Therapeutic inertia in the management of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder

Introduction and objective

Limited information is available on how neurologists make therapeutic decisions in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), especially when new treatments with different mechanisms of action, administration, and safety profile are being approved. Decision-making can be complex under this uncertainty and may lead to therapeutic inertia (TI), which refers to lack of treatment initiation or intensification when therapeutic goals are not met. The study aim was to assess neurologists' TI in NMOSD.

Methods

An online, cross-sectional study was conducted in collaboration with the Spanish Society of Neurology. Neurologists answered a survey composed of demographic characteristics, professional background, and behavioral traits. TI was defined as the lack of initiation or intensification with high-efficacy treatments when there is evidence of disease activity and was assessed through five NMOSD aquaporin-4 positive (AQP4+) simulated case scenarios. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association between neurologists' characteristics and TI.

Results

A total of 78 neurologists were included (median interquartile range [IQR] age: 36.0 [29.0-46.0] years, 55.1% male, median [IQR] experience managing demyelinating conditions was 5.2 [3.0-11.1] years). The majority of participants were general neurologists (59.0%) attending a median (IQR) of 5.0 NMOSD patients (3.0-12.0) annually. Thirty participants (38.5%) were classified as having TI. Working in a low complexity hospital and giving high importance to patient's tolerability/safety when choosing a treatment were predictors of TI.

Conclusion

TI is a common phenomenon among neurologists managing NMOSD AQP4+. Identifying TI and implementing specific intervention strategies may be critical to improving therapeutic decisions and patient care.

The Need for the Closer Monitoring of Novel Drugs in MS: A Siponimod Retrospective Cohort Study (Realhes Study)

BACKGROUND

Severe cases of lymphopenia have been reported during siponimod clinical trials, which may negatively impact its benefit/risk profile.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the incidence of lymphopenia following the initiation of siponimod treatment in clinical practice. The secondary objectives included the analysis of factors predisposing to and the clinical relevance of lymphopenia events.

METHODS

In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, information collected from the medical records of 129 patients with MS from 15 tertiary hospitals in Spain who initiated treatment with Siponimod were followed-up for at least 3 months, including at least one lymphocyte count evaluation per patient.

RESULTS

Of the 129 patients, 121 (93.6%) reported lymphopenia events, including 110 (85.3%) with grade ≤ 3 and 11 (8.5%) with grade 4 lymphopenia, higher than those reported in the pivotal clinical trial (73.3% and 3.3% for grade ≤ 3 and grade 4 lymphopenia, respectively). The study included an unexpectedly high proportion of male subjects (72.9%), which might have led to an underestimation of the actual magnitude of the risk.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the incidence and severity of lymphopenia after starting siponimod treatment were higher than those reported in previous clinical trials. Therefore, our results reinforce the need for the closer monitoring of novel MS drugs in clinical practice, as well as larger and longer follow-up studies to properly characterize this risk.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Multiple Sclerosis: Results of the Spanish Neurology Society Registry

Objective

To understand COVID-19 characteristics in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and identify high-risk individuals due to their immunocompromised state resulting from the use of disease-modifying treatments.

Methods

Retrospective and multicenter registry in patients with MS with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis and available disease course (mild = ambulatory; severe = hospitalization; and critical = intensive care unit/death). Cases were analyzed for associations between MS characteristics and COVID-19 course and for identifying risk factors for a fatal outcome.

Results

Of the 326 patients analyzed, 120 were cases confirmed by real-time PCR, 34 by a serologic test, and 205 were suspected. Sixty-nine patients (21.3%) developed severe infection, 10 (3%) critical, and 7 (2.1%) died. Ambulatory patients were higher in relapsing MS forms, treated with injectables and oral first-line agents, whereas more severe cases were observed in patients on pulsed immunosuppressors and critical cases among patients with no therapy. Severe and critical infections were more likely to affect older males with comorbidities, with progressive MS forms, a longer disease course, and higher disability. Fifteen of 33 patients treated with rituximab were hospitalized. Four deceased patients have progressive MS, 5 were not receiving MS therapy, and 2 were treated (natalizumab and rituximab). Multivariate analysis showed age (OR 1.09, 95% CI, 1.04–1.17) as the only independent risk factor for a fatal outcome.

Conclusions

This study has not demonstrated the presumed critical role of MS therapy in the course of COVID-19 but evidenced that people with MS with advanced age and disease, in progressive course, and those who are more disabled have a higher probability of severe and even fatal disease.

Deciphering Multiple Sclerosis Progression

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is primarily an inflammatory and degenerative disease of the central nervous system, triggered by unknown environmental factors in patients with predisposing genetic risk profiles. The prevention of neurological disability is one of the essential goals to be achieved in a patient with MS. However, the pathogenic mechanisms driving the progressive phase of the disease remain unknown. It was described that the pathophysiological mechanisms associated with disease progression are present from disease onset. In daily practice, there is a lack of clinical, radiological, or biological markers that favor an early detection of the disease's progression. Different definitions of disability progression were used in clinical trials. According to the most descriptive, progression was defined as a minimum increase in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) of 1.5, 1.0, or 0.5 from a baseline level of 0, 1.0–5.0, and 5.5, respectively. Nevertheless, the EDSS is not the most sensitive scale to assess progression, and there is no consensus regarding any specific diagnostic criteria for disability progression. This review document discusses the current pathophysiological concepts associated with MS progression, the different measurement strategies, the biomarkers associated with disability progression, and the available pharmacologic therapeutic approaches.