Double-Blind Controlled Randomized Trial of Cyclophosphamide versus Methylprednisolone in Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis

Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for progressive multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In recent years a broader range of immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive treatment options have emerged for people with progressive forms of multiple sclerosis (PMS). While consensus supports these options as reducing relapses, their relative benefit and safety profiles remain unclear due to a lack of direct comparison trials.

OBJECTIVES

To compare through network meta-analysis the efficacy and safety of alemtuzumab, azathioprine, cladribine, cyclophosphamide, daclizumab, dimethylfumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, fludarabine, glatiramer acetate, immunoglobulins, interferon beta 1-a and beta 1-b, interferon beta-1b (Betaferon), interferon beta-1a (Avonex, Rebif), laquinimod, leflunomide, methotrexate, minocycline, mitoxantrone, mycophenolate mofetil, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab, ozanimod, pegylated interferon beta-1a, ponesimod, rituximab, siponimod, corticosteroids, and teriflunomide for PMS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase up to August 2022, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that studied one or more treatments as monotherapy, compared to placebo or to another active agent, for use in adults with PMS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We performed data synthesis by pair-wise and network meta-analysis. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence according to GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 studies involving a total of 10,167 participants. The most frequent (39% of studies) reason for a rating of high risk of bias was sponsor role in study authorship and data management and analysis. Other concerns were performance, attrition, and selective reporting bias, with 8.7% of studies at high risk of bias for all three of these domains. The common comparator for network analysis was placebo. Relapses over 12 months: assessed in one study (318 participants). None of the treatments assessed showed moderate or high certainty evidence compared to placebo. Relapses over 24 months: assessed in six studies (1622 participants). The number of people with clinical relapses is probably trivially reduced with rituximab (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 1.95; moderate certainty evidence). None of the remaining treatments assessed showed moderate or high certainty evidence compared to placebo. Relapses over 36 months: assessed in four studies (2095 participants). The number of people with clinical relapses is probably trivially reduced with interferon beta-1b (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.93; moderate certainty evidence). None of the remaining treatments assessed showed moderate or high certainty evidence compared to placebo. Disability worsening over 24 months: assessed in 11 studies (5284 participants). None of the treatments assessed showed moderate or high certainty evidence compared to placebo. Disability worsening over 36 months: assessed in five studies (2827 participants). None of the treatments assessed showed moderate or high certainty evidence compared to placebo. Serious adverse events: assessed in 15 studies (8019 participants). None of the treatments assessed showed moderate or high certainty evidence compared to placebo. Discontinuation due to adverse events: assessed in 21 studies (9981 participants). The number of people who discontinued treatment due to adverse events is trivially increased with interferon beta-1a (odds ratio (OR) 2.93, 95% CI 1.64 to 5.26; high certainty evidence). The number of people who discontinued treatment due to adverse events is probably trivially increased with rituximab (OR 4.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 19.12; moderate certainty evidence); interferon beta-1b (OR 2.98, 95% CI 1.92 to 4.61; moderate certainty evidence); immunoglobulins (OR 1.95, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.84; moderate certainty evidence); glatiramer acetate (OR 3.98, 95% CI 1.48 to 10.72; moderate certainty evidence); natalizumab (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.90; moderate certainty evidence); siponimod (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.38; moderate certainty evidence); fingolimod (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.60; moderate certainty evidence), and ocrelizumab (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.86; moderate certainty evidence). None of the remaining treatments assessed showed moderate or high certainty evidence compared to placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The number of people with PMS with relapses is probably slightly reduced with rituximab at two years, and interferon beta-1b at three years, compared to placebo. Both drugs are also probably associated with a slightly higher proportion of withdrawals due to adverse events, as are immunoglobulins, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, fingolimod, siponimod, and ocrelizumab; we have high confidence that this is the case with interferon beta-1a. We found only low or very low certainty evidence relating to disability progression for the included disease-modifying treatments compared to placebo, largely due to imprecision. We are also uncertain about the effect of interventions on serious adverse events, also because of imprecision. These findings are due in part to the short follow-up of the included RCTs, which lacked detection of less common severe adverse events. Moreover, the funding source of many included studies may have introduced bias into the results. Future research on PMS should include head-to-head rather than placebo-controlled trials, with a longer follow-up of at least three years. Given the relative rarity of PMS, controlled, non-randomised studies on large samples may usefully integrate data from pivotal RCTs. Outcomes valuable and meaningful to people with PMS should be consistently adopted and measured to permit the evaluation of relative effectiveness among treatments.

Cancer and multiple sclerosis: 2023 recommendations from the French Multiple Sclerosis Society

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological data reveal that 45% of persons with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) in France are more than 50 years. This population more than 50 is more susceptible to cancer, and this risk may be increased by frequent use of immunosuppressive drugs. Consequently, concerns have arisen about the potential increased risk of cancer in PwMS and how patients should be screened and managed in terms of cancer risk.

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-based recommendations to manage the coexistence of cancer and multiple sclerosis (MS).

METHODS

The French Group for Recommendations in MS collected articles from PubMed and university databases covering the period January 1975 through June 2022. The RAND/UCLA method was employed to achieve formal consensus. MS experts comprehensively reviewed the full-text articles and developed the initial recommendations. A group of multidisciplinary health care specialists then validated the final proposal.

RESULTS

Five key questions were addressed, encompassing various topics such as cancer screening before or after initiating a disease-modifying therapy (DMT), appropriate management of MS in the context of cancer, recommended follow-up for cancer in patients receiving a DMT, and the potential reintroduction of a DMT after initial cancer treatment. A strong consensus was reached for all 31 recommendations.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations propose a strategic approach to managing cancer risk in PwMS.

Best practices in phase III clinical trials on DMTs for multiple sclerosis: a systematic analysis and appraisal of published trials

BACKGROUND

Great advances have been made in the field of multiple sclerosis (MS) therapy due to the publication of numerous randomised clinical trials (RCTs). In this study, we carried out a critical appraisal of phase III RCTs of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS published after 2010, intending to identify critical areas of improvement.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of published RCTs on MS from January 2010 until December 2021. RCTs were assessed using an ad-hoc tool. This tool was developed based on existing generic methodological instruments and MS-specific guidelines and methodological papers. It included 14 items grouped in 5 domains: methodological quality, adequacy and measurement of outcomes, adverse event reporting, applicability and relevance of results, and transparency and conflict of interest.

RESULTS

We identified 31 phase III RCTs. Most of them were fully compliant in terms of sample size (87%), randomisation (68%), blinding (61%), participant selection (68%), adverse event reporting (84%) and clinical relevance (52%). Only a few were compliant in terms of participant description (6%), comparison (42%), attrition bias (26%), adequacy of outcome measures (26%), applicability (23%), transparency (36%) and conflict of interest (6%). None were compliant in terms of analysis and reporting of outcomes. The most common limitations related to the absence of comorbidity data, unjustified use of placebo, inadequacy of outcomes design and absence of protocol and/or prospective registration.

CONCLUSIONS

RCTs for DMTs in MS have relevant and frequent limitations. These should be addressed to enhance their quality, transparency and external validity.

Clinical trials for progressive multiple sclerosis: progress, new lessons learned, and remaining challenges

Despite the success of disease-modifying treatments in relapsing multiple sclerosis, for many individuals living with multiple sclerosis, progressive disability continues to accrue. How to interrupt the complex pathological processes underlying progression remains a daunting and ongoing challenge. Since 2014, several immunomodulatory approaches that have modest but clinically meaningful effects have been approved for the management of progressive multiple sclerosis, primarily for people who have active inflammatory disease. The approval of these drugs required large phase 3 trials that were sufficiently powered to detect meaningful effects on disability. New classes of drug, such as Bruton tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, are coming to the end of their trial stages, several candidate neuroprotective compounds have been successful in phase 2 trials, and innovative approaches to remyelination are now also being explored in clinical trials. Work continues to define intermediate outcomes that can provide results in phase 2 trials more quickly than disability measures, and more efficient trial designs, such as multi-arm multi-stage and futility approaches, are increasingly being used. Collaborations between patient organisations, pharmaceutical companies, and academic researchers will be crucial to ensure that future trials maintain this momentum and generate results that are relevant for people living with progressive multiple sclerosis.

Disease Modifying Strategies in Multiple Sclerosis: New Rays of Hope to Combat Disability?

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is the most prevalent chronic autoimmune inflammatory- demyelinating disorder of the central nervous system (CNS). It usually begins in young adulthood, mainly between the second and fourth decades of life. Usually, the clinical course is characterized by the involvement of multiple CNS functional systems and by different, often overlapping phenotypes. In the last decades, remarkable results have been achieved in the treatment of MS, particularly in the relapsing- remitting (RRMS) form, thus improving the long-term outcome for many patients. As deeper knowledge of MS pathogenesis and respective molecular targets keeps growing, nowadays, several lines of disease-modifying treatments (DMT) are available, an impressive change compared to the relative poverty of options available in the past. Current MS management by DMTs is aimed at reducing relapse frequency, ameliorating symptoms, and preventing clinical disability and progression. Notwithstanding the relevant increase in pharmacological options for the management of RRMS, research is now increasingly pointing to identify new molecules with high efficacy, particularly in progressive forms. Hence, future efforts should be concentrated on achieving a more extensive, if not exhaustive, understanding of the pathogenetic mechanisms underlying this phase of the disease in order to characterize novel molecules for therapeutic intervention. The purpose of this review is to provide a compact overview of the numerous currently approved treatments and future innovative approaches, including neuroprotective treatments as anti-LINGO-1 monoclonal antibody and cell therapies, for effective and safe management of MS, potentially leading to a cure for this disease.

Adverse effects of immunotherapies for multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease of the central nervous system that affects mainly young adults (two to three times more frequently in women than in men) and causes significant disability after onset. Although it is accepted that immunotherapies for people with MS decrease disease activity, uncertainty regarding their relative safety remains.

OBJECTIVES

To compare adverse effects of immunotherapies for people with MS or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), and to rank these treatments according to their relative risks of adverse effects through network meta-analyses (NMAs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, two other databases and trials registers up to March 2022, together with reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included participants 18 years of age or older with a diagnosis of MS or CIS, according to any accepted diagnostic criteria, who were included in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined one or more of the agents used in MS or CIS, and compared them versus placebo or another active agent. We excluded RCTs in which a drug regimen was compared with a different regimen of the same drug without another active agent or placebo as a control arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods for data extraction and pairwise meta-analyses. For NMAs, we used the netmeta suite of commands in R to fit random-effects NMAs assuming a common between-study variance. We used the CINeMA platform to GRADE the certainty of the body of evidence in NMAs. We considered a relative risk (RR) of 1.5 as a non-inferiority safety threshold compared to placebo. We assessed the certainty of evidence for primary outcomes within the NMA according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate or high.

MAIN RESULTS

This NMA included 123 trials with 57,682 participants. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Reporting of SAEs was available from 84 studies including 5696 (11%) events in 51,833 (89.9%) participants out of 57,682 participants in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of SAEs, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 18 additional people would have a SAE compared to placebo. Low-certainty evidence suggested that three drugs may decrease SAEs compared to placebo (relative risk [RR], 95% confidence interval [CI]): interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (0.78, 0.66 to 0.94); dimethyl fumarate (0.79, 0.67 to 0.93), and glatiramer acetate (0.84, 0.72 to 0.98). Several drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo: moderate-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.08, 0.88 to 1.31); low-certainty evidence for ocrelizumab (0.85, 0.67 to 1.07), ozanimod (0.88, 0.59 to 1.33), interferon beta-1b (0.94, 0.78 to 1.12), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (0.96, 0.80 to 1.15), natalizumab (0.97, 0.79 to 1.19), fingolimod (1.05, 0.92 to 1.20) and laquinimod (1.06, 0.83 to 1.34); very low-certainty evidence for daclizumab (0.83, 0.68 to 1.02). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the other drugs: low-certainty evidence for cladribine (1.10, 0.79 to 1.52), siponimod (1.20, 0.95 to 1.51), ofatumumab (1.26, 0.88 to 1.79) and rituximab (1.01, 0.67 to 1.52); very low-certainty evidence for immunoglobulins (1.05, 0.33 to 3.32), diroximel fumarate (1.05, 0.23 to 4.69), peg-interferon beta-1a (1.07, 0.66 to 1.74), alemtuzumab (1.16, 0.85 to 1.60), interferons (1.62, 0.21 to 12.72) and azathioprine (3.62, 0.76 to 17.19). Withdrawals due to adverse events Reporting of withdrawals due to AEs was available from 105 studies (85.4%) including 3537 (6.39%) events in 55,320 (95.9%) patients out of 57,682 patients in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of withdrawals, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 31 additional people would withdraw compared to placebo. No drug reduced withdrawals due to adverse events when compared with placebo. There was very low-certainty evidence (meaning that estimates are not reliable) that two drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo, assuming an upper 95% CI RR limit of 1.5: diroximel fumarate (0.38, 0.11 to 1.27) and alemtuzumab (0.63, 0.33 to 1.19). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the following drugs: low-certainty evidence for ofatumumab (1.50, 0.87 to 2.59); very low-certainty evidence for methotrexate (0.94, 0.02 to 46.70), corticosteroids (1.05, 0.16 to 7.14), ozanimod (1.06, 0.58 to 1.93), natalizumab (1.20, 0.77 to 1.85), ocrelizumab (1.32, 0.81 to 2.14), dimethyl fumarate (1.34, 0.96 to 1.86), siponimod (1.63, 0.96 to 2.79), rituximab (1.63, 0.53 to 5.00), cladribine (1.80, 0.89 to 3.62), mitoxantrone (2.11, 0.50 to 8.87), interferons (3.47, 0.95 to 12.72), and cyclophosphamide (3.86, 0.45 to 33.50). Eleven drugs may have increased withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo: low-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.37, 1.01 to 1.85), glatiramer acetate (1.76, 1.36 to 2.26), fingolimod (1.79, 1.40 to 2.28), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (2.15, 1.58 to 2.93), daclizumab (2.19, 1.31 to 3.65) and interferon beta-1b (2.59, 1.87 to 3.77); very low-certainty evidence for laquinimod (1.42, 1.01 to 2.00), interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (1.54, 1.13 to 2.10), immunoglobulins (1.87, 1.01 to 3.45), peg-interferon beta-1a (3.46, 1.44 to 8.33) and azathioprine (6.95, 2.57 to 18.78); however, very low-certainty evidence is unreliable. Sensitivity analyses including only studies with low attrition bias, drug dose above the group median, or only patients with relapsing remitting MS or CIS, and subgroup analyses by prior disease-modifying treatments did not change these figures. Rankings No drug yielded consistent P scores in the upper quartile of the probability of being better than others for primary and secondary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found mostly low and very low-certainty evidence that drugs used to treat MS may not increase SAEs, but may increase withdrawals compared with placebo. The results suggest that there is no important difference in the occurrence of SAEs between first- and second-line drugs and between oral, injectable, or infused drugs, compared with placebo. Our review, along with other work in the literature, confirms poor-quality reporting of adverse events from RCTs of interventions. At the least, future studies should follow the CONSORT recommendations about reporting harm-related issues. To address adverse effects, future systematic reviews should also include non-randomized studies.

Updates and advances in multiple sclerosis neurotherapeutics

The multiple sclerosis (MS) neurotherapeutic landscape is rapidly evolving. New disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) with improved efficacy and safety, in addition to an expanding pipeline of agents with novel mechanisms, provide more options for patients with MS. While treatment of MS neuroinflammation is well tailored in the existing DMT armamentarium, concerted efforts are currently underway for identifying neuropathological targets and drug discovery for progressive MS. There is also ongoing research to develop agents for remyelination and neuroprotection. Further insights are needed to guide DMT initiation and sequencing as well as to determine the role of autologous stem cell transplantation in relapsing and progressive MS. This review provides a summary of these updates.

Rationale for off-label treatments use in primary progressive multiple sclerosis: A review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Until recently, few therapeutic options, other than symptomatic treatment, were available for patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS). Ocrelizumab is the only approved treatment in this indication, and only since 2017. However, many patients in France are receiving off-label treatments for PPMS, mainly rituximab, mycophenolate mofetil, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, and azathioprine.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate published data concerning the efficacy of these five treatments frequently used as off-label disease-modifying therapies.

METHODS

We reviewed and summarized the studies published in Pubmed since the inception of the database.

RESULTS

Evidence from randomized controlled trials is lacking to support the use of these treatments as disease-modifying therapies in PPMS.

CONCLUSION

The literature lacks dedicated studies to support the off-label use of these disease-modifying therapies in PPMS. However, some limited data are available in the literature suggesting that the use of rituximab and cyclophosphamide could potentially be of some interest in specific subpopulations.

Designing Multi-arm Multistage Adaptive Trials for Neuroprotection in Progressive Multiple Sclerosis

There are few treatments shown to slow disability progression in progressive multiple sclerosis (PMS). One challenge has been efficiently testing the pipeline of candidate therapies from preclinical studies in clinical trials. Multi-arm multistage (MAMS) platform trials may accelerate evaluation of new therapies compared to traditional sequential clinical trials. We describe a MAMS design in PMS focusing on selection of interim and final outcome measures, sample size, and statistical considerations. The UK MS Society Expert Consortium for Progression in MS Clinical Trials reviewed recent phase II and III PMS trials to inform interim and final outcome selection and design measures. Simulations were performed to evaluate trial operating characteristics under different treatment effect, recruitment rate, and sample size assumptions. People with MS formed a patient and public involvement group and contributed to the trial design, ensuring it would meet the needs of the MS community. The proposed design evaluates 3 experimental arms compared to a common standard of care arm in 2 stages. Stage 1 (interim) outcome will be whole brain atrophy on MRI at 18 months, assessed for 123 participants per arm. Treatments with sufficient evidence for slowing brain atrophy will continue to the second stage. The stage 2 (final) outcome will be time to 6-month confirmed disability progression, based on a composite clinical score comprising the Expanded Disability Status Scale, Timed 25-Foot Walk test, and 9-Hole Peg Test. To detect a hazard ratio of 0.75 for this primary final outcome with 90% power, 600 participants per arm are required. Assuming one treatment progresses to stage 2, the trial will recruit ≈1,900 participants and last ≈6 years. This is approximately two-thirds the size and half the time of separate 2-arm phase II and III trials. The proposed MAMS trial design will substantially reduce duration and sample size compared to traditional clinical trials, accelerating discovery of effective treatments for PMS. The design was well-received by people with multiple sclerosis. The practical and statistical principles of MAMS trial design may be applicable to other neurodegenerative conditions to facilitate efficient testing of new therapies.

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation vs low-dose immunosuppression in secondary-progressive multiple sclerosis

Background and purpose

Effectiveness of autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) is well known, but in secondary–progressive (SP)‐MS it is still controversial. Therefore, AHSCT activity was evaluated in SP‐MS using low‐dose immunosuppression with cyclophosphamide (Cy) as a comparative treatment.

Methods

In this retrospective monocentric 1:2 matched study, SP‐MS patients were treated with intermediate‐intensity AHSCT (cases) or intravenous pulses of Cy (controls) at a single academic centre in Florence. Controls were selected according to baseline characteristics adopting cardinality matching after trimming on the estimated propensity score. Kaplan–Meier and Cox analyses were used to estimate survival free from relapses (R‐FS), survival free from disability progression (P‐FS), and no evidence of disease activity 2 (NEDA‐2).

Results

A total of 93 SP‐MS patients were included: 31 AHSCT, 62 Cy. Mean follow‐up was 99 months in the AHSCT group and 91 months in the Cy group. R‐FS was higher in AHSCT compared to Cy patients: at Year 5, 100% versus 52%, respectively (p < 0.0001). P‐FS did not differ between the groups (at Year 5: 70% in AHSCT and 81% in Cy, p = 0.572), nor did NEDA‐2 (p = 0.379). A sensitivity analysis including only the 31 “best‐matched” controls confirmed these results. Three neoplasms (2 Cy, 1 AHSCT) and two fatalities (2 Cy) occurred.

Conclusions

This study provides Class III evidence, in SP‐MS, on the superior effectiveness of AHSCT compared to Cy on relapse activity, without differences on disability accrual. Although the suppression of relapses was observed in the AHSCT group only, AHSCT did not show advantages over Cy on disability, suggesting that in SP‐MS disability progression becomes based more on noninflammatory neurodegeneration than on inflammation.

Review of Phase III Clinical Trials Outcomes in Patients with Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis

OBJECTIVE

Few satisfyingly effective treatments exist for patients with Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (SPMS). Our goal in conducting this review is to highlight clinical outcomes and study design, which may be applied to future phase III clinical trials for patients with SPMS.

METHODS

A review of the available literature of phase III clinical trials since 1990 that specifically studied patients with SPMS. PubMed and ClinicalTrials.org were searched using appropriate terms.

RESULTS

Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was most often used as an outcome measure, with time to confirmed disability progression at three months being used most often. Components of the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) were the next most frequent primary outcome measure used. Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) were frequently used as secondary outcome measures with specific PROs more successful than others. MRI measures related to brain parenchymal volume have recently started to be used in phase III clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Some successful trials may have been related to patient selection for less inflammatory disease, which confounds the comparison between successful trials. Time to confirmed disability at three months or changes in composite MSFC are reasonable primary outcome measures to use in future SPMS trials with a suggestion that the MSFC may be more sensitive to progressive disease changes. PROs and MRI measures following brain parenchymal volume are reasonable secondary outcome measures to incorporate into future phase III trials in SPMS.

Failed, Interrupted, or Inconclusive Trials on Immunomodulatory Treatment Strategies in Multiple Sclerosis: Update 2015-2020

In the past decades, multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment has experienced vast changes resulting from major advances in disease-modifying therapies (DMT). Looking at the overall number of studies, investigations with therapeutic advantages and encouraging results are exceeded by studies of promising compounds that failed due to either negative or inconclusive results or have been interrupted for other reasons. Importantly, these failed clinical trials are informative experiments that can help us to understand the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying MS. In several trials, concepts taken from experimental models were not translatable to humans, although they did not lack a well-considered pathophysiological rationale. The lessons learned from these discrepancies may benefit future studies and reduce the risks for patients. This review summarizes trials on MS since 2015 that have either failed or have been interrupted for various reasons. We identify potential causes of failure or inconclusiveness, looking at the path from basic animal experiments to clinical trials, and discuss the implications for our current view on MS pathogenesis, clinical practice, and future study designs. We focus on anti-inflammatory treatment strategies, without including studies on already approved and effective DMT. Clinical trials addressing neuroprotective and alternative treatment strategies are presented in a separate article.

Re-examining the effects of high-dose intravenous methylprednisolone for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis

Background/objective: Intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) is previously given to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) patients. This study aimed to re-examine the effects of IVMP in SPMS. Materials & methods: Major electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials. Results: Four randomized controlled trials were included. IVMP may be inferior to mitoxantrone (MTX) in terms of expanded disability status scale (EDSS) improvement. There was no significant difference in terms of EDSS reduction and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plaque reduction when IVMP + MTX were compared with MTX. There is no significant difference between IVMP and cyclophosphamide based on EDSS progression and relapse reduction. Conclusion: IVMP should not be routinely used as treatment for SPMS and is not recommended as an alternative treatment for SPMS.

A potential role for cyclophosphamide in the mitigation of acute respiratory distress syndrome among patients with SARS-CoV-2

While humanity struggles to develop a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, it is imperative that effective and affordable therapeutic strategies be evolved. Since a majority of the SARS-CoV-2 deaths are due to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a strategy to mitigate the same could save countless lives. Since SARS-CoV-2 related ARDS has a strong immunological component, many investigators are utilizing monoclonal antibodies against IL-6, TNF-alpha and CCR5. However, targeting a single cytokine with an expensive monoclonal antibody could be a less pragmatic approach. We propose the use of cyclophosphamide as an immunomodulator, given its proven role in various settings including autoimmune diseases, and in the post-haploidentical stem cell transplant. Cyclophosphamide could deplete cytotoxic and effector T cell populations while relatively sparing the regulatory T cells (Tregs). Cyclophosphamide could tip the balance away from the overtly pro-inflammatory and could be a less expensive and effective alternative to the currently investigated monoclonal antibodies.

Diagnosis and Management of Progressive Multiple Sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis is a chronic autoimmune disease of the central nervous system that results in varying degrees of disability. Progressive multiple sclerosis, characterized by a steady increase in neurological disability independently of relapses, can occur from onset (primary progressive) or after a relapsing-remitting course (secondary progressive). As opposed to active inflammation seen in the relapsing-remitting phases of the disease, the gradual worsening of disability in progressive multiple sclerosis results from complex immune mechanisms and neurodegeneration. A few anti-inflammatory disease-modifying therapies with a modest but significant effect on measures of disease progression have been approved for the treatment of progressive multiple sclerosis. The treatment effect of anti-inflammatory agents is particularly observed in the subgroup of patients with younger age and evidence of disease activity. For this reason, a significant effort is underway to develop molecules with the potential to induce myelin repair or halt the degenerative process. Appropriate trial methodology and the development of clinically meaningful disability outcome measures along with imaging and biological biomarkers of progression have a significant impact on the ability to measure the efficacy of potential medications that may reverse disease progression. In this issue, we will review current evidence on the physiopathology, diagnosis, measurement of disability, and treatment of progressive multiple sclerosis.

Plasma cell and B cell-targeted treatments for use in advanced multiple sclerosis

There is increasing evidence that agents that target peripheral B cells and in some instances plasma cells can exhibit marked effects on relapsing multiple sclerosis. In addition, B cells, including plasma cells, within the central nervous system compartment are likely to play an important role in disease progression in both relapsing and progressive MS. However, current B cell-targeting antibodies may not inhibit these, because of poor penetration into the central nervous system and often oligoclonal bands of immunoglobulin persist within the cerebrospinal fluid despite immunotherapy. Through targeting B cells and plasma cells in the CNS, it may be possible to obtain additional benefit above simple peripheral depletion of B cells. As such there are a number of inhibitors of B cell function and B cell depleting agents that have been developed for myeloma and B cell leukaemia and lymphoma, which could potentially be used off-label or as an experimental treatment for advanced (progressive) MS.

Brazilian Consensus for the Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis: Brazilian Academy of Neurology and Brazilian Committee on Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis

The expanding therapeutic arsenal in multiple sclerosis (MS) has allowed for more effective and personalized treatment, but the choice and management of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) is becoming increasingly complex. In this context, experts from the Brazilian Committee on Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and the Neuroimmunology Scientific Department of the Brazilian Academy of Neurology have convened to establish this Brazilian Consensus for the Treatment of MS, based on their understanding that neurologists should be able to prescribe MS DMTs according to what is better for each patient, based on up-to-date evidence and practice. We herein propose practical recommendations for the treatment of MS, with the main focus on the choice and management of DMTs, as well as present a review of the scientific rationale supporting therapeutic strategies in MS.

Disability Outcome Measures in Phase III Clinical Trials in Multiple Sclerosis

Accumulating neurological disability has a substantial impact on the lives of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). As well as the established Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), several other outcome measures are now available for assessing disability progression in MS. This review extends the findings of a previous analysis of relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) trials published up to 2012, to determine whether there has been a shift in outcome measures used to assess disability in phase III clinical trials in RRMS and progressive MS. Forty relevant trials were identified (RRMS, n = 16; progressive MS, n = 18; other/mixed phenotypes, n = 6). Sustained EDSS worsening, particularly over 3 months, was included as an endpoint in almost all identified trials. Other disability-related endpoints included the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite z-score and scores for the physical component summary of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale and Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form (36-item) Health Survey. Tests assessing manual dexterity, ambulation, vision and cognition were also employed, and in some trials, composite endpoints were used. However, there was no obvious trend in choice of disability outcome measures over time. Sustained EDSS worsening over short time periods continues to be the most widely used measure of disability progression in pivotal MS trials, despite its well-recognised limitations. A new tool set is needed for use in MS clinical trials that detects the benefit of potential treatments that slow (or reverse) progressive disability.

Pharmacological Approaches to the Management of Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis

It is well recognised that the majority of the impact of multiple sclerosis (MS), both personal and societal, arises in the progressive phase where disability accumulates inexorably. As such, progressive MS (PMS) has been the target of pharmacological therapies for many years. However, there are no current licensed treatments for PMS. This stands in marked contrast to relapsing remitting MS (RRMS) where trials have resulted in numerous licensed therapies. PMS has proven to be a more difficult challenge compared to RRMS and this review focuses on secondary progressive MS (SPMS), where relapses occur before the onset of gradual, irreversible disability, and not primary progressive MS where disability accumulation occurs without prior relapses. Although there are similarities between the two forms, in both cases pinpointing when PMS starts is difficult in a condition in which disability can vary from day to day. There is also an overlap between the pathology of relapsing and progressive MS and this has contributed to the lack of well-defined outcomes, both surrogates and clinically relevant outcomes in PMS. In this review, we used the search term 'randomised controlled clinical drug trials in secondary progressive MS' in publications since 1988 together with recently completed trials where results were available. We found 34 trials involving 21 different molecules, of which 38% were successful in reaching their primary outcome. In general, the trials were well designed (e.g. double blind) with sample sizes ranging from 35 to 1949 subjects. The majority were parallel group, but there were also multi-arm and multidose trials as well as the more recent use of adaptive designs. The disability outcome most commonly used was the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) in all phases, but also magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-measured brain atrophy has been utilised as a surrogate endpoint in phase II studies. The majority of the treatments tested in SPMS over the years were initially successful in RRMS. This has a number of implications in terms of targeting SPMS, but principally implies that the optimal strategy to target SPMS is to utilise the prodrome of relapses to initiate a therapy that will aim to both prevent progression and slow its accumulation. This approach is in agreement with the early targeting of MS but requires treatments that are both effective and safe if it is to be used before disability is a major problem. Recent successes will hopefully result in the first licensed therapy for PMS and enable us to test this approach.