A controlled trial of mitoxantrone in multiple sclerosis: serial MRI evaluation at one year

Multiple sclerosis - the remarkable story of a baffling disease

Multiple sclerosis has always been an enigma to its sufferers, their families, medical investigators, and clinicians. For many centuries, there have been attempts to understand its causes and nature, and to discover treatment methods. In the Middle Ages, the disease was claimed to be sent directly from God. A significant development in exploring multiple sclerosis took place in the 19th century, when Jean-Martin Charcot and his colleagues distinguished the disease, precisely described its symptoms, attempted to explain its pathophysiology, and introduced the first methods of symptomatic treatment. The 20th century was a period of discovery and development of diagnostic techniques, such as cerebrospinal fluid analysis, evoked potentials, and magnetic resonance imaging as well as an era of introducing steroid therapy for acute treatment. Currently, the dynamic development of disease modifying therapy and neuroimaging can be observed. The paper aims to delve into the remarkable history of multiple sclerosis by focusing on the earliest case reports and discovery of the disease and exploring its nature, diagnostic methods, and treatment.

Predictive parameters of mitoxantrone effectiveness in the treatment of multiple sclerosis

Introduction: In a number of controlled trials it was established that mitoxantrone has a beneficial effect on disease progression in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with a worsening disease course. The aim of this study was to investigate the use of mitoxantrone in clinical practice, and especially to describe predictive parameters of its effectiveness under these conditions. Objectives and methods: In a retrospective, open-label mitoxantrone study we analysed 94 MS patients (49) relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), 41) secondary progressive MS and 10) primary progressive MS) who received monthly 20 mg i.v. mitoxantrone and 1 g i.v. methylprednisolone for six months, and selected as a criterion of effectiveness the percentage of patients with an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) improvement of at least one point (confirmed after one year) after stopping the treatment. A multivariate analysis was undertaken to assess the predictive value of five parameters on mitoxantrone effectiveness: (1) total number of relapses since disease onset and before treatment, (2) number of relapses within the past 24 months before treatment, (3) number of relapses in separate areas within the past 24 months before treatment, (4) active MRI scans (including Gd-enhanced lesions), and (5) clinical course of MS. Results: During the observation period from 1 January 1997 to 30 May 2000 more than 44) of the patients improved by one point or more on the EDSS (confirmed after one year), 39) remained stable and 17) deteriorated. In patients with a RRMS course three or more relapses within the past 24 months preceding treatment, and at least one Gd-enhancing lesion resulted in a strong relative benefit (i.e., relative risk) of mitoxantrone effectiveness. In contrast, total number of relapses since disease onset had no impact on disease evolution and disability progression. Multivariate analysis revealed the number of relapses in separate areas within the past 24 months before treatment as the strongest predictive parameter (PB/0.001). Conclusion: Mitoxantrone is effective in improving and stabilizing patients with a worsening MS course in routine clinical practice. Several strong predictive parameters of mitoxantrone effectiveness were investigated among which the number of relapses in separate areas within the past 24 months before treatment was found to be the strongest parameter to predict clinical improvement.

Something Old, New, Borrowed, Blue: Anthracenedione Agents for Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to present anthracenedione agents that have been used to treat multiple sclerosis (MS), problems related to their use, and knowledge gained from our experiences using these agents to develop more efficacious drugs with fewer adverse effects.

METHODS

We review preclinical and clinical data during the development mitoxantrone, an anthracycline, for the treatment of MS; benefits and potential risks; and strategies to reduce complications of anthracyclines.

RESULTS

Mitoxantrone had unacceptable and greater-than-anticipated toxicity for use in a chronic disease such as MS. Adverse effects included cardiotoxicity, treatment-associated leukemia, and amenorrhea. Toxicity was identified primarily in retrospect. Structurally related compounds include pixantrone (BBR2278) and BBR3378. Pixantrone is in clinical development in oncology. BBR3378 prevents the development of autoimmunity and experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis and blocks experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis even when given after the onset of autoimmunity.

CONCLUSIONS

There remains a need for effective MS treatment, particularly for nonrelapsing forms of MS. Mitoxantrone was the first nonbiologic drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in MS. Chromophore modification of anthracenedione agents yielded a novel class of DNA binding agents (aza-anthracenediones such as pixantrone and aza-anthrapyrazoles such as BBR3378) with the potential for less cardiotoxicity compared with mitoxantrone. There is a need for long-term observation for delayed toxicity among humans enrolled in pixantrone trials. Preclinical toxicity studies for delayed toxicities in rodents and other models are warranted before consideration of derivatives of anthracenediones, aza-anthrazenediones, or aza-anthrapyrazoles for use in human MS clinical trials.

The current role of mitoxantrone in the treatment of multiple sclerosis

Mitoxantrone is an immunosuppressive drug approved for aggressive relapsing and progressive multiple sclerosis. In recent years, its use has decreased due to the risk of severe adverse events and the introduction of novel therapies, such as natalizumab or fingolimod. Mitoxantrone is effective in reducing inflammatory activity by decreasing the number of relapses and MRI lesions and simultaneously decreasing the worsening of disability. Apart from its role as a second/third-line therapy, some studies suggest its use as an induction therapy. However, mitoxantrone use is limited because of its potential risk of severe adverse events, such as cardiotoxicity and the induction of therapy-related acute leukemia. Genetic markers are on evaluation to predict side effects and therapeutic efficacy, which is consistent with the direction of personalized treatment. Considering its efficacy and the potential risks, mitoxantrone use is limited to active patients after a careful, individualized evaluation of the risk/benefit balance.

Mitoxantrone for multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

This is an updated Cochrane review of the previous published version.Mitoxantrone (MX) has been shown to be moderately effective in reducing the clinical outcome measures of disease activity in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of MX compared to a control group in relapsing-remitting (RRMS), progressive relapsing (PRMS) and secondary progressive (SPMS) MS participants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Specialised Register (June 2012) and reference lists of articles. We also undertook handsearching and contacted trialists and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blinded, controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the administration of MX versus placebo or MX plus steroids treatment versus placebo plus steroids treatment were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors independently selected articles for inclusion. They independently extracted clinical, safety and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data, resolving disagreements by discussion. Risk of bias was evaluated to assess the quality of the studies. Treatment effect was measured using odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the binary outcomes and mean differences (MD) with 95% CI for the continuous outcomes. If heterogeneity was absent, a fixed-effect model was used.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials were selected and 221 participants were included in the analyses. MX reduced the progression of disability at two years follow-up (proportion of participants with six months confirmed progression of disability (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.99 and MD -0.36, 95% CI- 0.70 to -0.02; P = 0.04)). Significant results were found regarding the reduction in annualised relapse rate (MD -0.85, 95% CI -1.47 to -0.23; P = 0.007), the proportion of patients free from relapses at one year (OR 7.13, 95% CI 2.06 to 24.61; P = 0.002) and two years (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.19; P = 0.0008), and the number of patients with active MRI lesions at six months or one year only (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.57; P = 0.001). Side effects reported in the trials (amenorrhoea, nausea and vomiting, alopecia and urinary tract infections) were more frequent in treated patients than in controls, while no major adverse events have been reported. These results should be considered with caution because of the heterogeneous characteristics of included trials in term of drug dosage, inclusion criteria and quality of included trials. Moreover, it was not possible to estimate the long-term efficacy and safety of MX.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

MX shows a significant but partial efficacy in reducing the risk of MS progression and the frequency of relapses in patients affected by worsening RRMS, PRMS and SPMS in the short-term follow-up (two years). No major neoplastic events or symptomatic cardiotoxicity related to MX have been reported; however studies with longer follow-up (not included in this review) have raised concerns about the risk of systolic disfunction (˜12%) and therapy-related acute leukaemias (0.8%), which are increasingly reported in the literature.MX should be limited to treating patients with worsening RRMS and SPMS and with evidence of persistent inflammatory activity after a careful assessment of the individual patients' risk and benefit profiles. Assessment should also consider the present availability of alternative therapies with less severe adverse events.

Immunosuppression: Promises and failures

The author participated very early in the use of immunosuppressors in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. He reviews evidence which support their use. IV Methylprednisolone, azathioprine and mitoxantrone are supported in their use by evidence of a level appropriate to the date of their generation while Cyclosporine A and Cyclophosphamide are not. The author also reviews the benefits and side effects of each of these medications, insisting on a practical approach to their use. The author concludes that since immunomodulators have been approved, the use of the immunosuppressors has been reduced, however there is a strong possibility that their use will be rekindled in association with immunomodulatory medications.

Management of worsening multiple sclerosis with mitoxantrone: a review

BACKGROUND

Mitoxantrone, an intravenously administered immunosuppressant that inhibits T-cell, B-cell, and macrophage proliferation, is indicated for reducing neurologic disability and relapse frequency in patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS), progressive relapsing MS, or worsening relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS).

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the pathogenesis and natural history of MS and examines the available treatment options for patients with RRMS, worsening RRMS, or SPMS, with a focus on mitoxantrone.

METHODS

MEDLINE (1966-present) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1994-present) were searched for relevant randomized, blinded, controlled clinical trials using the terms mitoxantrone, Novantrone, and multiple sclerosis.

RESULTS

Five randomized, blinded, controlled trials and an ongoing open-label Phase IV safety study were identified and included in this review. In one randomized, double-blind trial (N=25), patients with RRMS who received mitoxantrone 8 mg/m2 monthly had significantly reduced relapse rates at 1 year compared with those who received placebo (P=0.014). In a 2-year, randomized, partially blinded trial (N=51), patients with active RRMS who received mitoxantrone 8 mg/m2 monthly had significantly fewer relapses compared with those who received placebo (P<0.001), and significantly fewer patients had confirmed progression of disability (1-point increase in Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] score) (P=0.02). In a randomized, double-blind trial (N=49), patients with relapsing SPMS who received mitoxantrone 12 mg/m2 monthly for 3 months followed by 12 mg/m2 g3mo for up to 32 months had significant improvements in EDSS scores compared with those who received methylprednisolone 1 g IV monthly for 3 months followed by 1 g IV g3mo (P=0.002 at 1 year, P=0.045 at 2 years) and significant reductions in the number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (P=0.002 at 1 and 2 years, P=0.03 at 3 years). In a randomized, partially blinded Phase II trial in 42 patients with active RRMS or SPMS, patients who received mitoxantrone 20 mg IV monthly and methylprednisolone 1 g IV monthly had significantly fewer new gadolinium-enhancing lesions on MRI (P<0.001) and significantly fewer relapses (P<0.01) at 6 months compared with those who received methylprednisolone alone. In a pivotal Phase III trial (N=194), patients with worsening RRMS or SPMS who received mitoxantrone 12 mg/m2 g3mo for 2 years had significantly fewer relapses (P<0.001) and significantly less deterioration in disability, as measured by change in EDSS score (P=0.019), compared with those who received placebo. In a nonrandomized subgroup of patients from this study (n=110), those who received mitoxantrone 12 mg/m2 g3mo had a significant reduction in the number of T2-weighted MRI lesions at 24 months (P=0.027). The most common adverse events in these studies included nausea and/or vomiting (18%-85%), alopecia (33%-61%), amenorrhea (8%-53%), urinary tract infections (6%-32%), and upper respiratory tract infections (4%-53%). Leukopenia was reported in 10% to 19% of patients. Use of mitoxantrone can lead to serious adverse effects, particularly cardiotoxicity, myelosuppression, and, rarely, leukemia. Long-term use of mitoxantrone may compromise left ventricular function. Limited cardiotoxicity was reported in the clinical studies; in the pivotal clinical trial, 2 patients who received mitoxantrone 12 mg/m2 had decreases in left ventricular ejection fraction to <50% of baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

In the available clinical trials, mitoxantrone provided effective treatment for worsening RRMS or SPMS. When mitoxantrone is used as recommended, the risks of substantial myelosuppressive and cardiotoxic effects can be reduced by careful patient selection, drug administration, and monitoring. The lifetime cumulative dose should be strictly limited to 140 mg/m2, or 2 to 3 years of therapy.

The cardiac effects of mitoxantrone: do the benefits in multiple sclerosis outweigh the risks?

Mitoxantrone, an immunosuppressant agent with potent anti-inflammatory activity, has been used to treat patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who have worsening relapsing-remitting (RRMS) or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) despite prior therapy with interferons or glatiramer acetate. From previous experience of treating cancer with mitoxantrone, it was expected that cardiotoxic effects and occasional malignancy would develop in some patients treated with this agent. From the earliest trials, reduction of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was seen in 2-3% of cases, and in some this effect may persist and less commonly there can be congestive heart failure and even death. There are also occasional reports of leukaemia developing in MS patients treated with this agent. Mitoxantrone has been shown to reduce relapses, the number of new lesions visualised on magnetic resonance imaging and stop or reduce the progression of the disease in many patients treated. The drug has found a place in MS therapy because in this progressing group of MS patients who are failing on the disease-modifying therapies with interferons or glatiramer acetate, trials have shown that mitoxantrone may arrest or even improve many patients. Recognising the risks, mitoxantrone therapy is a reasonable option for MS patients with RRMS and SPMS who are progressing despite current disease-modifying therapy.

In vivo effects of mitoxantrone on the production of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines by peripheral blood mononuclear cells of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis patients

OBJECTIVE

Mitoxantrone is an antineoplastic agent also used for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). However, despite its efficacy, few data are available on its mechanism of action. The current study was designed to evaluate the short-term (1 month) and long-term (12 months) in vivo effects of mitoxantrone on pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokine production by the peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) of secondary progressive MS patients.

METHODS

Eighteen patients with secondary progressive MS underwent mitoxantrone therapy (at a dose of 12 mg/m(2) once every 3 months) over a 1-year period. Blood samples were obtained at baseline, after 1 month and after 12 months of treatment. The production of cytokines in the PBMC was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

RESULTS

There were no significant effects of mitoxantrone on proinflammatory cytokines [interleukin (IL) 6 and IL-12p40] and anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-10 and transforming growth factor-beta) in our patients. Patients who showed no signs of therapeutic response were characterized by a higher basal PBMC production of IL-6 compared with that of the responding patients (p < 0.05) and mitoxantrone reduced this production after 12 months of treatment (p < 0.05). In the responding patients, IL-10 was significantly increased by mitoxantrone after 12 months of treatment (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

These findings provide additional information useful in the selection of the patient population suitable for mitoxantrone treatment and suggest that most probably the therapeutic action of mitoxantrone in MS is not entirely mediated by its immunosuppressant effects.

Multiple sclerosis: Mitoxantrone promotes differential effects on immunocompetent cells in vitro

Mitoxantrone is an anti-neoplastic anthracenedione derivative that, based on its immunosuppressive properties, is approved for the treatment of severe forms of relapsing-remitting or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS). Whether the beneficial clinical effects of mitoxantrone in MS are due to a broad immunosuppression, or whether there is a specific mechanism of action remains unknown. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from untreated or interferon-beta-treated patients with MS or from healthy donors were stimulated in the presence or absence of mitoxantrone. Irrespective of the source of the cells and the cellular phenotype, mitoxantrone inhibited proliferation of activated PBMCs, B lymphocytes, or antigen-specific T-cell lines (TCLs) stimulated on antigen-presenting cells (APCs) in a dose-dependent manner. For functional analysis, TCLs or APCs were incubated separately with mitoxantrone. Pre-incubation of APC more effectively impaired TCL proliferation than pre-incubation of TCLs. Production of cytokines, expression of activation markers, matrix metalloproteinases, and chemokine receptors were not influenced substantially by mitoxantrone. In contrast, in dendritic cells (DCs), mitoxantrone interfered with the antigen-presenting capabilities. For evaluation of apoptotic cell death of target cells, annexin-V-conjugates and a DNA fragmentation assay were applied. Mitoxantrone induced apoptosis of PBMCs, monocytes and DCs at low concentrations, whereas higher doses caused cell lysis. Our observations suggest that the beneficial effects of mitoxantrone in MS result (i) from its immunosuppressive action based on nonspecific cytotoxic effects on lymphocytes, (ii) by inducing programmed cell death of professional APCs, such as DCs.

Mitoxantrone for multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Mitoxantrone (MX) has been shown to be moderately effective in reducing the clinical outcome measures of disease activity in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of MX in relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), progressive relapsing MS (PRMS) and secondary progressive MS (SPMS).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane MS Group Trials Register (searched April 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (Pub Med) (January 1966 to April 2005), EMBASE (January 1974 to April 2005), and reference lists of articles. We also undertook hand searching and contacting trialists and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The trials were selected if double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomised, irrespective of eventual additive therapy (such as steroids).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three reviewers independently selected articles for inclusion, assessed trials' quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials involving 270 participants were included. MX was found to reduce the progression of disability at 2 years follow-up (proportion of participants with 6-months confirmed progression of disability: Odds Ratios (OR) 0.3, p = 0.05). Similar figures were found regarding the reduction in annualised relapse rate and the proportion of patients free from relapses at 1 and 2 years, as well as the number of patients with active MRI lesions at 6 months/ 1 year only. Side effects reported in the trials were more frequent in treated patients than in controls. Caution must be exercised in drawing conclusions from such data because of the heterogeneous quality and characteristics of the included trials, which are different in terms of treatment schedule and type of enrolled patients. More than half of the included patients came from a single study. Moreover, from the included trials, it was not possible to estimate the long-term efficacy and safety of MX, which may raise concerns about the risk of cardiotoxicity and therapy-related leukemias, which is increasingly reported in the literature.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

MX is moderately effective in reducing the disease progression and the frequency of relapses in patients affected by RR, PR and SP MS in the short-term follow-up (2 years), even if the results are based on trials heterogeneous in terms of drug dosage and inclusion criteria. No major neoplastic or symptomatic cardiotoxicity related to MX have been reported from the trials. However, longer follow-up studies are highly warranted to better explore the efficacy and safety of the drug, mainly as regards the long-term risk of therapy-related leukemias and cardiotoxicity. As a conclusion, MX has a partial efficacy, but, due to its unclear long-term safety profile, it should be used to treat patients with worsening RR and SP MS with evidence of worsening disability.

Use of low-dose mitozantrone to treat aggressive multiple sclerosis: a single-centre open-label study using patient self-assessment and clinical measures of multiple sclerosis status

BACKGROUND

There is significant evidence supporting the use of mitozantrone in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) but few data on the subtypes of MS that respond or which measures of disease status are most useful.

AIMS

To assess the efficacy of low-dose (5 mg/m2 3 monthly) mitozantrone using patient self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ), expanded disability status score (EDSS), multiple sclerosis functional composite score (MSFC), and the fatigue severity scale (FSS). Then, to compare the responses of a subgroup of relapsing remitting MS (RRMS) and secondary progressive MS (SPMS) patients to treatment, and to assess which measures of MS disease status are the most useful in a study of this type.

METHOD

Thirty-one patients with definite (McDonald criteria) active MS were commenced on mitozantrone 5 mg/m2 every 3 months. EDSS, MSFC and FSS data collected before treatment and after 12 months were analysed. The SAQ was administered after at least 12 months of therapy.

RESULTS

RRMS patients showed significantly more response to mitozantrone than SPMS patients in terms of MSFC (P = 0.02) and SAQ (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose mitozantrone was well tolerated and useful in active RRMS in the short term; however, mitozantrone did not display any useful activity in SPMS patients over this time interval or at the mitozantrone dose used. Patient perception of treatment is a worthwhile outcome measure and the MSFC is the most useful objective measure of MS status change in this type of study.

Mitoxantrone in secondarily progressive multiple sclerosis: a series of 18 patients

Mitoxantrone hydrochloride (Novantrone®) is an anthracenedione that has been used as one of the latest in a long line of general immunosuppresive agents studied in multiple sclerosis (MS). We reviewed the clinical, laboratory, neuroimaging and echocardiography data of 18 patients from February 2001 to March 2004 out of a total number of 100 patients with definite MS. Fourteen patients were women (77.7%) and four were men. The mean age of the patients was 41.6±10 years old (confidence intervals 95%: 36.4-46.7 years old). The mean duration of disease was 10.5±6.3 years. Fourteen patients had the secondarily progressive form of MS, and four had the relapsing-remitting form. Mitoxantrone is an useful and clinically effective drug in MS and its major limitation is the potencial cardiotoxicity due to cumulative dose (140 mg).

A double-blind, randomized, controlled study of oral pirfenidone for treatment of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis

Currently, there are no approved treatments for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) that stabilize or reverse the neurological disabilities associated with this disease. Oral pirfenidone was found to stabilize and overcome the disabilities in two published independent open-label studies in secondary progressive MS. This led us to study pirfenidone in a phase II double-blind, randomized and controlled, clinical trial in patients with advanced secondary progressive MS for 12 months. Forty-three patients met the eligibility criteria approved by the IRB and accepted by the FDA. Of these patients, 18 were randomly assigned to placebo and 25 patients to oral pirfenidone groups. All eligible patients were included in the statistical analysis of the data according to intention-to-treat principles. Some patients on oral pirfenidone manifested mild drug-related adverse effects, but it was well tolerated overall. By one month, pirfenidone significantly (P < 0.05) improved the Scripps Neurological Rating Scale (SNRS) scores, and scores remained significantly improved for 3, 6 and 12 months when compared to the baseline SNRS scores. In contrast, the SNRS scores of patients on oral placebo were not significantly improved at 1, 3, 6 or 12 months of the study, when compared with baseline scores. Oral pirfenidone significantly (P <0.04) reduced the incidence of relapses (27.8% on placebo versus 8.0% on pirfenidone). Furthermore, oral pirfenidone treatment was associated with a marked improvement in bladder dysfunction (40.0% on pirfenidone versus 16.7% on placebo). Expanded Disability Status Scale scores and MRI lesion count were not significantly different in the placebo and pirfenidone groups. These findings indicate a significant effect of pirfenidone on clinical disability and bladder function for secondary progressive MS patients. A major multicentre, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial is justified.

Mitoxantrone: a review of its use in multiple sclerosis

Mitoxantrone (Novantrone), a synthetic anthracenedione derivative, is an antineoplastic, immunomodulatory agent. Its presumed mechanism of action in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is via immunomodulatory mechanisms, although these remain to be fully elucidated. Intravenous mitoxantrone treatment improved neurological disability and delayed progression of MS in patients with worsening relapsing-remitting (RR) [also termed progressive-relapsing (PR) MS] or secondary-progressive (SP) disease. In a pivotal randomised, double-blind, multicentre trial, mitoxantrone 12 mg/m(2) administered once every 3 months for 2 years provided significant improvements in neurological disability ratings, including Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), Ambulatory Index (AI) and Standardised Neurological Status (SNS) scores, compared with placebo. The drug also significantly reduced the mean number of corticosteroid-treated relapses and prolonged the time to the first treated relapse, with the beneficial effects on disease progression supported by magnetic resonance imaging. Post hoc analyses suggest that the benefits associated with mitoxantrone treatment may be sustained for at least 12 months after cessation of treatment, mean changes from baseline at 36 months in EDSS, AI and SNS scores of 0.10, 0.61 and 0.19, respectively, in the mitoxantrone group versus 0.46, 1.13 and 3.38 with placebo. Concomitant intravenous mitoxantrone 20mg plus intravenous methylprednisolone 1g once every month for 6 months was more effective than intravenous methylprednisolone monotherapy in preventing the development of new gadolinium-enhanced lesions in patients with very active RRMS or SPMS. The drug was generally well tolerated in patients with MS. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate in severity and usually resolved upon discontinuation of treatment or with appropriate pharmacotherapy. At the recommended dosage, mitoxantrone appears to have a low potential to cause cardiotoxicity. In conclusion, intravenous mitoxantrone reduces the relapse rate and slows progression of the disease in patients with worsening RRMS, PRMS or SPMS; thus providing a new option for the management of these patients. The drug was generally well tolerated at the recommended dosage, although potential cardiotoxicity limits the total cumulative dose to 140 mg/m(2). Further studies are warranted to determine which patients with worsening RRMS, PRMS or SPMS are most likely to benefit from mitoxantrone treatment and to more fully define the long-term safety and tolerability of mitoxantrone, including the use of concomitant cardioprotectants to extend the therapeutic lifespan of the drug. Pharmacodynamic Profile. Mitoxantrone, a synthetic anthracenedione derivative, is an established cytotoxic, antineoplastic agent. Its presumed mechanism of action in multiple sclerosis (MS) is immunosuppression. In antineoplastic studies, the drug showed several immunomodulatory effects, inducing macrophage-mediated suppression of B-cell, T-helper and T-cytotoxic lymphocyte function. Currently, the pharmacodynamic properties of mitoxantrone have not been investigated to any extent in patients with MS. In one study, 6 months' treatment with intravenous mitoxantrone generally had no effect on the distribution of cytokine-positive peripheral blood monocyte cells in patients with MS. In an animal model of the disease, mitoxantrone suppressed the development and progression of both actively and passively induced acute experimental allergic encephalomyelitis (EAE). It appeared to be 10-20 times more effective than cyclophosphamide in the suppression of EAE. Moreover, mitoxantrone approximately doubled the mean time to onset of EAE versus control animals (279 vs 148 days after immunisation; p < 0.00005). In vitro, mitoxantrone 10 and 100 micro g/L inhibited myelin degradation by leucocytes and peritoneal macrophages derived from mice with acute EAE by approximately 60% and 100%. Pharmacokinetic Profile. Currently, there are no published pharmacokinetic data for intravenous mitoxantrone in pitoxantrone in patients with MS, paediatric patients or in those with renal impairment. All studies, to date, have been in patients with cancer receiving a single, approximately 30-minute intravenous infusion of mitoxantrone 5-14 mg/m(2). The drug exhibits triexponential pharmacokinetics, with a rapid initial distribution (alpha) phase, an intermediate distribution (beta) phase and a much slower elimination (gamma) phase. The mean half-life of the alpha phase appears to be 6-12 minutes and that of the beta phase 1.1-3.1 hours. Mitoxantrone has a high affinity for tissue, with a volume of distribution of up to 2248 L/m(2). Mitoxantrone persists for prolonged periods in tissues and was detectable in autopsy tissue from patients who last received the drug up to 272 days before death. At concentrations of 10-10000 ng/mL, the drug was 70-80 % bound to plasma proteins in dogs. Elimination of mitoxantrone occurs predominantly through biliary excretion and may be impaired in patients with hepatic dysfunction or third space abnormalities (e.g. ascites). The mean terminal elimination half-life of mitoxantrone ranged from 23 hours to 215 hours. Renal clearance accounts for 10 % of the total clearance of the drug. Total clearance of mitoxantrone ranged from 13 to 34.2 L/h/m(2) and renal clearance from 0.9 to 2.7 L/h/m(2). The drug appears to have a low potential for interaction with other concomitantly administered agents. Therapeutic Efficacy. Intravenous mitoxantrone (infusion of > or = 5 minutes), either as monotherapy or in combination with intravenous methylprednisolone, delayed the progression of the disease in patients with secondary-progressive (SP) or worsening relapsing-remitting (RR) MS (the latter is also termed progressive-relapsing MS) in comparative, randomised, multicentre trials. In a double-blind, monotherapy trial (Mitoxantrone In Multiple Sclerosis [MIMS] trial), mitoxantrone 12 mg/m(2) (n = 60) once every 3 months for 2 years significantly improved neurological disability relative to placebo (n = 64), as assessed by changes in mean Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, mean Ambulatory Index (AI) score and mean Standardised Neurological Status (SNS) score. The drug also significantly reduced the mean number of corticosteroid-treated relapses per patient and prolonged the time to the first treated relapse. A Wei-Lachin multivariate analysis of these five efficacy variables indicated that the global difference between the two treatment groups was 0.30 (p < 0.0001). Mitroxantrone was also more effective than placebo according to secondary endpoints in this study, with fewer mitoxantrone recipients experiencing a relapse, a deterioration of > or =1 EDSS point or a confirmed deterioration in EDSS score over a 3-month period. Mitoxantrone recipients also showed less deterioration in quality-of-life ratings and had fewer hospital admissions, whereas more placebo recipients had new gadolinium-enhanced lesions at study end (the latter parameter was assessed using magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] in a subgroup of 110 patients, including 40 patients who received an exploratory 5 mg/m(2) dose). Furthermore, post hoc analyses indicated that the beneficial effects of mitoxantrone treatment on EDSS, SNS and AI scores were sustained for at least 12 months after cessation of treatment, with mean changes from baseline at 36 months in EDSS, AI and SNS scores of 0.10, 0.61 and 0.19, respectively, in the mitoxantrone group versus 0.46, 1.13 and 3.38 with placebo. Preliminary data from a cost-minimisation analysis based on results from the MIMS trial indicated that approximately half of the cost of mitoxantrone was offset by cost savings in other areas associated with the treatment of MS (direct and indirect major costs), with a total annual incremental cost for mitoxantrone of dollar 1661 per patient. Combination therapy once-monthly with intravenous mitoxantrone 20mg plus intravenous methylprednisolone 1g was more effective than intravenous methylprednisolone 1g once every month in preventing the development of gadolinium-enhanced lesions in patients with very active RRMS or SPMS (double-blind assessment using MRI scans). After 6 months, significantly more combination therapy recipients had no new gadolinium-enhanced lesions (90.5% vs 31.3% with monotherapy; p < 0.001) [primary endpoint]. There were also significant reductions in both the mean number of new enhancing lesions and the total number of gadolinium-enhanced lesions in patients receiving combination therapy versus methylprednisolone monotherapy.Tolerability. Mitoxantrone was generally well tolerated in patients with MS. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurring significantly more frequently with mitoxantrone (12 mg/m(2) once every 3 months for 2 years) than placebo were nausea, alopecia, menstrual disorders, urinary tract infection, amenorrhoea, leucopenia and elevated gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase levels. Adverse events were usually mild to moderate in severity and generally resolved with discontinuation of treatment or when treated with appropriate pharmacotherapy. Eight percent of patients discontinued treatment in the mitoxantrone 12 mg/m(2) group due to an adverse event versus 3% of placebo recipients. The incidence of drug-related acute myelogenous leukaemia was very low (0.12%) in a cohort of 802 patients with MS receiving mitoxantrone. Evidence suggests that the risk of cardiotoxicity is low in patients with MS. After 1 year of monotherapy, 3.4% of mitoxantrone recipients had a reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) to < or =50% compared with 0% of placebo recipients; at the end of the second year, respective incidences were 1.9% and 2.9% (total cumulative dose of mitoxantrone per patient was 96 mg/m(2) after 2 years' treatment). (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

The argument against the use of cyclophosphamide and mitoxantrone in the treatment of multiple sclerosis

Mitoxantrone (MITX) and cyclophosphamide (CPM) are potent immunosuppressive agents with efficacy in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). Both agents appear effective in those patients with active inflammatory disease but are probably less effective in patients with a secondary progressive (SP) course dominated by a degenerative component. Given these agents are effective patients with active inflammation the question arises as to whether they are more effective than high dose interferon therapy. Interferon beta administered at high dose and high frequency suppresses enhancing lesions by as much as 90% and brings about a 35% decrease in relapse rates in addition to decreasing the progression of disability. Interferons have an excellent safety profile even after years of administration. What then is the advantage of immunosuppressive agents such as cyclophosphamide and mitoxantrone over safer and still effective treatments? The answer lies in the magnitude of effect in those with the most active and aggressive disease states. While interferons are safe and effective in those with mild or moderate inflammatory disease states, they are probably not sufficient to bring about control in disease that is highly active and resilient. Both mitoxantrone and cyclophosphamide have the ability to suppress inflammation that may be resistant to therapy with more conservative agents. Given the safety profile of these agents their use should be restricted to those patients with aggressive disease resistant to treatment with more conservative agents.

Visual recovery in a man with the rare combination of mtDNA 11778 LHON mutation and a MS-like disease after mitoxantrone therapy

We describe a young man with prognostic unfavourable homoplasmatic mitochondrial DNA(mt DNA) 11778 Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON) point mutation and confirmed multiple sclerosis (MS). This combination of LHON and MS-like disease is rare in both sexes, and in men has been described in only a few case reports. In a 4-year follow-up during immunosuppressive therapy with mitoxantrone, we found a remarkable time delayed visual recovery 12 months after acute onset of rapid sequential bilateral subtotal visual loss followed by episodes of isolated acute demyelinative optic neuropathy. Visual recovery to such extent after this latency is uncommon in both mtDNA 11778 LHON mutation and optic neuritis (ON) in MS. Relapses in visual deterioration must be considered as extremely rare in LHON. This case might support the hypothesis of an immunological pathogenetic factor in combined LHON and MS, and possibly in LHON alone. We suggest a search for the LHON mutation in MS patients with predominant visual impairment, independent of patients' gender.

Multiple sclerosis treatment 2001

Trials of new MS drugs now require MR imaging and clinical data and entail enormous expense. Therefore, science can ask and answer only a limited number of questions, so physicians must use their clinical acumen to judge (or conjecture) the best treatments for their patients. The drugs discussed earlier will dominate MS therapy in the next few years, but further advances may come from one of the more than forty new agents now under investigation for alleviating MS. It is an exciting time for patients and their doctors.

Linomide in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: MRI results from prematurely terminated phase-III trials

Due to an unexpected increase in serious cardiovascular events in MS patients treated with Linomide, a synthetic immunomodulator, two phase-III multinational relapsing remitting (RR) and secondary progressive (SP) MS trials had to be discontinued. MRI results of 413 patients who participated for at least 3 months were analysed. Patients received placebo, 2.5 or 5 mg Linomide. Scans were performed at pre-enrolment, month 3 and termination. The number and volume of enhancing lesions (ELV), and the number of active scans were evaluated. At month 3, the decrease in the number of enhancing lesions in the placebo group was 11%, compared with 15% in the 2.5 mg group (P=0.027) and 23% in the 5 mg group (P=0.057). Using the percentage of active scans as outcome parameter, the odds ratio for improvement between placebo and 2.5 mg group was 1.62 (P=0.14); between placebo and 5 mg Linomide group 3.58 (P=0.003). At termination, a rebound effect was noted in the 2.5 mg group (P=0.01). Analysis of the ELV showed no significant difference between placebo and treatment groups. Although Linomide has unacceptable side effects, it seems to have a modest effect on MS disease activity, as measured by MRI. Multiple Sclerosis (2000) 6, 99 - 104

Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging as a marker for multiple sclerosis

Since the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) may not be clear on clinical grounds or from other paraclinical tests, and due to the necessary assessment of new pharmacological therapeutical agents which demand objective outcome parameters for relatively short trials, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is not only used to diagnose MS, but is also broadly used to monitor disease progression. In exploratory trials, where MRI is used as a primary outcome measure, serial scans are used to detect disease activity as the number of active lesions showing signal enhancement after gadolinium administration. When the results is positive, the drug has to be tested further in a phase III study, using clinical endpoints as primary outcome measurements. MRI can be used as a secondary outcome measure. Given the uncertain relation between MRI and clinical findings, MR findings provide only supportive evidence. Serial scans (usually yearly) are used to monitor disease progression as an increase in total lesion load. Consequently, reproducibility of the lesions and therefore spatial resolution, should be maximized. Several putative treatments have been assessed using MR monitoring in phase II and phase III trials. A multitude of phase II trials have shown that it is indeed possible to demonstrate that MR is capable of showing, even in small groups, whether new drugs have any effect on the development of lesions.

Multiple Sclerosis: Immunotherapy

Given our current knowledge, there is a need for the early institution of immunomodulatory therapy, especially for patients with poor prognostic factors (motor and cerebellar symptoms, frequent disease exacerbations, and a high level of activity on magnetic resonance imaging ). Patients who progress despite immunomodulatory therapy should be reevaluated in terms of diagnosis, development of neutralizing antibodies, or compliance. If a patient has a partial response to immunomodulatory therapy but his or her disease, as assessed by clinical and MRI criteria, remains very active, every effort should be made to modify disease progression by searching for an immunosuppressive therapy regimen before irreversible and considerable disability has accumulated. For the majority of patients, multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic condition. Therefore, until a curative treatment has been developed, the available repertoire of immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory treatments should be assessed with respect to the possibility of long-term use. This is particularly important for new immunosuppressive drugs, such as cladribine or mitoxantrone, or for invasive procedures, such as total lymphoid irradiation or autologous bone marrow transplantation. For the latter treatments, experience with long-term administration is not available or the potential side effects (eg, cardiotoxicity with mitoxantrone) limit the cumulative dose. These considerations may limit long-term administration and thus the general usefulness of some drugs. Even with proven efficacy, we need to define the next step once treatment has to be discontinued. We should also address whether exacerbating disease by discontinuing an effective therapy is a potential hazard. What other therapeutic options remain once the current treatment is discontinued? Answers are not readily available at the moment, but the question should influence our decisions in the selection of traditional, well-studied or new, potentially promising therapies.

Value of magnetic resonance imaging in assessing efficacy in clinical trials of multiple sclerosis therapies

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become an important technique for monitoring the effectiveness of putative treatments for multiple sclerosis (MS) because of its high sensitivity, objectivity, and noninvasive nature. Its importance as a surrogate measure of disease, however, is an issue that is more difficult to validate than might seem to be the case. In this review, we describe the role of MRI in the assessment of putative therapies for MS. New magnetic resonance techniques and methods of image analyses aimed at better demonstrating the nature and extent of disease are discussed, and the role of MRI in published MS therapeutic trials is examined. MRI is a frequently used secondary outcome measure for putative treatment strategies for MS. Although it is sensitive to changes in the inflammatory component of the MS disease process, poor correlation has been noted between MRI findings and long-term patient outcome. There is a widespread expectation that new magnetic resonance techniques--such as fluid-attenuated inversion recovery, magnetization transfer imaging, and magnetic resonance spectroscopy--will ultimately be useful for characterization of pathologic changes within the MS lesion and more generally of the MS disease process. Whether magnetic resonance changes seen in experimental therapies predict the long-term clinical course of the disease remains to be determined.

Therapeutic effect of mitoxantrone combined with methylprednisolone in multiple sclerosis: a randomised multicentre study of active disease using MRI and clinical criteria

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficiency of mitoxantrone in multiple sclerosis.

METHODS

Forty two patients with confirmed multiple sclerosis, selected as having a very active disease on clinical and MRI criteria were randomised to receive either mitoxantrone (20 mg intravenously (IV) monthly) and methylprednisolone (1 g iv monthly) or methylprednisolone alone over six months. In the steroid alone group five patients dropped out due to severe exacerbation.

RESULTS

Blinded analysis of MRI data showed significantly more patients with no new enhancing lesions in the mitoxantrone group compared with the steroid alone group, (90% v 31%, P < 0.001). In the mitoxantrone group there was a month by month decrease almost to zero in the number of new enhancing lesions, and in the total number of enhancing lesions, whereas both remained high in the steroid alone group. The differences were significant for both indices at all months from 1-6. Unblinded clinical assessments showed a significant improvement in change in EDSS at months 2-6 in the mitoxantrone group, with a final mean improvement of more than one point (-1.1 v + 0.3; P < 0.001). There was a significant reduction in the number of relapses (7 v 31; P < 0.01), and an increase in the number of patients free of exacerbation (14 v 7; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In this selected group of patients with multiple sclerosis with very active disease, mitoxantrone combined with methylprednisolone was effective in improving both clinical and MRI indices of disease activity over a period of six months whereas methylprednisolone alone was not. Further double blinded long term studies are needed to properly evaluate the effect of mitoxantrone on progression in disability.

Contrast-enhanced MR imaging in the evaluation of treatment response and prediction of outcome in multiple sclerosis

MR imaging is becoming increasingly important in the evaluation of multiple sclerosis based on its sensitivity to acute, often subclinical events in the brain and because it provides a basis for measuring the accumulation of disease over time. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging in particular evaluates disease at the fundamental level of events affecting the blood-brain barrier. This review emphasizes (a) recent developments in the use of contrast-enhanced MR imaging as a measure of disease in patient groups and individuals and (b) its emerging role in evaluating new therapies.

Mitoxantrone immunotherapy in multiple sclerosis

Mitoxantrone, a cytotoxic agent recently developed, was subsequently found a very potent immunosuppressor. Experimental data in experimental allergic encephaloymyelitis demonstrated a dramatic suppression of both active and passive forms. Immune effects concern cellular and humoral components and are particularly persistent. B cell subset is preferentially deleted. Suppressor cells are relatively spared and suppression becomes dominant. In cancer therapy, the main advantages of mitoxantrone are a definitely better immediate tolerance and very low delayed adverse reactions (carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, impact on reproductive organs). Given its major immunosuppressive activity and its better tolerance, mitoxantrone was a potential candidate for multiple sclerosis therapy. Several clinical trials have confirmed the remarkable efficacy of mitoxantrone to reduce both attack and progression rates. Unfortunately the cardiotoxicity was found more frequent than expected and limits the maximum cumulative dose to 120 mg/m2. Mitoxantrone, when employed properly, may be useful in patients with frequent and disabling excerbations and/or rapidly progressing disability. It must be kept in mind that multiple sclerosis is a chronic disease, and that the benefit is limited to the period of administration of any treatment.

Noninvasive assessment of mitoxantrone cardiotoxicity in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis is the most common cause of neurologic disability in young adults. Recent reports have suggested that Mitoxantrone might be a candidate for clinical trials in multiple sclerosis patients. The authors studied 20 patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis to evaluate cardiac toxicity during a one-year follow-up period. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group A, mitoxantrone treated patients (cumulative dose of 96 mg/m2); group B, placebo patients. The clinical course of multiple sclerosis was assessed using the Expanded Disability Status Scale and the number of relapses during the follow-up. Each patient had an electrocardiogram and a spectral and color flow Doppler echocardiographic examination at enrollment, and 6 and 12 months later, to investigate cardiac toxicity. The mean exacerbation rate was reduced significantly in group A patients. No significant differences in the electrocardiograms or the echocardiographic parameters of systolic and diastolic function were noted between the two groups or in group A during the follow-up. Mitoxantrone treatment seems able to improve the clinical course of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis patients. It does not show any cardiac toxicity in selected patients at this dosage.