an associate professor in the center for brain research at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria. I talked to her in her office about her work with animal models of neuromyelitis optica to probe what occurs in the early stages of the disease. She first describes why animal models are important.   Interviewee – Monika Bradl NMO is a very rare disease, and so you have the problem that you get only very little pathological material, and so when you want to know what's going on at the very beginning of the disease you have to use animal models. And so our pioneer work there in the NMO field was to find out whether the antibody that characterizes about 80% of NMO patients, that's an antibody directed against aquaporin-4, water channel astrocytes, is pathogenic or not. And so what we did is that we injected this antibody then in experimental animals. When we had the animals without any additional CNS inflammation going on, they remained completely fine, and that was at that time a bit of a debate because people thought that the antibodies could enter the central nervous system anyhow.   But then it turned out that this failure of the antibody to reach the uninflamed brain had also predecessor in humans. There they had an NMO patient in Japan who was diagnosed with NMO, and when they found that he has pathogenic antibodies, they were first afraid because this patient was blood donor with the Japanese Red Cross, and so at that time then they stored serum samples of all the blood donors for quite some time, and they found out that this person had pathogenic antibodies already for more than 10 years without showing any signs of disease.   And so this was then the human patient correlated to what we found in our NMO animals, and what we then also saw is immediately when we make our CNS inflammation with CNS-specific T cells which break open the blood-brain barrier, then the antibody gets access to the central nervous system, binds to the astrocytes, and then induces two different type of killing procedures. So the astrocytes are then killed with either the help of complement or with the help of a mechanism that's called antibody-dependent cytotoxicity; so both of these mechanisms are then responsible for tissue destruction.   Interviewer – Dan Keller Getting back to the Japan patient, did they also follow the recipients of that person's blood? It seems like this patient did not have that second hit which would allow the antibody to cause problems, but giving it passively to someone who already had the first hit might cause a problem. Did they look at the recipients?   Dr. Bradl I'm sure they did, but there are no records about it to my knowledge. They might have been published in Japanese in some of these Japanese journals, but not in the international journals. But I'm quite sure that there was no immediate transfer of the disease with these antibodies because that would have made headlines. So one can conclude from that that this must have been harmless.   MSDF And what animal models are you using?   Dr. Bradl We are using rat models, but there are other groups that are working in mice. We use Lewis rats and we think they are great because the rat complement works with the human antibodies, so it provides the help. And we have an NMs strain the Lewis rat which is extremely susceptible to all different types of autoimmune diseases, and so therefore we like rats and their CNS is larger and nicer. But people who work with mice, they also have advantages because they can use the entire transgenic zoo of knockouts or gene-mutated animals, and with this they can learn more about the contribution of individual molecules to the disease process.   MSDF Now that you bring up the mice, are some mice more susceptible based on MHC than others; are some resistant?   Dr. Bradl There you have to consider one peculiarity of the mouse system. If you use mice, then you have the wrong complement system. So no matter what kind of inbred strain you use, you have to transfer human complement along with the human antibodies to get an effect, plus people who use the mouse model directly inject complement and antibodies into that brain to circumvent the blood-brain barrier. And when they do that, the MHC type of the particular mouse strain doesn't play a role.   MSDF Is this using only passively transferred antibody, or do you try to raise antibodies by injecting antigen or modifying antigen?   Dr. Bradl Yup. We desperately try to do so, but I have to say that this was not a real success story. So we first tried, as many other people did, to use just convention and normal aquaporin-4 as it is normally produced, or longer fragments of this, but obviously this does not work. And we now know that the antibody recognizes its target only if the aquaporin-4 is correctly folded within the same membrane. And only if this is the case, then there are three extra cellular loops which are available for antibody binding, and these three loops must be properly oriented and strictly optimally aligned in order for the antibody to bind. And this can only be hardly mimicked in the animal model just by immunization.   We then tried also to immunize with membranes of aquaporin-4 transfected cells, and there we got a little of antibody titer, but when we used these antibodies to stain tissue in order to find out whether they are good one, we saw much more staining than we would have liked, and so that means that the membranes are probably contain some antigens which were then, after immunization, targets of antibody responses. So this was so far in our hands a failure. And as far as I know, we are not the only ones that suffer from that. So there is currently, unfortunately, no model which works after immunization with aquaporin-4.   MSDF Where do you go from here?   Dr. Bradl Well, we are currently modifying our animal models to the extent that we study much more the T cell responses, and we also try to modify the B cell site, but this is a bit of a, let's call it easy way modification. Because we learned along the way that when we have a very, very, very good NMO IgG from a patient, we can work with very low antibody titers, and so that gives us a very nice animal model. And we also know that there are some NMO IgGs which make high titers in the patients but which are relatively lousy in animal models. So we learned from this that we just select and search for the best animal IgG for the model to transfer this; that's the B cell side. And on the T cell side, you'll find T cells in NMO lesions, but people had a hard time to get aquaporin-4 specific T cells.   So it was not quite clear whether one needs aquaporin-4 specific T cells at all for the formation of lesions, or whether any other activated T cell that recognizes different proteins in the CNS could do the job as well. So over the last few months, we now were really able to produce really highly pathogenic aquaporin-4 specific T cells which do the job and which guide lesions to sites where they are also seen in NMO patients. And so with this we were now able to really advance our model much, much more than we had done before.   MSDF So these T cells you've generated, and these are directly cytotoxic?   Dr. Bradl We are not dealing with CD8-positive or cytotoxic T cells, we are dealing with helper T cells. And these helper T cells, we know that they exist because the pathogenic antibodies of the patients have a phenotype that needs T cell help in their formation. But it was all the time unclear whether the T cells only help in antibody formation, or whether they also help in localizing lesions to the correct places. And now we have really for the first time the impression that we have a cell line that does exactly this.   MSDF How do you translate what you're finding out in the animal models to the clinical situation? Is it developed enough now that you can make correlates?   Dr. Bradl Well, that's a good point. I mean, when you look, for example, at our T cell work, then we observed in our animals that there are a large number of epitopes available for antigen recognition by T cells in the rat. And then it turned out that people observed the same thing in mice, and now we know it's also the same thing in humans. And then when you have so many different epitopes or so many different parts of a protein that can be recognized by the immune system, then you have to figure out whether all of them could give rise to pathogenic T cells or not.   And in the Lewis rat, for example, one knows that on myelin basic protein, there are two adjacent peptides which can induce very nice T cell responses, but only one T cell response is pathogenic and the other harmless. And so we initially were facing the same problem with our Lewis rats and the many different epitopes on aquaporin-4, and there we found out that in principle we can also rise T cell responses against many of these epitopes, but we have to use an enormous amount of T cells to get lesions in the CNS.   But with our new T cell line, now we know that we only have to use very few cells to get the lesion, so they are the dominant pathogenic T cells. And it's quite nice that in NMO patients with a very peculiar MHC phenotype – that's an MHC phenotype that's mostly seen Brazilian NMO patients – they recognize dominantly an epitope that's very close to ours, and they termed this also immunodominant epitope. And it could be that it's pathogenic as well, but there is not yet any proof for that in humans.   MSDF Looking at aquaporin-4 as a target in NMO, do these cells just use it as a target to destroy the cell that it's on, or does it result in a pathologic process by inhibiting the action of the channel?   Dr. Bradl There are reports about knockout animals where there is no aquaporin-4 available, also on astrocytes in the CNS. And these animals are apparently healthy under normal conditions, but they show a disease phenotype under conditions where there is tissue swelling going on; for example, under ischemia, and so they cannot cope with that properly. So that means the complete absence of this channel is also bad. Then there are currently two different groups of thinking in the scientific community. There are reports that antibodies can bind to aquaporin-4 and inhibit water flow through this channel, but there are other groups that could not reproduce it. And at the moment it could just be a matter of different antibody preparations or different test systems or different species, so this issue is not 100% solved yet.   MSDF Anything we've missed or interesting to add on the topic?   Dr. Bradl I think the only thing one can say is that since NMO is such an extremely rare disease and since this makes it necessary that people all over the world cooperate with each other, that leads to an enormously research-friendly atmosphere and an enormous willingness of the people to cooperate with each other, and so on all different types of subjects.   MSDF How many patients are there?   Dr. Bradl Well, when you look here in Austria, we have about 8 million inhabitants; there are 8,000 MS patients and approximately 80 NMO patients. And this frequency is more or less encountered throughout the world; it's a very rare disease.   MSDF Very good, thank you.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Forty-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 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]  

[intro music]   Hello, and welcome to Episode Forty-Three 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. May Han, who discusses issues related to following patients with clinically isolated syndrome. But first, here are some new items on the MS Discovery Forum.   We recently posted an article on a surprisingly strong association between a certain gene variant and non-response to interferon beta in people with RRMS. The study is a meta-analysis of three independent cohorts in Italy, France, and the U.S., and it comes from the labs of Philip De Jager and Filippo Boneschi. You’ll find this article by clicking first on News & Future Directions and then on New Findings.   This past week we published the latest in our series of data visualizations. This month’s visualization is a series of word clouds illustrating how key terms in the MS clinical-trial literature have changed between 1993 and 2014. To find this visualization, first click on Research Resources, then on Data Visualizations, and then on Word Cloud.   According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 30 such articles were published last week. To see last week’s list, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers. We selected one of those papers as an Editors’ Pick. It’s study of the association between depressive symptoms and walking ability in people with RRMS.   Are you attending the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers in Indianapolis this week? If so, please come visit us at the Accelerated Cure Project’s booth. We’ll be demonstrating some of our latest data visualizations along with other features of the MS Discovery Forum. You’ll find the booth in the hallway close to the main entrance to the exhibit hall, and we look forward to meeting you.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. May Han is an assistant professor in Neurology and Neurological Sciences at Stanford University. I spoke with her about following patients with clinically isolated syndrome, as well as her approach to patients with MS across the course of their disease. But first, she addressed some unmet needs in MS.   Interviewer – Dan Keller Dr. Han, you told me that we’re good at the diagnosis of MS in general, but still there’s a vast area that we don’t know about. What are some of those unmet needs?   Interviewee – May Han So it’s been over 150 years since Charcot first described multiple sclerosis, and I have to say that we have come a long way in understanding and treating this disease. But as you have mentioned, there are still areas where we have no idea, there are gaps in our understanding of this disease. One of these areas that is clinically very relevant and is very challenging is in the day and age where we have a dozen disease-modifying therapies for MS patients, and yet we don’t have a good way, a scientific way of selecting the most effective therapy for a particular patient is what I find quite challenging in the clinics.   MSDF What gives you clues or how do you approach this essentially algorithm of deciding where to begin and how to move on to other medications if the first one’s not working well?   Dr. Han Currently, of course, we follow the guidelines. So for any relapsing-remitting patients, our logic is to go for the safest medication that we think are going to be most effective, which means we go with the first-line therapies. So we have the convention ABC drugs such as beta-interferon family of therapies and glatiramer acetate, plus the newer oral medications such as Tecfidera and fingolimod or Gilenya that we use for the first-line therapy; not a whole lot of science in choosing these medications for a particular patient, but what we would do is initially we would educate the patient about these disease-modifying therapies and then select the medication together with the patient to see what would be most appropriate and the patient could be most compliant for a particular medication.   To give you an example, certain patients have aversion to needles, in which case we go with the oral medications. We also have in mind what the preference of the patient, such as whether they could be able to follow it through for years on end with a particular medication. Ideally, we would like to have zero relapses or MRI activity when a patient is on a disease-modifying therapy, but as we all know none of these medications are 100% foolproof, and they can still have some degree of MRI activity or infrequent relapses on this medication. However, if a patient is clearly not responding to a therapy either in terms of not being compliant, being intolerant to the mode of administration, or if they’re having worsening disease activity, we would decide to go on to stronger medications or second-line of therapy.   MSDF Do you initially discuss a plan of action, a stepwise pattern of medication prescribing, or do you wait until something needs to be changed to bring it up with patients?   Dr. Han That is a very good question. I’m sure it varies among clinicians, but, however, I would like to paint the picture to the patient the best that I can. So, let’s say for example, if a patient who is a newly-diagnosed MS patient who has very few MRI lesions, I would discuss with them what the most appropriate medication could be. We would decide a medication and we would also give them an outline of what the followup plan would be and when we would be deciding to switch to a different therapy, and if so, which medications would be most likely appropriate for them, and also how we would monitor them. So by doing this, it gives the patient a better picture of their path and what to watch out for, and in my experience we have a better outcome with these patients.   MSDF Do you find that once you achieve success in limiting relapses and lesions that the medication is fairly stable for a long time, or do you have to have an armamentarium that you keep moving through?   Dr. Han So my model if a patient is responding to a medication, unless they have other side effects or reasons to switch, I would like to get the most mileage out of the medication as much as I can for a particular patient. However, if a patient, for example, has JC virus positivity, in which case even if they’re responding to Tysabri really well, there is a cutoff time point where we have to sit down and consider whether this patient should be switched onto a different medication to prevent the development of opportunistic brain inflammation such as PML, in which case what the next medication would be. And so we would sit down and talk the pros and cons; this conversation was started even before the patient was started on medication, but that would be the checkpoint.   MSDF I suppose another aspect is do medications start to fail patients even after a long period of stability, or do they usually continue to be stable if the medication is working for some period of time?   Dr. Han This is also a very pertinent question. MS patients, as we know, is very heterogeneous. Some of the patients, if they are stable on a medication, they would continue to do well on a medication for several years up to decades. However, some patients would have an initial improvement or stabilization of their disease, however in the later stages they would have worsening disease. And it is really unclear whether because their disease per se is getting worse or whether their body is rejecting the medication secondary to the immune response. And that is also one area that we should do research on to better understand this condition.   MSDF When you say reject the medication, are you actually referring to an immune rejection such as with, say, interferon; I would think it would be less likely they would actually mount an immune response to a small molecule. Am I clear on that or not?   Dr. Han I think we have quite a lot of information in terms of beta interferon therapies, because we clearly know that patients do tend to develop antibodies against beta interferon, especially the therapy. However, even that we don’t really know if all those antibodies are attacking the drug or whether they are just there. So just by finding the antibody alone is not enough to say that the patient is not responding to it; I think we need to use it hand-in-hand with the clinical response as well as the MRI activity.   Getting to the second part of your question whether there’ll be less intolerance or rejection to the therapy if it were small molecules, but I don’t think we understand at the cellular or molecular level. For small molecules there could be receptor down-regulation, there could be availability or cellular sequestration, or even the prodrug being converted to an active drug, or how the breakdown process occurs. So when a patient does not respond anymore to a medication, we just know that the clinical response is worse, and we don’t really know whether it is because the disease activity has worsened or other aspects, pharmacodynamic or kinetic aspects of the system has changed in such a way that they no longer respond. So, again, we do need to do more research to have a better understanding.   MSDF You have called it MS comes in many different flavors. Have you found that any medications are particularly good for different constellations of symptoms, or is everything about equal no matter how they present?   Dr. Han Very good question as well. I think in the experimental models people know that MS, or central system autoimmunity, can have a bias towards one type of inflammation as opposed to the other. For example, some would say that certain medications are better to treat Th1 as opposed to the Th17 type of inflammation, however in human beings there’s no clear-cut Th1 MS or Th17 MS. I don’t think people have done enough studies to clearly decipher the immune profiles of patients. So the answer is we don’t know.   MSDF Finally, let’s talk about the need for biomarkers especially very early in the disease when someone’s presenting with CIS which may or may not become MS. Where does that stand and how acute is the need?   Dr. Han The need is there, especially if you look at it from a patient who just had an initial attack. If you tell them that we don’t really know whether this is a one-time thing or whether you’re going to develop MS, and we’ll have to wait and see for three-plus years. So for these three years, the patient’s life is very much consumed by the “is it going to be MS” kind of question. And it does affect their physical-mental wellbeing as well as their quality of life.   I think we’ve come a long way with the advancement of the MRI studies in such a way that if a patient has MRI lesions together with the first-time attack, we could almost clearly say that this is going to blossom into MS. However, for patients who are radiographically clean and who just had one episode, it would be very, very helpful to have some kind of blood biomarkers to predict whether this could be a single event or whether it could be a central nervous system inflammatory disorder.   MSDF You picked three years as a period of waiting, watching. Are they out of the woods after that, or how late can it blossom into full MS?   Dr. Han It’s always a bell-shaped curve. There are patients who would declare themselves sooner than three years, there are also patients who would take several years before they have the second attack. I have one patient who had an initial attack of optic neuritis and nine years later she had the second attack. During that period, she had had MRI scans for three years which were clean. So, I guess, one is never completely out of the woods, but at the same time it is also not prudent to perform unnecessary tests on a patient.   So I think we have to focus on what is the safety net and pick a period of time, but at the same time it is very important to educate a patient to symptoms to watch out for, how to get help, and to work very closely with the primary care physician or a neurologist so in case the symptoms show up they will not be ignored or delayed to receiving treatment.   MSDF Is there anything we’ve missed or is important to add? I’m sure it’s a gigantic field, but is there anything glaring that should be added?   Dr. Han I would like to encourage people in the field to also focus on the secondary-progressive stage of MS. We know that relapsing-remitting MS patients with or without therapy eventually would end up having secondary-progressive MS, so it’ll be really important to decipher whether during the secondary-progressive stage there is no inflammation but only the early neurodegeneration, or how the immune system and the central nervous system interact and how we can change it, or at least modulate it, to either delay or to prevent neurodegeneration. The third area that I think is very important is to try to understand the regenerative aspects of the central nervous system.   As I have given you the example, if we have two patients who have had similar lesion burden or even lesions that are approximately the same in similar areas, a patient can be severely devastated, neurologically devastated, whereas the other may have minimal neurologic deficits. And we would always say that it depends on the brain reserve, or neural reserve, but we don’t quite know what it is. Is it the stem cells, is it the nervous system being more resistant to insult and how the immune system interacts with it? And I think this is also a big area that we should focus on, of course, to prevent further damage, but also once the damage is done to limit the damage and perhaps to regenerate it. And I think that people always have within themselves the ability to heal.   MSDF Good, thank you.   Dr. Han Thank you.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Forty-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 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]

[intro music]   Hello, and welcome to Episode Forty-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. Lawrence Steinman, who discusses a surprising result involving amyloid, a molecule typically associated with destruction in Alzheimer’s disease, in an animal model of MS.   Our Drug-Development Pipeline includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. During the past week we added 1 new trial and 16 other pieces of information. The drugs with important additions are dimethyl fumarate, daclizumab, glatiramer acetate, and natalizumab. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdiscovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline.   According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 50 such articles were published last week. To see last week’s list, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers. We selected one of those papers as an Editors’ Pick. It’s a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies of neuromyelitis optica, also called NMO or Devic’s disease. The conclusion of the meta-analysis is that there’s a high level of heterogeneity among the 9 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of NMO in the studies ranged from 0.51 per hundred thousand in Cuba to 4.4 per hundred thousand in southern Denmark.   Will you be attending the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers in Indianapolis next week? If so, please come visit us at the Accelerated Cure Project’s booth. We’ll be demonstrating some of our latest data visualizations along with other features of the MS Discovery Forum. You’ll find the booth in the hallway close to the main entrance to the exhibit hall, and we look forward to meeting you.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. I spoke with Dr. Lawrence Steinman, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics at Stanford University, who has a new twist on amyloid, this time in MS.   Interviewer – Dan Keller Dr. Steinman, you have proposed that amyloid can be a protective molecule as well as what’s commonly viewed as a destructive molecule. How did you come upon this?   Interviewee – Lawrence Steinman We came about it serendipitously or by accident. I had a graduate student and I thought I would give that student some low-hanging fruit, and the low-hanging fruit was to take the conventional animal model that we use for multiple sclerosis called experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis – EAE. And when she put in these long peptides from an infamous protein named amyloid beta – A-beta – she put it into the animals with EAE at the time they were paralyzed, and I thought well, these are molecules that cause even more inflammation in the central nervous system, so they should make the disease worse, or perhaps they’ll have no effect and then we’ll have to think of another project for her PhD. So the student, Jacqueline Grant, came back and said, “Well, I gave the A-beta peptides and the animals are all better, they’re walking around.” And I first reacted, no, you must have confused the cages, let’s do it again. And when we did it again there was the same result, so then we were off to the races.   There was a second reason besides the low-hanging fruit description. May Han, my colleague, and I had reported the proteomics of MS lesions; so we took well-defined MS lesions, May cut frozen sections and then removed the lesion area with a laser tool, and then we trypsinized, fragmented the proteins, and used a modern technique, mass spectroscopy, to get the proteome, a list of all the proteins in the lesions. So amyloid proteins such as amyloid precursor protein and cal protein are found in the lesions themselves, so I thought that that was a second opportunity, a second foundation for doing these experiments in EAE; let’s see what happens when we augment, if you will, a naturally occurring protein found in the lesion to see perhaps what it’s doing. But, again, my bias, based on the dominant theory in Alzheimer’s disease is that amyloid was going to cause harm in MS as well as Alzheimer’s.   MSDF In these experiments, the amyloid was injected IV so it seems to circulate, but does it get to the brain in these mouse EAE models?   Dr. Steinman Actually, it does not get to the brain. We’ve actually put it into the brain directly to see if it would spread throughout the brain, and in our hands the molecules we’re working with do not spread. Most of these experiments showing a prion-like spread of amyloid is done in animals that are overexpressing the amyloid proteins in the brain so that they’re sort of tilting the balance to enhance spread if it’s going to occur, but we don’t get these amyloid molecules into the brain when we inject them intravenously, nor do we spread them around when we injected them directly into the brain.   MSDF So if you’re injecting them peripherally, do you think that there is some direct effect, or do you think they’re acting through lymphocytes or other circulating cells?   Dr. Steinman Well, we now know that there are at least two mechanisms. One is that when we are injecting them peripherally, these amyloid-like molecules, they go to sites of inflammation and this could include sites of inflammation within the brain. But remember, they’re on the vascular side of the lesion. And they act in a way like molecular sponges. The amyloid molecule is very sticky; in fact, when you try to work with some of the amyloid molecules, they’re like bricks, they stick to the walls of test tubes, and more importantly, they stick to each other and form these long, brick-like fibrils.   So what they’re doing when we put them into the circulation is they’re sopping up many of the inflammatory mediators that appear in the circulation during inflammatory diseases, including inflammatory diseases of the brain. These inflammatory mediators include the complement proteins and some of the famous apolipoproteins that we’ve heard about in reference to Alzheimer’s, we’ve heard the most about apolipoprotein E. So these amyloid molecules, when they’re in the circulation, actually stick and take away, precipitate away these inflammatory mediators. So I call it a molecular sponge.   There’s another set of mechanisms that we’re learning about that we’re able to use these amyloid proteins to do a couple of things to lymphocytes. One, it sets up a type 1 interferon response in lymphocytes. So the amyloid fibrils are a known trigger for the production of type 1 interferon, and type 1 interferon is actually beneficial for neuroinflammation; we have approved drugs. It’s doing another thing that we’re on the verge of publishing, but I’ll sort of give the headline without too many details; it’s setting up a type of lymphocyte that has a more regulatory function. So these are all rather unexpected roles for amyloid proteins.   MSDF And you have done adoptive transfer of some of these lymphocytes and find similar effects?   Dr. Steinman Yes. And the adoptive transfer experiments are very interesting. When we set up the system to produce a lot of type 1 interferon after we give an amyloid fibril, if the type of disease is what’s called the Th17 disease, the increased beta interferon actually worsens that, and if we create a disease that is called T-helper 1 – Th1 – then the type 1 interferon is beneficial. So we’ve engineered some amyloid structures so that they trigger less type 1 interferon, and when they trigger less type 1 interferon, then they work in both the Th1 and Th17 models. We published on that in the Journal of Experimental Medicine. But, again, even here with the type 1 interferon, the effect is nuanced and we can engineer these amyloid structures to be really beneficial and to take away the harm.   I wanted to say one thing, that clinicians and working scientists generally understand amyloid very well. Amyloid-beta that’s well known. Other amyloid proteins that people are, of course, familiar with are tau, prion protein, alpha-synuclein. But an amyloid structure is a general description of a protein that forms beta sheet, so the beta strand structure allows through hydrogen bonds the formation of what you should think of as a venetian blind, these monotonously parallel sheets that actually intercalate dyes, like Congo red or thioflavin T, so that when you shine polarized light on them they refract it in a polarized way. So we can make these structures, if you will, they’re organized nano particulars, to be more or less water-soluble, to be greater or lesser inducers of type 1 interferon. So there’s a whole armamentarium of very interesting amyloid structures that we can engineer to provide benefit in different situations.   Now what does this all mean for the Alzheimer’s hypothesis? And we’re doing an audio interview, so I’m sort of smiling wryly. I don’t want to get into that because we haven’t done the experiment in the amyloid-beta overproducing transgenic mice that have served as the model system to test whether various amyloid-lowering procedures will provide benefit, we just haven’t done that. And we’ve tried our particular approach in a number of other conditions ranging from stroke to EAE, as I said, to experimental heart attacks. And in the systems that we’ve studied, we see benefit.   MSDF But as a further proof of concept of what you have found in the protective effect of amyloid, you’ve looked at amyloid precursor protein knockout mice. Is that right?   Dr. Steinman Yes. Well, that’s a whole interesting story, and thanks for reminding me. So in a series of experiments that we have done and others have done, we first noticed that amyloid precursor protein knockout mice, they had worse EAE. Another person in Australia, Colin Masters, who’s actually one of the leaders in the field of Alzheimer’s research, looked at experimental head trauma, and in the amyloid precursor protein knockout mouse, they had a worse condition after head trauma that was alleviated by giving amyloid precursor protein in its soluble form. And then other people have shown that experimental encephalomyelitis is worse in prion knockout animals and in tau knockout animals.   We had been working with a protein called alpha-B crystallin, which is also an amyloid-forming protein, and we noticed that EAE was worse in the absence of alpha-B crystallin. So there’s a long series of experiments that loss of function, loss of the parent protein of these amyloid-producing molecules, leads to worsened inflammation, whether it’s EAE, head trauma, or somebody else did it in experimental heart attack. And we also did it in experimental stroke, so under a variety of conditions.   So this makes the argument even stronger, suggesting that amyloid structures when augmented can provide benefit and reduce inflammation, and when absent can actually exacerbate inflammation; so gain of function better, loss of function worse. So you have to look at the amyloid molecule as something that is not always harmful and pathologic. Whether it is the main culprit in Alzheimer’s, whether Alzheimer’s is an example of neuroinflammation, I leave it to people in that field because I really don’t want to take them on headlong at this point in time when we have all these fascinating results elsewhere. But I let the listeners draw their own conclusion based on the published work that I’m talking about, not only from my own lab but from other investigators all over the world.   One might want to think a little bit differently the next time one thinks about the deleterious effects of amyloid in Alzheimer’s, but I’m not going to be the one that takes on that massive scientific opinion, we’ll just have to see how it works out. I hope everyone’s been right over all these years because we certainly need some answers in that field. And if they are right, then we’ll have to integrate the kinds of things that we’re understanding about the role of amyloid proteins in other types of inflammatory conditions with a positive result in Alzheimer’s when it’s taken into the clinic. If it turns out that the experiments do not succeed in Alzheimer’s, then it will be easier to reconcile these different outcomes. But I think we’ll have to be patient; science doesn’t move as fast as some of us would like to have it move.   MSDF What was the time course of seeing a result by injecting the amyloid in your EAE models?   Dr. Steinman It’s very fast. When you inject the amyloid, it’s within 48 hours. If you stop giving the amyloid – we like to give it every day – if you stop giving it for a few days, the inflammation recurs, and that suggests that these amyloid structures are acting like a pharmaceutical. It’s not one of these situations that you sometimes see in science; you give the molecule once or twice and the disease goes away forever. This seems to be suppressing ongoing inflammation while it circulates, and when you take it away the effect is gone and the disease recurs, so that’s very interesting.   MSDF The effect seems to be too quick for remyelination to be occurring as the answer, but when you give it chronically do you see remyelination?   Dr. Steinman So far, we haven’t looked for long enough periods of time or with sensitive enough techniques. Your question triggers an experiment and we should really take a look at that. I would imagine that if you can abrogate inflammation that you’ll allow for remyelination if there’s anything left in the oligodendrocyte precursor to remyelinate itself, or if you need a little augmentation, it would be good to do a stem cell type of therapy under the protection of this kind of antiinflammatory approach.   MSDF Are you planning any early human trials?   Dr. Steinman Ha! I chuckle because this is a tough one to bring into the clinic. I’ve been funded by people who first scolded me for saying don’t take this too fast into the clinic, because I like to translate results. In this one, we’ll have to be more cautious than we might for other types of therapies.   MSDF Is there anything important to add?   Dr. Steinman I thought the questions were very comprehensive. And as you can see from where our matters stand now, there’s a lot of positive leads to pursue. And I think we’ll have to be cautious about translating in the fields of multiple sclerosis or stroke because of the infamy of the molecule I’m working with, but we’ll get there. Thank you.   MSDF Thank you.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Forty-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]

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Forty-One 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 Diego Cadavid, who discusses trials of anti-LINGO-1 in MS. But first, a few updates on the latest developments at MSDF.   Our Drug-Development Pipeline includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. During the past week, we added 3 new trials and 11 other pieces of information.  The drugs with important additions are dalfampridine, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, naltrexone, and natalizumab. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdiscovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline.   According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 54 such articles were published last week. To see last week’s list, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers. We selected two of those papers as Editors’ Picks. One is a meta-analysis of mortality studies showing that excess mortality in MS relative to the general population has not changed over the past 50 years. In the other Editor’s Pick, Jagannadha Avasarala points out that 20% of patients who present with a symptom consistent with a diagnosis of clinically isolated syndrome do not meet radiological criteria on brain MRIs. Dr. Avasarala has contributed an essay to MSDF in which he discusses the consequences of this finding. To see his essay, go to msdiscovery.org and click first on News and Future Directions and then on Essays and Opinions.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Diego Cadavid works at Biogen Idec, a pharmaceutical company involved in MS therapeutics. Our executive editor, Bob Finn, caught up with him in Washington D.C. at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where Dr. Cadavid presented results of a phase 2 trial of an anti-LINGO-1 antibody called BIIB033 in which the antibody appears to promote myelin repair in the human brain.   Interviewer – Robert Finn Dr. Cadavid, welcome.   Interviewee – Diego Cadavid Thank you, Bob, for having us.   MSDF First, what is anti-LINGO-1, and what does it target?   Dr. Cadavid Anti-LINGO-1 is an investigation and treatment for a myelin repair. It targets a protein called LINGO-1 expressed in the myelin forming cells that normally inhibits the production of myelin. By blocking LINGO-1, we believe healthy cells actually make myelin and at the same time help patients with demyelinating diseases like MS.   MSDF Tell me more about LINGO-1. Why this target makes sense in multiple sclerosis.   Dr. Cadavid Yeah, so LINGO-1 is an inhibitor of myelination. So MS is a demyelinating disease, and it's well established that the majority of patients once they lose myelin they actually are not capable of repairing it. And the question in the field has been why? It's becoming clear that it's not because of a lack of cells; the myelin forming cells are there, but they're not making myelin. So one of the leading hypothesis is that there is a blockade of the ability of these cells to make the myelin. Biogen – more than 10 years ago – was looking for a molecules that could mediate that inhibition, and that's when they found LINGO-1. And through a series of experiments in animal models and in vitro, they showed that when you block LINGO-1 these cells actually differentiate and make myelin. Here we are more than 10 years later reporting the first results of an efficacy trial of anti-LINGO in humans. That's the RENEW study in acute optic neuritis.   MSDF So tell me about the use of optic neuritis sort of as a model of MS.   Dr. Cadavid Yes, we chose acute optic neuritis as the first efficacy trial because, first of all, acute optic neuritis is how many of them, as patients, actually initially present. They're healthy, living in the community, and so then they lose vision in one eye due to acute optic neuritis. In fact, during their lifetime, most MS patients will develop acute optic neuritis, so it is very relevant to MS. But also because it's the one part of the brain that is readily accessible. Through the pupil, we can actually image the neurons of the optic nerve. And using electrophysiology and something called visual evoked potentials, we can very accurately measure the function of this neuronal pathway. So it is not only relevant to MS, we have really good tools to investigate not only the disease but what anti-LINGO-1 may be doing to help the patients.   MSDF But are there indications that anti-LINGO-1 has affects more centrally than the optic nerve?   Dr. Cadavid So the optic nerve – we call it a nerve, but it is really not a nerve – it's a part of the brain. So anti-LINGO-1 is actually a central molecule. What we mean? It's really expressed only in neurons and in the myelin forming cells; it's not expressed outside of the central nervous system. So all the effects of anti-LINGO-1 are believed to occur centrally.   MSDF Where is anti-LINGO-1 in the development process?   Dr. Cadavid We are in the middle of drug development process, Bob, I assume you're asking me. We are in the middle of phase 2. We just finished the first of the two phase 2 trials called RENEW. These are results we are communicating at the academy this year. We believe the RENEW trial results showed efficacy on the primary endpoint: recovery of latency of the visually evoked potential. And we believe this is the first evidence that blocking LINGO-1, in fact, is leading to remyelination in the human brain, first episode of acute optic neuritis. So it's only approved for biology. At the same time, we are running a larger study in MS patients both relapsing-remitting and secondary-progressive. It is a longer trial, 22 months. That trial is fully enroll, ongoing, and we are looking forward to the results next year. The results of both trials will inform on the next steps.   MSDF Is that a phase 2 trial, as well?   Dr. Cadavid Correct. It's the MS trial; it's called SYNERGY, and it's a phase 2 trial. It is dose ranging. Unlike RENEW in which we only tested one dose, in the MS trial – SYNERGY – we are testing several doses.   MSDF How is it administered?   Dr. Cadavid It is a monoclonal antibody given every four weeks by an intravenous infusion.   MSDF So you said that the results of this larger phase 2 trial will be available next year. Assuming that those results are favorable, what's the next step after that?   Dr. Cadavid The final phase of drug development is what we call phase 3, which is when we actually run definite trials where the primary endpoint it's some meaningful clinical endpoint. For example, improvement in disability, slowing of disease worsening. So those phase 3 trials are usually longer and larger, and if the primary endpoints are met and the safety and tolerability is adequate, we file hoping for drug approval and to make this therapy available to patients.   MSDF Four or five years?   Dr. Cadavid Phase 3 trials are usually longer, and we don't know until we're there. But yeah, these are a longer part of the drug development process.   MSDF Now assuming that the clinical trials do pan out – and maybe it's a little bit too early to ask this question, but I'm going to ask it anyway – how will anti-LINGO-1 be used? Is it going to be used early in the disease, late in the disease? The way other DMTs are used now continuously or to respond to a remission?   Dr. Cadavid Ultimately, it will come from the results from the trials. But if you think about demyelination, it is a core component of MS. All forms of MS – from very early to very late – have a loss of myelin. So as long as there is ongoing or preexisting loss of myelin, we believe there is a potential for a remyelinating therapy like anti-LINGO to help the patients.   MSDF Now you mentioned not only relapsing-remitting but secondary-progressive, and I'm sure you know there's a long history of things that have not worked well for progressive disease. Do you have a reason to believe that anti-LINGO-1 will be efficacious for progressive disease?   Dr. Cadavid So, Bob, it is true that there really no effective therapies in SPMS right now. It is an area that we are focusing on anti-LINGO because we know there is extensive demyelination in secondary-progressive MS. Interestingly, there is a lot of cortical demyelination with relative preservation of axons and neurons. So we believe that if this drug is capable of repairing the myelin we could actually be able to help patients with SPMS. The phase 2 program includes patients with SPMS, so we obviously are looking forward to the results from the ongoing phase 2 trials to help us make decisions on next steps.   MSDF Why not primary progressive?   Dr. Cadavid Primary progressive MS is also under consideration. Right now we have to focus. Obviously what we learned from secondary-progressive MS will also inform us as to pursue primary progressive MS. We are aware there is a high unmet need, and we keep those patients at heart too.   MSDF Just in terms of procedurally a technique why are you focusing on secondary-progressive before primary progressive?   Dr. Cadavid So there are some practical reasons. One of them is that SPMS is viewed as closer to relapsing-remitting MS relative to primary progressive MS. So in the phase 2 trial, we have to try to keep some focus on the population. If we spread too much, it may become more difficult to actually interpret the data. There is a strategic reason as SPMS is closer to RRMS than PPMS is.   MSDF Well, Dr. Cadavid, I've come to the end of my prepared questions. Is there anything I haven't asked that I should have asked or anything you'd like to add?   Dr. Cadavid I like to finish by saying that the results of the RENEW trial it's really the first time we have seen evidence from the human brain that it appears possible to repair the myelin. This is a very important step in the field. There is a lot of work to do. But it is encouraging news, and we are happy to share this with the community. And Biogen is very committed to MS and to help patients who are living with this chronic disabling condition. So we welcome the news, and we also are ready to embrace the following stages of drug development, which are obviously very challenging.   MSDF Well Dr. Cadavid, thank you very much.   Dr. Cadavid Thank you, Bob, was a pleasure.   [transition music]   MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Forty-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 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]  

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Forty 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 Raj Kapoor who discusses a clinical trial of the epilepsy drug, phenytoin, for MS. But first, a few updates on the latest developments at MSDF.   We posted an essay by Dr. Katie Lidster of the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement, & Reduction of Animals in Research, a U.K.-based scientific organization. In her essay, she points out that Dr. Kapoor’s phenytoin study was made possible by the prior development of a refined mouse model of MS that is more humane than experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, which results in paralysis. To find Dr. Lidster’s article, go to msdiscovery.org and click first on News and Future Directions and then on Essays and Opinions.   Our Drug-Development Pipeline includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. During the month of April, we added 9 new trials, we updated information on 28 trials, and we've added 42 other pieces of information.  The drugs with important additions and changes are alemtuzumab; BAF312; BIIB033, which is also called anti-LINGO-1; daclizumab; dalfampridine; dimethyl fumarate; fingolimod; glatiramer acetate; interferon beta-1a; interferon beta-1b; laquinimod; mitoxantrone; natalizumab; phenytoin; rituximab; RPC1063; and teriflunomide. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdiscovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline.   According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 42 such articles were published last week. We selected two of them as Editors’ Picks. One is a review of the role of microRNA in MS. The other is an analysis of the cost of MS drugs in the U.S. This study reports several startling facts. For example, first-generation MS drugs, which cost $8000 to $11,000 annually when they were first released, now cost $60,000 a year. And disease-modifying therapies cost two to three times more in the in the US than in comparable countries. This study ties in nicely with our interview with Dr. Kapoor. Phenytoin has been off patent for many years and is dirt cheap. Good news for MS patients? Maybe not. Paradoxically, phenytoin’s low cost may mean that it will never be fully developed for use in MS. To see our curated list of recently published papers, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Raj Kapoor is a neurologist at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in London, England.   Interviewer – Robert Finn Hello, this is Bob Finn. I'm at the American Academy of Neurology meeting Washington, D.C., and I'm talking with Dr. Ray Kapoor, who's presenting a very interesting study on a trial of phenytoin – also called Dilantin – in optic neuritis. Dr. Kapoor, welcome. So my first question is why phenytoin and why optic neuritis?   Interviewee – Raj Kapoor So phenytoin we use because it works as a sodium channel blocker, and this is based on years of experience and validation in animal models over the years about how neuroprotection could be achieved in MS. And it turns out that sodium channels are quite important for neurodegeneration in the setting of inflammation. And work in London that we've done, work in Yale has validated animal models that say that if you block sodium channels you can achieve neuroprotection. So why phenytoin? Well that comes down to why optic neuritis? We wanted to test sodium channel blockade in a relapse. And optic neuritis has a lot of advantages because you can study the visual system in so many ways. So why phenytoin? Because we think there's a window of opportunity, and a relapse degeneration occurs pretty rapidly. You need to treat quickly to switch off the mechanisms of neurodegeneration. And phenytoin has the advantage that we can load it very quickly and achieve therapeutic levels. So we have here a model of neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration, which we can study using multiple techniques. And we have a drug that we can load and inhibit those mechanisms quickly.   MSDF I find it fascinating that optic neuritis, which is one of the many symptoms of multiple sclerosis, can be used as a model for multiple sclerosis itself.   Dr. Kapoor The important thing there is it's part of the model. And the key is that we have – in MS – two processes going on. We have inflammation flaring up and leading to relapses like optic neuritis; and then, there is perhaps an allied or even a second process going on, which is the slow grumbling degeneration that leads to progression of disability. Now, we've studied both, but what we're focusing on in this study is that acute process that leads to relapses, you know, attacks which occur from time to time. I mean they're quite important in themselves because they don't always recover. We know that with every attack – even if there's apparent recovery – there is underlying damage to the nervous system. So to protect the nerves in any case is self-serving; it's a good idea. But what we are hoping is that this may even be a key to preventing progression, and that would really be a worthwhile target.   MSDF So you say you chose phenytoin because of its effects as a sodium blocker. What's the connection between sodium and neurodegeneration?   Dr. Kapoor What we found many years ago was that in areas of inflammation there can be nerve damage. And the inflammation drives nerve damage through a number of pathways, but one of them is that it actually indirect leads to sodium accumulation inside the nerve fiber, the axons. This has been well worked out in ischemia, as well. So sodium enters axons; it can't leave through the normal sodium pump because they're metabolically inhibited by the inflammation itself. And the sodium exchanges with calcium. So there's a sodium/calcium exchange in the membrane of nerve cells, and if you load them with sodium then sodium has to get out and gets out by driving the influx of calcium, and that's dangerous; that kills axons. So the whole process can be inhibited by inhibiting sodium entry. Now there's another thing that's very important, which is in acute inflammation one of the things that drives it is microglia, activated microglia release chemicals such as nitric oxide, which in themselves drive the whole inflammatory damaging cascade. But it turns out – and this is work from Yale – that actually the microglia themselves have sodium channels, and that their functioning can be inhibited by inhibiting those same channel. So what phenytoin is doing is it's actually inhibiting not only the cascade that damages the axons but is actually inhibiting the cells which are driving the inflammation and causing the damage in the first place.   MSDF Now, is there any indication that phenytoin may be working in this way more centrally than the optic nerve?   Dr. Kapoor It's very unlikely because the mechanism that we've testes is really something well characterized as inflammation within the optic nerve. And we are measuring the damage and the effects of treatment by actually imaging the retina looking at retrograde degeneration from the optic nerve lesion. So I think it's very unlikely given the timescale – you know, we're treating within a couple of weeks of onset, we're having a readout within six months – that it's doing anything other than what we're asking of it, which is a readout of what's going on in the optic nerve and retina.   MSDF If I understand you correctly, even if this is working exactly the way you want it to be, it's not going to be doing anything for people with central damage. Is that correct?   Dr. Kapoor Well I think the thing to understand here is it may do in MS where damage is happening everywhere. This is really a proof of concept. We've tried our very best to isolate the damaging process and to work out whether the theory works. So yes, there may be more general implications, and we think there probably are. But it's important to note that really what we're doing here is choosing a very clearly defined model to test the hypothesis.   MSDF Now one of the advantages of phenytoin is that it's generic; it's dirt cheap. But is that a liability, as well?   Dr. Kapoor Yeah, this is a very important point. So we're talking here about this whole issue of repurposing drugs. And we think that there may be many different drugs on the shelf which may have a role in treating diseases like MS. Now for us that was an advantage. This is an investigator led study, and it was funded by charitable means from the National MS Society and UK MS Society. So that's an advantage because the drug is really cheap. But of course, in terms of development, the commercial reality is that there's very little money in this. And so to take this further, it makes it harder not to have a drug that makes money.   MSDF So what's the solution to that problem?   Dr. Kapoor We don't know. I mean there are lots of ways that we're taking this forward. I mean you may know that there is a thing called the Progressive MS Alliance, which is an international body of MS societies, which is trying to work its way through questions exactly like this establishing industry relations. And it may be that they're a scope for industry to step in. And governments step in sometimes. I mean in the U.K. we have a trial running at the moment which is using funds from government to do a moderately sized Phase 2/Phase 3 trial of neuroprotection. So I think, actually, this all depends on the results. If the results are good, then we hope that either through industry or through government or, indeed, through charitable means there may be a way through. Just to get back to your question, I think that, you know, repurposing is a problem because clearly the commercial angle is far less prominent.   MSDF Is one possible solution to find a drug that's still under patent?   Dr. Kapoor Indeed, that would be a remarkable thing to do. But of course, a trial in the beginning would then need commercial collaboration. But certainly that's an angle.   MSDF So assuming that your research is confirmed and extended and phenytoin proves to be truly neuroprotective, when in the course of MS is it likely to be useful?   Dr. Kapoor So by definition, phenytoin is going to be useful for relapses. The idea that relapses sometimes leave damage and that a drug like phenytoin or phenytoin itself prevents some of that damage speaks for itself. The real question, though, comes down to whether progressive MS is also driven by similar mechanisms. We did a trial of lamotrigine, which is another sodium channel blocking anticonvulsant, and published the results about five years ago now. And that trial was reportedly negative for its primary outcome, which was brain atrophy; could we reduce the rate of loss of brain volume. I suppose what we've done is to go back to that trial and look at positive signals there because after all the question is do sodium channel blockers prevent progressive MS or prevent progression? And in fact, it turns out that there was some remarkable positive signals in that trial. So I have the knowledge that phenytoin should be useful for relapsing MS. But I also have a hunch that it may be useful for progressive MS, as well.   MSDF Now there's a flipside to the fact that phenytoin is so easily available, and that is that physicians listening to this podcast or to other news reports may consider prescribing it off-label. How would you counsel somebody considering that?   Dr. Kapoor I think it's difficult for somebody to use phenytoin in that way because the way the trial was designed was to treat people in a very narrow window after the onset of a relapse. Now people may say well, you know, the next time I see a patient who has a relapse, you know, can't walk or the vision is affected I will immediately prescribe phenytoin. The difficulty I have there is that this remains a very attractive study but hasn't proved the point. And phenytoin is not without its side effects. You know, I'm always somebody who's evidence led, and so I would counsel against using drugs without even further evidence. This is one Phase 2 study after all. I think the temptation will be there nevertheless.   MSDF And if a physician falls to that temptation, what should he or she look for?   Dr. Kapoor Well again, this is the point. We have shown a concept works. You know, we have shown that phenytoin, by a number of measures, prevents nerve damage. I think the difficulty – and I need to be very clear about this – is that with acute optic neuritis where vision generally recovers we didn't see better recovery with phenytoin. So again, perhaps another answer is that if I treat somebody with a relapse with phenytoin I'm not really sure that I may be protecting nerves, but am I producing a better outcome? So that may be another reason to say let's wait for a better drug or a better trial.   MSDF That's a very good point. So is there anything I haven't asked that I should have asked, or anything you'd like to add?   Dr. Kapoor No, I think that really the way I want to convey the result is that it's a robust result. I mean what I'll be presenting is that on a number of measures the drug worked. I think it worked with a modest amount of success. I see this is opening a door. I don't see this as the final answer to a problem. You know, if you think about it, we've been looking for a long time for a neuroprotective drug in MS and a strategy. And I think this is opening a door, which I think needs to be opened a lot wider.   MSDF Dr. Kapoor, thank you very much.   Dr. Kapoor Thank you.    [transition music]   MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Forty 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]          

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Thirty-Nine of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.   This week’s podcast features the second part of our interview with Joseph Berger of the University of Pennsylvania. But to begin, a couple of updates.   Last week we told you about our Drug-Development Pipeline, which includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. Since last week’s podcast we added two new trials, we updated information on 10 other trials, and we added 10 other pieces of information. The drugs with important additions and changes are dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, and phenytoin. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdicovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline   Two weeks ago we described how we curate a weekly list of all newly published scientific papers on MS and related disorders. Last Friday’s list included 53 papers. We selected two of them as Editor’s Picks: One is a Cochrane meta-analysis of dimethyl fumarate – trade name Tecfidera – for treating MS. The other is a study from Paul Tesar’s group at Case Western Reserve University. That study, which appeared in Nature, is entitled “Drug-based modulation of endogenous stem cells promotes functional remyelination in vivo.” To find the full weekly list and the Editor’s Picks, click on the Papers tab at msdiscovery.org.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Joseph Berger is a professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. In part one of his interview we talked about risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. This week, Dr. Berger discusses diagnostic dilemmas in MS.   Interviewer – Dan Keller Dr. Berger, how do these present, and what are some of them?   Interviewee – Joseph Berger They’re legion, actually. There are a lot of different diseases that can look very much like multiple sclerosis both in terms of the history and physical examination as well as in terms of the radiographic findings. And the question is, do you want to avoid treatment that is not very helpful and expensive? You know, once you’ve made a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis you tend to put the patient on a disease-modifying therapy that they would remain on for the rest of their lives. And there’s an expense and some risk depending on what you put them on, associated with that. Secondly, there are diseases that, if you miss the diagnosis, these are diseases that can be aggressive in and of their own right, and if you’ve misdiagnosed it there’s a concern that disease may go on and create its own problems for the patient. So there are a variety of reasons why you want to ensure that what you’re dealing with is truly MS and not one of the MS mimics.   Among the common MS mimics, one that we’ve had increasing experience with in the recent past, is neuromyelitis optica. So, neuromyelitis optica was a disease that we lumped together with multiple sclerosis, but we’ve realized recently that not only is the pathogenesis different than multiple sclerosis, it being a humoral immune disorder, but that the therapies that we employ for multiple sclerosis may actually aggravate neuromyelitis optica. So that’s a common concern and one of the reasons why we frequently obtain neuromyelitis optica antibodies in patients, particularly when they present with optic neuritis or transverse myelitis, and certainly when they present with both of them.   MSDF That would be aquaporin-4 antibodies?   Dr. Berger That’s correct. It’s an aquaporin-4 antibody, but not everybody with neuromyelitis optica has the aquaporin-4 antibody that’s demonstrable. A certain percentage of them have what appears to be an anti-MAG antibody, and others we simply don’t know what the antigen is. And that’s being worked out. So there’s this whole spectrum of neuromyelitis optica that you certainly want to sort out from multiple sclerosis. But there are also a wide variety of other illnesses that can look like multiple sclerosis. In fact, if you take any broad classification of diseases – infection, vascular, neoplastic, toxic, metabolic, genetic, etc. – if you do that and say, are there diseases in these categories that can appear like multiple sclerosis and be mistaken for multiple sclerosis, there are. So every single one of these broad categories can have within it a disease that can be mistaken for multiple sclerosis.   MSDF Would they be mistaken for multiple sclerosis on many measures or mainly signs and symptoms or is it radiologic on imaging? How do you sort out this kind of gamish of different diseases and how they present, and really nailing down an MS diagnosis, not even considering a diagnosis of what else it could be?   Dr. Berger So it can be enormously difficult to do so. And I’ll give you some examples from my own practice. I have, for instance, seen individuals with a disorder called hereditary spastic paraparesis where you were unaware of their hereditary nature of their disease. And the patient has come in with a progressive myelopathy. And you say, well, could this be primary progressive multiple sclerosis? And could be extraordinarily difficult to sort out, particularly if they don’t have common mutations, and they don’t have a family history. And you say, well, which is it? The spinal fluid can be very helpful in that regard.   The MRIs can be very helpful in that regard, but not always. I’ve seen individuals who’ve had vascular disease where the MRI abnormalities have looked very much like multiple sclerosis. They’ve had recurrent episodes of neurologic symptoms be it numbness or weakness or visual problems, and it be mistake for MS. I’ve seen individuals with intravascular lymphoma, a rare disease, but one where they’ve presented with both clinical picture and MRI that looks very much like multiple sclerosis.   Although we have good diagnostic criteria, there is no single test that tells you that this is MS. But there are times when all of us, even the very best clinicians, scratch our heads when a patient’s reappeared in the office; nothing new has happened to him. Ten years have elapsed, and you say to yourself, did they really have multiple sclerosis? So, again, it’s a matter of comprehensive history and physical; the appropriate radiographic studies; looking at the spinal fluid when that’s indicated; and doing the appropriate laboratory studies to rule out things that may mimic multiple sclerosis.   MSDF Is that why there is a diagnosis of CIS? If it never returns, then it was CIS?   Dr. Berger I guess one could say that, but I use the term CIS to mean the very first episode of multiple sclerosis. So when I label somebody with CIS, I already believe that they have multiple sclerosis. I think that if they have CIS in the absence of any radiographic findings, I’d be unlikely to label them CIS. CIS to me is in the continuum of MS, so you have CIS, relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis, secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. So that’s how I use the term.   MSDF Can you definitely rule in or rule out multiple sclerosis?   Dr. Berger I think that there are probably rare instances where people fulfill all the criteria for multiple sclerosis. And at the time of autopsy you say, how about that? That wasn’t multiple sclerosis. There’s an old expression in medicine that you can never be a 100% certain. You can never have a 100% certainty. So I think that you do the best you can. And I think that probably the rate’s 99% or better, but in these people fulfilling the criteria that have been established. However, you can never be entirely certain.   And it is not that uncommon in my practice, and I’ve been practicing medicine nearly 40 years, where an individual has presented the office after a long hiatus. And the chart is unavailable to me, and they come in with a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, and I say, who made the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis in you? And they go, you did, Dr. Berger. So I think go down to the cave where they keep the charts that are over seven years old only to find out that they had all the criteria for multiple sclerosis; that they had oligoclonal bands, and they had hyperintense signal abnormalities on their MRI, and they had relapsing symptoms, but, you know, over the course of the last 10 years they’ve had little. And you scratch your head and say, geeze I wonder if this is truly MS?   There are probably people who carry this diagnosis, and there’s literature on it, that carry it incorrectly.   MSDF Those criteria, even though it never turned out to be MS, satisfied a diagnosis of MS. When you see something like radiologically isolated syndrome, do you work it up for MS, or only once it presents later does it become MS?   Dr. Berger This is a very difficult question, and we see this with some regularity, that is, the individual that has hit his head in a car accident or developed a headache that somebody’s decided to do an MRI on. And they come in with an MRI that looks all the world like a patient with multiple sclerosis, yet they have no symptoms and no signs on physical examination that is suggestive of multiple sclerosis. And the question then becomes, what do you do with them?   There’s currently a study in which that question is being addressed. However, I will tell you what I do, currently. I do look for multiple sclerosis. I look for lesions in their spinal cords because I think that if they have that, the prognosis can’t be good, and I would likely start somebody with lesions in their spinal cord, who I’m convinced has MS, on a disease-modifying drug.   I look their spinal fluid. And I look at their spinal fluid for oligoclonal bands, and, if I see that, I’m increasingly convinced that that’s what we’re dealing with. And I would be inclined to treat those people as well. Now whether I’m doing the right thing or not, I don’t know, but for others in whom there are no spinal cord lesions, there are no signs or symptoms, and the spinal fluid is pristine, I’ve elected to wait. That is not necessarily the consensus among the MS community. That’s simply how I practice, currently.   MSDF People don’t need oligoclonal bands to have MS, though, do they?   Dr. Berger No, not at all. So, we certainly see a fair number of people – and it depends on the study – who have pristine spinal fluids. That means no oligoclonal bands, no cells, no increased protein, no elevated myelin basic protein or IgGs who still have multiple sclerosis.   MSDF What about fatigue as an initial symptom of multiple sclerosis? A lot of people have fatigue – tiredness. Is there a way to differentiate the fatigue of multiple sclerosis from just being tired or a sleep apnea or an insomnia or they just don’t feel good?   Dr. Berger Well, I think your history is very helpful because the sleep deprivation and excessive daytime sleepiness is not the same as the fatigue that people with MS report. The fatigue that people with MS report is akin to the fatigue that one experiences when they have a viral illness. So when you have the flu you go, oh man, I just can’t get out of bed. I feel terrible. And that’s precisely what the people with multiple sclerosis have. And what’s so interesting is how common it is. So it’s been said to be the greatest cause of disability in the MS population. It’s an acceptable cause of disability; not blindness, not incoordination, not weakness, but fatigue.   And it’s curious, when I practiced in Kentucky, I had a number of patients who were wheelchair-bound, had very poor vision or had double vision because of paralysis ocular palsies, who went to work every single day. And then I had patients that looked as healthy as you and I, and they were on disability. And I said, well, why is it that you can’t work? They said, I’m just too fatigued. I can’t do anything. It’s affected everything.   So the fatigue is different, and getting back to the frequency of it, so in individuals who have been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and I was part of this study, if you look at large numbers of individuals diagnosed with MS or who are on disease-modifying drugs for MS and go back and look at their medical records prior to the time of the diagnosis, you will see that about a third of them had been labeled by their family physician or their internist as having one of two diagnoses: chronic fatigue syndrome or fatigue and malaise. They’re the only two diagnoses with fatigue in them that you could put into the ICD-9 classification.   So, this is striking that so many individuals have fatigue recognized, yet it’s an advance of their having any neurologic symptoms that were believed to be the consequence of multiple sclerosis. It’s not to say that they didn’t have them. You know, it might have been some transient numbness or transient tingling or slight weakness that went away that nobody ever thought was due to multiple sclerosis. So that we don’t know about. But what I can tell you is that prior to an established diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, roughly a third of individuals have been labeled by their family physicians with fatigue.   MSDF It’s interesting that you make the analogy between this sort of fatigue and that with a viral illness like the flu. Could this be a prodrome telling there’s an inflammatory process going on? I mean, is there interferon release or are there other mediators that seem to be unique to this kind of fatigue?   Dr. Berger I would like to think that that’s the case. I would like to think that this is due to the very same cytokines that cause the fatigue that’s associated with viral illness. That’s not been convincingly demonstrated, although it’s been proposed. I think it makes a lot of sense. Coming full circle, eventually, although most of my colleagues classify multiple sclerosis as an autoimmune disease, there must be a trigger for the autoimmune disease. And my own belief, coming to this from virological angles as opposed to coming at it from an immune angle, is that there’s probably some infectious origin.   One of the things that’s so striking is the association between Epstein-Barr virus and multiple sclerosis where virtually every adult patient with multiple sclerosis has evidence serologically of having been exposed to Epstein-Barr virus. Now I’m not saying that that’s necessarily the cause, but in some way it must contribute to the development of the disease perhaps in a way that low vitamin D levels contribute to the genesis of the disease.   MSDF Is there anything you’d like to add about diagnostic dilemmas or any kind of a mental framework for approaching this sort of thing, in nutshell?   Dr. Berger Yes. The one thing that I would say is never be too confident. Never be too confident. I found that my highest confidence levels were right before I took boards in neurology, which was a long time ago. And I thought I knew everything. And the more I practice neurology, the more humble I’ve become in terms of establishing diagnoses and selecting right therapies for patients. So I always have a healthy skepticism. I have a healthy skepticism of things that I feel certain about. And when patients represent to office I always question myself, particularly if there’s something that doesn’t fit with the diagnosis. And I think that that’s good advice to anybody practicing medicine.   MSDF Very good! Thank you.   Dr. Berger My pleasure.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Thirty-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 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]

1-Egitto: il presidente deposto morsi condannato a 20 anni di carcere ma evita la la pena di morte. ( Laura Cappon) ..2-l'Europa e la strage migranti: sotto accusa Frontex e la sua missione Triton. .. 3-Gran Bretagna: la scozia decisiva alle elezioni del 7 maggio. Secondo i sondaggi gli indipendentisti porteranno a Londra almeno 50 deputati sui 59 assegnati. 4-Genocidio armeno: alla ricerca dei giusti...( Pietro Kuciukian ) ..5-Papa Francecso rimuove il vescovo di kansas city. ..Robert Finn era stato condannato negli stati uniti per aver protetto un prete pedofilo. 6-Spagna: l'ex premier aznar e i suoi ministri: 11 su 14 sono in carcere o indagati per corruzione.( Ignacio Escolar) 7-Terre agricole: al via il global soil week, il forum ..annuale sulla gestione sostenibile del suolo. ..( Marta Gatti)

[intro music]   Hello, and welcome to Episode Thirty-Eight of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.   This week’s podcast features part one of a two-part interview with Joseph Berger of the University of Pennsylvania. But to begin, we’d like to tell you about MSDF’s Drug-Development Pipeline.   Twelve drugs are currently approved in the US for the treatment of MS, but there are many more drugs in various stages of clinical and pre-clinical development. We’re keeping daily track of 44 of them in our Drug Development Pipeline.   To visit the pipeline just go to msdiscovery.org and click on Research Resources, and then Drug-Development Pipeline. You’ll find a finely detailed, fully referenced, and easily searchable database of all 44 of those drugs. The database includes details on each drug candidate’s physiology, its progress through pre-clinical and clinical trials, and its regulatory and commercial status.   Science journalist Heather McDonald has managed this database since its inception, and she updates it continuously, whenever new information becomes available. In just the last week, for example, she added one new clinical trial to the database, she updated information on two other clinical trials, and she added 5 other pieces of information. The drugs with important additions and changes were dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, mitoxantrone, natalizumab, and RPC1063.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Joseph P Berger is a professor of neurology and Chief of the MS Division at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. In part one of our discussion with Dr. Berger, we’re talking about the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), a rare but serious brain infection that occasionally arises in people being treated for multiple sclerosis.   Interviewer – Dan Keller The topic of quantifying risk and mitigating risk comes up with certain immunosuppressive drugs, notably natalizumab in MS but also with other drugs as well in other conditions. What are some of the confounding factors? Why is this not an easy thing to approach?   Interviewee – Joseph Berger Well, it’s not easy because it’s so unpredictable. Nobody would have thought that natalizumab would have uniquely predisposed to the development of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. In fact, when natalizumab was introduced, if one would have attempted to predict what would have happened, you might have said, well, we’ll see a wide variety of opportunistic infections of the central nervous system, since this is a drug that prevents the neural immunosurveillance that is necessary to prevent these diseases from occurring. However, that’s not what we see. We don’t see the opportunistic infections of the central nervous system that we see in the AIDS patient; for instance, things like cryptococcal meningitis and toxoplasma and tuberculous meningitis, it simply doesn’t happen. What we see, on the other hand, is this unique increased risk for the development of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. This was an entirely, in my mind, unpredictable event. I suspect that this is true of many of the other drugs that are now coming to market; that our experience with them is limited, they have what we think is a well-defined effect on the immune system – they’re not broadly immunosuppressant – yet our knowledge of the immune system is such that we don’t understand fully the downstream effects they have. And it’s only after we’ve used these drugs for a number of years do we have a comfort level with what sort of risks that are engendered by their use.   MSDF But it’s not unique to natalizumab; other drugs can induce this whether in neurologic conditions or even rheumatologic conditions. Is that right?   Dr. Berger Yes. In talking about PML, that is true that there are other drugs that carry black box warnings for the development of PML; however, there’s something unique about natalizumab and another drug that is somewhat related to it and now off the market called efalizumab, which was a drug which went by the name of Raptiva and was used for the treatment of psoriasis. So there are drugs that uniquely increase the risk of PML and there are those that marginally increase the risk of PML, and one shouldn’t conflate them. And though a drug carries a black box warning for PML, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the risk is the same as it is with another drug that may also carry such a warning.   And let me explain this a little further. If you look at natalizumab and you look at efalizumab, those are drugs that have been used for conditions that had never previously been associated with progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. So despite the fact… And natalizumab, as you know, is used in the treatment of MS and used in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disorders, in particular Crohn’s disease, efalizumab used in the treatment of psoriasis; these are autoimmune diseases. And prior to the availability of these compounds, we did some aggressive immunosuppressive therapies in the treatment of these diseases. We would treat them with drugs like Cytoxan and azathioprine and high-dose steroids; a wide variety of things were employed. Yet until the PML experience with natalizumab and efalizumab, we had never seen PML in the setting of multiple sclerosis, in the setting of inflammatory bowel disease, or in the setting of psoriasis. So that tells you that there’s something unique about the drugs that we’re using and that it’s not necessarily the underlying condition that is responsible.   The second is when you start the drug, you do not see PML develop immediately; it takes some time. So the experience with efalizumab was three or more years, the experience with natalizumab is typically 12 months; actually the vast majority of cases – over 80% - have been on natalizumab for 24 months, so they’re on the drug for a long time. The shortest latency from initiation to the development of PML has been a single case in which it developed within eight months; everything else is 12 or more months. So what is that telling you? That tells you that the drug is doing something fundamentally to overcome the barriers to the development of this disease and that it’s not simply opening up a gate and letting the horses out; it’s doing something to the pathobiology of the disease.   And then lastly, the incidence with which we see PML with natalizumab – and presumably with efalizumab, although the numbers were much smaller – is extraordinarily high in the appropriate context. So for natalizumab, the risk of developing PML, provided you’re on the drug for two years, you’ve seen prior immunosuppressive therapy, and you’re JC virus antibody-positive so that you have been exposed to the virus that causes this disease, if you have all three of those, your risk is on the order of 1 in 90 or thereabouts. That is a risk that is commensurate with what we see with HIV-associated PML, so it’s very, very high.   However, if one looks at these other drugs which I have called Class 2 agents in several papers now; drugs like rituximab, also a monoclonal antibody though directed against CD20, drugs like brentuximab vedotin or mycophenolate mofetil – which is CellCept – those drugs, too, carry black box warnings for the development of PML; however, the setting in which PML occurs with their use is almost always with a condition that already predisposes you to the development of PML. So with rituximab, for instance, it’s seen with lymphoproliferative disorders, or with transplantation, or with autoimmune diseases in which PML had already been described long before the use of rituximab for the condition. And the same is true with these other drugs.   The second is there’s no latency to the development of the disease, so this is strictly a stochastic event; you may start rituximab today and in two weeks’ time develop PML. There’s no way that somebody’s developed PML in two weeks’ time. What that indicates is that individual was predisposed to developing PML, that virus was already in their brain, it was percolating there, your immune system was suppressing it adequately so it wasn’t expressing itself. And now you’ve done something, you’ve tweaked it a bit and the PML is now expressing itself because you’ve introduced the drug, but the drug fundamentally is not changing the pathobiology of the disease.   Lastly, although we do not have good figures on this, but the best data that I have is that we’re talking about orders of magnitude lower risk with these other drugs. So rituximab, for instance, the risk is probably on the order of 1 in 30,000, or something to that effect. That compared to 1 in 90 when you have all the risk factors that I described with natalizumab. So we’re talking orders of magnitude difference. So I’d suggest that we avoid conflating these drugs when talking about PML risks, and I think that this is something that is generalizable for other risks; I mean, PML is just one risk, but we see other infections and other things that have occurred with other drugs that we’ve employed tweaking the immune system, and I don’t think that one should necessarily put all these drugs that cause these things in the same boat.   MSDF These drugs that are used in other conditions that do in themselves predispose to PML, when they’re used in MS which as a disease does not, on its own, predispose to PML, these same drugs – azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, mycophenolate – add to the risk when you give natalizumab?   Dr. Berger That’s what it looks like. So when Biogen looked at the data that they had available from the initial cases of natalizumab-associated PML, one of the risks that they identified was the increased risk of the development of PML in those individuals that had previously received immunosuppressive therapy. And it really didn’t seem to matter which immunosuppressive therapy it was, it was any immunosuppressive therapy. However, it may be different with the different immunotherapies, it’s simply that the numbers weren’t large enough for one to say that this was particularly associated with azathioprine. People in Europe like to use azathioprine often very early in the course of the disease, so they were seeing a bit more PML than we had seen in the United States at least initially. And it wouldn’t surprise me if there aren’t certain immunosuppressive agents that increase the risk significantly compared to others, but we simply don’t have that data. And what is known is that it really doesn’t matter, any of them can do that.   MSDF Without really having a firm understanding of the pathogenesis of PML – you know the risks but maybe not exactly why it’s occurring – how do you come up with a framework for mitigating risk; is it purely empiric?   Dr. Berger That’s an excellent question. So it turns out that this was a back-of-the-textbook disease; this was the disease that occurred very, very rarely. Between 1958 and 1984 in a review published by Ben Brooks and Deward Walker, there were only 230 cases that they were able to come up with; 1958, of course, is when the disease was first described. So this was a very, very rare disease until the AIDS pandemic where people developed some interest in it, and then it really became interesting when we saw it with natalizumab. And there’s been more resources put into the study of this disease since then, so that we do have a better understanding of the pathogenesis. But in identifying these risks, we’ve worked backwards; you know, we say, alright, what does natalizumab do? So why is it that we see this increased risk?   So in getting back to your question, we know that immunosurveilling the brain is important; so if you have a drug that prevents appropriate immunosurveillance of the central nervosus system, it should not surprise you that the risk of PML is increased. And we do think that the alpha-4 beta-1 integrin inhibition that occurs preventing the entry of JC virus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes into the brain is in a large measure – but not completely – contributing to the development of PML. We also know other things. For instance, the virus that we are likely infected with – and the infection occurs very early in our lives; seroepidemiologic studies indicate that most individuals that are infected are infected before the age of 20 – that that virus is a virus that is ubiquitous but incapable of growing effectively in glial tissues; it is a virus found in urine and found in the urinary tract, it’s found in kidney and renal pelvis and bladder, and it’s found in high concentrations in some people’s urine. That virus will not grow in the brain. So something has to happen to the virus.   Does natalizumab change that in some way? Well, we think it does. We think it does that by causing the release of immature B cells; these immature B cells can harbor JC virus, and that virus as these B cells mature there is an upregulation of transcriptional factors that transactivate the virus, it is occurring in a milieu that may uniquely predispose to a genetic rearrangement of the virus enabling it to become a form of the virus referred to as a prototype strain or a neurotropic strain that can grow in the brain. So we think that there are at least two very large barriers that prevent PML that are affected by natalizumab; there may be others. And as we investigate this disease further, our understanding may improve and these explanations I’m telling you will likely be expanded. And, in fact, it may be that some of the thoughts that we have are wrong, because the story with the B cells is actually somewhat hypothetical; there’s some preliminary evidence supportive of it, and that’s why I tell people that I’m fond of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s comment, that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. If I stand before you a year from today and tell you something different, it’s only because we’ve learned more about it.   MSDF So how do you mitigate risk and how do you get the point across to patients to let them make informed decisions with you?   Dr. Berger So this is difficult, but we lay the facts out to them. And the facts are that there is this risk of PML, the risk in individuals that are JC virus antibody-negative are very small, the product label puts the risk at less than 1 in a thousand; the belief is that it’s significantly less than that. The fact is that we do see individuals who are JC virus antibody-negative months before the development of PML – it’s rare but it occurs – and there have been studies, including my own, that have indicated that the antibody study doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve never been infected by the virus. So one shouldn’t conflate JC virus antibody negativity with never having been infected, but it is a very good marker for the development of PML, and it is one that needs to be monitored carefully at six month intervals.   So we lay out to the patients that if you’re antibody-negative your risk is infinitesimal and an acceptable risk, and that we monitor you carefully. The second is this is a disease that can be life-threatening, and if not life-threatening certainly severely debilitating – multiple sclerosis I’m talking about – and there are people that have very aggressive disease and will accept the risk of developing PML, knowing that the risk may be 1 in 100, but their risk of developing something that was going to leave them wheelchair-bound and totally disabled is very, very high, and they say I’d rather take the risk of the development of PML.   So we do know what the numbers are. There’s a table that’s been published and gets revised periodically that puts into it JC virus antibody positivity, duration of therapy broken up into 24-month epochs, and prior immunosuppressive use. So we know what the risks are; the highest are in individuals that are treated more than 24 months with the drug, are JC virus antibody-positive, and had previously received immunosuppressive therapies.   MSDF What about monitoring for signs and symptoms of PML if someone does choose to go on some of these drugs?   Dr. Berger Yes, so that’s very, very important. And we do have patients that even in the face of JC virus antibody positivity, we and the patient elect to continue them on the drug. And patients on natalizumab need to be monitored very carefully for the development of PML, and that is a combination of both clinical screening – there is a TOUCH program that queries for the development of symptoms that may be concordant with PML – unfortunately, you also see symptoms of that nature develop in MS patients, as well, so it’s sometimes difficult to tell whether it’s MS or PML – and at that point in time you definitely want to survey them with an MRI. And, in fact, many of us do MRIs at regular intervals in patients on Tysabri attempting to identify the disease – PML – when it is asymptomatic. And those people seem to do best; the prognosis both in terms of disability and in terms of survival is better when you pick the disease up while they’re still asymptomatic, and they have what one would refer to as radiographically isolated PML.   So it’s a combination of vigilance, asking the right questions, performing your physical examination, and obtaining period MRIs, and in those that are JC virus antibody-negative – or even the antibody-positive – repeating that study periodically. And the reason I say that repeating it periodically even in the positive patients is because what’s been demonstrated is that the higher your antibody titer, the greater the risk of developing PML. So there’s a threshold now that’s been identified and individuals above that range have a significantly higher risk of developing PML than individuals who are seropositive but below that level.   MSDF And just to clarify; the TOUCH program is the Tysabri Outreach Unified Commitment to Health? This is what you’re referring to in terms of monitoring for signs and symptoms of PML?   Dr. Berger That is correct. That is the risk mitigation strategy that is FDA-approved and that Biogen has implemented in an effort to decrease the likelihood of PML developing.   MSDF Very good, thank you.   Dr. Berger My pleasure.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Thirty-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 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]

1-Egitto: il presidente deposto morsi condannato a 20 anni di carcere ma evita la la pena di morte. ( Laura Cappon) ..2-l'Europa e la strage migranti: sotto accusa Frontex e la sua missione Triton. .. 3-Gran Bretagna: la scozia decisiva alle elezioni del 7 maggio. Secondo i sondaggi gli indipendentisti porteranno a Londra almeno 50 deputati sui 59 assegnati. 4-Genocidio armeno: alla ricerca dei giusti...( Pietro Kuciukian ) ..5-Papa Francecso rimuove il vescovo di kansas city. ..Robert Finn era stato condannato negli stati uniti per aver protetto un prete pedofilo. 6-Spagna: l'ex premier aznar e i suoi ministri: 11 su 14 sono in carcere o indagati per corruzione.( Ignacio Escolar) 7-Terre agricole: al via il global soil week, il forum ..annuale sulla gestione sostenibile del suolo. ..( Marta Gatti)

1-Egitto: il presidente deposto morsi condannato a 20 anni di carcere ma evita la la pena di morte. ( Laura Cappon) ..2-l'Europa e la strage migranti: sotto accusa Frontex e la sua missione Triton. .. 3-Gran Bretagna: la scozia decisiva alle elezioni del 7 maggio. Secondo i sondaggi gli indipendentisti porteranno a Londra almeno 50 deputati sui 59 assegnati. 4-Genocidio armeno: alla ricerca dei giusti...( Pietro Kuciukian ) ..5-Papa Francecso rimuove il vescovo di kansas city. ..Robert Finn era stato condannato negli stati uniti per aver protetto un prete pedofilo. 6-Spagna: l'ex premier aznar e i suoi ministri: 11 su 14 sono in carcere o indagati per corruzione.( Ignacio Escolar) 7-Terre agricole: al via il global soil week, il forum ..annuale sulla gestione sostenibile del suolo. ..( Marta Gatti)

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Thirty-Seven 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 Jeanne Loring, who works with human induced pluripotent stem cells in a mouse model of MS. But to begin, we’d like to tell you about one of the most useful features of the MS Discovery Forum.   Each week somewhere between 30 and 110 papers related to multiple sclerosis are published in the scientific literature. At MSDF, we endeavor to list them all, publishing links to a curated set of each week’s new papers every Friday at msdiscovery.org/papers.   The first step in curating this list is an automated PubMed query that pulls all papers containing the terms multiple sclerosis, myelin, optic neuritis, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, neuromyelitis optica, transverse myelitis, experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, cuprizone, neurodegeneration, microglia, and several related terms. This query returns many false positives. MSDF editors read all the titles and most of the abstracts and make judgments about which papers are directly relevant to MS or related disorders. Last week, for example, the query returned 139 papers and, in our judgment, only 58 of them – 42% – were truly MS-related. Some weeks the proportion is even lower than that.   The query terms neurodegeneration, myelin, and microglia are responsible for most of the false positives. Neurodegeneration, in particular, returns many references related to other neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, stroke, and hypoxia, to name a few. Editorial judgments on which articles are relevant are often subjective, and we frequently struggle with those decisions. It’s easy to decide relevance when an article actually mentions multiple sclerosis. It’s harder when it mentions only myelin or only Th17 cells. If you think we’ve missed an important MS-related article—or if you think we’ve included an irrelevant article—I hope you’ll let us know by emailing us at editor@msdiscovery.org. And we’re open to suggestions on how to adjust our PubMed query to decrease false positives and false negatives.   Once we’ve chosen which of the articles to include in the week’s list, we select between two and four of them as Editors’ Picks. Those are the week’s articles that seem to us to be the most important or interesting or intriguing. Once again, we invite readers to take issue with our choices. We’d love to hear about important articles that we have not designated Editors’ Picks or, on the contrary, Editors’ Picks that don’t deserve the honor.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Jeanne Loring is Professor of Developmental Neurobiology and Director of the Center for Regenerative Medicine at the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego. She and her collaborators have been testing human neural precursor cells derived from embryonic stem cells in a mouse model of MS. The cells are injected into the spinal cords of immunocompetent mice with a model of MS induced by a neurotropic hepatitis virus. The cells are rejected within a week, but in that time they suppress the immune system and induce remyelination.   Interviewer – Dan Keller In terms of how you came upon your most recent finding about human pluripotent stem cells in the mouse model of MS, could you give me a little bit of the back story?   Interviewee – Jeanne Loring Oh yeah, sure. It was really interesting. So Tom Lane and I set out to try to develop a stem cell therapy for MS using human cells. So as a control experiment, we took human pluripotent stem cells, in this case embryonic stem cells, and turned them into neural precursors; differentiated them just a little bit. And then we transplanted them into Tom’s mouse model of MS. These mice were not immunosuppressed, and so we expected the cells to be rejected. And this was just our first experiment. But the results were not what we expected. After the cells were rejected, the mice started getting better, and their clinical scores improved. And then after several months, these mice were almost indistinguishable from normal mice.   The first thing we thought was that we’d gotten the cages mixed up, and we were looking at something different. But we’ve repeated the experiment now more than a hundred times, and about 75% of the time we get the same result. So what this tells us is that these cells that we put into the animals are having some effect during the seven days that they exist in the animals that leads to both immunosuppression and remyelination and a clinical improvement which is quite remarkable.   MSDF When you say 75% of the time, does that mean you get almost no effect 25 % of the time? Or does it mean that 75% or the mice? Because that would say whether you’re making your stem cells right or not.   Dr. Loring It’s 75% of the mice.   MSDF How do you explain it at this point, or where do you go from here to find a way to explain it?   Dr. Loring So once we’d realized that we had a phenomenon that was repeatable, we realized that there was something special about these cells. And we tested other cell types, like the pluripotent stem cells that they were derived from, and human fibroblasts, and discovered that neither one of those was effective. And since then we’ve also tried other ways of making neural precursor cells, and those cells aren’t effective either. So it’s something extremely special about the cells that we used in these experiments, which is very lucky when you think about it.   So we’ve now, both Tom and I – even though we’re not in the same place – we’ve set out to try to find out what it is about these cells that gives them these properties. Our first sort of cut on this – our hypothesis – is that the cells are secreting something that has a lasting effect. Our sort of big picture idea is that there are probably more than one protein or glycoprotein being secreted. And together they suppress the immune system so they act on the inflammatory response so that they increase the number of regulatory T cells that are produced and decrease the other T cell types. And they induce remyelination.   So Tom is now working on trying to identify what factors these cells make that are inducing the T regulatory cells. And on my side, we’re trying to identify what it is that makes them remyelinate.   MSDF When you make these cells, how do you know you got a good batch? Can you characterize them? Are there biomarkers, and you can say, “We did it right this time?”   Dr. Loring Yes. In fact, that turns out to be really important because we did it wrong a few times. And we have a gene expression signature. It’s essentially diagnostic assay for this particular cell type. We’ve boiled it down to a set of qRT-PCR markers. And, because we have collaborators in Australia, we had to be able to transfer this quality control assay to them. So far it seems like those markers, I think it’s a group of 10 or 12 markers, seem to be predictive of the cells’ working in the animals.   MSDF And just to clarify, that’s real time quantitative polymerase chain reaction? How are you going about characterizing what they’re doing? I mean, are you doing cytokine measurements or you’re looking at cells that get produced in the mice?   Dr. Loring Tom is really handling the cells that get produced in the mouse. He’s doing the T cell analysis. What we’re doing, we developed an in vitro cell culture method to look for the effect of these cells on maturing oligodendroglia in culture. And we found that something secreted by these cells which shows up in their culture medium actually induces maturation of oligos – of OPCs – in vitro. I guess that’s another result that we didn’t expect to be quite so clear. So that shows that there’s something that is secreted by the cells. I mean, that’s the most likely idea. And on Tom’s side, he’s shown that the conditioned medium from the cells induces T-reg generation. And on our side, we’ve shown that conditioned medium from the cells induces oligo maturation.   So now we’re trying to figure out what it is in that conditioned medium because now we think we can do a cell-free therapy for MS if we can identify what the factors are. It would be much simpler for us to do even a protein therapy for MS than it is to do a cell therapy. So both sides are taking sort of a candidate gene approach in which we’re identifying the proteins that are most highly specifically expressed in the cells that work in the mice. We have a list of those proteins, and we’ve sort of snatched a few candidates out of that group, and we’re testing to see whether each one of those proteins in purified form has the same effect as the conditioned medium.   The other approach, which is more tedious but more likely to actually tell us what’s going on is for us to fractionate the medium into different sized proteins and then test each one of those fractions. We’re in the process of doing that right now.   MSDF But it sounds like these cells are pluripotent. Not pluripotent in the normal sense of a stem cell leading to different lineages, but they have a couple of effects. One is the immunomodulatory, the other is regenerating oligodendrocytes. Do you think it really requires the gamish of proteins? If you fractionate them, will you possibly lose the signal? And that’s a big matrix to put back together again.   Dr. Loring Yes, it is. And obviously, if we get no signal from our fractions, we’ll put our fractions back together again and try to find out whether – there are only three fractions, really, right now. So we’ll try different combinations of these fractions to try to find out if we can reproduce the effect. The effect is quite robust. We essentially get no maturation in medium conditioned by other cell types, but we get very strong maturation when we use conditioned medium from this particular neural precursor cell.   MSDF If you only have three fractions now, is it because you just have chosen not to fractionate it even more until you know what’s going on?   Dr. Loring Yes, we’re trying to hone in on it. So we don’t want too many different things to look at right away. I’m hoping that we find that only one of those fractions works, and that we can discover everything is within that fraction, but I really can’t predict what’s going to happen.   MSDF It sounds like the approach would be to put everything in except one each time as opposed to keep adding back. You’ve got to find the one critical one missing that makes the thing not work.   Dr. Loring Yes, and eventually we will do that with specific antibodies, but right now that is, since we don’t really have our candidates narrowed down enough, that isn’t a viable approach. But you’re absolutely right. We want to find out if that’s missing, whatever the things that are that are missing. And I’m hoping it’s not so complex that it’s five or six or seven proteins, because that’ll make it much harder for us.   MSDF How do characterize the condition of the mice?   Dr. Loring So that’s Tom’s area of expertise. It’s essentially an observation of the mice over time. We have a movie which I can show you, but I can’t actually do it in a recording. It’s quite obvious when the mice – they’re blind scored so the person who looks at the mice and sees how well they’re walking around doesn’t know whether they’re controls or experimentals. If you just see the movies that are selected at particular times after the cells have been transplanted, it’s quite dramatic. They have a much better clinical score. Essentially, they’re almost normal after six months.   MSDF And how are you sure that the cells you injected into the spinal cord are gone, that they’ve been rejected completely?   Dr. Loring That’s a good question. We used a method for live imaging of cells in which we use luciferase to label the cells. And then we used an instrument which allows us to image the cells in mice – in living mice – over time. So we did this in individual mice and saw that they disappeared over time. And after eight days we couldn’t detect them anymore. That doesn’t mean there isn’t one or two left because the resolution isn’t that high. We will go back eventually and look through sections of the spinal cords and see whether we can detect any. The other thing we can do is (skip 13:37) a human-specific markers. So we can just take a section of the spinal cord and find out if there’s any human cells in it at all, or any human genes in it at all. But we haven’t done that yet.   MSDF Do the cells have to be gone? Have you tried injecting a second time?   Dr. Loring No, we haven’t. We don’t know. We really don’t know. It would be very interesting if it reversed the effects. Then we’d really have a problem to solve.   MSDF What else is there important to add or that we’ve missed that’s important to this kind of research?   Dr. Loring So our dream is that we will identify a group of proteins and the concentration of those proteins necessary to have these two effects in this mouse model. And then we will do some biological engineering. We’ll be putting the cells into these little spheres and matrix that allows slow release of these proteins or controlled release of these proteins. And then, instead of putting cells in, we’ll put these beads in. And I don’t know whether that would end up being the final product or not, but there are lots of ways to deliver proteins, and this one I find rather attractive because it doesn’t require pumps or syringes. And I think that’s certainly the direction we’re going to try to go in. And so Tom Lane and I have just gotten an NIH grant for five years of funding, which seems like a very long time to me. So in five years we will have discovered the best way to deliver these things. We’ll discover what they are and the best way to deliver them. Tom has put conditioned medium into the mice, and it also works.   MSDF Because I was going to ask, had you encapsulated the cells just to see that the supernatant does it without cell contact?   Dr. Loring It turns out that the conditioned medium itself, you inject that into spinal cord, it’s not as dramatic an effect, but you have a clear clinical improvement.   MSDF Have you tried injecting it either IV or intraperitoneally?   Dr. Loring Yes. Well, we didn’t inject the conditioned medium. We did try injecting the cells, and they pretty much stayed where we injected them. These cells, unlike mesenchymal stem cells, they aren’t very migratory. So they don’t really have the receptors that cause them to move to areas of inflammation like CXCR4, for example; they don’t express that on their surfaces. So that does not seem to be a good delivery method for these cells. They don’t go anywhere.   MSDF I was also thinking that if something they secrete is important, whether it circulates. Maybe they’re not making enough concentration if you inject them outside of the central nervous system, but it seems like you’re going to be faced with a little cumbersome problem in a clinical situation years and years ahead from now if you have to keep injecting proteins into the spinal cord as opposed to more peripheral.   Dr. Loring I agree. And the solution to that is generally to look for peripheral effects and then try to suppress those when you do a therapy like this. That’s a long time, and we could certainly imagine how we would do it. But we need to know what those proteins are before we can decide on whether we expect them to have effects peripherally or not. But I agree with you; delivering them intravenously would be far easier.   MSDF I know you have a lot of work ahead of you now with this, but is there another animal model of MS – or even another mouse model of MS – where you can see if it works even in a mouse model different from this one?   Dr. Loring Yes, we’re actively pursuing that with our collaborators in Australia. And it’s interesting because they’ve gotten some positive preliminary results using the EAE model, but the approach to the EAE model I’ve realized is quite different. Generally, what people do is they provide the therapy at the time that the pathology is developing, and they try to prevent it, which is a really different idea than what we had using the mice that are already paralyzed. So they have found that if you can deliver the cells at least close to the spinal cord, then you can see some effects. The problem is that in Australia, and this is one of those technical things we had not anticipated, they don’t have permission to inject cells into the spinal cord. So they have to go through their animal rights people or their animal protection groups and try to get permission to do so. So with Craig Walsh at UC Irvine we have started doing parallel experiments with the EAE model. I’m not necessarily sure that it’s going to have similar effects. I mean, I really don’t know.   MSDF Can you describe how these mice in your experiments were made to have MS?   Dr. Loring Yes, they were given a virus, a neurotropic virus, which kills off the oligodendroglia. They become demyelinated, and there is a secondary inflammatory response. So the mice are actually paralyzed in their hind quarters at least by the time we put the cells in. They have to be fed by hand. So this is not a trivial thing to do. But we’re trying to reproduce the effects during the progressive form of MS, for example, or during an attack of MS. So we’re trying to repair the mice or cure the mice that are in a condition which would be similar to the worst case scenario for people with MS.   MSDF Do you think this may also have effects not only on the myelin, but also on damaged neurons?   Dr. Loring We don’t know, because the mice haven’t really had enough time to get a lot of neuronal damage, but that’s a very good question. We don’t know yet.   MSDF I appreciate it. Thank you.   Dr. Loring You’re welcome. It was a pleasure.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Thirty-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 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]

[intro music]   Dan Keller: Hello, and welcome to Episode Thirty-six of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.   This week’s podcast features an extended interview with Jenny Ting, an immunologist who studies the inflammasome, a multi-protein oligomer that’s part of the innate immune system. But to begin, we’d like to tell you something about why we started the MS Discovery Forum.   MSDF, located at www.msdiscovery.org, is an online portal providing news and information about research in MS. We offer a unique combination of news and background articles written by professional science journalists, viewpoints from thought leaders and subject matter experts, and technical resources that enable sharing and analysis of information and open discussion among MS stakeholders in academia, industry, and the clinic. Membership in MSDF is free, and all content on the site is provided on an open-access basis to the entire MS community.   MSDF stands apart for its comprehensive and independent coverage of MS research. Readers can depend on MSDF to report and verify, not merely re-run press releases. MSDF’s overarching goal is to accelerate progress toward clinically useful advances.   We launched MSDF in April 2012 with the aim of filling a knowledge gap in MS research. The plan was to promote collaboration among scientists who are separated by specialized skill sets, institutional boundaries, and geography. It’s well known that these individuals attend different meetings and read different journals. And while it’s common knowledge that scientific breakthroughs and medical advances most typically result from cross fertilization of ideas, in today’s world scientists still do not easily share ideas and collaborate on solutions. We wanted to change that, and to bring thoughts, knowledge and ideas out from the lab into the open to enlighten and inform all stakeholders in the effort to cure MS, including health care providers and people affected by MS.   To that end, we employ the highest standards for independent journalistic reporting, including the use of multiple viewpoints to give a full picture of a finding’s impact. We aim to make scientific findings accessible to everyone, from busy clinicians to cutting-edge researchers to people with MS and their loved ones. We avoid short-cuts, such as the use of jargon, that get in the way of comprehensibility. We highlight the potential clinical impact of the research we cover, even when we’re covering basic research that may be years from direct clinical relevance. And we seek innovative ways to communicate important information to our audience.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Jenny Ting is Professor of Microbiology in the Institute for Global Health & Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine. In addition to MS, Dr. Ting’s research interests include the role of the immune system in infection, inflammation, and cancer. Science Journalist Carol Morton caught up with Dr. Ting at a recent Keystone meeting.   Carol Morton: I appreciate your taking time out to talk to MS Discovery Forum. So we’re at the Keystone meeting on Neuroinflammation in Taos, New Mexico, and you gave a very interesting talk today.   Jenny Ting: Thank you.   Morton: So can you tell us what you’re talking about when you’re talking about the inflammasome and the particular proteins that you’ve been looking at.   Ting: The groups of proteins that we work on are cytokines, and cytokines are made by immune cells. And they have a tremendous impact on inflammatory responses. As you know, in MS there is a big immune component, so these cytokines will influence it. And in most cases cytokines activate the immune system. One of the key cytokines that we’ve studied is called IL-1, interleukin-1 beta; this is the one, for example, that causes fever, inflammation, and so forth. So it’s called interleukin-1 because it was the first one discovered, and it turns out it’s probably one of the most important ones.   So because it’s a master cytokine, and once it goes it kicks off all the other cytokines, so there’s a cascade that goes on. So it could activate other cells to make other cytokines, so it’s like a vicious cycle. Obviously, this becomes a pretty important target to think about. The process that causes this cytokine to be produced is a very big molecule that’s comprised of different proteins. And these different proteins, they are, together, called the inflammasome for inflammation large complex because “some” means large complex. Inflam- is inflammation, as in inflammasome. It’s the name given by Jürg Tschopp.   And so this process where you have this big complex, and as a result you get the cytokine called interleukin-1 beta, what happens is that interleukin-1 beta has now been implicated in so many diseases including arthritis, very rare diseases that causes a lot of inflammatory responses. It’s involved in skin allergies. It’s involved in colitis, you name it, and it’s involved in smoke-induced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD, that we see advertised on TV. So all of these have this component of this molecule.   Morton: So anything that releases IL-1 beta, inside the cell there’s a cluster of proteins that have to come together to make it.   Ting: Right.   Morton: And then it gets secreted and does its job.   Ting: Yes. And as we learned today, and actually it’s been published, but may be new to some of the audience, is that this whole complex can also be excreted in some ways into the cell, you know, pushed outside of cells so it can go from perhaps one cell to the other. So we have previously found that this can be a complex that’s membrane bound, and that’s called an exosome. So it’s both just like a minicell that goes from one cell to the next and make the next cell inflammatory as well. The speaker today showed that, in addition to that, it can also go out as a complex, perhaps naked. It seems like they are not really membrane bound, so that’s a different form. So it could be different forms that goes out from one cell to the next causing inflammasomal activation in the next cell and therefore perpetuates this IL-1 process.   Obviously, in normal hosts there must be a way to turn off this process, otherwise we would be, you know, a little ball of pus sitting on a chair. So obviously these don’t go on forever. The problem with chronic inflammatory diseases is many of these things, they don’t go on probably all the time, but they do increase. So what we did is really look at mice lacking genes that can make these proteins. This complex is usually comprised of at least three components; you knock out one and you can’t make IL-1 anymore. Actually, I should say five components. So we did that, and what we found was that if you take this out, the models of MS suggests the well-known mouse model, EAE, and another model that we’ve been really pushing, although it was initially worked on in the late 1960s and early 70s, this model of neurotoxicant-induced demyelination. In both of those models this process of inflammasome/IL-1 turned out to be bad.   So if you remove this process, the disease is much more attenuated. So that’s one of the really interesting parts about what we had found is that potentially this could be a target. And the good thing is that there is certainly some companies that have successfully made anti-IL-1s. So there is an IL-1 receptor antagonist that inhibits this process. There is an antibody against IL-1 that will inhibit this process. So certainly there are therapies, if this is true, that this is part of the MS problem that this could be used as a therapy.   The other thing we have found, which I didn’t get a chance to talk about, is that we did look at the remyelination phase and found out that, for example, IL-18 is not very good for remyelination. Of course, remyelination is what everybody would like to have, is a reparative process. And so one possibility is, can we block the IL-18 pathway, and can we get better remyelination processes. So those are some of the thoughts that we have.   Morton: So have you examined a number of the ILs from 1 to 18 or…?   Ting: No, because 18 is the product. So this inflammasome actually has many different targets. One of them is IL-1 beta; that’s the key one. Another one is IL-18. So we went from there to look at what’s downstream of the inflammasome and found out that IL-18 actually has a role both in making MS disease models worse and in reducing the extent of remyelination. So it doesn’t look like it’s a great protein to have around. So the question is can we try to inhibit this molecule.   Morton: Just to make sure that I’m clear on that: the inflammasome is a cluster of proteins that come together in an immune cell, like a T-cell, or a…   Ting: Usually it’s a macrophage or a microglia or an astroglia.   Morton: A macrophage or a microglia. And then that makes the IL…   Ting: So what you have is – I don’t know if the audience might be familiar with the coagulation pathway where you have one protein that has to be cleaved into a smaller protein. Then this protein B goes and cleaves a second protein from a bigger form to a smaller form. And the smaller form, in every case, is the mature protein that has activity. The bigger protein is the inactive form that doesn’t do anything. So this exactly the same. Pro-IL-1 has to be cleaved into IL-1. Pro-IL-18 has to be cleaved into IL-18. And what that cleavage process is this inflammasome complex producing an enzyme that will cleave these proteins.   Morton: So the inflammasome is like Edward Scissorhands running around cutting proteins making them active.   Ting: Yes, that’s a great analysis. So it’s just exactly like that. The inflammasome produces this – like you said – Edward Scissorhand that then this guy can go and prune the roses and prune the bushes, and they’re different, and they have different functions.   Morton: And it’s the starting block for the activity of the IL-1 and IL-18.   Ting: Right, so the bushes are like – if the roses are the IL-1, you can decorate it; you can give it to somebody; you can make it into a bouquet. So that’s the kind of idea. And then if you have a bush, you know, you can potentially do other things with it. Or if he’s cutting some edible plants you can use that for cooking. So that’s the whole idea. Whatever you produce has different effects. And it turns out IL-18, in our hands, looked like it’s not a good molecule. We have previously found that a cytokine called TNF, which has different roles depending on what it binds. So if it binds to TNF receptor 1, then it’s not so good. If it binds to TNF receptor 2, it actually enhances remyelination, so again, something you want.   And there’s recent talks and there are small molecules where people tried to activate the TNF receptor 2 pathway, and they found that that really enhances the remyelination process. It’s kind of really neat; if you can dissect these pathways well enough, then you might be able to use drugs to target MS.   Morton: So what are the next questions that you’re asking? Where are you going from here?   Ting: So we have a number of directions. Certainly, like I say, I raised the concept of IL-18; so can we target that molecule? In our own lab we’re also looking at several other pathways. So we have found a pathway that’s really important for cell-cell interaction that’s important for MS activation. And the molecules are called plexins and semaphorins. And this is a pair of proteins that seems to activate the immune system especially during MS. So we’ve done that in disease models, and we actually produce a blocker of that pathway. And we have treated mice, and they look much better. We showed that when they’re going through relapse, we can actually prevent them from coming back with a relapse.   So, very similar to some other MS drugs that are on the market, we’d like to think about this as additional possibilities. So those are some of the things that we’re doing.   Morton: What cells are these on?   Ting: These are T-cells and dendritic cells so they’re…   Morton: They’re talking to each other.   Ting: Yes, exactly, they’re talking to each other. And in an MS situation they talk to each other, they activate T-cells, which destroys the myelin. So if you can block that interaction, many of the drugs that are used for MS actually are targeting exactly that interaction pathway. For example, Tysabri is one that’s not so much dendritic cells and T-cells, but it reduces T-cell migration through the vasculature into the blood brain barrier. So that’s one of them where they block T-cell activation. So we are trying to block T-cell activation as well, but at the face of these two cell types.   Morton: If the inflammasomes, if they were superheroes or characters in an Oscar-winning movie, what would their personalities be, do you think?   Ting: I think they would be very powerful because they impact a lot of disease processes, yet they have very strong roles so that, when they’re used properly, they can defend against all sorts of stuff. Whey they’re used improperly, they can really cause a lot harm. So if they’re a superhero, people always say Batman has a dark side, right, a really dark side and a really good side. Maybe that’s what they are.   Morton: That’s a good analogy.   Ting: They’re not like Superman because Superman seems like all good.   [transition music]   Keller: Thank you for listening to Episode Thirty-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 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]

[intro music]   Hello, and welcome to Episode Thirty-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 Daniel Reich, an expert in MS neuroradiology. But to begin, here’s a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   Every week somewhere between 30 and 100 scientific papers related to MS are published in the peer-reviewed literature. And every Friday MSDF lists them all. You can find this week’s list, as well as three years’ worth of past lists by clicking on the Papers tab at the top of every MSDF page. In addition to listing the new papers, we also have a section containing classic papers in the field, along with commentary about what makes them classic. We’d love it if you’d like to suggest a classic paper we haven’t yet listed, and we’d love it even more if you’d like to contribute commentary. Please send your suggestions to editor at msdiscovery.org.   In addition to detailed original reports on new research, MSDF also curates MS-related news from around the Internet in a series of news briefs we call Research Roundups. In our latest Research Roundup, we reported on a second case of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in a patient taking fingolimod. We mentioned a new trial of mesenchymal stem cells that will soon begin recruiting people in Canada with relapsing or progressive MS. And we pointed out that while scientific research was a favorite choice of America’s 50 biggest philanthropists last year, no neurological disease benefitted directly from the $1.6 billion they contributed. If you happen to have one of those folks on speed dial, we hope you’ll put in a good word for MS research. You can find our Research Roundups by clicking on News and Future Directions and then on News Briefs.   If you enjoy this podcast and find MSDF helpful, please consider supporting us with a donation, even if you’re not a billionaire. MSDF is run by a small team of reporters and editors. We are devoted to bridging the gaps between scientific disciplines to speed the flow of information from the lab bench to the bedside. Our ultimate goal is to facilitate the discovery of a cure. We believe one of the best ways to do that is to bring independent, research-focused news to a professional audience on a platform that fosters discussions and discourse. Help keep us going by visiting our website and clicking on the green “Support MSDF” button next to the “Research Resources” tab on the top right of our screen.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Daniel Reich directs the Translational Neuroradiology Unit in the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, part of NIH. In his practice as a neuroradiologist, he cares for patients with multiple sclerosis and other neurological diseases, and he also leads several clinical studies. Research in Dr. Reich’s lab focuses on the use of advanced MRI techniques to understand the sources of disability in multiple sclerosis and on ways of adapting those techniques for use in research trials and patient care. Dr. Reich is also a member of MSDF’s scientific advisory board. Science Journalist Carol Morton caught up with Dr. Reich at the recent Keystone meeting on Neuroinflammation in Diseases of the Central Nervous System in Taos, New Mexico.   Interviewer – Carol Morton Can you tell us the value of MRI in multiple sclerosis?   Interviewee – Daniel Reich The way I see it, MRI has tremendous value in multiple sclerosis in three major ways. One is in the clinic, one is in clinical trials, and the third is really for understanding the biology of the disease; it’s an incredibly powerful tool for that. And in my own evolution as a clinician and researcher in multiple sclerosis, I’ve really moved my thinking a lot from kind of using MRI diagnostically or thinking about how we might develop markers of the disease to look at in clinical trials to really the third part, which is trying to understand the disease using the MRI, or sometimes as I call it, the MRIcroscope.   Because really it is, in a way, a scientific tool to look at aspects of the disease that we can’t access either because we can’t study the brain tissue or the spinal cord tissue directly, and because it’s really much more sensitive than doing clinical evaluations in neurology. So one of the interesting things that came out from early MRI studies in the 1990s, many of them done at the NIH long before I got there where they started doing MRIs every month on people even before the era of disease-modifying therapy, was that new plaques that appeared in the brain occurred roughly ten times more frequently than new symptoms appeared in the form of relapses.   MSDF Ten times?   Dr. Reich Ten times, or maybe even more. But that was with the sensitivity of the techniques that were available then, that was the number that was found. What that’s telling you, of course, is that there’s a lot of subclinical disease activity that’s going on that we can completely miss if we are just doing examinations or asking patients to report their symptoms.   MSDF Have there been eras of MRI use in MS and where are we now with it? And that could be in clinical trials and biology.   Dr. Reich We’ve made a lot of progress, I think, in all three areas. The MRI is absolutely the most important paraclinical tool for making the diagnosis of MS. And since the newest generation of diagnostic criteria were established, the McDonald Criteria, MRI has really formed the centerpiece of those. So in somebody who is having symptoms that may be due to multiple sclerosis, the MRI is absolutely the most important test that can be done. And, in fact, it’s now evolved to the point where the diagnosis can be made based on a single MRI at one time in many cases in somebody who comes in with the appropriate clinical symptoms.   MSDF A new challenge confronts the whole MS community in developing therapies and monitoring outcomes of interventions for progressive MS.   Dr. Reich Yes. So how might MRI play a role in assessing therapies for progressive MS? That is a huge challenge. It’s a challenge I would say the majority of my colleagues in the imaging field in MS are working on; what can you measure with MRI that might be the equivalent of new plaque development for the progressive MS question? And it’s, in my view, quite unresolved. The most studied markers that have behind them the weight of evidence to date is brain volume changes – how much brain is there – which can be assessed with MRI and is being done routinely in clinical trials now. I think how exactly that’s being done, which parts of the brain to look at – grey matter, white matter, specific portions of the brain like the thalamus – remains an open question.   What quantitative analysis tools should you use to make the measurements from the images? How you set up the scanner? All of this is still being worked out. That idea of measuring brain volume and seeing whether therapies may slow the rate of brain volume loss appears to be relatively promising. But even with that, proof of concept early trials to see whether a therapy might work are still much larger and much longer than the proof of concept trials that work for assessing new therapies to reduce the number of plaques.   MSDF By how much longer?   Dr. Reich They usually are two years or so at the minimum and they would involve on the order of 100 to 150 patients. Contrast that to four to six months with 10 to 15 patients and you can see how many more therapies can be tested with the shorter, smaller approach. So, in fact, in our lab, one of the things we’ve been thinking about a lot is how we may shorten that. And in the context of progressive multiple sclerosis, I think that’s not clear how to do. However, a lot of the biological processes that are occurring in progressive multiple sclerosis, there’s now a lot of evidence that they also occur very early in the disease, perhaps even before somebody has their first symptoms. So these brain atrophy processes, I think that’s been quite well established.   But you can also ask the question of whether brain tissue repair. Parts of the brain that have been demyelinated that requires remyelination that occurs early in the disease and it may be relevant for progressive phases of the disease as well, or for people who have primary progressive MS. And so we’ve been thinking a lot about how to look at these early plaques that develop early in the disease and use imaging of those plaques to see how they repair in order to test new therapies coming down the block that may promote remyelination or protect brain tissue that’s undergoing inflammation and demyelination from more extensive destruction. And we think, based on the some of the work we’ve done that is going to be published next week, that we can design trials that are, again, very short – six months or so with 10 to 20 patients, 15 to 20 patients – that may be able to assess that. And, of course, we’ll need to understand whether success in such a trial would predict whether that therapy would work in larger trials of progressive MS.   MSDF Are there other challenges with MRI and related to multiple sclerosis?   Dr. Reich Sure. From the point of view of doing clinical trials that are generalizable to large groups of patients that are able to be implemented at multiple sites, we need to understand how to standardize our techniques better. I’ve been involved with an effort recently to develop a group of cooperating investigators in North America similar to our older, more venerable brothers and sisters in Europe who have been working together on imaging for 20 years or so in the MAGNIMS Consortium. Our group which is called the North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis Cooperative – or NAIMS – is really very interested in trying to understand how we can standardize high-end approaches that may be very effective for testing new therapies that may be useful for assessing tissue or repair. With this consortium, the NAIMS Consortium, we’ve been very interested in developing standardized protocols that could be useful for assessing in a multicenter way, whether new therapies that are designed to repair or protect brain tissue and spinal cord tissue work. So we’ve been working very hard to do that, and we hope that once a study can be done in multiple sites, it can often be done much more efficiently.   From a diagnostic point of view, the types of MRIs that are done at all different centers may be equally good for just assessing, for example, whether plaques are present in the brain of somebody who is being worked-up for multiple sclerosis. But if you have to take the next step to quantify that and to submit those results to statistical analysis, then you really need a lot more homogeneity. It’s not actually clear how much homogeneity you need, how much narratization you need, that’s an open question. Does it need to be exactly the same, or does it need to be approximately the same, or really do we need to understand the differences between what is done at one site versus what is done at the other?   The last area in which I think MRI is incredibly valuable and offers something that no other technique really can is the ability to study the spatiotemporal dynamics of the disease. MS is, of course, a disease that affects people young and that they carry with them for their entire life, so it can last 40, 50, 60, 70 years in some cases. And I think we all know that the disease changes a lot during that period, and it changes as people are changing and as they age, and you can’t take pieces of the brain or spinal cord and study it under the microscope. I mentioned already that clinical evaluation is less sensitive than the MRI for picking up these changes, so only with the MRI can you understand how things change and where they’re changing in the brain.   In that context, I think people have been going along one of two pathways for how to use MRI to understand the biology of the disease. On the one hand, people have been using the physics of MRI to build really complicated models of how different types of tissue changes – demyelination, inflammation, atrophy – could affect the pictures we take, and that’s been a very interesting but quite complicated effort and the results have been a little bit hard to interpret. The other approach is to take advantage of the rapidly evolving technical changes in MRI acquisitions to really just learn how to take higher and higher resolution pictures.   And I think that’s the bias that we have in our group, that’s the approach we’re taking where we think that as we begin to hone in on really fine features of structures of the brain, whether it be the cerebral cortex or the spinal cord or the brain stem or the cerebellum, we’ll begin to see things that will help to bridge this divide between what people can do in the lab with really fancy molecular techniques with what they can do in the clinical with MRI. And so that’s really where we’ve been spending a lot of our effort using very powerful MRI machines – 7 Tesla – using very advanced antennas – we call them coils – in MRI to really get high-sensitivity images.   Changing the way we tune the magnet to focus on things that we think are interesting. For example, one of the areas we’ve been studying quite intensively recently is inflammation in the meninges in the coverings of the brain, which we think from the pathological data are quite relevant to the disease. We have a way now that we’ve described of assessing at least some of that inflammation in MS, and we’ve been following up on that. So I think the potential of MRI as a biological tool, even after 30 years of work on it, is really largely untapped.   MSDF Are there things that the MRI can’t do right now that you really want it to do?   Dr. Reich Oh, absolutely. You know, MRI is based on the physics of how protons behave in a strong magnetic field and when those protons which are largely in water are aligned when they go into a magnetic field. And we can perturb that alignment, and then it relaxes back into the equilibrium state. And the rates at which that happen depend on where these protons are located, and that’s what allows us to see the tissue. And I go into that because it just illustrates that we’re not looking at T cells and B cells and microglia and axons and oligodendrocytes, we’re looking at the physics of protons in a magnetic field.   I would, of course, love to have a technique that combines the exquisite submillimeter spatial resolution of MRI with specificity for these various cell types or biological processes that are going on. And a lot of people have been working on this, but to date that doesn’t really exist. And part of the reason for that is because the biological processes don’t occur in isolation. Lots of different things happen with inflammation – water moves around – and so it may actually not be possible to do that, but people are still working in that. So that’s a great challenge is to figure out how we could specifically assess inflammation, myelination, axonal health with imaging. But I don’t think that precludes us, again, from using the imaging either to help with the diagnosis, to assess new therapies, or to really observe and build stories about how the biology is working in the disease.   MSDF What’s happening in the cutting-edge of MS neuroradiology?   Dr. Reich I think the most exciting development in MRI and multiple sclerosis is the ability to look with greater and greater precision at what’s going on in the brain and spinal cord, and how that changes over time. And that is being made possible by really rapid advances in the technology. I think that will no doubt translate into the ability to better assess the course of an individual person’s disease, whether they’re responding to therapies, either immunomodulatory therapies that current exist or the reparative or protective therapies that will hopefully come online soon. And I think that’s tremendously exciting.   MSDF Do you also collaborate with people in other specialty areas in the course of your work?   Dr. Reich Yeah. Personally, I have many collaborations. I have collaborations with pathologists, I have collaborations with immunologists, with clinicians, with virologists, with other imagers. So for my work which really depends on understanding the intersection between the imaging we do and the biology of the disease, those collaborations are critical. Through our NAIMS Cooperative, the imaging group in North America that we’ve recently started, we’re hoping really to develop very powerful interactions among groups that have a lot of expertise in how to do imaging in multiple sclerosis.   So in addition to the standardization work, we’re very much hoping to be able to share techniques that we develop. And we’ve established a platform in which that is happening. We’re also hoping to use this cooperative group to sort of cross-pollinate the various labs to use it as a training forum so that the next generation of people interested in imaging and MS will, number one, get to know each other, but also learn from labs in which they don’t spend all their time. So it has a multipartite mission which hopefully will really drive the field forward.   MSDF Well, thank you for sharing your thoughts on MRI and MS with MSDF.   Dr. Reich It’s my pleasure.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Thirty-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 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]

 [intro music]   Hello, and welcome to Episode Thirty-Four of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.   This week’s podcast features a follow-up interview from last week’s episode with Dr. Pierre-Antoine Gourraud. This week, we interview Dr. Jill Hollenbach about killer immunoglobulin-like receptors – or KIR – and their relationship with human leukocyte antigen and MS. But to begin, here’s a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   Take some time to check out our most recent data visualization on our website. Under the research resources tab, you can find a series of interactive data visualizations useful for MS researchers. Our most recent one organizes 142 ongoing clinical trials into an interactive bubble chart. We have another visualization on the natural history of MS symptoms. The interactive bar chart allows you to see the change of various symptom severity in MS over a 30-year period.   If you enjoy this podcast and find MSDF helpful, please consider supporting us with a donation. MSDF is run by a small team of full-time employees and a few regular contributors. We are devoted to bridging the gaps between scientific disciplines to speed the flow of information from the lab bench to the bedside. Our ultimate goal is to facilitate the discovery of a cure. We believe one of the best ways to do that is to bring independent, research-focused news to a professional audience on a platform that fosters discussion and discourse. Help keep us going by visiting our website and clicking on the green “Support MSDF” button next to the “Research Resources” tab on the top right of our screen.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Jill Hollenbach is an assistant professor in the department of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco. She met with science journalist Cynthia McKelvey, to talk about KIR in MS.   Interviewer – Cynthia McKelvey Why don’t we start by introducing what KIR is, how it’s different from the potassium channel and what its relationship is to HLA.   Interviewee – Jill Hollenbach Well, KIR is an acronym, it stands for killer immunoglobulin-like receptor. These are receptors on the surface on the surface of natural killer cells. They use generally, not in every case, but use HLA as their ligand and they have either an activating or inhibitory effect on natural killer cells.   MSDF You mentioned in your talk earlier today at UCSF that they are difficult to study. Why is that?   Dr. Hollenbach Just in terms of their genetic architecture. KIR occupy a complex on chromosome 19, it’s a multigene complex. And so on any individual haplotype that’s one chromosome, an individual can have between 4 and 14 KIR genes. These genes are really recently evolved, and so they’ve kind of arisen in humans as a result of repeated events of recombination and gene duplication. So what that means is that one KIR gene often at the nucleotide level looks an awful lot like another KIR gene. And so we’ve had a lot of issues. A lot of the methodologies that are available right now in terms of sequencing, part of this has to do with a lack of human genome reference alignments, but there has been a lot of difficulty in examining these genes because they look so much like one another.   MSDF How does that relate to why they haven’t really seen them on genome-wide association studies?   Dr. Hollenbach There’s a couple of reasons why we don’t see them on genome-wide association studies. One is that, as I mentioned, there haven’t been a lot of good reference alignments, so as a result we don’t actually see a lot of SNP markers on most of the common platforms that are used for genome-wide association studies. And then the markers that are there are often lost to quality control, because we have a lot of gene content variation, which is kind of like a copy number variant. And so if we only see a result for one chromosome, for example, for a given SNP, that is not going to pass general quality control thresholds. And, of course, you have to recognize that when you’re doing these GWAS studies, you’re looking at a hundred thousand, five hundred thousand, a million markers, two and a half million markers, so you’re not going one-by-one and saying, well this KIR-1, we expect to only see one copy or that sort of thing. So it just gets thrown out in the mix with things that don’t pass QC.   MSDF How does KIR relate to multiple sclerosis specifically?   Dr. Hollenbach Well, we’re trying to figure that out. So there’s been a small number of studies examining KIR in multiple sclerosis, and what seems clear is that variation in the KIR does play a role in susceptibility to multiple sclerosis. It may play a role in progression; we’re just not sure. There’s not been enough work done to say definitely what’s going on, but there’s enough evidence to say that something is going on. And some of the work that I talked about in my talk today, an analysis of KIR variation along with HLA in an African-American MS cohort, a very large study population, it seems clear that there is some association of KIR variation with susceptibility or protection for multiple sclerosis.   MSDF Why study the African-American cohort? What does that tell us about MS in general?   Dr. Hollenbach We want to study them because they’re different from one another; so an African-American population is going to look very different genetically with respect to KIR and HLA from a European-American population. So we want to know two things. We want to know is there something different going on with these genes with respect to disease in these different populations, OR at the same time we want to know is something the same going on? And so we can learn something both from these commonalities and differences, and both can be really important in genetics. So if there’s something that is important that’s specific in the African-American population, we want to know that, and we can only find out by looking at a number of different ethnic groups.   MSDF Let’s talk a little bit more about interaction between KIR and the HLA ligand, and how that plays in with Bw4. And if we can define all of those things, too, that would be great.   Dr. Hollenbach Okay. Well, so KIR molecules, as I mentioned before, need to see something, they need to have a ligand on their target cell. We have both inhibitory receptors and activating receptors. The job of the NK cell is to perform immune surveillance. So NK cells kind of wander around the body, and what they’re looking for are cells that don’t look healthy. So what does that look like and what is an unhealthy cell? It’s a cell that is virally infected, it’s a tumor cell. Those are the two main things that NK cells are looking for. And it’s a really important function because they’re part of what we refer to as the innate immune system; it’s the first line of defense against these kind of unhealthy events.   And so what does an unhealthy cell look like? Well, one of the things that happens in both viral infection and tumors is downregulation of MHC class I. That’s what the KIR are looking for. So when an NK cell encounters a healthy cell, it will see HLA class I, it immediately recognizes this is self, this is healthy cell at least in terms of what I’m able to see as an NK cell, and it will move on and it won’t cause any damage to the cell after making contact between the KIR and that ligand.   On the other hand, if the KIR doesn’t see this HLA ligand, the inhibitory KIR, an activating KIR – and we’re still not completely sure what the activating KIR ligands are – but the activating KIR is also bound to something on the surface of this cell. If the activating KIR is bound but the inhibitory KIR is not, what happens is the NK cell is going to lyse that cell which is presumably unhealthy in some ways – tumor or viral infected.   Now HLA class I – actually all HLA molecules – have another primary really important role which is antigen presentation to T cells. Class I molecules present antigen to the CD8-positive T cells, and so that’s how these T cells perform their role in terms of the active immune response. KIRs see a different part of the HLA molecule than the T cell receptors, and so they see kind of this piece of the HLA class I molecule that’s kind of on the side of where the T cell receptors sit. And the variation that they see on that HLA class I molecule can kind of be defined by these broad categories based on the particular amino acid residues. And it’s generally just from two to four amino acid residues that determine whether or not a given KIR can see a given HLA class I molecule.   So one of these epitopes, as we call them – and if they were originally defined on a serological basis because specific antibodies could recognize them – so one of these epitopes is referred to as Bw4; these are epitopes that we mainly see on HLA-B molecules – not all – so depending on the population, human population, may be from 40 to 60 or 70% of HLA-B molecules will have this Bw4 epitope. Some HLA-A molecules also bear the Bw4 epitope. So that’s what some KIR molecules, specifically KIR3DL1, is seeing is Bw4.   The results of the study that I talked about today and what we saw is in this African-American multiple sclerosis cohort, individuals that have both 3DL1 and HLA alleles with the Bw4 epitope appear to be protected from multiple sclerosis. And so we see higher frequencies of this combination in our control population relative to patients. So that suggests a protective effect of that combination, 3DL1 plus Bw4.   MSDF Where do you see the research going from here?   Dr. Hollenbach Right now the data that we’re looking at is strictly in terms of carrying frequencies for these particular genes. So these genes are actually highly variable at the allele level, so any given gene like KIR3DL1 has many, many variants that are already known, and likely many variants that we haven’t identified yet because the technology has not been there. The technology is just about now caught up to the point where we are able to examine at the sequence level the variation within these specific KIR genes, and so I think that that’s really the next step. And we’re actually taking steps to start examining this cohort and others in terms of this fine-grained variation in the KIR genes.   MSDF Very good. Thanks.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Thirty-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 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]

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Thirty-Three 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. Pierre-Antoine Gourraud about the function of human leukocyte antigens and their role in MS. But to begin, here's a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   Early in January, the journal Nature Reviews Neurology published a highlights issue of research advances in MS in 2014. The milestones included successful phase 2 trials for simvastatin in progressive MS, new clinical phenotype categories, and more. We summarized each of these advances, supplemented with interviews from some of the authors. Go to the “News and Future Directions” section of our website and click on “Top 8 MS Research Advances of 2014” to read it. And please do make use of our comment section, especially if you believe that we – and Nature Reviews Neurology – failed to list any equally important advances.   Dimethyl fumarate, also known as Tecfidera, may lower CD8-positive T cells in patients with MS, according to a new study out last week. This news follows an earlier story of a patient who died of complications from the rare brain infection, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, or PML, after taking dimethyl fumarate. The drug is known to lower leukocyte levels, including lymphocytes, but many patients are able to maintain normal white cell counts while on the drug. This study showed that even patients with normal leukocyte counts may have dangerously low levels of CD8-positive T cells. These cells are involved in viral immunity, and lower levels of them may leave the gate open for opportunistic infections, such as JC virus, that causes PML.   If you enjoy this podcast and find MSDF helpful, please consider supporting us with a donation. MSDF is run by a small team of three full-time employees and a few regular contributors. We are devoted to bridging the gaps between scientific disciplines to speed the flow of information from the lab bench to the bedside. Our ultimate goal is to facilitate the discovery of a cure. We believe one of the best ways to do that is to bring independent, research-focused news to a professional audience on a platform that fosters discussion and discourse. Help keep us going by visiting our website and clicking on the green “Support MSDF” button next to the “Research Resources” tab on the top right of our screen.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Pierre-Antoine Gourraud is the leader of the translational digital medicine group in the Department of Neurology at the University of California, San Francisco. He’s also a distinguished member of our scientific advisory board. He met with science writer, Cynthia McKelvey, to talk about human leukocyte antigen in MS.     Interviewer – Cynthia McKelvey Let’s begin by defining the major histocompatibility complex and human leukocyte antigen; what those are and how they relate to multiple sclerosis.   Interviewee – Pierre-Antoine Gourraud So the MHC, the major histocompatibility complex is one of the most important region of the genome. It’s 1000 of the genomes, 3.6 megabase, but it represent about 1% of the total number of genes. So a region that is very dense in genes that are very, very important in neurological functions. It’s also one of the most polymorphic region of the genome, which mean that there are many, many version, many diversity, a lot of alleles, as we call these different forms of a given gene for that particular region of the genome. Basically, it’s encode for or identity or genetic identity, and it has been studied a lot for transmutation. So for multiple sclerosis, since 1972 has been recognized that something in that region had to do with multiple sclerosis risks or the susceptibility; why people are getting multiple sclerosis whatever or not. So back in 1972, researchers realized that people carrying an HLA-DR2 type were actually more susceptible to multiple sclerosis. So doing that in a very simple and comparative manner, we took a bunch of people that have MS, a bunch of people that don’t have MS, and you just see that people that have MS tends to have more HLA-DR2. At that time, the HLAs so the genes that bears the immunity identity of [?] – very important for transmutation again – they were typed by serological techniques. So we were using antibodies to distinguish different types. Over the years, serology has been replaced by PCR-based technique, molecular techniques, and we are now doing HLA typing by sequencing. And for 30 years basically this result has been confirmed, and many additional findings we find the initial association between the MHC region and multiple sclerosis.   MSDF So you’re looking at a cohort of African American MS patients and comparing them to people of European descent with MS. And, you're seeing some differences in the major histocompatibility complexes with these. And how do those relate to MS? What are they telling you about the disease?   Dr. Gourraud You know, if we're stepping back a little bit, it's very important to get very large samples to do genetic studies. The more people we are looking at the easier the findings easy to find alleles. So UCSF and other groups in the world have been organizing to coordinate their effort in structuring the International Multiple Sclerosis Genetic Consortium, IMSGC, and we have been really, really successful in gathering large number of MS patients of European ancestry, as well as controls. Within that consortium, UCSF and Dr. Cree and Dr. Oksenberg, have been pushing an effort to coordinate as well African American cohort of MS patients. So we have been working on that, and for the past two to three years we have done a tremendous effort to actually type the HLA of these patients and these controls. And we have gathered more than about 1600 African American MS patients – and we are still collecting them – and roughly 2000 African American controls to do the comparison.   So the first thing we want to do is to see if we are confirming what we see in the European patients – and that is true – we have found  HLA-DRB1 15:01, 15:03 as a specific allele for African American. The HLA-DRB1 03:01 is also to some extent a risk allele in African American. And we also confirm that in the class I HLA-02:01 has a protective effect on MS. So, it's not necessarily obvious, because some of these alleles are actually not found in people of African ancestry, and they also have a much larger diversity. So we are starting to accumulate evidence showing that other alleles that are not present in the Europeans are associated with MS risk. And that’s a very important finding, because now we are in a position where we're going to find structural, functional commonalities between the African American alleles and the European alleles that are both associated to MS.   MSDF And where do you see the research going from here?   Dr. Gourraud So one also very important topic that's being working on both in Europeans and African American is trying not to consider HLA on its own, even if we have really put a lot of samples and money and effort in that, but also consider another very complex family of genes that interact with HLA. These are called KIR (K-I-R), and they are receptor at the cell surface of NK cells, the natural killer cells that have a very important role in immune regulation, and it has been reported that NK cells are actually present in the brain in active MS lesions. So we looked at these two system as potentially interacting to define the risk of MS. So we started typing also for these KIR genes in our African American to be able to study at the same time the MHC or the HLA genes, the KIR genes on a different region of the genome, and also the rest of the genome where we've used a simple marker called SNP.   MSDF That’s great. Thank you very much.   Dr. Gourraud You’re very welcome. Thank you.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Thirty-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 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]

[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]          

[intro music]   Hello, and welcome to Episode Thirty-One 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. Lloyd Kasper about the gut microbiome and its role in MS. But to begin, here is a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   Last week our parent organization, the Accelerated Cure Project, launched its latest endeavor called “iConquerMS.” iConquerMS aims to enroll 20,000 people living with MS to play an active role in research, empowering them to securely submit their health data, influence the studies that are carried out by the initiative, and stay informed about the research. Visit iConquerMS.org for more information.   Vision and sensorimotor problems go together in some MS patients. A recent publication in the journal Neurology examined the relationship between MRI measures of the spinal cord and retina in patients with MS. The investigators found some correlation between the two types of metrics, but they also found that damage in each structure had independent relationships with disability. Read the full story in our “news and future directions” section.   And lastly, our previous podcast contained an error. We mentioned a story about a proof-of-concept study of a novel way to monitor lesion repair. However, the story was withheld from publication due to a delay in the release of the research article. The story is now live on our website.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Lloyd Kasper is a faculty member of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College. He met with MSDF Executive Editor, Bob Finn, to talk about his research on the gut microbiome and MS.   Interviewer – Robert Finn Dr. Kasper, welcome.   Interviewee – Lloyd Kasper Thank you.   MSDF So to start, why on earth would someone interested in a neurological disease such as MS concern himself with bacteria in the intestines; what’s the connection?   Dr. Kasper That’s actually a very valid question. And the answer to that question is pretty straightforward, is that there’s a very clear brain-gut access so that the brain talks to the gut primary modulating the physiology of the gut through secretion of a variety of molecules, vasoactive proteins, etc. That in turn affects the motility of the gut. By affecting the motility of the gut, you also affect everything that’s inside the gut, which is – as you mentioned just previously – the 100 trillion bacteria that each and every one of us in this world has. And those bacteria in response to the changes in motility shift their behavior, because these are living organisms, and they secrete a wide range of metabolites.   For the purposes of simplicity, you can look at those metabolites and the effect of those various metabolites on the immune system, taking into account that the gut is the largest immune system in our body – 80% of our immune cells are in the gut. So you’ll have this clear interaction between the brain, its activity physiologically on the gut, and the gut’s activity on the bacteria, and then the bacteria’s activity back on the immune system which leads to issues related to the brain.   MSDF So you partly answered my next question. There are microbiomes in other places besides the gut – the skin, the urinogenital tract, etc. Do those other microbiomes have any affect or any relationship to multiple sclerosis, do you think?   Dr. Kasper First of all, the association between the gut microbiome and MS has not yet been fully established, there’s experimental data that would suggest that there is a relationship between the two but that’s still at the experimental level. There really has been very little exploration of the other microbiomes within the body. Remember, the microbiome is not just the microflora. What the microbiome is is the genome of the flora in its relationship to the genome of its host. So when you look at the genomics of MS, for example, in the host – which there’s a lot of work that’s being done – you’re only looking at a fraction of the genetic material that’s involved in this relationship between the gut and the body that it’s in OR any of the other sites that we have microflora – our mouth, as you pointed out; our ears – inside of our ears; our lungs. Those are all areas that bacteria in our body exists in balance with us to achieve a homeostasis. The reason for looking at the gut microbiome is that because it’s the largest, probably the most complex as well.   MSDF So you focused much of your attention on a single bacterial species. Let me see if I pronounce this correctly – Bacteroides fragilis– am I close?   Dr. Kasper Correct.   MSDF And a single substance that it produces, polysaccharide A, or PSA – which has no relation to prostate specific antigen. Why are you focusing on that species and that product?   Dr. Kasper Well, there is mounting evidence that there are several phyla that colonize the gut. The two major phyla of interest are Firmicutes, which are gram-positive aerobes, and Bacteroides, which are gram-negative anaerobes. I’m talking about at the phyla level over which there is no kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species. Under each one of those phyla there are many different species. We’ve focused in on primarily Bacteroides because Bacteroides fragilis is a very common commensal that essentially inhabits in the neighborhood of 80-90% of all mankind in the world. Bacteroides as a phyla has been associated with the induction of regulatory T cells. Regulatory T cells live in the colon, in and around the colon, and that’s where Bacteroides live. And it’s been shown that Bacteroides as a phyla have the capacity to drive regulatory T cells.   The reason it’s important in MS is because there is a known deficit in the regulatory T cell population in patients with MS. And we chose Bacteroides fragilis because of all the Bacteroides species, that’s the one that we actually know most about immunologically. There’s at least 20 or 25 years’ worth of very, very important data that shows how this particular molecule, this polysaccharide A – and it’s a polysaccharide, it’s not a peptide, it’s a polysaccharide – how this polysaccharide can drive the immune system to a regulatory phenotype that’s associated with the induction of regulatory T cells, production of IL10, all those factors which are important in MS which we know are deficient in those with MS.   MSDF When you say drive the immune system, drive T regs, what do you mean by that?   Dr. Kasper Basically, these bacteria have the capacity to convert effector cells, which would be CD4 positive CD25 negative cells to a regulatory phenotype, which would be CD4 CD25 positive associated with sort of the standard-bearer of regulatory cells, which is Foxp3, which is a nuclear antigen that’s been characterized with it. So this molecule has a remarkable capacity to do that both in vivo and our studies show you can do that actually in vitro as well. So you can take cells that are negative that would be considered naïve or effector-type cells, culture them with this PSA molecule, and convert them to regulatory cells which we know are important in controlling the disease.   MSDF So remind me whether you want more or fewer of these regulatory T cells.   Dr. Kasper It depends where you are in life. To give you sort of a circumstantial argument, we know that Firmicutes, which is that other major phyla, has been associated with a number of disease states, including obesity – just to name one – atherosclerosis, but we also know that the Firmicutes have the capacity to drive IL-17. The regulatory T cells are cells that control the IL-17 response, so it’s important to have regulatory T cells to control the IL-17. We know experimentally that IL-17 drives the experimental form of multiple sclerosis EAE, and there is mounting data – and pretty conclusive, I think – MS is probably at least in part driven by IL-17 cells. So you need these regulatory T cells to control that IL-17 response which is probably being driven by the Firmicutes population. And I’m oversimplifying this, because you remember, you’ve got a hundred trillion cells downstairs making god knows how many different metabolites with over a million genes. So what I’m presenting to you is a very simplified version of this remarkably complex organ.   MSDF So is this leading toward clinical utility for polysaccharide A?   Dr. Kasper We hope so.   MSDF Can you tell me more about that?   Dr. Kasper Well, again, our experimental data – at least in EAE – demonstrates that animals that have been induced with EAE are protected by this polysaccharide. Animals that have EAE, we can therapeutically treat them with this. So this is the first demonstration that a commensal-derived bacterial product that’s within essentially pretty much all of mankind has the capacity to induce regulatory T cells. We don’t know if MS patients are deficient in this or they have the genetic makeup that they can’t respond to it, or whatever it may be. As I said, there’s a real complexity. But the simple observation as we know is that if we take animals that are susceptible to EAE and we treat the prophylactically or therapeutically, we’re able to protect them very, very nicely against the disease process.   And now we have preliminary data in humans that we can take human cells in vitro out of a person and we can drive those human cells from an effector CD4-positive CD25-negative phenotype to a regulatory phenotype by this molecule; just five days of exposure and you see this very nice conversion that’s associated with increased IL10 protection, etc.   MSDF Do you imagine that the PSA molecule itself, if drug development goes on, is there any chemistry that needs to be done before it might possibly be therapeutic?   Dr. Kasper A lot of the chemistry has been done. We have a pretty good idea of what the molecule looks like, it’s a repeating polysaccharide chain. And we know what the conditions are at least in animals as far as innate response molecules – TLRs, toll-like receptors, etc. So as far as the molecule itself, I think we have a pretty good understanding. As I said, there’s about 20 years’ worth of very solid biology behind this molecule. So how far we are away from the clinic at this point is a matter of time, resources, and money to be able to move it from the experimental stage that we’re in into the clinic.   MSDF So you’re not the only research group working on the connection between the gut microbiome and multiple sclerosis. I wonder if you can talk a little bit about how your research fits in with the various other approaches that are going on.   Dr. Kasper Our research has been focused primarily on immune regulation – how to get the disease under control, at least experimentally and hopefully in MS patients. Most of the other labs are looking primarily at what bacteria or bacteria populations are responsible for affecting the disease; what’s driving the disease. We’ve sort of kept away from that because we were fortunate in being able to find this one molecule derived from a bacteria, as I said, that much of mankind is colonized with, so we’ve been focused mostly on how to regulate the disease rather than what’s driving the disease.   MSDF Now, as you know, there’s been a lot of talk and controversy about the role of diet in multiple sclerosis. Do you think that gut bacteria and the substances they product may provide that missing link connecting diet with MS.   Dr. Kasper I think that diet’s going to turn out to be one of the more critical environmental factors that’s associated with the disease process.   MSDF Can you say a little bit more about that?   Dr. Kasper Well, if you look at all the risk factors that we know for MS, that being genetics, obesity, smoking, gender – just to name a few – there’s about six or seven of them. Every one of those risk factors is associated with the microbiome. The common denominator for all the risk factors we know so far in MS is the microbiome, and that includes genetics. As I said, the microbiome is a two-way street; it induces things in us and we do things in turn to it, so it’s a binary system. So our speculations – and we just had a paper published in FEBs – Federation of Experimental Biology – is we’re speculating that the gut microbiome is the major environmental risk factor for MS because it includes all of the known risk factors.   So how can you adjust that? Well, the most logical way is diet, right, because it’s the change in the human diet over the last hundred years that may be accountable for the rise in the disease process. It may also be the change in the diet in Africa as well as Asia which were relatively unknown for MS, but now the incidents in Asia as well as in Africa is approaching about the same as it is in the United States and Europe. So as diet has changed, so has the incidence of the disease gone up. So I’m speculating that diet will turn out to be a very important factor in controlling the microflora, which in turn allows for the balance, the homeostasis, in individuals.   MSDF Well, very interesting. We’ve come to the end of our time, but is there anything you’d like to add, any important questions that I haven’t asked that I should have asked?   Dr. Kasper No. I think the question about the diet, you know, where do you go from here? Because it’s going to take years and years for scientists and clinicians to sort out what’s actually going on in the microbiome. We’re at the tip of the iceberg in this really, because not only is it the immunology that’s important but it’s the physiology and the physiologic changes that the gut microbiome may be creating in people. So as we get better definition of what activities are going on in the microbiome, the greater the likelihood we’ll have of understanding a whole range of human diseases. And not just MS, but that’s all other autoimmune diseases, cancer, obesity, you know, it’s a long list.   And it may ultimately turn out that it’s a clue to our understanding of cancer, for example, because as the microflora shifts as we grow older – which it does – perhaps what we’re seeing is that early on we have bacteria that induce inflammatory processes – which is why MS is a disease of young people – that tends to peter out as you get older. It’s a well-known thing. It doesn’t go away but it tends to peter out. But that may be parallel to the shift in the microflora that’s going on. So early on in the western diet you’re having mostly Firmicutes. As we get older that shifts to more of Bacteroides, which has more regulation. What does more regulation equal? Well, you’re down-regulating the immune system, and as we get older what do we become susceptible? Cancer. So there’s a real balance that’s going on here. And I think a lot of the clues to human biology as far as disease state are going to ultimately be related to the microbiome.   MSDF Dr. Kasper, thank you very much.   Dr. Kasper Thank you.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Thirty-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 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]  

[intro music]   Hello, and welcome to Episode Thirty 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. Seema Tiwari-Woodruff about estrogen in animal models of MS. But to begin, here’s a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   Last week, we reported on the results of another clinical trial for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in relapsing-remitting MS. Compared to the “halt-MS” trial, which we reported on in January, this study used a less aggressive conditioning approach. Patients involved in the study demonstrated improvement in EDSS scores, and eighty percent of them were relapse-free at four years. The results raised important questions about how to prep MS patients for the transplant. Visit our “News and Future Directions” section to read the full story.   A recent study published in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal demonstrated a potential new way to monitor lesion repair using standard MRI techniques. Clinical trials usually look for new lesions in brain scans to monitor drug efficacy. Lead author, Daniel Reich, told MSDF it’s more important than ever to be able to visualize changes in tissue since drug development is shifting towards neuroprotection and repair.   We’re also pleased to announce that Daniel Reich is one of two new members of our Scientific Advisory Board. Dr. Reich is the director of the Translational Neuroradiology Unit in the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, part of NIH. Our other new board member is Deborah Backus, an expert on rehabilitation who is Director of Multiple Sclerosis Research at the Shepherd Center in Atlanta, Georgia. Read their full bios in our “Who We Are” section under the “About Us” tab.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Tiwari-Woodruff is an associate professor of biomedical sciences at the University of California, Riverside. She met with MSDF editor-in-chief, Bob Finn, to talk about her research on estrogen and multiple sclerosis.   Interviewer – Robert Finn Dr. Tiwari-Woodruff, welcome.   Interviewee – Seema Tiwari-Woodruff Thank you.   MSDF So what is the connection between estrogen and MS?   Dr. Tiwari-Woodruff It’s an interesting connection between estrogen and MS, because estrogen is actually a part of life in a way that our brains require it, our bodies require it at every moment of our life, I should say. Many years ago it was found that relapsing-remitting patients had less relapses when they were pregnant, and the causes of that was potentially estrogens – high levels of them – or progesterone or vitamin D. Many researchers went ahead and looked at those high levels of pregnancy estrogens called estriol and found that high levels of estriol were the reason why these women patients had lower levels of MS symptoms.   So eventually down the line, estrogens were parsed out of which estrogen was better. And it turns out that one type of estrogen, which is the estrogen of the alpha, is more immunomodulatory – it actually suppresses the immune response – and that is probably what makes MS symptoms better versus estrogens of the beta ligand was known not to have that much immunomodulatory effect; instead, it was actually directly neuroprotective. So estrogens of the alpha and beta both seem to have an effect on various cell types which are involved in multiple sclerosis.   MSDF So if estrogen seems to be protective in pregnant women with MS, why not just use estrogen, or an analog like estriol or estradiol, as a treatment?   Dr. Tiwari-Woodruff That’s a very good question. And, first, these therapies were thought that we were going to use those first, and a lot of clinical trials were going through with that. But what happens with high levels of estrogen is there are two things which are important to know. One is they have a feminizing effect, and the second one is they have a preponderance for causing uterine cancer or breast cancer. So you don’t want to stimulate those two types of cancer. So high levels of estrogen could be dangerous in that aspect. So that is why we don’t want to use that as potential therapy.   MSDF So you’ve done a lot of work with a specific estrogen receptor agonist called indazole chloride. First, tell me how you came upon this compound.   Dr. Tiwari-Woodruff So estrogens of the beta ligands are not just being looked at for multiple sclerosis, they were being looked at as a potential therapeutic for menopause – hot flashes included – rheumatoid arthritis, and other impairments like prostate cancer, etc. So there were quite a few chemists who were coming up with various different types of estrogen receptor beta ligands. So while I was doing my work with mouse models of MS in generic estrogen receptor beta ligand, which was the DPN – diarylpropionitrile – a study came out which was actually on indazole chloride which was developed by a chemist, John Katzenellenbogen; he’s done a lot of work on developing these molecules. And this particular compound showed that it decreased activation of astrocytes and microglia; this was published in Cell a few years back. And we met at a meeting, John Katzenellenbogen and myself – we were giving a talk at the same time in a meeting in Stockholm – and we decided to talk to each other. And he said, “Your research is very intriguing on estrogen receptor beta ligand, would you like to try this out?” And that’s how I got my hands on the indazole chloride. And we did some preliminary studies and showed good results. Then we decided to embark on a full-fledged study which was published in PNAS.   MSDF So you used indazole chloride in two different mouse models of MS, and you used it both prophylactically and in mice that are already showing symptoms. What did you find?   Dr. Tiwari-Woodruff So prophylactically when you use a compound, you are actually trying to see if you can inhibit the symptoms which are going to come up when you induce a disease, and that is all good. But when you are talking about patients who come to see the doctor, they’re always coming in with symptoms, so they already have the disease ongoing. So the second paradigm where you give the drug when the disease symptoms are already there is closer to what humans are going to be able to see. So the nice thing about indazole chloride was that, prophylactically, definitely it made the mice better, but therapeutically also; they were able to decrease the disease symptoms by nearly 50%.   MSDF What is the significance of the fact that it seems to work on two different mouse models of MS?   Dr. Tiwari-Woodruff So when you’re looking at a drug especially in a disease like multiple sclerosis which has two major components – one is inflammatory component and another one is a neurodegenerative component – if you can show that this drug is working in one way or both ways would be very useful for developing better drugs or better treatments. So what we did was when we treated the mice with indazole chloride, in one mouse model which is the experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis which contains both the inflammatory and the neurodegenerative component, we saw a decrease in the disease symptoms. But we couldn’t tell if the indazole chloride was working in the inflammatory component or the neurodegeneration component, because it showed effect on both.   So we went to a second mouse model which is the toxic cuprizone diet model which doesn’t have a primary inflammatory component. The disease starts with oligodendrocytes, the cells which make the myelin. They die when you feed this diet to the mice, so they have massive demyelination in regions of the brain. When we gave the drug during the remyelination phase, we found that indazole chloride was able to remyelinate the axons better when the drug was present versus when it was absent. So this actually showed us that indazole chloride has two arms to it. One, it inhibits the inflammatory component and the second, it inhibits the neurodegenerative component independent of the inflammatory component.   MSDF Is it also sort of confirmatory? The EAE is not a perfect model of MS and neither is the cuprizone mouse model, but does it make you feel better that these two completely different models are showing similar effects?   Dr. Tiwari-Woodruff Absolutely, you really hit the point where… We are always looking for the best model for multiple sclerosis, but because the disease is so complex no one model can be said that it’s 100% mimicking multiple sclerosis. So for us to see that demyelination which occurs both in EAE and the cuprizone model was improved – we actually saw remyelination in both models – really gave us hope that this drug could be directly acting on oligodendrocytes which are forming the myelin, which is the cause of major mode of dysfunction in multiple sclerosis.   MSDF So does indazole chloride help these mice a little bit, or does it help them a lot?   Dr. Tiwari-Woodruff So that’s a very good question. Similar to what you might see in the patient population, in the mouse model of MS, especially in the EAE model, the disease is not consistent. So the lesions which appear in the brain of EAE animals are very diverse, unlike the cuprizone model where the demyelination is very consistent. So when you’re looking at these mice, especially in the EAE cohort, if the animal is really, really sick, you actually see the disease symptoms go down just a little bit. But if the animals were sick to the middle level, they actually showed a bigger difference, they showed better recovery. And we hypothesize that the axons which have been injured to the point of no return, if the axons have been demyelinated and injured, it doesn’t matter now when you give them therapeutic drugs, these are not going to improve. So there are certain number of axons in the brain which drop out and we don’t see recovery in those. But said that, overall we still saw a significant increase with indazole chloride treatment in both models.   MSDF Have you done histology?   Dr. Tiwari-Woodruff Yes. We’ve done histology, we’ve done electron microscopy. And we do one more thing my lab is very good at, we do electrophysiology. Because one of the things we always think is when you look at remyelination you can see myelin coming up, but is the myelin functional? If the axons can conduct faster or better, then you know that the myelin which has covered the axons is functional. So we do all three. And we also include behavioral testing. So one of the tests we included which a lot of people use is a Rota rod; it’s a motor test to show that the mice can stay on the Rota rod much longer after treatment with indazole versus just the vehicle.   MSDF Do you see any side effects?   Dr. Tiwari-Woodruff So that’s interesting. We did not see any side effects in these mice. Agreed, we treated them up to 60 days, we haven’t treated them longer than that, plus we were giving them at a 5 mg/kg/day concentration. So we didn’t see any kind of toxicity. But said that, we still need to do those studies in a thorough way before we can safely say that they had no side effects.   MSDF So what’s next in the development of indazole chloride as a potential MS treatment?   Dr. Tiwari-Woodruff So indazole chloride is a good target. And while these studies were going on last year, John Katzenellenbogen and myself, we were talking about how are we going to proceed with this because we were seeing really good results; this is even before I published the paper. And he said what would you like to do? And one of the things we said was is it possible to make better analogs of this compound which are going to be more specific, could be used in a lower concentration and may have a better therapeutic outcome?   So he came up with four analogs which he has sent to me, and we did some preliminary studies to see if they were toxic to cells in culture, because that’s the first thing you do. And they have no toxicity in cells, they actually have shown to behave well with proliferation – depreciation of the cell – and we haven’t seen more cell death or less cell death with them. So we are very excited about that. So coming next month, we are actually going to start treatment of EAE animals, and once that goes through the goal is to do toxicity studies on the two best compounds and see if we can find a company so we can have a backing on these drugs for potential human trials. It’s a couple years from now, at least – it could be even more – but we are actually moving in that direction.   MSDF Dr. David Baker in a commentary on his multiple sclerosis research blog seemed less than enthusiastic about indazole chloride. He suggested that many compounds seem to work similarly in mouse models. How do you respond to that criticism?   Dr. Tiwari-Woodruff So Dr. Baker has a very good point on saying that there could be many compounds which are good in EAE but they fizzle out and they don’t go up to clinical trial. I disagree on one point where it comes to indazole chloride, because we have precedence of estrogens showing good therapeutic indication in humans; there were clinical trials done in UCLA where they showed that there was improvement with estriol treatment. And estriol does target both ER-alpha and ER-beta – ER-beta a little more than ER-alpha – so I’m very confident that what we are seeing with estrogen receptor beta is not a fluke. And because it’s a steroid and a small molecule, it does not seem to have a lot of toxicity involved which could be somewhat which is brand new. So we’ll see. I hope Dr. Baker’s wrong and we do manage to get this drug to human patients and we see therapeutic efficacy in them.   MSDF Dr. Baker also said that a critical experiment had not yet been done. And let me quote from his blog post. He said, “The development of demyelination should be allowed to occur after this damage has abated, then punitive remyelinating drugs should be given.” How do you respond to that?   Dr. Tiwari-Woodruff Very good point made by Dr. Baker, but I have actually addressed those in the PNAS paper. We part off particularly this aspect of the disease. So the prophylactic treatment was before the disease started; that is what he’s mentioning in the blog. The second part is what is important where EAE disease was induced, and after peak disease had occurred we gave the drug, indazole chloride. At the peak disease, we actually see increased inflammation, but alongside with that we see demyelination and axon degeneration. So the damage has already started. The drug treatment after that is what caused the disease to get better. We saw increased conduction, we saw increased remyelination, and less axon damage.   Similar to that, we also did the experiment in cuprizone. The treatment paradigm was as such: We actually had nine week of demyelination ongoing in the cuprizone model, which is very chronic; it’s chronically ongoing where you have quite a bit of damage of the axons and you have acute demyelination. During the remyelination phases where we gave the drug either to one group and vehicle to the other group, what we saw was that the drug treatment, indazole chloride, actually increased remyelination and decreased axon damage. So I think Dr. Baker was trying to make a point on we haven’t done the right experiment, but I think we have done the right experiment. And further research with indazole chloride will let us know if this is a good drug or not.   MSDF Dr. Tiwari-Woodruff, is there anything you’d like to add?   Dr. Tiwari-Woodruff I would like to add one more thing. We have actually looked at indazole chloride in optic neuritis – EAE-induced optic neuritis – and we are going to be publishing a paper fairly soon showing that in optic neuritis we see less inflammation in the retina and increased remyelination in the optic nerve. So I’m very confident that it’s not just a phenomenology in one part of the brain which we picked last time – it was the corpus callosum – that we see increased remyelination and decreased damage caused by EAE with treatment of indazole chloride.   MSDF Well, thank you very much.   Dr. Tiwari-Woodruff Thank you.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Thirty 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 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]

[intro music]   Hello, and welcome to Episode Twenty-Nine 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. Monica Carson on funding research in MS. But to begin, here is a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   Glatiramer acetate and the interferon betas appear to be clinically similar, according to a new study in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal. This study follows on the heels of a Cochrane meta-analysis we covered earlier in 2014 that found similar results. Instead of performing a meta-analysis, though, the researchers of the MSJ article used data from over 3,000 patients in the MS Base database. They found very little difference in annualized relapse rates over 10 years, though glatiramer acetate and subcutaneous interferon beta 1-a did eke out a statistical win over the other interferons.   Together, MSDF and our non-profit publisher, Accelerated Cure for Multiple Sclerosis, are committed to speeding the pathway toward a cure for MS. Among the news and resources we provide is a list of more than two dozen tissue repositories, including one maintained by Accelerated Cure. Visit our website and click on the “tissue repositories” button under the “research resources” tab to browse through repositories from all over the globe.   Another part of our goal in working faster toward a cure is to provide a place where researchers can share their experiences and expertise with one another and also debate controversial issues in MS research. We encourage researchers and clinicians from all disciplines to log onto our forum and discuss their latest research, techniques, and discoveries. We also encourage you to help keep us up-to-date on your latest work by e-mailing us directly. Send information you’d like to share on job postings, meetings, funding opportunities, or other news to editor at msdiscovery.org.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Monica Carson is director of the center for glial-neural interactions at the University of California, Riverside. She met with MSDF editor-in-chief, Bob Finn, to talk about the current state of funding in MS research.   [Interview]   Interviewer – Robert Finn Dr. Carson, welcome.   Interviewee – Monica Carson Thank you.   MSDF So let’s stipulate that there’s never enough money available for funding any area of research adequately. On a scale from bad to awful to dire, what is the state of funding for MS research?   Dr. Carson I would say it’s better than maybe other areas, but all areas of research, I feel, are dire, so I do not want to make MS research sound worse. It’s probably actually better because individuals can see the value of research in disease-oriented research programs. So in a worse situation, it’s good.   MSDF So there are essentially three sources of research funding. There’s the government; there are nonprofits; and then there are for-profit companies, mostly pharmaceutical companies in the biomedical area. How are each of these doing in funding MS research?   Dr. Carson There are objectives in all of these. There’s always been a long-term funding priority in NIH NINDS. There’s also out of various objectives that are perhaps nontraditional for those of us who came up as NIH-funded investigators, such as the DOD and various congressionally-mandated research programs. There are much more funding, I think, also in private foundations. Funding in biotech and pharmaceutical, I think, has been the one area that has dropped severely over the years, and that one is not an area that I think one can count on, that is going to be something targeted when you have a proposal. And then you do have to work through the ethics and various other aspects of that.   That said, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has really shown a very nice model of partnering with pharmaceuticals with their Fast Forward program. I’ve served on those panels and they are really wonderful models of projects that are brought in that have sufficient IP – intellectual property – protection of the ideas brought in that could be moved Fast Forward by a partnership with pharmaceutical and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. So there are targeted areas, but of course it’s going to be very more modest in general funding overall for the average investigator, whereas the more traditional governmental and private foundations are going to be our primary sources.   MSDF How do you account for the drop-off in pharmaceutical company funding?   Dr. Carson Well, I am not an expert in economics, in the costs that it takes to take something to market, but I would speculate that it has to do with the difficulty of getting drugs that work in the brain that pass all the various measures of blood-brain barrier, unexpected toxicities and side effects. And so I think this area of pharmaceuticals has had great expense but great dropouts. So for great expense there hasn’t been a lot of drugs coming out except in targeted areas. I would say recently it’s been very exciting about the therapies that are coming out in MS research.   MSDF So do these three sources – government, nonprofit, for-profit – do they tend to support different types of research?   Dr. Carson Yes, very much so. I think as we very much know, you go to NIH, it’s a good scientific idea, needs to impact health, could be a basic science issue that applies to MS but also might apply to Alzheimer’s diseases, neural inflammation, or a variety of other diseases in childhood. When you get to a private foundation, the private foundation has taken donations or raised money very specifically for a disease, and so different private foundations are going to be focused on how much other research is applied to the disease, but also how translational it is. How important that translational element is going to be specific to the different foundation. But all of the private foundations are going to be very specific that this is not just a good idea, but is a good idea for their diseases, specifically multiple sclerosis.   MSDF So let’s say you are a researcher, possibly a young researcher, searching for his or her first research funding. How do you strategize the search for research funding?   Dr. Carson Very good question. I don’t think there’s one right answer to this and one has to look at one’s own portfolio of research, one’s resources, and what one can actually deliver after one has made a promise in a grant proposal. And I think you need to as a young researcher get advice from senior researchers and investigators in your area in your field to see how to go forward. But very often the best way is to take advantage of the pilot grants, the junior investigative grants that are really targeted to getting you off the ground and can have ideas that are high-risk, high-impact.   There are also many of these pilot grants from the private foundations, such as the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has a pilot project; it’s aimed at getting folks to get their early funding in MS to sort of capture them as a long-term MS researcher. So I think the pilot grants are a good way to start to get that bolus of research-funded publications, demonstrate your productivity level so that you get the larger grants from NIH.   MSDF So let’s talk specifically about the National MS Society and Erase MS, which are the two large nonprofits that you’ve been involved with. How do their funding philosophies differ?   Dr. Carson Well, I’m not really ready at this point to talk quite about more about the Erase MS, because I’ve just joined their scientific advisory board and I am about to start participating in their review cycles. And so I think it’s best to go through that cycle a few more times before commenting on that. But I would say it’s going to be very focused. They are also looking at bringing together research centers, and the Erase MS is very much focused on therapies and things that are going to move things forward quite fast. So in that sense, the MS Society is a more longstanding society; it has been on my mind one of the best models of collecting money, giving out money to researchers, making sure the research is very specific to MS. And this goes back to my prior point. Having been on MS study sections, it’s very important for them – this can’t be just a good idea – it has to be applying to MS.   So one of the things I think is the other very big difference between these is the MS Society also has a lot of different types of grant funding programs – these pilots which I just mentioned; training grants; transition grants which are very important to the junior investigator which will take you being from a senior post-doc to an independent position; as well as larger grants, 3-year grants, that are sufficient to carry a major project.   MSDF So there’s a perception in the public, I think among scientists as well, that some of the big disease societies spend 90% of their funding on administration and 10% on funding research. How does the National MS Society stack up in that regard?   Dr. Carson I would say the MS Society is a model of what most disease societies should be. I have been impressed by them from when I entered the research field starting off in MS and being funded – so just for conflict of interest, I was funded at 5M as a post-doctoral fellow – and what I have been impressed because I have had colleagues, I have had neighbors who develop MS or children who have MS, so I’ve seen it from both sides. I am very impressed how they keep a very lean, mean administration, they keep reinvestigating how they should be distributing the money.   They think about how much of the money is really going toward patient causes, as things about wheelchairs and thinking about those things, but also in the research; what’s the right time and how much to give the pilots to just generate these, you know, high-risk but potentially high-impact projects and keeping the money small. They look at things for these transition awards to really capture people when they saw that this was a dropout period that people were trying to have a problem launching. They are the ones when you are trying to get that NIH grant and you’ve been a successful investigator, they are focused on MS and they get these nice, shorter three-year grants. And they are very focused. And sometimes if you’re thinking it may be a little too harsh, but saying that it’s MS-focused.   So if you are somebody who’s a donor, you should be very happy with the money that you’re giving. And they’re constantly reevaluating the distribution of the dollars, the impact, and, hence, they came up with the Fast Forward. How do they facilitate the problem of pharmaceuticals not bringing enough drugs to therapies, how could they aid this process? Hence, fast forward; trying to bring in nice grants, innovative grants, linking them up with pharmaceuticals to move things forward. So, in a nutshell, they are very milestone oriented not to keep being their own operation alive, but they can’t cure MS to make your life with MS as palliative. You have as much retention of your motor and other capabilities and that you can arrest disease process and perhaps reverse it. So they are very milestone oriented, and I’ve had high respect for how they keep re-self-examining the organization.   MSDF Well, I’ve come to the end of my prepared questions. Is there anything that I haven’t asked about MS research funding that I should have asked, or anything you’d like to add?   Dr. Carson I wouldn’t be afraid of entering the field because of the funding. I think there are multiple ways to have funding. And sometimes you won’t go through the traditional MS societies, sometimes it’ll just be a great idea and you’ll find some other kind of innovative idea. And the last thing I would say that you haven’t asked is that we’re past the time of being the lone-wolf researcher; it really is time to come together, as we have at the symposium here, is taking diverse experts, coming together and melding together projects. These are the ones that are going to be the most competitive in a sense, not only of getting funding, but if we’re really looking at curing diseases, are the most likely to stand the test of time with the diversity of opinions and eyes looking at the problem.   MSDF Dr. Carson, thank you very much.   Dr. Carson Thank you.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Twenty-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 Robert Finn. Msdiscovery.org is part of the non-profit Accelerated Cure 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]  

[intro music]   Hello, and welcome to Episode Twenty-Eight of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.   This week’s podcast features part two of an interview with Dr. Brenda Banwell in which we discuss pediatric MS. But to begin, here’s a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   Researchers recently put a simple measure of corpus callosum atrophy to the test in a 17-year-long study. The team measured the area of this inter-hemisphere highway in MS patients and found it correlated with their cognitive and physical disabilities over time. Corpus callosum area is faster, easier, and cheaper to measure than volume, since it requires no special equipment beyond the typical MRI machine. The researchers hope they will be able to demonstrate that this measurement can also predict disease course in future studies with larger cohorts.   Every Friday we curate research articles on all topics related to multiple sclerosis and highlight our favorites in the “Editors’ Pick.” Two weeks ago, the editors’ picks included a study on the HPV vaccine and MS and another about how cinnamon can ameliorate EAE. Last week we chose a study on heterogeneity among oligodendrocyte precursor cells and another on teasing out the causal variants in genetics association studies. You can see our weekly picks by going to our website, clicking on the “Papers” tab, and selecting “Editors’ Picks.” In addition to the Editors’ Picks, we link to every MS-related study found in PubMed.   Our senior science writer, Carol Morton, will be at the Keystone meeting on Neuroinflammation in Diseases of the Central Nervous System in Taos, New Mexico from January 25th through the 30th. She will be on the hunt for good stories and interviews for this podcast, so be sure to say “hi” and tell her all about your latest work.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Brenda Banwell is Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and chief of the Division of Neurology at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Last week, we talked about a new journal called Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, of which she is one of the co-editors-in-chief. This week we turn to her particular subspecialty.   [Interview]   Interviewer – Dan Keller I’m here at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia with Dr. Banwell, and someone from the public affairs office is here with us. Dr. Banwell, let’s talk about pediatric MS. What are some of the clinical features that you see that may distinguish it from adult?   Interviewee – Brenda Banwell Maybe walk you through a little bit of the journey that the pediatric multiple sclerosis field has taken over the last 10-12 years. When pediatric multiple sclerosis clinics were first being created which was in the late 1990s, the literature on pediatric multiple sclerosis was extremely brief; it was a mixture of patients that we now recognize have multiple sclerosis, some have what we call acute disseminated encephalomyelitis – ADEM – and still others had different demyelinating disorders. And there were no consensus criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis in children and the criteria for the diagnosis in adults did not include pediatric-onset patients formally. All of that has changed. And in the process of making the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis more clearly, we obviously had to look at the clinical features.   So, first of all, I would say that multiple sclerosis onset during childhood and teenage years is relapsing-remitting in character, so clear relapses and periods of clear remission. We have not seen children with primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Worldwide there are a very, very small number of children who may have that diagnosis; it’s extremely unlikely that there are very many, so for all intents and purposes it’s a relapsing-remitting disease during the pediatric age group.   The clinical features of attacks are generally very similar to adults with a few caveats. In children who are under about 10, there’s a likelihood that the children will present a little more atypically than adults. The younger children present with an episode with multiple neurological deficits, confusion, even impairment in level of consciousness which can make that first episode very difficult to distinguish from the more traditional acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, the important difference between the two being acute disseminated encephalomyelitis is a monophasic disease, so one attack almost always without any MRI evidence of new disease over time and no further clinical relapses in the vast majority of those children. So it’s a very important diagnosis to distinguish from the lifelong disease, multiple sclerosis, and one can distinguish them obviously on the basis of time but also on certain MRI features. And specifically when one looks at the first presentation, looking for risk determinants for multiple sclerosis are also important.   So in that vein, we’ve looked at things that are associated with the likelihood that a first attack is really multiple sclerosis, and those include prior exposure to Epstein-Barr virus, which gives one about a sixfold increased likelihood of having MS; low vitamin D levels which is a problem because low vitamin D levels are quite common in the community now across the board in certain parts of the world, but children who have very low levels are more likely to have multiple sclerosis compared to children whose vitamin D levels were higher when they present with an acute event.   If the MRI scan in the brain shows areas of what we call “T1 hypointensity”, which are black holes or really are indications of focal prior brain injury, then those patients are much more likely to have multiple sclerosis. And the reason for that is that in multiple sclerosis, the first attack when you first have the deficits, there’s likely been a period of time behind the scenes where the immune system has begun to attack and has had focal areas of injury that the patient didn’t recognize but are clearly visible on MRI, so MRI is our extraordinarily helpful guide. So areas of abnormality in the brain that are in the what we call periventricular white matter, and then these dark areas on these what are called T1 sequences are strongly indicative that this is a first attack of multiple sclerosis.   Conversely, most children with transient illness either have a normal brain MRI and maybe have inflammation in the back of the eye, the optic nerve, or the spinal cord, or they have this ADEM – acute disseminated encephalomyelitis picture – which gives you these hazy, widespread, large, ill-defined changes in the brain MRI that are at least visually quite different from multiple sclerosis. The key subsequent to that is that in patients with multiple sclerosis, by definition there will be new disease over time both on serial MRI scans and clinically. And that is also the case in young adults with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.   Genetically, pediatric MS patients do have – at least those from northern European heritage – a higher likelihood of having what we call the HLA-DRB*1501 locus, which is a gene that is important in immune system development or at least immune system recognition of self. And that relationship is true in adult-onset MS as well, and over the last few years the number of genes that have been linked to multiple sclerosis risk overall, and that panel of genes is similar in pediatric-onset MS.   So I think the overall message is that relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in children and adults is very likely to be the same disease. There are some subtle differences relating to the age of the patient, but if you follow people over time the relapsing-remitting character and the changes on imaging and these clinical feature of kids are really quite similar to relapsing-remitting MS in young adults.   MSDF When you mentioned exposure to Epstein-Barr virus as a risk factor, if you looked at adults about 90% of people have antibody. Do kids generally not have such a proportion of antibody and it’s more indicative there? Does it tell you more if they are positive than in an adult?   Dr. Banwell There’s a lot of evidence that suggests that your multiple sclerosis risk is determined by where you grow up in your childhood years. You may not manifest with the disease until you’re 20 or 30, but all sort of studies, particularly immigration studies, strongly suggest it’s where you grow up that determines your risk. Therefore, if something is a risk factor, one ought to have it if your onset is a 6-year-old or an 8-year-old or a 10-year-old, if it’s important in causing the disease. So when we looked at Epstein-Barr virus exposure in pediatric-onset MS patients, about 80-85% are positive, which compares to only about 35-40% of regional, age, and sex-matched healthy children. So our power to make the relationship is very high. What the Epstein-Barr virus means to the person may be very similar in kids and adults. Certainly in adult-onset MS patients, about 97-98% are positive, which compares to about 90% of the healthy population. So it’s still higher but, of course, you’re sampling the adult patients way past when the exposure may have occurred, and so there’s been time for people who don’t have the disease to also experience the exposure, it just doesn’t matter – presumably – to them; they’re not manifesting with MS.   In children, though, when we’re looking at patients who are presenting very, very close to when they presumably had the key risk exposure. So we think that’s biologically important. We’ve also looked at viral shedding. So Epstein-Barr virus is an interesting infection because once you acquire it, it lives in your B-cell population so you have EBV-infected B cells, and about 20% of the year you shed the virus in saliva, which is why it’s so easily spread, particularly in adolescence, which is when it’s particularly acquired. So we looked in our pediatric MS patients at how many times in the course of a year, so with a sample done with most swabs once a month, were they shedding the virus, and looked at Epstein-Barr virus-exposed healthy kids. Healthy children shed the virus 20% of the year, as has been previously reported; MS patients, it was 66-70% of the year.   So one of our hypotheses that we’re currently exploring further is whether maybe part of what Epstein-Barr virus might do in MS is, first of all, shed more often so you’re controlling it less well. Every time you shed the virus, your immune system has to turn itself back on and put the virus back into its latent state. If you don’t you can end up with all sorts of complications including lymphoma. And so if part of Epstein-Barr virus’ role in MS is turning the immune system on multiple months per year, that isn’t probably what you want when you have an autoimmune disease; you don’t want your immune system being turned on multiple times a year, particularly if unfortunately you turn on a component of the immune system that may then be directed at the brain. So that’s an interesting phenomenon that we’re currently doing further research on.   MSDF So it sounds like the EBV is something of a polyclonal activator of B cells which then cross-react in the brain, or do react in the brain?   Dr. Banwell Well, that’s the next stage is to see if you look at what immune cells are responding to the challenge of this reactivated EBV, is it that there are specific T-cell clones, and if so are those T-cells specifically looking at proteins expressed both by EBV and by proteins in the central nervous system, sort of a molecular mimicry model, which might be true? Or is it just unfortunate that you’ve turned the whole immune system on, or a large number of aspects of the immune system on, which is more of a general immune process? We don’t know the answer to that.   MSDF Considering these patients start out with relapsing-remitting MS earlier, do they progress to secondary-progressive earlier or at the same age as someone who gets it as an adult?   Dr. Banwell Good question. So the only really good paper on that question, keeping in mind that if we go from prospective studies that are really only started in 1999 to 2000, we don’t have a lot of prospectively rigorously studied pediatric patients. But Dr. Renaud in the New England Journal of Medicine published a paper from the French database where they looked at patients who reported pediatric-onset MS. And what they found was that from first attack until the point at which 50% of their pediatric-onset patients had started into secondary disease progression, that time interval was about 20 years, which is about 10 years longer than one would report on average in adult-onset MS. So if you look at adult-onset MS patients, 50% of them will have entered into secondary disease progression after 10 years from first attack. This is all untreated patients, which of course now is no longer really much the case in developed parts of the world.   So the patients with pediatric-onset take longer to start into secondary disease progression, but if you’re only 6 or 7 or 8 when you have your first attack, you’re 28 when you start to develop disability, which is about 10 years younger than most of the adult-onset patients. So the take-home message is it is certainly not more benign based on this particular data, the age at which patients are at-risk of becoming disabled is actually younger, but the time interval from the beginning of their disease until that time point is longer. And we hope that the current therapies and the new emerging therapies will change that outcome, but of course we only are just beginning to have a chance to see that.   MSDF What are some of the challenges in doing clinical trials with a pediatric population?   Dr. Banwell So in adult-onset MS patients, the clinical trial models have been very large; they’ve been randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, rigorously done studies that have often employed 200-400 individuals per study arm. And that is often quite feasible because the large MS programs around in North America and in many parts of Europe, an average adult MS clinic where MS is a common can have 3,000 patients alone. There are probably fewer than 3,000 pediatric-onset MS patients available for clinical trials worldwide total, and even that number may be inaccurate. So most pediatric MS programs in the world, of which there are still relatively few that have anything more than five or six patients, are really, really few and far between. So there just simply is a markedly reduced number of pediatric MS patients available for clinical trials.   Also challenging the current environment is that there are multiple trials all coming forward at the same time. So the FDA and the European’s Medicine Agency in particular require what they call “Pediatric Investigation Plans” – or PIPs – for all new drugs that are coming to market. In the MS field there are multiple new drugs coming to market. All of them have filed these Pediatric Investigation Plans. So even if we had the number of patients to power one study, we certainly don’t have enough patients to power five or six concurrently, therefore we run the risk of a given trial failing because it doesn’t reach its enrollment numbers.   We have families facing choices between multiple potential clinical trials at the same time and centers facing the challenge of launching multiple trials at the same time and the inherent difficulty with all of the work that goes into getting a study up and running at a given center. Pediatric MS patients have never previously been offered pediatric trial opportunities, so the culture of being in a trial is new so it’s a learning curve for everyone. And the medications that are being put forward have varying priorities. So some of the medications are oral, which may be quite appealing to children who are not, understandably, very keen on injections; some are given by infusion and that has varying challenges.   A clinical trial is not just an enormous time commitment on the behalf of the patient, in which our case is a child, but also their parents who have work and other commitments and other children. So being part of a clinical trial is an enormous commitment for a family, which is different than the commitment experienced by an individual who’s making that decision on their own behalf. And then adding to all of those challenges is the safety aspects of all these new medications, and of course our top priority amongst anything else is to make sure that our patients stay safe.   And so where there may be marked similarity in relapsing-remitting MS as a disease between children and adults, these therapies are being administered at a different time in terms of brain maturation, to a lesser worry but still important in terms of different levels of immune maturation, and certainly – very importantly – at a different stage of life in terms of acquisition of infection. And so many of the new medications that are coming online are more powerful than the medicines that are currently available, many are more capable of suppressing immune responses which puts a significant burden on making sure that everybody is fully vaccinated to the various things we can vaccinate against, but still kids are going to acquire their first infections during the window of time they may be on some of these medications. And so it’s really quite similar to some extent to some of the pediatric oncology care plans that we have to be very, very aware of.   MSDF It looks like the Canadian database of pediatric MS patients is one of the largest; I think when I talked to Amit Bar-Or, it was about 420 or 450. It sounds like there’s a real vying here for patients in terms of clinical trials, and is it even feasible; is it something that you should just discuss with the FDA and say how is this possible to do?   Dr. Banwell So I am one of four members of a clinical trials advisory group on behalf of the International Pediatric Multiple Sclerosis Study Group, which is an international group of about 150 physicians from 40 countries, so I do serve on an advisory to FDA and EMA under that umbrella. And the group of us have very much expressed this concern to FDA and EMA and have articulated our worry about underpowered trials. It’s a difficult environment, there’s a lot of discussion still to be had. The general statement from the regulatory authorities for each of the individual medications that are coming forward is that they are required to have a pediatric plan. And that was a hard-fought battle over many years to try to increase high-quality evidence for treatment of children, which all of us who treat children endorse.   So it’s not that we don’t want there to be good trials, it’s just, unfortunately, the reality is that it’s going to be very difficult to do traditional study designs with large arms and placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blinded models are not always going to be suited for all of the therapies. They’re not possible to do for every therapy that’s coming forward, and there’s going to need to be some discussion at a minimum on trial design and potentially on which trials are being done in what order, although that, of course, is certainly not my purview to decide, but it isn’t feasible to run multiple trials in this rare disease at the same time. So we’re going to need to look at rare disease models of therapy that have been put forward for perhaps some of the rare childhood cancers, for example, and other diseases, and we’re going to need the regulatory authorities to recognize we can’t use adult MS study designs for pediatric MS patients.   MSDF Very good, I appreciate it. Thank you.   Dr. Banwell Oh, you’re welcome.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Twenty-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 Robert Finn. Msdiscovery.org is part of the non-profit Accelerated Cure 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]  

[intro music]   Hello, and welcome to Episode Twenty-Seven 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. Brenda Banwell about a new journal on multiple sclerosis and related disorders, of which she is a co-editor-in-chief. But to begin, here’s a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   This week we published two stories related to articles published in the December 2014 issue of JAMA Neurology. The first article is about the interim results of the Halt MS trial. In this phase 2 clinical trial, physicians performed autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants on 24 patients with relapsing-remitting MS. In other words, the team obliterated the patients’ existing immune systems and attempted to hit the reset button by infusing the patients’ own stem cells. Three years after the treatment, 78% of patients showed no signs of disease activity, significantly higher than similar studies using conventional MS treatments. However, not everyone is popping the champagne yet. Some are concerned that the treatment may not have been aggressive enough to eradicate the patients’ entire immune systems, and it will be only a matter of time before some patients start showing signs of disease activity once more. Others are concerned that the treatment was unnecessarily intense and risky, suggesting safer methods of stem cell transplant would be effective in resetting the immune system.   Halt MS is one of the trials using a new primary outcome measure called “no evidence of disease activity” or NEDA for short. NEDA is basically a fancy way of saying “remission”; that is, no relapses, no disability progression, and no new lesions on MRI. NEDA sets a new treatment standard for patients and their doctors, reflecting the hope of a new generation of disease-modifying therapies.   But is NEDA really a feasible clinical care target? Our second story this week takes a look at this issue with the first real-world cohort study. Researchers asked how many people with relapsing-remitting MS maintained NEDA status seven years after diagnosis. While that goal remained elusive for all but 8% of patients, NEDA status at two years was highly predictive of no disease progression at seven years. Many questions remain about NEDA. But in an editorial accompanying the study, researchers suggest that NEDA is still a worthy, albeit very ambitious, goal.   What do you think? Let us know on the discussion forums at msdiscovery.org/forums/discussion.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Brenda Banwell is Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics at the Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania and is chief of the Division of Neurology at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. We met to talk about a fairly new journal called Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, of which she is one of the co-editors-in-chief.   [Interview]   Interviewer – Dan Keller I’m here at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia with Dr. Banwell, and someone from the public affairs office is here with us. I’m just wondering why did you see a need for a new journal?   Interviewee – Brenda Banwell At the time that we launched Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, there were journals focused solely on multiple sclerosis and journals on neurology broadly, but not one that focused specifically on multiple sclerosis and the various and increasing number of demyelinating disorders of the central nervous system that are being recognized. So Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders was meant to be a home for sometimes comparisons, sometimes new insights, and certainly thoughtful reflection on the scope and breadth of demyelinating disorders in the central nervous system in adults and in children.   MSDF Is there a certain amount of waiting, or it’s just the volume of papers that you get in that determines the mix between multiple sclerosis and other demyelinating disorders?   Dr. Banwell Really it’s actually the quality of the papers we receive that drive the selection into the journal. To date, we have been blessed to receive some very interesting manuscripts, some of which relate to multiple sclerosis but many others relate to neuromyelitis optica, which is one of the disorders we were interested in; in antibody-associated encephalopathies; in patient perceptions of demyelinating disease, which is from the area that I think is very interesting and relevant; and then even some basic science, manuscripts that have looked at mechanisms of the immune system targeting the central nervous system.   MSDF Is there a particular editorial philosophy?   Dr. Banwell I guess the one my co-editors and I would say that we’re looking for manuscripts that push the envelope a little bit in terms of hypothesis generation. We like to see a thoughtful reflection on where the next step needs to be in the papers that we accept. And we’re not at all uncomfortable with being a little bit provocative in terms of perhaps people broaching new hypotheses as long as those hypotheses are well defended and can generate the next step of research.   MSDF So it sounds like you’re also delving into basic science, or at least early clinical studies here, too?   Dr. Banwell We’ll delve into it. We are not a basic science journal, so we would not pretend to be Cell or Nature or any of those sorts of journals. But certainly many of the manuscripts that we’ve accepted have discussed potential hypotheses based on basic science research and how that might tie to the clinical picture.   MSDF One question that always arises with a new journal is why should people want to publish in this journal as opposed to some of the more established ones?   Dr. Banwell Well, I think like any new journal, we have a lot of opportunity to accept manuscripts. We have very quickly gotten to the point where we have a very high caliber of manuscripts, which I think speaks to the interest in the field, so the journals that are arguably in competition with us are also now increasingly receiving high quality manuscripts as well. And I think overall it reminds us that there is actually quite a bit of research going on in multiple sclerosis and related disorders, and therefore there’s room for several journals in the field at this time.   MSDF Is it now being indexed in PubMed?   Dr. Banwell We have applied for indexing and we’ll hope to hear very shortly.   MSDF Is there any problem or have you faced any barriers?   Dr. Banwell No barriers. It’s just that you have to have a certain number of manuscripts published, you have to show that the manuscripts are of high quality, and you have to have been in the field long enough to actually have enough publications for them to judge the quality of what we’re doing.   MSDF I see that you have co-editors-in-chief. Who are your colleagues in this?   Dr. Banwell So there’s Dr. Chris Hawkes and Dr. Gavin Giovannoni from England, and Dr. Fred Lublin from the United States.   MSDF Anything else important to add about the new journal or the things that it’s come out with lately?   Dr. Banwell Well, we have a lay review author as well, and we do hope to increase some scholarly input from the lay public over time. Certainly we’re interested in maintaining the sort of price we put on novelty and in encouraging people to submit work that is perhaps looking at a new angle in the field. I think the related disorders aspect of our journal is an important component, both of the title and also of the concept. We are particularly interested in some of the emerging disorders that we now realize are potentially, if not multiple sclerosis, certainly in the field of immune-directed responses in the central nervous system. So I think that aspect of our journal speaks to an area of the field that might not have been previously quite so well captured in the existing journals.   MSDF Does this journal lend itself to a more global approach to demyelinating diseases, since it’s multiple sclerosis and related disorders as opposed to just looking at MS as an isolated condition?   Dr. Banwell Certainly in concept, yes. I think in fairness to the other journals that I think are all excellent and also in the field, we are not the only ones that are broadening the scope. And I think that speaks to the discoveries. So with the identification in 2004 of the aquaporin-4 antibody, and then subsequent to that really compelling evidence that the aquaporin-4 neuromyelitis optica story broadened and recognized a very specific subgroup of patients, that is also happening with other antibodies potentially, and there’s some emerging information about, for example, NMDA receptor encephalitis and other disorders that weren’t really recognized as such a few years ago. Our journal is prioritizing this type of sort of patient base and diagnostic categories, but so too are other journals that are also excellent in the field. So I think in fairness, everyone is recognizing that there’s more to the story.   MSDF Is the NMDA antibody story with the catatonia?   Dr. Banwell So NMDA receptor encephalitis is a disorder actually discovered by Josep Dalmau at Penn, so very near and dear to our heart here. The patients present sometimes with psychotic features, they can become quite catatonic. There’s been some lay publications on that. “Brain on Fire” was a book written by a survivor of NMDA receptor encephalitis. In children we certainly see – and in adults, but certainly in children – we see a number of patients present with severe seizures and then with abnormalities of movement. When these patients present they can be catastrophically ill, often in intensive care unit. Over time as the patients recover, miraculously it seems because it really does appear to be quite miraculous, the patients can have a full recovery. So it is a disorder that’s extremely important to recognize and can be misdiagnosed quite easily as an infectious encephalitis, as initially other psychiatric disorders, and in some patients as a really severe form of epilepsy, all of which it is, but it has a better overarching diagnosis. And making the diagnosis certainly gives hope in terms of long-term prognosis, and we do use specific therapies for the patients with the diagnosis.   MSDF Very good, I appreciate it. Thanks.   Dr. Banwell My pleasure.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Twenty-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 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]  

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, happy new year, and welcome to Episode Twenty-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 Tim Kennedy about remyelination and neural development. But to begin, here is a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   According to a new clinical trial, azathioprine, or AZA, may be as effective as interferon beta. The generic immunosuppressant was effective in both reducing relapses and reducing new brain lesions in the multicenter trial. This may not be surprising since the drug has been used off-label to treat MS for several decades. If trials continue to go well, AZA may become the go-to alternative for patients who can’t afford brand name interferons.   A pair of Canadian studies recently showed that both neurodegeneration and inflammation may start in the early stages of pediatric multiple sclerosis. One team found epitope spreading in the blood of children shortly after the onset of MS, suggesting a potential new diagnostic tool. Though children comprise only 2 to 10 percent of the MS population, data gleaned from them may provide insights into the disease as a whole.   If you enjoyed our end-of-the-year interview with Alan Alda and find MSDF to be helpful, please consider supporting us with a donation. We share Mr. Alda’s philosophy that closing the gaps between scientific disciplines is key to improving scientific progress. To make a donation, visit msdiscovery.org and click on the green “Support MSDF” button next to “Research Resources”.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Tim Kennedy is a researcher at the Montreal Neurological Institute. He met with MSDF to talk about the role of certain molecules and receptors necessary for oligodendrocyte development, maintenance, and function and their implications for remyelination.   Interviewer – Dan Keller Welcome, Dr. Kennedy. Let's talk about the life of oligodendrocytes. These are important for myelination and probably play a role in remyelination. What is the life of an oligodendrocyte? How does it start out? And what does it react to?   Interviewee – Tim Kennedy Many labs around the world have been studying the life history of an oligodendrocyte and also the lineage of the cells and how they differentiate during normal development. One of the reasons for doing this is that oligodendrocyte precursor cells are present in the mature nervous system and almost certainly contribute to remyelination in demyelinating diseases like MS. Oligodendrocyte precursors are born in the early embryonic CNS, and from the very restricted regions where they're born they then migrate away to populate all of the regions of the mature CNS where myelin occurs. In the lab here, we've been very interested in the molecular cues that direct and influence oligodendrocyte precursor migration. These include a family of proteins called netrins that we work on. And receptors for netrin like a protein called DCC. DCC stands for deleted in colorectal cancer. It was originally identified in cancer, and we now know that it has a critical role in the central nervous system in the migration, maturation, and maintenance of myelin by mature oligodendrocytes.   MSDF Some of these molecules take on different functions as the oligodendrocytes mature. How do they react, or what do these molecules do over time?   Dr. Kennedy When an oligodendrocyte precursor is born, it makes the netrin receptor DCC, but it doesn't make netrin. What the cell does is it responds to netrin in the environment, and through DCC reacts to it, and the netrin directs the cells to migrate. It tells them to initially migrate away from the position where they're born and sends them in the direction of axon tracks that require myelination. In mature myelinating oligodendrocytes, one of the huge surprises we had is that both of these proteins are made. Now, both netrin and DCC are required for normal neural development. If we examine a conventional knockout mouse that lacks either netrin-1 or DCC, those mice die within a few hours of being born, and there's a massive disorganization of the nervous system. So these are essential for normal neural development. When we look at the mature nervous system, we see that every single oligodendrocyte, every single mature myelination oligodendrocyte, makes readily detectable levels of netrin-1 and also the receptor for netrin-1, DCC. And a very simple statement of the question that we wanted to answer is what's the point of that? Why do these cells make these proteins that are essential for normal neural development but make them in the adult nervous system? In every adult human that we encounter, every single person, we're making netrin-1 and DCC in our brains right now. So what's the point? One of the functions that we've recently identified is that DCC produced by oligodendrocytes is required for the maintenance of myelin. Now what that means is that initially when we looked at the distribution of netrin-1 and DCC in relation to myelin we see that they're enriched at paranodal junctions. Paranodes are at the ends of internodes that are the regions of compact myelin that wrap and insulate an axon. The paranodes are a specialization that's made by the oligo that then connects it and ties it down to the surface of the axon. The paranodes flank the node of Ranvier, which is the key point, the specialized region along an axon that regenerates the action potential. So if we think of the internode of compact myelin as the region where the oligodendrocyte insulates the axon and allows the action potential to jump from node to node, the paranodes are the specializations at the end that tie it down. Now, the paranode is where we see the netrin and DCC enriched. If we take away either netrin-1 or DCC from oligodendrocytes, what we see is that the paranodes begin to come apart. Now in a very recent publication, what we did was use a genetic trick called cre-lox recombination to selectively take DCC out of mature myelinating oligodendrocytes. In these mice, the mice develop perfectly normally, the nervous system develops normally, the myelin develops normally. But then, at two months of age, we induce the deletion of DCC only from oligodendrocytes. Now having taken DCC out of oligodendrocytes, what we see is that first the paranodal junctions start to come apart, and then as we let the mice age the compact myelin itself starts to become disorganized. Now, that's interesting because what we're able to document in these mice is a progressive disorganization of the myelin produced by the oligodendrocyte. The progression is interesting, obviously, because we believe that this has identified a new mechanism that maintains myelin, and we would then relate that to the progression of demyelinating disorders like multiple sclerosis. A consequence of having lost DCC is that the action potential conduction velocity in the nervous system is delayed, and when we look at the mice themselves – and look at their behavior, put them through behavioral tests – what we see is that they become uncoordinated and slower in their movements. So again, this would all be consistent with this disruption of the myelin along the axons in the central nervous system due to the loss of DCC. And it's an indication that DCC being made by oligodendrocytes is absolutely essential to maintain the appropriate organization of myelin.   MSDF That explains why myelin may become disorganized. Now, if there is a state in which it's already disorganized, which we look at someone with MS, is there any indication here how to remyelinate knowing what you now know about what's required for maintenance of myelin?   Dr. Kennedy Certainly. What's really exciting having found that DCC is essential to maintain myelin is that this is a new biochemical mechanism that is required to organize and maintain the structural paranodal junctions, and that that's critical for the integrity and the maintenance of compact myelin. Now, DCC is a transmembrane receptor, and every single component of the signal transduction pathway downstream of DCC is potentially a drug target that could be manipulated to enhance the maintenance of myelin. So this is a new biochemical mechanism that exists in oligodendrocytes that promotes myelin maintenance. And that has enormous potential for trying to encourage the persistence of myelin in demyelinating disease.   MSDF What about remyelination? I think you've said oligodendrocytes are born to myelinate. What's stopping them?   Dr. Kennedy If we go back to the oligodendrocyte precursor in early development, what our studies of the developing nervous demonstrated was that oligodendrocyte precursors are repelled by netrin-1. The normal function of netrin-1 in the early embryo is to drive oligodendrocyte precursors away from where they're born so that they can go out into the rest of the central nervous system, find axons that need to be myelinated and myelinate them. That indicates that in the early embryo netrin-1 is a repellent for these cells. Again, we recently reported that in human MS plaques netrin-1 is present in those plaques. Where that's likely coming from is from the wreckage of cells that have died in those plaques. So I had said that mature myelinating oligodendrocytes express netrin-1. When those cells die and when the myelin is lost, the debris from those cells remains behind and potentially even builds up in plaques. There are a number of inhibitors of oligodendrocyte precursor migration that we now know are present in human MS plaques. These include proteins like chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans, semaphorins, and now netrin. What that strongly suggests is that when oligodendrocyte precursors are migrating in the adult brain to sites of demyelination with the intention of remyelinating an axon that has been demyelinated these inhibitors will very likely prevent those cells from entering the plaque and doing what they were born to do, which is to remyelinate. A very exciting thing about MS research today is that we know that the brain contains stem cells that produce oligodendrocyte precursor cells that readily give birth to these cells. So all of us have oligodendrocyte precursor cells in our head. Those cells are born to myelinate. They will migrate towards plaques where demyelination has happened, and if they're allowed to enter the plaque find the axon that needs to be remyelinated. And if they can be encouraged to overcome whatever it is that is blocking them from remyelinating, potentially that aspect of MS remyelination could be encouraged to happen.   MSDF Do you have some ideas on how to overcome this blockage either clearing away the debris or making the oligodendrocytes insensitive to the inhibitors and the debris?   Dr. Kennedy Both of those approaches would be very appropriate. So encouraging the nervous system to clear away the debris we would predict that that would encourage remyelination to happen. In addition, although I said there were multiple inhibitors present in MS plaques – and those inhibitors have different receptors – downstream of those receptors it's very likely that common signal transduction mechanisms are engaged. So targeting those common signal transduction mechanisms inside the migrating oligodendrocyte precursor cell could very potentially nullify all of the inhibitors at once. If it was possible to turn off the sensitivity to those inhibitors, then we would predict that the cells would enter the plaque more readily, and more of the cells would then be able to encounter the axons that require remyelination, and we would obviously predict that that would promote remyelination happening.   MSDF What are some of the big questions now to look at, solve?   Dr. Kennedy The oligodendrocyte is an absolutely fascinating cell type. It's a highly specialized cell type, critically clinically important. We still understand very little about these cells. The mechanisms that I've been talking about that regulate the maintenance of myelin, those have only very recently been discovered. And I think it's extremely exciting that this type of thing is being found in oligodendrocytes. But these are still very mysterious cell types. I think the more we understand about the cell biology of the oligo the more we'll be able to target pathways in the biochemistry of oligodendrocytes to try and promote things like myelin maintenance and the ability to remyelinate. Being able to do those things and essentially manipulate these cells in specific ways, we can then overcome specific clinical issues.   MSDF Does this go beyond MS? Are there other conditions that it applies to?   Dr. Kennedy I think there are two things built into that question. One is that there are many diseases for which the cause either isn't clear – and MS would be in that category – or there are also diseases that have many different causes, but they may manifest in similar ways. So by understanding oligodendrocytes and being able to encourage oligodendrocytes to remyelinate, that could have broad applicability for treating the symptoms of many different forms of demyelinating disease irrespective of the cause of those diseases. Beyond that, as we come to better understand how cells move in the nervous system, how they migrate, how they form attachments, how they connect to each other, and how they maintain those connections, those kinds of insights are going to have broad applicability for all sorts of neurodegenerative diseases where the basic problem in the neurodegenerative disease is that the networks that are the nervous system are coming apart. And if we can encourage those networks to just stay together or rebuild themselves, then I think that again has broad applicability to many types of neurodegenerative diseases in the myelinating field and outside of myelination, as well.   MSDF It sounds like it may even have applicability to not only neurodegeneration but in development where you may have miswiring such as potentially an autism or something like that.   Dr. Kennedy Yeah. An exciting thing is that a lot of the mechanisms that I'm thinking about and we're thinking about in the lab is that the insights that got us working on myelin, that brought us to work on myelin really came from neural development and better understanding neural development; the studies of neural development identified proteins and gene families that have very, very potent actions in the nervous system. When we then looked at expression, we saw that they were expressed in the mature CNS, and that brought forth a whole other group of questions related to the function of the normal adult nervous system and also the degeneration of the adult nervous system in neurodegenerative disease. The exciting thing about that is that as we understand the molecular biology of the central nervous system better that's going to be applicable to development, to normal function, to enhanced function, and also promoting function in degenerative conditions.   MSDF I appreciate it. Thank you.   Dr. Kennedy You're very welcome.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Twenty-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 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]          

[intro music]   Hello, and welcome to Episode Twenty-Five of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.   This week’s podcast features a special interview with actor and science advocate, Alan Alda, whom you may remember as Hawkeye Pierce in M*A*S*H. But to begin, here’s a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   Positive thinking may lead to positive clinical outcomes, according to a new meta-analysis. The investigators found that interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy helped patients deal with physical symptoms like fatigue and pain. They suggested that psychological well-being should be assessed and treated along with physical disability in people with MS. The researchers also called for studies that examined the connection between the psychological and the physical more directly.   Moving from the macro to the micro, we recently published an article about axonal transport. Axons rely on motor proteins to carry cargo across long tracks of microtubules in order to survive. A disruption in this process is associated with neurodegeneration. Recently a team of researchers discovered that axonal transport is disrupted in mice with EAE. In this animal model of MS, even normal-appearing axons failed to transport organelles as quickly or as effectively as healthy axons. But the researchers were able to reverse the process, suggesting a potential new therapeutic target for drug development.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Alan Alda is an actor known for his television roles in M*A*S*H and The West Wing. But he’s also a longtime advocate of science and scientific literacy and the founder of the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University. He met with MSDF recently to talk about the art of good science communication.   [Interview]   Interviewer – Dan Keller What, at this point, would you say are the one or two biggest pieces of advice you could give to any technical person or a scientist trying to get his point across to the general public?   Interviewee – Alan Alda I think the most important thing to remember is that it’s not nearly so important to worry about what you have to say to the other person, as it is to think about how the other person is receiving what you have to say. We know this intellectually because everybody knows that you want to know your audience, everybody knows you want to start where the student is, you know, find out what they know and build on that, that kind of thing. We all know that.   But one of the things that I think that we’ve found at the Center for Communicating Science that I helped start is that you need to get in the habit of doing that; you need to really go through the experience of actually opening up to other people, getting their feedback, being able to read from the signals that they give you on their face and their body language – all the various signals you can get – whether or not they’re really paying attention and really following you. If you miss one of the crucial words I say at the beginning of a paragraph, the rest of the paragraph is dead; you’re spending most of your time trying to figure out what I’m talking about.   MSDF As an example, say, in Scientific American Frontiers, you elicited great storytelling; I mean, I assume part of that was picking the right speakers, but how do you coax it out of them in an understandable way? I mean can you essentially guide people without saying, “Hey, come on, bring it down, bring it down.”?   Mr. Alda I think Scientific American Frontiers worked as well as it did because in a way it was a rare thing – I hadn’t seen it done before and so maybe it has, but I hadn’t seen it – where you had a naïve person – ignorant, played by me – and I wasn’t acting. I made use of the natural fund of ignorance that I came in with. I didn’t aspire to an ignorance I didn’t possess, it was real; I really didn’t know what these people did in the laboratory, and I really did want to know what it was. And I wanted to understand it, so I badgered them until I understood it, and I didn’t pretend I understood it if I didn’t. That step where they actually had to come to terms with this person standing right next to them looking up in their faces where they had to actually make it clear to this one person, that changed them in some way, that brought out the human being in them. And they forgot about the camera, they forgot about the millions of people that they might have gone into lecture mode to explain this to. They were talking to one individual and that made a big difference, because they became much more human.   So, yeah, I think that we had people who were comfortable being in front of a camera, but regardless of how comfortable they were in making their language plain-spoken, they had to get even more so when they talked to me because I really, I just tugged at their coat until I understood it. And something happened between us, there was some kind of connection between us that was very watchable, very interesting. I think that helped draw other people in. After we did that, I really wondered if a scientist didn’t have this person dogging him or her to get the information out, but to get it out understandably, what would do it? How could they get accustomed to speaking as though they’re talking to another person who really wants to know? And that’s when it occurred to me that I bet we could teach them improvising and that would help them get more personal, and it has.     MSDF To envision one person.   Mr. Alda Well, when you improvise, at least the way we improvise with scientists, it’s not for the purpose of getting them to be comical, or to make things up on the spot, or to be clever. The whole thing is designed to get the scientists to be accustomed to observing the person they’re talking to, because you can’t play these improvising games unless you’re tuned into the other person in a very powerful way. Once they get used to that and when they turn and talk to an audience, they carry with them that same ability to talk to the people and not over their heads and not at them. They don’t spray information at them anymore, they actually engage the audience, and that’s a tremendous difference.   MSDF Let me switch gears a little bit. I don’t know if you’ve ever noticed it, I’ve certainly noticed it, between different closely related scientific disciplines – I mean, I cover medicine mostly – and people in just very closely related things, there’s no cross-pollination. They’re surprised when they hear something that’s going on. Oh, you know, that could be applicable to me. And I think there’s even a lack of communication between the disciplines between scientists. They can certainly speak in the same jargon, but I don’t know if there’s a barrier or if they’re just so wrapped up in their own stuff.   Mr. Alda It seems to be a really serious problem that scientists need more and more to collaborate across disciplines, and the problem is that they often – I think I could say often – don’t understand one another much better than a layperson understands a scientist in a specialized field. So at a certain level, at a certain distance from one another’s work, they’re really in the position of an interested layperson rather than a collaborator, rather than a colleague. And we have to bridge that gap if we’re going to get the benefits of collaboration. And I’ve heard some horror stories of scientists getting together and not understanding one another. And on the other hand, I’ve heard these really heartbreakingly wonderful stories.   When we have a workshop with a range of scientists, scientists from several different fields, one of the wonderful things they say is this has been great, I got to understand, I got to hear about this guy’s work and I never knew anything about it before. They’re hearing an explanation of another person’s work in terms that they might say it to the lay public. It’s acceptable to the other scientists because we don’t ask them to dumb it down, we ask them NOT to dumb it down just to make it clear. So they’re getting a clear version of somebody else’s work that doesn’t include the jargon of that specialized field. It’s stripped of its jargon, it’s spoken in plain language. And the emotion, the passion that the scientist feels about it is allowed to come out because that’s part of the human story that science is. Science, rather than being passionless, is generated by passion. So it’s great that that comes out in this work.     MSDF In the training, obviously you can tell if there’s a difference between before and after. But have you ever been able to test the durability of this, that these people retaining these? Or do they lapse back? Or can you tell?   Mr. Alda It’s hard to get measurements on the success of this, but we’re beginning to get some early results because we’ve been working with teaching assistants. And teaching assistants are graduate students who are asked to give courses to undergraduates to see if the undergraduates want to go into science. And one of the problems has been that a lot of them drop out because they can’t get interested in the science partly because the teaching assistants don’t have any training in communication or in education; they know the material but they’re not really experienced at communicating. So we put them through a course of communication, and then we find some of the numbers we’re getting back are that the students are rating them as highly or higher than people who have been doing this for five years, and these are first-time teaching assistants.   Next thing we’ll check on is are their grades getting better and other things you can measure. But so far, the acceptance of the teachers is already better because there’s an attempt to personalize the experience. And so the students are accepting the teachers more, and by the same token, I assume they’re accepting the science more.   MSDF Have you ever thought of designing a curriculum that could be put into the science graduate programs, because these people are going to become scientists?   Mr. Alda What we’ve actually done is introduced a curriculum into Stony Brook University where I helped the Center for Communicating Science. And there are courses for credit taught to graduate students, and in addition there’s even at least one department that requires that the students take these communication courses. So it’s beginning to be seen as an essential element of the science education. And it’s a small beginning. But my feeling has always been isn’t communication essential to science itself, don’t we need to communicate science in order for it to take place or for the benefits of science to come to the surface? And not only that, that’s practical, but for the beauty of science to be enjoyed by the whole world, you definitely need communication. And that will help more science get done, and better science get done. More people entering science, if they understand how beautiful and engrossing it is – exciting. So it seems to me that since communication is such an important part of science, shouldn’t it be taught as part of a science education so that when you graduate as a capable scientist, you’re also a capable communicator?   MSDF Maybe you don’t even have an idea of this answer, but what got you into this passion for science?   Mr. Alda I’ve always been curious and that made me want to know more. I started reading Scientific American in my early 20s and since then I’ve read almost every article in almost every issue. And I love it, I just love it! I mean, I put the magazine down and I read other science magazines – I read Science & Nature and Science News, which I think does a very good job. Just the other day, I just slammed it down on the table and I said to my wife, “Arlene, you won’t believe this, listen to this.” You hear these wonderful stories of things you never imagined.   MSDF No, I agree. I mean, some people get turned off by it, some people get turned on by it.   Mr. Alda Well, it’s hard to believe anybody would get turned off by it unless they’re not hearing it the right way.   MSDF I think that a lot of people are turned off early because they weren’t encouraged or they were led to believe they couldn’t understand it.   Mr. Alda Yeah, it’s true.   MSDF I appreciate it. Thanks.   Mr. Alda Well, thank you very much.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Twenty-Five of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, our final episode for 2014. We’ll be taking a two-week hiatus for the holidays, but we’ll be back with new weekly episodes starting on January fifth.   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]  

[intro music]   Hello, and welcome to Episode Twenty-four 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 Professor Aksel Siva about asymptomatic MS. But to begin, here’s a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   We just uploaded a new data visualization to our website. This one breaks down the design of MRI-related clinical trials in MS. It combines 88 trials conducted between 1998 and 2013 in a colorful, interactive dot plot. Each dot represents a point in time for a particular measurement, such as brain volume. You can sort trials by phase, and you can look at trials in aggregate or one at a time. To view this new visualization, go to the Data Viz section under the “Research Resources” tab and click on the top link.   Magnetic resonance imaging is a source of anxiety for many people with MS. Just getting into the machine is nerve-wracking, and waiting for the results is even scarier, says a recent study from PLOS One. The researchers conducting the study suggested that educating patients about MRIs might alleviate some of the dread. Even though MSer’s typically know a great deal about MRIs, understanding how to interpret their own results may help increase the bond of trust with their physicians, the researchers said. To read more about the study, visit our “News and Future Directions” section, and under “News Briefs” click on the article, “MRI Education May Benefit MSers.”   Have a burning question? A bone to pick? Something you want to get off your chest? Start a discussion! We invite you to participate in our discussion forums by making your own threads and commenting on others. Just click on the “Discussions” option under the “Forums” tab on our website to get started.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Last week, we spoke with Professor Aksel Siva about radiologically isolated syndrome. This week he’ll be speaking to us about asymptomatic MS and approaches to medicine in Turkey.   Interviewer – Dan Keller Professor Siva, first of all, why is it MS if it’s asymptomatic?   Interviewee – Aksel Siva Well, that’s a very good question and very difficult. But now with the tools that we have in medicine, we probably diagnose people without developing the disease. And, again, if we look to some other neurological diseases, today we are now discussing whether we can really diagnose Alzheimer prior that the individual develop the disease with imaging, with biomarkers, and so on. So to see the same thing in MS, I think it’s not really something very different. The thing is that not all these people will develop the disease, so the way we have been trained as clinicians, to us it’s important to see clinical signs and symptoms.    But now we have to start seeing that not everybody will develop the disease even if they do have it biologically, morphologically, or whatever you name it, however you name it. And then when they develop, we know well that all people are not going to have the same course. So these individual differences based on genetic background, maybe environmental influence, or whatever, should put a light in the way we see individuals – not a disease, but the individual with the disease rather let’s to say than the disease affecting the individuals. So I think this concept of subclinical disease, which is not only for MS, should influence our practice or our approach to our patients, and also in understanding the diseases and how to manage them.    MSDF Can you tell me a little bit about some of the studies that show heightened susceptibility and that possibly invoke the idea of genetics or environment?   Professor Siva I don’t think that I am in a state of responding to this question, because this is not really my area of interest. But from the genetic studies, we know there are some people who have the susceptibility genes, some who have the protective genes, and also some genes that may probably affect the course and prognosis of the patients. But, again, to my knowledge, what we have today, the information we have, is not really unique for everybody. It’s also very heterogeneous. So we need more time, and I think that this time it’s not too far, and especially the Genetic Consortium in the US, their findings are going to bring a lot of new information in the very near future.     MSDF What about studies on twins or just siblings. Although it doesn’t really nail down whether it’s genetic or environmental, it does speak to heightened risk. What did those show? Who looked at them and what did they find?   Professor Siva Well, again, I’m not aware of really very new studies on twins; identical and non-identical twins, the risk is very different, it’s maybe 2 to 3% up to 5%, depending like if it’s Canada or France it changes. But when it is identical, it’s 25 to 30. To my knowledge, the Canada cohort went up to 37%, although this number, I guess, was not published, but we know this. So it’s about only one-third even in the highest identical twin studies. So the question is what happens to the two-thirds? Maybe some of them do have incidental lesions, but they don’t have the disease. What is the present state in this genetics or others, I’m not aware of.   MSDF Even siblings who show oligoclonal bands don’t necessarily have or get the disease, is that correct?   Professor Siva No, that’s correct. According to the Swedish study, these people did not have the disease. Maybe more important, there was a subsequent paper reported in the same cohort, they have looked in the CSF of these asymptomatic, or let’s say of these siblings with positive oligoclonal bands, and what they called immunopathic trait. They looked in some other issues, but let’s put it these people with positive oligoclonal bands and the immunopathic trait, and they have looked in some neuronal degeneration markers. And the sibling who had the disease had high levels, which shows that there was a CNS damage, and asymptomatic case it was normal. So that is very clear that, yes, if you get the disease you might have some, let’s say, the biological evidence of it together with CNS damage, whereas if you don’t get… you may have the same trait but not the disease, because you will not have CNS damage. And there might be some underlying mechanisms – immunogenetic, whatever – which controls the disease spread and clinical expression. So I think this is a major issue.    And in the Steffano study when he had studied, again, the relatives of people with MS who had lesions – these 4% or 10% of asymptomatic cases – he also looked in the normal-appearing white matter. And in the diseased individuals it was abnormal; whereas in the people who had just those, let’s say, T2 changes, the normal-appearing white matter was completely normal, which again shows us that the CNS damage is very, very limited in people who don’t get the disease. And from the early autopsy studies, again the people in whom the autopsy had shown brain lesions, they were mostly periventricular and probably in silent areas, and there was not widespread damage as we see in people who get the clinical disease.    MSDF It seems Turkey is a very good setting for looking at a lot of this, because people get a lot of MRIs.   Professor Siva That’s correct, that’s very correct, and that’s why we have so many cases. Today with contribution of another medical school from Ankara, Hacettepe Medical School, together now we have more than 86 RIS cases that we continue to follow up, some of who have converted now.    MSDF And RIS is radiological isolated syndrome. Do people pay for their MRIs, or why are they so apt to come in and get so many?   Professor Siva Not really, it’s reimbursed, mostly it’s reimbursed, or if they have their private insurance because, let’s say, physician is suspecting something. And I should also confess that in some hospitals – mainly state hospitals – there is an overload of patients. Let’s say neurologists in those institutions may not find time to listen and examine the patient as they should do. So in order not to miss something, even a patient who comes with a headache may get an MRI.   MSDF Is there a difference in Turkey of how you approach MS patients, or treat them, or follow them from in other countries that you’ve noticed?   Professor Siva Not really. It’s, I would say, very much the same. I have started our MS clinic in 1987 here, and today we have more than 7,000 registered patients, which is really quite a very large population. This doesn’t mean that we follow all the 7,000 and more patients because many of them had been referred for second opinions, but I would say we continue to see at least half of these people. And the way the practice is here is not any different than most major European and US centers. I had spent some time at Mayo many years ago and I had some of my other colleagues now who had spent some time. So it’s more or less the same. We have all the same drugs, most of them are reimbursed. So we have many alternatives for our MS patients, although there are some restrictions for reimbursement. We need to at least try the so-called injectables in order to go to orals, or, let’s say, the monoclonal antibody therapies, but almost all are available. And according to some rules, they are also reimbursed.    MSDF Are there good patient support services, psychosocial and other?   Professor Siva Not maybe so strong. That we may differ a bit from Europe and US. We do have Turkish MS Society where such services are tried to be provided, but that is not enough. We do have some MS Society chapters in some cities but not everywhere. But mostly the problem, I would say, is economical. All these services mostly are based on voluntary basis.   MSDF Do you think that patients react the same to their disease?   Professor Siva We do have some studies – psychologically, physically – and it’s at very similar to western theories. So actually Turks are Caucasians mostly, and therefore it’s what if we are going to call the western-type MS, that’s what we see here too.   MSDF Are there cultural differences in various parts of Turkey how people view their disease, or is it all about the same? I mean, Istanbul is really Europe, as you move farther east you get into more Asian and Middle Eastern.   Professor Siva I may say not really, because we get referrals from all around Turkey, and the behavior is not really much different. I should say either whether the patient is from Istanbul or from the east part of the country or the Mediterranean, it’s more or less the same.   MSDF  Anything important to add that we’ve missed or interesting topic points?   Professor Siva We have a large number of MS people in Turkey, probably prevalence rate is around 50 per 100,000 or more. There have been a number of prevalence studies, and this is about what we can really derive from all the studies – 50 or more even. But I have the impression that we are getting more and more MS in Turkey today, and more familial cases, which was not the case maybe 15 to 20 years ago.   MSDF Very good. Thanks a lot.   Professor Siva Thank you.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Twenty-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 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]  

[intro music]   Hello, and welcome to Episode Twenty-three 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 Professor Aksel Siva about radiologically isolated syndrome. But to begin, here is a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   The role of diet in MS is a longstanding question, for which there many opinions, but few definitive answers. Researchers and clinicians know little about how diet may contribute to the risk of developing MS, and how it may help or hurt the progress of the disease once it starts. Nevertheless, patients are pushing for answers, hoping that there is more they can do to help slow their disease. We recently published a story looking into all the facts and myths of diet. We also covered what makes diet so difficult to study in a clinical setting, and where the field is going from here.   2015 is just around the corner, and deadlines are looming for submitting meeting abstracts and funding applications. Abstract submission deadlines for the Keystone Symposia are coming up in December, and ECTRIMS and the National MS Society have deadlines for funding opportunities early in January. For more details on the deadlines and how to submit your materials, go to the professional resources tab on our website and click on either “meetings and events” or “funding opportunities.”   We have also posted several exciting new job opportunities on our website. Go to the “jobs” section under professional resources to view them. And, if you’re looking for a neurologist, a laboratory technician, a post-doc, or any other position—let us know. We’ll help spread the word on our jobs section and in our weekly newsletter, and it won’t cost you a dime to reach a very choice group of MS professionals. Simply go to the “jobs” section and click on the “submit new item” button under the “Job Listings” header.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Professor Aksel Siva is a professor of neurology at Istanbul University in Turkey. His work spans areas from clinical neuroimmunology to neuro-epidemiology to research in headaches.    Interviewer – Dan Keller When we met he discussed radiologically isolated syndrome or RIS and he starts by describing what it is.   Interviewee – Aksel Siva It is by definition an individual who gets an MRI for another reason such as migraine headache or whatever. Then, it turns out that they have MS looking like lesions in their brains. You cannot explain those lesions with any other pathology. They are not related to the patient's cause of referral for an MRI. Their neurological examination is normal, and these people never have experienced any neurological symptom, which might be consistent with past history of MS whatsoever.   It is an MRI diagnosis actually. It is not a clinical diagnosis. The question is whether these people do really have subclinical MS or asymptomatic MS and are they going to develop the disease. So the question is what to do when you see these patients. And this has been recently described as radiologically isolated syndrome by Okuda et al. At that time, there were acute CSF and now Darin is in Texas and at that time his mentor Daniel Pelletier is at Yale. So they have introduced this term. There have been, I would say, three pivotal papers by the French group, Christine Lebrun and her colleagues, and from our center together with Mayo Clinic in Rochester. Then this group came together and we have formed the Radiologically Isolated Syndrome Consortium, which has been later on joined by some other centers from Europe and the U.S.    MDSF So if you don’t know whether these people will go on to MS or where they stand, what do you do about it? How do you follow them and how many of these people do go on to MS?   Professor Siva The Radiologically Isolated Syndrome Consortium, we have conducted a study, which was published earlier this year in PLoS ONE and we have collected 451 cases with this syndrome. When they were followed, about 34% developed a neurological event consistent with either CIS or primary progressive MS. This means that about one-third of these people, who receive a diagnosis of radiologically isolated syndrome, in five years’ time, will develop clinical MS. And 10% of this group will develop primary progressive MS, which is very similar to what we see in two clinical cohorts. When statistically you follow these up to ten years and this is statistical, it turns out that around 55% will develop the disease. So at ten years’ time, still half of these people will not develop clinical MS. What does this mean? It is not clear, but on the other side, it seems that some people, who do have radiologically lesions consistent with multiple sclerosis and may continue to get new ones, still will not the clinical disease. We have known this from some autopsy studies started to be published in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, that there were cases, autopsy cases, where people turned out to have changes in their brains consistent with multiple sclerosis, but they never had the disease in their lifetime. We have to consider this subpopulation in both understanding the disease and when we should consider to start treatment, or whether we should really treat all people with MS or not.   MDSF There has been a feeling that you don't treat the image, but you treat the disease, but a lot of these people do go on to get the disease. Is it time for a randomized trial to see if you treat these people, some of them who would statistically go on, will not go on to get the disease?   Professor Siva It is time to start a treatment trial in RIS and our EOS colleagues, mainly Darin Okuda and Daniel Pelletier and Orhun Kantarci will be starting such a study in the U.S. later this year. There is also another probable trial that might start in Europe by Christine Lebrun. Yes we have come to this era, and probably within let's say a few years, we will have more evidence regarding who should be treated or who should not be when they present with RIS.   MDSF In the study that you looked at people for five years, what did you see were some of the risk factors for going on to MS?   Professor Siva There were some clear-cut risk factors and this was, as already shown by Darin and their group in EOS [?] a couple of years ago, having a spinal cord lesion at the time of the RIS diagnosis is a predictive factor to develop MS. Other factors are male gender and younger age; because when we have looked in this RIS cohort of the 450 or so cases, the mean age of diagnosis was 37, which is older than the general mean age that we diagnose MS. So this should be also taught whether this is because we have just by coincidence we get these incidental lesions in some people who will never develop the disease.    MDSF Now this study started a while ago to be able to be published recently. In that amount of time people have been looking at a lot of biomarkers. Did you consider biomarkers at that time? Can you find something that is predictive of going on to MS?   Professor Siva Not yet. Actually this study was a retrospective study, but in part it was prospective because in our center we have been interested in this for more than ten years now, almost 15 years. I should say that in Turkey we have a lot of MRIs and the cost is very low. It is very practical for, let's say general neurologists to refer patients for headaches, for not otherwise you would refer for a MRI, to refer them to MRIs, and then suddenly you started to see this MS looking-like lesions. As we have in MS center, we had a lot of referrals and then we started to follow these people. It’s been more or less the same in the other centers. It is yes, a retrospective data collection, but most of this cohort has been prospectively followed in those centers from the time of their admittance. And your question was whether there was a biomarker other than imaging, not really. Not yet, let's put it that way.   MDSF So is it advisable to follow them with imaging and if so, how often?   Professor Siva It is what we are doing now. There have been some suggested algorithms, but what we do in our center, we ask those patients to have a followup MRI in six months. Then within another six months, unless they develop something clinical, and then if they continue to have changes or not in their MRIs, that depends on how frequently we start to follow them up by MRI. Our tendency is twice for the first six months and then yearly for the next two years and then three years or two years later, unless they develop a clinical event consistent with MS or whatever.   MDSF Necessarily these interval MRIs are really snapshots, even in MS lesions come and go. I suppose it would be possible to miss a lesion that was there and that isn't there at the time of the MRI.   Professor Siva Definitely. But it has been shown, again in our study, that about two-thirds of these people continue to have new MRI lesions, but only one-third of the whole population develop a CIS or other event consistent with MS. Having new lesions doesn't really mean that the risk is much higher. Developing new MRI lesions is not always equal to develop the disease or having a much higher risk. It has been shown by the Queen Square Group many years ago when they have followed people who were admitted with CIS for up to 20 years. Ten to 15 % of these populations who presented with CIS, mostly optic neuritis continued to have new lesions, but they never developed a second clinical attack. It is more or less, I believe, for RIS some of those people will continue to have maybe one or two lesions when you do a followup MRI, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily will develop the disease. Even having positive oligoclonal bands is not a much higher risk by itself.   MDSF It would be quite a burden to treat 100% of the RIS population to be able to avert a progression to MS in about a third or over ten years about 55%. I guess, what you really need to do is be able to figure out who will progress. I guess a subpart of that question is, how do you know, or do you know, who will go on to primary progressive MS?   Professor Siva Well we cannot say this when they don't have any clinical symptoms and signs, because in our center we had three such patients who developed primary progressive MS after a period of four to eight years, when we have followed them radiologically. Probably another question is, whether all primary progressive MSs are really primary progressive, or are let's say secondary progressive MS, the diagnosis was done when they have gone through all of the let's say CIS, relapsing-remitting MS subclinically, and when they have entered in the secondary progressive phase, then, the disease became clinically surfaced and because of this we thought that this was people who were primary progressive. Because when you look at these people and we had those…well the whole group, the RIS we have more such cases, which is now prepared for publication. These people continue to have new lesions and they are not really any different than the relapsing-remitting cases. This is another issue that we should consider.   MDSF So in essence asymptomatic MS might really be MS and what looks like primary progressive is really secondary progressive.   Professor Silva Could be. That is a possibility. If I am not wrong, it was the late Charles Poser who had suggested that a number of MS patients the disease goes subclinically for a certain period of time, but they continue to have axonal degeneration and after a certain threshold they become only clinically symptomatic. It might be an analogy between this view and what we have observed.   MDSF Is there anything important to add on the subject of RIS?   Professor Silva Our approach is on an individual basis. Yes, we do have some evidence, we do have some findings, but that doesn't mean that when you see an individual with RIS they will do how it is expected according to the present evidence. When I am with my patients, or I shouldn't call them patients, but the individuals with RIS, my approach is on an individual basis. If they continue to have new MRI lesions and it is really high T2 load on the MRI, we ask for a CNS study, if they have positive oligoclonal bands, they have but normal visual evoked potentials; they have family members and so on. The way I approach those individuals is a little bit different than someone who has a few lesions, just enough to make a diagnosis of RIS, but don't have really other risk factors, no spinal cord and so on. When it comes to the patients we should make our decisions on an individual basis. I do not treat people RIS, but there might be some exceptions.   MDSF Very good, I appreciate it.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Twenty-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 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]  

[intro music]   Hello, and welcome to Episode Twenty-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. Paul Matthews about the Optimize project in the United Kingdom. But to begin, here’s a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   Some good news came from the pharmaceutical company Genzyme. On November 14th at 9 pm Eastern time, the FDA approved the drug alemtuzumab – trade name Lemtrada – for relapsing forms of MS. The FDA previously rejected the drug in 2013 due to concerns about study design and side effects. There is still some concern over safety, though, so the company is releasing it to only a limited number of patients. The prescription will also come with a host of other drugs to protect against harmful side effects. Researchers aren’t quite sure how the drug works, but it appears to target monocytes, T cells, and B cells.   Researchers announced a new mouse model for fatigue at the 2014 Society for Neuroscience meeting in Washington, D.C. The model works by enhancing expression of the pro-inflammatory cytokine, interleukin-1-beta. The model caused mice to reduce physical activity, without showing other signs of illness such as fever or anhedonia. Middle-aged and aged female mice were most affected by the treatment, whereas young mice showed no difference in signs of fatigue. The model gives credence to the idea that fatigue is not produced from dysfunction in the arousal system, but rather is a result of inflammation. The researchers said that they hoped the model will help illuminate the neurobiology of fatigue, the most common and debilitating symptom of MS.   If you would like to keep up with all things MSDF, please consider subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We keep our newsletter up-to-date with all of our news stories, blogs, and items from our professional and research resource sections. We’re also on Twitter; follow us at msdforum. And on Facebook, you can like us at facebook.com/ms discovery forum.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Professor Paul Matthews is at Imperial College London in brain sciences. Last week he talked with MSDF about imaging in MS. This week we’re discussing his involvement in a UK-based project intended to optimize and personalize MS treatment.   Interviewer – Dan Keller Welcome, Professor Matthews. You’re participating in the Optimize project in the UK. Can you tell me about that?   Interviewee – Paul Matthews Well, thanks, Dan. Optimize has been an exciting journey and we’re still at the early stages, but let me tell you a little bit about it. Over three years ago, a number of us got together to discuss what the barriers to development of stratified or personalized medicine for multiple sclerosis was. We all recognized what the potential could be if we could really figure out how to target medicines to responders, we would have a way of most appropriately staging the introduction of different medicines across patient populations, not exposing people who didn’t need them to drugs of higher risk and insuring that those who did need them got them early. This is a particular problem in the United Kingdom where there is a much more formal process for progressing from first-line DMTs to more powerful agents. And, in fact, there’s also – dare I say it – I mean, a frank therapeutic nihilism and a surprisingly small number of MS patients receive treatment because of the perceived lack of benefit to many of these first-line therapies.   Now how to change this. I think what we realized is that we need to have much more granular data on the characteristics of patients being treated and how they fared after their treatment over the long-term. The data provided within the usual clinical context is not only limited, but it ends up being rather patchy over time. In order to enable that, we needed tools that would both collect data and incentivize collection of complete data of high quality. Now a note about this. We all know how to do this within the context of clinical trials, but it’s hugely expensive; it’s expensive because there are multiple people always involved to crosscheck that the data is completely acquired in each paper, and secondarily, there are audit procedures in place in retrospect to insure that this is being done. This really isn’t feasible in routine clinical practice.   A colleague of mine, Rory Collins, who has specialized in setting up very large-scale clinical trials in areas like China and India, has shown how very simple electronic tools can help both insure that data is acquired completely and that there is an electronic audit trail to follow-up on data that isn’t. What they showed is that by creating simple electronic questionnaires that wouldn’t let the questionnaire be closed unless data of an appropriate type was entered in the field, and then automatically interrogating the data for quality from center to center and following up where there were potential lapses, one could begin to incentivize acquisition of the right data and actually make it flow faster.   So how could we make this happen within the MS space in the UK? Well, what we realized is that the toolkits were all there. The EU IMI program already has funded my colleague, Yike Guo, who’s head of the Imperial College Data Science Institute, to create a tool built around a platform called eTRIKS. This is a data management environment that allows links to apps or iPads or any other peripheral electronic tool for very powerful distributed data capture. We then, in gathering together a number of stakeholder meetings which involved people with MS, the MS societies, a number of industry representatives, and what I’m really pleased to say is leads from fully 18 of the major MS centers across the United Kingdom pretty much ringing the country, together created the vision of building such an electronic tool, distributing the types of input devices across the different centers, and beginning to create a database that could be held centrally or in a distributed fashion using all the new tricks of modern IT.   The first thing is acquiring the data, the second is doing useful with it. The second thing that’s rather neat about the eTRIKS platform is that we have shown how it can be built to allow different levels of access, so that there can be access by high-level users who get to see the whole dataset, but also by specialized users who might want to see only a part of it – like a doctor interrogating it for his or her patient – or, importantly, a person with MS interrogating it to see how the data that they have entered stands relative to that that’s entered across the country by all patients; it allows people with MS to begin to gauge how they’re doing relative to others with their disease.   Now, I think the latter point is worth building on, because I think all of us have been hugely impressed by the power of sites like Patients Like Me to engage people with the disease in the dialog about their disease and make them full participants in capturing data information. With this kind of distributed data platform where doctors and people with MS can enter data whenever and wherever they are to a central database which can organize it and allow it then to be interrogated as needed, means that we can begin to think about asking patients to enter data on the fly from home. Why is this important? Well, this actually completely transforms the way in which we understand the disease, it really gives us a much deeper sense of the patient experience. Rather than sampling a patient once every month or once every six months, we can actually capture how they’re doing through a day. And if we add to this some extra sensor technologies – say, for example, about movement – we can literally do this from moment to moment.   So the vision thus is that if we can use these modern IT tools to capture data from distributed sources – from doctors using iPads, from patients using apps, from sensors that people with MS wear – we can capture data in a central resource that can be distributed to those for the purposes that they need it in near real-time, and in turn provide a common environment for its analysis. I think it’s exciting. Now we’re at the early stages, the basic tools have been designed, we’re starting to build the sensor technology. And our genuine hope is with the completion of the first set of agreements with one of the companies who’s been the first to really take a plunge with us, we’re going to be able to create a beta form of the tool in 6-9 months.   Now before closing, I do want to add one thing. This is an exciting vision but the notion of building a database is hardly a new one and many people have had it. There is something that’s special about this vision and it’s the thing that I’m most proud of that’s come together from all of these stakeholders. It’s the vision of creating a database that will be an open database; open to all researchers once it’s built, not held privately by those who built it. And I think this is what could become a game-changer. Moreover, we see that the tools that we’re building in order to create this – the IT tools, the distributed apps, and so on – are tools that the community should own and should be able to improve on. So our intention is fully, as this program develops, to release a software for open-access use as well as the data. Our hope is that even if this doesn’t provide the solution of the future, it will begin to incentivize this kind of practice where we all share this important data to work together to find solutions to this disease.   MSDF Besides collecting MS-specific data, will it also look at general health and comorbidities to see how that affects outcomes?   Dr. Matthews No. That’s a really good question. Like so many doctors now, we’re very much focused on the progressive forms of the disease. Our belief is that comorbidities make major contributions to this, and that by influencing these comorbidities we may have the biggest short-term impact on our patients’ lives. So one of the advantages of a big data capture tool is that we can capture data on all of the other disorders that afflict people with MS, as well, and begin with, again, greater granularity because of contributions from people with as well as their doctors to look at this in ways that wonderful databases like NARCOMS haven’t been able to do. This is an important task for the future and one that we really want to grasp. We’re hoping with further funding to be able to link this to bioresources, as well, and the ability to access a patient’s fluid samples for Omics analyses certainly can add greatly to this.   MSDF Very good, I appreciate it.   Dr. Matthews You’re welcome, Dan, it’s been good speaking to you.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Twenty-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]  

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Twenty-one 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. Paul Matthews about imaging in multiple sclerosis. But to begin, here’s a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   We recently reported on a draft of a review released by the Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality about discontinuing disease-modifying therapies in patients with MS. Though the report’s main conclusion was that little evidence is available to assess the risks and benefits of discontinuing therapies, several MS groups came together to criticize the report during the open comment period. Groups like the National MS Society and Medical Partners 4 MS raised concerns that the review was not conducted properly and that insurance providers may use it as justification to reduce coverage of DMTs for MS. The AHRQ told Multiple Sclerosis Discovery Forum that they would consider the comments carefully and make any necessary revisions.   MSDF’s parent organization, the Accelerated Cure Project, is launching a new research resource called iConquer MS. Hollie Schmidt, Vice President of Scientific Operations at the Accelerated Cure Project, recently wrote a blog post explaining that the new initiative aims to take data and biosamples from 20,000 people with MS and make them open-access to researchers. We want your input about what you may want to do with such a resource. If you’re interested, go to the blogs section of MS Discovery Forum under the “News and Future Directions” tab and click on the blog post titled, “Invitation to Share Your Thoughts on a New MS Research Resource.”   Our list of meetings and events is ever-growing. We’ve posted multiple meetings of all shapes and sizes sprinkled throughout 2015 and even into 2016. And if you know of a meeting that’s not yet listed, please do submit what information you have. We’ll take care of the rest. Just go to “Meetings and Events” under the “Professional Resources” tab on our website and click on the “submit new item” button to tell us about your event. We’re even willing to list local departmental seminars and journal clubs.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Professor Paul Matthews is at Imperial College London in brain sciences. He met with MSDF to talk shop about imaging in MS.   Interviewer – Dan Keller Welcome, Professor Matthews. What do you see now as new modalities or new ways of doing imaging, and what’s coming along?   Interviewee - Paul Matthews Thanks, Dan. Imaging continues to reinvent itself in areas particularly like MS. Magnetic resonance is becoming more and more powerful with use of particularly multiband techniques, allowing multiple coils to be used to accelerate the imaging process, and because of that being able to collect much more data to enhance particularly diffusion images. So, for example, within the Human Connectome Project, development of new multiband techniques has accelerated imaging to the point where very high resolution diffusion tensor images can be acquired in spaces of 15-20 minutes. The implications of this for MS are that we can begin to develop powerful approaches to expression of the diffusion tensor information in terms of diffusion parallel to the fibers, perpendicular to the fibers, and free diffusion that is anisotropic. This means that potentially we’re going to be able to separate out free-water contributions from those contributions arising from myelin and axonal loss, providing a very powerful complement to magnetization transfer images.   A second area of major development in magnetic resonance is the increased use of ultra-high field systems at 7T, and potentially higher, for applications in MS. The first advantage this has brought is for increased spatial resolution that can be used to begin to image cortical lesions with a really impressively enhanced sensitivity. The second area has been new kinds of contrast. The high magnetic fields allow new susceptibility-weighted contrast to be generated which provides a powerful way of visualizing vessels. It’s very clearly defining the vessels at the center of most of the inflammatory lesions, helping a little bit with differential diagnosis, but even more importantly helping us understand what the microvascular architecture is in and around lesions.   A second potential advantage of the ultra-high field is simply increasing the sensitivity of MR for applications in magnetic resonance spectroscopy. We’ve known for a long time that signals from myo-inositol can help us understand glial components of inflammatory lesions, but there’s increasing interest in applying this kind of tool to measurements of glutathione, to provide indices related to reactive oxygen species generation, and potentially also to measuring excitotoxic neurotransmitters such as glutamate.   In a completely different space, positron emission tomography (PET) has begun to play a renewed kind of role in MS. I’ve always been a little bit disappointed that more wasn’t done with it over the last decade or so since pioneering studies that demonstrated that assessments of energy metabolism based on simply the fluorodeoxyglucose signal not only discriminated people with MS from healthy volunteers, but, more importantly, began to show discrimination between different stages of the disease and a relationship to cognitive impairment, with potentially reversible components with treatment. Now, that still is an area of potential work.   But more recently focus has shifted particularly to use of ligands that bind to the 18 kilodalton translocator protein which provides a marker of microglial inflammation in the brain. While it’s not entirely specific and with the caveat that we have little understanding of the relationship between the TSPO expression and the microglial phenotype, it clearly is highlighting some very interesting things. First, we found that the TSPO binding by ligands is increased multifocally in brains of people with MS; it’s increased multifocally in the white matter and in the grey matter. Moreover, increases in binding in both regions are related to degrees of disability; patients with higher disability show increased binding particularly in the cortex.   There’s emerging evidence, driven first by elegant preclinical studies done by the Finnish group and some human studies yet to be fully reported, that there are also strong treatment effects with powerful amino modulators. So because this provided us a window that is clearly giving us information distinct from that provided by T2 hyperintense lesions on MRI or by gadolinium enhancement on MRI, it promises a powerful adjunct.   And, finally, just to kind of round that idea out, it’s clear that it will be the combination of MR and PET that’s powerful rather than PET replacing MR in some way in our diagnostic or monitoring armamentarium for treatment. One manufacturer has already started supplying commercially integrated MRI-PET systems. Another manufacturer is expected to do so very soon, and potentially a third. This may become a platform for brain imaging that is very powerful for disorders like MS that have multifocal manifestations where the registration – the precise registration – between the MRI and the PET becomes important. Moreover, the potential to use dynamic MRI acquisitions where we’re just imaging very, very rapidly throughout the entire PET scanning period to follow the position of the head within the PET scanner may allow a new kind of precision of special resolution in the PET scan that allows MS studies where we rely on this very much to be done with far greater precision than it’s been possible in the past. So with these developments in MR, with the new radioligands in PET, and with this new technology for integrated MRI-PET, I think the brain imaging is off in incredibly new spaces.   Now I can’t close the discussion of imaging without at least making a mention of the revolution in applications of optical coherence tomography that have been conducted over the last five years in particular for MS. This is really exciting, too. It’s an inexpensive examination that can be performed very rapidly in any clinic that provides very high-resolution measures of optic nerve fiber layers, of multifocal edematous regions within the nerve fiber layer, all of which can provide measures to stage MS and its associated neurodegeneration, and potentially to usefully monitor it in assessing the progress of patients on treatments. It’s an exciting time for imaging.   Interviewer - MSDF Now just to clarify, this is optical coherence tomography of the retina and its surrounding structures.   Interviewee - Dr. Matthews Yeah, Dan, thanks for clarifying that. Absolutely. So it’s an eye examination, but it’s an adjunct because the retina is just an extension of what we study in the brain.   Interviewer - MSDF Either using metabolic markers or following metabolism with PET or something else, or using other ligands and markers, can you discern or image where remyelination is occurring?   Interviewee - Dr. Matthews So, of course, the world of PET is a big one because what we can observe changes with the type of radiotracer that we use. Recently, Yanming Wang, who I had the privilege of collaborating with at Case Western, published, I think, a really groundbreaking paper. Although it was a preclinical study, I think it shows the way we could be moving in this space. Using a novel radiotracer that he developed called MeDAS – MeDAS for short – this carbon positron-emitting isotope-incorporated tracer allows specific myelin proteins to be imaged, and thus provides a marker of myelin integrity in life. Yanming has shown how it can selectively image myelin, it can image both established myelin and new myelin being formed, and he demonstrated in a proof of concept study in rodents that the dynamics of demyelination and remyelination following therapeutic intervention can be followed, and moreover, that the therapeutic effect can be quantified relative to an untreated control group.   Really exciting and a potentially important adjunct to MTR or diffusion measurements in human studies. The trick of moving a tracer from preclinical studies into humans is not without some need for care, but because only microdoses of these tracers are used for the human imaging experiment, Yanming, myself, and colleagues believe we can make this transition rapidly. We’re watching closely to see what happens next.   Interviewer - MSDF Pretty good. I appreciate it.   Interviewee - Dr. Matthews Thanks, Dan.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Twenty-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 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]

[intro music]   Hello, and welcome to Episode Twenty 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. Jeffery Cohen about two clinical trials. But to begin, here is a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org. Genome-wide association studies are raising more questions than they answer for multiple sclerosis, according to new research. As the number of risky genetic variants grew, researchers began to wonder if many of those variants would be found in the murky waters of “noncoding DNA,” which comprises about 98% of the human genome. Those fears were confirmed in a study published last month in the journal Nature. According to the report, almost 90% of the risk variants fell within the noncoding region and 60% were found in areas known as enhancers or switches. These areas manage gene activity, though researchers are far from fully understanding how they work. While genome-wide association studies have been helpful to researchers, this study highlights that they are just a first step towards a better understanding of MS and the human genome.   The International Progressive MS Alliance recently released a call for applications for their second round of grants. To go along with this announcement, Professor Alan Thompson, the head of the Alliance’s scientific steering committee, penned a post for our blog. In his post, he emphasizes the urgent need for more research into progressive MS. He notes that over one million people worldwide live with progressive MS, yet no specific treatments exist for this condition. You can read Professor Thompson’s post in the blog section of the News and Future directions tab at msdiscovery.org. To get more information about the grants from the Alliance, visit our “Funding Opportunities” section under the “Professional Resources” tab on our website.   In addition to the latest funding opportunity from the Progressive MS Alliance, we also recently posted a long list of funding opportunities from the National MS Society.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Jeffrey Cohen is a neurologist and director of the Mellen Center for multiple sclerosis at the Cleveland Clinic. He spoke with MSDF about two clinical trials, one examining the clinical use of stem cells, the other about a generic version of glatiramer acetate, Copaxone.   Interviewer – Dan Keller First of all, what was the aim of the clinical stem cell trial and what phase was it done in?   Interviewee – Jeffrey Cohen So we now have 11 medications approved to treat multiple sclerosis. They are all effective in the early, relapsing remitting stage of the disease, but there is a major unmet need for treatments that repair damage and might be effective in progressive MS. Our main goal was to explore cell-based therapies to treat multiple sclerosis, specifically to test the feasibility and safety of administering so-called mesenchymal stem cells. This was a Phase I study of mesenchymal stem cells. These are stem cells that are present in many tissues of the body. We isolated them from bone marrow which is probably the version that is the best studied previously. We grew them in the laboratory to increase their numbers, and then readministered them intravenously. We were focusing primarily on safety, as I said. We had fairly intense monitoring for any complications. Thankfully, we saw none. We also looked in a very preliminary way for benefit using clinical measures, a variety of imaging approaches and immunologic measures.   MSDF What is the hypothesis here that they are doing? Do they actually get into the brain? You are infusing them IV. There is a blood-brain barrier, these are pretty big objects.   Dr. Cohen There are actually a large number of studies in the laboratory and in animals that suggest that these cells have a number of properties that we think would be of use in a disease like multiple sclerosis. First of all, they seem to modulate the immune response. They dampen down inflammation. But more importantly, they appear to be able to produce a wide range of soluble factors, growth factors and other substances that we think promote repair. We think of them as the delivery system for growth factors that promote repair. We don't think that they themselves develop into brain tissue but will become neuro-cells, but rather that they create a milieu that is conducive for the natural intrinsic repair processes to remyelinate or restore neurologic function. The other property that is potentially very advantageous is that they appear to be attracted to areas of tissue damage or inflammation. They appear to have the ability to migrate within tissues, and in fact to migrate from either the cerebral spinal fluid into the brain or from the blood into the nervous system. So we think we can take advantage of that by administering them intravenously.   MSDF Did you do dose-ranging here?   Dr. Cohen: We did not. One of the things we learned from this study is that there are a lot of unknowns about cell-based therapies. What the appropriate dose is? Whether multiple doses are needed? What is the best route of administration? Whether there are nuances as to how you grow the cells in culture? What characteristics you want to augment? Dose-ranging in particular is something that has been very difficult to do in the field, particularly for some of these cells that are grown in culture; you usually have the dose that you have. That has been an issue that we have struggled with as have others in the field.   MSDF How long did you follow these patients and what did you find?   Dr. Cohen We followed them for two months prior to infusion. That is the time during which their cells were being cultured, and then for six months after infusion. So very reassuringly there were no serious or severe adverse events. In fact, there were very little, if any, side effects. Patients were not immunosuppressed. They had no premedication. The only side effect was that the culture media contains a chemical called DSMO. Some patients got a garlic taste in their mouth. If they don't like Italian food, they didn't like that. We also looked in a preliminary way for evidence of benefit with the caveat that this study was not really designed to look for benefit. We used this as an opportunity to explore a variety of measures that might show tissue repair. We saw enticing improvement in some measures in some patients, but for patients as a group, there was no clear-cut evidence of benefit. We have to be very careful how we interpret these results.   MSDF Could you follow them in any way? Were they tagged or any other way that you know where they went?   Dr. Cohen No. That is another aspect of the cell therapy field that is getting a lot of attention. At the moment it is largely a black box. After we administer the cells, knowing whether they survive and where they go and how long they live there. That is another line of research besides pursuing further clinical trials of these cells is also to develop methods to track them within the body. There are some promising approaches that we are in the process of developing.   MSDF Now I take it these were not modified in any way, they were just cultured to multiply them?   Dr. Cohen There were some growth factors in the culture media, but they were from the regulatory point of view, not very manipulated. That is the terminology that is used. That is another area of debate is some of the specifics of the culture approach, whether we should add other factors that might change the properties of the cells. Whether it is okay for them to be frozen, which we do largely for convenience because then we can schedule the infusion. Or whether they should be taken fresh from the culture and administered. There are arguments for both approaches.   MSDF Many cells seem to hone right back to where they came from. Do these just go back to the bone marrow do you think, or do you think they actually went somewhere because that area needed repair?   Dr. Cohen There have been a few studies in some other conditions where these cells have been given. One of the interesting properties is that you can administer these cells from another person and they are not rejected. They become, I wouldn't say the standard, but a very common treatment for what is called graft-versus-host disease, which is a very severe complication of allogeneic bone marrow transplant where the transplanted immune system attacks the recipient's body. That is where the immunomodulatory effects of mesenchymal stem cells were first observed. There are, unfortunately, have been a couple of instances where MSCs that were from another person of a different gender, were administered to someone with graft-versus-host disease who unfortunately, subsequently died of GVH. In those cases, these cells were found in a range of tissues including bone marrow. Probably a more important obstacle is for after intravenous administration is the lung because that is where the blood goes from the veins. These cells probably collect in the lung initially and then percolate out into the tissues.   MSDF Do you have any concerns, any caveats about potential harms, limitations, from using this? Is it feasible on a large scale?   Dr. Cohen We took a very conservative approach with the idea that there are so many unknowns of cell-based therapies, including precedence in multiple sclerosis where therapies had a different effect than we anticipated. We thought it was appropriate to take a very careful systematic approach starting with a small safety study and then building from there. At least within the limitations of our study, meaning that it was relatively short, and relatively small, we saw no indications of any complications. Some of the hypothetical concerns would be cancer. Stem cells share some properties that are similar to cancer cells, or ectopic tissue formation. Stem cells have the natural ability to develop into almost any kind of tissue. At least, presumably they could go to one tissue and develop into another type of cell, so bone within the heart or something like that. We really saw no indication of that. There are really no examples of that in the literature, but because of those sorts of concerns, we took a very careful approach. We feel comfortable now moving on to a bigger program.    MSDF You had discussed some of the problems that arose using allogeneic cells. Just to clarify, this was using autologous cells?   Dr. Cohen Correct. These were cells from the patient themselves. There is still some debate in the field, which approach is better. Whether to take cells from the person themselves or whether to take cells from someone who does not have the disease that you are treating. That again is an issue that has not been settled. I think some of the cell tracking we were talking about earlier may help with that. Rather than answering all of these questions one trial at a time, we may be able to adjudicate some of these questions by seeing whether cells traffic more effectively.   MSDF Let’s shift to your other trial, the GATE trial using generic Copaxone. Is that available now and what was the point of the trial?   Dr. Cohen The purpose of this trial was potentially to have a generic version of one of the established multiple sclerosis drugs come available. The incentive would be that presumably because of the lower development costs, that the generic version would save money for payers and for patients. The trial we just completed was of a generic version of glatiramer acetate, Copaxone, one of the initial drugs approved to treat MS, a drug that we have a great deal of experience with. It has established efficacy and a known good safety profile. This study tested a generic version of that with the intent of showing that it had equivalent efficacy, in this case, as tested by MRI and had equivalent safety and tolerability.   MSDF These were all patients with relapsing, remitting MS? You had, what, about 735?   Dr. Cohen Correct. This was in a patient population with relapsing, remitting MS; the population for which Copaxone is approved.   MSDF What were the interventions, the test group?   Dr. Cohen There were three groups in this trial. One group was treated with generic glatiramer acetate. One group was treated with the brand Copaxone and then there was also a small placebo group to demonstrate what is called study assay sensitivity. The purpose of which was to show for the trial overall that the generic glatiramer acetate is equivalent to the brand-name, the reference drug as it is called, but also that within this trial with this population, that both drugs were effective.   MSDF Where was this done, and is that ethical?   Dr. Cohen One of the things we have encountered increasingly in developing multiple sclerosis drugs is that there are ethical and practical issues to including placebo groups. At this point it has become extremely difficult to include a placebo group in a large Phase III study that goes on for several years. In this case, this was a short trial, with the advantage of using MRI as the endpoint. It was conducted to some extent in North America, but primarily in Eastern Europe and other  countries where unfortunately, multiple sclerosis treatments are not as available.    MSDF What did you find?   Dr. Cohen The study was successful. It showed equivalent efficacy as measured by gadolinium-enhanced MRI, and also showed equivalent safety and tolerability as measured by adverse events and injection site tolerability.   MSDF What would this mean for patients if someone brought out a generic?   Dr. Cohen The hope would be, is that if this drug is approved, that it would be less expensive. Multiple sclerosis is an expensive disease to care for and a great part of that cost is medication costs. So the hope would be that this would be less expensive. The other caveat is that complicated molecules such as Copaxone are difficult to replicate. In addition to very extensive chemical and biophysical analyses, that is why a trial was conducted, because of the feeling that it would only be with clinical data that we could…we assure ourselves that this was in fact similar to Copaxone.   MSDF I would take it, that this would only apply to the generic you tested. I mean generics have a certain tolerance level margin compared to the approved brand, so not all generics are the same.   Dr. Cohen That is correct. It is actually quite tricky to develop a generic of a complicated molecule, either a complex mixture such as glatiramer acetate or a so-called biological like a monoclonal antibody. Each one has to be tested one at a time.   MSDF Anything important that we have missed, or to add?   Dr. Cohen This trial was designed with the assistance of, and discussions with EMA, the European Regulatory Agency. It has been somewhat more difficult in the United States. The FDA is still somewhat unclear on their policies and the procedures for testing complex generics and biosimilars. The status of this trial in the United States is still somewhat uncertain.   MSDF Very good. Thank you.   Dr. Cohen Thank you.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Twenty 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]    

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Nineteen of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.   This week’s podcast features the second half of an interview with Dr. Samuel Ludwin. This time Dr. Ludwin and I discuss the implications of treating multiple sclerosis subtypes. But to begin, here is a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   This week we reported some good news: a large case-controlled study showed that there is no causal link between vaccines and multiple sclerosis. However, the study came with the caveat that there is some increased risk for developing MS in younger patients who receive vaccines. This increased risk is likely due to the vaccines triggering a pre-existing asymptomatic condition, the researchers said. The study, which was published in the journal JAMA Neurology, was most concerned with the role that vaccines for hepatitis B and human papillomavirus play in the long-term risk for developing MS.   We also reported on a new iPad app that will allow clinicians and MS patients to track their disease course. The app, called Bioscreen, is currently in beta-testing at the University of California, San Francisco. The developers, including Pierre-Antoine Gourraud who is on MSDF’s scientific advisory board, assert that Bioscreen has the potential to be a powerful tool for researchers, clinicians, and patients. At the core of the app is a dataset of around 600 patients who have been participating in a data collection survey for the past 10 years. Physicians can compare their patient’s disease course with other confirmed MS cases and use that information to influence their recommendations. The researchers also believe that patients’ ability to visualize their own disease in this way will improve adherence to medical recommendations and ultimately strengthen the bond between patient and physician.   Every week we publish at least one “Research Roundup” where we curate stories from around the web related to multiple sclerosis. Recently we published roundups about advances in spinal cord injury treatment, the recipe for selling the perfect bogus drug, and the report of a rare brain infection in a patient taking dimethyl fumarate, trade name Tecfidera. To view Research Roundups, go to the “News Briefs” section of the “News and Future Directions” tab at msdiscovery.org. Look for the blue Research Roundup logo and stay up-to-date with all the latest MS news.   [transition music]   Now to the interview with Dr. Samuel Ludwin, a neuropathologist who is currently a visiting scientist at the Montreal Neurological Institute. Last week we aired an interview with Dr. Ludwin in which he discussed remyelination therapies. This week he speaks with MSDF about MS subtypes.   Interviewer – Dan Keller Welcome, Dr. Ludwin. Let’s talk about some of the subgroups of multiple sclerosis, as has been proposed by Professor Hans Lassmann, and you wrote an editorial some time ago about it. First of all, can you tell me what subgroups he identified and what progress there has been made since then?   Interviewee – Samuel Ludwin This is a very groundbreaking paper, very controversial, and over the years many people who have followed this particular pattern, others who’ve not been able to reproduce it and believe that the conclusions are not valid. However, what Claudia Lucchinetti and Hans Lassmann showed in a mammoth first-time examination of very acute lesions; they had access to a particularly unique group of specimens that are from both the Mayo Clinic and other areas, where very early lesions were examined. And in looking at this, they looked at patterns of tissue breakdown and the mechanisms of tissue breakdown, and essentially came up with four different categories. The two most important ones are very important to discuss because in the one, the features were very, very consistent with the kind of immune injury that one finds in experimental allergic encephalomyelitis where we know the damage has been caused by the injection of the antigen with a subsequent immune reaction to that antigen. And the other main group was one where there appeared to be a primary damage of some sort to the oligodendrocyte and then a subsequent immune reaction.   Now this is important for a couple of reasons, and the first is that there is a big debate going on in the multiple sclerosis literature or research as to whether the disease starts from the outside peripheral activation of immune cells and then homes in on the brain because they are cross-antigens or cross-antibodies or cross-cells, or whether the process actually starts with damage to something in the brain which subsequently sets off the – and this is called the “inside-out” or “outside-in” controversy at the same time. What this might mean, according to the way they have done the study – which was a very good one – was they suggested that there might be multiple mechanisms towards the end result of damage to oligodendrocytes and myelin, and subsequently the physical appearance of multiple sclerosis lesions.   Other people have challenged this and suggested that maybe it is a question of timing, and the mechanism is the same in all patients, but we’re looking at a different kind of progression and timing. And that controversy is still being discussed, as is the inside-out, outside-in phenomenon. But when you look at some of the things that might be causing these inside-out or their type 3 pattern where the primary damage could be in the oligodendrocyte, there are many reasons that the mechanism could be due to either stroke-like causes such as a lack of oxygen or blood flow that damages the oligodendrocyte, possibly certain infections that may target the oligodendrocyte. And we know that there are many mouse models where you can target oligodendrocytes with certain viruses. And those overlap very significantly with mechanisms of tissue damage in other diseases.   So it is a very important paper because it has set people thinking about multiple mechanisms. The fallout from this is that, in fact, when you have different mechanisms of causing disease, there are potentially different ways of treating it. And if you have a primary immune-based phenomenon from the outside, antiinflammatories as are given on disease-modifying therapies are perhaps the way to go, whereas if you’ve got something that is damaging it from the inside and some other cause, we need to elucidate what that cause is and go straight for that particular cause. In addition, what we are trying to find out is whether we can predict what sort of pattern has caused the disease, either with imaging or with biomarkers, and be able to do this without biopsies and other things so that patients can be treated accordingly. It’s an advance on perhaps what we might call personalized medicine in multiple sclerosis.    MSDF Are there imaging or clinical correlates of these different types of processes? You’re not going to do a biopsy on most people.   Dr. Ludwin No, there isn’t. But in fact, there are some therapeutic differences. For instance, in the type 2 pattern, which is the autoimmune pattern or the outside-in pattern, these patients respond very well to plasmapheresis where one is removing the offending gammaglobulin. And patients with the type 3, which is the main oligodendrocyte-based pattern of the disease, they don’t respond to that well. And that’s perhaps the best clinical differentiation that we know at the moment that helps us. A lot of the data is not clear. They based a lot of the data on the fact that they felt that every patient had a uniform pattern in the lesions. Other people have questioned this and found that there might be a multitude of different kind of patterns in the same patient, and therefore it supported modifications of the same inherent cause.   MSDF Does the efficacy of plasmapheresis correlate with the presence of oligoclonal bands in the CSF, or that’s not a correlation?   Dr. Ludwin There doesn’t seem to be a correlation, leastwise I know. Certainly plasmapheresis where we know that there is antibody, such as in neuromyelitis optica is more effective as a treatment early for diseases where we know that there is circulating antibody, but patients will have oligoclonal banding, I think, in both patterns.   MSDF You’d alluded to damage to the oligodendrocyte in one of these forms as the primary dysfunction or lesion. Does that imply that something is being exposed, an antigen that might be reacted to, or how is that leading to damage?   Dr. Ludwin Absolutely, that if you get damage to a tissue, various proteins are being broken down and antigenic epitopes are being exposed, which then are transported back to the peripheral lymphoid tissue for reactions to take place. I mean, there are counter-arguments to this. One can ask why, with a lot of trauma injury, a lot of stroke injury which is far more common than MS, why you don’t get a secondary immune response to that, even though we know many people with the genetic makeup makes them susceptible to MS or exist in the normal population, and almost certainly some of them have strokes. So there are questions on both sides and arguments. And we know from other experiments that you can induce circulating antigens with tissue destruction of any cause, and potentially these are circulating to be able to produce reactive antibodies in the periphery.   MSDF I think Lassmann showed that even in healthy people you can find CNS antigens in the cervical draining lymph nodes, which raises the same question you just brought up; why do some people have a reaction and some not?   Dr. Ludwin Absolutely, and there are now all sorts of theories coming out of the genetics that there are multiple genes, each having a small effect, but in totality may be adding up to a genetic defect that will allow some of these circulating cells to suddenly start having an effect.   MSDF Now it seems, in terms of thinking of personalized medicine, so much of it is empiric – what works works, and you try something else if it doesn’t. Is there a possibility of any harm from these treatments to people for whom it doesn’t work? Do you have to be very concerned about also first not do harm, especially considering you can’t tell the difference among these types from the start?   Dr. Ludwin Yeah, I think that it’s too early to apply personalized medicine to patients in this particular area in the different types. If you’re looking at personalized medicine that, you know, we treat patients as individuals, or we should, because a lot of the therapy is based on empiric choice and anecdotal experience sometimes with the clinician, and there’s no absolute algorithm that everybody uses to treat a patient. So in that sense, we already do practice it. But you’re quite right, a lot of that is anecdotal or empirical rather than mechanistic.   The do no harm is a very interesting point also, because you mustn’t forget that basically multiple sclerosis is an inflammatory disease, and very frequently we tend to look at inflammation as being something that’s bad. But the reason the body mounts an inflammatory infiltrate is usually to cure something or to clean up something that is attacking it from the outside. So in any kind of these interferences, we have to choose a very find balance between stopping an inflammatory infiltrate or reaction that may be doing a lot of good for the patient, while preventing it from its worst excesses.   And here, empiricism comes in quite well at the moment; we know which of these drugs that we give are more likely to give side effects, we know more about side effects than we do about potential for not allowing growth. We will stop a particular cytokine or block a particular protein in its action, but I think we should always be aware that the protein, if it’s a normal one and not abnormal protein, may be there for a reason and the patients will do worse if they don’t have this mess cleaned up, so to speak.   MSDF We’re also finding today that we’re almost living in a proinflammatory environment; it has repercussions in heart disease, dental disease, MS, fat is proinflammatory. So do all these things add to the risk in MS if there’s other inflammatory processes going on?   Dr. Ludwin Well, it’s not only the inflammatory processes that’s going on, it’s the things that are causing them. As you’re right, we are now discovering that things like salt, fast foods, the changes in the microbiota all tend to make us more proinflammatory. And certainly in experimental animals and now some human studies, it has been shown that experimental immune disease is worsened by a high salt intake which leads to increased salt in the tissues, as well as being prevented by some of these diseases. If you change the gut microbiota in many of these diseases from normal commensals into something that may be pathogenic, you will set off inflammatory autoimmune disease. It’s been shown very beautifully in ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, and the same thing is now being looked at very strongly in multiple sclerosis, so certainly a proinflammatory environment.   On the other hand, it should be remembered that there’s certain kind of infections that produce a reaction that may very well be protective, and there’s some evidence that some of the parasites produce a factor and we believe it could be related to a particular type of protective T-cell that will then allow for patients to become resistant to multiple sclerosis. And there’s some very good data from South America that populations who’ve been exposed to parasites and have them are actually more resistant to multiple sclerosis, because the parasite has induced a protective antiinflammatory molecule in the cell as well. So it’s a very complex balance and we’re gradually discovering more and more about where this balance lies.   MSDF Might the prevalence of parasites account, at least in part, for the geographic distribution of MS?   Dr. Ludwin Well, parasites are just one part of it. There is a very strong feeling, and it comes back to also the gut microbiota – but it’s more than just gut microbiota; it’s environment microbiota – that this has a major role. And for many years, it wasn’t just parasites. People in the Third World had a much lower incidence of multiple sclerosis, and this could have been also from genetic reasons or from susceptibility. But it was not just for multiple sclerosis. All autoimmune disease was much lower in frequency in these populations, and the theory was that most of the people who grew up in developing countries were exposed to large numbers of bacteria and they developed robust immune systems, normal-functioning immune systems that could help them deal with it. And the theory is that in developed countries, the over-usage of antibiotics has aborted normal immune responses, and so in response to that autoantibodies are created and we are suffering the consequence of living too clean a life. And so I think if you look at that argument, it’s not just multiple sclerosis, it really has been mooted for the inflammatory bowel disease, juvenile diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and other immune diseases as well.   MSDF Thank you, this has been very good.   Dr. Ludwin Pleasure.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Nineteen 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]

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller  Hello, and welcome to Episode Seventeen 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. Hans Lassmann about the usefulness of animal models for studying multiple sclerosis. But to begin, here’s a brief summary of the developments at the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   In the progressive stage of multiple sclerosis, some astrocytes appear to upregulate genes that intensify inflammation and neurodegeneration. Researchers think that genetic changes cause astrocytes to release a fatty molecule that beckons inflammatory monocytes from the blood into the brain. A drug, miglustat, currently used in the treatment of Gaucher’s disease, may be a good candidate to repurpose as a drug to inhibit astrocytes from initiating this destructive process.   The so-called “long life” protein, Klotho, may hold the keys to remyelination. Named after the Greek goddess responsible for “spinning the thread of life,” an abundance of Klotho leads to longer lifespans in mice. The protein has also been associated with numerous age-related conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease. Recent research noted that reduced Klotho was associated with myelin degeneration in normal, aging Rhesus monkeys. A small molecule, currently known as ‘Compound A’ can promote Klotho in the CNS of mice, enhancing remyelination in the cuprizone mouse model.   We recently released a new data visualization comparing various characteristics – such as age, gender, and EDSS scores – across 74 clinical trials. You can look at each characteristic in every trial, or compare the means of all the trials. To view, go to the “research resources” tab at msdiscovery.org and click on “data visualizations.” Then click on “RRMS and CIS – Baseline Characteristics.”   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Hans Lassmann studies the pathogenesis of inflammatory diseases at the Center for Brain Research at the Medical University of Vienna in Austria. He met with MSDF at the MS Boston meeting in September to discuss demyelinating disorders.   Interviewer – Dan Keller In terms of what we can learn from other demyelinating diseases, ones caused by infectious agents, how can this shed light on the processes and possible treatment of MS?   Interviewee – Hans Lassmann That depends, obviously, on the models which we are looking. I think there is a major difference between multiple sclerosis and these other experimental models, because the experimental models which really induce large areas of demyelination always are associated with infection of oligodendrocytes. But in multiple sclerosis, there is actually no indication that oligodendrocytes are infected. Now this has consequences that also the demyelination is different in these experimental models because it follows the death of single infected oligodendrocytes. That means that lesions have, more or less, some sort of moth-eaten edges where single oligodendrocytes are falling apart with small pieces of demyelination in between intact myelin, whereas in multiple sclerosis the demyelination is a sharply demarcated lesion which does not follow the oligodendrocyte territories. What we, however, can learn from the models is the question how the brain handles an infectious process in the white matter with respect to inflammation and the amplification mechanisms of tissue injury in the demyelinating process.    MSDF So are they similar enough that we can discern something useful from it, even though the patterns do seem to differ in some ways?   Dr. Lassmann Yes, we can. For instance, there is a major difference between the autoimmune models which we have and the virus models. The autoimmune models are predominantly mediated, or driven, by an MHC class 2 CD4-positive T cell response, whereas the virus models are predominantly driven by a CD8 T cell response. Interestingly, in multiple sclerosis, also the CD8 T cell response dominates. So we can actually learn a lot from these models on the mechanisms of CD8-mediated inflammation in the brain, and also on what are the consequences of a CD8-mediated inflammation in the brain with respect to tissue injury.    MSDF What about some of the diseases that are closely associated with MS but are distinct from it, like neuromyelitis optica and, I guess, concentric sclerosis and others, how do they shed light on things, if they do?   Dr. Lassmann I think they shed a lot of lights on that. Let’s take first neuromyelitis optica. Here we are in a very favored situation because we know it is an autoimmune disease and we know the specific target antigen, and the specific target antigen is a water channel in astrocytes. So from that we have actually learned how antibodies against these astrocytes actually induce the tissue injury, in that case, by first destroying the astrocytes themselves, and then secondarily leading to oligodendrocyte destruction and demyelination, and also some axonal loss. So that actually is a perfect model for a scenario where T cells and pathogenic antibodies play a role in disease mechanisms, and that is apparently also the case in a subset of multiple sclerosis patients, but only in a subset.    MSDF How does the glia enter into this, both as a target and maybe as a mediator or effector?   Dr. Lassmann Now, obviously, the prime target in multiple sclerosis is the oligodendrocyte and the myelin sheath, but there is obviously also pathology in other glial cells. There is an astrocytic pathology, and there is also a microglia activation and pathology in these cases. Now, the astrocytic pathology itself may also contribute to the lesion propagation because when astrocytes are also destroyed in the lesion, or primarily destroyed in the lesion, it will also secondarily lead to the oligodendrocyte loss and demyelination. This is a classical example of neuromyelitis optica.    MSDF Is that through mechanisms of macrophage activation, or debris, or mediator release, or toxic release?   Dr. Lassmann No. From the astrocyte pathology, it’s so that the astrocytes and the oligodendrocytes are connected with gap junctions, and the astrocytes play a major role in supporting the energy demand of oligodendrocytes. So if you kill out the astrocytes, the oligodendrocytes starve to death.   MSDF Now that you bring up energy, can we learn anything from mitochondrial diseases and their consequences?   Dr. Lassmann Yes, here we can learn a lot because the mitochondrial injury and damage is in the center of neurodegeneration and demyelination in multiple sclerosis. In that case, in the disease the mitochondrial injury is apparently driven and induced by oxidative injury, but that it leads in a secondary consequence also to mitochondrial gene deletion, so to deletions of mitochondrially-encoded genes. And here the mitochondrially-encoded gene deletions are also present in many mitochondrial diseases, and for that, obviously, mitochondrial diseases are perfect models to study these aspects of multiple sclerosis pathogenesis. A key issue, for instance, is the mechanisms of mitochondrial quality control. Normally, it’s so that the damaged mitochondrion is just removed from the cell in autophagosomes. But this needs very specific mechanisms of recognition. If this quality control is actually missing or disturbed, then these damaged mitochondria can expand, can clonally expand, and then you get an upward cells having more and more and more damaged mitochondria. And that’s, for instance, also a mechanism which is very prominent in mitochondrial diseases.    MSDF Is that a failure of phagosomes? Is there a defect at that level?   Dr. Lassmann No, I think it’s rather a defect in the mitochondrial proteins, because the mitochondrial proteins are expressed on the surface indicating the phagocytic system, whether they are intact or damaged. And when this process is more or less disturbed, then the phagosomes don’t recognize the damaged mitochondria anymore.    MSDF What are you doing now? What sort of paths are you pursuing in terms of these things that we’ve been discussing?    Dr. Lassmann We have in principles three major projects. The first is that we try to define more precisely what is the nature of the inflammatory response in multiple sclerosis and in to what extent this is different from what is seen in the respective experimental autoimmune models. Now, the second project deals with mechanisms of demyelination, and here the key question is there is soluble demyelinating factor in multiple sclerosis, but it’s not very clear what exactly the soluble factor is; it could be demyelinating antibodies, and that can be modeled in experimental models, like autoimmune encephalitis. But many data suggests that there must be other factors which are not immunoglobulin and not antibodies which are responsible for this demyelination. And then the third project deals with the progressive stage of multiple sclerosis, and here it’s the central pathogenic pathways, oxidative injury and mitochondrial injury. And our projects now go in the direction of what is the course of this massive oxidative damage in multiple sclerosis, how does that relate to mitochondrial injury, and what is the consequences then on the tissue with respect to energy deficiency and other things.    MSDF In progressive disease, do you see a shift towards more mitochondrial damage and oxidative damage or stress?   Dr. Lassmann We have oxidative damage already in the early stages of MS, but in the early stages of MS the oxidative injury seems to be mainly driven by the inflammatory component; that means by inflammation, activation of microglia and then the production of reactive oxygen-producing enzymes. In the progressive stage of MS, we get additional amplification factors for oxidative injury, and they are related to brain aging and related to accumulation of lesion burden. So what we get, on the one hand, an age-related increase of iron in the human brain, and iron can massively potentiate oxidative injury by a reaction which is the so-called Fenton reaction. The second thing is that you have accumulated tissue injury in multiple sclerosis with retrograde and anterograde degeneration, and that leads to progressive microglia activation, which then can actually be transformed more easily in cytotoxic microglia cells by additional proinflammatory stimuli. And the third mechanism is that the mitochondrial injury increases, and in particular the mitochondrial gene deletion and the clonal expansion of defective mitochondria expand in the progressive stage with disease duration. And mitochondria, when they are damaged, they can liberate electrons, and the electrons can actually, again, react with oxygen, producing a reactive oxygen species. And so this is a more or less self-amplifying process which then leads to enhancement of neurodegeneration and demyelination.    MSDF Is there a role for glutathione here?   Dr. Lassmann Yes. Glutathione is one of the key molecules for the oxidative injury, and obviously this is one of the players, but it’s only one.    MSDF It’s a player in the injury or in limiting injury?   Dr. Lassmann That is not entirely clear yet.   MSDF What have we missed or you think is important to discuss or add?   Dr. Lassmann There is certainly in the multiple sclerosis therapy also the tests to increase remyelination and possible regeneration in the lesions, including stem cell therapies or increasing remyelination by soluble factors by cytokines and growth factors. This is all very interesting, but the key point is that as long as the disease process is active, newly-formed myelin is destroyed relatively quickly.    MSDF It seems that there’s almost an analogy to osteoporosis where it’s a balance between formation and destruction. Is there ongoing remyelination or turnover in the healthy brain?   Dr. Lassmann Yes, there is a myelin turnover in the healthy brain, but there is also a profound attempt for remyelination in multiple sclerosis lesions. And what you see even in the early stages in very active MS lesions, you always find signs of ongoing remyelination. But, interestingly, in these early stages, really established remyelination is generally missing, and we have performed a study on that issue showing that if you have disease activity, the remyelinated areas are actually more prone to show new demyelination compared to the normal old myelin which is in there. So that suggests that this remyelination is present and all attempts are present, but this process is relatively instable as long as the disease process is active.   MSDF Is there a thought of being able to inhibit that further, or accelerate a destructive process in these remyelinated areas?   Dr. Lassmann I think this is not really specific for the remyelinated areas. If we are a [?], for instance, that disease process or the progression of the tissue damage can be stopped, for instance, with measurements making some sort of mitochondrial protection, or with certain antioxidative therapeutic strategies, then it will certainly be beneficial both for the old lesions and the newly formed lesions and the remyelinated lesions. But that’s more or less something which has to be solved before we can think of really effective remyelinating strategy.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Seventeen 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]   

[intro music]   Hello, and welcome to Episode Sixteen 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. Revere “Rip” Kinkel about how to improve patient outreach. But to begin, here is a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   First, researchers are questioning if cognitive MS is a distinct entity. For some patients with MS, cognitive symptoms dominate over all other symptoms. Some of the symptoms could even be described as dementia. Researchers examined a small sample of this distinct subset of patients in a recent study in Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery and found that many had severe brain atrophy and a high lesion load. While the results suggest that cognitive MS may be a distinct disease entity, the researchers are cautious not to draw any conclusions due to the small sample size and the weight of the term “dementia”.   An experimental oral agent for the treatment of relapse-remitting MS looks promising as it progresses through clinical trials. The drug, currently called RPC1063, was shown to be both safe and effective in a sample of about 200 patients. It may even be safer than fingolimod, which is currently the only oral drug FDA approved for the treatment of MS.   For women with multiple sclerosis, pregnancy is especially tricky. In a previous news synthesis, science writer and immunologist, Griselda Zuccarino-Catania, looked at many challenges for women with MS who are trying to get pregnant. But postpartum can be a tumultuous time for MS patients as well, since the risk for relapse increases after delivery. In this part of her series on pregnancy and MS, Zuccarino-Catania explores the current research on postpartum relapse risks, breast feeding, and disease-modifying therapies.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Revere—or “Rip”—Kinkel is the director of the multiple sclerosis program at the University of California, San Diego. He is also the chief medical officer for an initiative managed by the Accelerated Cure Project, our parent organization, to establish an MS patient-powered research network. He sat down with me at the joint ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS meeting in Boston earlier this year to discuss how to improve patient outreach.   Interviewer – Dan Keller Welcome, Dr. Kinkel. You are now interested in new models of care. What do these entail, and why do we need them?   Interviewee – Revere Kinkel Well the traditional model is, of course, the patients coming into a clinic setting at a variable interval and having a diminishing amount of time to spend with a physician or any other kind of provider that they are seeing. Going forward in the future with fewer neurologists, fewer MS specialists available, we need to find ways to reach larger populations of patients. Whether that be through Internet portals, whether that be through outreach, through community clinics where we travel or whether it be through telemedicine or a combination of those things. So we are particularly interested in developing tools and models that allow us to reach patients in this way.   MSDF What are some of the ways that you reach them: go out in the community or how do you specifically reach people who would not typically be contacted?   Dr. Kinkel Currently we are doing a number of things. The first thing we have done is we have developed a virtual MS center online called HealthCareJourney.com which allows patients anywhere to sign up, ask questions relevant to their disease and the problems that they have and get answers. Both the questions and the answers are posted online for the entire community to see. We are also trying to find ways, particularly in California; this is true around the entire country, but particularly in California, to outreach to communities. What we have noticed with the transition with the Affordable Care Act is that a significant number of patients have been switched over to Medicaid programs. In our case we call it Medi-Cal in California. Many of these patients have been away from doctors for many years, off drugs for many years. They are not aware of services that are available to them. Many of them don't speak English as a primary language. We recognize the need to go out to the communities, have community outreach programs to reach these individuals, to do mini consults, tell them what kind of services are available, try to connect them to those services and then get them to come to our centers periodically and work with their local physicians.   MSDF Do they typically respond well to this, or are they at all wary of what you are doing?   Dr. Kinkel Well we haven't started doing it on a large scale basis. This is actually in the planning stages for next year. Interestingly we have kind of noticed this over time with drug company sponsored programs. So many of us will do these education programs for patients where we will go out and meet with a large group and we are always intrigued by the interactions we have one-on-one with the patients afterwards. That is when we really find out the issues they have and they start to hear about the things that are available for them and their eyebrows go up, they are interested, and you hear from them again because you can help them. That kind of setting has shown us that this kind of reaching out to communities helps. What I am talking about is going a step further; which is reaching out through community health centers, through other advocacy groups to find even less advantaged patients that might not have been even going to these kinds of programs and helping them, but also, including them in the process. Right now we have an understanding of MS that is based on a population that primarily goes to tertiary care centers, which is highly over-represented by Caucasian well-educated upper middle class individuals. We have far less of a knowledge of the needs and requirements of the less fortunate.   MSDF Have you heard it all or can you discern anything from reaching out to these people and what they tell you that is either surprising or new?   Dr. Kinkel I am totally amazed at kind of the lack of information they have. Just from basic MS-101. So you have to start there. Many of these individuals have kind of higher needs. When you have the needs of just putting food on the table and paying the rent and trying to make sure their children are safe, MS takes a back seat. Often in many of these families you see the effects of MS on the children, much as we see in all populations, but it is particularly acute on those individuals with less resources available to them. So there is a greater community need for support for these individuals both in terms of real services as well as in terms of education.   MSDF What are you getting out of PCORI? First of all can you define what it is, and what sort of resources they can provide you?   Dr. Kinkel PCORI stands for the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Accelerated Cure Project has a grant to develop a 20,000 patient centered research network. I am the chief medical officer for the PCORI Initiative. This will allow us to reach a large population of patients, but the challenge, much as I said a second ago, is reaching those individuals that might not even use the Internet or the web that often. So we need to find ways to not only include the traditional MS patients we see in many of the tertiary centers but also to reach out to these communities. What we intend to do with this reaching out is to get patients involved in the PCORI Initiative as one of the main things that we do when we reach out to the community. That will allow them a forum for describing their experience and potentially getting further resources available to them.    MSDF If they are not presenting to healthcare facilities, how do you reach them? Do you go to schools and get parents of kids or churches, or where do you get the word out?   Dr. Kinkel One of the advantages that we have now when the law of the land is that everybody has healthcare insurance; is that we can actually track people. It is interesting. What happens in many communities is the physicians don't accept Medicaid for instance, some don't even accept Medicare. But what they do is they will accept this when patients are acutely admitted. The scenario that we hear over and over again is these patients go to a healthcare facility when there is some kind of an acute decline in function. They get taken care of. They have a diagnosis code of 340 for MS attached to them, but then they are discharged with no followup plans. They are actually not seen again until there is another acute decline in function. Well, we can identify them as soon as they are identified as a number 340. Once that is done, then we can reach them for these community outreach initiatives.   MSDF Is this purely for diagnosis and treatment or can you do this for research? Do you get information from this?   Dr. Kinkel What we do is we outreach to patients and provide education. We do not initiate a patient physician relationship without their approval. So you reach out to those individuals. There is no problem with that. They have to make the step of following through and initiating that kind of an interaction. They also have to make the step of deciding that they are willing to participate in something like the PCORI Initiative. All we can try to do is be as persuasive as we can and educate them about the benefits to both them as well as the greater society.    MSDF Do you find that there are people who don't even recognize a symptom? They just think their arm is numb because it must have been something they did at work and pass it off?   Dr. Kinkel Oh yeah. It is an interesting phenomenon especially when things have been going on for a long time. If an individual is born blind, they don't see being blind a problem. If for the greater part of their life they have noticed that they have numbness in their feet, sometimes they don't mention it, because they don't consider it a problem. We always find that when we are seeing patients for the first time, they will describe these vague neurological symptoms that go back for many years.    MSDF Tell me about the OPT-UP project?   Dr. Kinkel So the OPT-UP project is just a part of the normal evolution of the Accelerated Cure Project. The Accelerated Cure Project was developed to have a repository of well characterized patients with their biological samples for researchers around the country. We recognize that there were issues with the repository. We didn't have good longitudinal samples; we couldn't guarantee that we had samples on patients before and after they went on drugs so we could look at biological responses. So the OPT-UP study was to address that as well as the need to begin to create an environment where we were combining clinical and research activities to get more patients involved in research activities. By that I mean we know very little about long-term outcomes in MS. Part of this is because there is no coordinated manner to collect data longitudinally that is agreed upon between all of the clinicians that are caring for these patients. So we wanted to kind of operationalize that process so that we could follow these long-term outcomes and collect them. By doing so, we can answer a lot of questions that we have. For instance, in the near term with the OPT-UP study, since the only requirement for the study is that a person be initiating a drug, whether it be for the first time or for the tenth time, they are just initiating drug. One of the things that we will learn is; what are the reasons why people start drugs, what are the reasons why they stop drugs, what are the reasons why doctors are putting them on this drug or that drug. We know very little about that. What we really do know still is that a tremendous number of patients at least 50% discontinue a drug within two years of starting it. If we don't first know exactly why this behavior exists, it is hard to keep patients on therapies for a longer period of time, and to see which therapies are going to be most beneficial.    MSDF Will this go on indefinitely?   Dr. Kinkel It is a long-term study. The duration of a study is always dependent upon a number of factors; funding, interest, but yes we are building in a number of mechanisms that allow us to follow patients for a very long time in the study. Probably the key to this is a dedicated nurse research coordinator at each site that will be responsible for entering and following patients over a period of time. And when sites exceed a certain number of patients then they hire another one, because what we have discovered in the past from the many research studies that we do is there are competing interests. Whenever we try to continue to follow people for a long time, other interests win out. There is no one there to kind of encourage the patient to continue their participation. The studies that have been more successful – a long-term study like the Nurses' Health Study – they are able to do that primarily because they put the resources into ensuring that, that experience is meaningful for the patients and that they will want to continue to contribute that data.   MSDF Will this initiative also collect general health data knowing about comorbidities and be able to correlate those with the course of the disease?   Dr. Kinkel Yes absolutely. It is one of the main things that we want to do. In fact, one of the reasons why pretty much the only inclusion criteria is, that a person be starting a drug. Most Phase III studies exclude people when they have other health conditions. This is why there is so little external validity to these studies. The way we gain that validity is to encourage those patients who do not normally contribute to clinical research to participate in the study, either because they don’t want to, they can't get to the site, or because they are excluded by the exclusion criteria.   MSDF On these topics, is there anything important to add?   Dr. Kinkel I think the most important thing to add is that we are entering into an era…we are already in an era in which technology is rapidly transforming how we reach patients, and we need to kind of embrace it. I see that many of my colleagues are reluctant to. I see it in their unwillingness to embrace electronic medical records for instance. They see it as a burden.  And it is true; there is some burdensome aspects to it. I believe, however, in a world in which they have less time to spend individually with their patients in a clinic setting, in that kind of a world, they need to find other mechanisms to reach and meet those needs of their patients. One of the ways to do that is through these kinds of technologies. Using the website. I encourage them to send their patients to the healthcarejourney.com website for instance to get general information about MS so that they can reduce the burden on their own centers and their own staff with patients calling in with questions every other second.   MSDF Very good. I appreciate it.   Dr. Kinkel Thank you.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Sixteen 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]    

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller  Hello, and welcome to Episode Fifteen 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 Professor Ludwig Kappos about a recent head-to-head clinical trial of the experimental drug, daclizumab, versus interferon. But to begin, here's a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   We recently released a news synthesis by science writer, Carol Morton, that goes along with this podcast. The article is all about daclizumab, its history, and the recent results of the phase 3 clinical trial. The results of the clinical trial show that the drug is better than interferon at reducing disease activity in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Surprisingly, recent research suggests that daclizumab works by natural killer cells to target autologous T cells. It may also work in two more unusual ways—go to our website to read the whole story.   Antibodies to myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein—also known as MOG—may play a role in a subset of patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders according to several labs in Europe and Asia. At the ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS meeting in September, several of these labs presented data that showed patients who test positive for the MOG antibody had a very different clinical phenotype from the majority of NMOSD patients who have an antibody to a different protein, called aquaporin-4. The findings could mean that anti-MOG-positive patients represent a distinct disease subgroup.   Recently we’ve added quite a few items to our meetings and events page. From webinars to large annual meetings, there’s an event for everyone’s schedule in the remaining months of 2014 and well into the summer of 2015. Go to msdiscovery.org and click on the “professional resources” tab. From there, click on “meetings and events” to view all the items. And if you have a meeting you’d like us to list, please send the information to editor at msdiscovery.org. Hardly any meeting is too small. We’re even willing to list local departmental seminars.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Professor Ludwig Kappos is the chair of neurology at the Neuroscience Network at the University of Basel in Switzerland. He met with me at the 2014 international ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS meeting in Boston to discuss the findings of the phase 3 DECIDE trial of daclizumab versus interferon. Daclizumab is a monoclonal antibody against the alpha subunit of the interleukin-2 receptor.    Interviewer – Dan Keller Welcome, Professor Kappos. Let's talk about the study you're presenting here at ACTRIMS on daclizumab. What was the aim of the study?   Interviewee – Ludwig Kappos The aim of the study was to position this compound in relation to an established treatment with interferon and to see if these positive effects that had been observed in studies where it was used as an add-on to interferon or as compared to placebo if these also stand in comparison with interferon.    MSDF How did you go about it: methods, interventions, patient population?   Dr. Kappos It was double-dummy controlled, parallel group study lasting a minimum of two years per patient in a population of active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. And patients were randomized equally either to daclizumab once per month subcutaneous or to interferon beta-1a once a week intramuscularly and received dummy injections in order to keep the blind.    MSDF How did you decide on a once monthly dose for the daclizumab?   Dr. Kappos That was the result of previous studies where it had been shown that this once monthly dose is sufficient to achieve the effects that we expected to see.    MSDF Because it's a monoclonal it has a long pharmacokinetic profile. Is that right?   Dr. Kappos This is something that is shared also with other monoclonals. The advantage here is that you can apply it subcutaneously; they don't intravenous infusions like, for example, with natalizumab.   MSDF What did you find?   Dr. Kappos The primary outcome was reduction in relapse rate, and as compared to interferon beta-1a, it do add to a reduction that was close to 50%.    MSDF What about a proportion of patients experiencing relapse?   Dr. Kappos Again, there was a significant reduction, and the curves separated already after the first half year. So the effect was relatively early.    MSDF And what about some of the imaging? What did you find on MRI and how about patient disability?   Dr. Kappos Yeah again, as compared to interferon, it had a much more pronounced reduction of inflammatory activity, as depicted by T2 lesions or gadolinium-enhancing lesions in the scans during the study. And it also had an affect on T1 hypointense lesions that were reduced as compared to interferon. And interestingly enough, although it had a more pronounced antiinflammatory activity also in early and over the whole duration of the study, positive affect on brain volume loss.    MSDF It appears that in both groups about 30% of the people discontinued. Were there any differences in reasons or couldn't you discern that?   Dr. Kappos Overall there was a similar incidence of adverse events, but there were somewhat more serious adverse events and adverse events as a reason for discontinuation. This was mainly related to cutaneous side effects; so rashes itching that in some cases needed discontinuation, in others could be treated sufficiently with ongoing medication or resume medication with steroids.   MSDF This was not just local infusion reactions but more generalized skin reaction?   Dr. Kappos They were independent of the injection site; so they did not occur at the site of injection but in other parts of the body.   MSDF Is there an explanation in terms of IL-2 for that, or was it just sort of idiopathic?   Dr. Kappos Of course, you would expect that this regulation of the immune system has this effect perhaps in the interaction of innate and adaptive immune system, but it's not yet clear what it means. The fact is that we didn't see other autoimmune diseases of relevance, only of increased incidence, and therefore it must be something unique to the skin. And fortunately, it's usually quite well manageable.    MSDF Is there a role for biomarkers? Can you discern anything here where it would indicate that you should use one drug versus another? Does daclizumab have anything unique about it that you can follow?    Dr. Kappos In the previous studies, we had had the observation that a certain subpopulation of immune cells – the so called CD56bright natural killer cells – are increased after initiation of treatment in those patients who seem to respond better to the drug. In this study, this response was seen in nearly all patients, and therefore it doesn't seem to differentiate good responders from perhaps not optimal responders. We have not finished the evaluation, and there were a series of biomarkers that had been evaluated during this trial. So I hope that we still will be able to find something.   MSDF In the oncology arena, sometimes adverse effects actually correlate with good efficacy. Did you see anything like that here?   Dr. Kappos No, there was no increased efficacy in those with cutaneous reactions, and otherwise the drug did not create problems. So you would not expect on a regular basis to experience adverse events. It's a different case than, for example, as compared to interferons where you have a very high frequency of flu-like symptoms. This is not the case here. So usually you would not realize, except for the injection that happens, that you take the drug.    MSDF Would there be any use to having a combination arm in a trial like this – interferon plus daclizumab?   Dr. Kappos The first studies had been as an add-on to interferon and have shown an effect as compared to interferon without this add-on, without daclizumab. At the moment, yes, it would be something that could be followed, but I don't really see what the ideal combination would be and then not really the necessity for this drug in contrast to other drugs that have similar or lower grades of efficacy.   MSDF I know it wasn't included in this trial, but can you compare the efficacy of daclizumab with anything currently available that people use?   Dr. Kappos I think it's very difficult to tell because it's always a problem to compare across studies because of different methodology; even the selection criteria formally are very similar may result in different populations of patients. So I would say from the grade of efficacy that was achieved it is certainly at least at the level of fingolimod or dimethyl fumarate. How it relates to natalizumab; if it could be used in patients who stopped natalizumab? These are questions that will have to be explored in the future.   MSDF Will you follow these patients further to see if there are any late effects either positive or negative?   Dr. Kappos Yes, most of them are in the extension studies and had the option to continue with open-label daclizumab. I think it's approximately 80% or more of the patients who decided to continue in this followup, and we will have a long-term followup for another four or five years.   MSDF From all of what you've said, what you make of this in terms of clinical significance, in terms of the future of this compound?   Dr. Kappos Well I think that it deserves to be approved and also to be one of the available options that we will have in the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. If it has also an effect on progressive disease is something that my personally would be interested to know more about.   MSDF  Is there anything important to add that we haven't discussed?   Dr. Kappos The data now are consistent with a good data that were derived from the placebo controlled SELECT trial. And we have to take into account that they are against one established drug with approved efficacy. So it's more than that, and that's, of course, encouraging.    MSDF I suppose anything that gets you away from the side effects of interferon are a good thing.   Dr. Kappos Yes, anyway, of course, most other drugs that get you away from the side effects of interferons. But it seems, except for these cutaneous, manageable side effects, it seems also to be well tolerated. So a drug that could be used with a low threshold.    MSDF Is there tachyphylaxis? Does that side effect go away, or you just have to keep treating it the cutaneous?   Dr. Kappos It was different. It seems to be the case that if we had treated initially with steroids and then do not wait too long then it recovers, and then you can also resume treatment, or you can continue treatment. But there are the cases where we didn't continue treatment and then it result, but we didn't start again.   MSDF Very good. I appreciate it, thank you.   Dr. Kappos Thank you.   [transition music]   MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Fifteen 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]          

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Fourteen of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.   This week’s podcast features part two of an interview with Professor Gavin Giovannoni about the role of Epstein-Barr virus in MS. But to begin, here is a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   We've published a blog post from Christine Granfield, the founder of HealthCare Journey. Healthcarejourney.org is a website designed to help MS patients easily navigate the expanse of information about MS. In the blog post, Ms. Granfield says that HealthCare Journey is not meant to replace the doctor-patient relationship but instead provide a place where patients can find answers to questions with accurate, up-to-date information when their physician might not be available.   We published another blog post written by our intern, Cynthia McKelvey, on how to interact with the news media. News about science is often sensationalized and over simplified. But that’s all the more reason for researchers and clinicians to be media-friendly. In her post, Cynthia offers 13 tips on how to talk to reporters so you can be sure the best and most accurate information gets to the public.   Last week we interviewed Dr. Alan Thompson of the International Progressive MS Alliance about the difficulties of researching progressive MS. We published more information on the Alliance, its goals, and a full list of the 22 recipients for their first round of funding, totaling 22 million euros. To view the article, visit msdiscovery.org and visit our News Briefs section under the News and Future Directions tab.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Professor Gavin Giovannoni from Queen Mary University in London is one of the worlds most prolific and most visible MS researchers and clinicians. He's also on the scientific advisory board for MSDF. Two weeks ago we featured the first part of my interview with him about the potential for a cure in MS. This week we’re going to discuss the roll of EBV in MS.   Interviewer – Dan Keller Professor Giovannoni, where does it come in? How has it entered the thinking?   Interviewee – Gavin Giovannoni We have a causal theory. We don't just switch on a light switch, and we've got a call that said it evolves over time. And if there's one particular thing that looks like it's got the top candidate for being a cause of MS is Epstein-Barr virus. And I think the original observation is epidemiological. People with infectious mononucleosis, which is delayed EBV infection that is symptomatic, have a higher risk of developing MS, and that's been reproduced now across many, many studies as a risk factor. But EBV infection in itself is a risk factor because if you're not infected with the virus, in other words people who don't have the virus, have a very, very low risk…it's almost a zero risk of getting the disease. So in terms of its negative predictive value – that's the strongest value we have – people don't get MS if they don't have EBV. So it looks like it’s an essential component of the causal pathway. How it's acting in the causal pathway? We don't have any idea. We just do know that if you do get EBV infection or infectious mono it's a risk factor throughout life. So in the Danish study, it shows the risk remains even when you go into your 40s, 50s, and 60s, which is interesting.   And EBV is a complex biology. We don't know where it's acting. We know it resides as a latent infection in the B cell. And what it's doing to B-cell biology is incredibly complicated. It hijacks B-cell biology, and it affects its antigen-presenting function, it affects its survival, etc. So people are targeting the B cell; I think the B cell is important. And the reason why I think the B cell is important when you look at all the most effective therapies in MS, when you put them on a chart with all the cells they affect, the only common cell to all of them is the B cell. And the link that the B cell may be the Epstein-Barr virus. And how EBV triggers autoimmunity haven't a clue. We originally thought well maybe the link between infectious mono and MS was related to HLA susceptibility. But we did a study on university students in the UK, and we showed that the HLA type that predisposes you to infectious mono is not the HLA type that predisposes you to MS. So we don't think it's at the HLA level that EBV is interacting with MS susceptibility; it's somewhere else.   The other risk factors are smoking. And when you start putting smoking and EBV and low vitamin D, which is the other environmental factor, together it looks like there's some interaction of all three components. But how they're working at a biological level that's where research needs to be done. So some people are … I think there's mimicry between EBV and myelin proteins, and there is some data that there are some antigenic epitopes in the EBV proteins and [?] antigens, which is why a lot of people are focused on CD4 cells as being the link. I'm not sure if it is the CD4. Others are focused on the CD8 cells as being the link. Michael Pender in Brisbane, Australia, thinks that Epstein-Barr virus is acting as the innate stimulus, the danger signal, that just upregulates innate immunity that then allows autoimmune responses to occur on top of that. And he thinks that's occurring in the central nervous system. That's his theory. And he thinks that people with multiple sclerosis have a deficiency of cytotoxic CD8 cells that keep the EBV virus in check. So he's now testing the strategy of trying to boost the CD8 response against EBV and kill the Epstein-Barr virus to lower the innate activation and reduce autoimmunity. That's his theory.   I wish I could tell him my theory. All I know is that the epidemiological observations are pretty standing. And you know, we probably should be doing a vaccine trial to test the hypothesis. There is a vaccine for EBV, but it's been discontinued. So GSK developed the vaccine. It wasn't that effective in stopping EBV infection, but it was very effective in preventing infectious mono. So what it did was it raised your immunity to a level that stopped you getting infectious mono, and that may be enough for MS prevention. You know, when they sold the EBV vaccine program to MedImmune, and I heard about six months ago that maybe they had stopped the program. There is no EBV vaccine program occurring in the pharmaceutical arena. There's been a recent meeting in Oxford around Epstein's anniversary because it's 50 years since he discovered the virus. And the, Harold Varmus was there, and there's a big push now for the NIH to fund a vaccine study – interesting not to prevent MS but to prevent the secondary malignancies linked to EBV. Because EBV is linked to a whole lot of hematological malignancies. So the idea there would be if you could prevent people getting Epstein-Barr you prevent a whole lot of lymphomas particularly. I'm personally a little worried about that strategy because EBV is one of our most co-evolved viruses. At a population level, it's part of our immune systems. So I actually think at a population level EBV must be doing something good for society and the population. I think it may be a link to B-cell memory or something like that.   So if we stop people getting EBV, we may be storing our problems at a population level. But until we do the trials we won't know. So we need a vaccine, and that's the way to test is EBV causal? Coming away from it, it may just be the trigger, or it may be driving the disease continuous. If that's the case, then we need to have anti-EBV drugs. And there is one being tried right now; it's called ocrelizumab. It's an anti-CD20 drug. Itself hasn't been tested as an anti-EBV drug, its predecessor, which is rituximab, is licensed as an anti-EBV. It's actually the only drug that's licensed to treat EBV. It's licensed to treat EBV associated lymphoproliferative disease, which occurs in transplant patients. It's pretty effective at switching off on that condition, and the EBV levels just plummet. A company that's developing ocrelizumab, which is Genentech Roche, wouldn’t like for me to say that it's an anti-EBV drug, but that's exactly how it may be working in MS; it may be targeting EBV. The obvious thing is to test antivirals that target EBV. There are no specific ones that have been designed for EBV, but we've got a particular drug that we would love to test against EBV because it has some activity. Trying to get the funders convinced that we should do a trial of an anti-EBV drug in MS has been difficult. I think we shouldn't ignore the EBV hypothesis, though, because the data out there is pretty compelling that it's causal. And as a community, I think we have a responsibility to test whether or not it is causal. And the only way we can do that is intervention studies – vaccines and targeting the virus with antibiotics.   MSDF It seems the geographic distribution of MS may actually be opposite say the distribution of Burkitt’s lymphoma. And what is EBV doing and how does it do it in different regions? And I wonder if that brings in the vitamin D hypothesis again.   Dr. Giovannoni MS prevalence pretty much matches infectious mono prevalence. So infectious mono has also got a gradient. The Burkitt's lymphoma thing probably that follows patterns of parasitic infection, particularly in malaria. So I think EBV probably interacts with other infectious agents, and that's one of the theories about EBV; it's not working on its own; it's working as a coinfection with another virus. The other virus that we need to talk about are the family of the HERVs, human endogenous retroviruses. Because the EBV is a potent transactivator of these viruses. In the big body of literature on HERVs being involved in MS, a lot of us think it's associative. In other words, inflammatory response triggers transactivation of HERVs in what we see as an epiphenomenon. But there are people who think it may be linked to the cause of the disease. Again the only way we can test this hypothesis is by treating people with drugs that target EBV and HERVs. Because HERVs are drugable; they are retroviruses, and you've got a whole arsenal of therapy that could target the various components of HERV biology. We should be doing trials in that as well.   Coming back to the vitamin D, there has been one small study that needs to be reproduced showing that if you do get EBV infection when your vitamin D levels are low your antibody responses are much more marked. And so there may be some link between low vitamin D and infection, but nobody has actually studied that formally, and I think it's something we tried to do with our epidemiological tools to see vitamin D deficiency or low levels makes it more likely that you're going to get infectious mono, that maybe they are interacting with each other. I don't think it's going to be as simple as that, though, to be honest with you. I think they're probably going to be working in an immunological level. I'm not sure if they're going to be causal; I think they may be associated with each other. EBV triggers a mess of lymphoid proliferation, which consumes vitamin D levels. So if you find someone with infectious mono and they have low D levels, it could be the infectious mono is reverse causation rather than the other way of causation. So we need to do that prospectively, and it's a difficult study to do.   But I think also the other thing you've got to look at is when they're starting to put all of these risk factors together in studies, and this has been mainly been done in the Scandinavian databases – and you start putting the HLA-DR15 in, the protective HLA-A2 in, the history of infectious mono, serum levels of anti-EBV antibodies, put smoking in, start putting vitamin D levels in – you're beginning to see relative up about 40. So that's a big signal to me because the doyen of causation theory, Bradford Hill, said that when you start getting relative risks above 40 that you should be thinking causation. So I'm beginning to see a causal pathway where all of these factors now are giving relative risks that are very high compared to the background population. And so, those factors must all be in the causal pathway. And the question is which one can you intervene in? And there's a few you can intervene in. But EBV is the obvious one. If you take it out of the causal pathway, you may be able to prevent this disease.   So I'm lobbying – and whole lot of us are lobbying – that we really need to get the public health community and the MS community and the virology community together so we can start thinking about prevention trials. Around about 5 to 10% of the adult population are EBV negative. But that group of people don't get MS. So that's the important factor is those people don’t get MS.   MSDF But the flip side is 90% of the population has been exposed to EBV, and most of those people don't get MS. So do you think it's all of these other cofactors you've mentioned? Whereas EBV sort of lights the fire if the fuel is there?   Dr. Giovannoni Yes, I think that's true. And Bradford Hill, I mean he developed his theory for causation around common manifestations or re-exposures. Like asbestosis is one of the examples he always used that if you had asbestosis, which is quite of a rare exposure, the chances of getting mesothelioma, which is a rare cancer, was almost 200 times background. So that's easy to understand. But EBV is such a common exposure, and MS is a relatively rare manifestation. So in that situation, the relative risks come down. So even though the relative risk of getting MS is only about 2.2 to 2.5 with infectious mono, it doesn't mean to say it's not causal. It could still be causal. So I'm not worried that the relative risks are low. But I agree with if it's EBV infection on top of something else the genetic susceptibility, the low vitamin D, or all those other factors that then triggers the autoimmune response.   But if EBV is a pivotal factor and you stop it, those other factors are irrelevant. That's why we need to do prevention studies. We need the vaccine, though. The original vaccine strategy was developed to prevent EBV completely; that's in terms of oncoprevention. But in terms of MS and autoimmunity, you may not have to prevent Epstein-Barr virus. Maybe what you need is to make sure you're vitamin D replete and get wild-type infection when you're very young. That may be sufficient to lower the risk of MS. You may not necessarily need a lifelong protective immunity against Epstein-Barr, but maybe you just need to be infected at a young age when your immune system can deal with it. It doesn't fertilize the field for autoimmunity later on in life; that may be the strategy.   MSDF Does it get into the possibility of tolerance?   Dr. Giovannoni Yes.   MSDF To EBV?   Dr. Giovannoni If we knew about the biology of EBV, I mean I'm not a virologist. And when I delve into the complex biology of Epstein-Barr virus, how it's fooling the B cell into surviving longer and bypasses B-cell signaling pathways, it's a credibly cleaver virus. And there's a lot of biology there that needs to be picked apart in the MS field. So there may be pathways in the EBV biological pathway that could be targeted rather than just targeting the virus itself. So I think there's lots of research to be done. This is why we, as an MS community, really need to bring virologists into the community as much as possible. And at the moment, that doesn't seem to be happening a lot. There's very few virologists interested in MS. You can count them on one hand to be honest with you that are really interested in MS. Most virologists are working on other diseases. And when you go to them, it's hard to get them interested in MS because MS is something on the periphery of their thought. They're usually targeting obviously infectious diseases. But most of the EBV virologists are working in oncology, lymphomas.   MSDF Very good. Thank you.   [transition music]   MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Fourteen 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]          

[intro music]   Hello, and welcome to Episode Thirteen 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. Alan Thompson about the International Progressive MS Alliance, a new collaborative effort to unravel the mysteries of progressive MS. But to begin, here is a brief summary of our time at the ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting in Boston.   The M-S-D-F editorial staff was in full force at MS Boston 2014. We were everywhere covering talks and poster sessions, tweeting up a storm. We live-tweeted the Plenary sessions and most of the talks. If you missed the, or just want to relive the highlights, you can see a roundup of all the best tweets from MS Boston 2014 at our blog on msdiscovery dot o-r-g.   At the meeting we recorded several interviews for future Multiple Sclerosis Discovery podcasts. We’re excited to bring you interviews with researchers, [Dan, name three people you interviewed], and more over the coming weeks and months.   Our parent organization, the Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis –ACP--, also had a booth at the meeting. We really enjoyed meeting many of M-S-D-F’s readers and listeners and telling them more about our organization and our projects. In addition to MSDF, ACP manages a repository of almost 3,000 biological samples from people with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and other demyelinating diseases, their affected and unaffected relatives, and unaffected, unrelated matched controls. We provide the samples to researchers quickly and at minimal cost. ACP has received funding for a patient-powered research network for multiple sclerosis. We will soon debut the network’s web portal, called iConquerMS. We were especially delighted to announce initial funding from EMD Serono for OPT-UP – which stands for optimizing treatment, understanding progression -- a longitudinal study of 2,000 people with MS. If you missed us, visit accelearatedcure dot o-r-g for more information.   [transition music] Now to the interview. Dr. Alan Thompson is the chair of the scientific steering committee of the International Progressive MS Alliance. At the ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting, the Alliance announced their 22 first-round grant recipients. Dr. Thompson met with science writer Cynthia McKelvey to discuss the challenges in researching progressive MS. Interviewer – Cynthia McKelvey What is the goal of the Progressive MS Alliance?   Interviewee – Dr. Alan Thompson The goal is very simple; it’s to find treatments for progressive MS, probably the most important thing we have to do in the field of MS now.   MSDF We’re at the ACTRIMS and ECTRIMS meeting in Boston, and tomorrow you’re going to announce the first round of grant recipients. What were you trying to accomplish with this first round?   Dr. Thompson Well this, the RFA one as we call it, was really to stimulate interest in progressive MS; so to encourage as many people around the world to put in applications for these relatively small awards – they’re 75,000 Euros – but it was really to stimulate interest. And it certainly succeeded in doing that in that we had 195 applicants, perhaps double of what we thought. And I think what’s also quite unique about this is this is an international initiative, so the review of these awards was done internationally and agreed by this panel, so that they’ll be announced tomorrow. We were initially hoping we would have 15 awards, but we’ve been able to make 22 awards because of A, the quality of the applications, but also the willingness of the executive committee to actually go a little bit further.   MSDF With this first round in terms of the research, what do you hope to accomplish to eliminate some of the mysteries in progressive MS?   Dr. Thompson We’ve identified a number of areas that we feel are absolutely critical if we’re going to actually identify new treatments. The first is around mechanisms underlying progression and thereby identifying potential targets for treatment. Then, of course, there’s the whole issue of biomarkers and evaluating the effect of treatments, setting up new trials in progressive MS. And the other area is around rehabilitation and symptomatic management, which is really critical for people with progressive MS.   And if you look at the range of awards that we’re making, they actually hit all of these areas. So there’s a couple of awards in each one, which is really very reassuring. I mean, I think the hope will be that these could also be the beginning of the major network awards that we’re moving on to in the next phase.   MSDF And my understanding is that in progressive MS, there’s a lot of issues just in doing basic research, and even in moving onto clinical trials. What are some of those issues and how do you propose that research can overcome them?   Dr. Thompson Well, if we look at two areas, I suppose, the first is understanding the basic mechanisms, and what does progression mean, what’s actually happening? Is it driven by inflammation, is it purely neurodegenerative, what’s the combination of those, are there other cells involved like microglia or astrocytes? So there are big questions around mechanisms, which are essential if you’re going to target treatments. And driving that research forward will help us to define new targets. That’s part of the story.   The other large area is then, well, how do you measure effect? And progression goes on over many, many years, it is predominantly neurodegenerative so we need to think about different biomarkers; markers of tissue loss or tissue destruction rather than of inflammation, which is, in many ways, much easier and which we’ve been able to apply in relapsing-remitting MS. So that needs to be resolved. And there’s a lot of imaging work going on, and, indeed, other CSF biomarkers being looked at which might help us in that field.   And then going on to trials themselves. The current approach to trials is very lengthy, very costly, and not very innovative. And we need to think about news ways of looking at a number of different agents at the same time. And there are already examples, both in Europe and in the United States, where we’re starting to do that. So these are all areas where there’s movement. And I suppose what the Alliance has tried to do is really drive that, focus it and drive it forward in a true collaboration.   MSDF So there aren’t currently, at least in the US, any FDA-approved treatments for progressive MS. What specific types of treatments are you focusing on that you think will be most promising?   Dr. Thompson The treatments we have at the moment which we are you using in relapsing-remitting MS are fundamentally around suppressing inflammation, and that does not appear to be sufficient to have an effect on progression, and that’s probably not surprising. So I think the kind of approaches that we need to take with progression is around neuroprotection and also around repair. And these are more challenging; these are more challenging from a neuroscientific point of view, but also more challenging clinically. But that’s where we would expect the new trials to come out of those areas, particularly around neuroprotection.   MSDF Why is it challenging to study that scientifically?   Dr. Thompson Well, because neuroprotection is a concept at repair that we’re thinking about, not just for MS but for a whole range of neurological conditions, including Alzheimer’s, a motor neuron disease. And it’s challenging because you have to understand the underlying mechanisms and then you have to understand how your intervention is going to alter those. And that’s really getting to the heart of some of the most difficult questions in neuroscience.   MSDF It’s also my understanding that even just confirming that any of these drugs actually work in people is another challenge.   Dr. Thompson Yes. I mean, I think confirmation requires, first of all, a really reliable surrogate marker, but it also requires a clinical measure. And when you’re looking at a process which goes on over 30 years, trying to get a snapshot in two or three years is very difficult. And the clinical measures we have in MS are not very sensitive to change, and so there’s another major initiative called MOSAIC which is actually looking at trying to develop more sensitive measures that we could then apply in trials for progressive MS.   MSDF What is the future for the Progressive MS Alliance? How do you propose to go from this first round of grants towards a cure?   Dr. Thompson The Alliance is a new concept, and the idea of everybody working together internationally to solve a really difficult problem is very exciting. The RFA-1 was encouraging because there was so much interest. So it’s quite clear that in every country from North America to Australia, Europe, Asia, everybody feels this is the key question. So what I would like to see happening is we moving from these smaller grants to this international network of grants. So the RFA-2 will require major centers to come together to address very specific questions. Collaboration is the key for difficult questions, so I think this is the right approach.   We’re planning RFA-2 to be very iterative with the scientific steering committee so we can really try and get the very best out of it. This has to be transformational. If RFA-2 is successful and we’re putting three or four major pieces of research forward that will be costing between 4 and 5 million Euros, then we might think about building on that and becoming even more ambitious, drawing in even more resources internationally. And then perhaps – and hopefully – and the final aim, coming up with a treatment for progressive MS. [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Thirteen 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]        

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Twelve 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 Professor Gavin Giovannoni about the potential for finding a cure for MS. But to begin, here’s a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   Monocytes and microglia are hard to tell apart and as a result, their roles are poorly understood in MS. But we recently covered a paper that demonstrated separate roles for these macrophages in EAE. Using fluorescent tags, the researchers were able to determine that monocytes were directly attacking the myelin. Meanwhile, microglia arrived to the same area of myelin attack only to be shut down. The paper has major implications for future methods in studying MS as well as for the mechanisms of the disease itself.   We published another data visualization recently, titled the “MS Galaxy.” The visualization shows 250 authors of phase 3 clinical trials in MS, and how they are connected to each other. You can explore the galaxy by visiting msdiscovery.org and visiting the data visualizations section under the “research resources” tab.   Additionally, we published a different sort of visualization. This one is an animated video that synthesizes the current understanding of MS immunopathogenesis. Often in presentations, immunologists will toss up a confusing slide covered in shapes, arrows, and acronyms. ACTRIMS’ president, Dr. Suhayl Dhib-Jalbut, has taken that slide and broken it down into its component parts. It’s a wonderfully illuminating experience to listen to him go through the slide step-by-step. MSDF worked in collaboration with Dr. Dhib-Jalbut to make the video. You can view it in the data visualizations section of our website.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Professor Gavin Giovannoni from Queen Mary University in London is one of the world’s most prolific and most visible MS researchers and clinicians. He is also on the scientific advisory board of MSDF. I met with him at the university to discuss the potential of a cure for MS. This is part one of the interview. Next week’s podcast will feature part two, in which Professor G, as he’s known, discusses the role of Epstein-Barr virus in MS.   Interviewer – Dan Keller Professor Giovannoni, let’s talk about the possibility of cure of MS. I suppose the first question would be what would you define as a cure?   Interviewee – Gavin Giovannoni Because MS is considered to be an autoimmune disease, we should really be able to destroy the autoimmunity by replacing the immune system, or rebooting the immune system, that’s the concept. And there are certain drugs that do that. Obviously, the most aggressive would be bone marrow transplantation, this autologous bone marrow transplantation. And the other one is a recent drug we’ve been using, alemtuzumab, which is a drug that targets leukocytes and depletes them and allows the immune system to repopulate, and when repopulated comes back clearly in a different way. And hopefully those two strategies will remove the autoimmunity. And those two strategies are very effective.   A significant proportion of the people who are treated with bone marrow transplantation or alemtuzumab go into long-term remission; I’m talking about remission 10, 12, 15 years in some of these patients. And if you follow these people up, there’s no evidence of inflammatory activity, so they don’t have relapses. And you monitor their MRI scans, you don’t see any new lesions; the lesions that are there are stable, scarred lesions. And also if you monitor the end-organ brain atrophy rates are not accelerated, their brains are shrinking in the same range as in normal aging. You know, looking at it at a superficial level, we can’t find any evidence of active MS.   Now the question is are those people just in long-term remission or are they cured? And so the definition of a cure then is how long would you follow these people up and say, alright, your MS has gone away. We’ve been debating this in the field for a while. And we think a reasonable definition would be 15 years after they’ve had the treatment, and that would give us sufficient time to study a population and compare them to what we would expect to happen in a natural history study or other treatments. And it’s looking like a significant number of these people are staying in long, long-term remission. So I’m hoping that a portion of them will be cured of the disease.   MSDF Now these are autologous bone marrow transplants?   Dr. Giovannoni Yes.   MSDF So what would prevent them from re-reacting to whatever caused their problem in the first place? I can see allogeneic transplant, you would have a sort of non-susceptible population of cells.   Dr. Giovannoni Yes. I mean, we don’t really know the pathogenesis of autoimmunity in the sense where’s it driven from. I mean, there’s lots of epidemiological evidence in the MS field it probably starts in utero, actually. There’s evidence for parental origin, and migration studies, and monthly birth defect, etc., to suggest that something’s happening in utero. And there’s probably something happening in early life that imprints the autoimmune phenotype or the susceptibility to get autoimmunity. And then, obviously, there’s some trigger that occurs that happens later in life. And I would imagine that that rebooted immune system that we say the autoimmunity is gone would probably still be susceptible because you’re repopulating from a susceptible background, but maybe that trigger won’t come again.   I mean, one of the things people have got to realize is we’re not trying to say this is a cure in everybody who gets this treatment, it’ll only be a proportion of people, and those are the people who don’t reactivate. I mean, we need to learn a lesson is what’s triggering their reactivations if they’ve been in long-term remission. Is it an environmental agent, infection, or something like that? So I wish one knew where the autoimmunity is being triggered from, we don’t know.   MSDF What sort of experiments are going on now? Is this just registries, or do you have multiple strategies? It seems like you have to do very, very long-term follow-up.   Dr. Giovannoni Alemtuzumab was developed in Cambridge and they’ve been using the drug now since 1992, and they’ve got an open-label extension study that they’ve been following up, and they’ve just published a 12-year follow-up data about a month ago in the JNNP. And of that open-label study, about just over 50% of the population are stable. Then there’s obviously the clinical trial programs, and there have been relatively large phase 2 and two phase 3, and those have all gone into open-label extension and those people will be followed up indefinitely, and we’ll probably get data from that.   The bone marrow transplant, it’s a little bit more complicated because most of the development has been done by academic units, so there are registers. And there is a larger phase 3-type study happening in the US at the moment. The registers follow these patients up long-term, so we’ll see what happens. But the cohorts that have been treated early with the disease are doing extremely well. The majority of them, provided they get through the bone marrow transplant, their disease goes into remission and their brain atrophy rates after year 1 are within the normal range, no relapses at MRI, no new MRI activity. So it’s looking very promising.   The problem with bone marrow transplants, it’s quite a risky procedure. For some people it’s a risky procedure, for others it’s not, which is one of the things we find out. If you go to the community and you ask people with MS, when you say to them your chances of dying from the procedure – because in very good bone marrow transplant units now, the mortality rates are between 0.5 and 1% – a lot of people with MS will take those risks. I mean, it’s up to them, they’ve got the disease. The difficulty we have is which patients do you offer those aggressive therapies to.   MSDF Does the feasibility of bone marrow transplantation go down with age?   Dr. Giovannoni I mean, if you train in MS is that all these therapies really work early in the disease. I think the reason for that is the longer you’ve got MS, the more damage is left behind, and that primes that nervous system to degenerate. So when they’ve used bone marrow transplantation in secondary progressive disease and people have really got quite a lot of disability, the induction part of the chemotherapy – the chemotherapy itself is neurotoxic, so they tolerate the induction therapy very poorly. And although the bone marrow transplant switches off the inflammatory component of the MS, that damaged central nervous system is still there and they continue to progress. We think they may progress at a slower rate, we don’t know that, so it doesn’t really stop the secondary progressive phase of the disease when it’s been used in that, which is why most people who do bone marrow transplant now are shifting towards early MS when there’s much more to protect.   And the other issue is there’s a big theory evolving in the MS field that a part of the progressive phase of the illness is premature aging. I’m not talking about premature aging across the whole body, but premature aging within the central nervous system. We know now that any inflammatory or chronic inflammation triggers aging pathways, and that may just drive some part of the progressive component to the disease. And if that’s the case, then we’re not going to be able to modify with anti-inflammatory therapies the strategies that target aging.   MSDF Is this total bone marrow ablation as you would do in any other transplant for curative purposes in oncology, or is it something less than that?   Dr. Giovannoni Well, it depends who you speak to. I went into detail with this in terms of wanting to set up a bone marrow transplant program here about 15 years ago, and I opted out because the risks then were too high. So some people say you really need myeloablative therapy and some people say you don’t need as much as myeloablative; less, you know, these partially ablative ones. So there’s two schools of thought; some want to go for the aggressive and some go for the less aggressive. The Canadian group have used really aggressive induction therapy with myeloablative therapy, and they had, unfortunately, one death and some serious toxicity. So there again is a tradeoff between which one you go for, and I think the results will show over time.   To be honest with you, now that we’ve got alemtuzumab which is a licensed therapy, it’s going to be hard to justify using bone marrow transplant when we’ve got a less toxic monoclonal antibody available. It’s also got safety issues, but I think those safety issues are manageable with monitoring. So I think it’s going to be very hard in the current climate to justify bone marrow transplantation when you have alemtuzumab as a licensed drug.   MSDF Is chemotherapy in itself a reasonable treatment?   Dr. Giovannoni They’ve been tried in the past. I mean, the mistakes we made would say cyclophosphamide, which is an alkylating agent, is that when the trials were done we did them in an era when we didn’t know how to do MS trials. So they were done prior to MRI monitoring, they tended to be doing advanced MS, and the trials were underpowered. I think if we had to do cyclophosphamide in the modern era, we would have done the trials differently, and I’m almost certain they would be effective. We have mitoxantrone which is a chemotherapy agent; that’s got a license in quite a few countries. It’s unfortunately a topoisomerase inhibitor and it’s associated with translocations and causes leukemia. And that’s pretty common actually. The registries that have been tracking are reporting the incidence of mitoxantrone-related leukemia at about 1:150 to 1:200, and I think that itself takes that drug out of practice, to be honest with you. And it also is dose-related treatment; you can only give it for a certain number of infusions because it causes a cardiomyopathy, and it’s also linked to premature ovarian failure. There’s a lot of the issues about using that drug in clinical practice, and most centers now have stopped using mitoxantrone.   MSDF Does this lead into the idea of aborting MS so you don’t get into a progressive phase, all these strategies?   Dr. Giovannoni Yes. We all talk about secondary progressive disease. I’ve stopped using the term secondary progressive disease in isolation. I say clinically progressive disease because the progressive phase of this illness is present from the very beginning of this disease. So when people present with their very first clinical attack, a significant number then will already have had brain atrophy and cognitive impairment. And if you monitor people at every stage of the disease, there’s this progressive brain atrophy occurring. So we think the pathological substrate for progression is there from the outset.   What makes somebody transition into the progressive stage clinically is when the brain reserve runs out. So what stops the progressive phase manifesting is the fact that we’ve got reserve capacity and we compensate. And once that’s run out, people enter the clinically progressive phase of the disease. So I talk about progression being there from the outset; at some point in time you’ll present with secondary progressive MS, and I think it’s system-related.   This is one of the other concepts I’m trying to get across is that progressive disease is not just progressive disease. I mean, most people present initially with the motor system and the lower limbs or their bladder involvement, and then it gradually spreads to their arms, their cerebellar systems, etc. I call it asynchronous progressive disease, and I do this because I really want to give people with progressive MS hope that if you’ve got progression in one pathway, we may be able to treat you and prevent it from becoming clinically progressive in the other pathways.   So this is where we need to rethink our trials, because all of our outcome measures in clinical trials are based purely on lower limb function and mobility. If we wait for people to become progressive in that system, then use that system as a readout, we might miss an important therapy. So what we probably should do is say, well that system’s in the progressive phase, let’s focus on preventing the other systems from entering the progressive phase, those systems that have got reserve capacity. If we change our thinking like that, we’ve got a much greater chance of getting a drug licensed for progressive disease than we have at the moment.   MSDF Because you can choose various endpoints to look at and show that it’s having some effect somewhere?   Dr. Giovannoni Yes. The idea would be to stop or prevent people entering the progressive phase in the other systems. Once somebody’s in the clinically progressive phase in a particular neuronal system, it means that they’ve lost reserve capacity. And that reserve capacity is what predicts recovery. So somebody who is really progressing along that pathway is extremely vulnerable and probably prime to continue to progress. That’s going to be very difficult to show an effect in that pathway. And that’s what we’re doing right now. We’re saying let’s take people with progressive MS that are having walking difficulties, let’s put them in a trial and try and slow down that walking problem. And I think that’s the wrong strategy. I think we should be changing our way we do trials.   MSDF My impression has been that when someone enters the secondary progressive phase, there seems to be an acceleration. But from what you say about loss of reserve leading to progression, it sounds like it’s just the same slope but without the remissions.   Dr. Giovannoni Yes. We think the mechanisms are different though. There is some evidence what I call a therapeutic lag. This is complicated. Let me explain what a therapeutic lag is. When you’re in the progressive phase of the disease, we think the progression that’s occurring this year or next year has been primed by inflammation that’s occurred over the two years. So there’s a lag between the inflammatory component which damages those nerve fibers, and then they dive over the next few years. It probably damages them and they’re probably surviving and functioning but compromised, and that process then runs its course.   So I think what we really need to do is if we do clinical trials and switch off inflammation now, you’re not going to see an effect of an anti-inflammatory drug in the next two years, we have to look in year three, four, and five. And there is data now from extension studies supporting this. So I actually think we also need to change our trial design in progressive MS if you’re going to look at a progressing pathway; not to look in two years, we’ll be looking at year three, four, and five.   The current crop of trials are kind of doing that. What they’ve done is instead of having a fixed time point of two years, most of them are event-driven, so when they have enough events they will stop the trial. And the event-driven trials looks like they’re taking the follow-up into year three and sometimes year four. So we may get enough power to see if that works in the current crop of trials in progressive MS. But I really do think that we need to go to probably five years in progressive MS trials to get a readout that we can trust, based on our understanding of the progression of the disease.   MSDF So can you enumerate or summarize what you think trials should look like? What one would choose as endpoints, definitions, anything else that would be different from how they’re doing it today?   Dr. Giovannoni Yes. So if we’re going to continue to use the gold standard, which is EDSS, this expanded disability status goal which has a lot of psychometric problems – it’s got a flawed seeding effect, it’s not linear, it’s got a high inter-rater. . – with all those problems, we’ve still got this damn gold standard, EDSS. If we’re going to use the EDSS and we’re going to focus on mobility, then we’re going to have to do 5-year trials. And know that there’s a therapeutic lag, forget about expecting to see a result in year two and look at year three, four, and five. In addition to that, I think we need to actually then develop new outcome measures that assesses the systems that aren’t affected, like upper limb function, cognition, cerebellar, eye movements, etc., and look for differences in those systems on active treatment versus placebo. We’ve changed the question. In other words, we’re trying to prevent those systems from being damaged relative to the system that is damaged. And I think then we may get an answer. And I’m almost certain anti-inflammatory strategies that I’ve been told not to work in progressive MS will work.   MSDF If you look long enough.   Dr. Giovannoni If we look long enough or we change the way we define the outcomes. Because I do think that those other systems that aren’t progressing clinically will be more responsive in a shorter period of time; they’ve still got reserve capacity. And that reserve capacity really predicts recovery. We’ve seen this now in early MS is if somebody has got a low disability score and you treat them with a powerful anti-inflammatory, be it natalizumab or alemtuzumab, a significant number – 30 to 40% - actually improve in function. And that’s because they’ve got reserve capacity; they have the ability to recover function. I think if you can choose pathways that have got reserve capacity and you treat with anti-inflammatories, those pathways may have an ability to recover or improve, and you’ll see the difference between the treatments much earlier. It’s just an observation that needs to be taken into clinical trials.   MSDF Locking the barn door while the horse is still in.   Dr. Giovannoni Yes. This is like any other disease. There’s no point in treating a disease after you’ve missed the boat. If you speak to rheumatologists or nephrologists, it’s much better to protect the kidney and the joints before they’re damaged. The same concept needs to come into the MS field. You need to target the organ before it’s damaged, because prevention is much better than trying to promote recovery.   MSDF Very good. We appreciate it. Thank you.   [transition music]   MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Twelve 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]    

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Eleven 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. Jack Antel about remyelination and microglia. But to begin, here is a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   Our latest data visualization reveals a mystery in relapsing-remitting MS. It appears that the annualized relapse rates of patients in the placebo arms of clinical trials – the placebo arms – have been decreasing since 1993. What could possibly account for this? We invite your hypotheses. Visit the MSDF website and go to our data visualizations page under “research resources.” From there you can connect to a discussion forum we’re hosting to share your opinions.   Deep brain stimulation is an extreme brain surgery that can lead to dramatic improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease or obsessive-compulsive disorder. But in MS patients with tremor, the risk-benefit ratio varies a great deal from patient to patient. The surgery involves placing an electrode into the thalamus and stimulating the surrounding neurons to reduce tremor. However, no one is sure why the procedure works in some people with MS tremor and not in others. Last week, we published a news synthesis—including a dramatic video—on the efficacy of this surgery to treat the otherwise untreatable tremor in some MS patients.   We also reported on results from the phase 1 clinical trial of an anti-LINGO-1 remyelination agent. The drug, called BIIB033, is produced by Biogen Idec and proved safe and tolerable in healthy individuals and people with MS. In mouse models, the drug is shown to work by blocking LINGO-1. LINGO-1 prevents oligodendrocyte progenitor cells from differentiating into myelin-producing cells. The company is now conducting a phase 2 study to determine proper dosage in patients with MS.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Jack Antel is a neurologist at the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital. His team studies remyelination and repair. He spoke with MSDF about how microglia and progenitor cells affect this process.   Interviewer – Dan Keller Welcome, Dr. Antel.   Interviewee – Jack Antel Thank you very much.   MSDF Where do things stand now? What is the thinking of remyelination? Is it a dynamic process? Is it something that happens all at once? Is there a balance between injury and repair?   Dr. Antel From the perspective of multiple sclerosis itself, we look to our pathologists who've examined the actual MS tissue, and they have established criteria by which they identify that remyelination has occurred, and thus this has been a major incentive to see whether one can accelerate that process. One can now somewhat question the certainty that we are distinguishing between actual remyelination and perhaps partial injury of myelin, and maybe part of what we've seen is actual injury rather than actual repair. The other side of the coin is from the experimental biologist who clearly have shown remyelination to occur and have identified progenitor cells as being the basis of remyelination in animal models. Now we have to bring the observation from the clinical pathology in humans together with those observations are we still certain that all of remyelination is dependent on new cells, or can previously myelinating cells still contribute. And in the context of the human disease, the issue is what is the total potential of the cells? Why doesn't everybody remyelinate? This is because there's intrinsic differences in the myelin cells that humans have. Could the myelin cells themselves be subject to injury? And also, the complicating feature is how much injury is there? So that, if the axons have been damaged, maybe they are not receptive to remyelination. And also, the chronic changes in the environment of all the other glial cells and their products in the human situation, which is after all a disease of months and years not of days and weeks, maybe this is an important influence as to why remyelination occurs or doesn't.   MSDF You had mentioned partial myelination or demyelination. When one looks at a path slide, is it possible to tell whether it's going up or down? Can you distinguish one from the other?   Dr. Antel So that active injury of myelin can be identified because in the active MS lesion myelin debris is freed up and picked up by the phagocytic cells – either the microglia or macrophages – so one can see that there is active injury. If one looks just at the myelin sheath itself, the criteria for remyelination is these sheaths have become rather thinned out, and the segment of the myelin sheath is shorter than in the naturally myelinated cell condition. The issue becomes whether are we absolutely sure that this is remyelination, or could one model developing this histologic feature in some way by injury? And I think that would be a very good challenge for the experimentalists to see if they can get an injury model that reproduces some myelin injury without actually killing the myelinating cells.   MSDF Besides being a target for the immune response, how do glia participate in the immune response?   Dr. Antel So the glia – we can refer both to the astrocytes and microglia – and as you mentioned one of the important issues I think with these cells is how they talk to the immune cells that are coming from the outside into the brain and modulating their properties. In addition, these glial cells themselves can influence the myelination process in several ways. One is that they can produce some of the same molecules that the immune cells produce or novel molecules that can either promote or directly inhibit the capacity of myelinating cells to function – so direct signaling effects on the myelinating cells. The other is they are producing molecules that change the environment so that processes either grow out or don't grow out from the myelinating cells. So we have to consider the glia, which are very dynamic and thus become a target for therapeutic manipulation, in terms of both their effects on immune cells but also can they be so, if you will, "good guys" or "bad guys" in terms of the promoting the myelination process.   MSDF We think of some of the present drugs as modulating the immune system and trafficking and its effect on effector cells. But do you think that some of these may be affecting bystander cells, or I suppose maybe they're not bystanders if they're actively involved. Could they have an affect on glia?   Dr. Antel I think that this is an emerging opportunity in the field because we are now having the first generation of drugs that actually access the central nervous system. The initial generation of drugs, many of the monoclonal antibodies, we felt were acting outside of the nervous system – either on immune cells themselves or on the cells that comprised the blood-brain barrier but with some particularly of the small molecule drugs that access the central nervus system – that these drugs have the capacity to interact with the neural cells. If we use as an example the family of agents that we refer to as this sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators, S1P agents, there has long been data that these receptors are expressed on all cells, including all of the neural cells, and there is existing data that S1P modulators can affect the function of glial cells. Now how this translates into effects that are clinically relevant is the challenge that's ongoing now.   MSDF How does all of this relate to progressive MS?   Dr. Antel So progressive MS, I believe, is an entity that we have not totally understood yet, and we have to consider it in its parts, namely is progressive MS reflective of ongoing injury to the myelinating cells or the underlying axons? Is this a reflection of the injured cells no longer able to maintain themselves are they metabolically failing? And that can we distinguish these processes because if it's ongoing immune injury – whether related to the adaptive or innate immune system – then it makes sense to target those process. If it's an injury or metabolic failure, then that would be another approach. I think we have to consider whether progressive MS, again has evolved over many, many years, and whether one of our challenges is reducing the initial injury process can avoid many of these long-term events.   MSDF In secondary progressive MS, do you see that there's sort of a tipping point? Is there something different in secondary progressive once that occurs?   Dr. Antel It's difficult to provide an answer, and I think here is an area particularly where careful clinical studies are guiding us that the initial notion that multiple events triggered a later process would have been a very nice system to have because then stopping a process early would have predicted a beneficial later response. We are struck that the clinical data is suggesting that progression can occur perhaps even in the absence of ongoing inflammation whether the two are dissociated, at least in some cases, is a real concern. And thus, just controlling the initial immune response – because it triggers a later event – may not be sufficient. And the reverse, which I think has received perhaps less attention, is that from the clinical perspective multiple people have multiple disabling acute events and do not develop the progressive process. So it is not clear that the two are absolutely linked; whether there are genetic susceptibility factors that determine this have not yet emerged; whether it's the nature of the injury; or whether we have multiple diseases processes.   MSDF We often think of bench-to-bedside as the pathway for advancements. Now you had told me earlier that you're working with people in the opposite direction; you're finding things in the human condition and then leading to laboratory validation. Can you tell me a little bit about that?   Dr. Antel I think this is a very important aspect and why it is important that the clinical and clinical pathology experts really identify the core issues so that they can be taken to a laboratory and experimentally addressed. That in MS, we're dealing with a disease that develops over months and years making it more difficult to model it precisely. It's a disease where we have not established the initiating event. Whereas in the animal system, we usually use a arbitrary antigen if we were going to model an immune mediated disorder. We model the demyelination/remyelination process usually by acute toxins in the animal systems; whereas this is not the case in MS that specific exposure. And so I think we need to continue to develop our model systems that can induce some type of progressive disorder that is not specifically introduced perhaps by a specific antigen, at least the antigens we use currently.   MSDF Knowing that remyelination is possible, is there an implication that it may be going on in all of us in healthy brain at all times where you actually get turnover? And if so, can you capitalize on this kind of system?   Dr. Antel So the issue of turnover of myelin, I think, has not been emphasized sufficiently until recently both from the perspective if we have continuous turnover whether this may be one of the mechanisms whereby antigens are presented to the immune system. The other in terms of the turnover rate of myelin or oligodendrocytes – whether the health of these cells is damaged by the disease process, and whether a limiting factor over time is that the injury of the cells, which could be quite subtle – so that the cells are not killed, but they've impaired their function either to maintain the interaction with axons or the necessary transport of key molecules down the processes. Whether interruption of this then results in the inability of the cells to maintain their myelination properties and to continue the turnover or what might be a repair activity. And we interpret this as a later progression of the disease.   MSDF On the topics we've been discussing, is there anything important to add?   Dr. Antel I think the importance is that we now are turning our attention to these topics. That it is very timely that we do this – because until we could control the actual disease activity through immunomodulatory therapies – if that aspect was not controlled it would be much more difficult to think of trying to control the overall disease process. And also, as we couple the biology with careful clinical observations and the advances in imaging of the human brain, so that it gives us greater opportunities to bring our theories from the lab to the clinics and see whether we really impact in a positive way on the processes we've been discussing.   MSDF Very good. We appreciate it.   Dr. Antel My pleasure.   [transition music]   MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Eleven 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 [intro music]     Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Eleven 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. Jack Antel about remyelination and microglia. But to begin, here is a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   Our latest data visualization reveals a mystery in relapsing-remitting MS. It appears that the annualized relapse rates of patients in the placebo arms of clinical trials – the placebo arms – have been decreasing since 1993. What could possibly account for this? We invite your hypotheses. Visit the MSDF website and go to our data visualizations page under “research resources.” From there you can connect to a discussion forum we’re hosting to share your opinions.   Deep brain stimulation is an extreme brain surgery that can lead to dramatic improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease or obsessive-compulsive disorder. But in MS patients with tremor, the risk-benefit ratio varies a great deal from patient to patient. The surgery involves placing an electrode into the thalamus and stimulating the surrounding neurons to reduce tremor. However, no one is sure why the procedure works in some people with MS tremor and not in others. Last week, we published a news synthesis—including a dramatic video—on the efficacy of this surgery to treat the otherwise untreatable tremor in some MS patients.   We also reported on results from the phase 1 clinical trial of an anti-LINGO-1 remyelination agent. The drug, called BIIB033, is produced by Biogen Idec and proved safe and tolerable in healthy individuals and people with MS. In mouse models, the drug is shown to work by blocking LINGO-1. LINGO-1 prevents oligodendrocyte progenitor cells from differentiating into myelin-producing cells. The company is now conducting a phase 2 study to determine proper dosage in patients with MS.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Jack Antel is a neurologist at the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital. His team studies remyelination and repair. He spoke with MSDF about how microglia and progenitor cells affect this process.   Interviewer – Dan Keller Welcome, Dr. Antel.   Interviewee – Jack Antel Thank you very much.   MSDF Where do things stand now? What is the thinking of remyelination? Is it a dynamic process? Is it something that happens all at once? Is there a balance between injury and repair?   Dr. Antel From the perspective of multiple sclerosis itself, we look to our pathologists who've examined the actual MS tissue, and they have established criteria by which they identify that remyelination has occurred, and thus this has been a major incentive to see whether one can accelerate that process. One can now somewhat question the certainty that we are distinguishing between actual remyelination and perhaps partial injury of myelin, and maybe part of what we've seen is actual injury rather than actual repair. The other side of the coin is from the experimental biologist who clearly have shown remyelination to occur and have identified progenitor cells as being the basis of remyelination in animal models. Now we have to bring the observation from the clinical pathology in humans together with those observations are we still certain that all of remyelination is dependent on new cells, or can previously myelinating cells still contribute. And in the context of the human disease, the issue is what is the total potential of the cells? Why doesn't everybody remyelinate? This is because there's intrinsic differences in the myelin cells that humans have. Could the myelin cells themselves be subject to injury? And also, the complicating feature is how much injury is there? So that, if the axons have been damaged, maybe they are not receptive to remyelination. And also, the chronic changes in the environment of all the other glial cells and their products in the human situation, which is after all a disease of months and years not of days and weeks, maybe this is an important influence as to why remyelination occurs or doesn't.   MSDF You had mentioned partial myelination or demyelination. When one looks at a path slide, is it possible to tell whether it's going up or down? Can you distinguish one from the other?   Dr. Antel So that active injury of myelin can be identified because in the active MS lesion myelin debris is freed up and picked up by the phagocytic cells – either the microglia or macrophages – so one can see that there is active injury. If one looks just at the myelin sheath itself, the criteria for remyelination is these sheaths have become rather thinned out, and the segment of the myelin sheath is shorter than in the naturally myelinated cell condition. The issue becomes whether are we absolutely sure that this is remyelination, or could one model developing this histologic feature in some way by injury? And I think that would be a very good challenge for the experimentalists to see if they can get an injury model that reproduces some myelin injury without actually killing the myelinating cells.   MSDF Besides being a target for the immune response, how do glia participate in the immune response?   Dr. Antel So the glia – we can refer both to the astrocytes and microglia – and as you mentioned one of the important issues I think with these cells is how they talk to the immune cells that are coming from the outside into the brain and modulating their properties. In addition, these glial cells themselves can influence the myelination process in several ways. One is that they can produce some of the same molecules that the immune cells produce or novel molecules that can either promote or directly inhibit the capacity of myelinating cells to function – so direct signaling effects on the myelinating cells. The other is they are producing molecules that change the environment so that processes either grow out or don't grow out from the myelinating cells. So we have to consider the glia, which are very dynamic and thus become a target for therapeutic manipulation, in terms of both their effects on immune cells but also can they be so, if you will, "good guys" or "bad guys" in terms of the promoting the myelination process.   MSDF We think of some of the present drugs as modulating the immune system and trafficking and its effect on effector cells. But do you think that some of these may be affecting bystander cells, or I suppose maybe they're not bystanders if they're actively involved. Could they have an affect on glia?   Dr. Antel I think that this is an emerging opportunity in the field because we are now having the first generation of drugs that actually access the central nervous system. The initial generation of drugs, many of the monoclonal antibodies, we felt were acting outside of the nervous system – either on immune cells themselves or on the cells that comprised the blood-brain barrier but with some particularly of the small molecule drugs that access the central nervus system – that these drugs have the capacity to interact with the neural cells. If we use as an example the family of agents that we refer to as this sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators, S1P agents, there has long been data that these receptors are expressed on all cells, including all of the neural cells, and there is existing data that S1P modulators can affect the function of glial cells. Now how this translates into effects that are clinically relevant is the challenge that's ongoing now.   MSDF How does all of this relate to progressive MS?   Dr. Antel So progressive MS, I believe, is an entity that we have not totally understood yet, and we have to consider it in its parts, namely is progressive MS reflective of ongoing injury to the myelinating cells or the underlying axons? Is this a reflection of the injured cells no longer able to maintain themselves are they metabolically failing? And that can we distinguish these processes because if it's ongoing immune injury – whether related to the adaptive or innate immune system – then it makes sense to target those process. If it's an injury or metabolic failure, then that would be another approach. I think we have to consider whether progressive MS, again has evolved over many, many years, and whether one of our challenges is reducing the initial injury process can avoid many of these long-term events.   MSDF In secondary progressive MS, do you see that there's sort of a tipping point? Is there something different in secondary progressive once that occurs?   Dr. Antel It's difficult to provide an answer, and I think here is an area particularly where careful clinical studies are guiding us that the initial notion that multiple events triggered a later process would have been a very nice system to have because then stopping a process early would have predicted a beneficial later response. We are struck that the clinical data is suggesting that progression can occur perhaps even in the absence of ongoing inflammation whether the two are dissociated, at least in some cases, is a real concern. And thus, just controlling the initial immune response – because it triggers a later event – may not be sufficient. And the reverse, which I think has received perhaps less attention, is that from the clinical perspective multiple people have multiple disabling acute events and do not develop the progressive process. So it is not clear that the two are absolutely linked; whether there are genetic susceptibility factors that determine this have not yet emerged; whether it's the nature of the injury; or whether we have multiple diseases processes.   MSDF We often think of bench-to-bedside as the pathway for advancements. Now you had told me earlier that you're working with people in the opposite direction; you're finding things in the human condition and then leading to laboratory validation. Can you tell me a little bit about that?   Dr. Antel I think this is a very important aspect and why it is important that the clinical and clinical pathology experts really identify the core issues so that they can be taken to a laboratory and experimentally addressed. That in MS, we're dealing with a disease that develops over months and years making it more difficult to model it precisely. It's a disease where we have not established the initiating event. Whereas in the animal system, we usually use a arbitrary antigen if we were going to model an immune mediated disorder. We model the demyelination/remyelination process usually by acute toxins in the animal systems; whereas this is not the case in MS that specific exposure. And so I think we need to continue to develop our model systems that can induce some type of progressive disorder that is not specifically introduced perhaps by a specific antigen, at least the antigens we use currently.   MSDF Knowing that remyelination is possible, is there an implication that it may be going on in all of us in healthy brain at all times where you actually get turnover? And if so, can you capitalize on this kind of system?   Dr. Antel So the issue of turnover of myelin, I think, has not been emphasized sufficiently until recently both from the perspective if we have continuous turnover whether this may be one of the mechanisms whereby antigens are presented to the immune system. The other in terms of the turnover rate of myelin or oligodendrocytes – whether the health of these cells is damaged by the disease process, and whether a limiting factor over time is that the injury of the cells, which could be quite subtle – so that the cells are not killed, but they've impaired their function either to maintain the interaction with axons or the necessary transport of key molecules down the processes. Whether interruption of this then results in the inability of the cells to maintain their myelination properties and to continue the turnover or what might be a repair activity. And we interpret this as a later progression of the disease.   MSDF On the topics we've been discussing, is there anything important to add?   Dr. Antel I think the importance is that we now are turning our attention to these topics. That it is very timely that we do this – because until we could control the actual disease activity through immunomodulatory therapies – if that aspect was not controlled it would be much more difficult to think of trying to control the overall disease process. And also, as we couple the biology with careful clinical observations and the advances in imaging of the human brain, so that it gives us greater opportunities to bring our theories from the lab to the clinics and see whether we really impact in a positive way on the processes we've been discussing.   MSDF Very good. We appreciate it.   Dr. Antel My pleasure.   [transition music]   MSDF Thank you for listening to Episode Eleven 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]     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]    

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller  Hello, and welcome to Episode Ten 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. Richard Ransohoff about his group’s latest research. But to begin, here is a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   We reported on two research articles on B cells published in “Science Translational Medicine". The authors suggested B cells are activated in the peripheral lymph nodes before migrating to the CNS in patients with MS. It appears that after activation the B cells travel back and forth between the CNS and the lymph nodes. The findings have implications for monoclonal antibodies rituximab and ocrelizumab, which reduce peripheral B cell numbers, as well as natalizumab, which prevents lymphocyte migration across the blood-brain barrier.    Together, MSDF and our non-profit publisher, the Accelerated Cure Project – ACP – are committed to speeding the pathway toward a cure for MS. Among the news and resources we provide is a list of more than two dozen tissue repositories, including ACPs. Visit our website and click on the “tissue repositories” button under the “research resources” tab to browse through repositories from all over the globe.   Another part of our goal in working faster toward a cure is to provide a place where researchers can share their experiences and expertise with one another and also debate controversial issues in MS research. We encourage researchers and clinicians from all disciplines to log onto our forum and discuss their latest research, techniques, and discoveries. We also encourage you to help keep us up-to-date on your latest work by e-mailing us directly. Send information you’d like to share on job postings, meetings, funding opportunities, or other news to editor@msdiscovery.org.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Richard Ransohoff is the director of the Neuroinflammation Research Center at the Cleveland Clinic and a member of the MSDF scientific advisory board. His research group focuses on chemokines and chemokine receptors. He met with our senior science writer, Carol Morton, to discuss his latest findings.   Interviewee – Richard Ransohoff Glad to be here with you today, Carol. The paper that we just published is the result of at least five year's of work. The fundamental question that we tried to answer in this paper I guess if we take a step back and say one looks at an active MS lesion, and one sees a tremendous infiltrate of macrophages, which are clearly involved in the removal of myelin, which is the fundamental problem in MS. And because of the fact that these macrophages have two sources – meaning that some of them come from microglia that are resident within the brain and are macrophage like; and others are differentiated from blood monocytes that have infiltrated the tissue – it's worth wondering whether all the macrophages that look identical by their size and appearance and tissue staining are also functionally identical. And in the case of an MS like disease, by functionally identical, what we mean is are some of these cells that live in the tissue or in the lesion are some of them good guys and others are bad guys, or are they all uniformly bad guys? The reason it's worth asking that question – beyond simple curiosity – is that if you can figure out who are the good guys and the bad guys the treatment approaches become much clearer to you. So for example, if the infiltrating monocytes are the bad guys, then it's possible to apply certain kinds of medications simply to keep them out of the lesion, keep them in the bloodstream. And we already have medicines that we use in MS that take that sort of general approach. So medicines like natalizumab, which blocks cells from leaving the bloodstream and going into tissue, is one. A medicine like fingolimod, which locks up some cells in the lymph nodes and also may stabilize the blood-brain barrier, is another. And a medicine like alemtuzumab that simply removes a large fraction of the cells in the bloodstream that could participate in the tissue damage is a third. So we do know how to treat the blood cells in the way that I'm describing. Most of that work is focused on lymphocytes, not monocytes. But it could certainly be refocused. On the other hand, if the microglia are the bad guys, then the approach becomes completely different, and it's important then to figure out what sort of molecular cues are the microglia responding to and how can we block that part of the MS disease process.    Interviewer – Carol Morton Because the microglia already are in the brain. So the existing medicines have to do with peripheral immune cells that are coming into the brain during disease, right?   Dr. Ransohoff Correct. It would be important, then, to get the medicine in the brain. And when you take that approach, you have to really be very careful that the medicine doesn't have adverse effects on other brain cells. So we started from position that there were no existing markers to identify these cells in the tissue. And we were lucky enough to find out that recently developed genetic models, which tagged different myeloid cells with different fluorochromes could be used to discriminate between the monocyte derived macrophages and the microglia derived macrophages right at the onset of EAE. It turned out that we could first ask which of the two cell types contained myelin debris at the onset of EAE. That seemed like the simplest way to go after our question because we really wanted to know which cell was damaging and taking up myelin. And it turned out that both cell types had myelin in them, and so that really didn't answer the question for us. And if we gave it another moment's thought, we realized that some cells could be damaging myelin, and other cells could be removing debris. And we know that debris removal is part of the repair process. So we had to think of another way to address the problem. And through a relatively long process of developing different techniques, we figured out a way to adapt the data from studying conventional fluorescence confocal microscopy images of the cells and the tissue so that we could identify the same cells in EM sections. Because we had to go to the EM level really to answer the question that we were going after. And we used a new instrument at the Cleveland Clinic, which is one of only a few of this type of instrument at the time around the world, and it allows you to construct a 3D EM picture of certain tissue elements. And so, we set about doing that, and we identified the monocytes in the tissue and the microglia in the tissue using that approach, and we also pointed out how these two cell types were interacting with what you call the axoglial unit, which is the myelin wrap around the axons in the white matter of the spinal cord of the mouse. And we did quite a few samples from quite a few mice. And the answer to our question was very clear. Just to make it simple, the monocytes were the bad guys – they were attacking myelin and removing it from axons even when the axons appeared perfectly healthy and normal, and the myelin appeared normal where it wasn't being pulled off by the monocytes. And the microglia seemed a little bit later to begin to remove the debris. And the answer was pretty unambiguous; we never found microglia attacking myelin directly. And there was a very satisfying resolution to something that had been bothering us for a long time. We also got extra bits of information beyond what we were looking for. We found that the monocytes seemed to attack the axoglial unit not at random but at only selected places, and it seemed as though they focused primarily on the nodes of Ranvier. And it seemed as though that complicated structure was particularly vulnerable to attack. We think that that's because these structures – being as complicated and delicate as they are – become somewhat disrupted in the inflammatory environment, and the monocytes recognize something and take out after it. So we're now very intent on figuring out what the molecular signals are that attract the monocytes. We think that'll be important to know. At the same time, we thought it was important to figure out whether the gene expression in the monocytes and microglia reflected the different behaviors that we saw. And we found that the gene expression profiles in the monocytes and microglia were extremely different. The monocyte profile was almost exactly what you would predict if you watched their bad behavior and that was one of increasing many, many genes associated with inflammatory signaling, production of inflammatory mediators, and most importantly phagocytosis. The microglia, by contrast, showed a lot of downregulation of genes that are expressed in microglia from the healthy brain. So the microglia seemed to be repressed from doing things that they do in the healthy brain, and their metabolism seemed to be in a sense shutoff. They showed an inhibition of the ability to express genes by making RNA to maintain cytoplasmic and cytoskeletal organization to carryout phagocytosis and to make inflammatory mediators. So the microglia seem very repressed by comparison to microglia from the healthy brain. And so, our followup plans for the microglial side of things is to understand whether that phenotype persists for very long because the microglia need to be quite active in the process of repair and make a contribution to that process. And if their metabolism is sort of slowed down and stunted, they may have troubles to do that. So we believe the way they ask they question is to do not only additional gene expression studies but epigenetic studies, as well. And the epigenetic question we're asking is whether DNA methylation, which will turn off gene expression quite efficiently and in a long-lasting way, is changing as the microglia go from healthy brain to EAE onset and finally to recovery. We have some strong preliminary data that the gene expression decreases that we've already seen are associated with DNA methylation changes so they may be quite long-lasting. And we want to follow it through until the mice begin to recover and remyelinate to see whether the microglia recover their ability to contribute to repair. The reason we think that question is crucially important is because if this is characteristic of what happens in multiple sclerosis there may be ways to intervene such that the amount of damage is limited – we already do that pretty well – but also so the amount of repair is maximized. And I'm not certain that we understand how to do that as well as we would like.    MSDF You're calling them both macrophages. Is that a certain state of activation?   Dr. Ransohoff So when I say macrophage, it's a kind of a shorthand term for a relatively activated form of a mononuclear phagocyte in a tissue doesn't tell you where it came from – doesn't tell you if it came from a monocyte or a tissue macrophage or some other source – it just tells you what its lineage is, it's a mononuclear phagocyte, and that it's in a tissue and is displaying signs of activation.    MSDF I understand that the difference in the identity between the microglia and the macrophage has been a long-standing problem, and it sounds like you leapfrogged ahead of that to look at the functional difference. So is your study the last word on that? Is there other evidence that reinforces it, or I don't want to say contradicts but…   Dr. Ransohoff Are there other ways of looking at it?   MSDF  …or unresolved issues that it raises, like new questions that it raises. And I'm curious about the implications for thinking about that in mice and then the implications in people with MS.   Dr. Ransohoff It's always important to be mindful of the limitations of one's research approach. So we try to do that. The approach that we took had a bunch of technical reasons. Our fundamental question was are monocytes and microglia different in EAE tissues? In order to ask that and in order to ask it in a sort of a meaningful and balanced way, we chose the moment of onset of the EAE. And the reason was, first of all, that we thought the most important elements of damage to the myelin were taking place at that moment. So we wanted to know how did the disease get started. And secondly, because the preliminary work that we did showed that the monocytes and microglial cells were present in those lesions absolutely gathered together in a small space, densely intermixed with each other, and in equal numbers. So we weren't biasing the case against one cell or the other; there were equal numbers of both, and they were in the same time and place. So that's a good rationale. At a technical level, the labeling that we were using is most efficient at that moment. And so, there were lots of reasons to do it that way. That tells you a good deal about what's going on at that moment; it doesn't tell you what the fate of the monocyte derived cells is. And it doesn't tell you very much about the function of the microglia. The reason that the microglial function is a open question and an important one is because two groups – one about 10 years ago, Frank Heppner and Adriano Aguzzi and others; and then more recently Marco Prinz and his colleagues – published very strong evidence that microglia play some undefined, important role in EAE. Prinz's work is, I think, the most direct and convincing. He used a way to delete a particular inflammatory gene from microglia, and he showed that in mice where the microglia lack this inflammatory – it's a major contributor to inflammatory signaling, called TAC1 – those mice are almost resistant to EAE. And so, if you put his work together with ours, you really have a fascinating, open question. And that is okay, if the microglia at the onset of EAE look very repressed and nonfunctional, but the microglial inflammatory response is necessary for EAE to occur, then it suggests that before the onset – at some early time point – there is something the microglia are doing that makes the tissue able to support the EAE process. And so, we're going to go after that; we want to understand that to some extent. And it also, as I said, it leaves open what are the microglia doing in the process of repair, which we think is very important. So I think it is always the case that new bits of research open up new questions. We hope that we've opened up good and answerable questions.    MSDF  Great. Well, thank you. This is…I appreciate you taking the time to do this. So is there anything else that I should be asking about this study or more broadly that you wanted to emphasize…add or emphasize?   Dr. Ransohoff The only thing I want to add is that this is a particularly exciting time for this type of research. It's a time when all the work we've done over the years in MS begins to pay off not just for people with MS but also for people with other types of brain disease. I think that the people who have studied MS over the years have a unique contribution to make to understanding diseases that we worry about like Alzheimer’s disease. And vice versa people that study Alzheimer’s disease and other sorts of degenerations can make a contribution understanding MS. So it's a kind of coming together of these two different types of research.   MSDF Can you elaborate a little bit more? Is that because more of the basic science is understood, and people can apply it in these different disease contexts?    Dr. Ransohoff I think it's a combination of things. One is that people with a background studying MS have spent their lives working on inflammation, and a good deal has been learned. The thing that makes that now applicable to other conditions is that it is becoming clear that every time there's any sort of injury to the brain there will be a reaction. And elements of that reaction will resemble what you call inflammation, and that will lead to either repair process or further damage depending on the nature of the disease and other factors that we don't know about. Those of us who have worked on MS can make a contribution to that research enterprise by sharing what we know about inflammation. As I say, it's a time which is exciting, and I think we'll be productive.   MSDF  You're so good at explaining all of this. Thank you so much.   Dr. Ransohoff Oh, thank you.    [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode Ten 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]   

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Nine 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 researcher Amit Bar-Or about how children with MS can illuminate early mechanisms of the disease. But to begin, here's a brief summary of some of the topics we’ve been covering on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   According to a Cochrane meta-analysis, interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate are clinically similar treatments for multiple sclerosis. Researchers analyzed five head-to-head clinical trials and found that both drugs did similarly well in improving disability scores and MRI measures in patients with relapsing remitting MS. The researchers were not able to measure quality of life scores for the disease-modifying therapies.   We also published a Research Roundup this week all about social media and the role it plays in science. Social media can sometimes work against the scientific method if patients in a clinical trial are in the habit of oversharing on blogs, Facebook, or Twitter. Patients who discuss their symptoms online might affect the blinding of clinical trials. It’s not all bad, though. We also wrote about some great social media sites for researchers such as ResearchGate, LinkedIn, and even Reddit. We also shared some amusing links on how scientists can improve their communication skills such as the “Up-Goer Five,” a schematic of the Saturn V rocket explained using only the 1000 most commonly used words in English.   Every week we curate research articles on all topics related to multiple sclerosis and highlight our favorites in the “Editors' Pick.” Last week, some of our favorites were a review on oligodendrocytes, a research article about the origin and maturation of B cells, and a review about how the relationship between axons and myelin is involved in demyelination. You can see our weekly picks by going to our website, clicking on the “Papers” tab, and selecting “Editors’ Picks.” In addition to the Editors’ Picks, we link to every MS-related study found in PubMed. Last week was a banner week for MS studies. One hundred four were published, and we linked to them all.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Amit Bar-Or is an associate professor of neurology and neurosurgery at McGill University. Some of his work focuses on multiple sclerosis in children and how they can shed light on the origin of the disease.   Interviewer – Dan Keller Welcome, Dr. Bar-Or. Let's talk about pediatric MS and what we can learn from it, especially about treating children but also about what it tells us about the disease, in general. Where does it stand now? What have you found in children?   Interviewee – Amit Bar-Or Well the last few years have seen a substantial increase in the appreciation that MS can occur, does occur in children. Probably one out of every twenty adults with MS will have had an initial episode clinically that manifested in the pediatric age group, which one defines somewhat arbitrarily as 18 in most places. But the presence of MS in children, of course, you can imagine creates a particularly sensitive clinical context with a lot of challenges to both the child and the family and caregivers. So understanding more about pediatric onset MS – for the purpose of better caring for the children – is one important accomplishment of some of the more recent insights that have been gained in the groups that have been studied. The other, of course, is that a challenge that we have, in general, in the MS field is understanding more about what initiates MS. What are the initiating mechanisms? We've learned a fair bit but still have more to learn about the genetics and about the environmental contributions. And we know that in adults with MS one can measure certain abnormalities, for instance, in their immune response, but we really don’t know whether an abnormality that is measured in an adult represents a consequence of dysregulation and an epiphenomena that may be abnormal but is not going to benefit the illness if you treat it, as opposed to an abnormality that is very much involved in mediating the problem. So the children given that at least, on the average, they're going to be closer to the biological onset of the illness could this provide an opportunity to get insights into earlier mechanisms in a context that is less confounded by such epiphenomena of chronicity, of long-standing illness. And so, one is viewing the studies that are ongoing now – in terms of trying to better understand the pediatric MS context – both in terms of the merits of understanding them for their own sake, as well as a potential window into the broader spectrum. One of the first questions that you then need to ask if you're considering whether children can teach you about MS, in general, is whether MS in children is the same illness as MS in adults. Maybe they're different illnesses. And so one of the approaches that has been taken is to say in adults who develop MS as adults the field has identified certain genetic risk factors and certain environmental exposures that are thought to contribute to risk. And one of the first questions that has been asked is do those same risk factors – genetic and environmental – play out in children who develop MS? And the answer is essentially yes. For the same types of genetic contributors that have been identified in adults, one can see them as risk factors for developing MS in children. And the same environmental exposures – which include, for instance, low levels of vitamin D or exposure to a particular virus called Epstein-Barr virus at a certain phase – these again in children have emerged as being risk factors for the development of MS. So one thinks that at least based on that indirect evidence we can think of pediatric onset MS as, indeed, a reflection of the same illness at earlier time points and again reinforcing the value of understanding early mechanisms less encumbered by chronic disease processes.   MSDF What early mechanisms have you been able to discern from looking at the development of MS in children?   Dr. Bar-Or Well, there are a few very interesting observations that have emerged, and they include observations both on the immune system side and on the central nervous system side. So I'll start with the central nervous system side. We have always been challenged with the effort of trying to understand what are the actual targets of injury in multiple sclerosis. Certainly over the years, it's been described as an illness that affects myelin – the myelin making cells or the oligodendrocytes – so people have considered myelin antigens, or potential targets, as important targets in the disease. But much of that thinking has, in fact, been shaped by the most commonly used animal model system, which is experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, where you, in fact, inoculate the animal in its periphery with an antigen of the CNS typically a myelin antigen such as MBP or PLP or MOG. The animal has T cells that then get activated in the periphery that can respond to that antigen. They traffic to the central nervous system, identify the antigen, and contribute to an inflammatory injury process. In MS, though, we do not know what the triggering insult is or what they are in terms of the sequence, and we still don't really know what the actual targets of the illness are. This is important because more and more we've appreciated over the last decade or two that in addition to the myelin and the oligodendrocytes there's a very important injury to the neurons and their axons – the neuronal cell bodies and their extensions where they deliver their signals – which are typically wrapped in some cases in myelin, and others remain demyelinated or lacking in myelin. The issue of what the target is could guide both a better insight into initiating mechanisms – and how to deal with them therapeutically – as well as therapies that are designed to try to target very specific immune responses. Because if we knew what the specific antigens were, we might be able to develop approaches to change the immune system in what's called an antigen-specific way. Which means we try to change only the bad guys' cells or enhance the very specific regulatory cells that will control them without impacting the rest of the immune system, which would be conceptually much better in terms of having both benefit without risks of limiting the ability of the immune system to do, for the most part, what it does normally. One study in which we had the opportunity to compare spinal fluids from children presenting with a first episode of what may or may not be MS, and these children are then followed very, very carefully prospectively – meaning forward in time – as part of the Canadian Pediatric Demyelinating Disease Study was to establish over time who, in fact, has MS and who doesn't. And then go back to those early samples from that first clinical event and compare it what's called a proteomic level where we say we don’t know what the differences might be, but let's use a technology that breaks the CSF down – the cerebrospinal fluid down – into all of the components that make the different proteins. And then we have a survey of all of the different protein content and compare between the two. And we anticipated that we would see differences in those typical myelin antigens that the community has thought over the years are the relevant targets. So first surprise was we did not see any differences in those particular previously or traditionally implicated antigens. However, we did see differences in a number of molecules that are referable to a tiny little apparatus that serves an important physiologic function, and that's called the axoglial apparatus. That area is a tiny, tiny area where the glial cell – in this case the oligodendrocyte, the myelinating cell – its membrane dives down and attaches to the axon. That point of contact is part of what forms the axoglial apparatus. And it becomes a very enticing potential target of injury because an injury to that target would be expected to cause, on one hand, injury to the myelinating cell (maybe leading to demyelination) but also could produce an injury to the axon itself perhaps contributing to the axonal and neuronal injury. And again, we now know that both of those injuries are very much part of the MS disease process, or at least part of the consequence of the MS disease process. So this is just one study in children where we may be getting clues in a more refined way to the particular early targets of the disease or those structures involved in early in the disease, which is now guiding some of the thinking about how to followup on that both to better understand and potentially target therapeutically. An example on the immune system side is that there has been the sense in the broad community in MS and in other human autoimmune conditions that certain types of cells – that are called effector cells – may be dysregulated in MS either because they are overly active or insufficiently regulated or both. So either an effector problem, a regulator problem, or a combination of the two. But it's been difficult to identify which of these cell subsets is really involved in the disease as opposed to dysregulated, as I mentioned before, as a consequence of the disease. And the children have provided an opportunity to again look early on. And one study had identified that one of the abnormalities had appeared to involve a failure of normally developing regulatory T cells – this is work by Regitta Walderman (12:20) and Betina Belint at the time – which showed very nicely that in children with MS, as compared to controls, there seems to be a deficiency in the development or the maintenance of regulatory T cells. And in fact, it looked as though cells that normally get educated by an organ that we call the thymus, which is very active particularly in children, seemed to be getting older faster in the kids with MS. And so this raises the interesting question of whether there is a premature senescence or premature aging, in a sense, of certain immune cell populations so that over time their functional capacity is not quite the same, and if this is on the regulatory cell side and you have a diminished capacity for whatever reason you might expect the effector cells to be able to spillover inappropriately and participate in disease. So those are two examples – one of the neurobiological side and one of the immunological side – where children are providing what I would consider very important insights into the overall MS spectrum.   MSDF Let me ask you about the injury to the axoglial complex. Glia provide supporting roles both nutritionally and through other molecules and as well as physically. Do you think this is an injury to the oligodendrocyte – which then impacts the axon – or is it some sort of attack which just hits this area, in general?   Dr. Bar-Or Well this is a great question. And there's an ongoing discussion as to the chicken/egg; what gets injured first? What we do know is that when you look at the available tissue for studying pathology of MS – which, of course, tends to be quite biased to late in the disease where people may die for other reasons and postmortem – we have relatively little insight pathologically in what's happening in patients in early stages of the disease. Fortunately, people who develop MS even through the diagnosis rarely, rarely require a biopsy to get tissue to establish the diagnosis. And in fact, if you're doing a biopsy, it's usually because it's atypical, not typical. So we have several groups who are working hard and making important contributions, including into this earlier event, but there is still a big gap in our understanding of the early events and hence the very difficult to talk about initiating processes. But you bring up the very important context of the neurobiology of MS, which involves the ongoing function and integrity of the brain cells, including the neurons and the different glial cells. Those include the oligodendrocytes which make myelin but also the astrocytes which provide, among other things, important support to the blood-brain barrier and important support to the neurons, as well as the microglial cells which are very crafty cells of the central nervous system that probably performs several different functions. And all of these cells when they get activated or insulted they may fail to provide the normal physiologic protection, or they may even actively contribute to propagating injury. If you injure the oligodendrocyte in the myelin, the axon that is served by that myelin is working harder and may peter out over time. On the other hand, the integrity of the axon is important for the oligodendrocyte to maintain its myelination and its wrapping (15:34). So there's very important crosstalk, and it is very likely that injuring one element sufficiently will result in deterioration of the other regardless of which one you're injuring first. From a therapeutic standpoint, our efforts are to understand this crosstalk better and to understand how to try to establish protection, if not repair, of any one of these elements as part of the overview. It's clear that if you don't have an axon there's nothing to myelinate; if you don't have the myelinating cells you're left with bare axons that don't function or survival as well with the increased demand. And so, we need to have a more complete view so that we can approach not just a single biology at a time but, of course, we also – to understand any given biology – have to develop approaches that will isolate that biology so we can understand it. And one of our challenges is that we do not really have good models of those neurobiological aspects of MS to study. The EAE, for instance, which recapitulates some of the features of MS, has not really been shown to recapitulate those particular features that we're discussing.   MSDF Finally, let me get back to one thing you mentioned that if you can identify the antigens of interest that are either spurring an attack or being targets of an attack the idea would be to find specific ways to approach those antigens. Now we have certain drugs that will deplete B cells, and they show benefit. We have certain drugs that will keep trafficking down cell adhesion molecules, and those seem to have benefit. Is there a focus on any particular antigens at this point and any particular approaches (clonal deletion, any sort of small molecules)? Where's that going?   Dr. Bar-Or Well there are a number, and I probably won't be able to summarize all of them here. But there are generally several different strategies that try to target the immune system in a much more selective way than most of the approved therapies, including the not yet approved B-cell depleting approach which, of course, is more specific than targeting cells beyond B cells but is still depleting quite a few cells. Many of the B cells in the circulation, at least, are depleted. One extension to what you had raised is that it's fascinating to see how different approaches can achieve benefit of decreasing new disease activity, and we need to be able to sit back on a regular basis and integrate the insights from all of the successful, as well as unsuccessful, therapeutic interventions, including those that were not only unsuccessful in limiting new disease activity but the occasion where they increased new disease activity. What would appear initially paradoxical. Understanding all of that will give us very important insights into the disease itself. As far as antigen-specific approaches, one way is if you know what the antigen is – which, of course, we don't really know but we can hypothesize – you can try to develop induction of regulatory cells with that specificity or killing off or creating a state of unresponsiveness, also know as (18:40) of the effector specific cells or a combination of the two. There are different strategies that people have tried to use that are based, for instance, on the requirement of a T cell during activation to have an antigen-presenting cell present the antigen. And the profile of molecules both through contact and through secretion that the T cell can then receive in that environment of interaction with the antigen-presenting cell can often define the response profile, subsequently, of that cell. And if certain molecules such as costimulatory molecules are not present in that interaction or modulated, you might actually shut the cell down – you may not kill it, but it will be unresponsive or hyperresponsive – and that would be one strategy. Another, for instance, is to say well I don't know exactly which particular antigen, but I think it's myelin antigens. Let me get out of a patient's blood their immune cells and stimulate them to a variety of potential antigens, and whatever grows will reflect what grows in that person against the CNS antigens. And use that in a way to modify them so that they cannot cause problems and inject them back into a patient almost like a vaccine with a view that you are now giving that person whatever their T cells were that could respond to myelin, and their immune system now will respond to them and kill them and kill any other such cells that are present in the body leaving the rest of the immune system intact. And will that limit that person's ability to respond to their myelin? That again, is individualized medicine, which is one of the hot areas to pursue in the future, recognizing that if we hang our hat on a single target that may be true for one person but not for others or may be true for a person at some point in their illness but is not the predominant target later on. And so I think that using these kinds of approaches, which recognize the specificity or the selectivity, at least, as potential but also that there are very likely to be differences across individuals and maybe even with the same individual over time. And to try to individualize the therapy that is going to be most suitable for that person at that time.    MSDF Thank you, Dr. Bar-Or.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode 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 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]

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Eight 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 researcher, Wendy Macklin, whose team studies myelination and demyelination in zebrafish and mouse animal models. But to begin, here is a brief summary of some of the topics we’ve been covering on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   As listeners may already be aware, a new study suggested that infection with HIV is associated with a lower risk of developing MS. Researchers looked at a large sample of hospital records and found that individuals infected with HIV had a 62% lower risk of MS than HIV-negative individuals who were matched for age, gender, region, and socioeconomic status. The researchers think that antiretroviral drugs might be causing the protective effect, though it’s possible the infection with HIV itself somehow protects against developing MS. Antiretroviral drugs may attack some ancient viral genes thought to trigger MS and other autoimmune diseases.   Science journalist, Ricki Lewis, covered a study of patients with a rare mitochondrial eye disease that may be entwined with MS. The disease called Leber hereditary optic neuropathy, LHON, is a degenerative eye disease that causes progressive loss of vision. But in some patients, the disease can also cause MS-like symptoms. Researchers performed MRIs on patients with LHON and found that their white matter lesions resembled MS, possibly providing an early snapshot of MS. The similarity of the diseases has also led some researchers to question whether they share a pathogenesis, but the rarity of LHON and MS developing in the same person is shifting the opinion towards calling any comorbidity of the diseases just a coincidence.   In a recent post in MS Patient, Ph.D., blogger Griselda Zuccarino-Catania followed up her feature on DMTs in pregnancy with her own personal debate on whether to continue her DMT while breastfeeding. In her post, she profiles researcher Thomas Hale, who studies drug concentrations in breast milk. He’s found that concentrations in a woman’s blood plasma are associated with the concentrations in her breast milk. These levels can be used to assess the risk any drug might have to infants.   [transition music]   Now for the interview. Science journalist, Carol Morton, met with Wendy Macklin at the Glia Meeting in Cold Spring Harbor, New York. She and Dr. Macklin discussed new research in myelination using the mTOR cell apoptosis pathway, the feasibility of a remyelinating drug, and her work with an unusual animal model for modeling MS – the zebrafish. [Note: the word "apoptosis" is incorrect and should not have appeared in the introduction to Dr. Macklin's interview. While it's impractical to remove it from the already-released audio podcast, we are correcting the error here, in this transcript.--Editor]   Interviewer – Carol Morton There are not that many MS researchers who work with that.   Interviewee – Wendy Macklin No, and there are times when you have to suggest that there is relevance to multiple sclerosis for looking at little two-inch fish. But they do. They provide really important information because you're not even looking at the two-inch fish; you're looking at the little, teeny tiny larva and embryos, but they are optically clear. So some of the new technologies use these green fluorescent proteins that originally were identified in jellyfish that make the jellyfish fluoresce at night. If you shine a certain wavelength of light, they turn green. And so, you can do that in a live animal, in a live fish; and in fact, some of the stuff that we were hearing today was even doing it in the mouse, but there you have to actually be able to get the microscope so you can actually see into the mouse brain. But in the fish, everything is transparent; so you can see it no matter what. So you just put the fish in a microscope environment, and you can watch cells, and you can take movies of cells moving, cells trying to make new processes, and cells wrapping around axons. And so you can watch this in realtime.   MSDF You recently had a really interesting paper. Do you want to talk about...?   Dr. Macklin So that paper came out of a project that we'd started a long time ago that was focused on understanding how one particular protein, Akt – which does many, many things in cells – regulates oligodendrocytes, which are the cells that make myelin. And it does many things; we thought it was involving in a survival element; and so we thought maybe we could find things that would help the oligodendrocytes survive immune attacks, survive things better and not die. And so we created a mouse where we overexpressed that protein in the oligodendrocyte. And instead, actually, what happened it did not change the survival of the cells at all; it changed how much myelin they made. And in fact, it drove the cells to make too much myelin. And in fact, if that becomes pathologic, the animals actually die when they're about a year old because they have too much myelin, and it's filling up their brain. So it's a dramatic change. And so, then we began to drill down to see well what is it about that molecule because it does many things? This particular hypermyelination syndrome was really feeding down through the mTOR pathway. And so, if you knockout parts of the mTOR pathway in the oligodendrocytes, the spinal cord is far worse and makes much less myelin and does not really generate the right kind of myelin. Whereas other parts of the brain are doing just fine or seem to be doing just fine. So one of the questions is why is this anymore damaged by this change in the cell? So the oligodendrocyte is identifying an axon and then wrapping around and making myelin, and that's what's the key question in MS is how to make sure that cell continues to make myelin. And we now have a system where we have changed the axons in some way – using again this mTOR pathway – and those axons don't encourage the oligodendrocyte to make myelin. So now we have a system where we can go in and try and figure out well what's fundamentally changed about those axons that they say don't myelinate me; whereas the oligodendrocytes in other parts of the nervous system are doing just fine making myelin.   MSDF Now after the session this morning, I'm actually wondering if myelin making is now the goal, or has the goal…is the goal changing as people find out more for for therapeutic?   Dr. Macklin I would say we don't know. So if you look in MS tissue, you see that where there's demyelination there still are oligodendrocyte progenitor cells, and there still are the cells that are trying to make myelin, the premyelinating cells. There's small numbers relative to the normal tissue, and they don't make myelin. So is that because we don't have enough cells? Is that because they have an inhibitor that's preventing them in that environment, or because they're not getting some positive signal? So I would still say the question of understanding how myelination is regulated has huge clinical relevance.   MSDF Recently you went to another meeting that was really focused on myelination as a therapeutic problem, a therapeutic target.   Dr. Macklin Right.   MSDF In addition to knowing what's happening with the cells and the molecules in the environment in the brain, there's some other issues in getting myelin-making drugs through clinical testing.   Dr. Macklin Yeah. In contrast to many of the other neurologic diseases, there are disease-modifying drugs out there for MS, but they almost all – at the current time – hit the immune component, which is absolutely essential and is definitely important. But even if you got rid of 100% of the immune component of MS, you still would have damage in the brain. And there is a good deal of evidence that the myelin not only does it allow better conduction of these axons, but it also provides all sorts of support. Metabolic it's providing energy to the axons; it provides a great many things to the axons that help the axons survive, which are part of the neurons. So if there is really still serious damage, you want to figure out some way to repair that. And so there are a couple of clinical trials actually going on right now that are looking at drugs that might enhance the remyelination in patients. And so, some of the things that we're doing – looking both in the fish as well as in the mouse – are pathways that could be targeted for therapeutics that might help you to enhance myelination. One of the big themes that came out of that meeting last month was that if you had the perfect therapy for remyelination – you know that it works well in the zebrafish; you know it works well in the mouse – you can get other models that allow you to look at remyelination in a number of different contexts. You have to get those to patients and see if they actually do create new myelin. In patients, the problem is that the current imaging modalities for patients, MRI, is measuring water. And where you have myelin there is less water because of the way myelin works. It's hard to know exactly why there's less water where you're looking in MRI. So there's a variety of different approaches. There's new techniques with MRI. There's even some new PET techniques – which are clearly experimental at this stage – to try to really be able to show new myelin. And part of that meeting was really if we had the perfect therapy how would we prove it in a clinical trial? You can show clinical improvement, which is great, but is that because of you've changed the immune system, because you've changed other aspects of the patient, or you really have new myelin? That's currently still a really hard problem in terms of the the clinical end of things to really be able to prove that. Nevertheless, people are developing these kinds of drugs, and as I said a couple of them are in clinical trial right now.   MSDF Looking at your animal models, the ways that you have evaluating more or less myelin are ways are ways that can't be translated to people…   Dr. Macklin Well some of them are. I mean that's really where some of this work is going is trying to figure out how to use either MRI or PET imaging of live animals, and then you can go and test. And you think you have a signal that tells you you have increased myelin then you can actually go in and check and see – at the tissue level – is there really new myelin? So you can validate some of these imaging modalities that way. But you you will always have to go eventually to the patients and be able to really demonstrate that that particular way of imaging the tissue proved in in an animal model really does mean something in the patient as well.   MSDF I've seen those little mouse MRIs.   Dr. Macklin They're so adorable.   MSDF They are.   Dr. Macklin And they definitely show you something. They definitely show you something. And some of the PET work…the PET work is more specifically directed to myelin so you can have a PET ligand, which shows up in PET imaging, that just literally binds only to myelin or binds predominantly to myelin, and it will go into the tissue, and it will bind there. And that actually gives you some fairly discrete imaging that because you know it's a molecule that only binds to myelin when you see that signal in a particular place you know that that is myelin. And if you see more of a signal, then you know that that's more myelin. So those are really interesting approaches, and they're very much more directed to being able to specifically say that's myelin that you're seeing. But in the clinical context, those kinds of approaches are being worked on, but they're still very early stages. In terms of trying to set up a clinical trial, those kinds of approaches may be the way you'll go eventually, but today you couldn't do it that way.   MSDF Anything else that I should be asking, or that you wanted to add that would in in this context that would be interesting?   Dr. Macklin Well I mean I think at this stage  there are other issues of the question of so much of the work is done on myelination, which is crucial during development, and it's absolutely essential. And problems with normal myelination during development result in really serious brain problems. There are ways to study developmental myelination: in the fish, in the mouse, in a variety of different ways. And then there's a series of adult ways of getting rid of myelin to look at remyelination. And so, the overwhelming perspective has always been well whatever you learn from the myelination during development would be exactly what you would need to know about for the remyelination in the adult. And much of that's true. I mean you have to get the cells, you have to get the cells to proliferate, you have to get them to the right place. But there are now data that suggest that there are definite differences in the way the adult cells are responding to their overall environment, which is totally different than from the developmental environment. The cells may be very similar, but in the developing environment the many things are changing all of the time – the nerve cells, all of the different cells are changing, the brain is getting bigger – there's all sorts of changes. And in a damaged adult brain, you see certain differences that do seem to be real in terms of the way the signaling pathways are that would regulate how the myelin is generated in the remyelinating context versus in the developmental context. So we do need to go back and forth even the ones of us who work on the fish. We need to be able to look and see some adult context that's a demyelination/remyelination context that those same things that you're seeing developmentally are important in the adult.   MSDF That is interesting because I have heard people say well you recapitulate, you want to recapitulate the…   Dr. Macklin Yes, and it does. It…   MSDF …the developmental pattern.   Dr. Macklin Right.   MSDF So that's interesting in that. Okay, well that's fabulous. Well, thank you for taking the time to do this.   Dr. Macklin Okay. Certainly.   MSDF It was wonderful.   Dr. Macklin I hope it's useful for you.   MSDF Okay, great.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode 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 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]

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller  Hello, and welcome to Episode Seven 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 neurologist, Dr. Daniel Kantor. But to begin, here's a brief summary of some of the topics we’ve been covering on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   At MSDF, we publish short, medium, and long articles. The longest News Synthesis articles cover an entire area of MS research. In one recent News Synthesis, science journalist Cynthia McKelvey, provided a primer on epigenetics. Epigenetic modifications are defined as any change to gene expression that happens without altering the  DNA sequence, and they could be the key to understanding heterogeneity in MS. Though the literature on the role of epigenetics in MS is growing, the field remains in its infancy and is not very well understood by many MS researchers and clinicians.   The medium-length articles we call New Findings, and they focus on either a single study or a small group of closely related studies along with comments from experts not directly involved in the studies. An excellent example by Science journalist, Mitch Leslie, explores an iPad app that may become a more convenient alternative to the much maligned Expanded Disability Status Scale, the EDSS. The app mimics four tests in the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite test. In an initial study, the app was sensitive enough to discern people with MS from healthy controls. If future trials are successful, it could allow patients to test themselves at home. It could also streamline data collection making the app useful to researchers as well. Our article includes a video demonstrating the app in action.   Then there are the News Briefs—short, meaty, and easy to digest summaries of noteworthy studies. For example, we reported on a large international survey that recorded a high statistical correlation between physical activity and health-related quality of life in MS patients. Another news brief looked at a study showing that evaluating a patient’s treatment preferences may play a key role in how long he or she will stick with a disease modifying treatment. We also reported on a study that described differences in overall brain atrophy between MS patients with oligoclonal bands and those lacking them.   Now for the interview. Dr. Daniel Kantor is a neurologist based at the Neurologique Foundation in Florida who is concerned with MS patients’ access to care. Dr. Kantor met with MSDF editor, Bob Finn, to discuss this issue.   Interviewer – Bob Finn Dr. Kantor, welcome   Interviewee – Daniel Kantor Thank you.   MSDF  In a recent article in MS Focus, you wrote that there are three types of access to care. What are they?   Dr. Kantor  Access to care means many things. Sometimes people think access to care just means access to medications. But access to care actually means access to physicians, access to medications, and then access to all the other diagnostics and other types of testing.   MSDF And how would you grade the US healthcare system on each of those as it relates to MS patients on each of those factors?   Dr. Kantor 2014 has been an important year with the Affordable Care Act as well as with other federal legislation as well as state legislation that's happened. Access to care for some patients has gotten better. People who maybe couldn't get insurance have been able to get it. For a lot of people, though, their access to care has either remained the same or actually their access has come down. What I mean by that is somebody who could see the physician of their choice in the past now, in 2014, has found it increasingly difficult to have access to physicians who are familiar with their care, familiar with their disease state, and familiar with the treatments that are out there.    MSDF You mentioned the Affordable Care Act. How is that specifically affecting access to treatments, access to physicians, access to diagnostics?   Dr. Kantor The Affordable Care Act did several things. One of the things that happened in the Affordable Care Act was the creation of these exchanges or the marketplace. So in states that either ran their own marketplace or that go with the federal marketplace, there are plans that are really "stripped down" insurance plans. And that means that there's more restricted networks – meaning the patient has less choice when it comes to who to see about their disease state – and there's also sometimes more restrictive choices in terms of the medications. So you have less physicians to offer them care, maybe not physicians who specialize in multiple sclerosis, and then that physician also has less choices of what to use. So as you can imagine, those things get compounded, and a patient may have a lot less access to care than they would have had otherwise. A simple example is a patient who did not have insurance and now has insurance. So a patient who didn't have insurance before they've gained access because now they carry a plastic insurance card. But while they may have been paying a reasonable sum to a physician to see them with a cash pay, now that physician is not offered on their health insurance plan. While they may have been part of a patient assistance program with many of the pharmaceutical manufacturers, they may or may not still be eligible for those same patient assistance programs. Meaning that a drug that may have been free to them – or very low priced – may be even more expensive to them now.    MSDF At MSDF, we recently ran an article about a study; it was a survey of neurologists. And the survey was looking at a number of different things. But the neurologists were saying that their patients were happy with fingolimod but not happy with their insurance companies giving them access to fingolimod. What other sorts of issues like that are arising in MS?   Dr. Kantor I think it's a perfect example. Prior to 1993, we had no disease-modifying therapies that were FDA approved. Since 1993, we now have 10 separate branded products. That's an amazing leap forward. Not many fields in medicine have seen that kind of increase and certainly not in the world of neurology. For many patients with other neurological conditions – like Huntington’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or Lou Gehrig’s disease, even stroke – they look at MS, and they're jealous. They have seen such an increase in the amount of research. At the same time, however, we see a decrease in the practice. We see it being harder and harder to actually practice good MS clinical care. And so, while patients may have access in some ways to medications that have even more efficacy than our traditional medications, if a patient can't get their medication or has to go through many, many insurance hoops to get there, then that's not good for them.   MSDF What's the solution?   Dr. Kantor The solution really is the neurology, physician, nurse practitioner, and physician assistant and community working alongside the patient community together and engaging our colleagues in the managed care world. Like it or not, in America, healthcare is usually paid by somebody else. Most people do not walk into a hospital or walk into a doctor's office and write the payment themselves. They are either part of an employer group – where the employer is frankly handling much of the payment – or now they're part of exchanges, or they may even be part of a federal program like Medicare or a state program like Medicaid. So the client for the doctor is not really the patient. Our patients are our patient; and we have a Hippocratic Oath; and we have a long, long time of tradition of what we do for that physician/patient relationship. But it's not really a client relationship. That might be good/that might be bad, but it's the fact. In fact, for most practicing physicians, most practicing clinicians, our client is actually the insurance company. And so that means that there's some disconnect between what a patient might think they want and even what the physician might think they want for the patient and what the patient actually gets. So what we need to do, though, is engage these managed care organizations better in terms of recognizing that things like step edits, like prior authorizations those are here to stay. Sometimes some neurologists see them as so unethical that the real prior authorization should be the doctor's prescription. The fact is that that's not the case. And it's going to be very hard to change that system (9:26) unless the person who's actually paying is the actual patient. And so recognizing that managed care organizations are there to manage their medical costs we need to work better at giving them the tools they need. We think that there's no guidelines for treatment of MS; there actually are; there are many guidelines. Each state – if you look at the major insurance company in that state – their prior authorization and utilization management criteria that is the most commonly used guideline for multiple sclerosis in that state. So while we may think, as physicians, it doesn't exist, it does exist; it's just not being written by us. These are being written by pharmacists at either pharmacy benefit management companies or pharmacists at insurance companies, and they're deciding the fate of our patients. We need to take a more proactive stance and work together at developing guidelines that can make sense and that have also "outs". What I mean by that is even if you say that we have a treatment algorithm that works for most patients there's always going to be patients who for some reason or other you don't want to put them through that algorithm. An example may be if you're going to start a medicine that has a potentially high chance for a certain side effect – and you think from past experience that that patient may have that side effect because they've been on similar medications with a similar side effect – then you may not want to put them through that algorithm. You may want to say well they haven't failed the medicine yet, they haven't had an intolerable side effect from this medicine, but they've had from a similar medication. And that becomes a big issue, for example, in the use of one of the oral medication, dimethyl fumarate – also called BG-12 or by the brand name of Tecfidera – where we do see significant GI side effects. For a lot of people, we don't; for most people they tolerate it well. But if you have a patient who has already shown you on multiple other medications for different symptoms that they have sensitive stomach, then even without a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease or celiac, you still would probably want to avoid using that medication. So that's an example where it's not a contraindication listed on the label, it's not an absolute contraindication – and it may not even be considered a relative contraindication – but in the physicians' opinion that patient would have a negative outcome because of that medication that's where they shouldn't go through that algorithm in the same way.   MSDF How successful are you at convincing insurance companies of that?   Dr. Kantor I think we're getting increasingly successful. In 2009, we started a group which was at first called the SouthEastern MS Consortium, or seMSc, sort of like the SEC in football. And then Texas A&M entered the SEC in football so we expanded to the Southern MS Consortium. And we go from Texas east and Delaware south; we take the most liberal definition of the South. Now there are members from California, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and we're actually about to relaunch and rebrand as the Medical Partnership for MS. And the idea was that prior to this MS neurologists, as well as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, speech therapists, physical and occupational therapists, case managers, social works didn't feel like they had a voice when it came to advocacy for their patients. They felt like the existing organizations didn't always reflect what they're going through and what their patients are going through with taking a proactive stance on some difficult issues but by engaging in a collegial way with the insurance companies. Instead of taking in a stance that every medication should be available for every single patient, we've taken a more reasoned approach of while that may be in an ideal world that's not the world we live in. And so, let's look at the different utilization criteria, utilization management criteria, of the different insurance companies and work with them on a one-by-one basis. So we have constant conversations with insurers throughout this country.   MSDF  Dr. Kantor, I thank you very much.   Dr. Kantor Thank you for having me.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode 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 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]   

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode 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. Jeffrey Dunn, who explores the prospect of personalized medicine in MS. But to begin, here’s a brief summary of some of the topics we’ve been covering on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   Recently, blogger Emily Willingham shared a person experience with MRI interpretation in our blog, MS Patient, Ph.D. She wrote, “I’ve come to realize in my various dealings with MRI reports that neuroradiologists are like economists; everyone has an opinion and no two readers will agree on what they see in exactly the same data.” Willingham, a developmental biologist, provides a unique view into the life of an MS patient. Her experiences bring a first-person perspective of MS, while her scientific background informs her insights in a way that many researchers and clinicians may find valuable.   We’d also like to bring your attention to the data visualization section of the MSDF website. Under the research resources tab, you can find a series of interactive data visualizations useful for MS researchers. One visualization aggregates 106 clinical trials. You can organize the data by the compound, phase, population, or even the funding. Our latest visualization is of the natural history of MS symptoms. The interactive bar chart allows you to see the change of various symptom severity in MS over a 30-year period.   Also in research resources, check out the drug development pipeline. This is where we keep detailed information on, at last count, 40 drugs currently in development or on the market for MS. This database, which is updated daily as new information becomes available, contains a wealth of data on each agent. This includes the agent’s class, its intended target and routes of administration, its regulatory status and commercial history, its chemical properties, mechanism of action and adverse effects, and all its clinical trials.   Now for the interview. Dr. Jeffrey Dunn is a Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences at Stanford University. He met with MSDF editor Bob Finn to discuss the use of biomarkers and personalized medicine. But first he shared a little history.   Interviewee – Jeffrey Dunn So, in the history of multiple sclerosis, when cases of CNS demyelinating disease were first discovered, they were discovered as isolated case instances at a number of different and variable institutions throughout Europe and in the United States. The doctors knew of the patients’ symptoms, of course, because they had cared for them. Many of these patients went on to pathology examination, and multiple cases of areas of inflammation or even scar formation were seen within the central nervous system. These cases from the mid-1800s and into the late-1800s were described as isolated instances. And the physician who is given credit for the discovery of what we now know to be multiple sclerosis was Dr. John-Martin Charcot in Paris, because he had had the experience of a very close relationship with a patient he named Mademoiselle V. He had known that she had had a tremor and ataxia and eye movement abnormalities, so Charcot knew his patient’s phenotype, her clinical manifestations, very well, and specifically had seen evidence of eye movement abnormalities, tremor, and ataxia. She had consented to have her nervous system evaluated pathologically, and so Charcot was able to make a connection between what she had looked like in life, and then what her brain and spinal cord had looked like after she had passed away.   It’s that clinicopathologic correlation that really was a paradigm-buster at the time. And Charcot found palpably hard spots – areas of gliosis or scar formation – that occurred in plaques and patches throughout the spinal cord and brain (and cerebellum in this case). He called the disease almost an adjective really; he called it “la sclérose en plaques”, which is French for sclerosis – meaning hard spots essentially – in plaques. So hard spots was the disease. Multiple sclerosis is really an adjective more than a diagnosis. But in the early 20th Century leading up to the mid-20th century, there was increasing recognition on the basis of these isolated case reports that this disease that was now increasingly being called multiple sclerosis might be far more common than people had realized, and great credit needs to be given to Sylvia Lawry, who as you know was the founder of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. The National MS Society was put together to try to bring physicians together to create a forum by which they could crosstalk, share the anecdotal information each of them had compiled, and come up with a more systematic review so that the disease could be better described and so that treatments could be more likely discovered. This was a huge step forward in terms of our discovery and ability to diagnosis and ultimately later to treat MS, but it created a framework that said that MS was, in some respects, one disease.   Now all of us even today, I would say, as physicians are trained that MS is a distinct disease; that it’s one type of disease with many variations according to individuals, but I think we’re actually at the very beginning of a very important paradigm shift in this consideration. There’s a difference, of course, between a disease and a syndrome. A disease is a quantifiable isolated entity – a classic example might be a genetic disorder caused by a single mutation in a coding sequence of DNA – whereas a syndrome is probably a collection of different but closely related diseases. I think there’s increasing evidence now, an increasing recognition that MS may be very heterogeneous and variable across individuals; I don’t think there would be any argument among my colleagues that MS is a heterogeneous process. My suggestion to you is that now, I think, we’re at the threshold of a paradigm that says that MS should not be regarded as a monolith or a single pathologic entity, but maybe more as a Stonehenge; a collection of closely related conditions that share some common pathology, but that need to be considered on an individual basis.   At the clinical, radiologic, immunologic, and pathologic levels we have evidence that MS is very heterogeneous among individuals. I think the theory that we now need to proceed according to is that multiple sclerosis is not one disease entity, but a number of different conditions. This idea and paradigm of personalized medicine is gaining traction. Our oncology colleagues who treat cancer have used this with some great and promising success in terms of applying optimum regimens and chemotherapeutic protocols to their patients, but I think there’s tremendous opportunity in multiple sclerosis to practice personalized medicine, because I think that the process of MS is a personalized one in which there are unique and eminently measurable proteins or protein profiles one day we’ll be able to identify, and hopefully that day is soon, and we can use that as the rationale for our prescription for the patients.   Interviewer – Bob Finn So when some people think about biomarkers, they think about an individual protein or some other biological signal that will be prognostic or in some other way tell you about what the patient is experiencing or might experience. It sounds to me like you’re talking about not an individual biomarker, but a constellation of biomarkers that would provide a fingerprint. Am I right about that?   Dr. Dunn I think so. Just as the disease pathogenesis itself is heterogeneous, I don’t think that one single protein would be able to help us. What I would foresee as an individual approaches us, that we might do a panel. There’s a series of questions that has to be asked. The immune process itself is sequential and acts, I think, as a cascade, and we have some biomarkers today that are available. I think you could argue them as biomarkers that help us in decision-making, that help the clinician decide what might be the best therapy, at least in terms of risk-benefit balance, but we just don’t have enough of them to be able to make the kinds of personalized decisions that I think we all hope we’ll be able to make one day.   MSDF Would you mention a couple of the ones that are – or some of the ones – that are available now?   Dr. Dunn So one example that I think would be well agreed on is the presence or absence of JC virus infection that can now be measured by a two-step ELISA assay, with a false-positive rate of an estimated 2.5%. One of the great challenges we face in treating MS is that we have to, in some respects, down-regulate the immune system to protect the brain and central nervous system, but we can’t overshoot the mark to cause a systemic immunosuppression. Immunosuppression can manifest in a number of different ways, including opportunistic infections and even malignancy. One of the most lethal and daunting of the opportunistic infections is a condition called progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy – that’s precisely why we tend to call that PML instead, three syllables is far preferable – and that condition is caused by an infection of an otherwise relatively benign virus called JC virus, that if it gets into the central nervous system and begins to affect oligodendrocytes and cells of the central nervous system, can cause rapid intracellular proliferation and damage to the brain; that can spread geometrically throughout the brain and can cause very profound brain damage, and sometimes cases of death as well.   We’ve known of PML previously in patients with lymphoma and also in patients with untreated HIV infection who had severe and advancing immunosuppression. But we’ve seen this same PML condition in immunocompetent patients who have been treated with some of the agents that we might use for multiple sclerosis. This concern is not unique to MS, but it’s a concern with any immunotherapy that you use. The ability to measure whether a patient has previously been infected with a JC virus or not helps us in the risk-benefit balance considerations we have to make on behalf of our patients. It’s known that the absence of evidence of a JC virus infection is associated with a markedly decreased risk of PML, whereas its presence means that’s an active consideration in our prescribing.    Now that, I think, functions as a biomarker. Any time you might see an elevation of a measurable protein or another biomarker in general that normalizes with remission that gives you the opportunity to suggest that that either might be a therapeutic target – so let’s just call it protein X, for example, just for simplification and clarification. If a patient having an MS attack has a measurable increase in protein X in their blood which then now returns to normal or what had been their previous baseline in remission, that tells the clinician investigator that protein X might either be part of the immunologic cascade that causes the MS attack, and therefore suggests that the ability to intervene, down-regulate, or modify the expression of protein X may help with disease pathogenesis, OR it could also mean, or it could emerge as a candidate as a tool of assessment for disease status, so that one question we always have to ask as clinicians when we start patient on any given therapy or just in following them is how are they doing. Of course, that’s a primary mandate for the clinician taking care of patients.   Today, we do that by asking how they’re feeling, we strive to get into quality of life metrics with them, we also turn to their examination findings to look for interval change, and we look at MRI to see if there’s been a change there, with the hope that we’re seeing no evidence of disease activity. But the field of multiple sclerosis does not have its own version of a hemoglobin A1c, such as our endocrinologists have. In that scenario for those that aren’t familiar with it, A1c can be a value obtained literally with a single drop of blood that tells the practicing clinician caring for the patient what the average blood sugar of that patient has been over a substantial period of time prior to the time of their clinical encounter. So it helps the clinician make wise judgments and counsel to the patient regarding the optimum way to treat their diabetes, whether adjustments have to be made in their diet or in their prescription medications.   We don’t have such a thing in multiple sclerosis today. If we could find such a thing, it would make our care, I think, far superior in its quality. I think it would make physicians’ advice to our patients far more wise, and it would make the entire medical enterprise of caring for the MS patient less expensive, because we wouldn’t have to resort to important but still somewhat stodgy and expensive technologies like serial MRIs done with what could be high-frequency for the patient. Serial MRIs are safe for the patient, but you can see that if we could identify such a biomarker as that, if that were possible, I think that would have revolutionary implications for our care of the MS patient, not just in reducing medical costs – that’s an important goal – but the more important goal and what physicians need to focus on is superior advice, improved advice and counsel to the patients that are in our care.     MSDF So you and I are both old enough to remember when the Human Genome Project was proposed, and one of the values of the Human Genome Project that was articulated was that it would usher in an era of personalized medicine. Now it’s 13 years or so after the Human Genome Project has been completed, and, arguably, that promise has never been realized. How much longer will it take in multiple sclerosis to realize an era of personalized medicine?   Dr. Dunn The short answer is I don’t know, but there’s some important considerations to be made along the way. One fact is there are approximately 25,000 genes in the human body, but there are an estimated 500,000 proteins. The reason for the difference is that after an original protein is manufactured on the basis of the blueprint of DNA, it can be modified in transcription and translation. For those of you in your field, this would be post-production modifications. The same thing happens with proteins, and what that means is that the field of proteomics, you could argue, is 20 times more sensitive than the field of genomics if the ratio is 25,000 to 500,000 genes to proteins in the human body, respectively.   MS does have a genetic component, and that’s been proven by research in this past two decades by our country’s leading researchers, but the genetic input of MS is not the only answer; MS is only partially a genetic disease. It seems to be, in my own opinion and I think it’s shared by my colleagues – many of them, most of them perhaps – is that MS is primarily an environmental condition. The greatest risk of obtaining MS is not so much that family members are affected, though cases of that have happened and happen regularly, it seems to be more related to environment, where one lives. Now you may know that epidemiologically, MS is almost absent, or very sparse, at the equator, but in moving north and south on Earth, the greater that one moves away from the equator, the greater the prevalence of MS. And right about the 35th parallel or so both north and south of the equator, there appears to be a relatively large increase in how much MS there is. And that’s true, to the best of our knowledge, all the way around the world.   And so if MS is more of an environmental condition than a genetic one – although it’s both – then I think a genetic assay may be part, but not likely to be all of the answer, and the promise of going to a more sensitive assay to get into the post-transcription and post-translational modification that takes place in human molecules, which ultimately are the language of how the immune system affects our nervous system, is going to be and prove to be a more enriched and more promising field of inquiry.   MSDF I wonder if you can mention some of the labs that are doing the most promising work in this area.   Dr. Dunn I’m pleased to say that there are labs throughout the world that I think are doing research in this. Within the United States – I don’t want to leave anybody out – but I think that special kudos need to be given to the Mayo Clinic. I think on the east coast the Partners Program of the Harvard Medical Schools are very interested in this field; Johns Hopkins is doing work that I think is exemplary. Out west, our colleagues at UCSF. And, of course, I have to give special kudos to my colleagues at Stanford University. These are places that are publishing in translational medicine the bench-to-bedside framework in which discoveries that are being made at the level of the bench, there’s an active effort being made to try to translate that to human care. I’m very sensitive to the idea of excluding anybody, because I think that this is really an international search, and it’s going to require multilevel of collaboration. So I hope that as we go forward, we’ll be able to really work together.   I mentioned just a moment ago, I think practice of personalized medicine in this field is going to require not one discovery, it’s going to require a panel, perhaps, of different measurable biomarkers. I don’t anticipate one single lab is going to be able to discover all of those biomarkers, I think we’ll get one discovery from one place, one from another, one from another. And it’s going to require a transcendent collaboration between institutions and individuals and researchers and investigators to bring it all together for the collective good.   MSDF Dr. Dunn, thank you very much.   Dr. Dunn Okay, alright, thank you very much, Bob.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode 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 Robert Finn. 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.   [outro music]

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller  Hello, and welcome to Episode 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. Anne Cross, who reflects on the past year in MS research. But to begin, here’s a brief summary of some of the topics we’ve been covering on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.    Researchers have discovered that multiple sclerosis may have something in common with colon cancer; the Wnt pathway. It’s a genetic pathway important in development, stem cell maintenance, and cell differentiation. In colon cancer, the mutation of a mediator gene called APC causes the Wnt pathway to become overactive, leading to tumor formation. Now, researchers have discovered that a loss of function mutation of APC in the brain also leads to an overactive Wnt pathway, ultimately freezing oligodendrocyte progenitor cells in their undifferentiated state.    Next, what disease-modifying therapies should women start or stop before pregnancy? In our latest news synthesis, we discuss the difficulties many women with MS have in deciding when to stop DMT before trying to conceive. Since it can take months, and even years, for a woman to conceive, it’s important that she spend the least amount of time off medication as possible to reduce the chance of relapse. Some drugs may be worth taking during pregnancy anyway, but it’s up to the neurologist to do a risk-benefit analysis for each patient. Nevertheless, many women opt to go off of DMT altogether to reduce the risk of adverse effects on the fetus.   Finally, we would like to direct your attention to funding opportunities on the MSDF webpage. Under the Professional Resources tab at msdiscovery.org, you can find a listing of various organizations offering funding for research grants, fellowship grants, and more. Currently, there are several opportunities offered from ECTRIMS with deadlines this winter. There are also several deadlines for funding from the National MS Society coming up in August.    Now for the interview.   Interviewer – Bob Finn This is Bob Finn. I’m here with Dr. Anne Cross of the Washington University in St. Louis. Dr. Cross will later today be giving a talk at the American Academy of Neurology meeting on what the year has been like in MS research. And, so, let me ask you briefly, what has the year been like? Has it been a good year, a bad year, an exciting year, a boring year?   Interviewee – Anne Cross  I think it’s been a pretty good year. There have been some mainly good things, a couple of bad things, some rather interesting and unexpected things, too. I guess some of the good things involve genetics research papers that have come out identifying genes that are associated with risk of developing MS. That’s been kind of exciting. Actually, there were 48 new genes that were identified and published this year by the International MS Genetics Consortium, which is a very large group of international researchers that have amassed probably close to 30,000 genetic samples from MS patients over the years that they’ve been in existence, which is about 10 years, plus close to double that of controls. And all these MS patient samples are from patients who were well characterized and submitted by, generally, MS specialists.    And that group did a study using something called the Immunochip, which is a genotyping array that was actually developed by a group of investigators who work on autoimmune disorders, so that array is very much weighted towards beings with immunologic function. So not too unexpectedly, all 48 of the newest identified genes all relate in some way to the immune system or are very closely linked to genes of immune function. But prior to that, the same group – the International MS Genetics Consortium – had identified about 50, a little over 50 genes that are associated with MS risk, and most of them were also related to genes of immune function. So I think together, all of this data certainly implicates the immune system, which we already knew, but I think things are certainly solidifying around that with the newest data.   MSDF  Let me ask you, if they’re using techniques that are specific for immunological genes, are they missing other genes?   Dr. Cross  They very well could be. The original studies that this group did which were published, the biggest study was published in the summer of 2011, did not do it in that fashion, though, they just did a genome-wide association study, and most of the genes that they identified were related to the immune system directly or indirectly. So, yes, I’m sure that some are being missed that aren’t related to the genes that are on this Immunochip microarray, but they’re trying to hone down a bit.    And some of the other things that were discovered were that, well, they identified 5 allelic variants; the particular allelic variant was over 50% of the time associated with risk of MS. And they also identified in this latest search – well, the strongest association was with a gene that has immune function called Vcl-10 – they actually in this latest search rediscovered the same 50 or so that they had discovered before, so they were actually mostly in this Immunochip microarray.   MSDF  So, aside from the genome-wide association studies, what else has been interesting in MS research this year?   Dr. Cross  Well, I think some of the clinical trials that have been published in the past year, and also that are just ongoing and aren’t published yet, have been interesting. This past week, Dr. Rhonda Voskuhl, who’s from UCLA, spoke and presented for the first time ever recent data from a study of estriol, which is a pregnancy hormone that was added to glatiramer acetate in women with relapsing-remitting MS, and that was compared to placebo pills added to glatiramer acetate. And the results were pretty positive, especially in the first year when there was an almost 50% reduction in relapse rate in the group that received estriol plus glatiramer. And, you know, that’s, of course, based upon longstanding data that we’ve known, that women with MS who have relapsing disease have a much decreased relapse rate during pregnancy. And then Dr. Voskuhl had done a good bit of work with estriol, in particular, which is a fairly safe pregnancy estrogen hormone compared to some of the others, but it’s not available in the United States right now.    MSDF  You mentioned that there were some disappoints.   Dr. Cross  At least for me, and probably for a lot of MS patients, the biggest disappointment was the failure of the FDA to approve a drug called alemtuzumab, which is a humanized monoclonal antibody against an antigen that’s on pretty much all the mononuclear cells of the immune system. And the US FDA failed to approve it, although, I believe, 32 countries and counting have approved it at this point, including Canada and Mexico and all of the countries of Western Europe, Australia, Brazil.   MSDF  Have there been any interesting developments on the remyelination front?   Dr. Cross  Yes, yes, yes. In fact, I hope to speak about that today. There are studies in early-phase trials right now of anti-LINGO-1, which is a humanized monoclonal antibody against a molecule called LINGO-1, which is found only in the central nervous system – at least that’s what the data says so far – and it’s expressed by oligodendroglial cells, or the cells that make central nervous system myelin. And, for whatever reason, it’s involved in inhibiting remyelination in the central nervous system. So the monoclonal antibody that inhibits it then enhances remyelination. And in mouse models it looked very good, and it also led to less injury to axons, or nerve fibers, so it had more than just a remyelinating effect. And it’s now in phase II studies in relapsing-remitting MS and optic neuritis patients. At least the relapsing-remitting MS study is fully enrolled, and so we’ll be looking forward to those results.   So another potential remyelinating agent is a little bit behind anti-LINGO-1. It’s called recombinant human IgM22, and it was developed from a natural IgM antibody that was discovered at Mayo Clinic that binds to a surface antigen on oligodendrocytes – the cells that make central nervous system myelin – and it enhances myelination in mouse models of demyelination, and, in fact, in some studies, just a single dose of that led to longstanding remyelination in the mouse model. So that’s in dose-finding studies in human beings at the present time, and hopefully will move forward from there.   Other exciting things, at least to me, are studies of stem cells that can be differentiated into different types of cells. And, at this point, you can actually take human skin cells or human fibroblasts and revert them back to stem cells; they’re called induced pluripotent stem cells. So you can actually take a person’s skin and do that, and then you can differentiate it forward into whatever cell type you want, really, these days; I mean, you can differentiate them into neurons. And in MS, we’re very interested in differentiating them into oligodendrocyte precursor cells – cells that form the cells that make central nervous system myelin.    And a study that I plan to talk about this afternoon took such cells and made them into human oligodendrocyte precursor cells and put them into the central nervous systems of mice who had a genetic mutation in myelin basic proteins, so they are essentially unmyelinated. And these mice die very soon after being born, much earlier than normal, and they put these human cells in. They had to immunosuppress the mice so that they’d accept the human cells. But these cells actually made myelin, and it was functional myelin at least from the standpoint of wrapping around fairly normal-looking nerve fibers, axons, from the mice, and forming compact, normal-appearing myelin. So that particular group, they’re from New York State and they’re affiliated with several other medical centers, and they plan to get this into humans pretty soon. Their first project, however, is going to involve fetal stem cells first, because that was easier to get approved and moved forward on, and so I believe they’re already funded to do a three-center – all in New York State – stem cell study injecting such cells into the central nervous system of people with secondary progressive MS.    MSDF  Now some patients aren’t waiting for the studies, I understand, but what is your point-of-view about that?   Dr. Cross  It depends on where they’re going and what they’re doing. I personally think there’s some shoddy research, some charlatans you might call them, out there who are taking the money and presenting false hopes to patients that I certainly disagree with. And I have one particular patient I know who went to another country and had stem cell therapy done in what she described as a very dirty environment. And luckily nothing bad happened to her from this experience, but nothing good happened either. I’m hoping that she’ll be able to get into some of these well-done, scientifically valid, protocol-driven studies that seem to have some promise.    MSDF  Any other interesting areas of MS research in the past year?   Dr. Cross  I think the unexpected finding that I plan to talk about is an association of salt – sodium in particular, the sodium component of sodium chloride – in the development of a particular type of pathogenic T-cell that at least is related to the mouse model of MS called experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. These are Th17 cells and they’ve been shown to, at least in some models, cause the EAE model for MS. And it was found that if you increase the salt intake of mice that had been induced to develop this model and compared them to mice who weren’t getting extra salt in their diet, that the mice who got extra salt got disease earlier; they had a more severe course, they didn’t recover as well, and they had histologically when you looked at their central nervous systems, more cells infiltrating and just more damaging. So that was kind of interesting and quite unexpected, I would say.    Two different groups of investigators sort of came up with that at the same time; I’m sure they were speaking to each other about it, that the studies came out right together. It certainly would be a modifiable environmental thing if it proves to be true, and perhaps even a little bit simple. And there is actually a scientific reason behind why this might occur. Well, there’s a response in the body by something called p38 MAP kinase in response to, like, many different stresses, but including among them osmotic stress which increased salt could cause. And that pathway that p38 MAP kinase is involved in eventually can lead to the induction of a particular kinase that is key to the development of Th17 cells. So it sort of all, you know, fits together.    There are certainly some things that don’t fit with that. I think that certain areas of the world, for example, have very high salt intake and yet have low MS rates, but it may be that there’s this environmental factor. There probably are many different environmental factors that’s going together with a genetic predisposition, and those together are probably leading, perhaps, to MS. In any event, this will have to be proven by other groups, but if the association is true, it would certainly be modifiable.     MSDF  So looking ahead into the next year of MS research, what are you particularly looking forward to seeing?   Dr. Cross  I’d like to see more data come out on some of the other oral agents; there are a couple that are in the pipeline that are being looked at that perhaps have other mechanisms of actions from what we have now. I’d like to see other studies funded for estriol so that perhaps it could come to the United States and be an adjunctive therapy probably for women with MS and probably pretty safe. I’m really hopeful – I’m not sure if it’ll be in the next year – that we’ll see some good data coming out from these scientifically valid stem cells projects to help people with progressive MS, and help people who have longstanding disability to recover some function; those are the people that really, really need help in the MS world right now.   MSDF  Well, Dr. Cross, thank you very much.   Dr. Cross  Thank you.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode 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 Robert Finn. 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.   [outro music]   

[intro music]  Host – Dan Keller   Hello, and welcome to Episode Four 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 Racke about the potassium channel Kir4.1 and its potential role in MS. But to begin, here’s a brief summary of some of the topics we’ve been covering on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.    Researchers at the University of California San Francisco have developed a new remyelination assay that allows high through-put drug screening. The assay takes advantage of oligodendrocyte’s tendency to wrap myelin around anything axon-shaped, such as plastic fibers and microscopic glass pillars. The assay has already identified several FDA-approved drugs as candidates for remyelination therapies, including an over-the-counter antihistamine now in phase II clinical trials.   In another article, we report on a new study that sheds light on the ameliorating effect of ultraviolet rays on inflammation and disease progression in mouse models of MS. In the study, MS patients sat in a therapeutic UV chamber for five sessions a week for six weeks. Even after one session, the patients had an increase in dendritic cells and regulatory T-cells. In follow-up studies with EAE mice, the researchers uncovered a possible mechanism by which these regulatory T-cells migrate to the central nervous system.   In addition to covering the latest in MS research, the MS Discovery Forum also curates news stories from around the web in our twice-weekly Research Roundup. Last week we wrote about the findings in phase III trials of daclizumab, a legal dispute between drug companies Acorda and Actavis, and a new collection of immunology papers from the journal PLOS. We also posted some social media advice as well as the amusing hashtag #yomanuscipt. Our favorite tweet: Yomanuscript is so bad the null hypothesis rejected it. Check out Research Roundup under the news brief section in the News and Future Directions tab on our website.   [transition music]   Now to the interview. Dr. Michael Racke is the Chair of the Department of Neurology at the medical school at Ohio State University. He’s here to discuss the latest findings of the potassium channel known as Kir4.1 and its implications for MS. MS Discovery’s Executive Editor, Bob Finn, spoke with Dr. Racke.    MSDF Dr. Racke, welcome. Dr. Racke Thanks.  MSDF So what is Kir4.1? Dr. Racke   So Kir4.1 is a what’s called a potassium inward rectifying channel that’s expressed on the end-feed of astrocytes and also on oligodendrocytes. And so it’s important for trying to adjust the right concentration of potassium in and outside of a cell.  MSDF   And what is its relationship to MS? Dr. Racke   Well, there’s been a lot of interest recently. There was a paper published in the New England Journal now almost a year and a half ago, I believe, from Bernhard Hemmer’s group that showed that about 50% of MS patients have antibodies directed against this potassium channel, Kir4.1. MSDF   And is that a lot more than people without MS? Dr. Racke   Right. So when they looked at healthy individuals or looked at patients with not just neuroimmunologic diseases but also other non-inflammatory diseases, the number of antibodies directed against it was very low, on the order of magnitude of like 3%.  MSDF   So what does this mean for our research in MS?  Dr. Racke   You know, for a long time people have been interested in what are the potential targets, and this would represent a little bit different target than the typical myelin proteins that one has thought of as being targets in MS. It’s also kind of interesting because of another molecule, aquaporin 4, that is expressed in the same place in the astrocytic endfeet that’s been the antibody target for neuromyelitis optica. And so I think as we begin to see responses against some of these other molecules, it’s interesting to see whether they result in in demyelination and whether that can be a new avenue for therapeutic intervention.  MSDF   Just within the last week, another study came to a quite different conclusions regarding the prevalence of Kir4.1 autoantibodies in MS. How do you resolve the discrepancy? Dr. Racke   There was data presented yesterday to suggest that one of the differences may actually be differences in glycosylation of Kir4.1. It turns out that eukaryotes—and humans are eukaryotes obviously—glycosylate proteins, and that very often glycosylated protein looks very different to the immune system than an unglycosylated protein. And since a lot of these studies take an unusual cell type and then try to over-express to your 4.1 on its surface and then see whether an antibody recognizes it, it may not be the same type of glycosylation that’s actually seen within patients with MS. MSDF   There’s a lot of research going on now on Kir4.1. What more needs to be done in this area before Kir4.1 becomes a therapeutic target?  Dr. Racke   Right. Well, so, for example, if you look at neuromyelitis optica, that if you did plasmic change in those patients, then very often those patients are benefited. So it’s as though if I take away those antibodies the patient does be better, so those antibodies are pathogenic. When that’s been done in MS, the data, it’s sort of been, I don’t want to say controversial, but in some sense it is. And then there have been studies, for example, done from the Mayo Clinic that looked in at certain types of demyelinating events where it seemed like plasma exchange did work, then there were larger studies that were done and it didn’t seem to work. And if, in fact, it’s, say, a pa a patient population where really only one-third to half of the patients have the pathogenic antibody, then if I do that study and say I’m going to do it to everybody, it may not have enough power to suggest that there’s efficacy for everybody. But I think it gets back also to this idea of what a lot of people talk about in personalized medicine, right, and the idea may be that you would be able to identify patients that perhaps had an antibody to Kir4.1, and then perhaps they would be more amenable to therapeutic interventions that targeted antibody synthesis in the blood. MSDF   Do you think that interventions targeted at Kir4.1, would that would it work much the same way as other as existing therapies in decreasing the number of relapses in re relapsing-remitting MS? Dr. Racke   For example, if you look at things like interferon, natalizumab, the way those therapies are trying to work isn’t against the specific antigen, right. What they’re really trying to do is just interrupt the disease process. And I think the difference is going to be there have been some studies where people were trying to target the specific epitopes to either myelin basic protein – the altered peptide ligand studies were like that – and there’s studies now also where people have solubilized MHC molecule that has a myelin peptide on it. And those are specifically trying to target the immune response against a very specific antigen. Now I have to say that most of those things haven’t really worked very well, and I think part of the reason is that the human immune response is complicated enough, but by the time a person has had several attacks in MS, they probably are making an immune response against a number of myelin antigens, and so if I target just a single antigen it may not work. And that may also end up being true in in terms of Kir4.1, that it’s just going to be another thing. But, I mean, if there’s enough similarities between it and some of the things that we’ve seen with neuromyelitis optica in aquaporin 4, like I say, there the plasma exchange and targeting the B-cell response in many instances has been quite beneficial to pa patients, right. And so I think that’s going to be an important next step to not just demonstrate that it can be part of the target that happens in multiple sclerosis, but whether inhibiting that response to that target actually has therapeutic benefit.    MSDF   You just outlined one area of research on Kir4.1 that needs to go forward. What are some others? Dr. Racke The other issues have to do with trying to understand exactly the cell-type specificity in terms of glycosylation, trying to understand why is it that this particular channel is a target in MS, then are other channels also targets in MS. This sort of opens up a whole other ballgame in terms of diversity of targets that could potentially participate in MS pathogenesis. MSDF   Is there anything else you’d like to add about Kir4.1 that we haven’t already talked about? Dr. Racke   I’ve been in this field for 20 years, and realistically this has been the first new antigen that really has come up. And that’s sort of interesting in and of its own right. I think the other thing, obviously, for those people who are interested in things like molecular mimicry, this gives you another molecule to begin to look at in terms of its sequence homology with infectious agents. I mean, the people who are interested in, you know, viruses like HHV-6 and Epstein-Barr viruses, and those that they think that have an important role potentially in MS pathogenesis, how might infections with those agents affect Kir4.1 expression. That’s going to be another area that’ll be of interest to the research community in MS. MSDF   Well, Dr. Racke, thank you very much.  Dr. Racke   You’re welcome.  [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode 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 Robert Finn. 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.    [outro music]  

[intro music]   Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode Three 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 investigators Daren Austin and Susan Van Meter of the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline, who will discuss results from the MIRROR trial of ofatumumab, a human monoclonal antibody already FDA approved for leukemia. But to begin, here’s a brief summary of some of the topics we’ve been covering on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.   First, a complementary approach to treating MS. A new study lends support to the prevailing theory that the immune system’s ancient complement system drives persistent axon damage between MS relapses. The complement system consists of proteins that can activate innate and adaptive immune responses, but have a poorly understood role in autoimmune diseases. The new results suggest that anticomplement therapies might help prevent damage to axons. Clinical trials are in the early planning phases, but one of the study’s authors cautions that even if this approach proves valuable, it would be used in addition to and not in place of therapies targeting inflammatory T-cells.   In a second article, we report on a study suggesting that inhibiting a common cytokine called granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor – GM-CSF – might be a new therapeutic target to treat MS. Studies have shown an association between the cytokine and MS flares. A newly described class of T helper cells produce GM-CSF, and inhibiting that production might be helpful in preventing flares.   Finally, we’d like to call your attention to our blog series called “MS Patient, Ph.D.” There are numerous blogs and other websites where people with MS talk with other people with MS. And there are also a few, including our own MS Discovery Forum, where MS researchers and clinicians talk with other researchers and clinicians. But we can’t think of any sites where people with MS who have a scientific bent communicate directly with researchers and clinicians. That’s what MS Patient, Ph.D. is all about. It’s a place where two articulate people struggling with MS, both of them Ph.D. biologists, present their points of view about their disease and about the state of MS research. You’ll find some of their opinions provocative and controversial, and we hope you’ll join the discussion. In our two most recent posts, Griselda Zuccarino-Catania discussed the snake oil treatments touted as MS cures and relates that to the recent testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee by Dr. Mehmet Oz. And Emily Willingham discusses conflicting evidence on whether exercise is good or bad for people with MS.   [transition music]   Now, onto the interview. Here at the 2014 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, we caught up with Dr. Daren Austin of GSK in London. He’s presenting the MIRROR study, which is a randomized, placebo-controlled study doing dose-ranging on ofatumumab in subjects with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.   Interviewer – MSDF What led you to implicate B-cells? We often think of T-cells as a target in multiple sclerosis.   Dr. Austin Well, there’d been previous work using other anti-CD20 therapies in immune inflammation diseases that have shown efficacy. Most notably the first was rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis and subsequently rheumatoid looking at multiple sclerosis, so the precedence for anti-CD20 modulation as a target for inflammatory diseases was known before we came to design this study. What wasn’t known before we designed the MIRROR study was how much modulation of B-cells would generate what level of clinical benefit. The primary objective of this study really was to look at how best we could administer ofatumumab, which is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, to modulate B-cells and then modulate clinical disease.   MSDF How’d you go about it? Can you describe the study and also what you found?   Dr. Austin Well, the study was a randomized, double-blind, parallel group study looking at relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients who had to have evidence of disease activity, i.e., they they would be requiring therapy. What we did was we took what we knew about the pharmacology of ofatumumab – and we’d previously conducted both an intravenous study in in multiple sclerosis patients, so we knew the drug could be efficacious in suppressing MRI lesions, and we took what we knew about the clinical pharmacology of ofatumumab; and, namely, that it is an extremely potent depleter of B-cells. We began by by hypothesizing that there was a link between the level of B-cell suppression and the level of MRI lesion suppression. From that we produced some some predictions. And our predictions led us to suggest that extremely low doses given relatively infrequently could be beneficial. We produced a transimulation before we conducted the trial, and we proposed a range of doses and dosing frequencies. So the first dose level was was placebo, the next level was a 3 mg dose that was given once every 12 weeks. The next dose level was 30 mg given once every 12 weeks. The next dose level was 60 mg given once every 12 weeks. And, finally, because we knew that a dose of 200 mg was efficacious over 12 weeks, we gave 60 mg every 4 weeks to give a cumulative dose of 180 mg. So we explored a dose range, a cumulative dose range, of 3 mg to 180 mg, with the primary endpoint being evaluation of MRI lesions at 12 weeks. Placebo patients were then given a 3 mg active dose. All patients were then followed for a further 12 weeks, and we now have the 24-week data. And, again, treatment then ceased and patients were followed-up to see repletion of B-cells.   And what we found in the study was, yes, that ofatumumab is is extremely potent at depleting B-cells. That single 3 mg dose was capable of knocking out about 75% of circulating B-cells, and the 60 mg dose given every 4 weeks depleted almost all patients right down to the undetectable levels, which is had been seen in the past. What we were able to do then is to look at the dose response to dosing of ofatumumab at the 12-week endpoint, and what we found is that at the cumulative dose of 180 mg, we see over 90% suppression of lesions. But we found that there was no incremental benefit in going above doses of about 60 mg, and in fact the dose that generated the half maximum effect from an analysis of the data was predicted to be less than 3 mg; a single 3 mg dose generated half of the maximum benefit.   Having shown that we have got clinical suppression of MRI lesions, we then decided to relay the pharmacology of ofatumumab, which is suppression of B-cells, to the clinical benefit, which is suppression of MRI lesions. And that was the purpose of this abstract, that the analysis that we presented showed quite clearly that there was a very strong relationship between how much you suppress B-cells and how much you suppress MRI lesions. But the surprising thing from this data is that you don’t have to fully deplete all patients to below the limit of quantification to derive benefit. We showed using a variety of analyses that patients that have circulating B-cells of less than 32 to 64 cells per microliter on average over the course of the dosing interval would still derive maximal benefit, i.e., suppression of lesions, to 90%. And that’s intriguing. And the reason it’s intriguing is that the doses that we gave are only acting on peripheral B-cells. There’s been speculation as to where the drug needs to get to give clinical benefit, and that the doses that we give – up to 60 mg doses – the drug can’t penetrate the blood-brain barrier. And, therefore, we know that by modulating peripheral circulating B-cells, we are deriving the maximal benefit in suppression of MRI lesions.   MSDF Is the drug acting on mature B-cells, or in B-cell development which may then migrate into the CNS during development?   Dr. Austin So ofatumumab only binds to the cells that express CD20, so there is some consideration as to where those cells exist. Now it is entirely possible that immature cells maybe sort of enter the periphery not expressing CD20, move to across the blood-brain barrier where they subsequently develop. That is a possibility. And if that is the case, our drug is not capable of reaching those B-cells. Only cells that express CD20 are depleted, so plasmablasts, for example, are not depleted because they do not express CD20. It is just that that population of of of B-cells that are expressing CD20. There’s a lot of hypotheses about how B-cells are working, how they may be producing pathogenic antibodies that may be detrimental. In MS it could be anti-myelin antibodies, for example. But we don’t absolutely know that that is the sole pathogenic mechanism in MS, as in other diseases. It may well be that B-cells are modulating other, say, T-cell activity, which we do not yet know. What we do know from our trial is that modulation of peripheral B-cells gives you benefit, and that’s the principal finding, and that the doses that we modulate at are much, much lower than the oncology doses that have previously been given.   MSDF So you don’t yet know whether you have a direct antibody effect on B-cells, or whether it’s acting possibly through antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity.   Dr. Austin We do know that the mechanism of B-cell depletion is through both ADCC and complement-dependent cytotoxicity. That is the primary pharmacology of ofatumumab on cells that express CD20. We do not and cannot say for certain what those B-cells were doing prior to being depleted and how they were driving the pathogenic process, but we have shown that by depleting them to levels of less than 32 cells per microliter, you see suppression of disease activity. One of the important things to say is that the regimens at the every 12-week dosing that we’d selected, there is some evidence that B-cells do start to grow back in at least half of patients, so dosing every 12 weeks pre-dose, there are some circulating B-cells. If we look at immature B-cells, there are lots of immature B-cells but they haven’t yet moved to the to express CD20. So what we see is that the regimens we’ve designed, there is some evidence of of repletion, i.e., that patients are seeing clinical benefit despite having circulating B-cells.   MSDF How does this fit in with the pathogenetic mechanisms of T-cells? Are there interactions in the pathologic process besides the regulatory effect of T-cells themselves?   Dr. Austin The truth is I don’t think we can say. All we can say is that modulation of B-cells circulating in the periphery gives clinical suppression of of MRI lesions, and by implication we believe at the clinical efficacy in multiple sclerosis, and possibly other diseases, although such low doses have not have yet to be tested in other diseases.   MSDF In terms of B-cell repletion, have you also followed new lesions after B-cells come back?   Dr. Austin We have the 24-week data and we have preliminary data out to 48 weeks, and that data won’t be reported yet because we’re still in the process of ana analyzing it. But in the trial we designed, we had individual follow-up to watch patients B-cell replete back up to the lower limit of normal or their baseline, and we are measuring their follow on MRI lesions.   MSDF Working along with Dr. Austin on this project is Dr. Susan Van Meter, the clinical physician involved in the project. Let me ask you, what sort of adverse effects did you see during the trial?   Dr. Van Meter The most common adverse effect that we saw was injection site reactions, and that can include things such as redness at the injection site, nausea, flu-like symptoms. That occurred in most of the patients receiving ofatumumab. It also, very interestingly, occurred in about 15% of patients who received placebo.   MSDF In terms of the more serious and chronic effects, did you see any opportunistic infections or especially progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy?   Dr. Van Meter So you would certainly worry about infections, especially serious infections. We did not see any cases of PML or other opportunistic infections, and, in fact, no serious infections. As typical for patients with MS, patients did have a variety of infections – urinary tract infections, respiratory infections – but this was seen in all patients including placebo patients, and there was really no evidence of an increased rate of infection in patients receiving ofatumumab.   MSDF What do you see as the potential clinical significance of these findings?   Dr. Van Meter Well, I think it offers another therapy option for patients with MS. Obviously, we have to do further development and show that the benefits that we saw on MRI translate into clinical benefit on relapse rates and disability progression. But we’re offering a subcutaneous dose as opposed to an intravenous dose of medication, and potentially offering a medication that doesn’t completely wipe out one part of your immune system.   MSDF Is there a reason for selecting ofatumumab over rituximab?   Dr. Van Meter Well, I think that would be a clinician choice, to be honest. Rituximab has certainly been studied for multiple sclerosis even though it’s not indicated for multiple sclerosis. There’s another B-cell therapy that will be on the market when we launch, ocrelizumab, and I think it will come down to physician and patient choice.   MSDF Is there anything we’ve missed or that’s important to add?   Dr. Van Meter Well, I think at Glaxo we are very excited about this data; this is new science. Obviously, we need to understand more about it, replicate it. But for the first time, we’ve shown that you don’t need to completely destroy all the B-cells to have effect in multiple sclerosis.   MSDF Very good, I appreciate it. Thank you.   [transition music]   Thank you for listening to Episode 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 Robert Finn. 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.   [outro music]

Transcript of Episode 2 with Dr. Barbara Koppel   [intro music] Host – Dan Keller  Hello, and welcome to Episode 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. Barbara Koppel, whose recent review of published studies concluded that certain forms of medical cannabis can be helpful in treating some symptoms of multiple sclerosis. But first, here is a brief summary of some of the topics we’ve been covering on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.  First, predicting MS risk. Cardiologists can use the Framingham risk assessment tool to predict the likelihood that one of their patients will develop heart disease. But what about MS? Given that researchers have now found 110 genes related to MS risk, are we close to a formula that can predict who will develop MS and what course it will take? Disappointingly, the answer is probably not. Reporter Emily Willingham writes that “Decoding MS risk factors is less like fitting together a jigsaw puzzle and more like balancing a Jenga tower, with layer upon layer of complex interactions and unpredictable outcomes if something changes.” For those of you who may not be familiar with Jenga, it’s a children’s game popular around the world that involves balancing wooden blocks in the form of a tall tower; our article includes a helpful photo.  Next, what does the nose know about MS? Maybe a lot. Many people with MS lose their sense of smell, and now a new study involving postmortem brain samples appears to show that, contrary to earlier studies, the olfactory system is the site of significant demyelination and axonal loss. Could it be that the olfactory system is an important link between environmental exposures and MS? Stay tuned.  Finally, we’ve just posted our newest data visualization. This one is a scientific literature treemap that makes it easy to zoom in on peer-reviewed articles or clinical trial listings describing randomized, double-blind MS trials. Our own extensively researched drug development pipeline provided the source material for this visualization.  [transition music] Now, onto the interview. Dr. Barbara Koppel is Chief of Neurology at Metropolitan Hospital in New York and Professor of Clinical Neurology at New York Medical College. Along with Dr. Gary Gronseth of the University of Kansas School of Medicine, she conducted a systematic review of the literature on treating MS and other neurological diseases with medical marijuana. I caught up with Dr. Koppel at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology in Philadelphia. MSDF First of all, let me ask you why do you use the term marijuana? Most people around the world use cannabis?  Dr. Koppel  There is a difference, there’s a technical difference. Cannabis, I think, only refers to some of the derivatives, and we thought medical marijuana, more people would connect with that, they would know what we were talking about; the current buzzword, but it also refers to both pills and smoked and everything else.   MSDF  And what did you look at in review, what forms of medical marijuana or compounds? Dr. Koppel  The reviews went back to studies since 1948, and the compounds that were used were pills, an oral mucosal spray that’s called nabiximols that I’d never heard of but it’s used in England, and then a few of the studies covered smoked marijuana which were marijuana cigarettes basically. MSDF  And what did you find, specifically the use of it for multiple sclerosis? Dr. Koppel  There is symptoms that it helped. It was most efficacious in spasticity, in reducing spasticity – more on the patient-related scales than the doctor Ashforth scale – but in depending on which study we looked at, the pills helped and the spray would help. It was also useful in reducing pain levels, either pain from spasms or pain from central causes – you know, burning numbness type of pain – and it reduced the number of voids, bladder voids, but some of the other bladder symptoms it had no effect on. It didn’t help tremor, which is also good to know because now we have to keep looking for other things for tremor in MS. Then we looked at other diseases, but most of the work has been done in MS. MSDF  Right now in the US there’s only one form, a pill form, approved. Do you think that you had sufficient data to make any conclusions or recommendations? Dr. Koppel  The pill forms that are available here, they’re not approved for anything other than chemotherapy-induced nausea and appetite in AIDS patients, so they were used in some of the studies and they were useful for spasticity, again, and painful spasms. The problem is that the pills are primarily THC rather than cannabinoid, so it’s hard to get up to a dose that’s working without the toxicity that comes along with THC; they they weren’t all that great. The one study using smoked marijuana was in the US, and they used marijuana cigarettes which trended towards efficacy, but the study didn’t have enough power to make any conclusions from; there weren’t enough patients basically. MSDF  Is the oral spray – which isn’t available in the US – a different composition, and does it have any differences in effect or advantages? Dr. Koppel  It has a big advantage because it’s a combination of cannabinoid – which is the part of the cannabis that you want to reduce symptoms – and THC. And the psychoactive side effects usually come from the THC as opposed to the cannabinoid, although it does have some psychoactivity as well. So the main advantages that I could find is that patients could self-titrate; they could use up to a certain numbers of pumps a day. But if they felt better with two or three pumps, they could stay at that dose. If it didn’t work at that dose, they could go up to six or seven – I forgot – the maximum. So I think that was found to be more effective, just because patients could take a dose that was adequate. It is going to be studied here, it’s the company has got testing sites mostly for epilepsy now, but it will become available here. MSDF  Have you found either in practice or from any studies whether patients were reporting self-medicating, especially with smoked form? Dr. Koppel  Yeah. The We couldn’t use those studies to make this systematic review because no one really examined them and they’re just basically testimonials or questionnaires, but there was a lot of literature that included that. And, in fact, one of the earlier papers from England, that’s why they began looking at more suitable forms of cannabis, because their patients were self-medicating by smoking, you know, just regular old marijuana and reporting that to their doctors, and and then the doctors tried to translate that into a pill form or a spray form that could be looked at more rigorously. And my patients in New York, you know, they they’re not shy. I don’t have a big MS practice, so my patients are more likely to be seizure patients. It’s not that they use it for their seizures. Every once in a while they’ll ask me if it’s okay, if it’s going to cause seizures or withdrawal, like alcohol withdrawal can cause seizures. And I can now tell them, no, it’s safe enough from that point of view. MSDF  I think you had mentioned in a news conference that there were 2 out of something like 623 patients who had did have seizure that might be attributed to use of the drug, so I take it that does not concern you. Are those small numbers, especially since you’re dealing with patients with epilepsy? Dr. Koppel  Yeah, those are small numbers. And what I’ve found is that they used to say patients with MS didn’t get seizures, but they do. There were actually four seizures that were reported, and two they didn’t blame on the drug; so they were either in the placebo group or they were patients that already had seizures. But it’s always something to worry about, but it’s such a small number that I wasn’t concerned. MSDF  While we’re on the subject, what other adverse effects did the studies you reviewed note? Dr. Koppel  The common ones that appeared in at least two two papers were things like nausea, fatigue, dizziness, fainting. In some of the studies that used the more potent forms that had more THC, they had hallucinations and depression and suicidal thoughts, but no one actually did commit suicide during the studies. MSDF  Is this a problem in MS since some of these types of symptoms or problems occur with the disease itself, could these be exacerbating it or are they directly related, do you think, to use of the drug? Dr. Koppel  That makes it complicated and that’s why you need kind of rigorous studies so that you can compare dose effects and things like that. But if a patient already has cognitive impairment, they may have trouble dealing with the side effects that, you know, that I mentioned. It’s easy to confuse that issue with the heavy users, the recreational users who end up with cognitive impairment that can be permanent. These were doses that were nothing like what people use for fun. MSDF  If this works out that it would be a useful form of drug if testing shows validity, who do you see it being recommended for? People refractory to certain other medications, or how would it be used? Dr. Koppel  That was the case with all the studies, they were allowed to try everything there was up to that point and kind of added this marijuana as a last-ditch effort. So I would say if a patient’s got uncontrolled spasticity or too much pain, they should try it. I wouldn’t really recommend it for bladder issues because it wasn’t that successful, and I definitely wouldn’t recommend it if tremor was the symptom they were trying to get rid of. So it just depends on what the patient’s telling you is bothering them the most. And, obviously, the patient has to be willing to assume all the side effects. I think one of the good things about this is some of the stigma is possibly going away so that… There’s a lot of people who assume that patients that want to try it, it’s just because they want an excuse to, you know, use recreational marijuana and get high, and it it really wasn’t the case in the studies. MSDF  It seems like it’s long past due to be rigorously testing these things. Dr. Koppel  Yes, I I agree. It has been tested in other disease states, this is just a piece of the pie where marijuana is used. It’s been used on patients with intractable pain from cancer or people with glaucoma have benefited from it; there’s usage out there. And the states that have legalized it, they don’t care which condition it’s being prescribed for. So I think it’s just neurology’s kind of lagged behind because it’s been so hard to do research on it in this country. Even in England where a lot of the studies were done, they put into their reports that it wasn’t easy to get approval. It’s not legal there either, but I guess they just were more persistent in studying it.  MSDF  Since in most of the studies that you reviewed, it was used sort of as a last resort or an add-on later, would you see that as its primary role or could it take a more prominent role? Dr. Koppel  As I said, I usually treat seizures, and what I try to do is not pile on one pill after another pill. If something seems to work, I’ll take away something that wasn’t working. So I think that’s the role for it, because if you take everything you’re going to definitely accumulate the side effects and then you really have trouble functioning. So I think if this works better than some of the existing treatments, there’s no reason to take both of them. Let me just add, it still shouldn’t be your first-line treatment, you you should still try the traditional ones first. And mon many of these trials only lasted 8 weeks; you don’t need forever to decide if something’s helping or not. MSDF  What would be the message to physicians who contemplate advising patients about medical marijuana? Dr. Koppel  I can’t tell them to go ahead and prescribe it because – for two reasons – I don’t really love the form that’s available here because it’s all THC, and it’s not FDA-approved for these conditions, so they’re still taking a chance on breaking that rule. I would advise physicians to find trials or to do a trial rather than just tell patients… even in the states where a doctor can give a card that says they agree with using medical marijuana, you you lose control of the dose and how much how much the patient smokes, and all that. So I would encourage some more traditional pills and sprays to be studied so that then they could be prescribed. MSDF  Should these prescriptions, or recommendations, really come with either informal or formal informed consent about side effects and possible things to avoid doing, like driving? Dr. Koppel  We should probably do that on a lot more pills that we’re currently prescribing. I I don’t always routinely do it, but the pharmacy tends to hand out a list of dos and don’ts, and some of the bottles are labeled don’t drive. It’s not that different from other CNS-depressing drugs, but it’s worth warning people. And, actually, I think it shows up in their urine, so if they’re going to go somewhere where a tox screen might get done, they they should have a card or a prescription that shows that it was prescribed. MSDF  This systematic review is being published in the Journal of Neurology on April 29th, and also, I guess, it’s already been endorsed by certain societies, medical societies? Dr. Koppel  They sent a summary of the findings to, I guess, other other societies that deal with the same conditions, because in addition to MS, we studied Parkinson’s and Huntington’s and Tourette’s and seizures, even though there were only two studies for that. So some of the other societies have not confirmed it but endorsed it in the sense that they agree with what we found. MSDF  I appreciate it. [transition music] Thank you for listening to Episode 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 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.   [outro music]          

Multiple Sclerosis Discovery: The Podcast of the MS Discovery Forum Transcript of Episode 1 with Dr. Timothy Vollmer [intro music] Host – Dan Keller Hello, and welcome to Episode One 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. Timothy Vollmer, who discusses strategies for maximizing brain health in people with MS. But first, here is a brief summary of some of the topics we’ve been covering on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org. First, oral contraceptives. According to a retrospective study published in the journal Fertility and Sterility, women with relapsing remitting MS who used combined oral contraceptives tended to have less severe disease, and they were less likely to move on to secondary progressive MS. On the other hand, this study showed no association between oral contraceptives and annualized relapse rates or EDSS scores. An intriguing set of associations, but correlation does not imply causation. Next, the blood brain barrier. A study in PLOS ONE showed that when cultured blood-brain barrier cells are treated with serum from MS patients the cells decrease their production of tight junction molecules and increase their production of cell adhesion molecules that promote cell migration. Breakdown of the blood-brain barrier is an early feature of MS, and this allows activated leukocytes to migrate into the brain. Understanding this process is important in its own right, but the study also raises questions about the safety of blood donations from people with MS. Does this study suggest that people with MS should be barred from donating blood? Let us know your opinion in the comments. Finally, we hope you’ll check out our new data visualization section, which will allow you to see MS-related data in new ways. Our first visualization is a bubble chart presenting data from 106 MS clinical trials published between 1986 and April 2014 involving 44,606 patients. You can easily sort the data by compound, by trial phase, by dose, by year, by funding, or by population. Please let us know if you discover something unexpected or particularly striking in the data. [transition music] Now, onto the interview. Dr. Timothy Vollmer is a practicing neurologist specializing in MS. He’s also professor and director of clinical research at the University of Colorado Denver. Bob Finn, our executive editor, caught up with Dr. Vollmer at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology in Denver. Interviewer – Bob Finn This is Bob Finn from the MS Discovery Forum. I'm here with Dr. Timothy Vollmer of the University of Colorado Denver Rocky Mountain MS Center, who among other things is interested in how to maximize lifelong brain health in people with MS. Dr. Vollmer, welcome. Interviewee – Timothy Vollmer Thank you. MSDF Why is now a good time to ask about maximizing brain health? Dr. Vollmer Well two reasons: one is because recent research has indicated that there are both medical ways and lifestyle ways to actually improve brain health, and the the data suggests that if we do that that's going to improve people's function later in life and allow them to be the grandparents that they want to be or other things that they want to do later in life. And the second reason is is that we now have nine FDA approved therapies to alter the course of MS by inhibiting the inflammation that causes the damage in the brain. And our challenge is figuring out how to use those most effectively. MSDF So how do you measure a concept as broad as brain health? Dr. Vollmer The easiest measure is actually the size of the brain. One of the unfortunate consequences of multiple sclerosis – as is true with hypertension, cardiovascular disease, strokes, dementia, and other things – is that neurons are dying. So MS is not just a disease of myelin; it's a disease of the entire brain, and it affects neurons and cells called astrocytes and cells called oligodendrocytes that make up the bulk of what the brain is. The result of of loss of these neurons is the brain has less and less flexibility in terms of shifting function around from areas that are not working well to areas that are working well. That ability to switch, or shift function around, is something that we do automatically throughout life. Every time we bump our head and get a little bit of bruising in the brain the brain can compensate by shifting function around. This is the same issue that the NFL is dealing with with its football players and mothers are worried about with their kids in contact sports. The problem of multiple sclerosis is that most of the disease activity is actually below the radar – it's not presenting as relapses – and you don't see it unless you're doing regular MRIs, or you're doing a a more modern MRI technique called a volumetric MRI where you can actually measure the three-dimensional volume of the brain. And we do that routinely in studies, and we know that in MS the brain is shrinking at a rate of about six times faster than the normal healthy controls. That's the fundamental problem in terms of maximizing lifelong activity is we're losing brain function too fast in the early phase of the disease. MSDF So how does this concept help guide treatment? Dr. Vollmer Well it turns out that there actually are three components to a treatment plan that wants to maximize brain health over a lifetime. The first one in multiple sclerosis is obviously to try to prevent further damage to the brain by using the immunological therapies that we have in the most effective way possible. And that's a a bit challenging, but the fact is we have a lot of opportunities now that we've never had before. And this is an issue for the medical field. The second aspect is it turns out that more and more research – including that presented here at the American Academy of Neurology meeting – suggests that if you exercise and are intellectually and physically active that increases your brain reserve. It does that because as you fire neurons by doing something – learning a language, volunteering, going to church, reading, whatever – that causes the nerve cells to put out new branches called neurites. And those neurites randomly connect with other neurons in the vicinity. If you do something to activate that pathway, then you make it permanent. If you don't do something to activate that pathway, it breaks automatically within 24 to 48 hours. So you need to be active on a daily basis really to try to maximize those connections. And what you're doing you're just creating this three-dimensional network of connections between nerve cells that gives the brain the flexibility of shifting function around. And it was reported at this meeting – and it's been reported in the literature a number of times – that people who are intellectually active actually have less disability controlling for all other factors than people who are not intellectually active. And we now know that that's also true by being physically active. And again, this cuts across multiple diseases, but it's just as important in MS as it is in other ones. And then, the third factor is diet. The reason for that is not that there's a specific MS diet; there isn't. But we know that if you develop other dietary related diseases, that substantially increases your risk of disability from MS. So for example, just developing diabetes almost doubles your risk of being disabled from MS than just having MS alone. So just having high blood pressure, just being overweight or obese increases your risk of disability. So that means if we want to maximize lifelong outcomes then we prevent injury by using the drugs as effectively as we can; we get people to exercise and be intellectually active to create more connections with brain, create more cognitive and brain reserve; and we also help them develop a healthy lifestyle from a nutrition aspect, as well, to prevent them from developing other diseases that would compromise neurological health.  MSDF Well all of this sounds interesting, but it sounds completely obvious to me. What is controversial about this subject? Dr. Vollmer There are two things. One is that the medical profession is just now beginning to evolve in the direction of trying to think about global health and chronic diseases. Primary care physicians have been thinking about this for some time, in general, but in terms of applying it to chronic diseases this is a a relatively new concept, and how to do it is still a challenge. The second reason is that regulatory agencies, in other countries, and then in this country, health insurance organizations, prevent us from doing this. So for example, in early phase disease for patients who don't carry a virus called JC virus, a drug called natalizumab or a drug called fingolimod might be actually be the best drugs for them. But the insurance companies, even Medicare and Medicaid, make it very difficult for us to use them in the patients. They tend to approve the old drugs first because they perceive them as cheaper usually through sweetheart deals made by the private insurance companies or just because of concerns of cost on the part of Medicaid. And they prevent us from using more effective drugs earlier; they don't understand this concept of preserving brain volume and brain health in terms of trying to maximize lifelong outcomes. MSDF Is there any proof though that starting with fingolimod or natalizumab – starting with the "heavy hitters" – will prevent the the long, slow progression? Dr. Vollmer Yes and no. The problem is the gold standard would be a 50-year study looking at 10,000 people. That's never going to be done partly because the target is constantly moving as new therapies come into the marketplace, but also it's just not practical. However, having said that, published both in the peer reviewed literature and at the American Academy of Neurology meeting are a number of relatively large studies done at centers around the world – most not funded by drug companies – that have reported that patients on fingolimod or natalizumab are significantly better off after two years of treatment than patients using interferons or glatiramer acetate. And at this meeting, specifically they compared in an open-label way patients who were started on fingolimod versus patients started on interferons or GA or switched, and again they showed a 50% reduction in relapse rate. And in the literature for natalizumab, there have been reports since 2010 of the fact that if you're treating relapsing MS patients over two years period of time, on average, that group is improving in function. And that includes fatigue, cognition, mobility, employability. So with highly effective therapies, we do have evidence, substantial evidence, that slowing down brain volume is important, and that results in better function and often resolution of symptoms – patients actually get better on these highly effective therapies. And we've not seen that with interferons and glatiramer in most patients. MSDF As a physician, can you recommend strategies for making the argument to third party payers? Dr. Vollmer Yes. There is a lot of research data that proves that brain volume or gray matter volumes or the number of neurons that you have in your brain is the most powerful predictor of what's going to happen to you in terms of disability over your lifetime, and this is not an arguable point. However, regulators tend to look at relapse rate reduction and gadolinium-enhancing MRI lesion reduction, which are not very good at predicting long-term outcomes. So we need to reeducate health insurers and third-party payers that if you really want to optimize patients' lifelong health you need to make the investment upfront in highly effective therapies to prevent them from developing more disability. We know there are a number of studies reporting that total healthcare costs are less if you're using highly effective therapy like natalizumab or fingolimod over time than they are with interferon and and glatiramer acetate. So this has been published in many different ways; there's more than a dozen papers in the literature on this. The problem is is that any one study is relatively small, and it's easy to criticize it. But the field needs to step back and look at the overall literature. And the overall literature is consistent; we consistently demonstrate that if there's an effect the effect is in favor of using more effective therapies as early as possible in the disease course.  MSDF Aside from brain volumetrics, what are what are some other good ways of measuring brain health? Dr. Vollmer Well you can look at the number of what are called T2 lesions that are developing on the MRI; so your neurologist can look at that, and they can compare you to other patients of a similar age and try to determine are you on the good end of the spectrum or or the more worse end of the spectrum. You can look at what's called T1 black holes; it's a typical MRI measure that's always done. But T1 black holes are more correlated with worse long-term outcomes, and so if you have more T1 black holes you really should be thinking about being on a more effective therapy. And certainly, if somebody is on a therapy and they continue to have any evidence of disease activity – which means a relapse, a change in the MRI or progressive disability – they should probably be thinking about being on a more effective therapy, and they should be discussing that with their physician.  MSDF I'm a little surprised that you didn't mention any cognitive measures. Dr. Vollmer It’s only because I assume automatically that they're very important, and, in fact, most of the data on brain reserve is focused on cognitive function. However, I would argue that the same principles apply for mobility, for sensation, for vision, for creativity. And so, MS is a disease of the central nervous system, so it attacks the very core of what it is to be human. We tend to focus on the bipedal nature of human behavior, but that's not the most important thing. The most important thing is maintaining your interaction with your family, with your friends, with your profession, being able to progress and learn, etc. We can deal with mobility issues, but we don't have a way to recover cognitive function yet. MSDF Are you yourself conducting any studies in this area? Dr. Vollmer Yes. We have a number of studies; we actually have 28 clinical studies going on in MS. But two of the ones that I think are very relevant to this particular issue is we have been funded to be able to look at the changes on MRI in patients that have been on either fingolimod or natalizumab for two years or longer. And we're comparing them to age matched healthy controls. And what we're asking is is the rate of brain volume change, which all of us suffer, but is the rate of that change in those patients now similar to what it is in healthy controls versus patients who have MS? And as I said, we know that the percent change in brain volume for healthy people is about 0.1% per year; in MS it averages about 0.6% per year. So we're we're doing this study now to see the patients who are doing well – they're coming into the clinic, they're saying I'm feeling good, I feel like I'm as good or better than I was last year – is their brain now normalized in terms of its very modest loss of brain volume over time as a result of normal aging?  MSDF And you said there was a second one that that is particularly relevant. Dr. Vollmer The second one is is to take and ask patients, it's called patient reported outcomes – where we actually ask the patient about how they're doing in cognition, how they're doing with energy, how they're doing with mobility, how they're doing with sexual function, you know, the things that are important to us – and we're asking how that is changing over time on these therapies, and we're trying to correlate that back with what's happening to their brain MRI in terms of brain volume.  MSDF Dr. Vollmer, I've come to the end of my prepared questions. Is there anything else you'd like to add or any questions I didn't ask that I should have asked? Dr. Vollmer Two things. As I said, one is it's very important for patients and the healthcare profession to really begin to understand that MS is a disease of the entire central nervous system, and its impact on neurons is actually the most important aspect of this of this disease. The second one is that healthcare providers working with MS patients and MS patients and families need to advocate to the healthcare system to allow healthcare providers to use the most effective therapy that works best for that patient based on individual assessments of safety and efficacy.  MSDF Well thank you very much. Dr. Vollmer Thank you. Appreciate the interest.  [transition music] Host – Dan Keller Well that’s it for Episode 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, Robert Finn, executive editor. MSDF is part of the non-profit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is the 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]    

TOPIC 1: DIOCESAN DISPUTE! The Bishop of the Kansas City-St. Joseph Diocese, Robert Finn, has refused to step down, despite intense criticism for his handling of child abuse and sexual misconduct allegations involving priests. Instead, Finn has appointed former U.S. … Continue reading →

TRANSCRIPT The rogues in Catholic leadership are really getting their knickers in a bunch these days, specifically over Church Militant. Back in March, immediately after Pope Francis' consecration of Russia, a bunch of the rogues met at what was, in essence, a secret, invitation-only meeting in Chicago — home to sodomy-loving Cdl. Blase Cupich. Among the attendees was Cupich (of course); vice-pope Cdl. Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga of Tegucigalpa, Honduras; Newark's Joseph Tobin (of "nighty night, baby" fame — as well as having an Italian homosexual underwear model live in his rectory, pretending he was taking English classes at Seton Hall University); Cdl. Seán O'Malley of Boston; Abp. Mitchell Rozanski of St. Louis (named in a current lawsuit for gay sex-abuse cover-up); and even Christophe Pierre, the papal nuncio to the United States. Church Militant already reported on them all being together in Holy Name Cathedral, pretending to care about the Faith, on the Friday of the consecration. And then, a short while later, Religion News Service actually published an article on the gathering. National Catholic Reporter was ordered to drop the word 'Catholic' from its title, by its local bishop. One of the organizers of the event was Michael Sean Winters of National Catholic Reporter infamy, who announced to the assembled rogues' gallery of the enemies of the Church (quoting the article now): Even so, the conference singled out voices who, though popular among some conservative Catholics, have come to represent opposition to Francis in the United States. Winters argued there is "no value in having a dialogue with Michael Voris, for instance, referring to the head of Church Militant, a conservative Catholic media outlet long condemned by critics." That's funny — the "let's dialogue until we vomit in our own mouths" crowd all of a sudden start denouncing dialogue. Translation: We don't want to talk with anyone who disagrees with us or anyone who knows how truly wicked and subversive we are and can expose us. National Catholic Reporter, nicknamed "The Distorter" for its deliberate mangling of Church teaching, was ordered more than 50 years ago to drop the word "Catholic" from its title, by its local bishop. They flipped him off and went on subverting the Church. Almost 10 years ago, then-bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City, where NCR is located, published this about the renegade outfit: My predecessor bishops have taken different approaches to the challenge. Bishop Charles Helmsing, in October of 1968, issued a condemnation of the National Catholic Reporter and asked the publishers to remove the name "Catholic" from their title — to no avail. From my perspective, NCR's positions against authentic Church teaching and leadership have not changed trajectory in the intervening decades. Notice that specific language — "NCR's positions against authentic Church teaching." Nothing has changed with these dirtbags in half a century, and nothing ever will. They are open enemies of Christ and His Holy Church, and the same goes for the members of the hierarchy who support them. And yet, many people decry what the article called Church Militant's "incendiary rhetoric." For the record, it won't be anywhere near as incendiary as the fires of Hell, which they will all find themselves in if they don't repent. They, including these bishops, all oppose Church teaching. They say the Church is "wrong," that its teachings need to be reversed and sodomy and contraception (and a host of other sexual immoralities) need to be embraced by the Church. I hope you don't, but if you insist, then go to Hell, all of you — posthaste before you inflict even more evil on unsuspecting sheep. These men do not accept, they deny, the Deposit of Faith; and yet, somehow, are treated as legitimate Catholics. Would Planned Parenthood allow a group of "dialogue-minded pro-lifers" within their ranks, to portray themselves as pro-choice? Would the Democratic Party permit the existence of a pro-Trump contingent or an anti-Obama faction? These men do not accept the Deposit of Faith; and yet, somehow, are treated as legitimate Catholics. They would be decried and ejected immediately — if it were even ever possible for such groups to emerge in the first place. And no secular media outfit would give them the time of day because they would not be legitimate. Yet, somehow, the enemies of Christ within the Church are allowed to be treated by media and others as having a "legitimate" voice. These types are on the record as opposed to Church teaching. How are they ever able to be legitimate? That's like treating the United Negro College Fund as a bona fide wing of the Ku Klux Klan, or the National Socialist faction of the Anti-Defamation League as somehow authentic. Men like Cupich and Tobin and Maradiaga and Rozanksi and McElroy (and so forth) do legitimately hold office, no question. But, then again, so did Judas. These twisted spiritual perverts and destroyers are connivers, combining with their fellow non-ordained connivers and perverts to destroy souls, to so disfigure the Church and get it to bless their evil so as to alleviate their own guilty consciences. They certainly will not be the first in the 2,000 years of the Church, and likely will not be the last. But all that means is, to quote the psalms, "They shall go to be with their fathers, who never see the light anymore."