Info

Multiple Sclerosis Discovery: The Podcast of the MS Discovery Forum

Your independent source of news and information on research in multiple sclerosis and related diseases.
RSS Feed
Multiple Sclerosis Discovery: The Podcast of the MS Discovery Forum
2018
April
January


2016
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January


2015
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January


2014
December
November
October
September
August
July
June


All Episodes
Archives
Now displaying: 2015
Dec 28, 2015

[intro music]

Host – Dan Keller

Hello, and welcome to Episode Sixty-Three of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the Podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller.

We’ve just passed the winter solstice. What better time than the shortest daylight hours of the year to check in with research at the University of British Columbia on sunlight and MS? Today we talk with Dr. Helen Tremlett who is exploring sun exposure over a person’s life course and how that syncs with their MS risk and disease course.

In the weekly papers section on the MS Discovery Forum, this week’s list includes nearly 150 newly published research reports that could lead to better understanding and treatment of MS and related disorders.

We selected four papers as editor’s picks. In one paper, researchers think they may have the first experimental evidence that MS may start with damage or loss of myelin-making cells in the brain and spinal cord. In this new mouse model of progressive MS, experimentally damaged brain cells make it hard for the mice to walk. The mice recover when their brain cells repair on their own. Six months later, the MS-like disease returns. In the study, the team showed that nanoparticles targeting the autoimmune reaction prevent the second phase of the disease. The study shows support for an “inside-out” model of MS. That’s different from the “outside-in” model, in which some aspect about the immune system goes wrong and then initiates the attack on myelin-making cells. The paper is published in Nature Neuroscience by collaborating researchers from Northwestern University and the University of Chicago.

To grow and be healthy, all human cells need a signaling molecule named mTOR, named for the mammalian target of rapamycin. That’s true for myelin-making cells, or oligodendrocytes, as listeners may remember from an earlier podcast interview with Dr. Wendy Macklin. The ability to make myelin seems to depend on a key part known as mTOR complex 1, also called its raptor subunit. In a very basic advance, scientists have determined the atomic architecture of the raptor, or mTORC1, piece. The details are reported in the journal Science and provide a structural basis for studying mTORC1 function.

In another editor’s pick, a review of cases of pediatric neuromyelitis optica, or NMO, showed that new international diagnostic guidelines applied well to children. Unfortunately, they also found that children with NMO have delayed treatment and worse short-term outcomes compared to those with MS. The authors urged immediate adoption of the guidelines to select the best treatment and improve outcomes.

In the fourth editor’s pick, researchers found a potential new target to protect axons in a mouse model of neurodegeneration in multiple sclerosis. The target is a pore in the mitochondria, the cellular battery that provides energy. They designed a molecule to block the pore and showed it helped protect neurons and improved the mice’s mobility, all with minimal immunosuppression. The paper by mostly UK researchers is published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

Now, let’s take a look at the latest Drug Development Pipeline updates. The drugs with important additions and changes are dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, and rituximab. One update reflects findings from post-hoc analysis of clinical trial data showing that the positive effects of fingolimod are apparent quite soon –within months – after initiation of treatment.

[transition music]

And now to our interview. I spoke with Professor Helen Tremlett, Canada research chair in neuroepidemiology and multiple sclerosis at the University of British Columbia when we were at the ECTRIMS conference in Barcelona in October. She has been studying sun exposure over the course of the lifetime and its relation to MS risk. While MS may affect an individual's likelihood to go out in the sun, studies may also need to consider the influence of sun exposure before the disease develops.

Interviewer – Dan Keller

What are you doing in this area?

Interviewee – Helen Tremlett

So I was presenting at ECTRIMS yesterday on a really interesting study based out of the Nurses' Health Study, and this was a collaboration from my group in Vancouver and Harvard School of Public Health; and that's Alberto Ascherio's group and Sandy Munger. So we were looking at sun exposure over the life course and associations with multiple sclerosis. So here we were looking at both aspects of the spectrum, if you can imagine; we were looking at sun exposure and future risk of multiple sclerosis, but also once an individual has developed multiple sclerosis, we were looking at the impact that potentially has on an individual in terms of their propensity to go outdoors in the daylight hours, outdoors in the sun.

MSDF

Right. So it may be the cart is before the horse in that sense; not that sun exposure is causing it, but their disability is causing less sun exposure?

Dr. Tremlett

We were looking at both sides of the equation. And I think it is important, particularly in a disease such as MS where onset of MS is a little bit fuzzy, I think, to look at sun exposure of the life course is important, and certainly our findings are indicating that. Because you want to know sunlight exposure in MS risk, but you also want to know, once someone's developed multiple sclerosis, how that influences their behavior outdoors and what implications that has if you're then trying to design the study to look at what causes MS.

You need to be really careful who you recruit, because if that person has already changed their behavior, then that may influence your findings, and you're not then actually looking at what causes MS at all, you're just looking at a consequence of the disease. So I guess that's the first part of why we wanted to do that.

And the second part is if having MS, if having a chronic condition, does influence your propensity or ability or desire to go outside, what consequence could that have for your health in terms of maybe your serum vitamin D levels or your melatonin levels, and that may have a consequence in terms of long-term health.

MSDF

You segmented people by where they were and at what ages.

Dr. Tremlett

It was pretty interesting. So, first of all, over ages 5 to 15, we found there that there was a 48% lower risk of MS for women living in high, relative to low, ambient UVB areas during their sort of childhood and early adolescent years. So that was pretty interesting. But we found, kind of to our surprise because it goes against other studies that are out there, we found that time spent outdoors in summer or winter wasn't significantly associated with MS risk in that age group, 5 to 15 years. But what we didn't realize is that it wasn't until we combined that outdoor behavior with the UVB, then we could see that there was an association. So we found that less time spent outdoors in summer in low ambient UVB areas—that was associated with a two-fold increased risk of multiple sclerosis.

That was an important step for us; I mean, it might, you know, sound obvious to combine those two, but it was an important step because other studies in smaller geographical areas such as Tasmania, or there's a study out of Norway in a small region of Norway, they can find an association between time spent outdoors in summer/winter and MS risk. But I think we couldn't find it in the US, because the US is at such a diversity of latitudes – the study spanned over 14 US states – so it wasn't until we looked at that outdoor behavior in context of ambient UVB that we could find the association.

And then, I suppose, our next step was to look at outdoor behavior over the life course. And this was really interesting, that we found some avoidance behavior was apparent in later life in multiple sclerosis. And maybe that comes as no surprise to people, but I think our numbers are interesting to put a concrete figure on it. So, for instance, by age 50, our MS cases were 60% less likely to report high relative to low outdoor exposure compared to controls, and that was in winter and in summer.

So the bottom line is people with MS, once they have MS, are not going outside as much, so they're not getting that UVB exposure, so potentially they're not making that vitamin D and serum vitamin D. And then the winter exposure's important as well, because potentially they're not getting the same melatonin production and inhibition, and that may have a really important role in terms of immunology, the circadian rhythm and your sleep cycle, which, again, all knocks back into overall health and immunology of MS. And there have been some presentations actually at this conference looking into melatonin and its association with relapses in MS, and that's pretty interesting.

MSDF

There's even some emerging thought that sleep is essential for good brain function in terms of taking out the garbage – glymphatics and things like that. So melatonin disturbances may actually have some further consequences in an inflammatory brain disease.

Dr. Tremlett

And there's some interesting studies, not that we did but others have done, looking at shift work and risk of MS. And shift work may be associated with increased risk of MS. Maybe melatonin ties into that as well.

MSDF

Is there also potentially an effect, besides on vitamin D and melatonin, that sun exposure itself has an effect on the immune system, maybe suppressing it?

Dr. Tremlett

Yeah, modulating it in some way. No, absolutely. We don't really know the mechanism. I mean, the obvious one would be sun on human skin at the right time of year on the right skin color can result in really high levels of serum vitamin D being produced. Sunlight exposure the minute it actually hits the skin surface can have a direct immunomodulatory effect. And then, obvious, sun hitting the eye. Melatonin is one of the pathways in there that may then impact the immune system.

MSDF

Is it possible to make any conclusions or even recommendations at this point?

Dr. Tremlett

No. It's an observational study, and we do actually need to do more analysis on this group of individuals. The main recommendations we could make from this study is informing how to design future studies, and also two things you could take from this in terms of recommendations.

First of all, we saw sun avoidance behavior in individuals once they've developed multiple sclerosis. That's really important because it really means that if you want to look at what is causing MS, do not take serum vitamin D levels or look at skin cancer risk, for instance, in individuals who already have MS, because they've already changed in compare to controls, adding further somehow differences are related to what causes MS, because these individuals have already changed their behavior because they've got a chronic disease. So that's the first statement, which might be a no-brainer for some people, but it's amazing how many studies are still published like that in the MS literature at the moment.

And I suppose the second piece is trying to understand if we are going to do an interventional study, what time period in an individual's life or within a population do you need to target in order to change the course and prevent the disease from occurring? And we're trying to understand that more, looking beyond the window age 5 to 15, look more into adulthood to see if ambient UVB is associated with MS risk later in life and into adulthood. And others have shown that there does seem to be an association even into adulthood, which is exciting because if you do want to do an intervention study, then you haven't necessarily missed the boat because you've not intervened during childhood. But, I mean, the real question is how do you intervene and what with? And that's another topic in itself.

MSDF

We'll leave that for another day. Thank you.

Dr. Tremlett

Thank you very much.

[transition music]

Next week, we'll continue our discussion with Professor Tremlett when she'll talk about her preliminary studies on pediatric MS patients and their gut microbiomes.

Until then, thank you for listening to Episode Sixty-Three of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This Podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Heather McDonald curated the MSDF drug database updates. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations.

Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.

For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.

[outro music]

Dec 21, 2015

Transcript will be available Thursday, 24 Dec

Dec 10, 2015

[intro music]

Host – Dan Keller

Hello, and welcome to Episode Sixty-One of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the Podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m Dan Keller.

In this podcast, Dr. Yanming Wang of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, discusses a solution to the vexing problem of how to track changes in myelin in the brain and spinal cord, a measurement believed to be especially important for new candidate drugs to restore this insulating sheathing around axons.

First, here are some new items in the MS Discovery Forum.

A new data visualization showcases the collaborations among authors who published papers reporting the results of clinical trials in progressive forms of multiple sclerosis in the last 30 years. You can find the network map on msdiscovery.org under “Research Resources.” You can mouse over circles in the graphic to find researchers' names. Click and drag the circles to animate the map and reveal connections.

In research news, a Swedish team took the first steps toward finding potential disease markers in the immune cells of asymptomatic people with MS and with seasonal allergies. The study pinpointed three key proteins that may transform normally protective T cells into ones that attack myelin in the case of MS. The three proteins are transcription factors, which glom on to DNA and control which genes turn on and off. According to data from genome studies, the proteins are more common in genetic regions associated with disease, strengthening the case for their role in MS. Finally, the three proteins act differently in people with immune-related diseases, including multiple sclerosis, according to tests on blood samples. Ultimately, the researchers want to learn if they can detect multiple sclerosis and other autoimmune conditions much earlier.

[transition music]

And now to our interview. MSDF caught up with Dr. Yanming Wang last month at the 2015 World Congress of Neurology meeting in Santiago, Chile. We discussed his solution to what has been a missing link in MS research and practice; that is, how to image myelin -- not just lesions on an MRI, but how to tag the substance itself using a biomarker for molecular imaging called M-E-D-A-S, or "mee-das." Going beyond diagnosis, Dr. Wang told us it may eventually allow clinicians to get a better handle on disease progression and efficacy of treatments.

Interviewer – Dan Keller

You had referred to molecular imaging of myelin as the missing link. Why is this the missing link?

Interviewee – Yanming Wang

Because molecular imaging has really transformed how we practice medicine today, and it has become a standard care for virtually many neurological diseases. However, in multiple sclerosis, there's still no effective imaging technique in place that can help physicians to monitor not just for diagnosis, but also to monitor the disease progression.

MSDF

And would this be useful also in monitoring potential therapies?

Dr. Wang

Exactly. There's a lack of imaging technique that allow people to monitor the drug efficacy, particularly for those drugs that try to repair the myelin damage in the CNS.

MSDF

How would this differ from MRI imaging, what you see there, versus having a radioactive biomarker?

Dr. Wang

Currently, MRI is the commonly used imaging modality in MS, however MRI provides only anatomical information and also detect brain lesions. However, those lesions detected on MRI are not specific for myelin pathology.

MSDF

You do have a compound now, [11C]MeDAS, which would be specific for myelin. Is that right, is it very specific for myelin?

Dr. Wang

Exactly. It's very specific for myelin, because the advantage it has over MRI is that that is truly a molecular imaging modality which uses myelin-specific radiotracers that allow to quantitatively monitor the myelin damage and myelin distribution in the brain. So for this reason, we developed a specific radiotracer that can selectively bind to myelin with high affinity, so that we could directly image the myelin distribution.

MSDF

How quickly does it reach the CNS and you can image?

Dr. Wang

It takes minutes, literally, for the radiotracer to penetrate the BBB and enter the brain, and then the whole process takes only 60 minutes.

MSDF

Can you briefly describe your rat model where you're using lysolecithin as an MS model, and then what you did with your marker?

Dr. Wang

Lysolecithin model is an established model of focal demyelination in the brain, so we used that model to test our compounds to monitor the demyelination and remyelination. So after injection of MeDAS, the compounds could readily enter the brain and selectively bind to the myelin. And then at the peak of the disease, which is a peak of the demyelination, the brain uptake of the compounds is lowest, versus when the brain is recovered, then the brain uptake of the compounds is increased. So this demonstrated the in vivo specificity of the radiotracer for myelin.

MSDF

And you can image myelin on the way down and on the way up; you have this hepatocyte growth factor which causes some remyelination?

Dr. Wang

Right, exactly. In collaboration with my colleague, Bob Miller. So we'd use this imaging modality to see if we can monitor the drug efficacy for remyelination. So we'd give this HGF, which is a growth factor that promotes remyelination, and then we could use this imaging technique just to monitor the increase of remyelination after the drug treatment.

MSDF

Everything right now is in animals. Do you have plans for any human trials?

Dr. Wang

Yes, we are working on this paperwork required by FDA to put these compounds in humans.

MSDF

Is the compound so far nontoxic; it's diamino stilbene, is that right? Does it have any estrogenic effects or other toxic effects?

Dr. Wang

No. We have done systematic toxicity studies and there's any adverse effects in animal models so far.

MSDF

What do you see as the clinical utility of this if it enters the human realm?

Dr. Wang

It's going to be a very powerful tool for diagnosis and prognosis, and also particularly for evaluation of drug efficacy. As you know, currently pharmaceutical companies and academic investigators are all trying to develop new drugs that can repair myelin damage in order to restore the biological functions. However, there's a lack of imaging tools in place that allow them to monitor such myelin repair therapies, and this could provide the missing link for this endeavor.

MSDF

Does PET imaging with this compound correlate at all with what's seen on MRI, especially in a kinetic sense following time course?

Dr. Wang

Well, yes. In the wonderful publication in Annual Neurology a couple years ago, we did demonstrate that this PET imaging technique can be used as an imaging marker that correlates with the disease progression in terms of the severity of the symptoms in animal models, in the EAE models. The EAE rat, for example, its appearance, the relapsing or remitting stage, and that we could use this imaging marker to correlate nicely with the symptoms. And this is one of important application if we put this into clinical use.

MSDF

Is this compound the end-all and be-all, or are you developing others, or have some gone by the wayside for various reasons?

Dr. Wang

This compound, and also this imaging technique, could be used not just only in MS, but can also be used in many other neurological diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injury, and stroke, for example, because all of these neurological diseases are associated to some degree with the myelin damage.

MSDF

Have we missed anything important, anything to add?

Dr. Wang

Again, I think the imaging technique, particularly molecular imaging technique based on positron emission tomography, is lagged behind in the field of neurological diseases because of the complexities of the brain and the lack of molecular probes that could advance our understanding, also facilitate the drug discovery.

MSDF

I appreciate it. Thank you.

Dr. Wang

Oh, thank you very much then.

[transition music]

MSDF

Thank you for listening to Episode Sixty-One of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This Podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Heather McDonald curated the MSDF drug database updates. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations.

Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.

For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.

[outro music]

Nov 16, 2015

Transcript will be available Tuesday, 17 November 2015

Nov 4, 2015

[intro music]

 Host – Dan Keller

Hello, and welcome to Episode Fifty-Nine of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.

In our previous podcast, you heard about a group of leading MS researchers and clinicians calling for a big change in improving care for people with MS. The new report, called Brain Health – Time Matters in MS, makes the case for a therapeutic strategy to minimize disease activity. The report advises early diagnosis and treatment, and regular monitoring of disease activity. The report urges patients, physicians, health care payers, and policy makers to support the goal of life-long brain health.

In this podcast, another one of the report authors, Dr. Helmut Butzkueven, talks about what the new treatment target means for patients and their doctors in the real world.

This is one of our extra podcasts from the big MS meeting in Barcelona talking about ways that evidence from research can be translated now into better MS outcomes

But first, here are some new items in the MS Discovery Forum.

Every week, MSDF lists the latest scientific papers on MS and related disorders, with links to the abstracts on PubMed. Of more than 110 new studies published last week, we selected three as editor’s picks.

MS has been traditionally viewed as a T cell–driven disease, but a new paper from Canadian researchers introduces another villain—a rogue type of B cell in people with MS that may fuel inflammation in two ways. This may be why general B cell depletion seems to work so well in MS and may lead to more targeted treatments.

In a new twist on dietary fat and autoimmune disease, German researchers report that certain fats work through gut microbes to exert both good and bad effects. In mice, they found certain fats were protective against inflammatory fats. They have moved on to testing in healthy humans and hope to study the impact in people with MS.

A cost-effectiveness study from Spain says do not judge a drug by its price alone. Glatiramer acetate may be more expensive than interferon-beta, but fewer relapses and reduced spasticity may make it more cost effective. Interesting, but you can be sure this fuller economic look will not be the last word on drug costs.

[transition music]

And now to our interview with Dr. Helmut Butzkueven, who directs the MS services at the Royal Melbourne Hospital and the Box Hill Hospital in Melbourne, Australia. We spoke with him at the recent European Committee for Treatment and Research in MS, or ECTRIMS, meeting in Barcelona about the Brain Health report that was launched at the meeting. The main thrust of the report – aimed at the broad MS community – is that time matters in MS. The report lays out several goals to maximize brain health over the lifetime. A critical one is early intervention.

Interviewee – Helmut Butzkueven

We know that early disease activity sets up long-term problems. However, early disease activity is often relatively silent to the eye. It’s not silent to the eye of the MRI machine and other monitoring tools that we have. So we would like clinicians and patients, not actually just in early disease, but starting right from the start to have a proactive monitoring approach to jointly assess their disease activity and take action if things are not going well.

Interviewer – Dan Keller

How much of an emergency is it? If someone finds out they have a cancer diagnosis, they rush to a surgeon, oftentimes. If they find out they have high cholesterol, they might take a year or two to decide to get on a statin. So what’s the time frame we’re talking about here?

Dr. Butzkueven

I think the appropriate time frame to think about is months, actually. We think that an MRI scan should be performed approximately every 12 months to assess disease activity, to assess how your current treatment is performing. So it’s not seconds or minutes; thankfully, multiple sclerosis isn’t exactly like an acute stroke or a heart attack. But it’s also not a time, particularly early in the disease when you could be setting up these kind of strategies, to just leave people be. We need to, when we first see patients, articulate our monitoring goals.

MSDF

And how quickly should someone, when they’re referred and there’s a putative diagnosis, get that scan initially?

Dr. Butzkueven

As soon as possible. I mean, scans are crucial, obviously, for diagnosis – accurate diagnosis, as well as for setting up the monitoring phase, because the first scan can then be compared to the next scan, and so on.

MSDF

What other goals are there for treatment and management?

Dr. Butzkueven

The key things that we want to really focus on, apart from what we’ve already discussed which is early diagnosis and articulating a treatment and monitoring plan to maximize brain health, is a joint approach. So for people with MS and doctors to both be empowered to jointly manage the disease. So this includes, of course, increasing consultation time, giving people time to discuss their MS with their managing team. I think this kind of move away from paternalistic medicine, to empowering patients to be part of the management process to self-manage is hugely important. That’s just in step with the modern world.

The other thing is more indirect. Across the world, we face huge differences in access to disease-modifying drugs. Some of us living in the United States and Australia in Germany, Switzerland are luckier than others. And we really need to provide evidence to government that disease-modifying drugs are worth funding.

MSDF

Or else what happens?

Dr. Butzkueven

Else people, and ultimately governments, incur the costs of markedly worse disability.

MSDF

To empower patients takes certain knowledge and, I suppose, permissions or rapport with the physician. And to empower the physician, I suppose, takes knowledge, evidence, consult. So are these two different things? Do they move in parallel, but they require different activity?

Dr. Butzkueven

Yes, they do. Of course they do. To some extent, changing practice in an interaction can come from either side of the interacting party, but certainly patients, on the whole, probably need to be more demanding. They need to have access to evidence, and I’m going to say something controversial, to actually help assess the clinical care that they are receiving. So people should say, for example, if this report, the evidence suggests that perhaps we should be doing something else. What do you think?

Physicians, as I said, need to be strongly encouraged to have a priori a specific plan. If you were someone with MS, and we saw you for the first time in our clinic, we should be telling you what the goals are. We should be telling you what our scheme of monitoring is going to be to maximize your outcome, to maximize your brain health.

MSDF

What kind of a role can longitudinal databases play in changing policy?

Dr. Butzkueven

They’re really the only source of long-term data. MS is a disease which you’re going to have for decades, once you’re diagnosed with it, and it likely will cause you and your government very significant costs over that time. But those costs can only be measured if we measure those outcomes, and the only way to really measure them is longitudinally. So databases embedded in the real-world healthcare collecting just a minimum of information on as many MS patients as possible can be enormously powerful, doing the sums in the first place, actually understanding how much disability there is; how much can be prevented with appropriate treatment strategies; and, dare I say it, how much money government could save.

MSDF

MRIs are now a powerful tool. Other medical specialties have had all sorts of invasive measures in the past. You could take biopsies of skin, breast, prostate, liver. You never had an assessment tool this powerful, but now this one is fairly noninvasive. It’s completely noninvasive. What can it tell you? I mean, people look for lesions, but there’s much more to be derived.

Dr. Butzkueven

Yes, of course. Lesions is still a key outcome, but the other thing is brain shrinkage – brain atrophy. So we, increasingly, understand that people who are experiencing significant brain loss – brain tissue loss – early in their MS will do worse, in the long-term. So here we have another target for monitoring. And people might say, well, I do an MRI scan, but there are no lesion changes reported. There’s no volume changes reported. But this world is changing rapidly. Image recognition analysis tools are advancing very quickly. I predict, within two or three years, routine MRI will actually spit out these metrics for us. At the moment, a lot of reporting, unfortunately, in the world is still what we would call qualitative rather than quantitative. But we’re going to start seeing those numbers, and we need to be ready to act on them.

MSDF

How much faster does the brain, in an MS patient without treatment, atrophy or lose volume compared to an age-matched control?

Dr. Butzkueven

So this is a question that I can answer in two ways, I think, to illustrate the concept. I could say it’s five to seven times faster. What I’m talking about there is averages, medians if you like. What I should be saying is that it could be anything. Your trajectory, as an MS patient, could be exactly within the normal range, I mean, sadly – particularly over the age of 30 – all of us lose a bit of brain volume a year: 0.3%, 0.4%. In MS, that could be your trajectory, and that would be fantastic. On the other hand, you could the person losing 3%, 4% – 10 times, 15 times normal. And we could pick that within a year or two, and that is the time to intervene, not when that ultimately results five, six, ten years later in progressive disease.

MSDF

You’ve made the analogy of managing MS to a new car and its warranty. Can you tell me about that?

Dr. Butzkueven

I was really just trying to say that plans for keeping things well, keeping things in shape, are quite prominent in society. So this analogy is simple. You buy a new car. What you get with it is a service book. The service book gives you a plan for managing your car. At 6 months, there’ll be a little tire change, oil change; 12 months there’ll be a major service, and so on. And the thing is, as a customer, I mean, you buy the car. It’s already there. It’s the same thing. We want clinicians and patients to demand and to deliver a plan. This is how we’re going monitor your MS to maximize the health of your brain.

MSDF

So this is your 6 month service. This is your 12 month service.

Dr. Butzkueven

Exactly. So, for example, in might be we will see you every 6 months, and we’ll do a neurological examination. We might do a particular cognitive test. We will do a repeat MRI scan, ideally on the same machine, once a year. We will be looking for the following: we will take action if things are going badly. If things are going well, then we’re reassured. But we need people with MS to demand this, and we need clinicians to deliver these plans.

MSDF

I don’t mean to make light of the situation of having the disease, but I think people respond well to something they already know, like a service plan.

Dr. Butzkueven

Yes, sure. I guess that’s why I’m using that analogy. Maybe we should say we need a service plan for MS.

MSDF

Is there anything we’ve missed or important to add?

Dr. Butzkueven

Nothing. We’ve covered the key recommendations of the report: access to early diagnosis, consideration of early treatment, a service plan, empowerment of people with MS to actually have accurate information, and being empowered in shared decision-making, and finally, the health economics situation, powered by clinicians – more and more clinicians – collecting long-term outcomes data on people with MS.

MSDF

And the Brain Health report is freely available, and we will link to it. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Dr. Butzkueven

It’s a pleasure. Thank you for talking with me.

[transition music]

MSDF

Thank you for listening to Episode Fifty-Nine of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Heather McDonald curated the MSDF drug database updates. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations.

Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.

For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.

[outro music]

Oct 27, 2015

[intro music]

Host – Dan Keller

Hello, and welcome to Episode 58 of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.

A group of people are calling for a big change in improving care for people with MS. There may be no cure for MS yet, but there are a lot of ways to improve their outcomes. In this podcast, one of the ringleaders, Dr. Gavin Giovannoni, talks about a new push to use long-term brain health as a goal in MS treatment.

The new report, called Brain Health, makes the point that time matters in MS. The authors draw on more than 300 research studies to show evidence that brain tissue can be preserved with early and effective treatment, and regular monitoring of disease activity. The report urges patients, physicians, health care payers, and policy makers to support the goal of life-long brain health.

This podcast gives you the main take-home points from the Brain Health initiative, launched at the recent MS meeting in Barcelona, Spain. We will have extra podcasts for you in the coming weeks about other ways that evidence from research can be translated now into better MS outcomes.

But first, here are some new items in the MS Discovery Forum.

In the discussion section, a team of graduate students wants to hear from people with MS and their families. The team is from Santa Clara University, located in the heart of Silicon Valley in California. They have a class project to design a software product to assist people impacted by MS. Help them out by completing their survey.

Coming up on our meetings and events list is next week’s World Congress of Neurology in Santiago, Chile. MSDF will be there gathering new podcast interviews. If you, too, will be at the conference and would like to meet with us – or if you’re interested in being interviewed about your research for a future podcast – please email us at editor@msdiscovery.org.

The meeting list includes many specialty conferences and seminars of all the different kinds of scientific expertise that goes into understanding MS, from immunology to myelin biology, genetics, and brain and spinal cord imaging. Please add your meetings, workshops, and seminars. This is just one of the ways that MSDF shares information across the many different specialty areas to advance treatments for MS. Help us by adding other MS-research-related events. It’s free to post.

Our Drug-Development Pipeline contains 44 investigational and approved agents for MS. Last week, we added results from one new trial, we updated subject matter from four other trials, and we added eight other pieces of information to the database. One update summarizes findings gathered from a 15-year follow-up visit for participants in the PRISMS interferon beta-1a trial.

[transition music]

And now to our interview with Dr. Gavin Giovannoni, head of neurology at Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry in the U.K. We spoke with him at the recent European Committee for Treatment and Research in MS, or ECTRIMS, meeting in Barcelona about the Brain Health report that was launched at the meeting. The main thrust of the report – aimed at a broad audience of MS community members – is that time matters in MS.

Interviewer – Dan Keller

In terms of the Brain Health report, can you give me a broad overview of what the intent was and what you hope to accomplish?

Interviewee – Gavin Giovannoni

I mean, the real issue is to try to raise awareness and use it as a platform for trying to get policy changed. And the target audience is just the MS community, as well as health care providers, payers, politicians, etc. And one of the things we’re beginning to realize now as we have more effective therapies, and we begin to learn more about MS, is that we are compromising the health of our patients by not treating them quickly enough or manage them quickly enough. I mean, there are large delays in patients being diagnosed, getting access to treatment, and when they’re on treatment, they’re not being monitored actively.

And there’s now emerging data that if you’re on a therapy, and you’ve got ongoing disease activity, you don’t do very well in the long-term. So the idea is to try and encourage people to treat to a target, monitor, and escalate rapidly. So it’s really trying not to waste time, too, essentially. And we borrow the term, “Time is Brain” from “Time Matters” from the stroke, where we know that, you know, every minute counts. And we would like to get the attitude across to people who are treating MS that every week, every month counts.

MSDF

At the initial diagnosis, how quickly should things move along, scanning, treatment?

Dr. Giovannoni

I mean, we’ve got guidelines within our socialist healthcare system, the NHS, to get the diagnostic phase over with in a four-week period. If you’ve got the disease, it’s very anxiety-inducing, the whole process. In reality, you’d like to get it over with in days. And then you need to start the counseling and education process. And I think you can’t rush people onto therapy within days because the holistic approach is people got to understand their disease, the implications of the illness, the prognosis. They’ve got to come to terms with it as well before you can actually start discussing the implications of therapy, which may be life-long. So I’m not talking about this is like stroke – you have that thirteen minutes – I think you need to try and shorten the whole process and be active about it, not be passive.

Most clinicians in the world now just monitor their patients clinically. They don’t monitor them with MRI scans. They just wait for them to break through. Sometimes they accept minor relapses as just being part of the disease, and I think now that we’ve got more effective therapies, we shouldn’t be accepting any breakthrough activity. We should be escalating people to more effective therapies. And the data is becoming really strong that active disease, in the form of relapses or MRI activity, does portend a poor prognosis, so you want to switch it off.

MSDF

The report laid out some specific goals. Can you delineate some of those?

Dr. Giovannoni

The main goal is speeding up the whole process, so a rapid diagnosis, rapid initiation of treatment, monitoring, rapid escalation or possibly even flipping the pyramid – if they’ve got a bad prognostic profile, give the more effective therapies. Also, collect data so by monitoring, you hopefully will change behavior. And then the other thing that’s hidden is the cost effectiveness of these treatments. So, we need to make systems available to provide these drugs at cost effective prices, particularly in countries that are resource poor. It’s fine talking about North America and Europe – relatively wealthy areas of the world – where we have insurance systems to pay for these expensive new emerging therapies. But if you just to any of the developing countries, people with the disease don’t have access to disease-modifying treatments. We’re just letting the disease run its natural course, and I find that very upsetting.

There’s a whole literature and emerging dataset on brain health from, mainly, the dementia – Alzheimer's field – and some of it’s applicable to MS: getting patients to stop smoking; they must exercise regularly, try to avoid drugs that affect cognition, avoid excessive alcohol, sleep properly. Comorbidities must be managed actively. By that I mean hypertension, diabetes, etc. So there’s all that lifestyle, comorbidity issues that also need to be focused on. It’s basically making neurologists and healthcare professionals aware that there’s more to the brain in MS than just inflammation. We need to think of it holistically and take it seriously.

MSDF

What do you see as some of the barriers to implementing all these things that you’re recommending?

Dr. Giovannoni

The barriers I wish I could answer it easily. I mean, we know that there’s slow adoption of innovation. Certain fields are more slow at adopting innovation than others, and I think neurologists, intrinsically, are quite conservative. And up until we had therapies in MS, we were just diagnosticians and giving prognoses. Now that we’ve got treatments, we need to adapt to the fact that we’ve got therapies that can make a difference to people with MS. So the slow adoption is attitude, culture, and regulatory hurdles. There’s cost hurdles. Health insurance companies don’t pay for our monitoring, in large parts of the world, so you’re going to have to fight with them to be able to monitor with MRI scans. Patients themselves – try and nudge them to stop smoking and eat properly and exercise. It’s easier said than done. I mean, this is a global population issue, and you know, why should people with MS be any different to the general population. So it’s not easy. We need to think creatively about how we get this done.

MSDF

But it sounds like nihilism should be passé, if in the past, all you could do was diagnose and hope for the best. Now that’s really not the situation.

Dr. Giovannoni

Yes, but I think there’s another form of nihilism. And so in the past, we had therapeutic nihilism where we didn’t give any therapies. I think we’ve got a form of subliminal nihilism in the sense; we put people on less effective therapies. We’re not monitoring them, but their disease remains active. I call it smoldering MS. Unless we monitor with sensitive MRI techniques, possibly other monitoring, we’re not picking up the smoldering MS. And so I think we’re potentially leaving a whole generation of people with smoldering MS to obviously a better outcome than they would have had with no therapy, but not as good an outcome if they would be as connected to more effective therapies.

So that the subliminal nihilism, I just thought about that term, it kind of captures what I’m trying to, because, you know, what we see affects behavior. If we don’t see it, we don’t change our behavior. So part of this report is to make people observe, measure, monitor. And if they see activity, hopefully, it’ll change their behavior.

MSDF

In so many specialties, people say, well, I don’t treat lab values. I don’t treat images. I treat patients. But in this case, it seems like you do intervene when there is an imaging change.

Dr. Giovannoni

Yes, because we now have data, so this has got to be evidence-driven. And we’re not saying every recommendation in the policy report’s got unclad evidence about it. There is some weakness in the evidence base, but we think the evidence base is strong enough to make the recommendations. And we’ve actually put into the report that where there isn’t enough evidence, we need to generate more evidence. And to be honest with you, we need a population study comparing people managed with routine care versus patients treated to target with rapid escalation. MSBase has kind of done that without the MRI monitoring, because they don’t have MRI data in their database. They’re just looking at the clinical, letting people break through with relapses versus relapse-free, in those that are rendered activity-free clinically, do much, much better. And I think that tells us that if we were using MRI, it will even be better. So at least we know that MRI activity is a surrogate for relapses.

And there’s also scientific principle. We know, under the microscope, inflammatory lesions are not benign. They’re associated with transected axons, neuronal loss, etc. So it’s hard to deny the scientific principle of allowing lesions to continue to be active. To me it makes no biological sense. And this is not new. We’re just stealing the ideas from rheumatology and nephrology. They treat to target. They try and suppress inflammation as much as possible, and they’ve had incredible success. And they didn’t do it from an evidence base; they did it from a scientific principle.

And, as they collected their data in registries, they confirmed what the science showed. Long-term follow-up with these patients has shown that if you treat to target in rheumatoid arthritis and with rapid escalation, you protect joints. And joint replacements now in rheumatoid patients has plummeted by more than 80 percent.

I think our metric will have to be walking sticks and wheelchairs. We’ll see the use of walking sticks and wheelchairs plummet. Maybe employment – that’s the other thing we’re trying to highlight is most of the early disability in MS is not physical, it’s cognitive. And the early unemployment rates that occur before people become physically disabled are driven by cognitive problems which manifest as cognitive fatigue. So, you know, what we’re trying to do is also shift people’s attention away from just physical disability and think about cognition, which is an early disability. And hopefully, if we can treat people as early as possible, we’ll protect their cognition and allow them to continue working. So maybe the metric should be employment, as one of the metrics.

MSDF

So many reports in all areas come out and they’re sort of one-shot deals. Do you have a plan for giving this thing legs so that it’s not just buried once it came out?

Dr. Giovannoni

Yes, so we’ve got a whole lot of initiatives following on this. We’ve put together a grant application package. We’ve got a dissemination plan, both at a regional and international level. We’ll also want it connected to audit tools, so provide some audit tools where you can actually audit—measure—what we’re trying to achieve and, hopefully, use that as a quality metric. We think we if can start measuring, people will change their behavior. We also want to create an audit tool for people with MS to audit their own service. So in other words, they will go in and say, am I being monitored? How am I being monitored, just clinically or with MRI? And ask the right questions, and, hopefully, activating patients to ask their clinicians to be monitored may also change behavior.

We don’t want it to be a name and shame type thing. We want it to be a positive thing, by measuring, we’ll change behavior, so that’s what we want to do. The only thing, though, it can’t be done quickly. We need to get buy in from the whole community, so we’ll have to have an engagement program to get there. Get a competition going, international competition where people can provide creative ideas to try and help with viral dissemination. So get an infographic or a movie or a play or a book or a poem, something that can go viral. And then we’re going to, hopefully, have funding to update the report.

We are going to have a very active website where people can download the report. And we’re going to try and create content around Brain Health. Another thing we’re going to be doing is looking for funding to translate it into other languages. We’ve already had requests from several non-English speaking nations for translations. So the Dutch want it translated. South America wants it in Spanish. We’ve had a request from the Japanese, Russians. And so if we can get it translated, we’re probably not going to get the whole document translated. We’re going to make executive summaries, one for patient focused, one for clinicians, one for policy makers. And we’ll, hopefully, get those translated into multiple languages.

MSDF

MSDF will put the link on the site so that people can access it in English now. Is there anything to add or we’ve missed?

Dr. Giovannoni

I think we’ve got to start changing the behavior of neurologists in the sense that we need to make them think of their responsibility for looking after people with MS’s brains. We tend to focus on making them relapse free. If we actually shifted the target away from being relapse free but maintaining brain health, so these people can age as normally as possible – we’re not trying to say that people with MS will age normally, but we need our brains for when we get older. So if they start taking responsibility for the holistic management of MS, I think we’ll get the momentum going where people will be much more actively managing MS.

[transition music]

MSDF

Thank you for listening to Episode 58 of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Heather McDonald curated the MSDF drug database updates. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations.

MSdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.

For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.

[outro music]

Oct 20, 2015

[intro music]

Host – Dan Keller

Hello, and welcome to Episode Fifty-Seven of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.

This week’s podcast comes to you from last week’s big MS meeting in Barcelona, Spain, with an interview with Dr. Timothy Vollmer, who gives his take on the early results of a large Phase 3 study of ocrelizumab for primary progressive MS. The experimental drug blocks circulating B cells.

We will have several extra meeting-related podcasts for you in the next two weeks. In the next one, Dr. Gavin Giovannoni talks about a new push to use long term brain health as a goal in MS treatment. And Dr. Vollmer will return in the coming weeks to discuss the Denver treatment experience with another B cell blocking drug, rituximab. But first, here are some new items in the MS Discovery Forum.

Every week MSDF lists the latest scientific papers related to MS with links to the abstracts on PubMed. Of nearly 100 new studies published last week, we selected three as editor’s picks.

Two of our editor’s picks come from a larger collection on MS in JAMA Neurology. One study reports on an equivalence clinical trial comparing a generic glatiramer acetate, Synthon, with Copaxone, the branded glatiramer acetate, for relapsing remitting MS. A global team of investigators found equivalent efficacy, safety, and tolerability in the randomized, controlled trial. The findings provide reassurance about well-made generics for patients and neurologists, say other researchers in an editorial. But the whole idea of generics is to make a dent in the skyrocketing costs of MS drugs, and the generic is priced at $63,000 a year instead of $65,000 and $74,000 for the two versions of the branded drug.

Another paper in the same JAMA Neurology checked to see what the vitamin D levels of nearly 1500 people treated with interferon beta-1B might say about the course of their disease. Higher vitamin D levels were associated with fewer new active lesions in the mostly white, mostly female patients with relapsing remitting MS, but there was no correlation with clinical disability or brain atrophy.

Our third editor’s pick is a paper investigating the cancer risk from cladribine compared to other MS disease modifying treatments. A large Phase 3 study showed the experimental drug to be highly effective in relapsing remitting MS, with nearly half of patients showing no evidence of disease activity after two years and two courses of the treatment. But it was refused a license by the European Medicines Agency in 2013. Now, based on their new meta-analysis of eleven studies, the authors say they cannot confirm nor deny a cancer risk, and that cladribine should be investigated further as an MS therapy.

Our drug development pipeline contains 44 investigational and approved agents for MS. Last week, we added results from two new trials, we updated information from 16 other trials, and we added 20 other pieces of information. Trial updates include findings about ocrelizumab’s ability to reduce relapses and minocycline’s capacity to reduce the risk of conversion to MS after an initial demyelinating event.

[transition music]

And now to our interview with Dr. Timothy Vollmer, Professor of Neurology and Medical Director of the Rocky Mountain MS Center at the University of Colorado in Denver. When we met at the European Committee for Treatment and Research in MS, or ECTRIMS, meeting in Barcelona, Dr. Vollmer laid out how results of the ORATORIO trial of ocrelizumab shed light on two hypotheses of what goes wrong in primary progressive MS, and which one is most likely.

Interviewee – Timothy Vollmer

There currently are two hypotheses for what drives primary progressive disease. One is that it’s like relapsing disease, and it’s driven by inflammation. And the other one is that it’s a noninflammatory disease that’s being driven by neurodegeneration and has a separate biology. Now that we have positive results from the ORATORIO study, which is a study of ocrelizumab which is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that deletes B lymphocytes from circulation, given that this is the very first time we’ve ever succeeded, it’s telling us very important thing, and that is: inflammation does drive primary progressive MS.

And the other important message from here is that this study studied a significantly younger patient population with primary progressive MS than all the other studies. The mean age was around 44. The reason that’s important is because, epidemiologically, we see a decrease in inflammatory activity as a function of age, and older patients often don’t express any evidence of that. And so far, in all the primary progressive studies, especially the OLYMPUS trial, those patient populations don’t respond to anything. So it’s telling us that we can treat primary progressive MS, but you’ve got to start early.

Interviewer – Dan Keller

That seems to be the message overall in MS, in general, though.

Dr. Vollmer

Yes it is. And the reason is, is because MS results in an accelerated brain volume loss, and brain volume loss is going to translate into disability, at some point, for almost everybody. Maintaining brain volume so that you can age normally late in life is a critical goal, not just in MS, but in other neurological diseases.

MSDF

Does that brain volume loss or other changes in the brain relate to really the onset of the progressive phase?

Dr. Vollmer

The answer is yes and no. From a statistical standpoint, it’s very hard to sort of identify a specific point in the process of brain volume loss that you can say, okay, they’re going to transition into progressive disease. That’s probably due to the fact that the mechanisms that underlie reserve capacity in brains may vary a little bit from patient to patient, and that they have different capacity to compensate for this injury. The other complication is that MS, as a multifocal disease, is not necessarily distributed evenly throughout the nervous system, though. In some patients, they have a relatively small amount of disease, but it’s in the neck, and they’re still highly disabled. And because of that very complicated pattern for it, it is hard just to use one global measure to predict how patients are going to be from a disability standpoint.

MSDF

Do the results of the ORATORIO study give us more confidence in pursuing the B cell as an important effector in MS?

Dr. Vollmer

Absolutely. The converging data, now, both in progressive forms and in relapsing forms, says the B cell is playing a critical role. There are CD20-positive T cells, and so there’s still some discussion whether the drug may be having an effect on those, but in the most recent reports, it does decrease those with first administration, but then they recover very quickly. And at subsequent administrations of the anti-CD20, they’re not deleted. So that pattern suggests to me it’s not an effect on T cells, it’s an effect on B cells which remain suppressed for months after a single injection.

MSDF

CD20 is on B cells but, as I understand, not on plasmablasts or plasma cells. So what is the relative contribution of B cell biology versus just antibody?

Dr. Vollmer

A major difference is that plasmablasts and plasma cells are not very good antigen presenting cells. Whereas, B cells, if they can engage the antigen that their B cell receptor is targeted for, become extremely effective antigen presenting cells: the most effective antigen presenting cells in the body. And they can be about ten thousand times more effective that dendritic cells or macrophages. So that’s why I think that, given the fact that the most effective therapies we’ve currently studied right now are all B cell based therapies, I think it’s telling us is that the B cell is playing that critical role, and most likely, that is in both cytokine release and in antigen presentation in the brain.

MSDF

From the ORATORIO study, what more do you want to see? The data is just coming out, and they’re going to do a bunch of analyses. What sort of things should they be looking at?

Dr. Vollmer

Well, they have a number of other clinical measures, and I believe they also have some patient reported outcomes, so I’d be very interested to see if the patients actually perceive a benefit as measured by those PROs. They have the timed twenty-five foot walk out, which they reached and was statistically significant. They had sustained disability progression at both three and six months which was statistically significant. And they reported brain volume loss was decreased in the ocrelizumab treated patients and was statistically significant. We would like to know more about the inflammatory markers in the patients and the correlation between having baseline evidence of disease activity, such as a gadolinium enhancing lesion, and the probability of response to therapy.

MSDF

What about the time course of response to the therapy? It seems like it’s more rapid than you would expect if an insult sometime in the past led to what you see today. But the ocrelizumab results seem to be on a faster track than that.

Dr. Vollmer

Well, the reason I believe that is, is because, as I said before, they really pushed down the median age in their population to much younger patients. And again, in long term studies that have looked at gadolinium enhancing disease activity, we do see it in primary progressive disease. So it’s not true, in my view, that primary progressive MS patients have a different MRI pattern. In studies that actually controlled for observer bias, where the neurologist didn’t have a chance to look with an MRI scan, but made the decision whether it was progressive or not progressive disease based on clinical history, which is the only way that we really can do it, then the previously reported biases of having nonspecific noninflammatory MRIs disappears. And that paper was published about six years ago.

So, I think that we have a lot of built in biases, as a field, when you think about MS, and, unfortunately, those biases are often not supported by objective data. And yet, they do make their way into the literature, mainly because they don’t control for age. And when comparing progressive patients, relapsing patients, or primary progressive patients to relapsing patients the fundamental difference is progressive patients tend to be 10 to 15 years older on average than the relapsing patients they’re comparing them to. And it’s that age difference that explains most of the differences that people talk about. It’s not the fact they have a different form of the disease.

MSDF

Anything else to add on this that we’ve missed?

Dr. Vollmer

As I said, we need to get subset analysis out of the ORATORIO study to see just which age group and demographic the patients really got the most benefit. My suspicion is we’re going to again find it’s the younger patients that show the biggest effect, again emphasizing that starting early in the disease with therapy is a key issue. And, again, I think it’s going to argue that you need to use highly effective therapies as early as possible, in order to get the best effect.

MSDF

Very good, thank you.

Dr. Vollmer

Thank you.

[transition music]

MSDF

Thank you for listening to Episode Fifty-Seven of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Heather McDonald curated the MSDF drug database updates. Msdicovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for multiple sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Holly Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations.

Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send a comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.

For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I’m Dan Keller.

[outro music]

 

Oct 16, 2015

Transcript

[intro music]

Host – Dan Keller

Hello, and welcome to Episode Fifty-Six of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.

This week’s podcast features an interview with Dr. Gavin Giovannoni who discusses the first experimental drug to show some benefit in a progressive form of multiple sclerosis in a major trial. The drug is ocrelizumab, and the trial is called ORATORIO. But first, here are some new items in the MS Discovery Forum.

The ocrelizumab findings were the big news at last week’s large international MS meeting in Barcelona, Spain. Our Research Roundup highlights other breaking stories from the meeting. Stay tuned for more in the days to come. We’ll be rolling out in-depth stories on some research themes we followed at the meeting. And we will have some extra meeting-related podcasts for you in the next two weeks.

Every week, MSDF lists the latest scientific papers related to MS, with links to the abstracts on PubMed. Of 138 new studies published last week, we selected three as editor’s picks.

In one study, a British team found a new reason why remyelination fails in disease. When damaged axons lose their myelin sheath, as in multiple sclerosis, they strike up a conversation with immature myelin-making cells. The axons reach out with new synapses to order the cells to grow up and make new myelin. If axons can’t call for help, as also may happen in MS, the myelin-making cells cannot respond. The team made their discovery in rat brains. They also found new synapses and telltale signaling molecules in postmortem brain lesion samples from people with MS.

In another paper, a Spanish group looked at other factors that may block the brain’s ability to repair itself after inflammatory damage. A pair of molecules, known as semaphorins, may block myelin-making cells from coming to the rescue of damaged axons. The findings come from human tissue samples and may hold promise as targets for future treatment.

Our third editor’s pick paper looks at factors influencing the intention to exercise and the execution of exercise among people with multiple sclerosis. A Danish team did an extensive review of rehabilitation and sports medicine literature. They found that health professionals can help on both fronts.

Our Drug-Development Pipeline contains 44 investigational and approved agents for MS. Last week, we added two new findings from clinical trials, we updated information from another trial, and we added 10 other pieces of information to the database. The drugs with important additions are alemtuzumab, dalfampridine, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, idebenone, natalizumab, and teriflunomide. One update summarizes the finding that fingolimod induces the expression of neuroprotective factors by human astrocytes.

[transition music]

And now to our interview with Dr. Gavin Giovannoni, head of neurology at Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry in the U.K. We spoke with him at the recent European Committee for Treatment and Research in MS, or ECTRIMS, meeting in Barcelona about the Brain Health report that was launched at the meeting and about the ORATORIO trial of ocrelizumab in primary progressive MS. We'll cover the Brain Health report in future podcasts with him and other authors of the report. But today, Dr. Giovannoni lays out the methodology of ORATORIO, which may explain some of the very good reduction in disease progression, observed in this trial for the first time in primary progressive MS.

Interviewer – Dan Keller

In the ORATORIO trial, what was the aim, and I guess what's the big outcome?

Interviewee – Gavin Giovannoni

Well, the ORATORIO trial is essentially a phase III trial of depleting anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody called ocrelizumab in primary-progressive MS. As you're aware, almost every trial done in primary-progressive MS has been negative. And then the motivation behind the ocrelizumab trial was based on the rituximab trial; ocrelizumab is a follow-on and rituximab is more humanized, so that should come with fewer side effects like infusion reactions and anti-drug antibodies. In that rituximab trial, there was a subgroup of the population that responded. These were people that are younger and had MRI activity.

So when we designed the ocrelizumab ORATORIO trial, we tried to enrich the study for young people and people that were more active, more enhancing lesions, and we did that. So the population is younger, and the proportion of patients with gadolinium-enhancing lesions at baseline was about a quarter of them. And we also made sure that all the patients had an abnormal CSF spinal fluid. The reason for that is in the Copaxone glatiramer acetate trial, patients who didn't have an abnormal CSF behaved very differently to those with an abnormal CSF, so we wanted to make sure that we had a homogeneous population. And we made sure they had oligoclonal bands or raised IgG in the spinal fluid simply because we we're trying to target a B cell response; so those that are CSF-negative may not be responsive to a B cell therapy.

Lots of features of this trial that we try to wait to make it positive, so we're really, really excited about the results, that people on ocrelizumab had an approximately 25% reduction in confirmed disease progression on EDSS compared to patients on placebo. And it was an event-driven, so the trial wasn't designed to be a fixed time point, it was designed as soon as you got enough events; it was like an adaptive trial, so it was quite cleverly designed in that regard. So it's great news.

Now whether the trial was positive because ocrelizumab is a more effective therapy than the others, or because it's targeting something special like the B cell, at the moment is not known. The only way we're going to find that out is if we do another primary-progressive trial with another highly effective therapy and see what happens there. But this is fantastic news for people with progressive MS. If you follow any patient forums or blogs or whatever, the most frustrated, depressed group is the primary-progressive patients; they've been neglected for years, decades. I think that's the big news, we now will have a therapy which we can offer them.

The one unknown, though, is maybe this result has been driven by a particular subgroup, and I think the regulators and the payers will want to get that data from us. Because if it is driven by a particular subgroup, they may limit the license and the payment for that particular subgroup, the responder group. And so I can't talk to that yet, because most of the subgroup and post-hoc analyses haven't been done. But potentially maybe like the rituximab trial, there will be a proportion of the patients that have characteristic features that are more responsive to the drug, and drive the trial results compared to the other group. And if that is the case, then it's still good news regardless.

MSDF

As it stands now, it seems like the indication would be for people with abnormal CSF, oligoclonal bands, or elevated IgG. Is there any thought that this drug may work possibly by the same mechanism even if you're not seeing abnormal CSF?

Dr. Giovannoni

The spinal fluid tests aren't 100% perfect, so there are people who will have false-negative results. But I've always been a big proponent of the hypothesis that the oligoclonal response in the spinal fluid is something key to this disease. We see that response in infectious diseases like neurosyphilis, measles, rubella panencephalitis, herpes; it's really a signature of its common to infectious diseases, which is why I'm still a supporter of the hypothesis that MS may be an infectious disease. You do find that in a few other autoimmune diseases, particularly the paraneoplastic plastic syndromes, that it's a signature of an intrathecal B cell response. And this drug targets B cells.

One thing it doesn't target, though, it's the long-lived plasma cell, and so CD20 actually stops being expressed, even on plasmablasts, so as soon as you go from the mature B cell to plasmablast to plasma cells, you don't deplete those with anti-CD20. So we know from rituximab data that the oligoclonal bands persist, so we need longer punctures, you don't get rid of those. But until we have long-term followup, we don't know. Maybe drugs that target the plasmablast and the plasma cell will be more effective than rituximab. We don't have any of those drugs available in MS yet.

There's one that's being developed, it's anti-CD19; CD19 gets expressed onto the plasmablast and some plasma cells, and there are some specific markers for plasma cells. But if you gave those to people with MS, you'd probably deplete them of their antibody-producing cells and make them a gamma globulin anemic. Then you'd have to probably then start supplementing with gamma globulin, so it gets quite complicated. But at the moment, the drug will be licensed, I think, for continuous use every 6 months; it won't be induction therapy. Some of the data would suggest you could potentially use it as induction therapy, so, you know, do 2 years and then wait and see if the disease comes back. But the way the drug's been developed at the moment is for continuous maintenance use. There are some concerns; can you continue to use it in the B cell depletion forever? And that's going to have to be answered with the open-label extension studies.

MSDF

Since plasma cells persist and oligoclonal bands persist, if I understood you correctly, do you think that the pathology is mediated through antibody, or this depletion of B cells is acting in a different way, that the B cells are interacting either with T cells or on their own doing something?

Dr. Giovannoni

I mean, there is pretty good evidence from the pathology literature that antibodies are very important in MS. So whether or not you accept it, there is pathological classifications of the top 1 to 4. And there is antibody and complement activation in MS lesions, and there is emerging evidence that so-called grey matter lesions and subpial lesions on the surface are particularly driven by antibody and complement. So I do think they are pathogenic. And so you may get rid of the focal inflammatory lesions that appear to be T cell-driven, whereas the cortical subpial lesions may be antibody-driven. So you may be getting rid of one pathology and not all the pathologies, which is why I remain a little bit skeptical still about whether or not this anti-CD20-depleting antibody will be effective in the long-term. So we may need additional treatment to target plasma cells.

And what you've got to ask yourself really is what's driving those oligoclonal bands. We know they are highly selected, so they're not just there. They're oligoclonal, they've undergone selection by hypermutation, so there's some antigen driving them. They respond to something, and we just haven't been able to find out what they respond to. They are pathogenic, and if we do find the cause of MS, that will almost certainly begins to cause the disease. An analogy would be herpes encephalitis; if somebody's had a herpes infection, then you take those oligoclonal bands out and you absorb them against the antigen from herpes, you remove almost all the antibodies. So they are antigen-specific in the infectious space.

We've tried for years to find out what those bands react against in MS, and we haven't found it. There's several groups still working on it, and I would encourage them to continue working it, because that may be where the action is.

MSDF

The ORATORIO data was only begun to be analyzed very recently. You had mentioned that you were going to be doing subgroup analyses. Are there other analyses yet to come?

Dr. Giovannoni

I mean, the headline results are probably in main secondary outcomes, and there's less of tertiary outcomes. We need to do subgroup analyses trying to look at brain atrophy, the time course of the progressions. I'm very interested in second progressions, because I have this theory that early progressions in progressive disease is not driven by inflammation that occurs in this epoch, it's in the past; so inflammation a year or two ago is driving progression now. And so when you design these progressive trials, a large number of people progress early. And I think it's nothing to do with the trials because it's happened before the trial. So what you then need to do is look at progressions in the future to see if they flatline or stabilize. So there's lots of luck. I think we need to play around with the data, look at the first and second confirmed progressions, incorporate the brain MRI activity as the confounder. There's lots to do, tons to do. But it's good news. The excitement about those analyses are generated because you've got a positive result.

MSDF

Picking up on this idea that what you see today is the result of an insult that happened sometime before, what is the time course that you see using ocrelizumab in terms of benefit; is it so rapid that it questions whether what you said is what's operating?

Dr. Giovannoni

Yes, it's too rapid. When you see the survival curves, they go flat very early, so this is actually saying something else which is really surprising me, which is why I think some of the activity may be driven by an anti-inflammatory, because we know that anti-inflammatory drugs have an effect quite quickly. So that's why I'm suspicious that the positive result is driven by an inflammatory core of patients, and those with the more neurodegenerative or previous inflammation are unlikely to respond. That's my worry with the drug. But let's see what their subgroup analyses show.

MSDF

Anything we've missed or important to add on that?

Dr. Giovannoni

What I want to mention to people with the disease is they shouldn't overhype expectations. The simple reason is when you've got progressive disease you've already lost reserve, so that's why you're progressing. So in early relapsing disease, you make recovery from attacks because you've got ability to recover, a reserve. And so early on you stabilize or improve, and later on you slow down progression. So I'm trying to tell people with the disease if you do go into this therapy, don't expect to improve or get better. You're much more likely to progress more slowly, which you won't notice. It's hard in an individual to say they're progressing more slowly, or you'll plateau out and stabilize. I think that must be the expectation, rather than improvement. And I think we need to manage those expectations, that people may not at a personal level find a big dramatic response in terms of their disability on the drug.

MSDF

But this sounds like – getting back to the discussion of the Brain Health report – where you should diagnosis and treat rather quickly. At least now if someone comes in with primary-progressive, there may be at some point something to do from the start.

Dr. Giovannoni

Yeah. Well, it's like with any neurodegenerative disease, the sooner you treat the more you've got to protect, and the later you treat the less you've got to protect. So this would be a call to get primary-progressive disease diagnosed as soon as possible and treat as soon as possible. And if you look at the diagnostic delay in primary-progressive disease, it's probably worse than relapsing disease. People often go years before being diagnosed. So we're going to have to sharpen up the referral pathways and the diagnostic pathways in primary-progressive disease to get that timeless brain concept across there, too.

[transition music]

Thank you for listening to Episode Fifty-Six of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Heather McDonald curated the MSDF drug database updates. Msdiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is Vice President of Scientific Operations.

MSDiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.

For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.

[outro music]

Oct 5, 2015

[intro music]

Host – Dan Keller

Hello, and welcome to Episode Fifty-Five of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.

This week’s Podcast features an interview with Dr. Michael Levy, who discusses the status of regenerative stem cell therapies for multiple sclerosis. But first, here are some new items in the MS Discovery Forum.

Our lead story last week looked at a way to prevent a rare but dangerous viral brain infection that can be a side effect of certain drugs. The risk of infection limits the people who can take natalizumab to prevent the inflammatory brain attacks of relapsing-remitting MS. Two new papers propose vaccinating people against the virus. Experts are still debating the underlying biology, but they say the approach should be tested in people.

Every week, MSDF lists the latest scientific papers related to MS, with links to the abstracts on PubMed. Of more than 100 new studies published last week, we selected three as editor’s picks.

One study comes from the Italian registry of pediatric MS patients treated with natalizumab. Researchers evaluated 101 boys and girls. Natalizumab was safe, well tolerated, and effective, they report. Time on the drug varied, but the overall mean was about three years. Most of the patients switched because of a poor response to first-line drugs, such as interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate. The patients’ sera were assessed for anti-JC virus antibodies to prevent the rare but dangerous brain infection associated with natalizumab.

Two other studies caught our eye this week. One goes into the new insights from live imaging in the central nervous systems of mice. The authors outline potential applications that could lead to therapies to protect or restore myelin. Another study asked if spasticity of lower limbs could be helped with anodal transcranial direct current stimulation in 20 MS patients. The answer is no, based on the results of the small randomized double-blind clinical trial. This is not to be confused with another noninvasive technique that seems to reduce spasticity, called transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Our Drug-Development Pipeline contains 44 investigational and approved agents for MS. Last week, we added an extensive meta-analysis of clinical trials, we updated information on three trials, and we added 16 other pieces of information. The drugs with important additions are alemtuzumab, daclizumab, dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, GNbAC1, interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, laquinimod, mitoxantrone, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, and teriflunomide.

One update reflects the finding that ocrelizumab slows disease progression in primary progressive MS, the first drug to do so, as described in the drug-maker’s news release. Another update reflects a meta-analysis by the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis group. It compares 39 different clinical trials involving more than 25,000 patients to rank benefits and acceptability of 15 different MS drugs. Doctors and patients need even better information to make decisions, the authors conclude. They call for more randomized studies directly comparing active agents, no more placebo-controlled studies, and long-term followup of all drug studies.

The MSDF team is attending this week’s ECTRIMS meeting in Barcelona, Spain. If you, too, will be at the conference and would like to meet with us – or if you’re interested in being interviewed about your research for a future podcast – please email us at editor@msdiscovery.org.

[transition music]

And now to our interview with Dr. Michael Levy, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University. We met in his office to talk about stem cell regenerative therapies – what the aims are and where things stand.

Interviewer – Dan Keller

Let's talk about regenerative stem cell therapies, but I suppose the first thing to make clear is nothing is approved yet, is that right?

Interviewee – Michael Levy

Nothing is even closed to being approved. There are many trials in progress in multiple sclerosis and in spinal cord injury, which is a related demyelinating condition in which stem cells are being tested, and this is worldwide, probably over 20 studies that are ongoing.

MSDF

What are some of the goals?

Dr. Levy

The goals are twofold. In multiple sclerosis in particular, the two goals are to recover function and to neuroprotect against future insults. So in spinal cord injury, for example, there's only one goal which is recovery of function, because they don't have to worry about future insults.

MSDF

Now no one really has the exact idea, or I guess there's many ideas, of how these would work – whether the cells would actually replace lost cells, whether there's secreted trophic factors – so are people looking at them specifically in those areas, or whatever works at this time, then they'll figure out why?

Dr. Levy

It certainly started off with the mechanism in mind that the cells would replace lost tissue. That was really how things started. But as they've evolved, patients have responded in part to many different types of stem cell therapies, and none of them have involved replacing lost tissue. And so there are probably many different mechanisms involved, and it's evolved into exactly what you've described, a phenomenon of wow, this really works, let's continue it and let's try to figure out what's going on in parallel.

MSDF

Is there also a thought that the stem cells really are just providing a supportive environment, or even a supportive structure, for natural processes to proceed if they have the right setting?

Dr. Levy

Oh, sure. There are some studies where the stem cells only survive, or are only around, detectable, for about one hour, and then beyond that they can't be detected, but yet they provide some significant long-lasting benefits. So exactly how they do that is not clear.

MSDF

Are you familiar with the mouse experiments of Jeanne Loring at Scripps; she had taken human pluripotent stem cells in a mouse model and they were gone after a week, but then the mice got up and walked around and seemed to look perfectly normal.

Dr. Levy

So definitely mouse models have recapitulated what we've seen in humans, which is that the stem cells provide some sort of benefit. Whether it's secretion of trophic factors, or neuroprotection or replacement of tissue, or what they call neural bridging, allowing neurons to communicate through in the alternative circuit, this is true in mice, too. So whatever is happening in humans is probably also going on in these mice.

MSDF

Specifically in the MS area, what are people or companies doing?

Dr. Levy

Specifically in MS, the most common trial that's being conducted now is testing mesenchymal stem cells--taking them from that patient, usually from the hip, purifying them in the lab, and then injecting them back into the patient, either into the bloodstream or into the spinal fluid. Initially, the goal was to try to replace lost tissue, but now the goal has evolved, and what these studies are really looking for is sort of the 6-month or 12-month outcome to see if patients recover better, have fewer relapses, and better outcomes.

MSDF

Now mesenchymal stem cells in themselves are not going to turn into the lost kinds of cells you really want to replace, but they do have immunomodulatory effects, is that right?

Dr. Levy

That's the thought. So mesenchymal stem cells are all the cells in the bone marrow that don't turn into blood cells, either red or white blood cells; it's the rest of the matrix. And in the lab, you can turn them into neuronal cells and supportive cells that you find in the brain, but that doesn't happen when you put them into spinal cord or brain; they don't tend to differentiate into neural tissue. And so they are doing something else, and part of that is probably neuromodulatory. Correct.

MSDF

Besides mesenchymal stem cells, people are looking at a little more differentiated cells, oligodendroglial precursor cells--you obviously want to remyelinate. Do you have an idea of what's going on with those and has there been success there?

Dr. Levy

So all the studies using neural stem cells and neuroglial stem cells are currently being conducted in spinal cord injury. And in spinal cord injury there is a component of demyelination, and they're hoping that those oligos migrate to that area that is demyelinated and that it will remyelinate the lesion. So all MS patients should keep an eye on those studies to see how those turn out.

MSDF

The difference there is you can identify an area of lesion. In the brain, you don't know exactly where lesions are going to come up, and lesions disappear also.

Dr. Levy

MS patients tend to have dozens of lesions, and many could be in the same pathway. So even if you remyelinate one, there could be one upstream or downstream of that lesion that's still impairing the function. In spinal cord injury, there is just one lesion, and they're trying to remyelinate just that one; you're correct about that.

MSDF

Are you familiar with the work by Basil Sharrack in England? There were about 10 patients, I think. They did myeloablative therapy and autologous bone marrow transplants, essentially as they called it, rebooting the immune system. That's obviously a stem cell therapy in a sense.

Dr. Levy

Absolutely, it is a stem cell therapy. The thought there is – exactly like you said – rebooting the immune system; taking out only the most immature stem cells that haven't been exposed to whatever the trigger of their disease was, taking those stem cells out and sparing them, holding them in the lab, then getting rid of the rest of the immune system in the patient's body and reintroducing those stem cells back; as you said, rebooting the immune system to see if we could return their immune system back to the pre-MS state and see if that has a better outcome. And, generally, those types of studies where we're really ablating the immune system have tended to have good outcomes; some patients are able to come off of therapy for years, but ultimately the disease comes back. And it could be years; it could be five, even up to ten years. And so we really have to understand why that is. If there's another environmental exposure or if there is just something really genetically encoded into the immune cells.

MSDF

Or, for example, if there's an EBV etiology, the Epstein-Barr virus is still there probably

Dr. Levy

That's right, so EBV may be that environmental trigger.

MSDF

One thing I don't understand about that is they reported, I think, in Science Translational Medicine, that people who had pretty significant disability – you know, using a wheelchair – could then walk again. It seems rebooting the immune system should not do anything to reverse or restore neural function.

Dr. Levy
That would be my expectation, too. So in any study where we're looking at effects on the immune system, I wouldn't expect the nervous system to have such a dramatic recovery either. That was a surprise.

MSDF

What else is there to say about stem cell therapy's messages to physicians who are asked about it, messages to patients who are interested in it at this point?

Dr. Levy

At this point, I would say that the verdict is still out, that the studies need to be completed, and that there are a lot of companies out there offering "stem cell therapies" to patients with MS, who are just looking for anything to improve their function. And that can be dangerous, because we don't really understand this science works, and there have been some bad outcomes reported in the literature from patients who are seeking this type of care from clinics offering "stem cell therapies." And I would just caution patients and caution doctors to wait until these studies are done and we have a better sense of how they work.

MSDF

There seems to be a lot of fly-by-night operations on the internet and overseas, and things like that, but even with legitimate trials I would guess there could be bad outcomes. What sorts of dangers are there in stem cell therapy?

Dr. Levy

There are two. One is that the stem cells will develop into tumors, because these stem cells are now able to proliferate, that's one of their features. So a concern is that they're going to proliferate uncontrollably into a tumor. And the second concern is that you're reintroducing a foreign cell – in some of the trials they're foreign cells – and that might trigger a relapse. So if you inject it directly into the spinal cord, could you then cause another inflammatory event in the spinal cord targeting those stem cells? So those are the two major concerns.

MSDF

Is there anything important to add, or that we've missed?

Dr. Levy

No, I would say that pretty much covers it.

MSDF

Well, thank you.

[transition music]

Thank you for listening to Episode 55 of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This Podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Carol Cruzan Morton. Heather McDonald curated the MSDF drug database updates. MSDiscovery.org is part of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our president and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is vice president of scientific operations.

MSDiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.

For Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, I'm Dan Keller.

[outro music]

Sep 29, 2015

Transcript will be available Friday, Oct  2

Sep 11, 2015

[intro music]

Host – Dan Keller
Hello, and welcome to Episode Fifty-Three of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.

This week’s podcast features Dr. Jonathan Kipnis, who discusses his recent discovery of lymphatic vessels in the meninges. But first, here are some new items in the MS Discovery Forum.

According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 34 such articles were published between August 21st and 28th. To see these publications and the articles we selected as Editors Picks, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers.

Our Drug-Development Pipeline includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. This week, we’ve added 6 pieces of information about alemtuzumab and fingolimod. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdiscovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline.

The MSDF team is looking forward to attending next month’s ECTRIMS meeting in Barcelona, Spain. If you, too, will be at the conference and would like to meet with us – or if you’re interested in being interviewed about your research for a future podcast – please email us at editor@msdiscovery.org.

[transition music]

And now to Part 1 of our interview with Dr. Jonathan Kipnis, Professor of Neuroscience and Director of the Center for Brain Immunology and Glia at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. His group recently published in Nature their discovery and characterization of lymphatic vessels in the meninges.

Interviewer – Dan Keller
You've described in this paper about meningeal lymphatics, the novel but actually more conventional path for cerebrospinal fluid drainage from the CNS than I guess had been thought of before; it's sort of conventional as revolutionary. Can you tell me what you found and what led you to look?

Interviewee – Jonathan Kipnis
Yes, so we've been interested in the role of meningeal immune system for quite some time, and we've shown that changes in meningeal immunity could impact brain after a CNS injury, or also for normal brain function. So, for example, mice that have impaired meningeal immunity would show cognitive deficits and would show some little bit more prone to stress and other phenotypes.

So we've been very interested in understanding how meningeal immunity is being regulated. So the assumption was at some point that there is no immune cells in the brain, which is true, except for microglial which reside in the brain and compose 10% of the brain cells, but there is no peripheral immune cells within the brain. But in very nearby areas, which is the surroundings of the brain – the choroid plexus, the meninges, and the CSF – that's where actually there are immune cells, and there are all types of immune cells. And so we have been very interested to understand how the cells are getting in and getting out.

Through the use of parabiotic mice, we demonstrated last year, we showed that immune population of the meninges is not static; the cells are being repopulated, and about 50% of T cells, for example, is being exchanged within about 10 days, and major exchange between the CSF or the meninges with the deep cervical lymph nodes. So nothing was really new, we just sort of established things maybe more solid way. Those cells can get in while still nobody understands very well how they get in; we'll assume they get in through the meningeal vasculature, which is probably true.

But then how do they get out, or what happens with cells after they get to the CNS? Well, the assumptions were, well, they either die, magically disappear, or crawl under the nose through the cribriform plate and into the deep cervical lymph nodes through the nasal mucosa. They were okay explanations, but in our systems we did not find any of it to be sufficiently explaining what's going on in this really fast and pretty dramatic exchange of the immune system within the meningeal spaces.

So when we just looking at it a bit closer, and it is very, very well established that there is lymphatic drainage from the CNS, so this needs to be remembered. So people in many labs have shown that if you put stuff in the brain – which stuff I mean proteins – if you put proteins or antigens in the brain, whether it's in the parenchyma or in the meninges or in the CSF, you will find those proteins, and you will find immune response to these proteins in the deep cervical lymph nodes.

The question is, of course, how do they get there? And the path which was described just did not work in our hands, and so I was lucky to get a very, very talented postdoc, Antoine Louveau, at the lab. He realized that for us to understand how things get in and out, the only way to do it is to do live imaging and also to do a whole mount of the entire meninges. And I think that's when it was a breakthrough point. So Antoine laid out the entire meninges and was looking for location of the immune cells. And he said let's see where I see maximum accumulation of the immune cells, and then let's see how these places will change when we expose mouse to, for example, stress, learning, or EAE inflammation, viral infection, or whatever, let's see how these areas of dense immune population will change.

And so he realized that there is a lot of immune activity around the major sinuses in the meninges, and then he saw that there are immune cells which are in the vascular structures which were not blood vessels. And I think that was the turning point. And I said, okay, if the cells are within the vasculature which is not blood vasculature, what would it be? Well, so I went to colleagues here and said what do you label lymphatic vessels with? And they didn't understand why would you want to label for lymphatic vessels, because they don't work with the brain. And so we labeled a lymphatic marker and we saw the vessels, which were lining the major sinuses and going all the way along them. So that's a very long answer to your very simple question.

MSDF
And Antoine Louveau's technique here that was the key to it was doing in situ fixation so he could get the meninges out intact?

Dr. Kipnis
To let's assume the meninges came out intact on the brain, and let's assume we had this beautiful staining. Let's say we did the coronal staining, and let's say we're labeling for lymphatic vessels. So you can imagine that what you'll see is at the border of the brain you will see a dot; you will see maybe three dots because there are three vessels going along the sinuses. And when you see a dot, you never take a dot seriously in immunohistochemistry. Now that we know that this dot represents the vessel, then we can actually go back and do those coronal sections and look at it. But back then only by seeing the whole meninges mounted as one on a slide, and by seeing those vessels there, I mean that's when we knew. And so to us it was obvious this is something that absolutely went under-noticed. And this technique of whole-mount meninges, I think, was absolutely crucial.

MSDF
Did he find these vessels in all layers of the meninges, or any specific ones?

Dr. Kipnis
No, no. Major lymphatic vessels are following the superior sagittal and the transverse sinuses, which is in the dura. So all the blood from the brain is being – at least in mice. In humans it goes a little bit different, but also through the sinuses, although sinuses are located so not all the blood in the human brain goes through the parasagittal sinus, but in the mouse brain all the blood goes through the sinuses in the dura. So major sinuses through which all the blood is being collected from the brain, and then goes out there. And so along those sinuses we find the lymphatic vessels, so they are sitting in the dura.

MSDF
And this system also has been found in humans?

Dr. Kipnis
Well, that's a good question. You know, it's very hard to obtain high-quality human samples from the dura, because nobody really cares about this area. So we were lucky in the triple operation of Bea Lopes, who's a really great neuropathologist here at UV; she was able to give us, I think, nine samples from patients of dura of the sinus; these were all fixed in formalin. So we looked at those, and as you can imagine, the sinus in the human is huge, so obviously compared to a mouse. So in two out of nine, we were able to identify vessels that looked like meningeal vessels, but I think it warrants much deeper and much farther investigation to be able to say, yes, here they are. But if you ask me personally, why wouldn't they be? Why would mice have them and humans won't have them. So I think it's a matter of identifying their location and the best markers to use for them, but I think they should be there again. In two out of the nine samples, we were able to demonstrate that this is something that looks very, very good.

MSDF
And you did immunohistochemistry on these to show the lymphatic properties and not general blood circulatory vasculature properties, either in the mice or human?

Dr. Kipnis
Oh, yes. So in the mice we identified the characteristics of those vessels really, really well. You know, nothing is perfect, that every marker on mouse markers are expressed by different cells, so you need here to provide a series of markers and to demonstrate that this is also indeed the real lymphatic cells. So we stained for LYVE1 and we showed beautiful staining with LYVE1, also with macrophages. And those are vascular structures and they came out to be macrophages. But one of the major transcription factors that will define lymphatic and endothelial cells is a Prox1. So we demonstrated two ways of Prox1; one is transgenic mouse and the other is staining for Prox1. And we also did two other molecules. One is a Podoplanin which is expressed in tissue lymphatics, and these vessels are expressive.

And the other molecule, she is very interesting. It's a receptor for VEGF3, VEGF-C. And this receptor is first on the lymphatic and endothelial cells. In the periphery, lymphatic and endothelial cells will respond to recombinant VEGF-C and will expand. So what we did here, we also injected a recombinant VEGF-C and we showed these vessels expanding. So we know now that the receptor is actually functional in the vessels, but also we now can expand the vessels. Whether it will impact any neurological disease, we don't know, but at least we have the capability to do so.

And then we also identified them by flow cytometry. We took samples from skin and from diaphragm where lymphatics are very, very well defined, and using the exact same antibodies we did also flow cytometry on our meningeal samples. And we show that the cells look exactly like they look from the skin and from the diaphragm; of course, the numbers are much smaller. So I think in terms of their calculation in a mouse, we are very convinced.

Now for humans it's more difficult. Like I said, the sample was in formalin and it's very hard to work with those samples, and, again, the area is huge to go through. So we were able in humans to get two markers to work; one was LYVE1 and the other was Podoplanin. We could not make Prox1 to work, I think it's a problem with the antibody and not with the vessel or potentially with the tissue as well. And these vessels would not label for some other markers, which would be characteristic of, for example, macrophages. So we were able to attack on them two out of four markers that would potentially allow for him to see. But we are now trying to identify those vessels by other means in humans as well, and I think flow cytometry may be the way to go.

MSDF
Now you've shown that these lymphatic vessels drain into the deep cervical lymph nodes, and it looks like you've also been able to rule out drainage through the cribriform plate back into the cervical lymph nodes. Is that true?

Dr. Kipnis
I'm glad you bring this up, this is very important. So if you think of CSF, CSF is composed of several things. So we have the liquid itself, we have the macromolecules within the CSF, and then we have the immune cells within the CSF. So I don't think there is anybody would argue against liquid being drained through the cribriform plate and through the granulation; this is funny to argue. And obviously we are not claiming anything until we're absolutely sure; there is beautiful works from many, many labs showing that. But for the macromolecules and for the immune cells, the path which was proposed through the cribriform plate most probably if it's not a wrong one, it's probably not the major one.

[transition music]

Thank you for listening to Episode Fifty-Three of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. Msdiscovery.org is part of the non-profit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is vice president of scientific operations.

Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.

[outro music]

Sep 2, 2015

[intro music]

Host – Dan Keller
Hello, and welcome to Episode Fifty-Two of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.

This week’s podcast features Dr. David Tabby, who discusses the incidence of headache in MS. But first, here are some new items in the MS Discovery Forum.

According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 53 such articles were published between August 14 and 21. To see these publications and the articles we selected as Editors Picks, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers.

We’ve made some recent updates to our Funding Opportunities and our Meetings and Events listings, both of which can be found under our Professional Resources tab. Be sure to take a look at a newly-posted funding announcement entitled, “National MS Society: Health Care Delivery and Policy Research Contracts.” If you know of any meetings, events, or funding opportunities that are missing from our lists, please email us at editor@msdiscovery.org so that we can include them.

Our Drug-Development Pipeline includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. This past week, we’ve added one new trial and 15 other pieces of information. The drugs with important additions are dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, and ofatumumab. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdiscovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline.
 
[transition music]

And now to the interview. Dr. David Tabby is an adult general practice neurologist, with a subspecialty in multiple sclerosis, in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. He was formerly associated with Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia where he carried out the study on headache and MS that we discussed.

Interviewer – Dan Keller
Could you just tell me what the aim was? I think you were looking the variables affecting headache occurrence in MS patients.

Interviewee – David Tabby
Well, to be perfectly frank about that, my business manager had noted that many of my MS patients also had migraine, and she asked what’s going on with that. So we did a cursory review and found that close to 50% of my MS patients also had migraine. So that prompted the survey in a more formal fashion.

MSDF
Whom did you look at, and what were some of the variables you looked at?

Dr. Tabby
Well, we looked at everyone who was willing to answer a survey. And we wanted to include some typical migraine variables like frequency and intensity and triggers and age of onset and duration at that time and which came first, MS or migraine.

MSDF
And what were some of the major findings?

Dr. Tabby
I think our biggest contribution was that it seemed that we could correlate exacerbations with increase in headache, which I don’t think was known before that. Sometimes headache a little bit before the exacerbation, and sometimes exacerbation first, then with headache. But that raised the question about the role of inflammation in both headache and MS exacerbations. You know, I don’t think one is the cause of the other, but they’re clearly related.

MSDF
What about migraine with aura or without? Are there differences in the MS presentations or symptoms or relations in time?

Dr. Tabby
We didn’t have a lot of migraine with aura patients. That’s only about 20% of the migraine population anyway. We didn’t have a big enough number to make any kind of association that would be distinguishing migraine with or the migraine without aura.

MSDF
Do you have a proposed mechanism in mind how these two may be linked – mechanism of migraine, mechanism of MS?

Dr. Tabby
I don’t think there’s a lot of work about what the immune system’s role is in migraine, but stress affects the immune system. My patients tell me that a particularly stressful event can seem to precipitate an exacerbation, and, no big secret, that stress can precipitate a migraine.

MSDF
Fatigue can be a trigger, and obviously, that’s a large proportion of MS patients have it. So do you think there may be a link there, one triggering the other?

Dr. Tabby
90% of MS patients will complain of fatigue at some point, and I think that’s clearly got something to do with it. So anyone with migraine will tell you that when they overdo it and get overtired, they get a migraine.

Interviewer – Dan Keller
I think I saw something in the paper was talking about metalloproteinases in the CNS and leakiness of vessels and allowing either antigens out or T cells in. Does that have any legs or where does that idea come from?

Dr. Tabby
That idea came from a paper that we found in our literature review of the basic pathophysiology of an MS exacerbation that matrix metalloproteinases have to be activated first, to increase vascular permeability of the CNS. Migraine was thought, at one time, to be a primarily vascular issue. It’s not. It’s primarily a neurochemical issue that affects the vasculature, but results in dramatic changes in blood vessel permeability. There’s a kind of leakage of fluid around blood vessels, which helps make them more sensitive.

MSDF
There’s also a component of calcium flux in migraine. Would that have any effect on the immune system? There’s calcineurin inhibitors that are immunosuppressants, so I’m wondering if calcium in itself – could be an imbalance be a stimulant?

Dr. Tabby
The role of calcium in modulating neural function can’t be overstated. I’m not ready to give you an exact mechanism of how that might function.

MSDF
Patients with migraine supposedly have more symptomatic clinical course of MS. Do you have any numbers there? What did you find?

Dr. Tabby
We weren’t a longitudinal study. We’re really just a snapshot kind of picture to determine, you know, a relationship now. That was another one of our hypotheses that the worse headache you had the worse MS you were going to have. Our take-home message from the paper was MS doctors should be very aggressive about addressing migraine symptoms in their patients, because we think that it could have an effect in long-term prognosis in MS. And it’s not just the patient complaining about, oh, I have a really bad headache. There is a relationship. It’s been known for many years. I mean, you might have seen in our bibliography that some of the papers went back to the 1960s about the relationship with headache and MS. So, just to reiterate, migraine prophylactic therapy, migraine abortive therapy is important in the context of treating MS.

MSDF
Can pre-existing migraine before the MS diagnosis give you any clue as to being a risk factor in itself?

Dr. Tabby
That’s an excellent point. We didn’t have a big enough group to come to that conclusion, but 12% of Americans have migraine – 18% of women, 6% of men. Less than 1% of the population has MS. Something else has to be happening.

MSDF
Also, I guess you found that people with stabbing pain had more acute MS exacerbations than if they had other more throbbing kinds of pain.

Dr. Tabby
Well, we were just using that as an indicator of severity of the headache. Stabbing’s not a typical word used to describe migraine. We gave choices. We just didn’t leave it open-ended. We gave some example words for their responses to the survey to tick off. Yes, stabbing was one of them, and there was a correlation between the ones who said stabbing and worse exacerbation.

MSDF
Some of the patients you surveyed did not have pre-existing migraine, only after their MS diagnosis. Do you think that migraine is something that one should investigate whether they actually may be in a prodrome of MS, if they present late - develop migraine late in life – later in life?

Dr. Tabby
In our world, pretty much everyone with a bad headache who sees a doctor about it, at some point is going to get some sort of imaging study of the brain. It might be a CAT scan, in which case there might not be enough information. But if it’s an MRI, there’s a good chance of seeing high-signal lesions scattered through the white matter. They may be real small and not particularly typical of MS. But not uncommonly, they’ll see a pattern that looks really quite like MS. And you examine the patient, and you don’t find anything that’s consistent with MS. You do a history, and you don’t find any symptoms that are consistent with MS. So this is the sort of thing you just file away and see what happens. I don’t think anyone would suggest that treatment for MS should be started at that point.

There’s an entity that’s finally gotten a name, called radiologically isolated syndrome, which people get MRIs of their brain for some reason – head trauma, headache, anything really – and the pattern looks really quite like MS, but there’s no clinical support of MS. So same thing; we don’t forget about these people. You recheck their MRIs at some point in the future. You look for new lesions or enhancing lesions. I think the latest statistic is somewhere around 50% of them are eventually going to present as having multiple sclerosis.

MSDF
Would each entity be treated or each condition be treated as if it existed in isolation? Or do they complicate the management of the other?

Dr. Tabby
My approach has been to treat them independently. Just follow the basic principles of headache treatment for the headache and the basic principles for MS treatment and adjustments of therapy and symptomatic therapy for MS. I would not suggest some interlinked therapy system.

MSDF
But something like interferon and possibly other drugs may cause exacerbation of headache. Would that lead to noncompliance of the MS treatment or would you switch drugs or how do you handle that?

Dr. Tabby
That doesn’t necessarily involve the headache issue. I think someone who has bad headaches on interferon who’s not taking their medicine, you know, you might try to fix it – fix the headache that is. But you’re probably fighting an uphill battle when that patient has negative associations with taking their medicine. I still tend to think of these two things as related but separate.

MSDF
So what’s the big take-home message for a physician?

Dr. Tabby
Really just about treating migraine aggressively in their MS patients, and keeping in mind that we work very hard to preserve function to reduce the accumulation of disability, with drugs and other sorts of interventions. But intervening for migraine may be just one other way to reduce the burden of disability in the future, for your patients.

[transition music]

MSDF
Thank you for listening to Episode Fifty-Two of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. Msdiscovery.org is part of the non-profit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is vice president of scientific operations.

Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.
 
[outro music]

Aug 21, 2015

[intro music]

Host – Dan Keller

Hello, and welcome to Episode Fifty-One of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.

This week’s podcast features Dr. Luke Lairson of Scripps Research Institute, who discusses discovery of small molecules to induce remyelination and, in particular, some muscarinic receptor antagonists currently approved for other indications. But first, here are some new items in the MS Discovery Forum.

According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 114 such articles were published in the first two weeks of August. We selected a few of these articles as our Editor’s Picks. One is a longitudinal study of gray matter lesions and cortical atrophy in MS published in PLOS ONE. The investigators obtained MRIs at baseline and five years later from subjects with clinically isolated syndrome, early and late relapsing-remitting MS, and secondary progressive MS, and examined lesion placement and cortical thinning in the different disease subtypes. To see this publication and the other articles we selected, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers.

Our Drug-Development Pipeline includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. During the past week, we added 1 new trial, we updated information on 2 other trials, and we added 12 other pieces of information. The drugs with important additions and changes are ATX-MS-1467, daclizumab, dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, interferon beta-1a, and interferon beta-1b. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdiscovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline.

[transition music]

And now to the interview. Dr. Luke Lairson is an assistant professor at the Scripps Research Institute and a principal investigator at Calibr, the California Institute for Biomedical Research, in La Jolla. We spoke at the research institute.

Interviewer – Dan Keller

Dr. Lairson, we're talking about the potential for remyelination. And your institution is taking a very systematic and maybe novel approach. Can you describe how you're going about looking at possible ways to induce remyelination?

Interviewee – Luke Lairson

Sure. So we're using a phenotypic assays to look for small molecules that selectively induce the differentiation of the precursor cell population which is required for remyelination, which are the so called oligodendrocyte precursor cells or OPCs. We developed imaging-based assays where we could look for small molecules that selectively induce that differentiation phenotype.

MSDF

And how are you going about screening compounds, and what is your institute set up to do?

Dr. Lairson

So at Scripps and Calibr we have the capacity to screen on a million compound scale capacity to look at molecules. In this particular assay, we do it in a 3D four-well format, which limits us to screening collections on the scale of hundreds of thousands. And to date, we've screened about 200,000 compounds with this assay.

MSDF

In terms of multiple sclerosis, what are you looking at now?

Dr. Lairson

From our preliminary screen of our collection of bioactive compounds, including FDA-approved drugs and drugs in late-stage clinical development, we identified a series of compounds for which OPC differentiation had not been previously reported, which are muscarinic receptor antagonists, which are clinically approved drugs and which work in the central nervous system. And we demonstrated a number of these compounds work in two different rodent models of remyelination in MS. And we're currently developing these as a lead class of compounds as a combination therapy when combined with existing immunosuppressant drugs, including Gilenya.

MSDF

What compounds have you focused on most? There's a multitude of approved antimuscarinic agents.

Dr. Lairson

Right. So this is actually a a critical point. So we identified a number of compounds which had antimuscarinic activity, which were active in our OPC differentiation assay. We used pharmacology to demonstrate that the antagonism of M1 or M3 receptor subtype is a required component of the mechanism of these drugs. However, we think that there's a second target, and it's a dual mechanism action through which these drugs are acting, which we're currently trying to elucidate what that second target is to fully characterize the mechanism. That second target actually provides the opportunity to identify compounds that have a potential to have a better therapeutic index in vivo. So the lead compound we published was benztropine. Jonah Chan's lab at UCSF later showed that clemastine also works, which was in our paper, as well. So these are drugs that have been demonstrated to work in vivo.

What we did after we published that is we then looked at every compound that we could get our hands on that had antimuscarinic activity – specifically targeting M1/M3 receptor subtypes – and then characterized their activity in the OPC differentiation assay and, as well as profiling their potency on the M1/M3 receptor subtypes, with the goal of looking for compounds that have an optimal therapeutic index in terms of on-target toxicity. So benztropine induces OPC differentiation in the low micromolar range, but it antagonizes M1 and M3 receptors in the low nanomolar range so there's a discrepancy there. And we think that the on-target toxicity of antimuscarinic activity is going to limit the therapeutic potential of these drugs. We've since identified other FDA-approved drugs for which that index is improved and we compounds with approximately 100-fold improvement in therapeutic index, which we've demonstrated in the EAE model are active. And we're currently evaluating them in combination with immunosuppressant drugs to identify an optimal combination, which could well be benztropine or clemastine but may be another FDA-approved drug.

MSDF

You're at very early stage in terms of clinical utility of these things in MS. But is there any way to separate out the negative antimuscarinic effects that affect people taking drugs for overactive bladder and various other things from their therapeutic effect? Or is it really intrinsic to attacking that receptor?

Dr. Lairson

That's the key point. So we do think that it's that on-target toxicity which is going to potentially limit this class of compound, which is why we're looking for these other compounds and where we have an improved therapeutic index of inducing remyelination versus antagonizing those receptor subtypes. And likely this class of drugs – and any class of drugs that induces remyelination – is going to have to be used in combination with immunosuppressant drugs. It will require a careful clinical evaluation to figure out which combination will be the most effective and what doses will be safe.

MSDF

But you also have been doing T-cell assays I take it in looking at benztropine in your work. So what goes on with immune modulation? Is there any effect there?

Dr. Lairson

So we did extensive studies with benztropine to evaluate its activity in not just T-cell biology but also macrophage biology both in vitro and in vivo. And we found benztropine had no affect on in vitro or in vivo T cell numbers or activity in terms of cytokine production. It has no affect on macrophage polarization in vitro or in vivo, including looking at spinal cords of animals. We don't think that it's acting through a peripheral immune system effect. We can't rule out an important concept that came out at a recent meeting was we need to look at the affect of these compounds on microglial cell activation in the brain and also in astrocyte activation.

MSDF

So it looks like it's a pure remyelination effect at this point and not really an immunosuppressive effect, which would argue for having to use it in conjunction with today's drugs for MS.

Dr. Lairson

Correct, that's our current reasoning, yeah.

MSDF

Have you looked at other models other than cuprizone?

Dr. Lairson

Yeah, we looked at the EAE…PLP-induced EAE model of relapsing-remitting MS, and we've looked at the MOG model of progressive MS and the cuprizone model. Yeah, those are the models we've looked at to date.

MSDF

With similar results?

Dr. Lairson

The compounds we've evaluated have all been active in in those models.

MSDF

Do you have an idea of the mechanism of action how this is actually working in the oligodendrocyte precursor cells?

Dr. Lairson

Downstream of the muscarinic receptor…so as I said, based on pharmacology, these classes of compounds – these neurotransmitter receptor modulating agents – are notoriously pleiotropic in that they had multiple receptor subtypes in the brain. So benztropine, for example, it hits nicotine and histamine receptors in this dopamine reuptake inhibitor in addition to being an antimuscarinic. We've shown that those activities are not responsible for inducing OPC differentiation. However, as I said, we've identified multiple compounds that do inhibit muscarinic receptors – specifically receptor subtypes 1 and 3 – that do not induce OPC differentiation. So we think there's a second target; we're actively trying to identify what that second target and downstream mechanism is.

MSDF

Do you think the same compound would attack both targets, or are you going to need to give multiple compounds to hit multiple targets very selectively as I would think would be the hope?

Dr. Lairson

The existing compounds we have the argument is that they are hitting both of these targets to induce the differentiation. In that, there's a number of compounds that do hit the M1/M3 receptors that do not induce differentiation, which argue that you need both. The compounds we've identified fortuitously hit both of the necessary targets.

MSDF

In the antimuscarinic field, often the goal is to be very selective and limit activity at different receptors, but it sounds like you want some overlap here.

Dr. Lairson

Exactly. We've also initiated some medicinal chemistry where we're trying to see if we can dial in potency for the second target. So we know if benztropine is active on muscarinic and low nanomolar can we improve its potency in the OPC assay by dialing in potency on that second target?

MSDF

By modifying the molecule?

Dr. Lairson

Yeah, so making analogs of existing active antimuscarinic agents and then evaluating their activity in the OPC differentiation assay, as well as evaluate their antimuscarinic activity.

MSDF

Are you hoping that the same active part of the molecule hits both receptors, or have you ever considered making a bifunctional molecule that would be best at both receptors?

Dr. Lairson

If we knew what the other receptor was, we could potentially address that, or you could argue a bifunctional versus having two unique compounds so it would be you'd have to evaluate that in vivo I think, yeah. The other argument for moving away from this is that as soon as you make a change to that compound it's no longer an approved drug, and you have to go through the rigor of bringing that to the clinic.

MSDF

Now in your screening, you're using a lot of drugs – a lot of compounds at this point – that have already passed phase 1 screening or phase 1 clinical testing, and this has shown safety. Does that speed up do you think the approval process if these things look active?

Dr. Lairson

It does. So UCSF has actually initiated a phase 2 trial to evaluate clemastine in MS. So they were able to immediately proceed from a screening result to a clinical trial because it's an approved drug.

MSDF

And just about Calibr, your institute. You have full facilities for taking this from screening up to what stage?

Dr. Lairson

Up to the rodent proof of concept stage. So we have a high throughput screening facility, as I mentioned, and then we have a medicinal chemistry group, a pharmacology group where we can do pharmacokinetics in-house and then in core biology. So we take it to the rodent proof of concept.

MSDF

Do you do any synthetic chemistry, or this is all screening of existing molecules?

Dr. Lairson

Yeah, we do significant amount of synthetic chemistry so we have a group of 20 chemists – medicinal chemists – that are making analogs. And we do a significant amount of contract research to get compounds and analogs made.

MSDF

What have we missed, or what do you think is important to add, if anything?

Dr. Lairson

The other aspect of our program is we've identified novel compounds for which their mechanism of action is unclear. So we've identified multiple scaffolds. We've focused on three of those, which have been subjected to medicinal chemistry optimization. So we identified screening hits, which we were unable to evaluate in the rodent models due to their pharmacokinetic property. But we've now identified analogs of those compounds which are potent in the OPC assay, in which we can achieve reasonable levels in the brain. So we're currently evaluating those in these preclinical rodent models. And once we demonstrate efficacy there, we'll then go and evaluate their mechanism of action.

MSDF

You test these compounds first in a phenotypic sense to see if they actually do something that you want done. And then you trace it back to mechanism of action?

Dr. Lairson

Correct. That's our general approach for a lot of assays. So rather than looking at a validated, biochemical target, typically we'll just look for small molecules that induce the cell fate decision that we're interested in. For me, personally, it's the most interesting part of the project is I’m figuring out how those compounds that we rule out known mechanisms how they're actually acting. So we do the mass spec-based proteomics to figure out the specific protein target. And then we use standard cellular molecular biology techniques to elucidate the downstream mechanism of action.

MSDF

So I suppose the phenotype you're looking for in the case of this research we've been discussing is remyelination. How do you look for that activity?

Dr. Lairson

The remyelination activity in vitro? We use a co-culture assay, which we collaborate with Rusty Gage at Salk where we pre-differentiate neurons in a dish and then co-culture with our oligodendrocyte precursors plus or minus drug and then look at the ability of those drugs to enhance the rate of myelination of co-cultured axons.

MSDF

And you just stain the cells in vitro looking for myelin production or myelin basic protein?

Dr. Lairson

Exactly, yeah. So we just look at myelin basic protein co-localization with axon.

MSDF

Very good. I appreciate it, thanks.

Dr. Lairson

Absolutely. Thanks very much for your interest.

[transition music]

MSDF

Thank you for listening to Episode Fifty-One of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. Msdiscovery.org is part of the non-profit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is vice president of scientific operations.

Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.

[outro music]

Jul 31, 2015

[intro music]

 

Host – Dan Keller

Hello, and welcome to Episode Fifty of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.

 

This week’s podcast features Dr. David Tabby, who discusses the use of balance vests in people with MS. But first here are some new items in the MS Discovery Forum.

 

According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 65 such articles were published last week. We selected one of these articles as an Editor’s Pick. It’s a large case-control study in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation demonstrating that MS is associated with more than a six-fold increase in the risk of venous thromboembolism. To see this week’s articles, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers.

 

Our Drug-Development Pipeline includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. During the month of July, we added 6 new trials, we updated information on 6 other trials, and we added 56 other pieces of information. The drugs with important additions and changes are alemtuzumab, dalfampridine, dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, GNbAC1, interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, masitinib, natalizumab, rituximab, RPC1063, and teriflunomide. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdiscovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline.

 

[transition music]

 

And now to the interview. Dr. David Tabby is an adult general practice neurologist with a subspecialty in multiple sclerosis in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. He was formerly associated with Drexel University College of Medicine. We spoke about balance vests for people with conditions that impair their balance. He first describes what the vest is.

 

Interviewee – David Tabby      

The balance vest looks like a bulletproof vest; it's a black nylon vest that's worn over the torso like a typical vest. And it was discovered by accident, I suppose, by a physical therapist from California called Cindy Horn who was treating people with Parkinson's disease, and she was troubled by the fact that these people tended to be forward-flexed at the hip and walk like they're looking at the floor. So she wondered if she put some weights on their back, if she could tip them more upright. And she did that and it worked, but she also discovered that people had better balance. Falls is a major cause of morbidity and even mortality in Parkinson's disease, so this was big.

 

So the next step was that she developed a system to figure out how to maximize the weighting of the torso, consisting of perturbations – pushes really – of the shoulders forward or back or side to side, twisting the pelvis and seeing the rebound to that, and figuring out by trial and error a way of using weights to dampen those oscillations really. She worked on it for years; this process started about 15 years ago, I think, maybe more than that now. And then she realized that there were other people besides Parkinson's patients who could benefit from it. Multiple sclerosis patients turned out to be a big one, but other types of people with cerebellar disorders, and ataxias, and even peripheral neuropathy; if the problem was balance, it seemed like the balance vest could make a difference.

 

Interviewer – Dan Keller          

What about for vestibular dysfunction, maybe those 20% of people who shaking their head doesn't fix the problem?

 

Dr. Tabby

I don't think we have a lot of data on vestibular patients, but that's important. It's not exactly the topic of this talk, but we've had some really great results in post-concussive injury. My theory on this is that kind of everything doesn't work right after concussion, you have to think consciously about all these things that used to be automatic, including walking. And if you imagine that you only have a finite supply of mental energy to expend on different tasks, if you're expending a lot of that on balancing, there's not as much left for thinking and talking and other normal cognitive tasks. So we've seen unexpectedly some significant improvements in cognitive function from people who had concurrent balance disorders freeing up, if you will, their cognitive reserve to do what it's supposed to do instead of worry about why you're not falling over.

 

MSDF

Is there a proposed mechanism here; is it only dampening oscillations or is there some sort of perceptual thing that it's enhancing, or how's it working?

 

Dr. Tabby

This is not known, there are only theories at this point. I had started on a study while I was still at Drexel with the Department of Physical Therapy who had built a device for measuring sitting balance; you know, taking the entire lower extremity out of the equation. It's basically like a chair without legs on a half dome. So if you don't have a disorder, in fairly short order you can teach yourself how to sit on the chair and not fall over. It sits on a very sensitive pressure plate, and then you can measure how much deviation there is from the exact center point. Your feet are strapped so you can't move them around, and you're supposed to hold your arms over your chest, so you have your torso and head to move around. Then you try to do certain exercise. You're looking at a screen that has a big circle on it and you're supposed to roll your center of gravity forward maybe to 3 o'clock on a clock face, and 6 o'clock, and 9 o'clock, and go back to the center, and you can see how much progress you're making.

 

And we had started on an experiment to put the balance vest on people and see if they did better with the balance vest with the lower extremity, you know, taken out of the equation. We didn't collect enough data to make a conclusion about that. I think it's really fascinating, though, because if you carry your cell phone in your shirt pocket, doesn't that change the vector forces about your torso, but somehow we don't seem to fall over over that. Maybe it does change things but it's not big enough to notice. We need a lot of research into determining what the exact mechanism of action is for the vest, because there's a lot of question marks about it right now.

 

MSDF

So how do they fit this vest, adjust it? How long does it take?

 

Dr. Tabby

An experienced physical therapist can do a good fitting probably in 30 to 45 minutes, sometimes a little longer than that depending on how severe the problem is. We generally video the patient before, during, and after of some more objective confirmation of the changes. There are tests both in standing still and also walking. We would like to bring some more quantification into that process about ways to get data about walking, like a pressure plate that you walk over and times the interval between heel strikes and variability from the center line, but that's all in the future. It's been very just pragmatic right now. Patients almost always leave from their fitting session knowing that they could balance and walk much better than when they came in, and they're all anxious to get their permanent vest soon. It's accomplished with quarter pound and half pound weights, and to be honest, I don't know how to do it; I didn't get trained, so I don't know exactly all the principles involved, you know, where you put the weight, how far from the midline you put the weight. Do you put it up high on the torso, do you put it low on the torso?

 

MSDF

So counting the weights and the vest, how much extra weight is a patient carrying around, and does that become a burden?

 

Dr. Tabby

We don't use more than 2 lbs of weight, and then the vest itself is about 2 lbs. Now we're also working on a t-shirt or an undershirt, a close-fitting athletic-type shirt that we can incorporate the weights right into that. That's really nice because it can be worn under any clothing at all, and the complaint about it being hot won't be as relevant. It does not include a lumbar brace, as this standard brace does. A lot of patients like the brace, though, they think that that contributes somewhat to the sense of balance that they get.

 

MSDF

For an MS patient – and I realize they vary a lot in their disability – is it fairly easy to put this on once they have it?

 

Dr. Tabby

Some might require help. It zippers and tightens up with Velcro straps, so it takes some coordination to get it on.

 

MSDF

Is there any residual effect? I mean, you said they have an immediate effect, but once they take it off is there any benefit or do they always have to wear it?

 

Dr. Tabby

I'm so glad you asked that, because a lot of patients find that they can wear it intensively for two or three days and then not wear it for a day or two and still have carryover benefit. Exactly how that works, I'm not sure either, but that's what they say.

 

MSDF

You've used this with patients. How many in your practice have been trying it?

 

Dr. Tabby

We have over a hundred in the last five or six years.

 

MSDF

Is there any downside?

 

Dr. Tabby

You have to change your wardrobe. I'm kidding a little bit, but I do have a patient… You know, the vest comes in every shade of black that you want, so she changed her wardrobe to only include black so the vest doesn't look strange. You know, if you wear big, loose clothing, you could probably have it under something and it might not be obvious. You know, the fashion sense is an issue, the weight by the end of the day and the temperature.

 

MSDF

Sounds like those are all things that can be worked out sort of cosmetically; color and different fabric eventually or something.

 

Dr. Tabby

Yes.

 

MSDF

Have you done any of the research on this, or you've just been using it? I see there's actually a fair bit published about it.

 

Dr. Tabby

We have a trial that we're working out the kinks of now. We wanted to do a trial with other medications that might help with walking; I'm not sure it's going to be feasible to do that, but just accumulating other types of data that doesn't exist right now, like great systems for measuring body position and movement with small wearable sensors on the body, as well as pressure plates on the floor that you can walk along a pathway. We'd like to do more specific research in specific conditions. Of course, my interest is mainly in MS, but I know I've been able to help other patients with it. You know, it's important if this therapy is going to help more people, that there be as much published as possible that shows that this is a real phenomenon; it's worthy of patients' and physicians' attention.

 

[transition music]

 

Thank you for listening to Episode Fifty of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Robert Finn. Msdiscovery.org is part of the non-profit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is vice president of scientific operations.

 

Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

 

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.

 

 [outro music]

Jul 21, 2015

[intro music]

 

Host – Dan Keller

Hello, and welcome to Episode Forty-nine of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.

 

This week’s podcast features Dr. Hugh Rosen of the Scripps Research Institute. But first here are some new items in the MS Discovery Forum.

 

If you’re an MS researcher, you may want to keep an eye on our Bulletin Board section, where we post a variety of news items that may be of interest. One of the items we posted this week is directly related to Dr. Rosen’s work. It’s a notice that a phase 3 trial of a sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulator called RPC1063 has started recruiting twelve hundred patients with relapsing remitting MS in the US. RPC1063 had its origins in Dr. Rosen’s lab.

 

We also recently added a notice of another clinical trial to the Bulletin Board. That one’s a phase 2 trial of oral laquinimod in primary progressive MS. And a third new Bulletin Board announcement is a request for information from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute to identify patient registries and research groups with established cohorts of patients for potential collaborative research opportunities on comparative effectiveness research in MS treatment.

 

To read any of these announcements, go to msdiscovery.org and click first on Professional Resources and then on Bulletin Board. And if you have an announcement you think may be of interest to MS researchers, please send it to editor@msdiscovery.org. We won’t post purely promotional press releases, but if we judge the notice to be of general interest, we’ll be happy to post it at no charge.

 

In other news, it was a relatively slow week in published MS research. According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, only 22 such articles were published last week. Typically at least 40 MS-related peer-reviewed articles are published weekly, and we’ve seen some weeks with more than a hundred. To see the weekly lists going back to March 2012, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers.

 

Our Drug-Development Pipeline includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. This past week we added 2 new trials and 7 other pieces of information. The drugs with important additions are dalfampridine, fingolimod, masitinib, and natalizumab. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdiscovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline

 

[transition music]

 

Now to the interview. Dr. Hugh Rosen studies chemical and biological approaches to the molecular mechanisms regulating lymphocyte trafficking. I met with him in his office at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California.

 

Interviewer – Dan Keller

We're talking about mostly new compounds, S1P1 receptor compounds; the prototype now I suppose is fingolimod. What's in development and do they appear to offer advantages?

 

Interviewee – Hugh Rosen

So, firstly, let me disclose that I am a cofounder of a biotechnology company called Receptos that has licensed an S1PR1 agonist from the Scripps Research Institute, so I have and my institution have a significant interest in this particular field.

 

Sphingosine 1-phosphate receptors act in a number of ways to modulate immune tissue damages in both autoimmune diseases and in viral infections. They've proven to be particularly efficacious in multiple sclerosis. Gilenya, of course discovered by Yoshitomi in Japan and developed by Novartis, has proven to be a clinically useful compound in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. And it appears to do so, at least in part, by altering the ability of lymphocytes to recirculate, and thus lymphocytes to reach the target tissues where they, in fact, produce demyelinating damage to the white matter of the central nervous system, and then the signs and symptoms of multiple sclerosis. So clearly these are useful compounds.

 

Gilenya, of course, is not a selective small molecule, it is an agonist of four of the five high affinity receptors for sphingosine 1-phosphate – S1P1, 3, 4, and 5 – and some of the associated side effects may be attributable in part to activity of Gilenya on other receptors like the S1P3 receptor that are not required for modulation in the treatment of multiple sclerosis.

 

MSDF

I see that it's referred to as an immunomodulator, not necessarily referred to as a receptor agonist. Does it not have pure agonist effect? Does it have any effects either because of the other receptors or at that same S1P1 receptor?

 

Dr. Rosen

No. In fact, Gilenya when phosphorylated is a full agonist of the sphingosine 1-phosphate receptors, and the newer compounds that are much more selective are also agonists of the sphingosine 1-phosphate 1 receptor. And some of the effects on them for cyto-mediated by downmodulation of the receptor, but I don't use the term modulators or immunomodulators because of the activity on the sphingolipid receptors per se, I use the term immunomodulator because of some of the unique advantages that we've demonstrated in model systems and in man about altering the activity of the sphingosine 1 receptor, because one of the beauties of immunomodulation is to blunt the immune response that causes collateral damage to the tissues whilst leaving sufficient of the immune response intact to allow protection from opportunistic pathogens – bacteria, viruses, and yeasts.

 

So one of the most striking features that we found – and these have been in some experiments done as a collaboration between my laboratory and the laboratory of Professor Michael Oldstone here at Scripps – has been in the area of influenza; pandemic influenza causes significant collateral tissue damage by having an overactive immune response. What we show is that the sphingosine 1-phosphate 1 receptor blunts that immune response and blunts the amplification of cytokines and chemokines so that you protect from the collateral tissue damage, but you leave intact the ability to mount protective, sterilizing T cell and B cell immunity to the virus. So you can eradicate the virus, sterilize it, you can provide a long-term memory both on the T-lymphocyte side as well as on the antibody side; there's class switching, there's affinity maturation, there are good protective immunity that is produced, and all this while blunting the immune response.

 

This is the Holy Grail as we think about treating patients, because the window for patients with autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis is that window between effective blunting of the immune response and the prevention of deleterious opportunistic infections that can have life-threatening consequences. So one of the advantages that I suspect we will see over time is that the sphingosine 1-phosphate agonists will prove to be particularly well-tolerated and have a wide window between the ability to limit tissue damage and progression of RRMS, and the need to protect patients from intercurrent infections or subclinical infections that become expressed later.

 

MSDF

Do the other sphingosine 1-phosphate receptors interfere with lymphocyte trafficking also, or do they have other effects which nonselective ligands would then induce these adverse effects through them, or do they also have some effect in terms of trafficking?

 

Dr. Rosen

They don't have significant effects on lymphocyte trafficking the way that S1PR1 does, both from the chemical approaches and the genetic evidence. S1P1 is clearly a toggle switch for lymphocyte trafficking. S1P2 is involved in the maintenance of hearing and in the function of vascular smooth muscle, so it regulates blood pressure. S1P3 is involved in cardiac contractility and also in the control of coronary artery caliber and the control of the airways, so S1P3 agonism is not a useful thing, it's actually quite deleterious. S1P4 and 5 have really no rate-limiting functions, at least of which I am aware, so there may be some redundancy and may not play a critical role in the modulation of health and disease.

 

MSDF

Do you see compounds coming along which will be more selective and therefore not lead to the adverse effects so much? And if so, are these compounds chemically similar or do they have different structures to attach to the receptor, the S1P1?

 

Dr. Rosen

These are clearly different structures, they're structurally very distinct from Gilenya and from each other. Novartis have a backup called siponimod. Actelion had a compound but it's only being used in psoriasis called ponesimod. Receptos has a compound now known as ozanimod – formerly known as RPC1063 – that is in two phase 3 studies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, a two-year study called RADIANCE and a one-year study called SUNBEAM, both of which are enrolling twelve hundred patients each.

 

MSDF

And the RADIANCE trial results looked pretty good; I mean, you had 85, 90% effects at 12 to 24 weeks or even at a year in terms of relapse rate. Does this look like the next compound to emerge?

 

Dr. Rosen

I think it's likely that ozanimod will be the next compound to be submitted for the regulatory process here in the United States and probably in Europe as well. The pleasing thing about the phase 2 data for ozanimod was, in fact, both the strong efficacy signal and a very well-tolerated safety profile; in fact the adverse effect profile of ozanimod and placebo were, in fact, indistinguishable and overlapping in the phase 2 studies. In addition, this very well-tolerated, favorable safety profile has been replicated in a highly successful phase 2 study in ulcerative colitis called TOUCHSTONE that was released recently. So clearly this is a mechanism of immunomodulation that could well prove to be useful for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, but also in a range of other autoimmune diseases where treatments are hard to come by.

 

MSDF

Even with Gilenya, I think there have been reports of a couple of cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, so it gives a nice balance between immune surveillance and inhibiting T cell trafficking, but it seems like not a perfect balance. Does it look like that margin will be narrowed in the future with other compounds?

 

Dr. Rosen

It's possible that it will be. I think the critical point to bear in mind is that real-world experience in tens of thousands of patients with hundreds of thousands of patient-years is really ultimately what is required to define these very rare events that on occasions do occur, and preexisting treatments with other immune-modifying agents such as Tysabri, for instance, may predispose to issues being seen later with PML. And I think that we always have to say that long-term patient experience and physician comfort are ultimately the best guides to the risk-benefit ratio.

 

MSDF

I think you've identified something like four compounds in development, those are some that I had seen. Are there others, or these are really the ones to focus on at this point for people to keep an eye on?

 

Dr. Rosen

There may well be others that are further behind. There have been a number of others that have had safety signals, particularly liver enzyme elevations, and significant first-dose cardiac effects. Arena have a compound that has recently completed a phase 1 multiple-dosing study and will go on to phase 2. So, you know, there are additional compounds and there will be additional compounds. Ultimately, patients do best when the best compounds appear, and the only way one knows that is to test them in man over the long-haul and define that risk-benefits for patients. And, you know, these multiple efforts really reflect the fact that a field has advanced, and that advancing field really does improve through intelligent intervention our ability to offer patients a better set of choices and a better set of long-term outcomes, which is what we're all about.

 

MSDF

We're still focusing here on RRMS, none of this applies to the progressive phase. Is there anything coming along there?

 

Dr. Rosen

You know, there's been one trial in primary-progressive; this was the Gilenya trial which didn't meet its endpoints. It may be that the mechanisms in rapidly progressive MS are a little different and that we don't yet, I think, understand the pathogenesis of that rather different presentation. So I'm not aware of a good alternate approaches to that, but that doesn't mean that the understanding isn't there for that to happen over time, it simply means that I'm not yet aware of it.

 

MSDF

Finally, in secondary-progressive MS, we can understand what's going on, what led to it; if you limit relapses, that's good. But does it look like primary and secondary really may be overlapping but not the same disease?

 

Dr. Rosen

I think there may be balances of pathogenesis where you can intervene more easily in some than in others. Clearly the sphingosine 1-phosphate agonists work particularly well by inhibiting the movement of lymphocytes into the brain. The movement of lymphocytes from the perivascular cuff into the parenchyma, into the white matter, where the demyelination proceeds. However, in parallel in multiple sclerosis, there are also events where there is collateral damage to neurons; we see axonal severing, we see elements of neuronal loss. Certainly with the sphingosine 1-phosphate agonists, there is some evidence that there is a diminution of cortical thinning over time with treatment, and that may be a really good thing.

 

I think that the neurodegenerative components is one that is hard to get a handle on right now, and that I think that these differences will become more obvious with early treatments of the immunopathology of multiple sclerosis. And that may well separate the autoimmune inflammatory damage and its sequelae from neurodegenerative mechanisms that may be entrained, and I think we will learn a lot from looking at those subsets of patients over time, particularly as more, better, and earlier treatment modalities allow the avoidance of significant damage in most patients.

 

MSDF

Is there anything important we've missed or you'd like to add?

 

Dr. Rosen

You know, I think for all of us who try to work at this interface of therapeutics, we do so because disease is, in fact, personal. We all know patients, we've all seen the multigenerational impact and depredations of multiple sclerosis on friends and family. And I think this is the very strong underlying motivator that drives us as scientists and as physician scientists to really try and bear in mind that the basic mechanisms and the basic therapeutic approaches that we pursue ultimately need a safe and effective human face to change the lives of patients in a positive way.

 

MSDF

Very good. Thank you.

 

[transition music]

 

Thank you for listening to Episode Forty-nine of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Robert Finn. Msdiscovery.org is part of the non-profit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is vice president of scientific operations.

 

Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

 

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.

 

 [outro music]

Jul 13, 2015

[intro music]

 

Host – Dan Keller 

Hello, and welcome to Episode Forty-eight of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.

 

This week’s podcast features Dr. Bruce Cree on the EPIC, CLIMB, and SUMMIT clinical trials in MS. But first here are some new items in the MS Discovery Forum.

 

We're very happy to report that MSDF has received three generous grants that will allow us to continue our mission: to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about MS and related conditions in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines. Genzyme has given us two grants. One will allow us to continue producing this weekly podcast for another year, and the other will allow us to develop an additional 12 monthly data visualizations. And Biogen has given us a grant for general operating support. None of these grants will interfere with our editorial freedom, and you can continue to count on MSDF to be an independent source of unbiased MS news.

 

A conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts several weeks ago sponsored by Orion Bionetworks outlined the progress and challenges in turning computational modeling into actionable knowledge in MS and other brain disorders. Allison Provost, who is Orion’s scientific program manager, has written a blog post describing the parts of the conference of particular interest to MS researchers. You can find her post by going to msdiscovery.org and clicking first on News and Future Directions and then on Blogs.

 

According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 50 such articles were published last week. To see the list, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers. We selected three of those papers as Editors’ Picks. Two of them are comprehensive review articles: one on biomarkers in MS and the other on MS immunogenetics. The third is an evidence-based consensus guideline on the use of MRI in MS diagnosis.

 

Our Drug-Development Pipeline includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. This past week we added 1 new trial, we updated information on 3 other trials, and we added 13 other pieces of information.  The drugs with important additions and changes are alemtuzumab, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, natalizumab, and rituximab. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdiscovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline.

 

[transition music]

 

Now to the interview. Dr. Bruce Cree is a neurologist at the University of California, San Francisco. MSDF Executive Editor, Bob Finn, caught up with Dr. Cree in his office at UCSF’s Mission Bay Campus shortly after a departmental seminar entitled “An EPIC CLIMB to the SUMMIT.” 

 

Interviewer – Bob Finn

Dr. Cree, welcome.

 

Interviewee – Bruce Cree

Thank you.

 

MSDF

Now EPIC, CLIMB, and SUMMIT are acronyms for three MS clinical studies. So first, what's EPIC, what's CLIMB, what's SUMMIT?

 

Dr. Cree

Great question. So the EPIC study is a long-term observational study now in its 11th year at UC San Francisco. It's a a cohort study of multiple sclerosis patients who have been followed annually for the last 11 years. And this cohort initially had about 517 participants, and now – in its 11th year – we have about 91% of those patients coming back for ongoing assessments. The assessments include annual MRI scans, as well as clinical assessments and the blood draws for biomarker studies.

 

The CLIMB study is a similar related study that was developed independently at the Brigham and Women’s Children's Hospital in Boston under the directorship there of Howard Weiner. And it is also a long-term followup study. And now, after about seven years, that study has some 217 patients who have been retained out of the original cohort. 

 

SUMMIT is the idea of bringing together long-term, well-curated observational cohorts from multiple sites. And the first iteration of SUMMIT will involve investigators from Basal, Amsterdam, UCSF, and Harvard who will merge together their long-term observational cohorts into a larger study. And the hope here is that we will obtain greater statistical power and be able to answer some of the more pressing questions about MS therapeutics, outcome measures, and utility of both conventional and nonconventional MRI in assisting with the diagnosis and management of patients.

 

MSDF

So in the EPIC study, I'm struck by the fact that you've been able to retain 91% of your patients after 11 years; whereas in the CLIMB study they've lost 90% of their patients in just 7 years. How do you account for that difference?

 

Dr. Cree

The EPIC study has had a great amount of support for long-term followup and subject retention. And we've gone to great lengths to keep our participants interested in the study and wanting to come back. And we have a terrific group of study coordinators who work day and night to maintain contact with our patients, inform them about why it's important for them to participate in the study. And we've even done outreach where we've gone to people's homes to perform evaluations in their homes where they were too ill to come in, as happens with multiple sclerosis as people develop more advanced disability. So we have very good retention as a consequence of the hard efforts made on behalf of the overall study by the coordinators and other members of the team. 

 

MSDF

Now you've used several measures of disease progression in the EPIC study, as have others in other studies. There's the EDSS, there's the MSFC, and there are several other measures. But let's talk about the EDSS first. That's probably the most commonly used measures, and it's also the one that people seem to love to hate. 

 

Dr. Cree

Yes.

 

MSDF

Can you tell me about the EDSS and what its advantages and disadvantages are?

 

Dr. Cree

Yeah, so the Expanded Disability Status Scale of Kurtzke is an ingenious scale that was really intended to describe where patients are at during the course of their lifespan. And it's a 10-point scale with half-point increment changes after the score of 1. And this scale has been adopted for use as the disability outcome measure in all MS clinical trials. The scale has a fair amount of inter-rater variability, which makes it challenging to administer. Because anytime you have a scale where there's a fair amount of variability it gets harder to interpret change. We did look at the EDSS systematically and looked at change over the first few years in the study and used that as a predictor for long-term disability transitions. We also looked at harder endpoints in the EDSS such as the time it takes for patients to go from no systems, disease onset, to the time where they require a cane to ambulate. 

 

You mentioned the MSFC, the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite. This is a set of scales that were developed for use in multiple sclerosis that included the Timed 25-Foot Walk, which is a measurement of how fast somebody can walk 25 feet. That is clinically relevant because the speed at which somebody walks correlates quite well with the distance they can walk. So the faster you can walk 25 feet the longer you can walk. The 9-Hole Peg Test is a test of upper arm coordination and function. And the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test is a test of cognitive function that measures specifically the tension and processing speed. 

 

So we looked at these things, and we set up thresholds based on other clinical work that were considered to be clinically meaningful changes. So with respect to the Timed 25-Foot Walk and 9-Hole Peg Test, we were looking for a 20% worsening in function over the course of the trial. And with respect to the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test – or PASAT – we were looking at the reliable change index for that outcome. And so these have been validated outcomes that are related to actual disability.

 

So we looked at all of these measures. And what we found was that when we looked at our relapsing MS patients about half of the patients experienced worsening in terms of EDSS change over 10 years. For the patients who had progressive multiple sclerosis, about 70% of them worsened. And then for these more stringent measures with respect to the MSFC components, we found lower proportions of patients with relapsing MS in secondary progressive or primary progressive disease had worsening in those outcomes, as well. So those were our endpoints for the study; they're clinical endpoints.

 

MSDF

One of the things I noticed in your talk was that there was a great deal of overlap between the EDSS and the overall MSFC score; whereas there wasn't much overlap between the individual components of the MSFC score. What is the significance of that?

 

Dr. Cree

Well the EDSS is itself a composite measure, and people tend to forget that. Especially earlier on in the scores that go from 0 to about 4, there you have 6 functional scale scores that contribute to the overall EDSS. That includes assessment of vision, brain stem function, motor function, sensory function, cerebellar function, bowel and bladder function, and cerebral function. And those separate functional scale scores are scored independently and then are summarized into an EDSS score between 0 and 4. After that, the EDSS score becomes really much more of an assessment of how far patients can walk until they have hit the major disability milestones of an EDSS of 6, which is walking with a cane, 6.5 a walker, 7 a wheelchair, or 8 bed bound. 

 

MSDF

So why is there a lot of overlap between EDSS and MSFC but not so much overlap between the components of MSFC?

 

Dr. Cree

So when you look at the MSFC, you have two measures to the MSFC that are looking at motor function: the 9-Hole Peg Test and the Timed 25-Foot Walk. They can also be measures of cerebellar function. Both of things are very well measured in the EDSS by the functional scale scores for pyramidal and cerebellar function. The PASAT is not as well measured in the EDSS, although we have a cerebral functional scale score it's not a very precise measure, and there's a weakness associated with EDSS. Whereas in the MSFC, it's a very precise measurement. 

 

When we look at the individual MSFC scores themselves, you can have patients who worsen in terms of walking, patients who worsen in terms of arm function, and patients who worsen in terms of cognitive function. And there is some degree of overlap in those three domains but not complete. And that just underscores how MS will affect different individuals differently. Some people have more ambulatory impairment, other people have more upper limb function impairment, and still other people have more cognitive impairment.

 

MSDF

You made an interesting analogy to rheumatology in the treatment MS: the question of whether you should treat to no evidence of disease activity. I wonder if you can talk about that analogy and the NEDA, or no evidence of disease activity, goal.

 

Dr. Cree

Sure. So in rheumatology in the 1990s, the discussion at that time had to do with how to treat rheumatoid arthritis. And this concept was advanced, which was a treat-to-target approach. The idea of using increasingly effective therapies to silence and suppress any evidence of active rheumatoid arthritis. And this strategy turned out to be extremely effective in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. And instead of waiting for people to develop more disability, initiation of early highly effective treatments and really suppressing all joint inflammation became the current standard of therapy. And this has resulted in significant improvements in long-term disability in patients who are living with rheumatoid arthritis. 

 

So taking that example and extending it to the field of multiple sclerosis, the idea here is that you have evidence of active multiple sclerosis on MRI scans such as gad-enhancing lesions and new T2 lesions; and evidence of relapses, which are clinical manifestation of acute inflammation; and disability progression, which is looking at the EDSS score and saying okay well if we have a combined measure that looks all of these things, and we try to suppress disease activity perhaps we're going to wind up with better outcomes. And so, this metric of no evident disease activity is defined as no evidence of relapses, no evidence of disability progression by the EDSS, and no evidence of MRI disease activity. 

 

And it was originally developed in the context of clinical trials; specifically the pivotal trial of the natalizumab versus placebo study. And a certain proportion of patients in that study met this criteria of no evidence of disease activity. Subsequently, with more recent trials, other compounds have also been looked at and compared to their placebo or active comparator controls. And in each of these studies, you can see differences between treatments with respect to the proportion of patients with no evident disease activity. 

 

The field of MS today is considering use of no evident disease activity as a therapeutic strategy or goal so that one would escalate therapy to the point where you see no evident disease activity. And the hypothesis here is that if you are able to effectively reach no evident disease activity that that is similar to putting patients in remission or preventing further disability from occurring. So we were very interested to find out whether there was long-term prognostic value of this marker, no evident disease activity. 

 

And so, within the EPIC study, we looked at no evident disease activity over the first two years of the trial, and there was a proportion of our patients from this study who met those criteria: who had no change in terms of disability, no change in terms of clinical relapses, and no evidence of active multiple sclerosis by MRI scan. And we thought that that group would have a better outcome overall than the rest of the cohort. To our surprise, we found that there was no predictive value of no evident disease activity on any of the clinical markers that we looked at for 10 years. 

 

So these patients had exactly the same risk for disability progression as patients who had evidence of active multiple sclerosis. And this was very perplexing; we just didn't really understand why that would be the case until we really started to look at the impact of treatment and use of escalation therapy in our cohort. And I think that when you look at the influence of therapeutic intervention in multiple sclerosis the effect size of therapeutic intervention is so great that other markers of biological disease activity such as new lesions wind up being minimized by the therapeutic impact. And as a consequence, things that might have been predicted based on natural history studies – such as brain volume loss, new lesions – become less apparent as having clinical meaning over a 10-year period of time because of the dominant influence of therapeutic intervention. 

 

With respect to the no evidence disease activity, one of the questions that I think needs to be answered is do we really have the best markers for this? And if we are going to use a treat-to-target approach, are the things that are currently being looked at in no evident disease activity the right things to look at? And there is now interest in looking at other markers, as well, looking in incorporating, for example, brain volume into the no evident disease activity. And it will remain to be determined whether other ways of looking at no evident disease activity wind up performing better as a long-term predictor.

 

MSDF

So when you're confronted with an individual patient – a new patient early in their course of disease – every neurologist is confronted the question of whether you start them with an interferon and escalate as they progress, or whether you start them with a highly active therapy. How do you make that decision, and how does the evidence from EPIC inform that decision?

 

Dr. Cree

That's a great question, and I think this is probably one of the most provocative aspects of this long-term study. In EPIC, we used the escalation strategy where we began with so called platform therapies; drugs that are used as disease-modifying therapies that have been around for a long time, specifically the interferons and glatiramer acetate. And in the event that patients experienced relapses or had other markers of worsening such as brain volume loss, many of those patients were escalated onto what we would consider to be high-potency therapies. Drugs like natalizumab or medications that are off-label but still used in treatment of multiple sclerosis like rituximab or cyclophosphamide. 

 

So we used this escalation strategy in this cohort. And what we found was the following. Treatment escalation was not associated with improved outcomes. In fact, treatment escalation was associated with worse outcomes in some patients. Now, why would that be the case? Well there's probably a confounder there of the indication to treat so that the patients who were getting escalation therapy are doing worse, and so they get the escalation therapy. So what we don't know from this study is if those patient hadn't gotten escalation therapy how would they have fared? We can't answer that question. That would require a randomized controlled trial. 

 

But what this study does provide is this provocative idea that perhaps escalation therapy was really too little too late. That we were identifying a group of people who were at high risk of disability progression, but we weren't really setting things back to restore them onto a normal pathway and certainly not to prevent long-term disability. And this raises the idea that perhaps we should be utilizing these higher-potency therapies earlier. Now, that type of approach – the maximal efficacy approach – doesn't have data yet to support its use, but there are a few provocative studies that suggest that high-potency therapy might be associated with better outcomes. And we have the recent results of the cladribine study in clinically isolated syndrome where we had the best data yet for use of a broad-spectrum immune suppressant in terms of venting, time to the next clinical or radiographic event in patients who have presented with a first demyelinating event. And that study out performed all prior trials in clinically isolated syndrome so raises the question should be using an aggressive therapy right from the get-go?

 

And then, we have the alemtuzumab pivotal trial where alemtuzumab was compared head-to-head versus interferon beta-1a twice weekly in newly diagnosed patients. And in that study, alemtuzumab also out performed interferon beta-1a on many of the short-term markers of inflammatory disease activity. And we recently saw long-term data with alemtuzumab indicating that those patient do really quite well over a four-year period of time. So actually midterm data. 

 

So we have a few lines of evidence to suggest that perhaps we should be using these high-potency therapies earlier. What we don't know is the relative risk-to-benefit profile. Certainly these higher-potency therapies carry greater risk to the individual subjects who are treated with these medications. And what we ultimately have to determine is whether those risks at a population level are worth the potential benefits of using a greater potency therapy early on in the course of MS. 

 

It's my opinion that it's unlikely that the pharmaceutical industry is going to answer this question for us definitively. This type of approach to compare escalation therapy to high-potency therapy or maximal efficacy therapy from the get-go will require quite a bit of time of followup – at least five years if not longer – and will require large studies. So it seems to me unlikely to be endorsed by the pharmaceutical industry. It also seems unlikely that it's going to be sponsored by national organizations such as the National Institute for Neurological Disease and Stroke because of the extremely high costs associated with this type of clinical trial. 

 

So that raises the question how are we going to answer this pressing unmet and unanswered question? And I think observational studies such as EPIC will be able to do this when merged together with other long-term followup cohorts. Today we have treatments that we didn't have 10 years ago, for example, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab. These medications are currently being used in clinical practice. And I think we should be responsible for aggregating data on the patient experience with these medications, putting it into a systematized process for analysis, and aggregating this type of data across multiple centers. And that really is the goal of SUMMIT, which is going to involve pooling together our patient experience with our existing cohort, as well as new cohorts from UCSF, from Harvard, from Basal, from Amsterdam, and hopefully from many other MS centers as well. And then, with that pooled data, we'll hopefully be able to answer this question in a meaningful way. 

 

MSDF

Well, Dr. Cree, thank you very much. 

 

Dr. Cree

My pleasure. 

 

[transition music]

 

MSDF

Thank you for listening to Episode Forty-eight of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Robert Finn. Msdiscovery.org is part of the non-profit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is vice president of scientific operations. 

 

Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

 

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.

 

[outro music]

 

 

 

Jul 2, 2015

[intro music]

 

Host – Dan Keller

Hello, and welcome to Episode Forty-Seven of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.

 

This week’s podcast features the second part of a two-part interview with Dr. Hans Lassmann, who discusses oxidative stress as a mechanism of tissue injury in progressive MS. But first, here are some of the new items in the MS Discovery Forum.

 

According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 56 such articles were published last week. To see the list, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers. We selected two of those papers as Editors’ Picks. One of them includes revised guidelines from the Association of British Neurologists on prescribing disease-modifying treatments for MS. The other describes an international consensus on diagnostic criteria for neuromyelitis optica and related disorders.

 

Our Drug-Development Pipeline includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. During the month of June, we added 10 new trials, we updated information on 6 other trials, and we’ve added 67 other pieces of information. The drugs with important additions and changes are alemtuzumab, cladribine, cyclophosphamide, daclizumab, dalfampridine, dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, idebenone, interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, laquinimod, rituximab, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdiscovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline.

 

[transition music]

 

Now to our interview with Dr. Hans Lassmann of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria. Last week we spoke about biomarkers, and this week we’ll discuss oxidative stress as a mechanism of tissue injury in progressive MS.

 

Interviewer – Dan Keller

What's interesting there at this point?

 

Interviewee – Hans Lassmann

The big problem in multiple sclerosis is that we have very good therapies for the early stage of multiple sclerosis, and they all interfere with the inflammation and the immune system. But when the patients have reached a progressive stage of the disease, then all these therapies are currently noneffective. So the key points were to define what are actually the mechanisms of inflammation and tissue injury in the progressive stage of multiple sclerosis, and there are still a lot of open questions. It is clear that even in the progressive stage there is an inflammatory process, and this inflammatory process is associated with active tissue damage. From that certainly we cannot definitely conclude that the inflammatory process drives the tissue damage; however, it's clearly associated.

 

Now, we were then very interested to see what are the mechanisms of tissue injury. And this involves, first of all, studies on the nature of the inflammatory process. And here what we found is that in the progressive stage of multiple sclerosis the inflammatory reaction is predominantly hidden within the central nervous system behind a repaired blood-brain barrier. So that means this inflammatory process is no longer really under control of the peripheral immune system. And also, the therapies which we have currently mainly interfere with immune functions in the periphery, and they have actually very little access to an inflammatory process which is taking place within the central nervous system.

 

So that means that new drugs have to be developed and tested which actually exert an antiinflammatory or some neuroprotective action directly within the central nervous system. And there are now a number of the large companies fully engaged in this process, and there are new candidates coming up, which will have to be tested in proper clinical trials in patients with progressive MS.

 

The second question, which we have mainly addressed during the last year, was the mechanisms how the tissue damage is induced. And in this regard, we concentrated on cortical lesions in multiple sclerosis, which are very, very specific for the disease. And we compared in gene expression studies these cortical lesions not only with normal controls but also with inflammatory controls. And we used here a disease which has very similar inflammatory infiltrates, as you see in multiple sclerosis brain, but doesn't lead to the MS typical demyelination, and this is tuberculous meningitis. And then we also used as a control for neurodegeneration Alzheimer's disease just to see what is a reaction in gene expression due to degeneration of neurons.

 

And when we did that, actually it was interesting to see that there were relatively few genes which were specifically changed in their expression in multiple sclerosis patients in comparison to these other disease controls. And these genes were, in part, associated with inflammatory processes. A large part of the genes were associated with a more or less single pathway of tissue injury, which includes oxidative injury leading to mitochondrial injury and its secondary consequences. And then, there were also some genes involved which were MS specifically related to tissue regenerative processes.

 

We have then looked in further detail, and it now turns out that this cascade of oxidative injury leading to mitochondrial dysfunction and with that to a state of energy deficiency is actually one of the major driving forces of neurodegeneration in the progressive stage of multiple sclerosis. So this oxidative injury is, in part, driven by the inflammatory process. But it is also augmented by factors which are related to age of the patients and to the accumulation of lesion burden due to the chronic disease.

 

So here the central portion is the activation of microglial cells which can, on the one hand, be activated in the inflammatory process, but they also get activated when tissue is damaged due to completely different causes. And they also get activated just simply in an aging process. And in this respect, then they get activated in a pro-oxidative form. And then, the tissue injury can further be propagated through additional age-related changes, including, for instance, the accumulation of iron in the central nervous system and also obviously the chronic microglia activation due to retrograded and anterograde degeneration when lesions already present within the central nervous system.

 

MSDF

Are the microglia just overdoing what they normally would be expected to do? I mean macrophages use oxidative systems to get rid of pathogens.

 

Dr. Lassmann

Yeah, this is absolutely true. That is a key element of microphage and microglia function. And this is exaggerated in both the aging process, as well as in the chronic inflammatory state like multiple sclerosis. The question only remains what is really driving this massive microglia activation in MS, which is even more and more pronounced than even in very severe other inflammatory diseases of the central nervous system.

 

MSDF

Can you identify or has anyone identified factors that disappear with aging or are increased with aging that may lead to this state?

 

Dr. Lassmann

That is also not really very clear now. I think one interesting aspect is that this massive microglia activation in the direction of oxidative stress you don't really see in rodents and even not in primate experimental models; you see it in humans. And the reason for that is not completely clear, but it may very well be that environmental factors actually play a major role. I think one of the major differences between humans and these experimental animals is that the experimental animals are genetically very homogenous; they are generally inbred strains. And the second is that they are kept under a very constant pathogen-free environment. And this is very different in a human situation, and these animals also have a very … standardized diet. Now this is completely different in human situations, and there are certainly many factors, including peripheral infections but also including diet changes, and many other factors can actually have an influence on microglia in the central nervous system.

 

MSDF

And experimental animals also have optimized diets; people have figured out the nutrients they need I suppose. They're getting a good diet compared to people who knows how everybody is eating these days.

 

Dr. Lassmann

Yes, that's absolutely the case. They have a standardized diet, and they certainly are not exposed to very much of the fats, for instance, which we take into when we eat fat pork meat.

 

MSDF

Do any of the antiinflammatory agents modify the course? Things like lipoxygenase inhibitors and things like that? Not necessarily NSAIDs but now that you bring up fats?

 

Dr. Lassmann

I think there is certainly an aspect behind that is that lifestyle control certainly has a beneficial effect. One can just see that in a way that environmental lifestyle factors, which actually also increase the risk for vascular injury or other things, will be certainly deleterious in a patient with progressive multiple sclerosis where the brain is already damaged due to the original disease process and where the functional reserve capacity of the brain is already partially exhausted. So in that case, even minor changes – which are related to lifestyle or aging – will have a more dramatic effect in such a brain than in a normal aging brain.

 

MSDF

Finally, circling back to something you said at the beginning, in progressive MS I think you said that the immune system the cells have now entered the brain, but the blood-brain barrier has – once again – become a real barrier. So do you really have an immune response running autonomously in the brain no longer subject to any sort of peripheral control?

 

Dr. Lassmann

Yeah, this is certainly a very important open question. We know that the inflammatory cells are present within the central nervous system in the progressive stage and that they are associated with the degenerative processes and the demyelination. We know currently very little about the exact phenotype and functional activation of the inflammatory cells within the central nervous system. This is actually a large research project, which is running currently in my lab, to try to define exactly the functional polarization of the cells within the MS lesions and to determine their activation state, their proliferation rate, and so on.

 

What we can say from our preliminary data on that is that they are present, they are in part activated. They also express certain transcription factors, which would be associated with a proinflammatory state in the central nervous system. However, overall all these changes are relatively small in comparison to an acute, for instance, virus-induced inflammatory process in the brain. So it seems to be that there is a slow and low-grade activation state which, however, could be completely sufficient to drive the degenerative process in the patients. But that is not the final answer yet.

 

[transition music]

 

MSDF

Thank you for listening to Episode Forty-seven of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Robert Finn. Msdiscovery.org is part of the non-profit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is vice president of scientific operations.

 

Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

 

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.

 

[outro music]

 

 

 

Jun 24, 2015

Hello, and welcome to Episode Forty-Six of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.

 

This week’s podcast features the first part of a two-part interview with Dr. Hans Lassmann, who discusses biomarkers in multiple sclerosis. But first, here are some of the new items in the MS Discovery Forum.

 

According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 61 such articles were published last week. To see the list, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers. We selected two of those papers as Editors’ Picks. One, on the prevalence of pain in MS, found that around two-thirds of MS patients experience pain, and this symptom is associated with disability, depression, and especially anxiety. The other editor’s pick is a study of a toxin produced by Clostridium perfringens, a common bacterium often found in the gut that produces an MS-like disease in sheep. This epsilon toxin selectively kills oligodendrocytes while preserving all other neural elements.

 

Our Drug-Development Pipeline includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. During the past week we added 2 new trials and 5 other pieces of information. The drugs with important additions are dalfampridine, dimethyl fumarate, and fingolimod. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdiscovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline

 

[transition music]

 

Now to the interview. Dr. Hans Lassmann of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria, is one of the most prolific and highly respected MS researchers in the world. In this first part of a two part interview, Dr. Lassmann discusses biomarkers in MS and related conditions such as neuromyelitis optica and how the two conditions may differ important for therapy.

 

Interviewer – Dan Keller

Let’s talk about new markers in MS or differentiating conditions from MS. What’s coming along, and what do we know now?

 

Interviewee – Hans Lassmann

Well, there has been a very important development during the last years. And this was the technical development of assays which can really identify pathogenic autoantibodies which can modify the inflammatory process in the central nervous system. The major trick behind was that these assays are, in essence, based on cells which are transfected with the respective antigen, and so they express the respective antigen on the surface of the cell. And one can now identify those autoantibodies which really bind to the surface of the cell and are pathogenic, in comparison to those antibodies which recognize epitopes, for instance, within the cells, which cannot be reached by the antibodies in the in vivo situation, and which, therefore, are not pathogenic.

 

MSDF

Can you give me some examples of these kinds of antibodies?

 

Dr. Lassmann

So the first antibody which was the antibody against aquaporin 4, which has been shown to be associated with neuromyelitis optica, at least with a large fraction of patients with neuromyelitis optica. And this antibody then was very well characterized, and it turned out that it is directed against aquaporin 4, which is a water channel in astrocytes. And when patients have these antibodies on the background of an inflammatory disease in the central nervous system, these antibodies can reach their astrocytic targets and destroy the astrocytes, which then leads to secondary demyelination and neurodegeneration.

 

Having these antibodies, it was then possible to define the clinical spectrum of the disease, and it turned out that it is very strictly associated with neuromyelitis optica, but that the spectrum of the disease is broader than only affecting the spinal cord and the optic nerve. So these patients actually have also lesions in other regions of the brain. But they are still different from those lesions which you see multiple sclerosis.

 

It was then also possible to define the clinical spectrum of the disease. And, again, differences to multiple sclerosis became very clear. And, finally, it was also possible to then look in these patients with these aquaporin 4 antibodies how they respond to the current treatment strategies which have been established for multiple sclerosis. And it turned out that several of the key therapies for multiple sclerosis, including interferons but also natalizumab or fingolimod, can actually make the disease worse in patients with neuromyelitis optica.

 

So that was the first example that a disease which has originally been defined as a disease in the spectrum of multiple sclerosis has emerged as a separate and distinguishable disease which requires also different treatment in the patients.

 

MSDF

It seems like neuromyelitis optica has components of autoimmune disease. So why do these compounds that work in MS potentially make the condition worse in NMO?

 

Dr. Lassmann

This is currently not yet clear. One possibility is that the action of pathogenic antibodies makes the difference. The immune mechanisms are certainly different in a purely T-cell mediated disease, in comparison to disease which is mediated by a combination of T-cells and antibodies. And that could possibly explain why differences are seen.

 

There is another possibility is that some of these drugs actually stimulate the B-cell response or increase the B-cell response in the peripheral blood, and with that possibly also the antibody response. So, in that case, the T-cell mediated inflammation would be suppressed, but the antibody-mediated effects would be enhanced. And that could certainly also play a role. But these are, at the present moment, not proven.

 

MSDF

But even in MS there’s evidence for B-cell trafficking and B-cell participation, but it seems to be less important or am I off base?

 

Dr. Lassmann

No, this is a very interesting question. There is clearly a B-cell component in multiple sclerosis, and it has also been shown that depleting B-cells, for instance, with an antibody against CD20 can actually have a very good therapeutic effect in multiple sclerosis. However, we have to keep in mind that B-cells not only produce antibodies, but they have also other immunological functions. So one function, for instance, is that they help the T-cells, for instance, by very efficient antigen presentation. So by eliminating B-cells, you get also a decrease of the T-cell response. But this is not only one possibility. There are other possibilities that B-lymphocytes actually can also produce cytokines – proinflammatory cytokines – which may directly act on the tissue and damage the tissue independent from antibodies.

 

MSDF

Getting back to NMO, if someone tests negative for antibody, but has clinical signs, does that rule out NMO or are you just not detecting antibodies or is it always required or not?

 

Dr. Lassmann

So it rules out an aquaporin 4 antibody associated form of NMO, but a fraction of NMO patients – it’s around between 10 and 20% – which have a clinical presentation of NMO, but have no antibodies against aquaporin 4. There is currently very much effort to define what is the mechanism in these patients. And it turned out that a fraction of these aquaporin 4 antibody-negative NMO patients actually have antibodies against myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein.

 

And this leads, actually now, to a second type of disease which can be separated from multiple sclerosis. These are patients with high titers of pathogenic antibodies against myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein. Now, again, these patients, when you look at them at pathology, you would clearly define the disease as multiple sclerosis because they have inflammation, and they have very selective primary demyelination. And this is different from what you see in NMO where the astrocyte pathology is the earliest event. But in those patients with the MOG antibodies, its demyelination sort of hallmark, actually, of multiple sclerosis…of the disease process in multiple sclerosis.

 

However, when you now analyze these patients with mock antibodies, clinically you see that the clinical presentation is different from the classical presentation of multiple sclerosis patients. These antibodies are, for instance, frequent in children with inflammatory demyelinating disease of a spectrum of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis or relapsing disseminated encephalomyelitis or even patients with a disease similar to relapsing, remitting multiple sclerosis. This is in children.

 

In adults, you find these antibodies in a fraction of NMO patients. But there are also other patients who have a disease which is more similar to what is seen in multiple sclerosis, with the exception that they have relatively large and aggressive lesions, and also that they have, relatively frequently, lesions in the brain stem such as, for instance, the pons or the medulla oblongata. And, again, it seems to be that here a new disease entity appears which can be separated from multiple sclerosis.

 

Regarding therapy of these patients, we don’t have yet the data which we need to have. It can be speculated that the therapeutic response may possibly be more similar to those patients with NMO in comparison to the classical MS patients, but to know that we would have to have much larger cohorts of patients who have been treated with the different regimes.

 

MSDF

Do some of these do worse on the typical MS treatments such as natalizumab or fingolimod?

 

Dr. Lassmann

These data currently are not yet existing. It’s also because, due to these possible problems related to NMO, generally now, patients with mock-antibody-associated diseases are more likely to be treated with global immunosuppression or with rituximab, so the anti-CD20 antibody. And clinicians are very reluctant to use these therapies which have been shown to make disease worse in NMO in these mock patients. So we don’t have the data, currently.

 

MSDF

Are there separate etiologies, does it look like here, the MOG versus classical MS?

 

Dr. Lassmann

This comes to the important question about the etiology of MS in general. We have to admit that we don’t know what is the real etiology of multiple sclerosis. It is thought to be an autoimmune disease, but this is not finally proven. It may also be associated with infections – Epstein-Barr virus infection is, for instance, one possible example. And there are certainly other theories also, which discuss completely different mechanisms of disease pathogenesis in multiple sclerosis. It is clearly that all these diseases, including NMO, mock antibody associated disease, and MS are chronic inflammatory diseases. But what drives the inflammation is currently not yet known.

 

MSDF

Is it possible there’s an initial insult to oligodendrocytes which then sort of precipitate a chain reaction cascade?

 

Dr. Lassmann

This is also one of the theories which is put forward, but one has to say that with a bit caution, because there are experimental models where you can actually destroy oligodendrocytes in the central nervous system which do not lead to an autoimmune disease which is somehow related or similar to multiple sclerosis.

 

MSDF

Anything interesting or important to add on the subject, in this context?

 

Dr. Lassmann

I think what is now of interesting new research line is to search for additional autoantibodies in the population of multiple sclerosis patients. There are indications from pathology that there are certainly more patients who may have pathogenic autoantibodies, in comparison to those patients which now can be identified as NMO or mock-autoantibody-associated disease. There is a relatively recent study suggesting that another channel, a potassium channel on oligodendrocytes and astrocytes, the KIR4.1 channel, may also be a target for pathogenic autoantibodies in multiple sclerosis. Here, however, we are still in the very early stage because the test systems are not yet fully reproducible. And we will see in the future whether this antibody association with the KIR4.1 antibody really holds true in MS patients. And if that’s the case, what patients are they and whether they differ in any way in their clinical presentation or also response to therapy.

 

MSDF

Is there a way to survey patients and essentially see what commonalities they have in antibody reactivity, and zero in on it that way, looking at a wide array of antibodies in various patients and seeing if they have reactivities in common?

 

Dr. Lassmann

I think this is valid as a second step. But there is another alternative strategy which is now very well established also for other diseases, including paraneoplastic diseases or other autoimmune diseases. In that case, one can actually take the sera of the patients, and there are now new technologies developed where you can put these sera, for instance, on brain sections – normal brain sections – of either humans or animals and test whether they bind to specific structures.

 

This has been tried for nearly 30 years now, but only recently, new technologies became available which make that in a much more specific way. And this has been very successful in identifying new diseases which are associated with antibodies against a variety of neurotransmitter receptors or ion channels. So they certainly, in general, have not the spectrum of multiple sclerosis. They may have epilepsy. They may have psychosis. They may have motor neuron diseases, other things. But, on the other hand, the same technique can also be used to identify in multiple sclerosis patients whether some of them have actually antibodies which bind to brain tissue. And when that is established, one can actually then isolate the specific protein with the antibodies out of the brain tissue, and then, with modern molecular biology technology, can identify the antigen.

 

This is a strategy which has very nicely and very successfully shown for other diseases. And this was also, in principle, the strategy how people found evidence for these, for instance, KIR4.1 antibodies and also for the NMO antibodies.

 

MSDF

Finally, do you envision being able to develop specific treatments if you find out specific autoantibodies or causes of some of these conditions?

 

Dr. Lassmann

It may very well be. I think there are two dimensions on that. The one dimension is that such patients have pathogenic autoantibodies, and that certainly will have implications for therapy. That means that you will try to block the pathogenic action of the antibodies in general. In that case, it doesn’t make a difference whether the antibody is now directed against a neuron or against an astrocyte or against an oligodendrocyte. And this is a strategy which is actually now already approached in many different conditions, and neuromyelitis optica certainly is a disease where this is relatively advanced in this respect.

 

Now, the other possibility would be to try to find therapies which are then counteracting specifically the destruction of the particular cells which contain the antigen. So it can very well be that, for instance, an antibody against a neurotransmitter receptor will have a different implication on neuronal function, in comparison to an antibody against an astrocyte or an oligodendrocyte. Here, if these are just blocking antibodies and not antibodies which destroy the tissue, one can actually then try also symptomatic therapies with interfering with these channels directly.

 

MSDF

Is there any thought towards trying to induce tolerance or clonal deletion of the pathogenic clones?

 

Dr. Lassmann

This is obviously the dream of immunologists, and it would be extremely attractive. And it works extremely well in inbred mouse models with a very well-defined disease induction process. The strategy is very dangerous in a genetically heterogeneous population and also in a disease process which may be induced by different mechanisms. So, in that case, the big danger is that this tolerizing strategy in certain patients, for instance, with a certain histocompatibility genetics, actually is counterproductive and increases the immune response. And this is actually a problem which is very, very difficult to solve, in the aim of translating this mouse data into humans.

 

[transition music]

 

Thank you for listening to Episode Forty-six of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Robert Finn. Msdiscovery.org is part of the non-profit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is vice president of scientific operations.

 

Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

 

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.

 

[outro music]

 

 

Jun 12, 2015

[intro music]

 

Host – Dan Keller

Hello, and welcome to Episode Forty-Five of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.

 

This week’s podcast features an interview with Dr. Simon Hametner, who discusses the role of iron in multiple sclerosis. But first, here are some of the new items on the MS Discovery Forum.

 

According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 59 such articles were published last week. To see the list, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers. We selected two of those papers as Editors’ Picks. One, published in Nature Reviews Neurology proposes a definition of aggressive multiple sclerosis as well as a treatment algorithm. The other editor’s pick, published in the journal Neurology, reports on a randomized, placebo-controlled study on patients switching from natalizumab to fingolimod, concluding that shorter washout periods may be better.

 

Our Drug-Development Pipeline includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. During the past week we added 3 new trials, we updated information on 2 other trials, and we added 9 other pieces of information. The drugs with important additions and changes are daclizumab, dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, interferon beta-1a, laquinimod, and natalizumab. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdiscovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline

 

[transition music]

 

Now to the interview. Dr. Simon Hametner works with Hans Lassmann at the Medical University of Vienna in Austria. We spoke about iron accumulation in MS in cells of the central nervous system and what iron may be doing.

 

Interviewer – Dan Keller

Let's talk about iron and neurodegeneration. What specifically are you looking at?

 

Interviewee – Simon Hametner

We are looking at the formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded brain tissue from multiple sclerosis patients and controls, and we're looking, for example, at iron in these tissues. We're also looking now at proteins which are engaged in the management of iron in these tissues, for example, now.

 

MSDF

What are you finding different in MS patients that you don't see in healthy people?

 

Dr. Hametner

So we see iron accumulation, for example, in microglia and macrophages in MS, which are related to MS lesions. There are, for example, some MS lesions which have macrophages around those lesions, and we don't see much of iron in macrophages and microglia in healthy control tissue. We also see iron loss in multiple sclerosis because the iron is normally stored in oligodendrocytes in the controls. And this is also the case for MS, but in MS we also see a loss of this iron in the oligodendrocytes, especially at the oligodendrocytes which are closed to MS lesions.

 

MSDF

Do you know the mechanism of why you're seeing these differences in iron?

 

Dr. Hametner

We are now performing the research to find about these mechanisms. We have some prior indications, for example, hephaestin upregulation on oligodendrocytes in the vicinity of the lesions, but these data were not so straightforward. We are now also looking for ferroportin; ferroportin is an iron exporter of glial cells, it's actually ubiquitously expressed in mammalian cells. And all the glial cells also can express ferroportin, and we found it also in the oligodendrocytes; we now undertake this research. We think that oligodendrocytes really upregulate ferroportin and hephaestin in order to export iron.

 

MSDF

Is the iron detrimental?

 

Dr. Hametner

It depends. We don't think that it is, per se, detrimental; we see loads of iron in the deep grey matter nuclei and it seems that the brain can handle that quite well. But if there is even a minor amount of iron in the extracellular space even in the ferrous form – because iron normally is stored in the ferric and the trivalent form in ferritin – but if we see even minor amounts in the ferrous form, then it might be detrimental at very low amounts actually.

 

MSDF

Is this a result or a marker of what's going on, or does it really contribute somehow to the disease?

 

Dr. Hametner

This is a very interesting question. We think that iron really colocalizes or is found and accumulated at sites where things are going on with these lesions which accumulate iron in the microglia and macrophages around them. On the other hand, you can detect it very nicely with magnetic resonance imaging today. So we think that on the one hand it does play a role in the disease pathogenesis, and on the other hand we think that we can detect really these sites of iron accumulation, for example, around MS lesions.

 

MSDF

Are you doing this only on fixed patient tissue, or do you have animal models of this; how are you exploring it?

 

Dr. Hametner

We have this fixed material on the MS, and I think it's really important to also characterize the human material in very detail to perform all the necessary analysis to characterize what's going on in the human tissue. But, of course, as you mentioned animal models, it's very important to look at the EAE models. And collaboration partners have done that from McGill University in Montreal, Juan Zarruk and Sam David, and we are collaborating with them. And actually now they have been looking at some iron transporters and we are looking at exactly the same iron transporters now in the MS tissue. And they have found it in the same cell types, these iron transporters, in the EAE model being upregulated in the course of EAE as we see now in the MS tissues actually. So we really look for confirmation also from animal models from our collaboration partners.

 

MSDF

And does this work with various kinds of animal models, or is it restricted to the EAE?

 

Dr. Hametner

This survey has now been performed on the EAE, so it is a mock EAE actually and that they have performed a relapsing-remitting mock EAE in the chronic EAE model, and they have characterized those proteins, but they also do spinal cord injury models and they have performed a very interesting experiment on iron-loading in macrophages in the course of spinal cord injury where the iron gets into the macrophages possibly from a hemoglobin source from erythrocytes in the traumatic lesional tissue. And we think that regardless of the source of iron, it has these detrimental effects in the macrophages and triggers them to have a pre-inflammatory – or so to speak, M1 state – and are detrimental to the surrounding tissue.

 

MSDF

This is macrophages or also microglia?

 

Dr. Hametner

So in the spinal cord injury model, it was mainly macrophages. In the acute phases of the EAE at the peak of the disease, it was also mainly macrophages, but later they also found iron in the animal model within microglia, as we do also in MS. We have these early lesions where there are a bunch of macrophages in these classical active lesions, and these are mainly macrophages, and if they are iron-loaded, it is in the macrophages. But for the later lesions for these chronic active lesions which have this iron ring around the lesion, we find it also within macrophages but also microglia.

 

MSDF

So does this change the oxidative environment inside the macrophage?

 

Dr. Hametner

That's a good question. We think that it does change something with the macrophages because they seem to die. So we have these dying macrophages in the EAE model, as they have observed it, but in the MS we saw this dystrophic microglia at the lesion edge. So these are microglia which are highly iron-loaded probably for some time, and they have these nice processes. And if these processes get those beads and the process fragmentation and these process budding and blips in the processes, we call them senescent or that dystrophic microglia. And we have indications that this is really related to the iron load of this microglia. And then they get diminished towards the inactive centers of the lesion. So we think that at the edge of chronic active or slowly expanding MS lesions, these get iron-loaded in microglia and they don't handle it quite well, and then they die and get diminished towards the inactive centers.

 

MSDF

So when they die, do they release this and is it affecting other cells?

 

Dr. Hametner

We believe so. We think more or less that it is necessarily released into the extracellular space if an iron-loaded cells just dies by necrosis, or apoptosis, or something in between. So it is just released into the extracellular space. It has to be taken up by other cells; for example, other microglia, or other macrophages, or even astrocytes; it seems that it is really liberated. But, of course, it is hard to say whether iron within a specific microglia has been acquired by some other microglia which has died, or by some oligodendrocyte which has died, or even another source. But the fact is although we are sure that they have really accumulated lots of iron, and given actually the concentration of iron in these microglia and the surrounding tissue, we do think that there must be other sources than only oligodendrocytes by which iron gets into these microglia.

 

MSDF

Where do you go from here? What do you see the steps in the research?

 

Dr. Hametner

 I think it is necessary to characterize these rings around lesions which have these iron-loaded microglia and macrophages, to characterize at which disease phases these rings occur, and, of course, this is very interesting because you can use it in vivo. Because one of the things we are really sure is that we can image iron within microglia at the lesion edge of those lesions very nicely at 7 Tesla of magnetic resonance imaging; we are very sure that this is iron then within microglia and macrophages. And if we can relate pathologically the disease mechanisms or the degenerative actions going on in these lesions to the presence of iron, we then can also relate our in vivo findings from MRI with the things which are going on there, like neural degeneration and demyelination, for example.

 

MSDF

Do you find that the iron-sensitive MRI imaging correlates with duration of the disease or stage or clinical condition?

 

Dr. Hametner

Yes, we think so from our pathological material. So we think that in the progressive stage of MS, there are these lesions which are the slowly-expanding lesions, and they have these chronic activity, chronic demyelinating activity at the lesion edge. And we think it's a typical feature of progressive MS. It remains to be determined whether this also holds true in vivo. If you make an MRI, an iron-sensitive MRI, and you look for iron rings around MS lesions, for example, by susceptibility-weighted imaging or by quantitative susceptibility mapping or even Ultrastar imaging, if you look at these iron rings around lesions, it remains to be determined at which disease phase is, because in the pathological material we have more of the chronic cases and we have very few relapsing-remitting. So we cannot say what's really going on in the relapsing-remitting disease because we don't have this material pathologically.

 

MSDF

Right, you would have to find people in various stages who probably died from something else; they're not going to be advanced MS patients at that point. Is there some relationship of your findings to the idea of oxidative stress?

 

Dr. Hametner

Yes, we have these overactivity for malondialdehyde or E06, which is this antibody against oxidized phospholipids, and we have found actually by working performed partly in this lab that there is a higher activity for oxidative stress of various glial cells in the lesions. But as for the microglial degeneration, we did not see so many microglia being positive for these markers. So the microglia, they seem to die, but we only have these morphological features of dystrophic or senescent microglia actually from the pathological side. On adjacent side, if you stain for iron and you stain for oxidized phospholipids, you see partly that there is a 1:1 colocalization. But we don’t see these always actually.

 

I think what's really clear is that there is lots of oxidative stress in MS lesions, but even in early MS lesions which on iron stainings don't have so much iron, because on these early lesions we actually see predominant iron loss. If you have a very highly active MS lesion in the early stages, you see iron loss, and you will see also oxidative damage there. So there is also other factors leading to oxidative stress, like NADPH oxidase, for example, the p22phox, the functional subunit of NADPH oxidase, which we have shown in this lab that it is upregulated on macrophages and microglia, but also in the absence of iron.

 

MSDF

What tips the balance between loss and iron accumulation?

 

Dr. Hametner

That's an interesting question, actually a complicated one. You're right, we see on the one hand iron loss, and we see iron accumulation. So in the early stages, we see iron loss around MS lesions, in the MS lesions, because oligodendrocytes try to get rid of their intracellular iron possibly to prevent the iron efflux or iron liberation, which is uncontrolled if there is demyelination and oligodendrocyte degeneration actually. So we think that inflammation in the early phases of the disease leads to this efflux, which we think also involves not only oligodendrocytes, but also astrocytes. So we now think actually that oligodendrocytes probably efflux the iron towards astrocytes, and those astrocytes then might efflux it towards the periphery even. So I think inflammation is an obvious candidate to trigger this upregulation of iron efflux mechanisms.

 

I think what drives the iron accumulation within the microglia at the lesion edges is a different story. We think that these are two unrelated processes. On the one hand you have these iron loss mechanisms, the iron efflux mechanisms from the oligos leading to iron loss in early MS lesions, and this seems to be a protective phenomenon; this is, so to speak, a protective reaction of the glial cells against oxidative stress. But in later lesions, in chronic active lesions with this iron accumulation within microglia and macrophages, and we don't think that they are really correlated. So we think these are two distinct processes going on in MS, probably even in two distinct phases of the disease.

 

MSDF

Is there anything interesting to add?

 

Dr. Hametner

I think the really crucial question is now to find out about the source of iron for microglia and macrophages, and even to find out about the source of iron for the oligodendrocytes. We are not so sure whether this is really transferrin-bound iron entering the brain and being loaded in oligodendrocytes, as you find it in control tissue, control brains. And we don't think that this is only this iron from the oligodendrocytes which is then loaded into the microglia and macrophages; we think there are additional sources possibly from the vasculature.

 

MSDF

Very good, thank you.

 

[transition music]

 

Thank you for listening to Episode Forty-five of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Robert Finn. Msdiscovery.org is part of the non-profit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is vice president of scientific operations.

 

Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

 

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.

 

[outro music]

 

Jun 4, 2015

[intro music]

 

Host – Dan Keller

Hello, and welcome to Episode Forty-Four of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.

 

This week’s podcast features an interview with Dr. Monika Bradl, who discusses animal models of neuromyelitis optica, NMO. But first, here are some of the new items on the MS Discovery Forum.

 

According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 69 such articles were published last week. To see the list, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers. We selected two of those papers as Editors’ Picks. One – on the use of MRI in NMO –included no fewer than 48 co-authors, a veritable Who’s Who of prominent MS researchers. The other editor’s pick, which had “only” 36 co-authors, was a large study providing strong evidence that disease-modifying treatment reduces disability worsening events in clinically isolated syndrome and early MS.

.

[transition music]

 

Now to the interview. Dr. Monika Bradl is an associate professor in the center for brain research at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria. I talked to her in her office about her work with animal models of neuromyelitis optica to probe what occurs in the early stages of the disease. She first describes why animal models are important.

 

Interviewee – Monika Bradl

NMO is a very rare disease, and so you have the problem that you get only very little pathological material, and so when you want to know what's going on at the very beginning of the disease you have to use animal models. And so our pioneer work there in the NMO field was to find out whether the antibody that characterizes about 80% of NMO patients, that's an antibody directed against aquaporin-4, water channel astrocytes, is pathogenic or not. And so what we did is that we injected this antibody then in experimental animals. When we had the animals without any additional CNS inflammation going on, they remained completely fine, and that was at that time a bit of a debate because people thought that the antibodies could enter the central nervous system anyhow.

 

But then it turned out that this failure of the antibody to reach the uninflamed brain had also predecessor in humans. There they had an NMO patient in Japan who was diagnosed with NMO, and when they found that he has pathogenic antibodies, they were first afraid because this patient was blood donor with the Japanese Red Cross, and so at that time then they stored serum samples of all the blood donors for quite some time, and they found out that this person had pathogenic antibodies already for more than 10 years without showing any signs of disease.

 

And so this was then the human patient correlated to what we found in our NMO animals, and what we then also saw is immediately when we make our CNS inflammation with CNS-specific T cells which break open the blood-brain barrier, then the antibody gets access to the central nervous system, binds to the astrocytes, and then induces two different type of killing procedures. So the astrocytes are then killed with either the help of complement or with the help of a mechanism that's called antibody-dependent cytotoxicity; so both of these mechanisms are then responsible for tissue destruction.

 

Interviewer – Dan Keller

Getting back to the Japan patient, did they also follow the recipients of that person's blood? It seems like this patient did not have that second hit which would allow the antibody to cause problems, but giving it passively to someone who already had the first hit might cause a problem. Did they look at the recipients?

 

Dr. Bradl

I'm sure they did, but there are no records about it to my knowledge. They might have been published in Japanese in some of these Japanese journals, but not in the international journals. But I'm quite sure that there was no immediate transfer of the disease with these antibodies because that would have made headlines. So one can conclude from that that this must have been harmless.

 

MSDF

And what animal models are you using?

 

Dr. Bradl
We are using rat models, but there are other groups that are working in mice. We use Lewis rats and we think they are great because the rat complement works with the human antibodies, so it provides the help. And we have an NMs strain the Lewis rat which is extremely susceptible to all different types of autoimmune diseases, and so therefore we like rats and their CNS is larger and nicer. But people who work with mice, they also have advantages because they can use the entire transgenic zoo of knockouts or gene-mutated animals, and with this they can learn more about the contribution of individual molecules to the disease process.

 

MSDF

Now that you bring up the mice, are some mice more susceptible based on MHC than others; are some resistant?

 

Dr. Bradl
There you have to consider one peculiarity of the mouse system. If you use mice, then you have the wrong complement system. So no matter what kind of inbred strain you use, you have to transfer human complement along with the human antibodies to get an effect, plus people who use the mouse model directly inject complement and antibodies into that brain to circumvent the blood-brain barrier. And when they do that, the MHC type of the particular mouse strain doesn't play a role.

 

MSDF

Is this using only passively transferred antibody, or do you try to raise antibodies by injecting antigen or modifying antigen?

 

Dr. Bradl

Yup. We desperately try to do so, but I have to say that this was not a real success story. So we first tried, as many other people did, to use just convention and normal aquaporin-4 as it is normally produced, or longer fragments of this, but obviously this does not work. And we now know that the antibody recognizes its target only if the aquaporin-4 is correctly folded within the same membrane. And only if this is the case, then there are three extra cellular loops which are available for antibody binding, and these three loops must be properly oriented and strictly optimally aligned in order for the antibody to bind. And this can only be hardly mimicked in the animal model just by immunization.

 

We then tried also to immunize with membranes of aquaporin-4 transfected cells, and there we got a little of antibody titer, but when we used these antibodies to stain tissue in order to find out whether they are good one, we saw much more staining than we would have liked, and so that means that the membranes are probably contain some antigens which were then, after immunization, targets of antibody responses. So this was so far in our hands a failure. And as far as I know, we are not the only ones that suffer from that. So there is currently, unfortunately, no model which works after immunization with aquaporin-4.

 

MSDF

Where do you go from here?

 

Dr. Bradl

Well, we are currently modifying our animal models to the extent that we study much more the T cell responses, and we also try to modify the B cell site, but this is a bit of a, let's call it easy way modification. Because we learned along the way that when we have a very, very, very good NMO IgG from a patient, we can work with very low antibody titers, and so that gives us a very nice animal model. And we also know that there are some NMO IgGs which make high titers in the patients but which are relatively lousy in animal models. So we learned from this that we just select and search for the best animal IgG for the model to transfer this; that's the B cell side. And on the T cell side, you'll find T cells in NMO lesions, but people had a hard time to get aquaporin-4 specific T cells.

 

So it was not quite clear whether one needs aquaporin-4 specific T cells at all for the formation of lesions, or whether any other activated T cell that recognizes different proteins in the CNS could do the job as well. So over the last few months, we now were really able to produce really highly pathogenic aquaporin-4 specific T cells which do the job and which guide lesions to sites where they are also seen in NMO patients. And so with this we were now able to really advance our model much, much more than we had done before.

 

MSDF

So these T cells you've generated, and these are directly cytotoxic?

 

Dr. Bradl

We are not dealing with CD8-positive or cytotoxic T cells, we are dealing with helper T cells. And these helper T cells, we know that they exist because the pathogenic antibodies of the patients have a phenotype that needs T cell help in their formation. But it was all the time unclear whether the T cells only help in antibody formation, or whether they also help in localizing lesions to the correct places. And now we have really for the first time the impression that we have a cell line that does exactly this.

 

MSDF

How do you translate what you're finding out in the animal models to the clinical situation? Is it developed enough now that you can make correlates?

 

Dr. Bradl

Well, that's a good point. I mean, when you look, for example, at our T cell work, then we observed in our animals that there are a large number of epitopes available for antigen recognition by T cells in the rat. And then it turned out that people observed the same thing in mice, and now we know it's also the same thing in humans. And then when you have so many different epitopes or so many different parts of a protein that can be recognized by the immune system, then you have to figure out whether all of them could give rise to pathogenic T cells or not.

 

And in the Lewis rat, for example, one knows that on myelin basic protein, there are two adjacent peptides which can induce very nice T cell responses, but only one T cell response is pathogenic and the other harmless. And so we initially were facing the same problem with our Lewis rats and the many different epitopes on aquaporin-4, and there we found out that in principle we can also rise T cell responses against many of these epitopes, but we have to use an enormous amount of T cells to get lesions in the CNS.

 

But with our new T cell line, now we know that we only have to use very few cells to get the lesion, so they are the dominant pathogenic T cells. And it's quite nice that in NMO patients with a very peculiar MHC phenotype – that's an MHC phenotype that's mostly seen Brazilian NMO patients – they recognize dominantly an epitope that's very close to ours, and they termed this also immunodominant epitope. And it could be that it's pathogenic as well, but there is not yet any proof for that in humans.

 

MSDF

Looking at aquaporin-4 as a target in NMO, do these cells just use it as a target to destroy the cell that it's on, or does it result in a pathologic process by inhibiting the action of the channel?

 

Dr. Bradl

There are reports about knockout animals where there is no aquaporin-4 available, also on astrocytes in the CNS. And these animals are apparently healthy under normal conditions, but they show a disease phenotype under conditions where there is tissue swelling going on; for example, under ischemia, and so they cannot cope with that properly. So that means the complete absence of this channel is also bad. Then there are currently two different groups of thinking in the scientific community. There are reports that antibodies can bind to aquaporin-4 and inhibit water flow through this channel, but there are other groups that could not reproduce it. And at the moment it could just be a matter of different antibody preparations or different test systems or different species, so this issue is not 100% solved yet.

 

MSDF

Anything we've missed or interesting to add on the topic?

 

Dr. Bradl

I think the only thing one can say is that since NMO is such an extremely rare disease and since this makes it necessary that people all over the world cooperate with each other, that leads to an enormously research-friendly atmosphere and an enormous willingness of the people to cooperate with each other, and so on all different types of subjects.

 

MSDF

How many patients are there?

 

Dr. Bradl

Well, when you look here in Austria, we have about 8 million inhabitants; there are 8,000 MS patients and approximately 80 NMO patients. And this frequency is more or less encountered throughout the world; it's a very rare disease.

 

MSDF

Very good, thank you.

 

[transition music]

 

Thank you for listening to Episode Forty-four of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Robert Finn. Msdiscovery.org is part of the non-profit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is vice president of scientific operations.

 

Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

 

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.

 

[outro music]

 

May 27, 2015

[intro music]

 

Hello, and welcome to Episode Forty-Three of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.

 

This week’s podcast features an interview with Dr. May Han, who discusses issues related to following patients with clinically isolated syndrome. But first, here are some new items on the MS Discovery Forum.

 

We recently posted an article on a surprisingly strong association between a certain gene variant and non-response to interferon beta in people with RRMS. The study is a meta-analysis of three independent cohorts in Italy, France, and the U.S., and it comes from the labs of Philip De Jager and Filippo Boneschi. You’ll find this article by clicking first on News & Future Directions and then on New Findings.

 

This past week we published the latest in our series of data visualizations. This month’s visualization is a series of word clouds illustrating how key terms in the MS clinical-trial literature have changed between 1993 and 2014. To find this visualization, first click on Research Resources, then on Data Visualizations, and then on Word Cloud.

 

According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 30 such articles were published last week. To see last week’s list, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers. We selected one of those papers as an Editors’ Pick. It’s study of the association between depressive symptoms and walking ability in people with RRMS.

 

Are you attending the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers in Indianapolis this week? If so, please come visit us at the Accelerated Cure Project’s booth. We’ll be demonstrating some of our latest data visualizations along with other features of the MS Discovery Forum. You’ll find the booth in the hallway close to the main entrance to the exhibit hall, and we look forward to meeting you.

 

[transition music]

 

Now to the interview. Dr. May Han is an assistant professor in Neurology and Neurological Sciences at Stanford University. I spoke with her about following patients with clinically isolated syndrome, as well as her approach to patients with MS across the course of their disease. But first, she addressed some unmet needs in MS.

 

Interviewer – Dan Keller

Dr. Han, you told me that we’re good at the diagnosis of MS in general, but still there’s a vast area that we don’t know about. What are some of those unmet needs?

 

Interviewee – May Han

So it’s been over 150 years since Charcot first described multiple sclerosis, and I have to say that we have come a long way in understanding and treating this disease. But as you have mentioned, there are still areas where we have no idea, there are gaps in our understanding of this disease. One of these areas that is clinically very relevant and is very challenging is in the day and age where we have a dozen disease-modifying therapies for MS patients, and yet we don’t have a good way, a scientific way of selecting the most effective therapy for a particular patient is what I find quite challenging in the clinics.

 

MSDF

What gives you clues or how do you approach this essentially algorithm of deciding where to begin and how to move on to other medications if the first one’s not working well?

 

Dr. Han

Currently, of course, we follow the guidelines. So for any relapsing-remitting patients, our logic is to go for the safest medication that we think are going to be most effective, which means we go with the first-line therapies. So we have the convention ABC drugs such as beta-interferon family of therapies and glatiramer acetate, plus the newer oral medications such as Tecfidera and fingolimod or Gilenya that we use for the first-line therapy; not a whole lot of science in choosing these medications for a particular patient, but what we would do is initially we would educate the patient about these disease-modifying therapies and then select the medication together with the patient to see what would be most appropriate and the patient could be most compliant for a particular medication.

 

To give you an example, certain patients have aversion to needles, in which case we go with the oral medications. We also have in mind what the preference of the patient, such as whether they could be able to follow it through for years on end with a particular medication. Ideally, we would like to have zero relapses or MRI activity when a patient is on a disease-modifying therapy, but as we all know none of these medications are 100% foolproof, and they can still have some degree of MRI activity or infrequent relapses on this medication. However, if a patient is clearly not responding to a therapy either in terms of not being compliant, being intolerant to the mode of administration, or if they’re having worsening disease activity, we would decide to go on to stronger medications or second-line of therapy.

 

MSDF

Do you initially discuss a plan of action, a stepwise pattern of medication prescribing, or do you wait until something needs to be changed to bring it up with patients?

 

Dr. Han

That is a very good question. I’m sure it varies among clinicians, but, however, I would like to paint the picture to the patient the best that I can. So, let’s say for example, if a patient who is a newly-diagnosed MS patient who has very few MRI lesions, I would discuss with them what the most appropriate medication could be. We would decide a medication and we would also give them an outline of what the followup plan would be and when we would be deciding to switch to a different therapy, and if so, which medications would be most likely appropriate for them, and also how we would monitor them. So by doing this, it gives the patient a better picture of their path and what to watch out for, and in my experience we have a better outcome with these patients.

 

MSDF

Do you find that once you achieve success in limiting relapses and lesions that the medication is fairly stable for a long time, or do you have to have an armamentarium that you keep moving through?

 

Dr. Han

So my model if a patient is responding to a medication, unless they have other side effects or reasons to switch, I would like to get the most mileage out of the medication as much as I can for a particular patient. However, if a patient, for example, has JC virus positivity, in which case even if they’re responding to Tysabri really well, there is a cutoff time point where we have to sit down and consider whether this patient should be switched onto a different medication to prevent the development of opportunistic brain inflammation such as PML, in which case what the next medication would be. And so we would sit down and talk the pros and cons; this conversation was started even before the patient was started on medication, but that would be the checkpoint.

 

MSDF

I suppose another aspect is do medications start to fail patients even after a long period of stability, or do they usually continue to be stable if the medication is working for some period of time?

 

Dr. Han

This is also a very pertinent question. MS patients, as we know, is very heterogeneous. Some of the patients, if they are stable on a medication, they would continue to do well on a medication for several years up to decades. However, some patients would have an initial improvement or stabilization of their disease, however in the later stages they would have worsening disease. And it is really unclear whether because their disease per se is getting worse or whether their body is rejecting the medication secondary to the immune response. And that is also one area that we should do research on to better understand this condition.

 

MSDF

When you say reject the medication, are you actually referring to an immune rejection such as with, say, interferon; I would think it would be less likely they would actually mount an immune response to a small molecule. Am I clear on that or not?

 

Dr. Han

I think we have quite a lot of information in terms of beta interferon therapies, because we clearly know that patients do tend to develop antibodies against beta interferon, especially the therapy. However, even that we don’t really know if all those antibodies are attacking the drug or whether they are just there. So just by finding the antibody alone is not enough to say that the patient is not responding to it; I think we need to use it hand-in-hand with the clinical response as well as the MRI activity.

 

Getting to the second part of your question whether there’ll be less intolerance or rejection to the therapy if it were small molecules, but I don’t think we understand at the cellular or molecular level. For small molecules there could be receptor down-regulation, there could be availability or cellular sequestration, or even the prodrug being converted to an active drug, or how the breakdown process occurs. So when a patient does not respond anymore to a medication, we just know that the clinical response is worse, and we don’t really know whether it is because the disease activity has worsened or other aspects, pharmacodynamic or kinetic aspects of the system has changed in such a way that they no longer respond. So, again, we do need to do more research to have a better understanding.

 

MSDF

You have called it MS comes in many different flavors. Have you found that any medications are particularly good for different constellations of symptoms, or is everything about equal no matter how they present?

 

Dr. Han

Very good question as well. I think in the experimental models people know that MS, or central system autoimmunity, can have a bias towards one type of inflammation as opposed to the other. For example, some would say that certain medications are better to treat Th1 as opposed to the Th17 type of inflammation, however in human beings there’s no clear-cut Th1 MS or Th17 MS. I don’t think people have done enough studies to clearly decipher the immune profiles of patients. So the answer is we don’t know.

 

MSDF

Finally, let’s talk about the need for biomarkers especially very early in the disease when someone’s presenting with CIS which may or may not become MS. Where does that stand and how acute is the need?

 

Dr. Han

The need is there, especially if you look at it from a patient who just had an initial attack. If you tell them that we don’t really know whether this is a one-time thing or whether you’re going to develop MS, and we’ll have to wait and see for three-plus years. So for these three years, the patient’s life is very much consumed by the “is it going to be MS” kind of question. And it does affect their physical-mental wellbeing as well as their quality of life.

 

I think we’ve come a long way with the advancement of the MRI studies in such a way that if a patient has MRI lesions together with the first-time attack, we could almost clearly say that this is going to blossom into MS. However, for patients who are radiographically clean and who just had one episode, it would be very, very helpful to have some kind of blood biomarkers to predict whether this could be a single event or whether it could be a central nervous system inflammatory disorder.

 

MSDF

You picked three years as a period of waiting, watching. Are they out of the woods after that, or how late can it blossom into full MS?

 

Dr. Han

It’s always a bell-shaped curve. There are patients who would declare themselves sooner than three years, there are also patients who would take several years before they have the second attack. I have one patient who had an initial attack of optic neuritis and nine years later she had the second attack. During that period, she had had MRI scans for three years which were clean. So, I guess, one is never completely out of the woods, but at the same time it is also not prudent to perform unnecessary tests on a patient.

 

So I think we have to focus on what is the safety net and pick a period of time, but at the same time it is very important to educate a patient to symptoms to watch out for, how to get help, and to work very closely with the primary care physician or a neurologist so in case the symptoms show up they will not be ignored or delayed to receiving treatment.

 

MSDF

Is there anything we’ve missed or is important to add? I’m sure it’s a gigantic field, but is there anything glaring that should be added?

 

Dr. Han

I would like to encourage people in the field to also focus on the secondary-progressive stage of MS. We know that relapsing-remitting MS patients with or without therapy eventually would end up having secondary-progressive MS, so it’ll be really important to decipher whether during the secondary-progressive stage there is no inflammation but only the early neurodegeneration, or how the immune system and the central nervous system interact and how we can change it, or at least modulate it, to either delay or to prevent neurodegeneration. The third area that I think is very important is to try to understand the regenerative aspects of the central nervous system.

 

As I have given you the example, if we have two patients who have had similar lesion burden or even lesions that are approximately the same in similar areas, a patient can be severely devastated, neurologically devastated, whereas the other may have minimal neurologic deficits. And we would always say that it depends on the brain reserve, or neural reserve, but we don’t quite know what it is. Is it the stem cells, is it the nervous system being more resistant to insult and how the immune system interacts with it? And I think this is also a big area that we should focus on, of course, to prevent further damage, but also once the damage is done to limit the damage and perhaps to regenerate it. And I think that people always have within themselves the ability to heal.

 

MSDF

Good, thank you.

 

Dr. Han

Thank you.

 

[transition music]

 

Thank you for listening to Episode Forty-Three of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Robert Finn. Msdiscovery.org is part of the non-profit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is vice president of scientific operations.

 

Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

 

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.

 

 [outro music]

May 19, 2015

[intro music]

 

Hello, and welcome to Episode Forty-Two of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.

 

This week’s podcast features an interview with Dr. Lawrence Steinman, who discusses a surprising result involving amyloid, a molecule typically associated with destruction in Alzheimer’s disease, in an animal model of MS.

 

Our Drug-Development Pipeline includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. During the past week we added 1 new trial and 16 other pieces of information. The drugs with important additions are dimethyl fumarate, daclizumab, glatiramer acetate, and natalizumab. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdiscovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline.

 

According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 50 such articles were published last week. To see last week’s list, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers. We selected one of those papers as an Editors’ Pick. It’s a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies of neuromyelitis optica, also called NMO or Devic’s disease. The conclusion of the meta-analysis is that there’s a high level of heterogeneity among the 9 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of NMO in the studies ranged from 0.51 per hundred thousand in Cuba to 4.4 per hundred thousand in southern Denmark.

 

Will you be attending the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers in Indianapolis next week? If so, please come visit us at the Accelerated Cure Project’s booth. We’ll be demonstrating some of our latest data visualizations along with other features of the MS Discovery Forum. You’ll find the booth in the hallway close to the main entrance to the exhibit hall, and we look forward to meeting you.

 

[transition music]

 

Now to the interview. I spoke with Dr. Lawrence Steinman, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics at Stanford University, who has a new twist on amyloid, this time in MS.

 

Interviewer – Dan Keller

Dr. Steinman, you have proposed that amyloid can be a protective molecule as well as what’s commonly viewed as a destructive molecule. How did you come upon this?

 

Interviewee – Lawrence Steinman

We came about it serendipitously or by accident. I had a graduate student and I thought I would give that student some low-hanging fruit, and the low-hanging fruit was to take the conventional animal model that we use for multiple sclerosis called experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis – EAE. And when she put in these long peptides from an infamous protein named amyloid beta – A-beta – she put it into the animals with EAE at the time they were paralyzed, and I thought well, these are molecules that cause even more inflammation in the central nervous system, so they should make the disease worse, or perhaps they’ll have no effect and then we’ll have to think of another project for her PhD. So the student, Jacqueline Grant, came back and said, “Well, I gave the A-beta peptides and the animals are all better, they’re walking around.” And I first reacted, no, you must have confused the cages, let’s do it again. And when we did it again there was the same result, so then we were off to the races.

 

There was a second reason besides the low-hanging fruit description. May Han, my colleague, and I had reported the proteomics of MS lesions; so we took well-defined MS lesions, May cut frozen sections and then removed the lesion area with a laser tool, and then we trypsinized, fragmented the proteins, and used a modern technique, mass spectroscopy, to get the proteome, a list of all the proteins in the lesions. So amyloid proteins such as amyloid precursor protein and cal protein are found in the lesions themselves, so I thought that that was a second opportunity, a second foundation for doing these experiments in EAE; let’s see what happens when we augment, if you will, a naturally occurring protein found in the lesion to see perhaps what it’s doing. But, again, my bias, based on the dominant theory in Alzheimer’s disease is that amyloid was going to cause harm in MS as well as Alzheimer’s.

 

MSDF

In these experiments, the amyloid was injected IV so it seems to circulate, but does it get to the brain in these mouse EAE models?

 

Dr. Steinman

Actually, it does not get to the brain. We’ve actually put it into the brain directly to see if it would spread throughout the brain, and in our hands the molecules we’re working with do not spread. Most of these experiments showing a prion-like spread of amyloid is done in animals that are overexpressing the amyloid proteins in the brain so that they’re sort of tilting the balance to enhance spread if it’s going to occur, but we don’t get these amyloid molecules into the brain when we inject them intravenously, nor do we spread them around when we injected them directly into the brain.

 

MSDF

So if you’re injecting them peripherally, do you think that there is some direct effect, or do you think they’re acting through lymphocytes or other circulating cells?

 

Dr. Steinman

Well, we now know that there are at least two mechanisms. One is that when we are injecting them peripherally, these amyloid-like molecules, they go to sites of inflammation and this could include sites of inflammation within the brain. But remember, they’re on the vascular side of the lesion. And they act in a way like molecular sponges. The amyloid molecule is very sticky; in fact, when you try to work with some of the amyloid molecules, they’re like bricks, they stick to the walls of test tubes, and more importantly, they stick to each other and form these long, brick-like fibrils.

 

So what they’re doing when we put them into the circulation is they’re sopping up many of the inflammatory mediators that appear in the circulation during inflammatory diseases, including inflammatory diseases of the brain. These inflammatory mediators include the complement proteins and some of the famous apolipoproteins that we’ve heard about in reference to Alzheimer’s, we’ve heard the most about apolipoprotein E. So these amyloid molecules, when they’re in the circulation, actually stick and take away, precipitate away these inflammatory mediators. So I call it a molecular sponge.

 

There’s another set of mechanisms that we’re learning about that we’re able to use these amyloid proteins to do a couple of things to lymphocytes. One, it sets up a type 1 interferon response in lymphocytes. So the amyloid fibrils are a known trigger for the production of type 1 interferon, and type 1 interferon is actually beneficial for neuroinflammation; we have approved drugs. It’s doing another thing that we’re on the verge of publishing, but I’ll sort of give the headline without too many details; it’s setting up a type of lymphocyte that has a more regulatory function. So these are all rather unexpected roles for amyloid proteins.

 

MSDF

And you have done adoptive transfer of some of these lymphocytes and find similar effects?

 

Dr. Steinman

Yes. And the adoptive transfer experiments are very interesting. When we set up the system to produce a lot of type 1 interferon after we give an amyloid fibril, if the type of disease is what’s called the Th17 disease, the increased beta interferon actually worsens that, and if we create a disease that is called T-helper 1 – Th1 – then the type 1 interferon is beneficial. So we’ve engineered some amyloid structures so that they trigger less type 1 interferon, and when they trigger less type 1 interferon, then they work in both the Th1 and Th17 models. We published on that in the Journal of Experimental Medicine. But, again, even here with the type 1 interferon, the effect is nuanced and we can engineer these amyloid structures to be really beneficial and to take away the harm.

 

I wanted to say one thing, that clinicians and working scientists generally understand amyloid very well. Amyloid-beta that’s well known. Other amyloid proteins that people are, of course, familiar with are tau, prion protein, alpha-synuclein. But an amyloid structure is a general description of a protein that forms beta sheet, so the beta strand structure allows through hydrogen bonds the formation of what you should think of as a venetian blind, these monotonously parallel sheets that actually intercalate dyes, like Congo red or thioflavin T, so that when you shine polarized light on them they refract it in a polarized way. So we can make these structures, if you will, they’re organized nano particulars, to be more or less water-soluble, to be greater or lesser inducers of type 1 interferon. So there’s a whole armamentarium of very interesting amyloid structures that we can engineer to provide benefit in different situations.

 

Now what does this all mean for the Alzheimer’s hypothesis? And we’re doing an audio interview, so I’m sort of smiling wryly. I don’t want to get into that because we haven’t done the experiment in the amyloid-beta overproducing transgenic mice that have served as the model system to test whether various amyloid-lowering procedures will provide benefit, we just haven’t done that. And we’ve tried our particular approach in a number of other conditions ranging from stroke to EAE, as I said, to experimental heart attacks. And in the systems that we’ve studied, we see benefit.

 

MSDF

But as a further proof of concept of what you have found in the protective effect of amyloid, you’ve looked at amyloid precursor protein knockout mice. Is that right?

 

Dr. Steinman

Yes. Well, that’s a whole interesting story, and thanks for reminding me. So in a series of experiments that we have done and others have done, we first noticed that amyloid precursor protein knockout mice, they had worse EAE. Another person in Australia, Colin Masters, who’s actually one of the leaders in the field of Alzheimer’s research, looked at experimental head trauma, and in the amyloid precursor protein knockout mouse, they had a worse condition after head trauma that was alleviated by giving amyloid precursor protein in its soluble form. And then other people have shown that experimental encephalomyelitis is worse in prion knockout animals and in tau knockout animals.

 

We had been working with a protein called alpha-B crystallin, which is also an amyloid-forming protein, and we noticed that EAE was worse in the absence of alpha-B crystallin. So there’s a long series of experiments that loss of function, loss of the parent protein of these amyloid-producing molecules, leads to worsened inflammation, whether it’s EAE, head trauma, or somebody else did it in experimental heart attack. And we also did it in experimental stroke, so under a variety of conditions.

 

So this makes the argument even stronger, suggesting that amyloid structures when augmented can provide benefit and reduce inflammation, and when absent can actually exacerbate inflammation; so gain of function better, loss of function worse. So you have to look at the amyloid molecule as something that is not always harmful and pathologic. Whether it is the main culprit in Alzheimer’s, whether Alzheimer’s is an example of neuroinflammation, I leave it to people in that field because I really don’t want to take them on headlong at this point in time when we have all these fascinating results elsewhere. But I let the listeners draw their own conclusion based on the published work that I’m talking about, not only from my own lab but from other investigators all over the world.

 

One might want to think a little bit differently the next time one thinks about the deleterious effects of amyloid in Alzheimer’s, but I’m not going to be the one that takes on that massive scientific opinion, we’ll just have to see how it works out. I hope everyone’s been right over all these years because we certainly need some answers in that field. And if they are right, then we’ll have to integrate the kinds of things that we’re understanding about the role of amyloid proteins in other types of inflammatory conditions with a positive result in Alzheimer’s when it’s taken into the clinic. If it turns out that the experiments do not succeed in Alzheimer’s, then it will be easier to reconcile these different outcomes. But I think we’ll have to be patient; science doesn’t move as fast as some of us would like to have it move.

 

MSDF

What was the time course of seeing a result by injecting the amyloid in your EAE models?

 

Dr. Steinman

It’s very fast. When you inject the amyloid, it’s within 48 hours. If you stop giving the amyloid – we like to give it every day – if you stop giving it for a few days, the inflammation recurs, and that suggests that these amyloid structures are acting like a pharmaceutical. It’s not one of these situations that you sometimes see in science; you give the molecule once or twice and the disease goes away forever. This seems to be suppressing ongoing inflammation while it circulates, and when you take it away the effect is gone and the disease recurs, so that’s very interesting.

 

MSDF

The effect seems to be too quick for remyelination to be occurring as the answer, but when you give it chronically do you see remyelination?

 

Dr. Steinman

So far, we haven’t looked for long enough periods of time or with sensitive enough techniques. Your question triggers an experiment and we should really take a look at that. I would imagine that if you can abrogate inflammation that you’ll allow for remyelination if there’s anything left in the oligodendrocyte precursor to remyelinate itself, or if you need a little augmentation, it would be good to do a stem cell type of therapy under the protection of this kind of antiinflammatory approach.

 

MSDF

Are you planning any early human trials?

 

Dr. Steinman

Ha! I chuckle because this is a tough one to bring into the clinic. I’ve been funded by people who first scolded me for saying don’t take this too fast into the clinic, because I like to translate results. In this one, we’ll have to be more cautious than we might for other types of therapies.

 

MSDF

Is there anything important to add?

 

Dr. Steinman

I thought the questions were very comprehensive. And as you can see from where our matters stand now, there’s a lot of positive leads to pursue. And I think we’ll have to be cautious about translating in the fields of multiple sclerosis or stroke because of the infamy of the molecule I’m working with, but we’ll get there. Thank you.

 

MSDF

Thank you.

 

[transition music]

 

Thank you for listening to Episode Forty-two of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Robert Finn. Msdiscovery.org is part of the non-profit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is vice president of scientific operations.

 

Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

 

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.

 

 [outro music]

May 12, 2015

[intro music]

 

Host – Dan Keller

Hello, and welcome to Episode Forty-One of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.

 

This week’s podcast features an interview with Diego Cadavid, who discusses trials of anti-LINGO-1 in MS. But first, a few updates on the latest developments at MSDF.

 

Our Drug-Development Pipeline includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. During the past week, we added 3 new trials and 11 other pieces of information.  The drugs with important additions are dalfampridine, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, naltrexone, and natalizumab. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdiscovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline.

 

According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 54 such articles were published last week. To see last week’s list, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers. We selected two of those papers as Editors’ Picks. One is a meta-analysis of mortality studies showing that excess mortality in MS relative to the general population has not changed over the past 50 years. In the other Editor’s Pick, Jagannadha Avasarala points out that 20% of patients who present with a symptom consistent with a diagnosis of clinically isolated syndrome do not meet radiological criteria on brain MRIs. Dr. Avasarala has contributed an essay to MSDF in which he discusses the consequences of this finding. To see his essay, go to msdiscovery.org and click first on News and Future Directions and then on Essays and Opinions.

 

[transition music]

 

Now to the interview. Dr. Diego Cadavid works at Biogen Idec, a pharmaceutical company involved in MS therapeutics. Our executive editor, Bob Finn, caught up with him in Washington D.C. at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where Dr. Cadavid presented results of a phase 2 trial of an anti-LINGO-1 antibody called BIIB033 in which the antibody appears to promote myelin repair in the human brain.

 

Interviewer – Robert Finn

Dr. Cadavid, welcome.

 

Interviewee – Diego Cadavid

Thank you, Bob, for having us.

 

MSDF

First, what is anti-LINGO-1, and what does it target?

 

Dr. Cadavid

Anti-LINGO-1 is an investigation and treatment for a myelin repair. It targets a protein called LINGO-1 expressed in the myelin forming cells that normally inhibits the production of myelin. By blocking LINGO-1, we believe healthy cells actually make myelin and at the same time help patients with demyelinating diseases like MS.

 

MSDF

Tell me more about LINGO-1. Why this target makes sense in multiple sclerosis.

 

Dr. Cadavid

Yeah, so LINGO-1 is an inhibitor of myelination. So MS is a demyelinating disease, and it's well established that the majority of patients once they lose myelin they actually are not capable of repairing it. And the question in the field has been why? It's becoming clear that it's not because of a lack of cells; the myelin forming cells are there, but they're not making myelin. So one of the leading hypothesis is that there is a blockade of the ability of these cells to make the myelin. Biogen – more than 10 years ago – was looking for a molecules that could mediate that inhibition, and that's when they found LINGO-1. And through a series of experiments in animal models and in vitro, they showed that when you block LINGO-1 these cells actually differentiate and make myelin. Here we are more than 10 years later reporting the first results of an efficacy trial of anti-LINGO in humans. That's the RENEW study in acute optic neuritis.

 

MSDF

So tell me about the use of optic neuritis sort of as a model of MS.

 

Dr. Cadavid

Yes, we chose acute optic neuritis as the first efficacy trial because, first of all, acute optic neuritis is how many of them, as patients, actually initially present. They're healthy, living in the community, and so then they lose vision in one eye due to acute optic neuritis. In fact, during their lifetime, most MS patients will develop acute optic neuritis, so it is very relevant to MS. But also because it's the one part of the brain that is readily accessible. Through the pupil, we can actually image the neurons of the optic nerve. And using electrophysiology and something called visual evoked potentials, we can very accurately measure the function of this neuronal pathway. So it is not only relevant to MS, we have really good tools to investigate not only the disease but what anti-LINGO-1 may be doing to help the patients.

 

MSDF

But are there indications that anti-LINGO-1 has affects more centrally than the optic nerve?

 

Dr. Cadavid

So the optic nerve – we call it a nerve, but it is really not a nerve – it's a part of the brain. So anti-LINGO-1 is actually a central molecule. What we mean? It's really expressed only in neurons and in the myelin forming cells; it's not expressed outside of the central nervous system. So all the effects of anti-LINGO-1 are believed to occur centrally.

 

MSDF

Where is anti-LINGO-1 in the development process?

 

Dr. Cadavid

We are in the middle of drug development process, Bob, I assume you're asking me. We are in the middle of phase 2. We just finished the first of the two phase 2 trials called RENEW. These are results we are communicating at the academy this year. We believe the RENEW trial results showed efficacy on the primary endpoint: recovery of latency of the visually evoked potential. And we believe this is the first evidence that blocking LINGO-1, in fact, is leading to remyelination in the human brain, first episode of acute optic neuritis. So it's only approved for biology. At the same time, we are running a larger study in MS patients both relapsing-remitting and secondary-progressive. It is a longer trial, 22 months. That trial is fully enroll, ongoing, and we are looking forward to the results next year. The results of both trials will inform on the next steps.

 

MSDF

Is that a phase 2 trial, as well?

 

Dr. Cadavid

Correct. It's the MS trial; it's called SYNERGY, and it's a phase 2 trial. It is dose ranging. Unlike RENEW in which we only tested one dose, in the MS trial – SYNERGY – we are testing several doses.

 

MSDF

How is it administered?

 

Dr. Cadavid

It is a monoclonal antibody given every four weeks by an intravenous infusion.

 

MSDF

So you said that the results of this larger phase 2 trial will be available next year. Assuming that those results are favorable, what's the next step after that?

 

Dr. Cadavid

The final phase of drug development is what we call phase 3, which is when we actually run definite trials where the primary endpoint it's some meaningful clinical endpoint. For example, improvement in disability, slowing of disease worsening. So those phase 3 trials are usually longer and larger, and if the primary endpoints are met and the safety and tolerability is adequate, we file hoping for drug approval and to make this therapy available to patients.

 

MSDF

Four or five years?

 

Dr. Cadavid

Phase 3 trials are usually longer, and we don't know until we're there. But yeah, these are a longer part of the drug development process.

 

MSDF

Now assuming that the clinical trials do pan out – and maybe it's a little bit too early to ask this question, but I'm going to ask it anyway – how will anti-LINGO-1 be used? Is it going to be used early in the disease, late in the disease? The way other DMTs are used now continuously or to respond to a remission?

 

Dr. Cadavid

Ultimately, it will come from the results from the trials. But if you think about demyelination, it is a core component of MS. All forms of MS – from very early to very late – have a loss of myelin. So as long as there is ongoing or preexisting loss of myelin, we believe there is a potential for a remyelinating therapy like anti-LINGO to help the patients.

 

MSDF

Now you mentioned not only relapsing-remitting but secondary-progressive, and I'm sure you know there's a long history of things that have not worked well for progressive disease. Do you have a reason to believe that anti-LINGO-1 will be efficacious for progressive disease?

 

Dr. Cadavid

So, Bob, it is true that there really no effective therapies in SPMS right now. It is an area that we are focusing on anti-LINGO because we know there is extensive demyelination in secondary-progressive MS. Interestingly, there is a lot of cortical demyelination with relative preservation of axons and neurons. So we believe that if this drug is capable of repairing the myelin we could actually be able to help patients with SPMS. The phase 2 program includes patients with SPMS, so we obviously are looking forward to the results from the ongoing phase 2 trials to help us make decisions on next steps.

 

MSDF

Why not primary progressive?

 

Dr. Cadavid

Primary progressive MS is also under consideration. Right now we have to focus. Obviously what we learned from secondary-progressive MS will also inform us as to pursue primary progressive MS. We are aware there is a high unmet need, and we keep those patients at heart too.

 

MSDF

Just in terms of procedurally a technique why are you focusing on secondary-progressive before primary progressive?

 

Dr. Cadavid

So there are some practical reasons. One of them is that SPMS is viewed as closer to relapsing-remitting MS relative to primary progressive MS. So in the phase 2 trial, we have to try to keep some focus on the population. If we spread too much, it may become more difficult to actually interpret the data. There is a strategic reason as SPMS is closer to RRMS than PPMS is.

 

MSDF

Well, Dr. Cadavid, I've come to the end of my prepared questions. Is there anything I haven't asked that I should have asked or anything you'd like to add?

 

Dr. Cadavid

I like to finish by saying that the results of the RENEW trial it's really the first time we have seen evidence from the human brain that it appears possible to repair the myelin. This is a very important step in the field. There is a lot of work to do. But it is encouraging news, and we are happy to share this with the community. And Biogen is very committed to MS and to help patients who are living with this chronic disabling condition. So we welcome the news, and we also are ready to embrace the following stages of drug development, which are obviously very challenging.

 

MSDF

Well Dr. Cadavid, thank you very much.

 

Dr. Cadavid

Thank you, Bob, was a pleasure.

 

[transition music]

 

MSDF

Thank you for listening to Episode Forty-One of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Robert Finn. Msdiscovery.org is part of the non-profit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is vice president of scientific operations.

 

Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

 

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.

 

[outro music]

 

May 4, 2015

[intro music]

 

Host – Dan Keller

Hello, and welcome to Episode Forty of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.

 

This week’s podcast features an interview with Raj Kapoor who discusses a clinical trial of the epilepsy drug, phenytoin, for MS. But first, a few updates on the latest developments at MSDF.

 

We posted an essay by Dr. Katie Lidster of the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement, & Reduction of Animals in Research, a U.K.-based scientific organization. In her essay, she points out that Dr. Kapoor’s phenytoin study was made possible by the prior development of a refined mouse model of MS that is more humane than experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, which results in paralysis. To find Dr. Lidster’s article, go to msdiscovery.org and click first on News and Future Directions and then on Essays and Opinions.

 

Our Drug-Development Pipeline includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. During the month of April, we added 9 new trials, we updated information on 28 trials, and we've added 42 other pieces of information.  The drugs with important additions and changes are alemtuzumab; BAF312; BIIB033, which is also called anti-LINGO-1; daclizumab; dalfampridine; dimethyl fumarate; fingolimod; glatiramer acetate; interferon beta-1a; interferon beta-1b; laquinimod; mitoxantrone; natalizumab; phenytoin; rituximab; RPC1063; and teriflunomide. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdiscovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline.

 

According to our curated list of the latest scientific articles related to MS, 42 such articles were published last week. We selected two of them as Editors’ Picks. One is a review of the role of microRNA in MS. The other is an analysis of the cost of MS drugs in the U.S. This study reports several startling facts. For example, first-generation MS drugs, which cost $8000 to $11,000 annually when they were first released, now cost $60,000 a year. And disease-modifying therapies cost two to three times more in the in the US than in comparable countries. This study ties in nicely with our interview with Dr. Kapoor. Phenytoin has been off patent for many years and is dirt cheap. Good news for MS patients? Maybe not. Paradoxically, phenytoin’s low cost may mean that it will never be fully developed for use in MS. To see our curated list of recently published papers, go to msdiscovery.org and click on Papers.

 

[transition music]

 

Now to the interview. Dr. Raj Kapoor is a neurologist at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in London, England.

 

Interviewer – Robert Finn

Hello, this is Bob Finn. I'm at the American Academy of Neurology meeting Washington, D.C., and I'm talking with Dr. Ray Kapoor, who's presenting a very interesting study on a trial of phenytoin – also called Dilantin – in optic neuritis. Dr. Kapoor, welcome. So my first question is why phenytoin and why optic neuritis?

 

Interviewee – Raj Kapoor

So phenytoin we use because it works as a sodium channel blocker, and this is based on years of experience and validation in animal models over the years about how neuroprotection could be achieved in MS. And it turns out that sodium channels are quite important for neurodegeneration in the setting of inflammation. And work in London that we've done, work in Yale has validated animal models that say that if you block sodium channels you can achieve neuroprotection. So why phenytoin? Well that comes down to why optic neuritis? We wanted to test sodium channel blockade in a relapse. And optic neuritis has a lot of advantages because you can study the visual system in so many ways. So why phenytoin? Because we think there's a window of opportunity, and a relapse degeneration occurs pretty rapidly. You need to treat quickly to switch off the mechanisms of neurodegeneration. And phenytoin has the advantage that we can load it very quickly and achieve therapeutic levels. So we have here a model of neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration, which we can study using multiple techniques. And we have a drug that we can load and inhibit those mechanisms quickly.

 

MSDF

I find it fascinating that optic neuritis, which is one of the many symptoms of multiple sclerosis, can be used as a model for multiple sclerosis itself.

 

Dr. Kapoor

The important thing there is it's part of the model. And the key is that we have – in MS – two processes going on. We have inflammation flaring up and leading to relapses like optic neuritis; and then, there is perhaps an allied or even a second process going on, which is the slow grumbling degeneration that leads to progression of disability. Now, we've studied both, but what we're focusing on in this study is that acute process that leads to relapses, you know, attacks which occur from time to time. I mean they're quite important in themselves because they don't always recover. We know that with every attack – even if there's apparent recovery – there is underlying damage to the nervous system. So to protect the nerves in any case is self-serving; it's a good idea. But what we are hoping is that this may even be a key to preventing progression, and that would really be a worthwhile target.

 

MSDF

So you say you chose phenytoin because of its effects as a sodium blocker. What's the connection between sodium and neurodegeneration?

 

Dr. Kapoor

What we found many years ago was that in areas of inflammation there can be nerve damage. And the inflammation drives nerve damage through a number of pathways, but one of them is that it actually indirect leads to sodium accumulation inside the nerve fiber, the axons. This has been well worked out in ischemia, as well. So sodium enters axons; it can't leave through the normal sodium pump because they're metabolically inhibited by the inflammation itself. And the sodium exchanges with calcium. So there's a sodium/calcium exchange in the membrane of nerve cells, and if you load them with sodium then sodium has to get out and gets out by driving the influx of calcium, and that's dangerous; that kills axons. So the whole process can be inhibited by inhibiting sodium entry. Now there's another thing that's very important, which is in acute inflammation one of the things that drives it is microglia, activated microglia release chemicals such as nitric oxide, which in themselves drive the whole inflammatory damaging cascade. But it turns out – and this is work from Yale – that actually the microglia themselves have sodium channels, and that their functioning can be inhibited by inhibiting those same channel. So what phenytoin is doing is it's actually inhibiting not only the cascade that damages the axons but is actually inhibiting the cells which are driving the inflammation and causing the damage in the first place.

 

MSDF

Now, is there any indication that phenytoin may be working in this way more centrally than the optic nerve?

 

Dr. Kapoor

It's very unlikely because the mechanism that we've testes is really something well characterized as inflammation within the optic nerve. And we are measuring the damage and the effects of treatment by actually imaging the retina looking at retrograde degeneration from the optic nerve lesion. So I think it's very unlikely given the timescale – you know, we're treating within a couple of weeks of onset, we're having a readout within six months – that it's doing anything other than what we're asking of it, which is a readout of what's going on in the optic nerve and retina.

 

MSDF

If I understand you correctly, even if this is working exactly the way you want it to be, it's not going to be doing anything for people with central damage. Is that correct?

 

Dr. Kapoor

Well I think the thing to understand here is it may do in MS where damage is happening everywhere. This is really a proof of concept. We've tried our very best to isolate the damaging process and to work out whether the theory works. So yes, there may be more general implications, and we think there probably are. But it's important to note that really what we're doing here is choosing a very clearly defined model to test the hypothesis.

 

MSDF

Now one of the advantages of phenytoin is that it's generic; it's dirt cheap. But is that a liability, as well?

 

Dr. Kapoor

Yeah, this is a very important point. So we're talking here about this whole issue of repurposing drugs. And we think that there may be many different drugs on the shelf which may have a role in treating diseases like MS. Now for us that was an advantage. This is an investigator led study, and it was funded by charitable means from the National MS Society and UK MS Society. So that's an advantage because the drug is really cheap. But of course, in terms of development, the commercial reality is that there's very little money in this. And so to take this further, it makes it harder not to have a drug that makes money.

 

MSDF

So what's the solution to that problem?

 

Dr. Kapoor

We don't know. I mean there are lots of ways that we're taking this forward. I mean you may know that there is a thing called the Progressive MS Alliance, which is an international body of MS societies, which is trying to work its way through questions exactly like this establishing industry relations. And it may be that they're a scope for industry to step in. And governments step in sometimes. I mean in the U.K. we have a trial running at the moment which is using funds from government to do a moderately sized Phase 2/Phase 3 trial of neuroprotection. So I think, actually, this all depends on the results. If the results are good, then we hope that either through industry or through government or, indeed, through charitable means there may be a way through. Just to get back to your question, I think that, you know, repurposing is a problem because clearly the commercial angle is far less prominent.

 

MSDF

Is one possible solution to find a drug that's still under patent?

 

Dr. Kapoor

Indeed, that would be a remarkable thing to do. But of course, a trial in the beginning would then need commercial collaboration. But certainly that's an angle.

 

MSDF

So assuming that your research is confirmed and extended and phenytoin proves to be truly neuroprotective, when in the course of MS is it likely to be useful?

 

Dr. Kapoor
So by definition, phenytoin is going to be useful for relapses. The idea that relapses sometimes leave damage and that a drug like phenytoin or phenytoin itself prevents some of that damage speaks for itself. The real question, though, comes down to whether progressive MS is also driven by similar mechanisms. We did a trial of
lamotrigine, which is another sodium channel blocking anticonvulsant, and published the results about five years ago now. And that trial was reportedly negative for its primary outcome, which was brain atrophy; could we reduce the rate of loss of brain volume. I suppose what we've done is to go back to that trial and look at positive signals there because after all the question is do sodium channel blockers prevent progressive MS or prevent progression? And in fact, it turns out that there was some remarkable positive signals in that trial. So I have the knowledge that phenytoin should be useful for relapsing MS. But I also have a hunch that it may be useful for progressive MS, as well.

 

MSDF

Now there's a flipside to the fact that phenytoin is so easily available, and that is that physicians listening to this podcast or to other news reports may consider prescribing it off-label. How would you counsel somebody considering that?

 

Dr. Kapoor

I think it's difficult for somebody to use phenytoin in that way because the way the trial was designed was to treat people in a very narrow window after the onset of a relapse. Now people may say well, you know, the next time I see a patient who has a relapse, you know, can't walk or the vision is affected I will immediately prescribe phenytoin. The difficulty I have there is that this remains a very attractive study but hasn't proved the point. And phenytoin is not without its side effects. You know, I'm always somebody who's evidence led, and so I would counsel against using drugs without even further evidence. This is one Phase 2 study after all. I think the temptation will be there nevertheless.

 

MSDF

And if a physician falls to that temptation, what should he or she look for?

 

Dr. Kapoor

Well again, this is the point. We have shown a concept works. You know, we have shown that phenytoin, by a number of measures, prevents nerve damage. I think the difficulty – and I need to be very clear about this – is that with acute optic neuritis where vision generally recovers we didn't see better recovery with phenytoin. So again, perhaps another answer is that if I treat somebody with a relapse with phenytoin I'm not really sure that I may be protecting nerves, but am I producing a better outcome? So that may be another reason to say let's wait for a better drug or a better trial.

 

MSDF

That's a very good point. So is there anything I haven't asked that I should have asked, or anything you'd like to add?

 

Dr. Kapoor

No, I think that really the way I want to convey the result is that it's a robust result. I mean what I'll be presenting is that on a number of measures the drug worked. I think it worked with a modest amount of success. I see this is opening a door. I don't see this as the final answer to a problem. You know, if you think about it, we've been looking for a long time for a neuroprotective drug in MS and a strategy. And I think this is opening a door, which I think needs to be opened a lot wider.

 

MSDF

Dr. Kapoor, thank you very much.

 

Dr. Kapoor

Thank you. 

 

[transition music]

 

MSDF

Thank you for listening to Episode Forty of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Robert Finn. Msdiscovery.org is part of the non-profit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is vice president of scientific operations.

 

Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

 

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.

 

[outro music]

 

 

 

 

 

Apr 29, 2015

[intro music]

 

Host – Dan Keller

Hello, and welcome to Episode Thirty-Nine of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.

 

This week’s podcast features the second part of our interview with Joseph Berger of the University of Pennsylvania. But to begin, a couple of updates.

 

Last week we told you about our Drug-Development Pipeline, which includes continually updated information on 44 investigational agents for MS. Since last week’s podcast we added two new trials, we updated information on 10 other trials, and we added 10 other pieces of information. The drugs with important additions and changes are dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, and phenytoin. To find information on all 44 compounds, visit msdicovery.org and click first on Research Resources and then on Drug-Development Pipeline

 

Two weeks ago we described how we curate a weekly list of all newly published scientific papers on MS and related disorders. Last Friday’s list included 53 papers. We selected two of them as Editor’s Picks: One is a Cochrane meta-analysis of dimethyl fumarate – trade name Tecfidera – for treating MS. The other is a study from Paul Tesar’s group at Case Western Reserve University. That study, which appeared in Nature, is entitled “Drug-based modulation of endogenous stem cells promotes functional remyelination in vivo.” To find the full weekly list and the Editor’s Picks, click on the Papers tab at msdiscovery.org.

 

[transition music]

 

Now to the interview. Dr. Joseph Berger is a professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. In part one of his interview we talked about risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. This week, Dr. Berger discusses diagnostic dilemmas in MS.

 

Interviewer – Dan Keller

Dr. Berger, how do these present, and what are some of them?

 

Interviewee – Joseph Berger

They’re legion, actually. There are a lot of different diseases that can look very much like multiple sclerosis both in terms of the history and physical examination as well as in terms of the radiographic findings. And the question is, do you want to avoid treatment that is not very helpful and expensive? You know, once you’ve made a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis you tend to put the patient on a disease-modifying therapy that they would remain on for the rest of their lives. And there’s an expense and some risk depending on what you put them on, associated with that. Secondly, there are diseases that, if you miss the diagnosis, these are diseases that can be aggressive in and of their own right, and if you’ve misdiagnosed it there’s a concern that disease may go on and create its own problems for the patient. So there are a variety of reasons why you want to ensure that what you’re dealing with is truly MS and not one of the MS mimics.

 

Among the common MS mimics, one that we’ve had increasing experience with in the recent past, is neuromyelitis optica. So, neuromyelitis optica was a disease that we lumped together with multiple sclerosis, but we’ve realized recently that not only is the pathogenesis different than multiple sclerosis, it being a humoral immune disorder, but that the therapies that we employ for multiple sclerosis may actually aggravate neuromyelitis optica. So that’s a common concern and one of the reasons why we frequently obtain neuromyelitis optica antibodies in patients, particularly when they present with optic neuritis or transverse myelitis, and certainly when they present with both of them.

 

MSDF

That would be aquaporin-4 antibodies?

 

Dr. Berger

That’s correct. It’s an aquaporin-4 antibody, but not everybody with neuromyelitis optica has the aquaporin-4 antibody that’s demonstrable. A certain percentage of them have what appears to be an anti-MAG antibody, and others we simply don’t know what the antigen is. And that’s being worked out. So there’s this whole spectrum of neuromyelitis optica that you certainly want to sort out from multiple sclerosis. But there are also a wide variety of other illnesses that can look like multiple sclerosis. In fact, if you take any broad classification of diseases – infection, vascular, neoplastic, toxic, metabolic, genetic, etc. – if you do that and say, are there diseases in these categories that can appear like multiple sclerosis and be mistaken for multiple sclerosis, there are. So every single one of these broad categories can have within it a disease that can be mistaken for multiple sclerosis.

 

MSDF

Would they be mistaken for multiple sclerosis on many measures or mainly signs and symptoms or is it radiologic on imaging? How do you sort out this kind of gamish of different diseases and how they present, and really nailing down an MS diagnosis, not even considering a diagnosis of what else it could be?

 

Dr. Berger

So it can be enormously difficult to do so. And I’ll give you some examples from my own practice. I have, for instance, seen individuals with a disorder called hereditary spastic paraparesis where you were unaware of their hereditary nature of their disease. And the patient has come in with a progressive myelopathy. And you say, well, could this be primary progressive multiple sclerosis? And could be extraordinarily difficult to sort out, particularly if they don’t have common mutations, and they don’t have a family history. And you say, well, which is it? The spinal fluid can be very helpful in that regard.

 

The MRIs can be very helpful in that regard, but not always. I’ve seen individuals who’ve had vascular disease where the MRI abnormalities have looked very much like multiple sclerosis. They’ve had recurrent episodes of neurologic symptoms be it numbness or weakness or visual problems, and it be mistake for MS. I’ve seen individuals with intravascular lymphoma, a rare disease, but one where they’ve presented with both clinical picture and MRI that looks very much like multiple sclerosis.

 

Although we have good diagnostic criteria, there is no single test that tells you that this is MS. But there are times when all of us, even the very best clinicians, scratch our heads when a patient’s reappeared in the office; nothing new has happened to him. Ten years have elapsed, and you say to yourself, did they really have multiple sclerosis? So, again, it’s a matter of comprehensive history and physical; the appropriate radiographic studies; looking at the spinal fluid when that’s indicated; and doing the appropriate laboratory studies to rule out things that may mimic multiple sclerosis.

 

MSDF

Is that why there is a diagnosis of CIS? If it never returns, then it was CIS?

 

Dr. Berger

I guess one could say that, but I use the term CIS to mean the very first episode of multiple sclerosis. So when I label somebody with CIS, I already believe that they have multiple sclerosis. I think that if they have CIS in the absence of any radiographic findings, I’d be unlikely to label them CIS. CIS to me is in the continuum of MS, so you have CIS, relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis, secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. So that’s how I use the term.

 

MSDF

Can you definitely rule in or rule out multiple sclerosis?

 

Dr. Berger

I think that there are probably rare instances where people fulfill all the criteria for multiple sclerosis. And at the time of autopsy you say, how about that? That wasn’t multiple sclerosis. There’s an old expression in medicine that you can never be a 100% certain. You can never have a 100% certainty. So I think that you do the best you can. And I think that probably the rate’s 99% or better, but in these people fulfilling the criteria that have been established. However, you can never be entirely certain.

 

And it is not that uncommon in my practice, and I’ve been practicing medicine nearly 40 years, where an individual has presented the office after a long hiatus. And the chart is unavailable to me, and they come in with a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, and I say, who made the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis in you? And they go, you did, Dr. Berger. So I think go down to the cave where they keep the charts that are over seven years old only to find out that they had all the criteria for multiple sclerosis; that they had oligoclonal bands, and they had hyperintense signal abnormalities on their MRI, and they had relapsing symptoms, but, you know, over the course of the last 10 years they’ve had little. And you scratch your head and say, geeze I wonder if this is truly MS?

 

There are probably people who carry this diagnosis, and there’s literature on it, that carry it incorrectly.

 

MSDF

Those criteria, even though it never turned out to be MS, satisfied a diagnosis of MS. When you see something like radiologically isolated syndrome, do you work it up for MS, or only once it presents later does it become MS?

 

Dr. Berger

This is a very difficult question, and we see this with some regularity, that is, the individual that has hit his head in a car accident or developed a headache that somebody’s decided to do an MRI on. And they come in with an MRI that looks all the world like a patient with multiple sclerosis, yet they have no symptoms and no signs on physical examination that is suggestive of multiple sclerosis. And the question then becomes, what do you do with them?

 

There’s currently a study in which that question is being addressed. However, I will tell you what I do, currently. I do look for multiple sclerosis. I look for lesions in their spinal cords because I think that if they have that, the prognosis can’t be good, and I would likely start somebody with lesions in their spinal cord, who I’m convinced has MS, on a disease-modifying drug.

 

I look their spinal fluid. And I look at their spinal fluid for oligoclonal bands, and, if I see that, I’m increasingly convinced that that’s what we’re dealing with. And I would be inclined to treat those people as well. Now whether I’m doing the right thing or not, I don’t know, but for others in whom there are no spinal cord lesions, there are no signs or symptoms, and the spinal fluid is pristine, I’ve elected to wait. That is not necessarily the consensus among the MS community. That’s simply how I practice, currently.

 

MSDF

People don’t need oligoclonal bands to have MS, though, do they?

 

Dr. Berger

No, not at all. So, we certainly see a fair number of people – and it depends on the study – who have pristine spinal fluids. That means no oligoclonal bands, no cells, no increased protein, no elevated myelin basic protein or IgGs who still have multiple sclerosis.

 

MSDF

What about fatigue as an initial symptom of multiple sclerosis? A lot of people have fatigue – tiredness. Is there a way to differentiate the fatigue of multiple sclerosis from just being tired or a sleep apnea or an insomnia or they just don’t feel good?

 

Dr. Berger

Well, I think your history is very helpful because the sleep deprivation and excessive daytime sleepiness is not the same as the fatigue that people with MS report. The fatigue that people with MS report is akin to the fatigue that one experiences when they have a viral illness. So when you have the flu you go, oh man, I just can’t get out of bed. I feel terrible. And that’s precisely what the people with multiple sclerosis have. And what’s so interesting is how common it is. So it’s been said to be the greatest cause of disability in the MS population. It’s an acceptable cause of disability; not blindness, not incoordination, not weakness, but fatigue.

 

And it’s curious, when I practiced in Kentucky, I had a number of patients who were wheelchair-bound, had very poor vision or had double vision because of paralysis ocular palsies, who went to work every single day. And then I had patients that looked as healthy as you and I, and they were on disability. And I said, well, why is it that you can’t work? They said, I’m just too fatigued. I can’t do anything. It’s affected everything.

 

So the fatigue is different, and getting back to the frequency of it, so in individuals who have been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and I was part of this study, if you look at large numbers of individuals diagnosed with MS or who are on disease-modifying drugs for MS and go back and look at their medical records prior to the time of the diagnosis, you will see that about a third of them had been labeled by their family physician or their internist as having one of two diagnoses: chronic fatigue syndrome or fatigue and malaise. They’re the only two diagnoses with fatigue in them that you could put into the ICD-9 classification.

 

So, this is striking that so many individuals have fatigue recognized, yet it’s an advance of their having any neurologic symptoms that were believed to be the consequence of multiple sclerosis. It’s not to say that they didn’t have them. You know, it might have been some transient numbness or transient tingling or slight weakness that went away that nobody ever thought was due to multiple sclerosis. So that we don’t know about. But what I can tell you is that prior to an established diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, roughly a third of individuals have been labeled by their family physicians with fatigue.

 

MSDF

It’s interesting that you make the analogy between this sort of fatigue and that with a viral illness like the flu. Could this be a prodrome telling there’s an inflammatory process going on? I mean, is there interferon release or are there other mediators that seem to be unique to this kind of fatigue?

 

Dr. Berger

I would like to think that that’s the case. I would like to think that this is due to the very same cytokines that cause the fatigue that’s associated with viral illness. That’s not been convincingly demonstrated, although it’s been proposed. I think it makes a lot of sense. Coming full circle, eventually, although most of my colleagues classify multiple sclerosis as an autoimmune disease, there must be a trigger for the autoimmune disease. And my own belief, coming to this from virological angles as opposed to coming at it from an immune angle, is that there’s probably some infectious origin.

 

One of the things that’s so striking is the association between Epstein-Barr virus and multiple sclerosis where virtually every adult patient with multiple sclerosis has evidence serologically of having been exposed to Epstein-Barr virus. Now I’m not saying that that’s necessarily the cause, but in some way it must contribute to the development of the disease perhaps in a way that low vitamin D levels contribute to the genesis of the disease.

 

MSDF

Is there anything you’d like to add about diagnostic dilemmas or any kind of a mental framework for approaching this sort of thing, in nutshell?

 

Dr. Berger

Yes. The one thing that I would say is never be too confident. Never be too confident. I found that my highest confidence levels were right before I took boards in neurology, which was a long time ago. And I thought I knew everything. And the more I practice neurology, the more humble I’ve become in terms of establishing diagnoses and selecting right therapies for patients. So I always have a healthy skepticism. I have a healthy skepticism of things that I feel certain about. And when patients represent to office I always question myself, particularly if there’s something that doesn’t fit with the diagnosis. And I think that that’s good advice to anybody practicing medicine.

 

MSDF

Very good! Thank you.

 

Dr. Berger

My pleasure.

 

[transition music]

 

Thank you for listening to Episode Thirty-Nine of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Robert Finn. Msdiscovery.org is part of the non-profit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is vice president of scientific operations.

 

Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.

 

We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.

 

[outro music]

1 2 Next »