Multiple Sclerosis

A unique autoantibody signature of multiple sclerosis (MS) is detectable in the blood of people with the disease years before symptom onset, according to a new study.

Investigators screened blood samples from 250 individuals with MS drawn 5 years before and 1 year after symptom onset, profiled MS-related autoantibodies, and compared the sample with 250 matched controls.

A unique cluster of autoantibodies was found in 10% of people with MS, appearing up to 5 years before the onset of clinical symptoms and remaining higher 1 year after diagnosis. 

“Our work demonstrates that a subset of MS patients has antibodies that react to a common protein motif, both before, during, and after diagnosis and symptom onset,” said lead investigator Colin R. Zamecnik, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at UCSF School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.

Such a discovery could aid in early diagnosis, Dr. Zamecnik added. MS treatments “have gotten much better in the last 15-20 years and evidence shows early treatment can improve outcomes,” he said. 

The study was published online in Nature Medicine.
 

Seeking Earlier Diagnosis

Previous research shows that nonspecific neurologic episodes occur more frequently in people who received an MS diagnosis later in life, pointing to the possibility of an MS prodrome, the authors noted.

These neurologic episodes may be indicative of ongoing neuroinflammatory processes in the preclinical period, they added. Studies in several other autoimmune diseases show that diagnostic autoantibodies can appear years before symptom onset. However, no such antibodies have previously been identified in MS patients. 

To investigate, the researchers turned to data from a large, prospective incident MS cohort assembled during the Gulf War era in more than 10 million US military veterans.

Records of those with the earliest diagnosis (an average of 5 years before symptom onset) and 1 year after the first attack were analyzed, and matched controls were selected.

Investigators used a technique called phage display immunoprecipitation sequencing to screen human blood for antibodies. They conducted a whole-proteome autoantibody screen and serum neurofilament light (sNfL) measurements on these samples in both case patients and controls at the same time points. 
 

Early Signs of Injury

In the preclinical serum samples, sNfL levels were higher nearer the date of diagnosis and significantly higher in post- versus pre-onset samples in people with MS. “Together, these data provide evidence that at least some people with MS exhibit early signs of neuroaxonal injury long before onset of symptoms,” the authors noted.

Analysis of the collection of peptides, described by the investigators as an “autoantibody signature,” was consistent over time and was present regardless of diagnosis. 

Further analysis of the autoantibodies revealed a characteristic protein motif found in common viruses, including Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and hepatitis C virus, among others.

The motif “shares remarkable similarity to those found on many pathogens that infect humans, including EBV, which is known to be a risk factor for development of MS,” Dr. Zamecnik said.

The researchers validated these findings by analyzing serum and cerebrospinal fluid samples from participants in ORIGINS, an MS cohort at the University of California, San Francisco, that enrolled patients at clinical onset. As with the other cohort, 10% of patients had the autoantibody signature. 

The investigators added that the findings detail some of the first autoantigen-specific biomarkers found in preclinical MS. 

“Taken together, our future work will focus on profiling these patients more closely over time to see how they differ from their counterparts and gives further evidence of viral-host crosstalk as a hallmark of this disease,” Dr. Zamecnik said.
 

Not Ready for Prime Time

Commenting on the findings, Bruce Bebo, PhD, executive vice president of research, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, said the study corroborates the “growing appreciation that MS has a prodrome.” 

Such a discovery might “accelerate progress toward the possibility of treating MS ever-earlier in the course of the disease, or possibly even preventing MS from occurring in the first place,” he added.

Dr. Bebo, who was not involved in this research, noted that it was conducted at a single center, is only preliminary, and “has no immediate clinical applicability.”

Also, because this pattern was identified in only 10% of individuals with MS, “an additional hurdle is whether we can identify other patterns in greater numbers of people,” he added.

This work was supported by the Valhalla Foundation; the Weill Neurohub; the Westridge Foundation; the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; National Multiple Sclerosis Society; the Department of Defense; the German Society of Multiple Sclerosis; the Water Cove Charitable Foundation; Tim and Laura O’Shaughnessy; the Littera Family; School of Medicine Dean’s Yearlong Fellowship, supported by residual funds from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute Medical Fellows at UCSF; the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub San Francisco; the John A. Watson Scholar Program at UCSF; the Hanna H. Gray Fellowship, Howard Hughes Medical Institute; the National Institutes of Health; and the University of California President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program. Dr. Zamecnik received funding toward this study from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Water Cove Charitable Foundation. He declared no competing financial interests. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Bebo is the executive vice president of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, which provided support for the study. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A unique autoantibody signature of multiple sclerosis (MS) is detectable in the blood of people with the disease years before symptom onset, according to a new study.

Investigators screened blood samples from 250 individuals with MS drawn 5 years before and 1 year after symptom onset, profiled MS-related autoantibodies, and compared the sample with 250 matched controls.

A unique cluster of autoantibodies was found in 10% of people with MS, appearing up to 5 years before the onset of clinical symptoms and remaining higher 1 year after diagnosis. 

“Our work demonstrates that a subset of MS patients has antibodies that react to a common protein motif, both before, during, and after diagnosis and symptom onset,” said lead investigator Colin R. Zamecnik, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at UCSF School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.

Such a discovery could aid in early diagnosis, Dr. Zamecnik added. MS treatments “have gotten much better in the last 15-20 years and evidence shows early treatment can improve outcomes,” he said. 

The study was published online in Nature Medicine.
 

Seeking Earlier Diagnosis

Previous research shows that nonspecific neurologic episodes occur more frequently in people who received an MS diagnosis later in life, pointing to the possibility of an MS prodrome, the authors noted.

These neurologic episodes may be indicative of ongoing neuroinflammatory processes in the preclinical period, they added. Studies in several other autoimmune diseases show that diagnostic autoantibodies can appear years before symptom onset. However, no such antibodies have previously been identified in MS patients. 

To investigate, the researchers turned to data from a large, prospective incident MS cohort assembled during the Gulf War era in more than 10 million US military veterans.

Records of those with the earliest diagnosis (an average of 5 years before symptom onset) and 1 year after the first attack were analyzed, and matched controls were selected.

Investigators used a technique called phage display immunoprecipitation sequencing to screen human blood for antibodies. They conducted a whole-proteome autoantibody screen and serum neurofilament light (sNfL) measurements on these samples in both case patients and controls at the same time points. 
 

Early Signs of Injury

In the preclinical serum samples, sNfL levels were higher nearer the date of diagnosis and significantly higher in post- versus pre-onset samples in people with MS. “Together, these data provide evidence that at least some people with MS exhibit early signs of neuroaxonal injury long before onset of symptoms,” the authors noted.

Analysis of the collection of peptides, described by the investigators as an “autoantibody signature,” was consistent over time and was present regardless of diagnosis. 

Further analysis of the autoantibodies revealed a characteristic protein motif found in common viruses, including Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and hepatitis C virus, among others.

The motif “shares remarkable similarity to those found on many pathogens that infect humans, including EBV, which is known to be a risk factor for development of MS,” Dr. Zamecnik said.

The researchers validated these findings by analyzing serum and cerebrospinal fluid samples from participants in ORIGINS, an MS cohort at the University of California, San Francisco, that enrolled patients at clinical onset. As with the other cohort, 10% of patients had the autoantibody signature. 

The investigators added that the findings detail some of the first autoantigen-specific biomarkers found in preclinical MS. 

“Taken together, our future work will focus on profiling these patients more closely over time to see how they differ from their counterparts and gives further evidence of viral-host crosstalk as a hallmark of this disease,” Dr. Zamecnik said.
 

Not Ready for Prime Time

Commenting on the findings, Bruce Bebo, PhD, executive vice president of research, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, said the study corroborates the “growing appreciation that MS has a prodrome.” 

Such a discovery might “accelerate progress toward the possibility of treating MS ever-earlier in the course of the disease, or possibly even preventing MS from occurring in the first place,” he added.

Dr. Bebo, who was not involved in this research, noted that it was conducted at a single center, is only preliminary, and “has no immediate clinical applicability.”

Also, because this pattern was identified in only 10% of individuals with MS, “an additional hurdle is whether we can identify other patterns in greater numbers of people,” he added.

This work was supported by the Valhalla Foundation; the Weill Neurohub; the Westridge Foundation; the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; National Multiple Sclerosis Society; the Department of Defense; the German Society of Multiple Sclerosis; the Water Cove Charitable Foundation; Tim and Laura O’Shaughnessy; the Littera Family; School of Medicine Dean’s Yearlong Fellowship, supported by residual funds from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute Medical Fellows at UCSF; the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub San Francisco; the John A. Watson Scholar Program at UCSF; the Hanna H. Gray Fellowship, Howard Hughes Medical Institute; the National Institutes of Health; and the University of California President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program. Dr. Zamecnik received funding toward this study from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Water Cove Charitable Foundation. He declared no competing financial interests. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Bebo is the executive vice president of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, which provided support for the study. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A unique autoantibody signature of multiple sclerosis (MS) is detectable in the blood of people with the disease years before symptom onset, according to a new study.

Investigators screened blood samples from 250 individuals with MS drawn 5 years before and 1 year after symptom onset, profiled MS-related autoantibodies, and compared the sample with 250 matched controls.

A unique cluster of autoantibodies was found in 10% of people with MS, appearing up to 5 years before the onset of clinical symptoms and remaining higher 1 year after diagnosis. 

“Our work demonstrates that a subset of MS patients has antibodies that react to a common protein motif, both before, during, and after diagnosis and symptom onset,” said lead investigator Colin R. Zamecnik, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at UCSF School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.

Such a discovery could aid in early diagnosis, Dr. Zamecnik added. MS treatments “have gotten much better in the last 15-20 years and evidence shows early treatment can improve outcomes,” he said. 

The study was published online in Nature Medicine.
 

Seeking Earlier Diagnosis

Previous research shows that nonspecific neurologic episodes occur more frequently in people who received an MS diagnosis later in life, pointing to the possibility of an MS prodrome, the authors noted.

These neurologic episodes may be indicative of ongoing neuroinflammatory processes in the preclinical period, they added. Studies in several other autoimmune diseases show that diagnostic autoantibodies can appear years before symptom onset. However, no such antibodies have previously been identified in MS patients. 

To investigate, the researchers turned to data from a large, prospective incident MS cohort assembled during the Gulf War era in more than 10 million US military veterans.

Records of those with the earliest diagnosis (an average of 5 years before symptom onset) and 1 year after the first attack were analyzed, and matched controls were selected.

Investigators used a technique called phage display immunoprecipitation sequencing to screen human blood for antibodies. They conducted a whole-proteome autoantibody screen and serum neurofilament light (sNfL) measurements on these samples in both case patients and controls at the same time points. 
 

Early Signs of Injury

In the preclinical serum samples, sNfL levels were higher nearer the date of diagnosis and significantly higher in post- versus pre-onset samples in people with MS. “Together, these data provide evidence that at least some people with MS exhibit early signs of neuroaxonal injury long before onset of symptoms,” the authors noted.

Analysis of the collection of peptides, described by the investigators as an “autoantibody signature,” was consistent over time and was present regardless of diagnosis. 

Further analysis of the autoantibodies revealed a characteristic protein motif found in common viruses, including Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and hepatitis C virus, among others.

The motif “shares remarkable similarity to those found on many pathogens that infect humans, including EBV, which is known to be a risk factor for development of MS,” Dr. Zamecnik said.

The researchers validated these findings by analyzing serum and cerebrospinal fluid samples from participants in ORIGINS, an MS cohort at the University of California, San Francisco, that enrolled patients at clinical onset. As with the other cohort, 10% of patients had the autoantibody signature. 

The investigators added that the findings detail some of the first autoantigen-specific biomarkers found in preclinical MS. 

“Taken together, our future work will focus on profiling these patients more closely over time to see how they differ from their counterparts and gives further evidence of viral-host crosstalk as a hallmark of this disease,” Dr. Zamecnik said.
 

Not Ready for Prime Time

Commenting on the findings, Bruce Bebo, PhD, executive vice president of research, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, said the study corroborates the “growing appreciation that MS has a prodrome.” 

Such a discovery might “accelerate progress toward the possibility of treating MS ever-earlier in the course of the disease, or possibly even preventing MS from occurring in the first place,” he added.

Dr. Bebo, who was not involved in this research, noted that it was conducted at a single center, is only preliminary, and “has no immediate clinical applicability.”

Also, because this pattern was identified in only 10% of individuals with MS, “an additional hurdle is whether we can identify other patterns in greater numbers of people,” he added.

This work was supported by the Valhalla Foundation; the Weill Neurohub; the Westridge Foundation; the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; National Multiple Sclerosis Society; the Department of Defense; the German Society of Multiple Sclerosis; the Water Cove Charitable Foundation; Tim and Laura O’Shaughnessy; the Littera Family; School of Medicine Dean’s Yearlong Fellowship, supported by residual funds from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute Medical Fellows at UCSF; the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub San Francisco; the John A. Watson Scholar Program at UCSF; the Hanna H. Gray Fellowship, Howard Hughes Medical Institute; the National Institutes of Health; and the University of California President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program. Dr. Zamecnik received funding toward this study from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Water Cove Charitable Foundation. He declared no competing financial interests. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Bebo is the executive vice president of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, which provided support for the study. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The utility of cannabinoids to treat most medical conditions remains uncertain at best, but for at least three indications the data lean in favor of effectiveness, Ellie Grossman, MD, MPH, told attendees recently at the 2024 American College of Physicians Internal Medicine meeting.

Those are neuropathic pain, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting, and spasticity in people with multiple sclerosis, said Dr. Grossman, an instructor at Harvard Medical School in Boston and medical director for primary care/behavioral health integration at Cambridge Health Alliance in Somerville, Massachusetts.

Dearth of Research Persists

Research is sorely lacking and of low quality in the field for many reasons, Dr. Grossman said. Most of the products tested come from outside the United States and often are synthetic and taken orally — which does not match the real-world use when patients go to dispensaries for cannabis derived directly from plants (or the plant product itself). And studies often rely on self-report.

Chronic pain is by far the top reason patients say they use medical cannabis, Dr. Grossman said. A Cochrane review of 16 studies found only that the potential benefits of cannabis may outweigh the potential harms for chronic neuropathic pain.
 

No Evidence in OUD

Dr. Grossman said she is frequently asked if cannabis can help people quit taking opioids. The answer seems to be no. A study published earlier this year in states with legalized medical or recreational cannabis found no difference between rates of opioid overdose compared with states with no such laws. “It seems like it doesn’t do anything to help us with our opioid problem,” she said.

Nor does high-quality evidence exist showing use of cannabis can improve sleep, she said. A 2022 systematic review found fewer than half of studies showed the substance useful for sleep outcomes. “Where studies were positives, it was in people who had chronic pain,” Dr. Grossman noted. Research indicates cannabis may have substantial benefit for chronic pain compared with placebo.
 

Potential Harms

If the medical benefits of cannabis are murky, the evidence for its potential harms, at least in the short term, are clearer, according to Dr. Grossman. A simplified guideline for prescribing medical cannabinoids in primary care includes sedation, feeling high, dizziness, speech disorders, muscle twitching, hypotension, and several other conditions among the potential hazards of the drug. 

But the potential for long-term harm is uncertain. “All the evidence comes from people who have been using it for recreational reasons,” where there may be co-use of tobacco, self-reported outcomes, and recall bias, she said. The characteristics of people using cannabis recreationally often differ from those using it medicinally.
 

Use With Other Controlled Substances

Dr. Grossman said clinicians should consider whether the co-use of cannabis and other controlled substances, such as benzodiazepines, opioids, or Adderall, raises the potential risks associated with those drugs. “Ultimately it comes down to talking to your patients,” she said. If a toxicity screen shows the presence of controlled substances, ask about their experience with the drugs they are using and let them know your main concern is their safety.

Dr. Grossman reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The utility of cannabinoids to treat most medical conditions remains uncertain at best, but for at least three indications the data lean in favor of effectiveness, Ellie Grossman, MD, MPH, told attendees recently at the 2024 American College of Physicians Internal Medicine meeting.

Those are neuropathic pain, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting, and spasticity in people with multiple sclerosis, said Dr. Grossman, an instructor at Harvard Medical School in Boston and medical director for primary care/behavioral health integration at Cambridge Health Alliance in Somerville, Massachusetts.

Dearth of Research Persists

Research is sorely lacking and of low quality in the field for many reasons, Dr. Grossman said. Most of the products tested come from outside the United States and often are synthetic and taken orally — which does not match the real-world use when patients go to dispensaries for cannabis derived directly from plants (or the plant product itself). And studies often rely on self-report.

Chronic pain is by far the top reason patients say they use medical cannabis, Dr. Grossman said. A Cochrane review of 16 studies found only that the potential benefits of cannabis may outweigh the potential harms for chronic neuropathic pain.
 

No Evidence in OUD

Dr. Grossman said she is frequently asked if cannabis can help people quit taking opioids. The answer seems to be no. A study published earlier this year in states with legalized medical or recreational cannabis found no difference between rates of opioid overdose compared with states with no such laws. “It seems like it doesn’t do anything to help us with our opioid problem,” she said.

Nor does high-quality evidence exist showing use of cannabis can improve sleep, she said. A 2022 systematic review found fewer than half of studies showed the substance useful for sleep outcomes. “Where studies were positives, it was in people who had chronic pain,” Dr. Grossman noted. Research indicates cannabis may have substantial benefit for chronic pain compared with placebo.
 

Potential Harms

If the medical benefits of cannabis are murky, the evidence for its potential harms, at least in the short term, are clearer, according to Dr. Grossman. A simplified guideline for prescribing medical cannabinoids in primary care includes sedation, feeling high, dizziness, speech disorders, muscle twitching, hypotension, and several other conditions among the potential hazards of the drug. 

But the potential for long-term harm is uncertain. “All the evidence comes from people who have been using it for recreational reasons,” where there may be co-use of tobacco, self-reported outcomes, and recall bias, she said. The characteristics of people using cannabis recreationally often differ from those using it medicinally.
 

Use With Other Controlled Substances

Dr. Grossman said clinicians should consider whether the co-use of cannabis and other controlled substances, such as benzodiazepines, opioids, or Adderall, raises the potential risks associated with those drugs. “Ultimately it comes down to talking to your patients,” she said. If a toxicity screen shows the presence of controlled substances, ask about their experience with the drugs they are using and let them know your main concern is their safety.

Dr. Grossman reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The utility of cannabinoids to treat most medical conditions remains uncertain at best, but for at least three indications the data lean in favor of effectiveness, Ellie Grossman, MD, MPH, told attendees recently at the 2024 American College of Physicians Internal Medicine meeting.

Those are neuropathic pain, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting, and spasticity in people with multiple sclerosis, said Dr. Grossman, an instructor at Harvard Medical School in Boston and medical director for primary care/behavioral health integration at Cambridge Health Alliance in Somerville, Massachusetts.

Dearth of Research Persists

Research is sorely lacking and of low quality in the field for many reasons, Dr. Grossman said. Most of the products tested come from outside the United States and often are synthetic and taken orally — which does not match the real-world use when patients go to dispensaries for cannabis derived directly from plants (or the plant product itself). And studies often rely on self-report.

Chronic pain is by far the top reason patients say they use medical cannabis, Dr. Grossman said. A Cochrane review of 16 studies found only that the potential benefits of cannabis may outweigh the potential harms for chronic neuropathic pain.
 

No Evidence in OUD

Dr. Grossman said she is frequently asked if cannabis can help people quit taking opioids. The answer seems to be no. A study published earlier this year in states with legalized medical or recreational cannabis found no difference between rates of opioid overdose compared with states with no such laws. “It seems like it doesn’t do anything to help us with our opioid problem,” she said.

Nor does high-quality evidence exist showing use of cannabis can improve sleep, she said. A 2022 systematic review found fewer than half of studies showed the substance useful for sleep outcomes. “Where studies were positives, it was in people who had chronic pain,” Dr. Grossman noted. Research indicates cannabis may have substantial benefit for chronic pain compared with placebo.
 

Potential Harms

If the medical benefits of cannabis are murky, the evidence for its potential harms, at least in the short term, are clearer, according to Dr. Grossman. A simplified guideline for prescribing medical cannabinoids in primary care includes sedation, feeling high, dizziness, speech disorders, muscle twitching, hypotension, and several other conditions among the potential hazards of the drug. 

But the potential for long-term harm is uncertain. “All the evidence comes from people who have been using it for recreational reasons,” where there may be co-use of tobacco, self-reported outcomes, and recall bias, she said. The characteristics of people using cannabis recreationally often differ from those using it medicinally.
 

Use With Other Controlled Substances

Dr. Grossman said clinicians should consider whether the co-use of cannabis and other controlled substances, such as benzodiazepines, opioids, or Adderall, raises the potential risks associated with those drugs. “Ultimately it comes down to talking to your patients,” she said. If a toxicity screen shows the presence of controlled substances, ask about their experience with the drugs they are using and let them know your main concern is their safety.

Dr. Grossman reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Immunization with inactivated vaccines while receiving the natalizumab for highly active multiple sclerosis (MS) is safe and immunogenic, with no increased risk for disease progression, new research shows. 

The study, the first to examine vaccine safety and immunogenicity in highly active MS, revealed high seroprotection rates following receipt of vaccines for COVID-19 and hepatitis A and B, regardless of the duration of treatment with natalizumab.

On the basis of these findings, investigators created an algorithm that clinicians can use to map an immunization schedule in patients who might otherwise delay initiation of disease-modifying therapy until they are fully vaccinated.

“We observed seroprotection rates exceeding 90% for hepatitis A and B, and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, and all vaccines demonstrated a favorable safety profile, with no exacerbation of disease activity detected,” said lead author René Carvajal, MD, of the Department of Neurology-Neuroimmunology, Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat), Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. “This points to potential benefits for patients with highly active MS who require both immunization and high-efficacy therapies that may impact vaccine responses.” 

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

A Controversial Issue

Today’s high-efficacy therapies for MS may increase the risk of acquiring new infections, reactivate latent pathogens, or worsen ongoing infectious conditions, and immunogenicity of vaccination can be compromised by immunosuppressive agents, particularly CD20 therapies, researchers noted.

As a result, many clinicians opt to delay initiation of such therapies until vaccination schedules are complete to avoid exposure to vaccine-preventable infections. But delaying treatment can potentially affect disease progression. 

Reports of disease worsening following vaccination “have raised controversy around vaccine safety,” the authors wrote. The issue is especially relevant to those with highly active MS due to the scarcity of available data in this population.

The motivation for the study “stemmed from the complex balance clinicians face between initiating highly effective therapies promptly in patients with highly active MS and ensuring adequate protection against preventable infections through vaccination,” Dr. Carvajal said.
 

High Seroprotection Rate

Researchers analyzed data on 60 patients (mean age, 43 years; 44 female; mean disease duration, 17 years) participating in one of two prospectively followed cohorts: The Barcelona Clinically Isolated Syndromes Inception Cohort and the Barcelona Treatment Cohort. Data included demographic, clinical, radiologic, and biological data as well as regular clinical assessments, evaluations of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), and MRI scans.

Patients enrolled in the current study had received at least one of these vaccines between September 2016 and February 2022: hepatitis A virus (HAV), hepatitis B virus (HBV; enhanced immunity high load or adjuvanted), or COVID-19 (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech], mRAN-1273 [Moderna], or ChAdOx1-S [recombinant; AstraZeneca]).

The researchers conducted a retrospective, self-controlled analysis to compare the annualized relapse rate, EDSS score, and new T2 lesions counts during the 12 months before and after vaccination in patients with short- and long-term treatment duration.

They also compared John Cunningham virus serostatus between the two periods, as well as immunoglobulin G titers for each vaccine.

The global seroprotection rate was 93% (95% CI, 86%-98%). Individual vaccine rates were 92% for HAV, 93% for HBV, and 100% for COVID-19.

There was a significant reduction between the pre- and postvaccination periods in mean relapse rates (P = .004) and median number of new T2 lesions (P  = .01).

There were no changes in EDSS scores before and after vaccinations and duration of natalizumab treatment had no impact on safety and immunogenicity.
 

‘Viable Option’

The researchers used their findings to create a proposed algorithm to inform immunization decisions in patients with highly active MS who require prompt initiation of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy.

The algorithm is “integrated into a risk-minimization strategy tailored for patients with highly active MS, emphasizing in this case the pivotal role of natalizumab in averting treatment delays and providing adequate protection against potentially severe infections,” Dr. Carvajal said.

Participants who initiated or continued treatment with natalizumab completed their vaccination regimen without any incidents of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) or disease activity rebound following natalizumab discontinuation.

This suggests that using natalizumab for a brief duration might be a “viable option to contemplate,” the authors noted.

Commenting on the findings, Grace Gombolay, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics in the Division of Pediatric Neurology and director of the Pediatric Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis Clinic, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, said the study “demonstrates that vaccines are safe and do not trigger attacks in patients with MS on natalizumab, and that immunity — as measured by antibodies — is preserved in MS patients who receive natalizumab.”

This “contrasts with other treatments, as decreased antibody responses in COVID-19 are noted in certain treatments,” said Dr. Gombolay, who was not part of the study. “If both disease control and immunity against infection are the goals for the patient, then natalizumab is a reasonable option.” 

“However, this must be balanced with other considerations,” she added, including the risk for PML and pregnancy. 

This study was supported by grants from the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, and the European Union. Dr. Carvajal reported receiving grants from Vall d’Hebron Institut de Recerca and the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and honoraria from Roche, Novartis, BIIB-Colombia, Merck, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr. Gombolay serves as media editor for Pediatric Neurology and as associate editor of the Annals of the Child Neurology Society. She is also a part-time CDC consultant for acute flaccid myelitis and received an honorarium as a speaker at the Georgia Neurological Society meeting, sponsored by Academic CME and TG Therapeutics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Immunization with inactivated vaccines while receiving the natalizumab for highly active multiple sclerosis (MS) is safe and immunogenic, with no increased risk for disease progression, new research shows. 

The study, the first to examine vaccine safety and immunogenicity in highly active MS, revealed high seroprotection rates following receipt of vaccines for COVID-19 and hepatitis A and B, regardless of the duration of treatment with natalizumab.

On the basis of these findings, investigators created an algorithm that clinicians can use to map an immunization schedule in patients who might otherwise delay initiation of disease-modifying therapy until they are fully vaccinated.

“We observed seroprotection rates exceeding 90% for hepatitis A and B, and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, and all vaccines demonstrated a favorable safety profile, with no exacerbation of disease activity detected,” said lead author René Carvajal, MD, of the Department of Neurology-Neuroimmunology, Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat), Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. “This points to potential benefits for patients with highly active MS who require both immunization and high-efficacy therapies that may impact vaccine responses.” 

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

A Controversial Issue

Today’s high-efficacy therapies for MS may increase the risk of acquiring new infections, reactivate latent pathogens, or worsen ongoing infectious conditions, and immunogenicity of vaccination can be compromised by immunosuppressive agents, particularly CD20 therapies, researchers noted.

As a result, many clinicians opt to delay initiation of such therapies until vaccination schedules are complete to avoid exposure to vaccine-preventable infections. But delaying treatment can potentially affect disease progression. 

Reports of disease worsening following vaccination “have raised controversy around vaccine safety,” the authors wrote. The issue is especially relevant to those with highly active MS due to the scarcity of available data in this population.

The motivation for the study “stemmed from the complex balance clinicians face between initiating highly effective therapies promptly in patients with highly active MS and ensuring adequate protection against preventable infections through vaccination,” Dr. Carvajal said.
 

High Seroprotection Rate

Researchers analyzed data on 60 patients (mean age, 43 years; 44 female; mean disease duration, 17 years) participating in one of two prospectively followed cohorts: The Barcelona Clinically Isolated Syndromes Inception Cohort and the Barcelona Treatment Cohort. Data included demographic, clinical, radiologic, and biological data as well as regular clinical assessments, evaluations of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), and MRI scans.

Patients enrolled in the current study had received at least one of these vaccines between September 2016 and February 2022: hepatitis A virus (HAV), hepatitis B virus (HBV; enhanced immunity high load or adjuvanted), or COVID-19 (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech], mRAN-1273 [Moderna], or ChAdOx1-S [recombinant; AstraZeneca]).

The researchers conducted a retrospective, self-controlled analysis to compare the annualized relapse rate, EDSS score, and new T2 lesions counts during the 12 months before and after vaccination in patients with short- and long-term treatment duration.

They also compared John Cunningham virus serostatus between the two periods, as well as immunoglobulin G titers for each vaccine.

The global seroprotection rate was 93% (95% CI, 86%-98%). Individual vaccine rates were 92% for HAV, 93% for HBV, and 100% for COVID-19.

There was a significant reduction between the pre- and postvaccination periods in mean relapse rates (P = .004) and median number of new T2 lesions (P  = .01).

There were no changes in EDSS scores before and after vaccinations and duration of natalizumab treatment had no impact on safety and immunogenicity.
 

‘Viable Option’

The researchers used their findings to create a proposed algorithm to inform immunization decisions in patients with highly active MS who require prompt initiation of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy.

The algorithm is “integrated into a risk-minimization strategy tailored for patients with highly active MS, emphasizing in this case the pivotal role of natalizumab in averting treatment delays and providing adequate protection against potentially severe infections,” Dr. Carvajal said.

Participants who initiated or continued treatment with natalizumab completed their vaccination regimen without any incidents of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) or disease activity rebound following natalizumab discontinuation.

This suggests that using natalizumab for a brief duration might be a “viable option to contemplate,” the authors noted.

Commenting on the findings, Grace Gombolay, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics in the Division of Pediatric Neurology and director of the Pediatric Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis Clinic, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, said the study “demonstrates that vaccines are safe and do not trigger attacks in patients with MS on natalizumab, and that immunity — as measured by antibodies — is preserved in MS patients who receive natalizumab.”

This “contrasts with other treatments, as decreased antibody responses in COVID-19 are noted in certain treatments,” said Dr. Gombolay, who was not part of the study. “If both disease control and immunity against infection are the goals for the patient, then natalizumab is a reasonable option.” 

“However, this must be balanced with other considerations,” she added, including the risk for PML and pregnancy. 

This study was supported by grants from the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, and the European Union. Dr. Carvajal reported receiving grants from Vall d’Hebron Institut de Recerca and the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and honoraria from Roche, Novartis, BIIB-Colombia, Merck, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr. Gombolay serves as media editor for Pediatric Neurology and as associate editor of the Annals of the Child Neurology Society. She is also a part-time CDC consultant for acute flaccid myelitis and received an honorarium as a speaker at the Georgia Neurological Society meeting, sponsored by Academic CME and TG Therapeutics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Immunization with inactivated vaccines while receiving the natalizumab for highly active multiple sclerosis (MS) is safe and immunogenic, with no increased risk for disease progression, new research shows. 

The study, the first to examine vaccine safety and immunogenicity in highly active MS, revealed high seroprotection rates following receipt of vaccines for COVID-19 and hepatitis A and B, regardless of the duration of treatment with natalizumab.

On the basis of these findings, investigators created an algorithm that clinicians can use to map an immunization schedule in patients who might otherwise delay initiation of disease-modifying therapy until they are fully vaccinated.

“We observed seroprotection rates exceeding 90% for hepatitis A and B, and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, and all vaccines demonstrated a favorable safety profile, with no exacerbation of disease activity detected,” said lead author René Carvajal, MD, of the Department of Neurology-Neuroimmunology, Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat), Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. “This points to potential benefits for patients with highly active MS who require both immunization and high-efficacy therapies that may impact vaccine responses.” 

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

A Controversial Issue

Today’s high-efficacy therapies for MS may increase the risk of acquiring new infections, reactivate latent pathogens, or worsen ongoing infectious conditions, and immunogenicity of vaccination can be compromised by immunosuppressive agents, particularly CD20 therapies, researchers noted.

As a result, many clinicians opt to delay initiation of such therapies until vaccination schedules are complete to avoid exposure to vaccine-preventable infections. But delaying treatment can potentially affect disease progression. 

Reports of disease worsening following vaccination “have raised controversy around vaccine safety,” the authors wrote. The issue is especially relevant to those with highly active MS due to the scarcity of available data in this population.

The motivation for the study “stemmed from the complex balance clinicians face between initiating highly effective therapies promptly in patients with highly active MS and ensuring adequate protection against preventable infections through vaccination,” Dr. Carvajal said.
 

High Seroprotection Rate

Researchers analyzed data on 60 patients (mean age, 43 years; 44 female; mean disease duration, 17 years) participating in one of two prospectively followed cohorts: The Barcelona Clinically Isolated Syndromes Inception Cohort and the Barcelona Treatment Cohort. Data included demographic, clinical, radiologic, and biological data as well as regular clinical assessments, evaluations of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), and MRI scans.

Patients enrolled in the current study had received at least one of these vaccines between September 2016 and February 2022: hepatitis A virus (HAV), hepatitis B virus (HBV; enhanced immunity high load or adjuvanted), or COVID-19 (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech], mRAN-1273 [Moderna], or ChAdOx1-S [recombinant; AstraZeneca]).

The researchers conducted a retrospective, self-controlled analysis to compare the annualized relapse rate, EDSS score, and new T2 lesions counts during the 12 months before and after vaccination in patients with short- and long-term treatment duration.

They also compared John Cunningham virus serostatus between the two periods, as well as immunoglobulin G titers for each vaccine.

The global seroprotection rate was 93% (95% CI, 86%-98%). Individual vaccine rates were 92% for HAV, 93% for HBV, and 100% for COVID-19.

There was a significant reduction between the pre- and postvaccination periods in mean relapse rates (P = .004) and median number of new T2 lesions (P  = .01).

There were no changes in EDSS scores before and after vaccinations and duration of natalizumab treatment had no impact on safety and immunogenicity.
 

‘Viable Option’

The researchers used their findings to create a proposed algorithm to inform immunization decisions in patients with highly active MS who require prompt initiation of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy.

The algorithm is “integrated into a risk-minimization strategy tailored for patients with highly active MS, emphasizing in this case the pivotal role of natalizumab in averting treatment delays and providing adequate protection against potentially severe infections,” Dr. Carvajal said.

Participants who initiated or continued treatment with natalizumab completed their vaccination regimen without any incidents of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) or disease activity rebound following natalizumab discontinuation.

This suggests that using natalizumab for a brief duration might be a “viable option to contemplate,” the authors noted.

Commenting on the findings, Grace Gombolay, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics in the Division of Pediatric Neurology and director of the Pediatric Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis Clinic, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, said the study “demonstrates that vaccines are safe and do not trigger attacks in patients with MS on natalizumab, and that immunity — as measured by antibodies — is preserved in MS patients who receive natalizumab.”

This “contrasts with other treatments, as decreased antibody responses in COVID-19 are noted in certain treatments,” said Dr. Gombolay, who was not part of the study. “If both disease control and immunity against infection are the goals for the patient, then natalizumab is a reasonable option.” 

“However, this must be balanced with other considerations,” she added, including the risk for PML and pregnancy. 

This study was supported by grants from the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, and the European Union. Dr. Carvajal reported receiving grants from Vall d’Hebron Institut de Recerca and the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and honoraria from Roche, Novartis, BIIB-Colombia, Merck, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr. Gombolay serves as media editor for Pediatric Neurology and as associate editor of the Annals of the Child Neurology Society. She is also a part-time CDC consultant for acute flaccid myelitis and received an honorarium as a speaker at the Georgia Neurological Society meeting, sponsored by Academic CME and TG Therapeutics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) are often prescribed low-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but a new retrospective analysis suggests that, like adults, this patient population may benefit from early treatment with high-efficacy DMTs.

“I think it’s very important to highlight that we are seeing that traditionally, kids are just started on lower-efficacy treatments and they keep relapsing. If we can show that when they get transitioned to high-efficacy treatments, the relapses are lessening, I’m hoping that can then push for better clinical trials with pediatric patients included,” said Frederick Bassal, DO, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. He is a pediatric neurologist at University of California, Davis.

The first line for POMS is generally low-efficacy DMTs like interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate, but these medications may not effectively control disease progression, according to the study authors, and this could lead to pediatric patients being changed to more potent therapies. That can include moderate-efficacy drugs like S1P inhibitors and fumarates, or high-efficacy DMTS such as B cell depletors and alpha 4 integrin receptor antibodies.
 

Treatment Strategies

“Right now what we’re seeing is the conservative approach — starting low and working up with the younger and adolescent patients. I’m speculating, and I want to look more into it. Is [it maybe] because of insurance approval?” said study coauthor Amara Miller, a medical student at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix.

The findings aren’t surprising, according to Barbara Giesser, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “It is in line with what we think we know about people with adult MS — that if you start early on with a more effective therapy, you tend to have better outcomes,” said Dr. Giesser, director of the MS program at the Pacific Neuroscience Institute.

Another reason to consider higher-efficacy DMTs is that children with MS can have cognitive problems and delays. “There’s a suggestion that if you treat with highly-effective DMT that you might be able to abrogate some of that,” said Dr. Giesser.

Among the approximately two dozen FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for MS, only fingolimod (Gilenya, Novartis) is approved for children and adolescents. “All of the others are used off label, but I think perhaps, if you have more studies that [show] that children do better if you treat with more effective therapies early on, perhaps we might see more on-label indications for use in a pediatric population,” said Dr. Giesser.

The finding that obesity was associated with a higher likelihood of having multiple therapies is also interesting, she said. “We’re beginning to see that obesity in adults as well seems to portend less favorable neurologic outcomes.”
 

Study Methodology

The researchers analyzed data from 135 POMS patients between 2012 and 2023.

The mean age of participants was 15 years, 60% were female, and 120 of 135 were White, while 76 were of Hispanic ethnicity. Overweight and obesity were common, with 36 and 43 participants in each category. The initial therapy was a low-efficacy DMT in 23.0% of participants, moderate-efficacy in 37.0%, and high-efficacy in 24.4%, while 1.5% received some other kind of medication and 14.1% received no medication. The annualized relapse rate was 0.932, and the mean EDSS score was 0.88.

Patients who underwent three or medication changes had lower EDSS scores than those who underwent zero to 2 (P = .00607).

Over the course of the study, the percentage of patients who received high-efficacy DMTs rose from 25.9% to 48.9%, largely due to changes in medication. Of those initially prescribed low-efficacy DMTs, 77.4% were eventually switched to high-efficacy DMTs.

Every patient who underwent three or more medication changes was initially prescribed a low-efficacy DMT.

Patients started on low-efficacy drugs had a mean of 1.42 medication changes, compared with 0.94 in the moderate-efficacy group and 0.51 in the high-efficacy group. The reasons for changing from the first medication included relapse (36), side effects (11), patient choice or compliance (8), and pregnancy (2).

Patients 10 years or younger were more likely to be initially prescribed a low-efficacy therapy (odds ratio [OR], 5.72; P = .0366), while older patients were more likely to be prescribed moderate- or high-efficacy therapies (OR, 14.44; P = .0012).

There were more total medication changes in the low-efficacy group than the high initial DMT group (P = .000305).

Asked what advice they would give to physicians treating POMS patients, Ms. Miller suggested a top-down approach. “We want to look at if maybe we can start with higher efficacy DMT’s and maybe titering it down. That may be an option,” said Ms. Miller.

Dr. Bassal highlighted the importance of shared decision-making. “We want to go over the options, that we recommend higher-efficacy [DMTs] for these reasons. But every individual is different. And there may be fears that are very reasonable that families have. I think in those cases, it’s also reasonable to make a shared decision. And if that means going with something like an oral, moderate- to lower-efficacy [therapy], that’s okay, because compliance is key, and if you start something where the family is afraid of side effects, or there are side effects, then you kind of lost that opportunity,” he said.

Dr. Bassal, Dr. Giesser, and Ms. Miller have no relevant financial disclosures.

DENVER — Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) are often prescribed low-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but a new retrospective analysis suggests that, like adults, this patient population may benefit from early treatment with high-efficacy DMTs.

“I think it’s very important to highlight that we are seeing that traditionally, kids are just started on lower-efficacy treatments and they keep relapsing. If we can show that when they get transitioned to high-efficacy treatments, the relapses are lessening, I’m hoping that can then push for better clinical trials with pediatric patients included,” said Frederick Bassal, DO, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. He is a pediatric neurologist at University of California, Davis.

The first line for POMS is generally low-efficacy DMTs like interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate, but these medications may not effectively control disease progression, according to the study authors, and this could lead to pediatric patients being changed to more potent therapies. That can include moderate-efficacy drugs like S1P inhibitors and fumarates, or high-efficacy DMTS such as B cell depletors and alpha 4 integrin receptor antibodies.
 

Treatment Strategies

“Right now what we’re seeing is the conservative approach — starting low and working up with the younger and adolescent patients. I’m speculating, and I want to look more into it. Is [it maybe] because of insurance approval?” said study coauthor Amara Miller, a medical student at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix.

The findings aren’t surprising, according to Barbara Giesser, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “It is in line with what we think we know about people with adult MS — that if you start early on with a more effective therapy, you tend to have better outcomes,” said Dr. Giesser, director of the MS program at the Pacific Neuroscience Institute.

Another reason to consider higher-efficacy DMTs is that children with MS can have cognitive problems and delays. “There’s a suggestion that if you treat with highly-effective DMT that you might be able to abrogate some of that,” said Dr. Giesser.

Among the approximately two dozen FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for MS, only fingolimod (Gilenya, Novartis) is approved for children and adolescents. “All of the others are used off label, but I think perhaps, if you have more studies that [show] that children do better if you treat with more effective therapies early on, perhaps we might see more on-label indications for use in a pediatric population,” said Dr. Giesser.

The finding that obesity was associated with a higher likelihood of having multiple therapies is also interesting, she said. “We’re beginning to see that obesity in adults as well seems to portend less favorable neurologic outcomes.”
 

Study Methodology

The researchers analyzed data from 135 POMS patients between 2012 and 2023.

The mean age of participants was 15 years, 60% were female, and 120 of 135 were White, while 76 were of Hispanic ethnicity. Overweight and obesity were common, with 36 and 43 participants in each category. The initial therapy was a low-efficacy DMT in 23.0% of participants, moderate-efficacy in 37.0%, and high-efficacy in 24.4%, while 1.5% received some other kind of medication and 14.1% received no medication. The annualized relapse rate was 0.932, and the mean EDSS score was 0.88.

Patients who underwent three or medication changes had lower EDSS scores than those who underwent zero to 2 (P = .00607).

Over the course of the study, the percentage of patients who received high-efficacy DMTs rose from 25.9% to 48.9%, largely due to changes in medication. Of those initially prescribed low-efficacy DMTs, 77.4% were eventually switched to high-efficacy DMTs.

Every patient who underwent three or more medication changes was initially prescribed a low-efficacy DMT.

Patients started on low-efficacy drugs had a mean of 1.42 medication changes, compared with 0.94 in the moderate-efficacy group and 0.51 in the high-efficacy group. The reasons for changing from the first medication included relapse (36), side effects (11), patient choice or compliance (8), and pregnancy (2).

Patients 10 years or younger were more likely to be initially prescribed a low-efficacy therapy (odds ratio [OR], 5.72; P = .0366), while older patients were more likely to be prescribed moderate- or high-efficacy therapies (OR, 14.44; P = .0012).

There were more total medication changes in the low-efficacy group than the high initial DMT group (P = .000305).

Asked what advice they would give to physicians treating POMS patients, Ms. Miller suggested a top-down approach. “We want to look at if maybe we can start with higher efficacy DMT’s and maybe titering it down. That may be an option,” said Ms. Miller.

Dr. Bassal highlighted the importance of shared decision-making. “We want to go over the options, that we recommend higher-efficacy [DMTs] for these reasons. But every individual is different. And there may be fears that are very reasonable that families have. I think in those cases, it’s also reasonable to make a shared decision. And if that means going with something like an oral, moderate- to lower-efficacy [therapy], that’s okay, because compliance is key, and if you start something where the family is afraid of side effects, or there are side effects, then you kind of lost that opportunity,” he said.

Dr. Bassal, Dr. Giesser, and Ms. Miller have no relevant financial disclosures.

DENVER — Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) are often prescribed low-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but a new retrospective analysis suggests that, like adults, this patient population may benefit from early treatment with high-efficacy DMTs.

“I think it’s very important to highlight that we are seeing that traditionally, kids are just started on lower-efficacy treatments and they keep relapsing. If we can show that when they get transitioned to high-efficacy treatments, the relapses are lessening, I’m hoping that can then push for better clinical trials with pediatric patients included,” said Frederick Bassal, DO, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. He is a pediatric neurologist at University of California, Davis.

The first line for POMS is generally low-efficacy DMTs like interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate, but these medications may not effectively control disease progression, according to the study authors, and this could lead to pediatric patients being changed to more potent therapies. That can include moderate-efficacy drugs like S1P inhibitors and fumarates, or high-efficacy DMTS such as B cell depletors and alpha 4 integrin receptor antibodies.
 

Treatment Strategies

“Right now what we’re seeing is the conservative approach — starting low and working up with the younger and adolescent patients. I’m speculating, and I want to look more into it. Is [it maybe] because of insurance approval?” said study coauthor Amara Miller, a medical student at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix.

The findings aren’t surprising, according to Barbara Giesser, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “It is in line with what we think we know about people with adult MS — that if you start early on with a more effective therapy, you tend to have better outcomes,” said Dr. Giesser, director of the MS program at the Pacific Neuroscience Institute.

Another reason to consider higher-efficacy DMTs is that children with MS can have cognitive problems and delays. “There’s a suggestion that if you treat with highly-effective DMT that you might be able to abrogate some of that,” said Dr. Giesser.

Among the approximately two dozen FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for MS, only fingolimod (Gilenya, Novartis) is approved for children and adolescents. “All of the others are used off label, but I think perhaps, if you have more studies that [show] that children do better if you treat with more effective therapies early on, perhaps we might see more on-label indications for use in a pediatric population,” said Dr. Giesser.

The finding that obesity was associated with a higher likelihood of having multiple therapies is also interesting, she said. “We’re beginning to see that obesity in adults as well seems to portend less favorable neurologic outcomes.”
 

Study Methodology

The researchers analyzed data from 135 POMS patients between 2012 and 2023.

The mean age of participants was 15 years, 60% were female, and 120 of 135 were White, while 76 were of Hispanic ethnicity. Overweight and obesity were common, with 36 and 43 participants in each category. The initial therapy was a low-efficacy DMT in 23.0% of participants, moderate-efficacy in 37.0%, and high-efficacy in 24.4%, while 1.5% received some other kind of medication and 14.1% received no medication. The annualized relapse rate was 0.932, and the mean EDSS score was 0.88.

Patients who underwent three or medication changes had lower EDSS scores than those who underwent zero to 2 (P = .00607).

Over the course of the study, the percentage of patients who received high-efficacy DMTs rose from 25.9% to 48.9%, largely due to changes in medication. Of those initially prescribed low-efficacy DMTs, 77.4% were eventually switched to high-efficacy DMTs.

Every patient who underwent three or more medication changes was initially prescribed a low-efficacy DMT.

Patients started on low-efficacy drugs had a mean of 1.42 medication changes, compared with 0.94 in the moderate-efficacy group and 0.51 in the high-efficacy group. The reasons for changing from the first medication included relapse (36), side effects (11), patient choice or compliance (8), and pregnancy (2).

Patients 10 years or younger were more likely to be initially prescribed a low-efficacy therapy (odds ratio [OR], 5.72; P = .0366), while older patients were more likely to be prescribed moderate- or high-efficacy therapies (OR, 14.44; P = .0012).

There were more total medication changes in the low-efficacy group than the high initial DMT group (P = .000305).

Asked what advice they would give to physicians treating POMS patients, Ms. Miller suggested a top-down approach. “We want to look at if maybe we can start with higher efficacy DMT’s and maybe titering it down. That may be an option,” said Ms. Miller.

Dr. Bassal highlighted the importance of shared decision-making. “We want to go over the options, that we recommend higher-efficacy [DMTs] for these reasons. But every individual is different. And there may be fears that are very reasonable that families have. I think in those cases, it’s also reasonable to make a shared decision. And if that means going with something like an oral, moderate- to lower-efficacy [therapy], that’s okay, because compliance is key, and if you start something where the family is afraid of side effects, or there are side effects, then you kind of lost that opportunity,” he said.

Dr. Bassal, Dr. Giesser, and Ms. Miller have no relevant financial disclosures.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) has three distinct subtypes based on immune markers in patient’s blood, each with slightly different disease trajectories and responses to therapy, a new study suggests.

With further validation, determining a patient’s blood “immune signature,” or endophenotype, before starting immunomodulatory therapy may help predict clinical disease trajectories and lead to more personalized treatment decisions, investigators said.

“The characterization of an endophenotype at timepoints of diagnosis will help to determine likely trajectory of the disease course but also will help to refine the chosen immune therapy,” said Heinz Wiendl, MD, professor and chair, Department of Neurology, University of Münster, Germany. “This is a rationale way of precision medicine for the future.”

The study was published online in Science Translational Medicine.
 

Degenerative and Inflammatory Subtypes

MS is a highly heterogeneous disorder with different clinical manifestations and disease trajectories, making it a challenge to manage. Whether this heterogeneity is reflected by discrete immune signatures in the blood has been unclear.

To investigate, Dr. Wiendl and a multicenter team comprehensively analyzed the immunological properties of blood samples collected from 309 patients with early MS and an independent validation cohort of 232 patients with early MS.

In both cohorts, they found that cellular immune signatures split into three distinct immunological endophenotypes, dubbed E1, E2, and E3.

E1 is characterized by alterations in the CD4 T-cell compartment, with increases in inflammatory cytokines, namely interleukin-17A (IL-17A), IL-22, and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, as well as earlier structural brain damage, more severe disease, and higher disability.

Alterations in natural killer cells are a hallmark of the E2 subtype, while alterations in the CD8 T cells dominate the E3 subtype.

The different subtypes were associated with distinct clinical disease trajectories. E3 patients displayed a pattern reflecting higher inflammatory disease activity, as illustrated by a higher relapse rate (≥ 2) within the first year from baseline and more frequent use of highly active disease-modifying therapies as first immunomodulatory treatment.

E3 patients also had higher numbers of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at baseline, a higher conversion rate from clinically isolated syndrome to relapsing-remitting MS, and rapid disability accrual within 2 years after baseline.

This endophenotype was also associated with an increase in total cell numbers within the cerebrospinal fluid and intrathecal immunoglobulin (Ig) G synthesis at baseline.

E1 patients had a higher degree of early structural brain damage and disease severity, including disability and impaired evident at baseline, and increased serum neurofilament light and increased intrathecal IgM synthesis at baseline.

“According to these different patterns of disease trajectories, we therefore termed these subsets degenerative E1 and inflammatory E3. Overall, although some of the clinical and paraclinical parameters partially overlapped, our analysis reveals that distinct immunological endophenotypes might have predictive value with regard to clinically relevant disease trajectories,” the researchers wrote.
 

Toward Personalized Care

In addition, during up to 4-year follow-up of some patients, they observed that patients with the inflammatory E3 endophenotype treated with interferon-beta exhibited higher disease progression and MRI activity relative to E3 patients receiving other therapies. These differential effects of interferon-beta were not observed in the other endophenotypes.

With further study and refinement, the hope is to make this test a “clinical reality,” Dr. Wiendl said.

Commenting on the findings, Kimberly O’Neill, MD, clinical instructor, Department of Neurology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, noted that people with MS can have “a broad variety of disease course and outcomes ranging from mild to a very severe and life-altering disease course. At this point, we are not great at predicting who is going to be on which path and also which medication is right for each patient.

“Research like this gives us hope for a more personalized precision medicine in MS,” said Dr. O’Neill, who was not part of the study. “The ideal world would be to have a blood test that could tell their disease course and which treatments will work for an individual patient, but we are certainly not there yet.”

Also providing an outside perspective, Mary Rensel, MD, director of wellness and pediatric MS at the Cleveland Clinic Mellen Center for MS, Cleveland, said, “Precision medicine is our goal and dream in MS care — to be able to do a blood test and know what medicine a patient may or may not respond to and save them years of ongoing symptoms or the risk of disability. This study is a great start.”

Support for this research was provided by grants from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the German Research Council, and the Hermann and Lilly Schilling Foundation. Disclosures for study authors are listed with the original article. Dr. O’Neill and Dr. Rensel had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) has three distinct subtypes based on immune markers in patient’s blood, each with slightly different disease trajectories and responses to therapy, a new study suggests.

With further validation, determining a patient’s blood “immune signature,” or endophenotype, before starting immunomodulatory therapy may help predict clinical disease trajectories and lead to more personalized treatment decisions, investigators said.

“The characterization of an endophenotype at timepoints of diagnosis will help to determine likely trajectory of the disease course but also will help to refine the chosen immune therapy,” said Heinz Wiendl, MD, professor and chair, Department of Neurology, University of Münster, Germany. “This is a rationale way of precision medicine for the future.”

The study was published online in Science Translational Medicine.
 

Degenerative and Inflammatory Subtypes

MS is a highly heterogeneous disorder with different clinical manifestations and disease trajectories, making it a challenge to manage. Whether this heterogeneity is reflected by discrete immune signatures in the blood has been unclear.

To investigate, Dr. Wiendl and a multicenter team comprehensively analyzed the immunological properties of blood samples collected from 309 patients with early MS and an independent validation cohort of 232 patients with early MS.

In both cohorts, they found that cellular immune signatures split into three distinct immunological endophenotypes, dubbed E1, E2, and E3.

E1 is characterized by alterations in the CD4 T-cell compartment, with increases in inflammatory cytokines, namely interleukin-17A (IL-17A), IL-22, and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, as well as earlier structural brain damage, more severe disease, and higher disability.

Alterations in natural killer cells are a hallmark of the E2 subtype, while alterations in the CD8 T cells dominate the E3 subtype.

The different subtypes were associated with distinct clinical disease trajectories. E3 patients displayed a pattern reflecting higher inflammatory disease activity, as illustrated by a higher relapse rate (≥ 2) within the first year from baseline and more frequent use of highly active disease-modifying therapies as first immunomodulatory treatment.

E3 patients also had higher numbers of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at baseline, a higher conversion rate from clinically isolated syndrome to relapsing-remitting MS, and rapid disability accrual within 2 years after baseline.

This endophenotype was also associated with an increase in total cell numbers within the cerebrospinal fluid and intrathecal immunoglobulin (Ig) G synthesis at baseline.

E1 patients had a higher degree of early structural brain damage and disease severity, including disability and impaired evident at baseline, and increased serum neurofilament light and increased intrathecal IgM synthesis at baseline.

“According to these different patterns of disease trajectories, we therefore termed these subsets degenerative E1 and inflammatory E3. Overall, although some of the clinical and paraclinical parameters partially overlapped, our analysis reveals that distinct immunological endophenotypes might have predictive value with regard to clinically relevant disease trajectories,” the researchers wrote.
 

Toward Personalized Care

In addition, during up to 4-year follow-up of some patients, they observed that patients with the inflammatory E3 endophenotype treated with interferon-beta exhibited higher disease progression and MRI activity relative to E3 patients receiving other therapies. These differential effects of interferon-beta were not observed in the other endophenotypes.

With further study and refinement, the hope is to make this test a “clinical reality,” Dr. Wiendl said.

Commenting on the findings, Kimberly O’Neill, MD, clinical instructor, Department of Neurology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, noted that people with MS can have “a broad variety of disease course and outcomes ranging from mild to a very severe and life-altering disease course. At this point, we are not great at predicting who is going to be on which path and also which medication is right for each patient.

“Research like this gives us hope for a more personalized precision medicine in MS,” said Dr. O’Neill, who was not part of the study. “The ideal world would be to have a blood test that could tell their disease course and which treatments will work for an individual patient, but we are certainly not there yet.”

Also providing an outside perspective, Mary Rensel, MD, director of wellness and pediatric MS at the Cleveland Clinic Mellen Center for MS, Cleveland, said, “Precision medicine is our goal and dream in MS care — to be able to do a blood test and know what medicine a patient may or may not respond to and save them years of ongoing symptoms or the risk of disability. This study is a great start.”

Support for this research was provided by grants from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the German Research Council, and the Hermann and Lilly Schilling Foundation. Disclosures for study authors are listed with the original article. Dr. O’Neill and Dr. Rensel had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) has three distinct subtypes based on immune markers in patient’s blood, each with slightly different disease trajectories and responses to therapy, a new study suggests.

With further validation, determining a patient’s blood “immune signature,” or endophenotype, before starting immunomodulatory therapy may help predict clinical disease trajectories and lead to more personalized treatment decisions, investigators said.

“The characterization of an endophenotype at timepoints of diagnosis will help to determine likely trajectory of the disease course but also will help to refine the chosen immune therapy,” said Heinz Wiendl, MD, professor and chair, Department of Neurology, University of Münster, Germany. “This is a rationale way of precision medicine for the future.”

The study was published online in Science Translational Medicine.
 

Degenerative and Inflammatory Subtypes

MS is a highly heterogeneous disorder with different clinical manifestations and disease trajectories, making it a challenge to manage. Whether this heterogeneity is reflected by discrete immune signatures in the blood has been unclear.

To investigate, Dr. Wiendl and a multicenter team comprehensively analyzed the immunological properties of blood samples collected from 309 patients with early MS and an independent validation cohort of 232 patients with early MS.

In both cohorts, they found that cellular immune signatures split into three distinct immunological endophenotypes, dubbed E1, E2, and E3.

E1 is characterized by alterations in the CD4 T-cell compartment, with increases in inflammatory cytokines, namely interleukin-17A (IL-17A), IL-22, and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, as well as earlier structural brain damage, more severe disease, and higher disability.

Alterations in natural killer cells are a hallmark of the E2 subtype, while alterations in the CD8 T cells dominate the E3 subtype.

The different subtypes were associated with distinct clinical disease trajectories. E3 patients displayed a pattern reflecting higher inflammatory disease activity, as illustrated by a higher relapse rate (≥ 2) within the first year from baseline and more frequent use of highly active disease-modifying therapies as first immunomodulatory treatment.

E3 patients also had higher numbers of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at baseline, a higher conversion rate from clinically isolated syndrome to relapsing-remitting MS, and rapid disability accrual within 2 years after baseline.

This endophenotype was also associated with an increase in total cell numbers within the cerebrospinal fluid and intrathecal immunoglobulin (Ig) G synthesis at baseline.

E1 patients had a higher degree of early structural brain damage and disease severity, including disability and impaired evident at baseline, and increased serum neurofilament light and increased intrathecal IgM synthesis at baseline.

“According to these different patterns of disease trajectories, we therefore termed these subsets degenerative E1 and inflammatory E3. Overall, although some of the clinical and paraclinical parameters partially overlapped, our analysis reveals that distinct immunological endophenotypes might have predictive value with regard to clinically relevant disease trajectories,” the researchers wrote.
 

Toward Personalized Care

In addition, during up to 4-year follow-up of some patients, they observed that patients with the inflammatory E3 endophenotype treated with interferon-beta exhibited higher disease progression and MRI activity relative to E3 patients receiving other therapies. These differential effects of interferon-beta were not observed in the other endophenotypes.

With further study and refinement, the hope is to make this test a “clinical reality,” Dr. Wiendl said.

Commenting on the findings, Kimberly O’Neill, MD, clinical instructor, Department of Neurology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, noted that people with MS can have “a broad variety of disease course and outcomes ranging from mild to a very severe and life-altering disease course. At this point, we are not great at predicting who is going to be on which path and also which medication is right for each patient.

“Research like this gives us hope for a more personalized precision medicine in MS,” said Dr. O’Neill, who was not part of the study. “The ideal world would be to have a blood test that could tell their disease course and which treatments will work for an individual patient, but we are certainly not there yet.”

Also providing an outside perspective, Mary Rensel, MD, director of wellness and pediatric MS at the Cleveland Clinic Mellen Center for MS, Cleveland, said, “Precision medicine is our goal and dream in MS care — to be able to do a blood test and know what medicine a patient may or may not respond to and save them years of ongoing symptoms or the risk of disability. This study is a great start.”

Support for this research was provided by grants from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the German Research Council, and the Hermann and Lilly Schilling Foundation. Disclosures for study authors are listed with the original article. Dr. O’Neill and Dr. Rensel had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is our constant companion, infecting an estimated 90%-95% of adults. Many of us are first infected as children, when the germ may trigger cold and flu symptoms. EBV also causes mononucleosis, or kissing disease, a glandular fever that has afflicted generations of amorous young people.

Post infection, EBV settles in for the long haul and remains in the body until death. It’s thought to be largely innocuous, but EBV is now implicated as a cause of several types of cancer — including lymphoma and nasopharyngeal tumors – and multiple sclerosis (MS). In 2022, a landmark study in Science suggested that previous EBV infection is the primary cause of MS.

While there aren’t many implications for current treatment, greater insight into the origin story of MS may eventually help neurologists better diagnose and treat patients, experts said. The goal is to uncover clues that “can help us understand MS a little bit better and reveal insights that could lead to new disease-modifying therapy,” Bruce Bebo, PhD, executive vice president of research with the National MS Society, said in an interview.
 

EBV Boosts MS Risk 32-Fold

EBV was first linked to MS back in 1981. For the 2022 study, researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Harvard Medical School, Boston, analyzed blood serum from 10 million active-duty members of the US military. They focused on 801 recruits with MS and matched them with more than 1500 controls. All but one of those with MS had been infected with EBV; infection appeared to boost the risk for MS 32-fold (95% CI, 4.3-245.3; P < .001).

Neurologist and associate professor Michael Levy, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview that the findings are “groundbreaking” and confirm that EBV is “likely the primary cause of MS.”

According to Dr. Levy, there are two main theories about why EBV causes MS. The first hypothesis, known as the “molecular mimicry” theory, suggests that “EBV is a trigger of MS, possibly when the immune system mistakes a viral protein for a myelin protein and then attacks myelin,” Dr. Levy said. In MS, the immune system attacks the protective myelin sheath and the axons it insulates.

“After that point, the virus is not necessary to maintain the disease state and eradicating the virus likely won’t have much effect since the immune response is already triggered,” he said.

The second theory is that “EBV is a driver of MS where there is an ongoing, lifelong immunological response to EBV that continuously causes damage in the central nervous system [CNS]. In theory, if we could eradicate the virus, the destructive immune response could also resolve. Thus, an EBV antiviral treatment could potentially treat and maybe cure MS,” Dr. Levy explained, noting that “removing the pathogenic antigen may be a more effective strategy than removing the immune response.”

However, “we don’t yet know which hypothesis is correct,” he said. But “there is preliminary evidence in favor of each one.”
 

‘Additional Fuses Must Be Ignited’

It’s also unclear why most people infected with EBV do not develop MS. It appears that “additional fuses must be ignited,” for MS to take hold, according to a commentary accompanying the landmark 2022 study.

“As far as clinical implications, knowing whether a patient has a medical or family history of mononucleosis may be a small clue, a small piece of evidence, to help with diagnosis,” Dr. Bebo said.

He agreed with Dr. Levy that an antiviral could be a promising approach “If the problem in MS is a dysfunctional immune response to EBV.”

Natalia Drosu, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard-MIT Biomedical Engineering Center, said that a clinical trial of a non-immunosuppressive antiviral targeting EBV in patients with MS would be a crucial step toward better understanding the MS-EBV connection. “If we learn that antivirals are effective in MS, we should develop non-immunosuppressive therapies for patients with MS as soon as possible,” she said.

Stanford University’s Lawrence Steinman, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics, who coauthored the commentary on the original Science paper, agreed that it’s worth investigating whether antiviral therapies targeting EBV will benefit patients who already have MS. But he cautioned against clinicians experimenting on their own outside of a research study. “You’d want to use the right antiviral and a properly designed trial,” he said.
 

Antivirals May Place a Crucial Role in MS Control

While there are no approved therapies for EBV, several MS disease-modifying therapies have anti-EBV effects, Dr. Levy said, citing anti-CD20 therapy as a clear example. It depletes B cells from the circulation, and it depletes EBV because the virus lives in the B-cell compartment. “Some MS treatments may be inadvertent EBV antivirals,” he said.

Researchers are also thinking about how they might exploit the MS-EBV link to prevent MS from developing in the first place, but there are uncertainties on that front too.

Conceivably, there may be some way to intervene in patients to treat EBV and prevent MS, such as a unique treatment for infectious mononucleosis (IM), Dr. Levy said.

Researchers are especially intrigued by signs that the timing of infection may play a role, with people infected with EBV via IM after early childhood at especially a high risk of developing MS. A 2022 German study calculated that people who developed IM were almost twice as likely as those who didn’t to develop MS within 10 years, although the risks in both groups were very small. Subgroup analysis revealed the strongest association between IM and MS was in the group infected between age 14 and 20 years (hazard ratio, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.00-12.37). They also saw a stronger association in men than in women.

The authors of a 2023 review in Clinical & Translational Immunology wrote that “further understanding of IM may be critical in solving the mystery” of EBV’s role in MS.

Dr. Levy said this line of questioning is important. “In theory, if we can tell who is prone to develop MS or whose immune system might be reacting to EBV to cause MS, we can intervene early to prevent neurological manifestations.”

However, “remember that while most of the world gets EBV infections, only 1 in 1000 will get MS. So, it might not be feasible to test everyone before neurological manifestations occur,” he said.
 

More Questions to Answer About EBV and MS

Researchers hope to answer several questions moving forward. For one, why is EBV uniquely connected to MS? “You would think that if there were cross-reactivity to myelin, there are many viruses that could cause MS. But the association seems to be very restricted to EBV,” Dr. Levy said. “It is probably due to the fact that EBV is one of the only human viruses that can infect B cells, which play important roles in controlling immune responses.”

The molecular mimicry theory also opens up a potential treatment pathway.

A 2022 study reported “high-affinity molecular mimicry between the EBV transcription factor EBV nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA1) and the central nervous system protein glial cell adhesion molecule (GlialCAM)”. Antibodies against EBNA1 and GlialCAM are prevalent in patients with MS. In a mouse model of MS, the researchers showed that EBNA1 immunization exacerbates disease. The authors wrote that “Our results provide a mechanistic link for the association between MS and EBV and could guide the development of new MS therapies.”
 

Could an EBV Vaccine Be the Answer?

On the prevention front, perhaps the most obvious question is whether an EBV vaccine could eliminate MS for good?

Dr. Bebo, from the National MS Society, said it will be important to determine which kind of vaccine is best. Is it one that neutralizes infection with EBV? Or is it enough to simply prevent clinical manifestations?

Both types of vaccines are in development, and at least two clinical trials are now in the works. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is sponsoring a phase 1 study of an adjuvanted EBV gp350-Ferritin nanoparticle vaccine. Forty subjects aged 18-29 years will take part: 20 with EBV and 20 who are not infected. The study is expected to end in 2025.

There is also a phase 1 placebo-controlled study in progress testing an EBV vaccine based on mRNA-1189 in 422 subjects aged 12-30 years. This trial is also due to end in 2025.

“This is very exciting, but it may take a decade or two to determine whether a vaccine is effective at preventing MS,” Dr. Levy said.

Dr. Levy, Dr. Steinman, Dr. Drosu, and Dr. Bebo had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is our constant companion, infecting an estimated 90%-95% of adults. Many of us are first infected as children, when the germ may trigger cold and flu symptoms. EBV also causes mononucleosis, or kissing disease, a glandular fever that has afflicted generations of amorous young people.

Post infection, EBV settles in for the long haul and remains in the body until death. It’s thought to be largely innocuous, but EBV is now implicated as a cause of several types of cancer — including lymphoma and nasopharyngeal tumors – and multiple sclerosis (MS). In 2022, a landmark study in Science suggested that previous EBV infection is the primary cause of MS.

While there aren’t many implications for current treatment, greater insight into the origin story of MS may eventually help neurologists better diagnose and treat patients, experts said. The goal is to uncover clues that “can help us understand MS a little bit better and reveal insights that could lead to new disease-modifying therapy,” Bruce Bebo, PhD, executive vice president of research with the National MS Society, said in an interview.
 

EBV Boosts MS Risk 32-Fold

EBV was first linked to MS back in 1981. For the 2022 study, researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Harvard Medical School, Boston, analyzed blood serum from 10 million active-duty members of the US military. They focused on 801 recruits with MS and matched them with more than 1500 controls. All but one of those with MS had been infected with EBV; infection appeared to boost the risk for MS 32-fold (95% CI, 4.3-245.3; P < .001).

Neurologist and associate professor Michael Levy, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview that the findings are “groundbreaking” and confirm that EBV is “likely the primary cause of MS.”

According to Dr. Levy, there are two main theories about why EBV causes MS. The first hypothesis, known as the “molecular mimicry” theory, suggests that “EBV is a trigger of MS, possibly when the immune system mistakes a viral protein for a myelin protein and then attacks myelin,” Dr. Levy said. In MS, the immune system attacks the protective myelin sheath and the axons it insulates.

“After that point, the virus is not necessary to maintain the disease state and eradicating the virus likely won’t have much effect since the immune response is already triggered,” he said.

The second theory is that “EBV is a driver of MS where there is an ongoing, lifelong immunological response to EBV that continuously causes damage in the central nervous system [CNS]. In theory, if we could eradicate the virus, the destructive immune response could also resolve. Thus, an EBV antiviral treatment could potentially treat and maybe cure MS,” Dr. Levy explained, noting that “removing the pathogenic antigen may be a more effective strategy than removing the immune response.”

However, “we don’t yet know which hypothesis is correct,” he said. But “there is preliminary evidence in favor of each one.”
 

‘Additional Fuses Must Be Ignited’

It’s also unclear why most people infected with EBV do not develop MS. It appears that “additional fuses must be ignited,” for MS to take hold, according to a commentary accompanying the landmark 2022 study.

“As far as clinical implications, knowing whether a patient has a medical or family history of mononucleosis may be a small clue, a small piece of evidence, to help with diagnosis,” Dr. Bebo said.

He agreed with Dr. Levy that an antiviral could be a promising approach “If the problem in MS is a dysfunctional immune response to EBV.”

Natalia Drosu, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard-MIT Biomedical Engineering Center, said that a clinical trial of a non-immunosuppressive antiviral targeting EBV in patients with MS would be a crucial step toward better understanding the MS-EBV connection. “If we learn that antivirals are effective in MS, we should develop non-immunosuppressive therapies for patients with MS as soon as possible,” she said.

Stanford University’s Lawrence Steinman, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics, who coauthored the commentary on the original Science paper, agreed that it’s worth investigating whether antiviral therapies targeting EBV will benefit patients who already have MS. But he cautioned against clinicians experimenting on their own outside of a research study. “You’d want to use the right antiviral and a properly designed trial,” he said.
 

Antivirals May Place a Crucial Role in MS Control

While there are no approved therapies for EBV, several MS disease-modifying therapies have anti-EBV effects, Dr. Levy said, citing anti-CD20 therapy as a clear example. It depletes B cells from the circulation, and it depletes EBV because the virus lives in the B-cell compartment. “Some MS treatments may be inadvertent EBV antivirals,” he said.

Researchers are also thinking about how they might exploit the MS-EBV link to prevent MS from developing in the first place, but there are uncertainties on that front too.

Conceivably, there may be some way to intervene in patients to treat EBV and prevent MS, such as a unique treatment for infectious mononucleosis (IM), Dr. Levy said.

Researchers are especially intrigued by signs that the timing of infection may play a role, with people infected with EBV via IM after early childhood at especially a high risk of developing MS. A 2022 German study calculated that people who developed IM were almost twice as likely as those who didn’t to develop MS within 10 years, although the risks in both groups were very small. Subgroup analysis revealed the strongest association between IM and MS was in the group infected between age 14 and 20 years (hazard ratio, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.00-12.37). They also saw a stronger association in men than in women.

The authors of a 2023 review in Clinical & Translational Immunology wrote that “further understanding of IM may be critical in solving the mystery” of EBV’s role in MS.

Dr. Levy said this line of questioning is important. “In theory, if we can tell who is prone to develop MS or whose immune system might be reacting to EBV to cause MS, we can intervene early to prevent neurological manifestations.”

However, “remember that while most of the world gets EBV infections, only 1 in 1000 will get MS. So, it might not be feasible to test everyone before neurological manifestations occur,” he said.
 

More Questions to Answer About EBV and MS

Researchers hope to answer several questions moving forward. For one, why is EBV uniquely connected to MS? “You would think that if there were cross-reactivity to myelin, there are many viruses that could cause MS. But the association seems to be very restricted to EBV,” Dr. Levy said. “It is probably due to the fact that EBV is one of the only human viruses that can infect B cells, which play important roles in controlling immune responses.”

The molecular mimicry theory also opens up a potential treatment pathway.

A 2022 study reported “high-affinity molecular mimicry between the EBV transcription factor EBV nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA1) and the central nervous system protein glial cell adhesion molecule (GlialCAM)”. Antibodies against EBNA1 and GlialCAM are prevalent in patients with MS. In a mouse model of MS, the researchers showed that EBNA1 immunization exacerbates disease. The authors wrote that “Our results provide a mechanistic link for the association between MS and EBV and could guide the development of new MS therapies.”
 

Could an EBV Vaccine Be the Answer?

On the prevention front, perhaps the most obvious question is whether an EBV vaccine could eliminate MS for good?

Dr. Bebo, from the National MS Society, said it will be important to determine which kind of vaccine is best. Is it one that neutralizes infection with EBV? Or is it enough to simply prevent clinical manifestations?

Both types of vaccines are in development, and at least two clinical trials are now in the works. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is sponsoring a phase 1 study of an adjuvanted EBV gp350-Ferritin nanoparticle vaccine. Forty subjects aged 18-29 years will take part: 20 with EBV and 20 who are not infected. The study is expected to end in 2025.

There is also a phase 1 placebo-controlled study in progress testing an EBV vaccine based on mRNA-1189 in 422 subjects aged 12-30 years. This trial is also due to end in 2025.

“This is very exciting, but it may take a decade or two to determine whether a vaccine is effective at preventing MS,” Dr. Levy said.

Dr. Levy, Dr. Steinman, Dr. Drosu, and Dr. Bebo had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is our constant companion, infecting an estimated 90%-95% of adults. Many of us are first infected as children, when the germ may trigger cold and flu symptoms. EBV also causes mononucleosis, or kissing disease, a glandular fever that has afflicted generations of amorous young people.

Post infection, EBV settles in for the long haul and remains in the body until death. It’s thought to be largely innocuous, but EBV is now implicated as a cause of several types of cancer — including lymphoma and nasopharyngeal tumors – and multiple sclerosis (MS). In 2022, a landmark study in Science suggested that previous EBV infection is the primary cause of MS.

While there aren’t many implications for current treatment, greater insight into the origin story of MS may eventually help neurologists better diagnose and treat patients, experts said. The goal is to uncover clues that “can help us understand MS a little bit better and reveal insights that could lead to new disease-modifying therapy,” Bruce Bebo, PhD, executive vice president of research with the National MS Society, said in an interview.
 

EBV Boosts MS Risk 32-Fold

EBV was first linked to MS back in 1981. For the 2022 study, researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Harvard Medical School, Boston, analyzed blood serum from 10 million active-duty members of the US military. They focused on 801 recruits with MS and matched them with more than 1500 controls. All but one of those with MS had been infected with EBV; infection appeared to boost the risk for MS 32-fold (95% CI, 4.3-245.3; P < .001).

Neurologist and associate professor Michael Levy, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview that the findings are “groundbreaking” and confirm that EBV is “likely the primary cause of MS.”

According to Dr. Levy, there are two main theories about why EBV causes MS. The first hypothesis, known as the “molecular mimicry” theory, suggests that “EBV is a trigger of MS, possibly when the immune system mistakes a viral protein for a myelin protein and then attacks myelin,” Dr. Levy said. In MS, the immune system attacks the protective myelin sheath and the axons it insulates.

“After that point, the virus is not necessary to maintain the disease state and eradicating the virus likely won’t have much effect since the immune response is already triggered,” he said.

The second theory is that “EBV is a driver of MS where there is an ongoing, lifelong immunological response to EBV that continuously causes damage in the central nervous system [CNS]. In theory, if we could eradicate the virus, the destructive immune response could also resolve. Thus, an EBV antiviral treatment could potentially treat and maybe cure MS,” Dr. Levy explained, noting that “removing the pathogenic antigen may be a more effective strategy than removing the immune response.”

However, “we don’t yet know which hypothesis is correct,” he said. But “there is preliminary evidence in favor of each one.”
 

‘Additional Fuses Must Be Ignited’

It’s also unclear why most people infected with EBV do not develop MS. It appears that “additional fuses must be ignited,” for MS to take hold, according to a commentary accompanying the landmark 2022 study.

“As far as clinical implications, knowing whether a patient has a medical or family history of mononucleosis may be a small clue, a small piece of evidence, to help with diagnosis,” Dr. Bebo said.

He agreed with Dr. Levy that an antiviral could be a promising approach “If the problem in MS is a dysfunctional immune response to EBV.”

Natalia Drosu, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard-MIT Biomedical Engineering Center, said that a clinical trial of a non-immunosuppressive antiviral targeting EBV in patients with MS would be a crucial step toward better understanding the MS-EBV connection. “If we learn that antivirals are effective in MS, we should develop non-immunosuppressive therapies for patients with MS as soon as possible,” she said.

Stanford University’s Lawrence Steinman, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics, who coauthored the commentary on the original Science paper, agreed that it’s worth investigating whether antiviral therapies targeting EBV will benefit patients who already have MS. But he cautioned against clinicians experimenting on their own outside of a research study. “You’d want to use the right antiviral and a properly designed trial,” he said.
 

Antivirals May Place a Crucial Role in MS Control

While there are no approved therapies for EBV, several MS disease-modifying therapies have anti-EBV effects, Dr. Levy said, citing anti-CD20 therapy as a clear example. It depletes B cells from the circulation, and it depletes EBV because the virus lives in the B-cell compartment. “Some MS treatments may be inadvertent EBV antivirals,” he said.

Researchers are also thinking about how they might exploit the MS-EBV link to prevent MS from developing in the first place, but there are uncertainties on that front too.

Conceivably, there may be some way to intervene in patients to treat EBV and prevent MS, such as a unique treatment for infectious mononucleosis (IM), Dr. Levy said.

Researchers are especially intrigued by signs that the timing of infection may play a role, with people infected with EBV via IM after early childhood at especially a high risk of developing MS. A 2022 German study calculated that people who developed IM were almost twice as likely as those who didn’t to develop MS within 10 years, although the risks in both groups were very small. Subgroup analysis revealed the strongest association between IM and MS was in the group infected between age 14 and 20 years (hazard ratio, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.00-12.37). They also saw a stronger association in men than in women.

The authors of a 2023 review in Clinical & Translational Immunology wrote that “further understanding of IM may be critical in solving the mystery” of EBV’s role in MS.

Dr. Levy said this line of questioning is important. “In theory, if we can tell who is prone to develop MS or whose immune system might be reacting to EBV to cause MS, we can intervene early to prevent neurological manifestations.”

However, “remember that while most of the world gets EBV infections, only 1 in 1000 will get MS. So, it might not be feasible to test everyone before neurological manifestations occur,” he said.
 

More Questions to Answer About EBV and MS

Researchers hope to answer several questions moving forward. For one, why is EBV uniquely connected to MS? “You would think that if there were cross-reactivity to myelin, there are many viruses that could cause MS. But the association seems to be very restricted to EBV,” Dr. Levy said. “It is probably due to the fact that EBV is one of the only human viruses that can infect B cells, which play important roles in controlling immune responses.”

The molecular mimicry theory also opens up a potential treatment pathway.

A 2022 study reported “high-affinity molecular mimicry between the EBV transcription factor EBV nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA1) and the central nervous system protein glial cell adhesion molecule (GlialCAM)”. Antibodies against EBNA1 and GlialCAM are prevalent in patients with MS. In a mouse model of MS, the researchers showed that EBNA1 immunization exacerbates disease. The authors wrote that “Our results provide a mechanistic link for the association between MS and EBV and could guide the development of new MS therapies.”
 

Could an EBV Vaccine Be the Answer?

On the prevention front, perhaps the most obvious question is whether an EBV vaccine could eliminate MS for good?

Dr. Bebo, from the National MS Society, said it will be important to determine which kind of vaccine is best. Is it one that neutralizes infection with EBV? Or is it enough to simply prevent clinical manifestations?

Both types of vaccines are in development, and at least two clinical trials are now in the works. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is sponsoring a phase 1 study of an adjuvanted EBV gp350-Ferritin nanoparticle vaccine. Forty subjects aged 18-29 years will take part: 20 with EBV and 20 who are not infected. The study is expected to end in 2025.

There is also a phase 1 placebo-controlled study in progress testing an EBV vaccine based on mRNA-1189 in 422 subjects aged 12-30 years. This trial is also due to end in 2025.

“This is very exciting, but it may take a decade or two to determine whether a vaccine is effective at preventing MS,” Dr. Levy said.

Dr. Levy, Dr. Steinman, Dr. Drosu, and Dr. Bebo had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Once upon a time, treating multiple sclerosis (MS) was easy — steroids.

Then, in the 1990s, came Betaseron, then Avonex, then Copaxone. Suddenly we had three options to choose from, though overall roughly similar in efficacy (yeah, I’m leaving Novantrone out; it’s a niche drug). Treatment required some decision making, though not a huge amount. I usually laid out the different schedules and side effect to patients and let them decide.

Block_Allan_M_AZ_web.JPG

MS treatment was uncomplicated enough that I knew family doctors who treated MS patients on their own, and I can’t say I could have done any better. If you’ve got a clear MRI, then prescribe Betaseron and hope.

Then came Rebif, then Tysabri, and then pretty much an explosion of new drugs which hasn’t slowed down. Next up are the BTK agents. An embarrassment of riches, though for patients, their families, and neurologists, a very welcome one.

But as more drugs come out, with different mechanisms of action and monitoring requirements, the treatment of MS becomes more complicated, slowly moving from the realm of a general neurologist to an MS subspecialist.

At some point it raises the question of when does a disease become its own specialty? Perhaps this is a bit of hyperbole — I’m pretty sure I’ll be seeing MS patients for a long time to come — but it’s a valid point. Especially as further research may subdivide MS treatment by genetics and other breakdowns.

Alzheimer’s disease may follow a similar (albeit very welcome) trajectory. While nothing really game-changing has come out in the 20 years, the number of new drugs and different mechanisms of action in development is large. Granted, not all of them will work, but hopefully some will. At some point it may come down to treating patients with a cocktail of drugs with separate ways of managing the disease, with guidance based on genetic or clinical profiles.

And that’s a good thing, but it may, again, move the disease from the province of general neurologists to subspecialists. Maybe that would be a good, maybe not. Probably will depend on the patient, their families, and other factors.

Of course, I may be overthinking this. The number of drugs we have for MS is nothing compared with the available treatments we have for hypertension, yet it’s certainly well within the capabilities of most internists to treat without referring to a cardiologist or nephrologist.

Perhaps the new drugs won’t make a difference except in a handful of cases. As new drugs come out we also move on from the old ones, dropping them from our mental armamentarium except in rare cases. When was the last time you prescribed Betaseron?

These drugs are very welcome, and very needed. I will be happy if we can beat back some of the diseases neurologist see, regardless of whom the patients and up seeing.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Once upon a time, treating multiple sclerosis (MS) was easy — steroids.

Then, in the 1990s, came Betaseron, then Avonex, then Copaxone. Suddenly we had three options to choose from, though overall roughly similar in efficacy (yeah, I’m leaving Novantrone out; it’s a niche drug). Treatment required some decision making, though not a huge amount. I usually laid out the different schedules and side effect to patients and let them decide.

Block_Allan_M_AZ_web.JPG

MS treatment was uncomplicated enough that I knew family doctors who treated MS patients on their own, and I can’t say I could have done any better. If you’ve got a clear MRI, then prescribe Betaseron and hope.

Then came Rebif, then Tysabri, and then pretty much an explosion of new drugs which hasn’t slowed down. Next up are the BTK agents. An embarrassment of riches, though for patients, their families, and neurologists, a very welcome one.

But as more drugs come out, with different mechanisms of action and monitoring requirements, the treatment of MS becomes more complicated, slowly moving from the realm of a general neurologist to an MS subspecialist.

At some point it raises the question of when does a disease become its own specialty? Perhaps this is a bit of hyperbole — I’m pretty sure I’ll be seeing MS patients for a long time to come — but it’s a valid point. Especially as further research may subdivide MS treatment by genetics and other breakdowns.

Alzheimer’s disease may follow a similar (albeit very welcome) trajectory. While nothing really game-changing has come out in the 20 years, the number of new drugs and different mechanisms of action in development is large. Granted, not all of them will work, but hopefully some will. At some point it may come down to treating patients with a cocktail of drugs with separate ways of managing the disease, with guidance based on genetic or clinical profiles.

And that’s a good thing, but it may, again, move the disease from the province of general neurologists to subspecialists. Maybe that would be a good, maybe not. Probably will depend on the patient, their families, and other factors.

Of course, I may be overthinking this. The number of drugs we have for MS is nothing compared with the available treatments we have for hypertension, yet it’s certainly well within the capabilities of most internists to treat without referring to a cardiologist or nephrologist.

Perhaps the new drugs won’t make a difference except in a handful of cases. As new drugs come out we also move on from the old ones, dropping them from our mental armamentarium except in rare cases. When was the last time you prescribed Betaseron?

These drugs are very welcome, and very needed. I will be happy if we can beat back some of the diseases neurologist see, regardless of whom the patients and up seeing.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Once upon a time, treating multiple sclerosis (MS) was easy — steroids.

Then, in the 1990s, came Betaseron, then Avonex, then Copaxone. Suddenly we had three options to choose from, though overall roughly similar in efficacy (yeah, I’m leaving Novantrone out; it’s a niche drug). Treatment required some decision making, though not a huge amount. I usually laid out the different schedules and side effect to patients and let them decide.

Block_Allan_M_AZ_web.JPG

MS treatment was uncomplicated enough that I knew family doctors who treated MS patients on their own, and I can’t say I could have done any better. If you’ve got a clear MRI, then prescribe Betaseron and hope.

Then came Rebif, then Tysabri, and then pretty much an explosion of new drugs which hasn’t slowed down. Next up are the BTK agents. An embarrassment of riches, though for patients, their families, and neurologists, a very welcome one.

But as more drugs come out, with different mechanisms of action and monitoring requirements, the treatment of MS becomes more complicated, slowly moving from the realm of a general neurologist to an MS subspecialist.

At some point it raises the question of when does a disease become its own specialty? Perhaps this is a bit of hyperbole — I’m pretty sure I’ll be seeing MS patients for a long time to come — but it’s a valid point. Especially as further research may subdivide MS treatment by genetics and other breakdowns.

Alzheimer’s disease may follow a similar (albeit very welcome) trajectory. While nothing really game-changing has come out in the 20 years, the number of new drugs and different mechanisms of action in development is large. Granted, not all of them will work, but hopefully some will. At some point it may come down to treating patients with a cocktail of drugs with separate ways of managing the disease, with guidance based on genetic or clinical profiles.

And that’s a good thing, but it may, again, move the disease from the province of general neurologists to subspecialists. Maybe that would be a good, maybe not. Probably will depend on the patient, their families, and other factors.

Of course, I may be overthinking this. The number of drugs we have for MS is nothing compared with the available treatments we have for hypertension, yet it’s certainly well within the capabilities of most internists to treat without referring to a cardiologist or nephrologist.

Perhaps the new drugs won’t make a difference except in a handful of cases. As new drugs come out we also move on from the old ones, dropping them from our mental armamentarium except in rare cases. When was the last time you prescribed Betaseron?

These drugs are very welcome, and very needed. I will be happy if we can beat back some of the diseases neurologist see, regardless of whom the patients and up seeing.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Female bias in autoimmune disease can be profound, with nine females developing lupus for every male affected, and nearly twice that ratio seen in Sjögren disease.

For years, researchers have worked to determine the reasons for sex-linked differences in immune response and autoimmunity, with environmental factors, sex hormones, and X-chromosome inactivation — the process by which a second X chromosome is silenced — all seen as having roles.

More recently, different groups of researchers have homed in on a long noncoding RNA fragment called X-inactive specific transcript, or Xist, as a potential driver of sex bias in autoimmune disease. Xist, which occurs in female mammals, has been known since the 1990s as the master regulator of X-chromosome inactivation, the process by which the second X chromosome is silenced, averting a fatal double dose of X-linked genes.

The inactivation process, which scientists liken to wrapping the extra X with a fluffy cloud of proteins, occurs early in embryonic development. After its initial work silencing the X, Xist is produced throughout the female’s life, allowing X inactivation to be maintained.

But is it possible that Xist, and the many dozens of proteins it recruits to keep that extra X chromosome silent, can also provoke autoimmunity? This is the question that several teams of researchers have been grappling with, resulting in provocative findings and opening exciting new avenues of discovery.
 

Xist Protein Complexes Make Male Mice Vulnerable to Lupus

In February, researchers Howard Chang, MD, PhD, and Diana Dou, PhD, of Stanford University in Stanford, California, made worldwide news when they published results from an experiment using male mice genetically engineered to carry a non-silencing form of Xist on one of their chromosomes.

Dou_Diana_CA_web.jpg

Xist acts like a scaffold, recruiting multiple protein complexes to help it do its job. Dr. Dou explained in an interview that her team has been eyeing suspiciously for years the dozens of proteins Xist recruits in the process of X-chromosome inactivation, many of which are known autoantigens.

When the mice were injected with pristane, a chemical that induces lupus-like autoimmunity in mice, the Xist-producing males developed symptoms at a rate similar to that of females, while wild-type male mice did not.

By using a male model, the scientists could determine whether Xist could cause an increased vulnerability for autoimmunity absent the influence of female hormones and development. “Everything else about the animal is male,” Dr. Dou commented. “You just add the formation of the Xist ribonucleoprotein particles — Xist RNA plus the associating proteins — to male cells that would not ordinarily have these particles. Is just having the particles present in these animals sufficient to increase their autoimmunity? This is what our paper showed: That just having expression of Xist, the presence of these Xist [ribonucleoproteins], is enough in permissive genetic backgrounds to invoke higher incidence and severity of autoimmune disease development in our pristane-induced lupus model.”

The Stanford group sees the Xist protein complex, which they have studied extensively, as a key to understanding how Xist might provoke autoimmunity. Nonetheless, Dr. Dou said, “It’s important to note that there are other contributing factors, which is why not all females develop autoimmunity, and we had very different results in our autoimmune-resistant mouse strain compared to the more autoimmune-prone strain. Xist is a factor, but many factors are required to subvert the checkpoints in immune balance and allow the progression to full-blown autoimmunity.”
 

Faulty X Inactivation and Gene Escape

The understanding that Xist might be implicated in autoimmune disease — and explain some of its female bias — is not new.

About a decade ago, Montserrat Anguera, PhD, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, began looking at the relationship of X-chromosome inactivation, which by definition involves Xist, and lupus.

Anguera_Montserrat_PA_web.jpg

Dr. Anguera hypothesized that imperfect X inactivation allowed for greater escape of genes associated with immunity and autoimmunity. Studying patients with lupus, Dr. Anguera found that the silencing process was abnormal, allowing more of these genes to escape the silenced X — including toll-like receptor 7 (TLR-7) and other genes implicated in the pathogenesis of lupus.

“If you get increased expression of certain genes from the [silenced] X, like TLR-7, it can result in autoimmune disease,” Dr. Anguera said. “So what we think is that in the lupus patients, because the silencing is impacted, you’re going to have more expression happening from the inactive X. And then in conjunction with the active X, that’s going to throw off the dosage [of autoimmunity-linked genes]. You’re changing the dosage of genes, and that’s what’s critical.”

Even among patients with lupus whose symptoms are well controlled with medication, “if you look at their T cells and B cells, they still have messed up X inactivation,” Dr. Anguera said. “The Xist RNA that’s supposed to be tethered to the inactive X in a fluffy cloud is not localized, and instead is dispersed all over the nucleus.”

Dr. Anguera pointed out that autoimmune diseases are complex and can result from a combination of factors. “You also have a host of hormonal and environmental contributors, such as previous viral infections,” she said. And of course men can also develop lupus, meaning that the X chromosome cannot explain everything.

Dr. Anguera said that, while the findings by the Stanford scientists do not explain the full pathogenesis of lupus and related diseases, they still support a strong role for Xist in sex-biased autoimmune diseases. “It’s sort of another take on it,” she said.
 

Is It the Proteins, the RNA, or Both?

The Stanford team points to the proteins recruited by Xist in the process of X-chromosome inactivation as the likely trigger of autoimmunity. However, a group of researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, made the case in a 2022 paper that Xist RNA itself was dangerous. They found that numerous short RNA sequences within the Xist molecule serve as ligands for TLR-7. And TLR-7 ligation causes plasmacytoid dendritic cells to overproduce type 1 interferon, a classic hallmark of lupus.

167534_photo_web.jpg

“Within rheumatology, the diseases that tend to be most female biased are the ones that are antibody positive and have this presence of upregulated interferon,” explained Brendan Antiochos, MD. “Lupus is an example of that. Sjögren’s syndrome is another. So there’s always been this quest to want to understand the mechanisms that explain why women would have more autoimmunity. And are there specific pathways which could contribute? One of the key pathways that’s been shown in humans and in mice to be important in lupus is toll-like receptor signaling.” Most convincingly, one recent study showed that people who have a gain-of-function mutation in their TLR-7 gene get a spontaneous form of lupus.

Darrah_Erika_MD_web.jpg

These findings led Erika Darrah, PhD, and her colleague Dr. Antiochos to begin looking more deeply into which RNAs could be triggering this signaling pathway. “We started to think: Well, there is this sex bias. Could it be that women have unique RNAs that could potentially act as triggers for TLR-7 signaling?” Dr. Darrah said.

Dr. Darrah and Dr. Antiochos looked at publicly available genetic data to identify sex-biased sources of self-RNA containing TLR-7 ligands. Xist, they found, was chock full of them. “Every time we analyzed that data, no matter what filter we applied, Xist kept popping out over and over again as the most highly female skewed RNA, the RNA most likely to contain these TLR-7 binding motifs,” Dr. Darrah said. “We started to formulate the hypothesis that Xist was actually promoting responses that were dangerous and pathogenic in lupus.”

That finding led the team to conduct in-vitro experiments that showed different fragments of Xist can activate TLR-7, resulting in higher interferon production. Finally, they looked at blood and kidney cells from women with lupus and found that higher Xist expression correlated with more interferon production, and higher disease activity. “The more Xist, the sicker people were,” Dr. Darrah said.
 

Xist’s Other Functions

Xist was first studied in the 1990s, and most research has centered on its primary role in X-chromosome inactivation. A research group led by Kathrin Plath, PhD, at the University of California, Los Angeles, has been occupied for years with untangling exactly how Xist does what it does. “It’s a very clever RNA, right? It can silence the whole chromosome,” Dr. Plath said in an interview.

Plath_Kathrin_CA_web.jpg

In 2021, Dr. Plath and her colleagues established in detail how Xist executes silencing, setting down pairs of molecules in specific spots along the chromosome and building huge protein clouds around them. “We worked on learning where Xist binds and what proteins it binds, drilling down to understand how these proteins and the RNA are coming together.”

Dr. Plath has long suspected that Xist has other functions besides X inactivation, and she and her colleagues are starting to identify them. Early this year they published the surprising finding that Xist can regulate gene expression in autosomes, or non–sex-linked chromosomes, “which it might well also do in cancer cells and lymphocytes,” Dr. Plath said. “And now there is this new evidence of an autoimmune function,” she said. “It’s a super exciting time.”

The different hypotheses surrounding Xist’s role in sex-biased autoimmunity aren’t mutually exclusive, Dr. Plath said. “There’s a tremendous enrichment of proteins occurring” during X inactivation, she said, supporting the Stanford team’s hypothesis that proteins are triggering autoimmunity. As for the Johns Hopkins researchers’ understanding that Xist RNA itself is the trigger, “I’m totally open to that,” she said. “Why can’t it be an autoantigen?”

The other model in the field, Dr. Plath noted, is the one proposed by Dr. Anguera — “that there’s [gene] escape from X-inactivation — that females have more escape expression, and that Xist is more dispersed in the lymphocytes [of patients with lupus]. In fact, Xist becoming a little dispersed might make it a better antigen. So I do think everything is possible.”

The plethora of new findings related to autoimmunity has caused Dr. Plath to consider redirecting her lab’s focus toward more translational work, “because we are obviously good at studying Xist.” Among the mysteries Dr. Plath would like to solve is how some genes manage to escape the Xist cloud.

What is needed, she said, is collaboration. “Everyone will come up with different ideas. So I think it’s good to have more people look at things together. Then the field will achieve a breakthrough treatment.”

Female bias in autoimmune disease can be profound, with nine females developing lupus for every male affected, and nearly twice that ratio seen in Sjögren disease.

For years, researchers have worked to determine the reasons for sex-linked differences in immune response and autoimmunity, with environmental factors, sex hormones, and X-chromosome inactivation — the process by which a second X chromosome is silenced — all seen as having roles.

More recently, different groups of researchers have homed in on a long noncoding RNA fragment called X-inactive specific transcript, or Xist, as a potential driver of sex bias in autoimmune disease. Xist, which occurs in female mammals, has been known since the 1990s as the master regulator of X-chromosome inactivation, the process by which the second X chromosome is silenced, averting a fatal double dose of X-linked genes.

The inactivation process, which scientists liken to wrapping the extra X with a fluffy cloud of proteins, occurs early in embryonic development. After its initial work silencing the X, Xist is produced throughout the female’s life, allowing X inactivation to be maintained.

But is it possible that Xist, and the many dozens of proteins it recruits to keep that extra X chromosome silent, can also provoke autoimmunity? This is the question that several teams of researchers have been grappling with, resulting in provocative findings and opening exciting new avenues of discovery.
 

Xist Protein Complexes Make Male Mice Vulnerable to Lupus

In February, researchers Howard Chang, MD, PhD, and Diana Dou, PhD, of Stanford University in Stanford, California, made worldwide news when they published results from an experiment using male mice genetically engineered to carry a non-silencing form of Xist on one of their chromosomes.

Dou_Diana_CA_web.jpg

Xist acts like a scaffold, recruiting multiple protein complexes to help it do its job. Dr. Dou explained in an interview that her team has been eyeing suspiciously for years the dozens of proteins Xist recruits in the process of X-chromosome inactivation, many of which are known autoantigens.

When the mice were injected with pristane, a chemical that induces lupus-like autoimmunity in mice, the Xist-producing males developed symptoms at a rate similar to that of females, while wild-type male mice did not.

By using a male model, the scientists could determine whether Xist could cause an increased vulnerability for autoimmunity absent the influence of female hormones and development. “Everything else about the animal is male,” Dr. Dou commented. “You just add the formation of the Xist ribonucleoprotein particles — Xist RNA plus the associating proteins — to male cells that would not ordinarily have these particles. Is just having the particles present in these animals sufficient to increase their autoimmunity? This is what our paper showed: That just having expression of Xist, the presence of these Xist [ribonucleoproteins], is enough in permissive genetic backgrounds to invoke higher incidence and severity of autoimmune disease development in our pristane-induced lupus model.”

The Stanford group sees the Xist protein complex, which they have studied extensively, as a key to understanding how Xist might provoke autoimmunity. Nonetheless, Dr. Dou said, “It’s important to note that there are other contributing factors, which is why not all females develop autoimmunity, and we had very different results in our autoimmune-resistant mouse strain compared to the more autoimmune-prone strain. Xist is a factor, but many factors are required to subvert the checkpoints in immune balance and allow the progression to full-blown autoimmunity.”
 

Faulty X Inactivation and Gene Escape

The understanding that Xist might be implicated in autoimmune disease — and explain some of its female bias — is not new.

About a decade ago, Montserrat Anguera, PhD, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, began looking at the relationship of X-chromosome inactivation, which by definition involves Xist, and lupus.

Anguera_Montserrat_PA_web.jpg

Dr. Anguera hypothesized that imperfect X inactivation allowed for greater escape of genes associated with immunity and autoimmunity. Studying patients with lupus, Dr. Anguera found that the silencing process was abnormal, allowing more of these genes to escape the silenced X — including toll-like receptor 7 (TLR-7) and other genes implicated in the pathogenesis of lupus.

“If you get increased expression of certain genes from the [silenced] X, like TLR-7, it can result in autoimmune disease,” Dr. Anguera said. “So what we think is that in the lupus patients, because the silencing is impacted, you’re going to have more expression happening from the inactive X. And then in conjunction with the active X, that’s going to throw off the dosage [of autoimmunity-linked genes]. You’re changing the dosage of genes, and that’s what’s critical.”

Even among patients with lupus whose symptoms are well controlled with medication, “if you look at their T cells and B cells, they still have messed up X inactivation,” Dr. Anguera said. “The Xist RNA that’s supposed to be tethered to the inactive X in a fluffy cloud is not localized, and instead is dispersed all over the nucleus.”

Dr. Anguera pointed out that autoimmune diseases are complex and can result from a combination of factors. “You also have a host of hormonal and environmental contributors, such as previous viral infections,” she said. And of course men can also develop lupus, meaning that the X chromosome cannot explain everything.

Dr. Anguera said that, while the findings by the Stanford scientists do not explain the full pathogenesis of lupus and related diseases, they still support a strong role for Xist in sex-biased autoimmune diseases. “It’s sort of another take on it,” she said.
 

Is It the Proteins, the RNA, or Both?

The Stanford team points to the proteins recruited by Xist in the process of X-chromosome inactivation as the likely trigger of autoimmunity. However, a group of researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, made the case in a 2022 paper that Xist RNA itself was dangerous. They found that numerous short RNA sequences within the Xist molecule serve as ligands for TLR-7. And TLR-7 ligation causes plasmacytoid dendritic cells to overproduce type 1 interferon, a classic hallmark of lupus.

167534_photo_web.jpg

“Within rheumatology, the diseases that tend to be most female biased are the ones that are antibody positive and have this presence of upregulated interferon,” explained Brendan Antiochos, MD. “Lupus is an example of that. Sjögren’s syndrome is another. So there’s always been this quest to want to understand the mechanisms that explain why women would have more autoimmunity. And are there specific pathways which could contribute? One of the key pathways that’s been shown in humans and in mice to be important in lupus is toll-like receptor signaling.” Most convincingly, one recent study showed that people who have a gain-of-function mutation in their TLR-7 gene get a spontaneous form of lupus.

Darrah_Erika_MD_web.jpg

These findings led Erika Darrah, PhD, and her colleague Dr. Antiochos to begin looking more deeply into which RNAs could be triggering this signaling pathway. “We started to think: Well, there is this sex bias. Could it be that women have unique RNAs that could potentially act as triggers for TLR-7 signaling?” Dr. Darrah said.

Dr. Darrah and Dr. Antiochos looked at publicly available genetic data to identify sex-biased sources of self-RNA containing TLR-7 ligands. Xist, they found, was chock full of them. “Every time we analyzed that data, no matter what filter we applied, Xist kept popping out over and over again as the most highly female skewed RNA, the RNA most likely to contain these TLR-7 binding motifs,” Dr. Darrah said. “We started to formulate the hypothesis that Xist was actually promoting responses that were dangerous and pathogenic in lupus.”

That finding led the team to conduct in-vitro experiments that showed different fragments of Xist can activate TLR-7, resulting in higher interferon production. Finally, they looked at blood and kidney cells from women with lupus and found that higher Xist expression correlated with more interferon production, and higher disease activity. “The more Xist, the sicker people were,” Dr. Darrah said.
 

Xist’s Other Functions

Xist was first studied in the 1990s, and most research has centered on its primary role in X-chromosome inactivation. A research group led by Kathrin Plath, PhD, at the University of California, Los Angeles, has been occupied for years with untangling exactly how Xist does what it does. “It’s a very clever RNA, right? It can silence the whole chromosome,” Dr. Plath said in an interview.

Plath_Kathrin_CA_web.jpg

In 2021, Dr. Plath and her colleagues established in detail how Xist executes silencing, setting down pairs of molecules in specific spots along the chromosome and building huge protein clouds around them. “We worked on learning where Xist binds and what proteins it binds, drilling down to understand how these proteins and the RNA are coming together.”

Dr. Plath has long suspected that Xist has other functions besides X inactivation, and she and her colleagues are starting to identify them. Early this year they published the surprising finding that Xist can regulate gene expression in autosomes, or non–sex-linked chromosomes, “which it might well also do in cancer cells and lymphocytes,” Dr. Plath said. “And now there is this new evidence of an autoimmune function,” she said. “It’s a super exciting time.”

The different hypotheses surrounding Xist’s role in sex-biased autoimmunity aren’t mutually exclusive, Dr. Plath said. “There’s a tremendous enrichment of proteins occurring” during X inactivation, she said, supporting the Stanford team’s hypothesis that proteins are triggering autoimmunity. As for the Johns Hopkins researchers’ understanding that Xist RNA itself is the trigger, “I’m totally open to that,” she said. “Why can’t it be an autoantigen?”

The other model in the field, Dr. Plath noted, is the one proposed by Dr. Anguera — “that there’s [gene] escape from X-inactivation — that females have more escape expression, and that Xist is more dispersed in the lymphocytes [of patients with lupus]. In fact, Xist becoming a little dispersed might make it a better antigen. So I do think everything is possible.”

The plethora of new findings related to autoimmunity has caused Dr. Plath to consider redirecting her lab’s focus toward more translational work, “because we are obviously good at studying Xist.” Among the mysteries Dr. Plath would like to solve is how some genes manage to escape the Xist cloud.

What is needed, she said, is collaboration. “Everyone will come up with different ideas. So I think it’s good to have more people look at things together. Then the field will achieve a breakthrough treatment.”

Female bias in autoimmune disease can be profound, with nine females developing lupus for every male affected, and nearly twice that ratio seen in Sjögren disease.

For years, researchers have worked to determine the reasons for sex-linked differences in immune response and autoimmunity, with environmental factors, sex hormones, and X-chromosome inactivation — the process by which a second X chromosome is silenced — all seen as having roles.

More recently, different groups of researchers have homed in on a long noncoding RNA fragment called X-inactive specific transcript, or Xist, as a potential driver of sex bias in autoimmune disease. Xist, which occurs in female mammals, has been known since the 1990s as the master regulator of X-chromosome inactivation, the process by which the second X chromosome is silenced, averting a fatal double dose of X-linked genes.

The inactivation process, which scientists liken to wrapping the extra X with a fluffy cloud of proteins, occurs early in embryonic development. After its initial work silencing the X, Xist is produced throughout the female’s life, allowing X inactivation to be maintained.

But is it possible that Xist, and the many dozens of proteins it recruits to keep that extra X chromosome silent, can also provoke autoimmunity? This is the question that several teams of researchers have been grappling with, resulting in provocative findings and opening exciting new avenues of discovery.
 

Xist Protein Complexes Make Male Mice Vulnerable to Lupus

In February, researchers Howard Chang, MD, PhD, and Diana Dou, PhD, of Stanford University in Stanford, California, made worldwide news when they published results from an experiment using male mice genetically engineered to carry a non-silencing form of Xist on one of their chromosomes.

Dou_Diana_CA_web.jpg

Xist acts like a scaffold, recruiting multiple protein complexes to help it do its job. Dr. Dou explained in an interview that her team has been eyeing suspiciously for years the dozens of proteins Xist recruits in the process of X-chromosome inactivation, many of which are known autoantigens.

When the mice were injected with pristane, a chemical that induces lupus-like autoimmunity in mice, the Xist-producing males developed symptoms at a rate similar to that of females, while wild-type male mice did not.

By using a male model, the scientists could determine whether Xist could cause an increased vulnerability for autoimmunity absent the influence of female hormones and development. “Everything else about the animal is male,” Dr. Dou commented. “You just add the formation of the Xist ribonucleoprotein particles — Xist RNA plus the associating proteins — to male cells that would not ordinarily have these particles. Is just having the particles present in these animals sufficient to increase their autoimmunity? This is what our paper showed: That just having expression of Xist, the presence of these Xist [ribonucleoproteins], is enough in permissive genetic backgrounds to invoke higher incidence and severity of autoimmune disease development in our pristane-induced lupus model.”

The Stanford group sees the Xist protein complex, which they have studied extensively, as a key to understanding how Xist might provoke autoimmunity. Nonetheless, Dr. Dou said, “It’s important to note that there are other contributing factors, which is why not all females develop autoimmunity, and we had very different results in our autoimmune-resistant mouse strain compared to the more autoimmune-prone strain. Xist is a factor, but many factors are required to subvert the checkpoints in immune balance and allow the progression to full-blown autoimmunity.”
 

Faulty X Inactivation and Gene Escape

The understanding that Xist might be implicated in autoimmune disease — and explain some of its female bias — is not new.

About a decade ago, Montserrat Anguera, PhD, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, began looking at the relationship of X-chromosome inactivation, which by definition involves Xist, and lupus.

Anguera_Montserrat_PA_web.jpg

Dr. Anguera hypothesized that imperfect X inactivation allowed for greater escape of genes associated with immunity and autoimmunity. Studying patients with lupus, Dr. Anguera found that the silencing process was abnormal, allowing more of these genes to escape the silenced X — including toll-like receptor 7 (TLR-7) and other genes implicated in the pathogenesis of lupus.

“If you get increased expression of certain genes from the [silenced] X, like TLR-7, it can result in autoimmune disease,” Dr. Anguera said. “So what we think is that in the lupus patients, because the silencing is impacted, you’re going to have more expression happening from the inactive X. And then in conjunction with the active X, that’s going to throw off the dosage [of autoimmunity-linked genes]. You’re changing the dosage of genes, and that’s what’s critical.”

Even among patients with lupus whose symptoms are well controlled with medication, “if you look at their T cells and B cells, they still have messed up X inactivation,” Dr. Anguera said. “The Xist RNA that’s supposed to be tethered to the inactive X in a fluffy cloud is not localized, and instead is dispersed all over the nucleus.”

Dr. Anguera pointed out that autoimmune diseases are complex and can result from a combination of factors. “You also have a host of hormonal and environmental contributors, such as previous viral infections,” she said. And of course men can also develop lupus, meaning that the X chromosome cannot explain everything.

Dr. Anguera said that, while the findings by the Stanford scientists do not explain the full pathogenesis of lupus and related diseases, they still support a strong role for Xist in sex-biased autoimmune diseases. “It’s sort of another take on it,” she said.
 

Is It the Proteins, the RNA, or Both?

The Stanford team points to the proteins recruited by Xist in the process of X-chromosome inactivation as the likely trigger of autoimmunity. However, a group of researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, made the case in a 2022 paper that Xist RNA itself was dangerous. They found that numerous short RNA sequences within the Xist molecule serve as ligands for TLR-7. And TLR-7 ligation causes plasmacytoid dendritic cells to overproduce type 1 interferon, a classic hallmark of lupus.

167534_photo_web.jpg

“Within rheumatology, the diseases that tend to be most female biased are the ones that are antibody positive and have this presence of upregulated interferon,” explained Brendan Antiochos, MD. “Lupus is an example of that. Sjögren’s syndrome is another. So there’s always been this quest to want to understand the mechanisms that explain why women would have more autoimmunity. And are there specific pathways which could contribute? One of the key pathways that’s been shown in humans and in mice to be important in lupus is toll-like receptor signaling.” Most convincingly, one recent study showed that people who have a gain-of-function mutation in their TLR-7 gene get a spontaneous form of lupus.

Darrah_Erika_MD_web.jpg

These findings led Erika Darrah, PhD, and her colleague Dr. Antiochos to begin looking more deeply into which RNAs could be triggering this signaling pathway. “We started to think: Well, there is this sex bias. Could it be that women have unique RNAs that could potentially act as triggers for TLR-7 signaling?” Dr. Darrah said.

Dr. Darrah and Dr. Antiochos looked at publicly available genetic data to identify sex-biased sources of self-RNA containing TLR-7 ligands. Xist, they found, was chock full of them. “Every time we analyzed that data, no matter what filter we applied, Xist kept popping out over and over again as the most highly female skewed RNA, the RNA most likely to contain these TLR-7 binding motifs,” Dr. Darrah said. “We started to formulate the hypothesis that Xist was actually promoting responses that were dangerous and pathogenic in lupus.”

That finding led the team to conduct in-vitro experiments that showed different fragments of Xist can activate TLR-7, resulting in higher interferon production. Finally, they looked at blood and kidney cells from women with lupus and found that higher Xist expression correlated with more interferon production, and higher disease activity. “The more Xist, the sicker people were,” Dr. Darrah said.
 

Xist’s Other Functions

Xist was first studied in the 1990s, and most research has centered on its primary role in X-chromosome inactivation. A research group led by Kathrin Plath, PhD, at the University of California, Los Angeles, has been occupied for years with untangling exactly how Xist does what it does. “It’s a very clever RNA, right? It can silence the whole chromosome,” Dr. Plath said in an interview.

Plath_Kathrin_CA_web.jpg

In 2021, Dr. Plath and her colleagues established in detail how Xist executes silencing, setting down pairs of molecules in specific spots along the chromosome and building huge protein clouds around them. “We worked on learning where Xist binds and what proteins it binds, drilling down to understand how these proteins and the RNA are coming together.”

Dr. Plath has long suspected that Xist has other functions besides X inactivation, and she and her colleagues are starting to identify them. Early this year they published the surprising finding that Xist can regulate gene expression in autosomes, or non–sex-linked chromosomes, “which it might well also do in cancer cells and lymphocytes,” Dr. Plath said. “And now there is this new evidence of an autoimmune function,” she said. “It’s a super exciting time.”

The different hypotheses surrounding Xist’s role in sex-biased autoimmunity aren’t mutually exclusive, Dr. Plath said. “There’s a tremendous enrichment of proteins occurring” during X inactivation, she said, supporting the Stanford team’s hypothesis that proteins are triggering autoimmunity. As for the Johns Hopkins researchers’ understanding that Xist RNA itself is the trigger, “I’m totally open to that,” she said. “Why can’t it be an autoantigen?”

The other model in the field, Dr. Plath noted, is the one proposed by Dr. Anguera — “that there’s [gene] escape from X-inactivation — that females have more escape expression, and that Xist is more dispersed in the lymphocytes [of patients with lupus]. In fact, Xist becoming a little dispersed might make it a better antigen. So I do think everything is possible.”

The plethora of new findings related to autoimmunity has caused Dr. Plath to consider redirecting her lab’s focus toward more translational work, “because we are obviously good at studying Xist.” Among the mysteries Dr. Plath would like to solve is how some genes manage to escape the Xist cloud.

What is needed, she said, is collaboration. “Everyone will come up with different ideas. So I think it’s good to have more people look at things together. Then the field will achieve a breakthrough treatment.”

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Joseph R. Berger, MD: Hi. I'm Dr Joseph Berger, and I'm joined for this Care Cues conversation with my patient, Michelle Biloon, who has had multiple sclerosis (MS) for the past 6 years. Hello, Michelle. Welcome.

Michelle Biloon: Thank you, Dr Berger.

Berger: Can you tell us a little bit about yourself, how you came to understand you had MS, and how you've done since the diagnosis was rendered?

Biloon: Yeah. It was a very short diagnosis period for me. In the winter of 2017, I started experiencing dizzy spells, and I didn't really know why. I eventually went to my primary care clinic where my doctor is, and they did blood work. Then, they did a CT and didn't see anything, and I just kind of kept feeling worse.

Then, finally, I went to an ENT just to see if it was maybe related to my ears. The ENT actually said, "You need to go to the ER and get an MRI." And while I was in the MRI, I could feel the dizzy spells. And I thought, Well, something is happening. I don't know what it is. And then a resident came in and said that they saw lesions on my brain, and they knew that it was going to be MS or something like it.

Berger: How did you feel about that?

Biloon: At the time, I was kind of glad to hear it was something. And I just asked her if, like, you die from it. That was the first thing I asked. It was like falling off a cliff.

It was making it hard for me to function in what I was doing, which was stand-up comedy, because of the cognitive issues I was having, the cognitive fog. That was how I ended up with you. Right away, you talked to me and were actually able to introduce to me some new medications that are out and are phenomenally better for MS plus were not pills or shots every day. It's made my MS over the years a lot more manageable.

Berger: I'd like to pick up on a couple of things you said.

Biloon: Sure.

Berger: One is, because most people envision MS as this terrible, crippling illness that's going to leave them wheelchair-bound, deprived of their profession, finding it difficult to stay in a marriage it's vested with what has been termed "lamentable results." And one of the first things that we as physicians have to do is to calm people down and say, "You know what. You have MS. You're going to be just fine. Trust me. We have wonderful medications for what you have, and we'll take care of it." In fact, I've made a habit of telling people quit worrying. You hired me to worry for you.

Biloon: Yep.

Berger: And I think that's helpful.

Biloon: I've been just so appreciative of that. There's a balance of being condescended to — do you know what I mean — and also being given information. I'm very sensitive to that balance because I consider myself an intelligent person. And you're being put in a position where someone knows more than you, and you have to listen.

Berger: One of the other challenges we face is getting somebody on a treatment. And we elected to put you on an intravenous therapy every 6 months.

Biloon: Especially because as a stand-up comedian, I was traveling a lot, doing these every-6-months infusion, especially with the high efficacy rate that it had been reported from what we had read and the low amount of side effects. I mean, just those things together was just something that seemed the easiest for me.

Berger: So did you encounter any challenges when we first got you started on the infusion therapy?

Biloon: The first infusion I got was at the hospital. But then after that, I had to go to the suburbs, to a center out there for the infusion. That was difficult because to get a ride out there and a ride back — it was a long trip for someone to wait with me. Taking an Uber is expensive, so was it for me to drive. You don't feel good for a couple of days after. So that was how it was, and I complained about it. Probably at every appointment we had, I complained about it.

Berger: Yeah. So some of the challenges you talked about are very, very common. As a physician on medications myself, I can tell you that I am not particularly compliant. And what I love about infusion therapies is that I know that the patient is getting their medicine. Because when they don't show up for a scheduled appointment, I'm called, and I know.

Biloon: I do have a bit of an allergic reaction to the drug. But that's been easily managed over time. Now, the drug infusions are actually being done at my home, which makes the whole process twice-a-year–world's better.

Berger: But there are other barriers that people confront other than the initiation of drugs. Had you encountered any?

Biloon: I think the problem that I had more so was finding the drugs that would manage some of my symptoms. It took a couple of years to sort of figure out what that would be, both with figuring them out and both dealing with insurance on certain medications.

Berger: That's one sort of problem that we confront. The other, of course, are those individuals who, for a variety of reasons, have difficulty with the diagnosis because of their backgrounds. And they may be sociocultural in nature. Every time you go to the physical therapist, it's some degree of money.

Now for some people, it's trivial. But for others, it's a considerable amount of money, relative to what it is that they earn. And you simply have to work within those confines as best you can.

We do have various programs that help people. So we try to employ them. There are, in addition to the sociocultural barriers, language barriers that we often confront. We, in our situation here in a large city, have a very large migrant population.

Fortunately, most of the people speak languages that either you speak as well, or there's somebody in the next room that speaks pretty well. But that's not always the case. So we do have an interpreter service that has to be employed.

Biloon: I cannot imagine the nuance in speaking to people from different ages and different backgrounds, who have different types of lifestyles, for them to understand.

Berger: I don't write at a computer. I think that really degrades the patient-physician relationship. What I do is I obtain a history. I do it on a piece of paper with a pen or a pencil.

I recapitulate them to the patient in paraphrasing it, to make sure that I have gotten it right and that they understand what I think I heard. That, I think, has been enormously helpful in helping people understand what may happen in the absence of treatment and why the treatment is important. That you can do, regardless of what the person's background is. So that's how I approach it.

Biloon: How do you deal with patients when they're not on the same page with you?

Berger: One important thing is that you have to be patient. That is something that it took me 50 years in medicine to learn. And then accepting the patient's opinion and saying, "All right, go home and think about it," because you often don't convince them when they're in the office with you.

Biloon: I did have a little bit of a cushion between my diagnosis and when we actually saw each other, where I was able to really sit in my thoughts on the different treatments and stuff. By the time that we were able to talk, it reassured me on that was the right plan.

Berger: I'm curious what your experience has been with our MS center.

Biloon: Through the portal, every time I need something, I'm usually reaching out, keeping you up-to-date on my primary care or whether it's trying to get a refill on one of my medications that I have to reach out. I really do feel that having that team there, being able to reach out, that's been extremely helpful to have and keeps me very secure because that's all I really need, especially during the pandemic, right? Because then I was very isolated and dealing with going through MS. So it was great to at least ­— and I did — shoot off emails or texts in the portal, and that's usually primarily how I communicated.

Berger: I will tell you, in my opinion, maybe nine out of 10 messages in the portal or calls that we get simply require reassurance.

Biloon: Yes.

Berger: You just either pick up the phone or shoot back a note, say, "This is not your MS. Don't worry about it." I mean, the most important thing for me is to keep people from worrying because that doesn't solve any problem.

Biloon: No, and it causes stress, which causes fatigue. I mean, it's a bad cycle.

Berger: In the past year, you've actually felt better, and you've gone back to performing. It sounds like the volume of performances has gotten back to what it was pre-illness. What do you see for the future?

Biloon: What I see is traveling more for stand-up and doing the sort of clubs and cities that I had kind of stopped doing from before I was diagnosed, so 2017 and prior to that. And then also even working on other things, writing and maybe even doing sort of books or one-person shows that even talk about sort of my struggles with MS and kind of coming back to where I am. I'm looking forward to the future, and I hope that that's the track I can keep going on.

Berger: I see no reason why you shouldn't.

Biloon: Thank you.

Berger: Michelle, thank you very much for joining me today in this conversation.

Biloon: Thank you so much for having me. It's been really wonderful to be able to sit down here with you.

Joseph R. Berger, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb; Cellevolve; EMD Serono/Merck/Genentech; Genzyme; Janssen/Johnson & Johnson; Morphic; Novartis; Roche; Sanofi; Takeda; TG Therapeutics; MAPI; Excision Bio
Received research grant from: Genentech/Roche

Michelle Biloon has disclosed no relevant financial relationships

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Joseph R. Berger, MD: Hi. I'm Dr Joseph Berger, and I'm joined for this Care Cues conversation with my patient, Michelle Biloon, who has had multiple sclerosis (MS) for the past 6 years. Hello, Michelle. Welcome.

Michelle Biloon: Thank you, Dr Berger.

Berger: Can you tell us a little bit about yourself, how you came to understand you had MS, and how you've done since the diagnosis was rendered?

Biloon: Yeah. It was a very short diagnosis period for me. In the winter of 2017, I started experiencing dizzy spells, and I didn't really know why. I eventually went to my primary care clinic where my doctor is, and they did blood work. Then, they did a CT and didn't see anything, and I just kind of kept feeling worse.

Then, finally, I went to an ENT just to see if it was maybe related to my ears. The ENT actually said, "You need to go to the ER and get an MRI." And while I was in the MRI, I could feel the dizzy spells. And I thought, Well, something is happening. I don't know what it is. And then a resident came in and said that they saw lesions on my brain, and they knew that it was going to be MS or something like it.

Berger: How did you feel about that?

Biloon: At the time, I was kind of glad to hear it was something. And I just asked her if, like, you die from it. That was the first thing I asked. It was like falling off a cliff.

It was making it hard for me to function in what I was doing, which was stand-up comedy, because of the cognitive issues I was having, the cognitive fog. That was how I ended up with you. Right away, you talked to me and were actually able to introduce to me some new medications that are out and are phenomenally better for MS plus were not pills or shots every day. It's made my MS over the years a lot more manageable.

Berger: I'd like to pick up on a couple of things you said.

Biloon: Sure.

Berger: One is, because most people envision MS as this terrible, crippling illness that's going to leave them wheelchair-bound, deprived of their profession, finding it difficult to stay in a marriage it's vested with what has been termed "lamentable results." And one of the first things that we as physicians have to do is to calm people down and say, "You know what. You have MS. You're going to be just fine. Trust me. We have wonderful medications for what you have, and we'll take care of it." In fact, I've made a habit of telling people quit worrying. You hired me to worry for you.

Biloon: Yep.

Berger: And I think that's helpful.

Biloon: I've been just so appreciative of that. There's a balance of being condescended to — do you know what I mean — and also being given information. I'm very sensitive to that balance because I consider myself an intelligent person. And you're being put in a position where someone knows more than you, and you have to listen.

Berger: One of the other challenges we face is getting somebody on a treatment. And we elected to put you on an intravenous therapy every 6 months.

Biloon: Especially because as a stand-up comedian, I was traveling a lot, doing these every-6-months infusion, especially with the high efficacy rate that it had been reported from what we had read and the low amount of side effects. I mean, just those things together was just something that seemed the easiest for me.

Berger: So did you encounter any challenges when we first got you started on the infusion therapy?

Biloon: The first infusion I got was at the hospital. But then after that, I had to go to the suburbs, to a center out there for the infusion. That was difficult because to get a ride out there and a ride back — it was a long trip for someone to wait with me. Taking an Uber is expensive, so was it for me to drive. You don't feel good for a couple of days after. So that was how it was, and I complained about it. Probably at every appointment we had, I complained about it.

Berger: Yeah. So some of the challenges you talked about are very, very common. As a physician on medications myself, I can tell you that I am not particularly compliant. And what I love about infusion therapies is that I know that the patient is getting their medicine. Because when they don't show up for a scheduled appointment, I'm called, and I know.

Biloon: I do have a bit of an allergic reaction to the drug. But that's been easily managed over time. Now, the drug infusions are actually being done at my home, which makes the whole process twice-a-year–world's better.

Berger: But there are other barriers that people confront other than the initiation of drugs. Had you encountered any?

Biloon: I think the problem that I had more so was finding the drugs that would manage some of my symptoms. It took a couple of years to sort of figure out what that would be, both with figuring them out and both dealing with insurance on certain medications.

Berger: That's one sort of problem that we confront. The other, of course, are those individuals who, for a variety of reasons, have difficulty with the diagnosis because of their backgrounds. And they may be sociocultural in nature. Every time you go to the physical therapist, it's some degree of money.

Now for some people, it's trivial. But for others, it's a considerable amount of money, relative to what it is that they earn. And you simply have to work within those confines as best you can.

We do have various programs that help people. So we try to employ them. There are, in addition to the sociocultural barriers, language barriers that we often confront. We, in our situation here in a large city, have a very large migrant population.

Fortunately, most of the people speak languages that either you speak as well, or there's somebody in the next room that speaks pretty well. But that's not always the case. So we do have an interpreter service that has to be employed.

Biloon: I cannot imagine the nuance in speaking to people from different ages and different backgrounds, who have different types of lifestyles, for them to understand.

Berger: I don't write at a computer. I think that really degrades the patient-physician relationship. What I do is I obtain a history. I do it on a piece of paper with a pen or a pencil.

I recapitulate them to the patient in paraphrasing it, to make sure that I have gotten it right and that they understand what I think I heard. That, I think, has been enormously helpful in helping people understand what may happen in the absence of treatment and why the treatment is important. That you can do, regardless of what the person's background is. So that's how I approach it.

Biloon: How do you deal with patients when they're not on the same page with you?

Berger: One important thing is that you have to be patient. That is something that it took me 50 years in medicine to learn. And then accepting the patient's opinion and saying, "All right, go home and think about it," because you often don't convince them when they're in the office with you.

Biloon: I did have a little bit of a cushion between my diagnosis and when we actually saw each other, where I was able to really sit in my thoughts on the different treatments and stuff. By the time that we were able to talk, it reassured me on that was the right plan.

Berger: I'm curious what your experience has been with our MS center.

Biloon: Through the portal, every time I need something, I'm usually reaching out, keeping you up-to-date on my primary care or whether it's trying to get a refill on one of my medications that I have to reach out. I really do feel that having that team there, being able to reach out, that's been extremely helpful to have and keeps me very secure because that's all I really need, especially during the pandemic, right? Because then I was very isolated and dealing with going through MS. So it was great to at least ­— and I did — shoot off emails or texts in the portal, and that's usually primarily how I communicated.

Berger: I will tell you, in my opinion, maybe nine out of 10 messages in the portal or calls that we get simply require reassurance.

Biloon: Yes.

Berger: You just either pick up the phone or shoot back a note, say, "This is not your MS. Don't worry about it." I mean, the most important thing for me is to keep people from worrying because that doesn't solve any problem.

Biloon: No, and it causes stress, which causes fatigue. I mean, it's a bad cycle.

Berger: In the past year, you've actually felt better, and you've gone back to performing. It sounds like the volume of performances has gotten back to what it was pre-illness. What do you see for the future?

Biloon: What I see is traveling more for stand-up and doing the sort of clubs and cities that I had kind of stopped doing from before I was diagnosed, so 2017 and prior to that. And then also even working on other things, writing and maybe even doing sort of books or one-person shows that even talk about sort of my struggles with MS and kind of coming back to where I am. I'm looking forward to the future, and I hope that that's the track I can keep going on.

Berger: I see no reason why you shouldn't.

Biloon: Thank you.

Berger: Michelle, thank you very much for joining me today in this conversation.

Biloon: Thank you so much for having me. It's been really wonderful to be able to sit down here with you.

Joseph R. Berger, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb; Cellevolve; EMD Serono/Merck/Genentech; Genzyme; Janssen/Johnson & Johnson; Morphic; Novartis; Roche; Sanofi; Takeda; TG Therapeutics; MAPI; Excision Bio
Received research grant from: Genentech/Roche

Michelle Biloon has disclosed no relevant financial relationships

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Joseph R. Berger, MD: Hi. I'm Dr Joseph Berger, and I'm joined for this Care Cues conversation with my patient, Michelle Biloon, who has had multiple sclerosis (MS) for the past 6 years. Hello, Michelle. Welcome.

Michelle Biloon: Thank you, Dr Berger.

Berger: Can you tell us a little bit about yourself, how you came to understand you had MS, and how you've done since the diagnosis was rendered?

Biloon: Yeah. It was a very short diagnosis period for me. In the winter of 2017, I started experiencing dizzy spells, and I didn't really know why. I eventually went to my primary care clinic where my doctor is, and they did blood work. Then, they did a CT and didn't see anything, and I just kind of kept feeling worse.

Then, finally, I went to an ENT just to see if it was maybe related to my ears. The ENT actually said, "You need to go to the ER and get an MRI." And while I was in the MRI, I could feel the dizzy spells. And I thought, Well, something is happening. I don't know what it is. And then a resident came in and said that they saw lesions on my brain, and they knew that it was going to be MS or something like it.

Berger: How did you feel about that?

Biloon: At the time, I was kind of glad to hear it was something. And I just asked her if, like, you die from it. That was the first thing I asked. It was like falling off a cliff.

It was making it hard for me to function in what I was doing, which was stand-up comedy, because of the cognitive issues I was having, the cognitive fog. That was how I ended up with you. Right away, you talked to me and were actually able to introduce to me some new medications that are out and are phenomenally better for MS plus were not pills or shots every day. It's made my MS over the years a lot more manageable.

Berger: I'd like to pick up on a couple of things you said.

Biloon: Sure.

Berger: One is, because most people envision MS as this terrible, crippling illness that's going to leave them wheelchair-bound, deprived of their profession, finding it difficult to stay in a marriage it's vested with what has been termed "lamentable results." And one of the first things that we as physicians have to do is to calm people down and say, "You know what. You have MS. You're going to be just fine. Trust me. We have wonderful medications for what you have, and we'll take care of it." In fact, I've made a habit of telling people quit worrying. You hired me to worry for you.

Biloon: Yep.

Berger: And I think that's helpful.

Biloon: I've been just so appreciative of that. There's a balance of being condescended to — do you know what I mean — and also being given information. I'm very sensitive to that balance because I consider myself an intelligent person. And you're being put in a position where someone knows more than you, and you have to listen.

Berger: One of the other challenges we face is getting somebody on a treatment. And we elected to put you on an intravenous therapy every 6 months.

Biloon: Especially because as a stand-up comedian, I was traveling a lot, doing these every-6-months infusion, especially with the high efficacy rate that it had been reported from what we had read and the low amount of side effects. I mean, just those things together was just something that seemed the easiest for me.

Berger: So did you encounter any challenges when we first got you started on the infusion therapy?

Biloon: The first infusion I got was at the hospital. But then after that, I had to go to the suburbs, to a center out there for the infusion. That was difficult because to get a ride out there and a ride back — it was a long trip for someone to wait with me. Taking an Uber is expensive, so was it for me to drive. You don't feel good for a couple of days after. So that was how it was, and I complained about it. Probably at every appointment we had, I complained about it.

Berger: Yeah. So some of the challenges you talked about are very, very common. As a physician on medications myself, I can tell you that I am not particularly compliant. And what I love about infusion therapies is that I know that the patient is getting their medicine. Because when they don't show up for a scheduled appointment, I'm called, and I know.

Biloon: I do have a bit of an allergic reaction to the drug. But that's been easily managed over time. Now, the drug infusions are actually being done at my home, which makes the whole process twice-a-year–world's better.

Berger: But there are other barriers that people confront other than the initiation of drugs. Had you encountered any?

Biloon: I think the problem that I had more so was finding the drugs that would manage some of my symptoms. It took a couple of years to sort of figure out what that would be, both with figuring them out and both dealing with insurance on certain medications.

Berger: That's one sort of problem that we confront. The other, of course, are those individuals who, for a variety of reasons, have difficulty with the diagnosis because of their backgrounds. And they may be sociocultural in nature. Every time you go to the physical therapist, it's some degree of money.

Now for some people, it's trivial. But for others, it's a considerable amount of money, relative to what it is that they earn. And you simply have to work within those confines as best you can.

We do have various programs that help people. So we try to employ them. There are, in addition to the sociocultural barriers, language barriers that we often confront. We, in our situation here in a large city, have a very large migrant population.

Fortunately, most of the people speak languages that either you speak as well, or there's somebody in the next room that speaks pretty well. But that's not always the case. So we do have an interpreter service that has to be employed.

Biloon: I cannot imagine the nuance in speaking to people from different ages and different backgrounds, who have different types of lifestyles, for them to understand.

Berger: I don't write at a computer. I think that really degrades the patient-physician relationship. What I do is I obtain a history. I do it on a piece of paper with a pen or a pencil.

I recapitulate them to the patient in paraphrasing it, to make sure that I have gotten it right and that they understand what I think I heard. That, I think, has been enormously helpful in helping people understand what may happen in the absence of treatment and why the treatment is important. That you can do, regardless of what the person's background is. So that's how I approach it.

Biloon: How do you deal with patients when they're not on the same page with you?

Berger: One important thing is that you have to be patient. That is something that it took me 50 years in medicine to learn. And then accepting the patient's opinion and saying, "All right, go home and think about it," because you often don't convince them when they're in the office with you.

Biloon: I did have a little bit of a cushion between my diagnosis and when we actually saw each other, where I was able to really sit in my thoughts on the different treatments and stuff. By the time that we were able to talk, it reassured me on that was the right plan.

Berger: I'm curious what your experience has been with our MS center.

Biloon: Through the portal, every time I need something, I'm usually reaching out, keeping you up-to-date on my primary care or whether it's trying to get a refill on one of my medications that I have to reach out. I really do feel that having that team there, being able to reach out, that's been extremely helpful to have and keeps me very secure because that's all I really need, especially during the pandemic, right? Because then I was very isolated and dealing with going through MS. So it was great to at least ­— and I did — shoot off emails or texts in the portal, and that's usually primarily how I communicated.

Berger: I will tell you, in my opinion, maybe nine out of 10 messages in the portal or calls that we get simply require reassurance.

Biloon: Yes.

Berger: You just either pick up the phone or shoot back a note, say, "This is not your MS. Don't worry about it." I mean, the most important thing for me is to keep people from worrying because that doesn't solve any problem.

Biloon: No, and it causes stress, which causes fatigue. I mean, it's a bad cycle.

Berger: In the past year, you've actually felt better, and you've gone back to performing. It sounds like the volume of performances has gotten back to what it was pre-illness. What do you see for the future?

Biloon: What I see is traveling more for stand-up and doing the sort of clubs and cities that I had kind of stopped doing from before I was diagnosed, so 2017 and prior to that. And then also even working on other things, writing and maybe even doing sort of books or one-person shows that even talk about sort of my struggles with MS and kind of coming back to where I am. I'm looking forward to the future, and I hope that that's the track I can keep going on.

Berger: I see no reason why you shouldn't.

Biloon: Thank you.

Berger: Michelle, thank you very much for joining me today in this conversation.

Biloon: Thank you so much for having me. It's been really wonderful to be able to sit down here with you.

Joseph R. Berger, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb; Cellevolve; EMD Serono/Merck/Genentech; Genzyme; Janssen/Johnson & Johnson; Morphic; Novartis; Roche; Sanofi; Takeda; TG Therapeutics; MAPI; Excision Bio
Received research grant from: Genentech/Roche

Michelle Biloon has disclosed no relevant financial relationships

Breastfeeding by women with multiple sclerosis (MS) or neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) who are taking monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) appears to be safe for infants, new research confirmed.

Registry data showed no differences in health or development in the first 3 years of life among infants exposed to natalizumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, or ofatumumab, compared with unexposed infants.

“Most monoclonal antibody medications for multiple sclerosis are not currently approved for use while a mother is breastfeeding,” even though the disease can develop during a person’s reproductive years, study investigator Kerstin Hellwig, MD, with Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany, said in a news release.

“Our data show infants exposed to these medications through breastfeeding experienced no negative effects on health or development within the first 3 years of life,” Dr. Hellwig said.

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Registry Data and Analysis

Using the German MS and Pregnancy Registry, researchers identified 183 infants born to mothers taking mAbs while breastfeeding — 180 with a diagnosis of MS and three with a diagnosis of NMOSD. The infants were matched to 183 unexposed infants (control group).

Exposure to mAbs during lactation started a median of 19 days postpartum and lasted for a median of 172 days. The most commonly used mAb during lactation was natalizumab (125 women), followed by ocrelizumab (34 women), rituximab (11 women), and ofatumumab (10 women).

Among the entire infant cohort, two were first exposed to natalizumab and then ocrelizumab; one was exposed to rituximab and then ocrelizumab; three had been previously breastfed on glatiramer acetate and two on interferons.

The primary outcomes were hospitalizations, antibiotic use, developmental delay, and weight during the first 3 years of life in mAb-exposed versus unexposed infants.

In adjusted regression analyses, mAb exposure during breastfeeding was not significantly associated with annual hospitalization (rate ratio [RR], 1.23; P = .473), annual systemic antibiotic use (RR, 1.55; P = .093), developmental delay (odds ratio, 1.16; P = .716), or weight.

A limitation of the study was that only about a third of the infants were followed for the full 3 years. Therefore, Dr. Hellwig said, the results for the third year of life are less meaningful than for years 1 and 2.
 

‘Reassuring’ Data

Reached for comment, Edith L. Graham, MD, Department of Neurology, Multiple Sclerosis and Neuroimmunology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, noted that this is the largest group of breastfed infants exposed to mAbs used to treat MS and said the data provide “reassuring infant outcomes with no increase in hospitalization, antibiotic use, or developmental delay.”

Dr. Graham noted that recent publications have reported more on the use of anti-CD20 mAbs (ocrelizumab/rituximab/ofatumumab) while breastfeeding, “and this study adds data for patients on natalizumab.”

“It will be important to know how infusion timing after birth impacts transfer of monoclonal antibodies depending on the milk stage as it transitions from colostrum to mature milk in the first month postpartum,” Dr. Graham said.

“While infection rates of infants are reassuring, data on allergies in the exposed infants would be interesting to look at as well,” she added. “While these infusions are not orally bioavailable, we do not know the full extent of impact on the neonatal gut microbiome.”

In addition, Dr. Graham said it would be important to know whether drugs administered monthly, such as natalizumab and ofatumumab, accumulate in the breast milk at higher levels than medications such as ocrelizumab and rituximab, which are administered twice a year.

The German MS and pregnancy registry was partly supported by the Innovation Fund of the Federal Joint Committee, Almirall Hermal GmbH, Biogen GmbH Germany, Hexal AG, Merck Serono GmbH, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Roche Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva GmbH. Dr. Hellwig and Dr. Graham had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Breastfeeding by women with multiple sclerosis (MS) or neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) who are taking monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) appears to be safe for infants, new research confirmed.

Registry data showed no differences in health or development in the first 3 years of life among infants exposed to natalizumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, or ofatumumab, compared with unexposed infants.

“Most monoclonal antibody medications for multiple sclerosis are not currently approved for use while a mother is breastfeeding,” even though the disease can develop during a person’s reproductive years, study investigator Kerstin Hellwig, MD, with Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany, said in a news release.

“Our data show infants exposed to these medications through breastfeeding experienced no negative effects on health or development within the first 3 years of life,” Dr. Hellwig said.

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Registry Data and Analysis

Using the German MS and Pregnancy Registry, researchers identified 183 infants born to mothers taking mAbs while breastfeeding — 180 with a diagnosis of MS and three with a diagnosis of NMOSD. The infants were matched to 183 unexposed infants (control group).

Exposure to mAbs during lactation started a median of 19 days postpartum and lasted for a median of 172 days. The most commonly used mAb during lactation was natalizumab (125 women), followed by ocrelizumab (34 women), rituximab (11 women), and ofatumumab (10 women).

Among the entire infant cohort, two were first exposed to natalizumab and then ocrelizumab; one was exposed to rituximab and then ocrelizumab; three had been previously breastfed on glatiramer acetate and two on interferons.

The primary outcomes were hospitalizations, antibiotic use, developmental delay, and weight during the first 3 years of life in mAb-exposed versus unexposed infants.

In adjusted regression analyses, mAb exposure during breastfeeding was not significantly associated with annual hospitalization (rate ratio [RR], 1.23; P = .473), annual systemic antibiotic use (RR, 1.55; P = .093), developmental delay (odds ratio, 1.16; P = .716), or weight.

A limitation of the study was that only about a third of the infants were followed for the full 3 years. Therefore, Dr. Hellwig said, the results for the third year of life are less meaningful than for years 1 and 2.
 

‘Reassuring’ Data

Reached for comment, Edith L. Graham, MD, Department of Neurology, Multiple Sclerosis and Neuroimmunology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, noted that this is the largest group of breastfed infants exposed to mAbs used to treat MS and said the data provide “reassuring infant outcomes with no increase in hospitalization, antibiotic use, or developmental delay.”

Dr. Graham noted that recent publications have reported more on the use of anti-CD20 mAbs (ocrelizumab/rituximab/ofatumumab) while breastfeeding, “and this study adds data for patients on natalizumab.”

“It will be important to know how infusion timing after birth impacts transfer of monoclonal antibodies depending on the milk stage as it transitions from colostrum to mature milk in the first month postpartum,” Dr. Graham said.

“While infection rates of infants are reassuring, data on allergies in the exposed infants would be interesting to look at as well,” she added. “While these infusions are not orally bioavailable, we do not know the full extent of impact on the neonatal gut microbiome.”

In addition, Dr. Graham said it would be important to know whether drugs administered monthly, such as natalizumab and ofatumumab, accumulate in the breast milk at higher levels than medications such as ocrelizumab and rituximab, which are administered twice a year.

The German MS and pregnancy registry was partly supported by the Innovation Fund of the Federal Joint Committee, Almirall Hermal GmbH, Biogen GmbH Germany, Hexal AG, Merck Serono GmbH, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Roche Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva GmbH. Dr. Hellwig and Dr. Graham had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Breastfeeding by women with multiple sclerosis (MS) or neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) who are taking monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) appears to be safe for infants, new research confirmed.

Registry data showed no differences in health or development in the first 3 years of life among infants exposed to natalizumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, or ofatumumab, compared with unexposed infants.

“Most monoclonal antibody medications for multiple sclerosis are not currently approved for use while a mother is breastfeeding,” even though the disease can develop during a person’s reproductive years, study investigator Kerstin Hellwig, MD, with Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany, said in a news release.

“Our data show infants exposed to these medications through breastfeeding experienced no negative effects on health or development within the first 3 years of life,” Dr. Hellwig said.

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Registry Data and Analysis

Using the German MS and Pregnancy Registry, researchers identified 183 infants born to mothers taking mAbs while breastfeeding — 180 with a diagnosis of MS and three with a diagnosis of NMOSD. The infants were matched to 183 unexposed infants (control group).

Exposure to mAbs during lactation started a median of 19 days postpartum and lasted for a median of 172 days. The most commonly used mAb during lactation was natalizumab (125 women), followed by ocrelizumab (34 women), rituximab (11 women), and ofatumumab (10 women).

Among the entire infant cohort, two were first exposed to natalizumab and then ocrelizumab; one was exposed to rituximab and then ocrelizumab; three had been previously breastfed on glatiramer acetate and two on interferons.

The primary outcomes were hospitalizations, antibiotic use, developmental delay, and weight during the first 3 years of life in mAb-exposed versus unexposed infants.

In adjusted regression analyses, mAb exposure during breastfeeding was not significantly associated with annual hospitalization (rate ratio [RR], 1.23; P = .473), annual systemic antibiotic use (RR, 1.55; P = .093), developmental delay (odds ratio, 1.16; P = .716), or weight.

A limitation of the study was that only about a third of the infants were followed for the full 3 years. Therefore, Dr. Hellwig said, the results for the third year of life are less meaningful than for years 1 and 2.
 

‘Reassuring’ Data

Reached for comment, Edith L. Graham, MD, Department of Neurology, Multiple Sclerosis and Neuroimmunology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, noted that this is the largest group of breastfed infants exposed to mAbs used to treat MS and said the data provide “reassuring infant outcomes with no increase in hospitalization, antibiotic use, or developmental delay.”

Dr. Graham noted that recent publications have reported more on the use of anti-CD20 mAbs (ocrelizumab/rituximab/ofatumumab) while breastfeeding, “and this study adds data for patients on natalizumab.”

“It will be important to know how infusion timing after birth impacts transfer of monoclonal antibodies depending on the milk stage as it transitions from colostrum to mature milk in the first month postpartum,” Dr. Graham said.

“While infection rates of infants are reassuring, data on allergies in the exposed infants would be interesting to look at as well,” she added. “While these infusions are not orally bioavailable, we do not know the full extent of impact on the neonatal gut microbiome.”

In addition, Dr. Graham said it would be important to know whether drugs administered monthly, such as natalizumab and ofatumumab, accumulate in the breast milk at higher levels than medications such as ocrelizumab and rituximab, which are administered twice a year.

The German MS and pregnancy registry was partly supported by the Innovation Fund of the Federal Joint Committee, Almirall Hermal GmbH, Biogen GmbH Germany, Hexal AG, Merck Serono GmbH, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Roche Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva GmbH. Dr. Hellwig and Dr. Graham had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.