An Uncomfortable Truth: No $ In Cures, Says Goldman Sachs

In a development more shocking than the capture of a live Bigfoot, a recent Goldman Sachs research report (click here and here) states in black-and-white what many have long suspected: curing diseases is not a viable business model for the companies that develop and manufacture drugs. Instead, drugs that turn terrible diseases into treatable illnesses which are kept under control by the perpetual use of medicines that sustain patients but don’t cure them have become marvels of modern capitalism.

Perhaps unwittingly, the Goldman Sachs report confirms that our current medical research model is more crippled than I am. Over the past three or four decades, the interlocking mantras of “all government is bad government" and "private enterprise is the solution for everything," have led our society to hand the reins of medical research over to for-profit pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotech companies. Most of these companies are publicly traded, meaning their stock is available for trade on the world's stock markets.

The problem with this formula is that publicly traded companies are mandated by law to be beholden to their stockholders, not the end users of their products. In the case of pharmaceutical and medical device companies, these end-users are sick people, many suffering from hideous diseases like multiple sclerosis. In the cold calculus of the free-market, the job of drug company executives is NOT to produce drugs that offer the best result for the patients who take them (like, say, cures). Instead, providing the best outcome for the companies’ stockholders – in the form of ever-increasing profits and ever appreciating stock prices – is the legal responsibility of these executives.

In fact, the CEO of a drug company with an established and successful franchise of MS treatments could very well be engaged in illegal practices if they endorsed their company marketing a cure for the disease, which would destroy their existing tremendously profitable business model. In the parlance of the financial world, that executive would be in breach of his or her fiduciary responsibilities. In the parlance of the rest of the world, that executive would likely be given the heave-ho and could spend a good chunk of time in a Club Fed.

Since finding cures for diseases like MS and cancer have eluded researchers for decades if not centuries, the recent advent of medicines that treat but don't cure have been heralded as modern miracles. The lack of cures has become the accepted status quo, despite the fact that in the days before medical research was dominated by for-profit concerns, dread diseases like polio, smallpox, and tuberculosis were wiped out through the efforts of government and academic researchers. Now, though, with the science of genetic therapies rapidly advancing, the prospect – or, in the eyes of Goldman Sachs, the problem – of curing diseases is growing tremendously, threatening to upend a business model that has become incredibly profitable. To take just one example, medicines that treat but don’t cure multiple sclerosis generated over $25 billion in revenues during the last year alone.

As more and more disease-related genes are mapped and identified, the universe of illnesses that might benefit from gene therapy is expanding exponentially. Multiple sclerosis is one of those diseases, as it seems every few weeks a new set of genes are discovered that play a role in the MS disease process. The ultimate cure for MS may one day lie in altering the genes that initiate the cascade of failures that leads the body to destroy its own tissues. Ultimately, the genetic profile of individual patients may be used to tailor cures unique to their genetic makeup.

In their research report released last week, Goldman Sachs – a company that is a central pillar of our financial system with a reach far beyond Wall Street – concludes that such genetic therapies represent a vital threat to those invested in companies involved in drug and medical device development and manufacturing. In a report entitled "The Genome Revolution", Goldman Sachs analysts ask, "is curing patients a sustainable business model?" While acknowledging the vast potential of genetic treatments, the report states “Such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies. While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow." Heaven forbid! The almighty dollar must rule all, patient and societal well-being be damned.

The report goes on to make several recommendations for addressing the looming financial threat of curing rather than treating diseases, including that companies ignore rare diseases whose small patient pools would make any cures prohibitively expensive, and also that they avoid curing infectious diseases because "… curing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients", which would, of course, be terrible for business. The report cites the example of Gilead Sciences, which developed a cure for hepatitis C several years ago (click here), but has seen its profits plummet as the population of hepatitis C patients shrinks thanks to the success of Gilead's medication. As a result, the company’s stock value has suffered. More proof that no good deed goes unpunished.

Folks, this Goldman Sachs research paper states in black-and-white what to many has been long apparent but difficult to fathom: there is very little incentive for pharmaceutical companies to research and develop cures for diseases when marketing treatments that transform patients into customers for life is an immensely profitable business model. Those of us suffering from terrible conditions like multiple sclerosis must recognize that hoping for a cure from such entities is akin to hoping that the Easter Bunny hops into your local MS clinic and drops off a cure delicately encased in a colorfully decorated egg.

What is the solution to this situation? Well, how about putting a small tax on pharmaceutical company profits, the proceeds of which could be funneled exclusively into publicly funded medical research explicitly targeted at finding the cause and cure of currently intractable diseases. If a tax of 4% were placed on MS medications, which, as stated previously, generated $25 billion in revenues last year, a nifty $1 billion could have gone to fund independent researchers in the search for a cure for the disease. Would it place an undue hardship on MS drug manufacturers if last year’s revenues totaled $24 billion rather than $25 billion? Let’s not forget, pharmaceutical companies are granted extremely long patents on their products and don’t face much in the way of free-market competition. It’s no accident that every MS medication is priced between $60,000-$85,000, despite the fact that some of them have been on the market for more than 20 years.

Yes, I am aware that any talk of increased taxes is anathema to ideologically driven politicians and those who vote for them, but if we are to find our way out of a status quo that sees treating but not curing as perfectly acceptable, some radical changes need to be made. The current state of our medical research model has been corrupted by the siren song of blockbuster drugs, the profits from which are astronomical. As a society, we must reckon with the following question: Are profits more important than patients? Seems to me that in a country where “Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness” are held as sacred, the answer should be self-evident. It’s tough to enjoy our inalienable rights while plagued with horrible illness. Will the incessant drive for ever-increasing economic gain dictate the future of medicine, or will we as a society finally stand up and say, “Enough!”

First Annual Progressive MS Day – Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Okay, all of my fellow progressive MSers, we finally have a day to call our own! This Wednesday, March 28, 2018, will be the first ever Progressive MS Day, a time to draw the world’s attention to this most debilitating form of the scourge that is multiple sclerosis.

As most of you already know, the majority of MSers (approximately 85%) are stricken with the relapsing-remitting form of the disease (RRMS) which is, of course, no picnic itself. Despite the advent of immunosuppressive drugs that effectively reduce relapse rates and the formation of new lesions in relapsing patients – medicines that carry with them laundry lists of serious and potentially fatal side effects – many of these patients may eventually transition to a progressive form of the disease, known as secondary progressive MS (SPMS). This stage of the disease sees patients no longer experiencing relapses and remissions, but instead a slow and steady decline in physical and mental functioning. Though there are currently over a dozen drugs approved to treat RRMS, there is only one approved to treat SPMS.

A minority of MSers (about 10%-15%) start off with progressive disease. This form of the disease is known as primary progressive MS (PPMS) and is considered the most challenging type of MS to treat. Currently, there is only one approved drug for the treatment of PPMS, and its effect on this debilitating monster is relatively modest, slowing down the progression of disability by about 25% in some patients.

Given this backdrop, it’s high time that the public is made aware of the ugly side of MS, the side which doesn’t have patients Dancing with the Stars or climbing Mount Everest. Progressive MS Day will offer our community a chance to draw attention to this particularly daunting form of MS, and by doing so hopefully draw resources towards treating and ultimately conquering it. Several states are expected to officially recognize Progressive MS Day, along with most MS patient advocacy groups. It is expected that this first Annual Progressive MS Day will grow in scope in years to come, but this year the event will be staged primarily in the virtual world of the Internet. Baby steps, folks, for those of us who can take any steps at all.

Progressive MS Day has been kick-started by the drug company Genentech, which manufactures and markets Ocrevus, the only drug currently approved by the FDA for the treatment of progressive MS. Yes, it’s not like me to do any promotion on behalf of the drug companies, and I have written several lengthy articles on Ocrevus and the issues surrounding it (click here and here). But, just like politics, crippling diseases can make for strange bedfellows, and the idea of a Progressive MS Day seems pretty good to me regardless of where it was conceived. As patients and their loved ones struggling with this illness, let’s take hold of this day and make it our own.

So, what can you do to help spread the word? Well, you can start by using the fancy-schmancy Progressive MS Day Facebook frame on your Facebook profile picture. I must admit, being an avowed Facebook hater, I had no idea what a Facebook frame was, but I just managed to add it to my profile pic and I think it’s quite nifty indeed. Please follow the instructions on the below graphic to add the frame to your own profile pic, and it’ll be like we have all revealed ourselves to be members of one of the least influential secret societies on the planet.

In addition, please use the hashtag #ProgressiveMSDay on your social media posts regarding the event. That way, nefarious groups like the Russian intelligence services and Cambridge Analytica will be able to forever tag you as a person with a crippling illness.

Just to add my own Wheelchair Kamikaze twist to the day, I am requiring, with absolutely no exceptions, that everybody who reads this post compose a Progressive MS haiku and post it in the comments section of this blog or on my Facebook page, if that’s how you reached this blog post. If you cheat and don’t compose a haiku, I swear I will hunt you down, sneak up on you, and when you least expect it shout “Boogie Boogie Boogie” at you. Believe me, writing a Progressive MS Haiku is much more pleasant than having a surprise “Boogie Boogie Boogie” shouted at you. If you don’t believe me, just click on the video below:





For those who have forgotten the rules of writing a haiku, let me refresh your memory. Haiku is a Japanese form of poetry, composed of only three lines. The first line must be five syllables, the second seven syllables, and the final third line 5 syllables again. Easy peasy haiku squeezy. As luck would have it, “Progressive MS” is five syllables and therefore makes for an easy first or third line.

To get you started, here are a few Progressive MS haikus I composed myself. Please use the hashtag #ProgressiveMSHaiku if you post your own poetic creations on Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter.

Haiku #1
Progressive MS
Stole everything but my soul
You mother f*cker


Haiku #2
Progressive MS
Enough with the half-assed drugs
I want a damned cure


Haiku #3
Progressive MS
Stick my head in a blender
And please press purée


Haiku #4
Stripped of all pretense
I discovered my essence
Progressive MS

Right then, I’m sure you get the idea. Now let’s have at it…

Ocrevus: Dialogue Between Two Neurologists

Yes, folks, another post on Ocrevus. Hope I’m not beating a dead horse here, but I feel this is a very important subject given the amount of hyperbolic press coverage this newly FDA approved drug has received. The Ocrevus picture is a complicated one, especially for patients with progressive MS. It’s now the only approved drug for this form of the disease, which is a good thing. Unfortunately, there are still questions regarding the efficacy and risk associated with Ocrevus when used on the progressive MS population. Much of these questions can be accounted for by the drugs newness to the market because its risk/reward profile in a real-world setting has not yet been established. While this is true of all new drugs, the fact that the progressive MS population is clamoring for treatment options puts these uncertainties under a bright spotlight.

I first read the below email exchange between two MS neurologists about a week ago on the invaluable MS Research Blog (click here), which is written by the MS neurologists and researchers at the Barts and London School of Medicine in Great Britain. The neurologist who posted this exchange is Dr. Giovanni Giovanonni, who was one of the co-authors of the Ocrevus progressive MS trial research paper. The other neuro involved in the exchange preferred to keep their anonymity. I posted a comment to Dr. Giovanni asking if I could repost this in Wheelchair Kamikaze to give it further exposure, and he agreed. A big thank you to him.

Here then, is the dialogue on the use of Ocrevus in PPMS between Dr. Giovanonni and his anonymous colleague. Just to be clear, in all the verbiage between the linebreaks "I" refers to Dr. Giovanonni, and "his/her" refers to the other neurologist. NEJM is the New England Journal Of Medicine, in which the Ocrevus PPMS trial results were published. I’ll add my two cents at the end of this post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have started-up another email exchange with a colleague about the ORATORIO (ocrelizumab in PPMS) study. I have asked him/her if we could have this debate in the open on the blog, but he/she has asked to remain anonymous.

When I respond to MS-related questions that may be of interest to the broader community I prefer to answer them in the open, which is why I have redacted the discussion and posted it below:

The following are his/her primary questions:

'You were a co-author on the ocrelizumab in PPMS NEJM manuscript, which didn’t really address the issue of age/inflammatory activity as markers for treatment response. Both the rituximab data in OLYMPUS and the Gadolinium data in the supplement of the NEJM article indicate that the population that benefits is the young patient with inflammatory activity. B cell depletion is not benign, especially in the older population, and the ocrelizumab manuscript infers that all PPMS patients should be treated with ocrelizumab. Are you really treating all of your PPMS patients with B cell depletion, and, if not, why didn’t you push for more discussion about this issue in the NEJM paper?'

My response:

We tried to restrict the trial population as much as possible to mirror that of the responder subgroup in OLYMPUS (rituximab in PPMS) study. Please note the following specific inclusion criteria for the trial:

Age cut-off of 55 years of age

Disease duration of symptoms of less than 15 years in patients with an EDSS score of more than 5.0 at screening or less than 10 years in patients with an EDSS score of 5.0 or less at screening

Documented history or the presence at screening of an elevated IgG index or at least one IgG oligoclonal band detected in the cerebrospinal fluid

​The presence of absence of Gd-enhancing lesions was not part of the inclusion criteria and hence should not be used to select patients for ocrelizumab treatment in the real-life situation. The detection of Gd-enhancing lesions also depends on the frequency of imaging. If you are going to select patients for treatment I suggest you use the the three inclusion criteria above as your guide. I predict that these will probably exclude 70% of a typical PPMS clinic population.

Please note that the trial population in the ORATORIO study was not typical of other PPMS trials; the population was younger, less disabled, had higher proportion with Gd-enhancing lesions at baseline and higher on study number of relapse​s. As I have said before there were strong trends in both the Gd+ve and Gd-ve cohorts, therefore, we shouldn't limit treatment to patients with Gd-enhancing lesions only. If we did this we would be denying many patients access to an effective treatment.

I personally don't buy into MS being 2 or 3 diseases. MS is one disease and PPMS is simply more advanced MS; if patients are active they should be offered treatment regardless of their presenting clinical phenotype.


Regarding my own practice. We can't use rituximab in the UK; the NHS won't pay for it and are unlikely to pay for ocrelizumab either. NICE will assess the cost-effectiveness of ocrelizumab based on its price for relapsing-forms of MS and in PPMS ocrelizumab will be compared to best-supportive care. The latter means ocrelizumab is unlikely to pass the NICE cost-effectiveness threshold. I am hoping that Roche, who will be marketing ocrelizumab in Europe, approach NICE and the NHS to discuss differential pricing and to offer ocrelizumab at a cheaper price for patients with PPMS. Differential pricing is a 'hot potatoe' and I am not sure the NHS is ready for it; but I live in hope for my patients.

Please note ocrelizumab has yet to be licensed in Europe and we can't assume its license will be the same as the US.

At present we offer our patients with active PPMS off-label cladribine, a relatively cheap B-cell depleting agent. Like all DMTs it is a choice and not all patients take-up the offer. I am also aware that in the US a large number of neurologists are still using low-dose methotrexate in PPMS.

I am not sure we have enough data on B-cell depletion in PPMS to make a call on whether it is benign or non-benign. Hopefully, good quality safety data will emerge from post-marketing surveillance studies. I suspect as with all immunosuppressive therapies it won't be benign. I would recommend telling all your patients about infusion reactions, the herpetic infection risk, the possible malignancy risk and the likelihood that in time they may develop hypogammaglobulinaemia and need Ig-replacement therapy. Please note we have a large amount of clinical experience in children with agammaglobulineamia and these kids do well long-term, as long as we keep the Ig levels normal.

I am not sure you are correct in suggesting that we are recommending ocrelizumab for all-comers. The trial population defines the group we are advocating its use in. I am surprised the FDA did not include the CSF findings in the label. If I was a regulator I would state that CSF-ve PPMS should not be treated with ocrelizumab.


Regarding discussion in the NEJM paper; the editors of the NEJM essentially cull all speculative discussion and limit the discussion to issues in the trial. NEJM editors are renowned for rewriting submitted papers to keep them consistent for style. The NEJM article is not the forum for the kind of discussion you want to have. I suggest we have this discussion on the blog.

His/her response:

'Thanks for your prompt and thoughtful response. It was very helpful. When do you think we’ll be able to see the age cutoffs for the study? Given that the average age for the study was 45 (and for OLYMPUS it was much higher—about 50), there should be enough patients who entered the study between 50 and 55, to know whether the relatively small treatment effect in the whole group was made up primarily of those under 50. I would certainly like for my older PPMS patients to avoid the potential adverse effects of this drug if there is no clear benefit for this group.

I agree with you about MS being one disease( except possibly for unusual outliers, like the NMO story). So, wouldn’t you expect B cell depletion to work for the younger, more active SPMS patients, too?'

My second response:


There are numerous post-hoc subgroup analyses that are ongoing. I will ask the trial team to include your question about age on the list.


Regarding SPMS; yes, I would expect B cell depletion to work for SPMS as well. I wouldn't limit it to young, or early, SPMS either. Based on our length-dependent axonopathy hypothesis I would even expect patients in wheelchairs to benefit, however, the benefit will be limited to arm and bulbar function. The latter is why we are lobbying Roche to do a trial of ocrelizumab in more advanced MS, with the primary outcome being upper limb function.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a few points that grabbed my attention when I first read this exchange: first, I was surprised to read that the Ocrevus PPMS trial was specifically designed to test the drug on patients identified as likely responders, based on the “failed” rituximab PPMS trials, which were held about 10 years ago. Even though that trial had been officially deemed unsuccessful, a subset of patients were identified who did respond well to the drug (younger, less disabled, shorter disease duration). Although I highly suspected that the Ocrevus trial was intentionally frontloaded with likely responders, I’d never before come cross info confirming my suspicions. I’m not aware of any other study that has been designed in such a fashion. I believe most drug trials try to mirror the general demographic makeup of the patient population in question, although almost all MS trials exclude patients with higher degrees of disability. Due to this trial design, Dr. Giovanonni  states that he’s surprised the FDA didn’t put some sort of prescribing restrictions on the Ocrevus label.

I also found it quite interesting that Dr. Giovanonni states that the prescribing guidelines for the drug, if based on the Ocrevus trial design, would generally exclude 70% of the PPMS population. This in the face of the FDA giving a blanket approval for Ocrevus to treat PPMS with no restrictions whatsoever. While I fully understand why many PPMS patients are anxiously awaiting being offered the drug, I fear that many may have unreasonably high expectations based on the breathless press coverage that greeted the Ocrevus FDA approval. Of course, there is the “any port in a storm” factor. With the dearth of other available treatment options, why not give the drug a shot, especially if a patient finds themselves being ravaged by the disease? It is, of course, up to each patient to decide how aggressively they want to treat their illness, and their tolerance for risk.

Dr. Giovanonni also makes mention of hypogammaglobulinaemia, a general term for a patient having an insufficient number of antibodies in their bloodstream to fend off infections. While it makes sense that Ocrevus could cause this condition, since the drug wipes out a patient’s B cell population and B cells produce antibodies, I hadn’t heard of this being of much concern. Rituxan (rituximab) also obliterates most B cells, and that drug has been used off label to treat MS and other autoimmune diseases for years, to the best of my knowledge without necessitating supplementation of patients’ antibodies via the use of IVIG infusions. PLEASE NOTE: Dr. G has explained, in the comments section below, that long term Rituximab therapy does indeed cause this antibody deficiency. I stand corrected. Thank you, Dr. Giovannoni. 

Lastly, I found it intriguing that this drug might not be made available to PPMS patients in Great Britain, based on its cost-effectiveness versus supportive care. This means that in the eyes of the NHS, Great Britain’s national healthcare system, the relative effectiveness (or lack thereof) of Ocrevus in treating PPMS may not warrant its approval for use, simply because supportive care is less expensive and the impact of Ocrevus on the disease is minimal enough to disqualify it based on the drug’s high price tag.

Having said that, let's not forget that slowing the progression of disease, even if only for a portion of the PPMS population, is no small feat. In addition, the beneficial effects of Ocrevus may accumulate over time, a data point that wouldn't have been caught during the short two-year clinical trial window. Any slowdown in the progression of disability provides patients valuable time during which more effective treatments work their way through the pipeline. While I have concerns about the drug itself, my primary beef is with the way the drug has been portrayed in the media, with eye-popping headlines and hyperbolic coverage by reporters without the depth or breath of experience to look much past the pharmaceutical company press releases. Let's hope that all MS neuros do their due diligence regarding Ocrevus, and keep their patients well-informed about reasonable expectations of benefit and also the downside potential of the drug. It's always important to keep in mind that doing nothing has tremendous proven downside potential, as well.

In short, while Ocrevus does appear to be quite potent in treating relapsing MS, those with progressive MS should likely keep their expectations in line with what was seen in the PPMS trial results. The drug displayed a 25% slowdown in the rate of disease progression, which although not insignificant is certainly not the miracle that the media has made it out to be. Patients shouldn’t expect Ocrevus to reverse their symptoms, or even stop the progression of their disease. Make no mistake, slowing down progression is a very good thing, but according to the above dialogue many PPMS patients may not even see that by way of benefit. Of course, there is always the possibility that the drug proves to be more effective in clinical use than was seen in the phase 3 trials, which is something we have seen with several other drugs.

All that being said, please allow me this one brief little editorial interlude:

HEY, ALL YOU MS NEUROLOGISTS  OUT THERE! STOP STUFFING YOUR POCKETS WITH PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY MONEY AND START LOOKING FOR THE ACTUAL CAUSE OF THIS DAMNED DISEASE! ENOUGH WITH THE “TREATMENTS” WITH POTENTIALLY HORRIFIC SIDE EFFECTS! WE WANT CURES, DAMMIT! AND UNLESS YOU FOLKS STOP LOOKING FOR NEWER AND FANCIER WAYS OF TINKERING WITH THE HUMAN IMMUNE SYSTEM AND START LOOKING FOR THE ACTUAL REASON WHY THE MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS IMMUNE SYSTEM GOES BONKERS, WE WILL NEVER, EVER, GET A CURE! AN IMMUNE SYSTEM ATTACKING ITS OWN BODY IS A SYMPTOM, NOT A CAUSE! WE PATIENTS ARE SICK AND TIRED OF BEING SICK AND TIRED, AND IF WE WEREN’T SO SICK AND TIRED WE MIGHT AT THIS VERY MOMENT BE FORMING LYNCH MOBS! SO GET WITH IT, OR ELSE!!! WHEELCHAIRS CAN BE USED AS DEADLY WEAPONS!!! AND DON'T EVEN THINK OF ASKING ME HOW I KNOW THAT!!!

Okay, feeling a bit calmer now… And, yes, I realize there are MS researchers and neuros who aren’t inflating their incomes with legal pharmaceutical company bribery while their patients clamor for truly momentous breakthroughs. Those folks should be applauded, along with those pursuing creative approaches for tackling multiple sclerosis. As for the others, well, I still want/need their help, so I better keep my mouth shut…

Ocrevus: Former Genentech Researcher Speaks Out

First, let me preface this by saying that I am not anti-Ocrevus. As I’ve stated on these pages any number of times, it is my firmly held belief that MS patient advocates who are fervently “pro” or “anti“ any MS treatment, especially to the extent that they will disparage other treatment options, are doing a disservice to themselves and anybody who listens to them. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no perfect MS treatment; each and every one has its upsides and downsides and even these are mutable depending on the particulars of any individual patient. I’m all for any treatment that offers MS patients a chance to beat back their illness relatively safely and against supposed treatments that are either completely ineffective, dangerous, or blatant rip-offs.

It's my sincere hope that Ocrevus proves to be safe and even more effective than was shown in its clinical trials. Discretion is the better part of valor, though, and it's prudent to be wary of any drug new to the market. We've seen many drugs pulled after FDA approval because of unforeseen side effects, and have also seen other drugs that in time proved more successful than was initially expected. I've written extensively on the complicated history as well as the promise of Ocrevus, which you can read by (clicking here).

During my 14 years as an MS patient, I’ve learned to be highly critical of any medical news that I read or see in nonmedical newspapers or TV shows. These outlets generally overhype any treatment or medical discovery being discussed, and are often reported by journalists who don’t have the depth of background necessary to fully question the PR put out by the drug and medical device manufacturers. I’ve oftentimes wanted to throw things at my TV set when so-called experts state “facts” that are inaccurate, deceptive, and sometimes just flat out wrong.

The mainstream press has been heralding Ocrevus as a tremendous breakthrough, practically falling all over themselves with hyperbole in describing the revolutionary nature of this drug. The truth of the matter is that the real breakthrough came about a decade ago, when the much older drug Rituxan was first trialed on MS patients. The success of the Rituxan trials on relapsing MS shook the foundations of how multiple sclerosis was viewed by most researchers. Rituxan and Ocrevus both target immune system B cells; previous to the successful Rituxan trials, MS was generally thought to be mediated strictly by immune system T cells.

Ocrevus and Rituxan are made by the same drug company, Genentech. Even though the early-stage Rituxan relapsing MS trials were successful, Genentech chose to develop a newer molecule, now called Ocrevus, and abandon further research on Rituxan for MS. This despite the fact that Rituxan had a long record of relative safety in its original use treating non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and trials on Ocrevus would have to start from square one. The reasons behind this decision remain cloudy to this day, and include many that rely on absolutely legitimate scientific rationale. But, prominent among the reasons that must be considered is that Rituxan was due to come off patent in 2015, seriously limiting the profit potential of the drug.

On that note, today I came across a terrific article on the website Health News Review (click here). The piece discusses the pros and cons of the media’s coverage of Ocrevus, exploring issues such as the pharmaceutical company’s PR spin, the drug’s pricing, and the complexities surrounding its similarity to Rituxan. The article features MS neurologist and research scientist Dr. Annette M. Langer-Gould, a former employee of Genentech who worked on the development of Rituxan and Ocrevus. Her perspectives on these two drugs and on the introduction of Ocrevus are quite enlightening. Here’s an excerpt from the article, the whole of which you can and should read by (clicking here):

The Times and STAT’s piece on Ocrevus included statements from sources who hailed the drug approval, calling it a “big deal,” a “significant improvement,” “quite stunning,” and a “major therapeutic advance,” among other accolades.

But those compliments also could be applied to Rituxan, said Langer-Gould, who added that these “major therapeutic advances” actually happened more than a decade ago. But few benefited because Roche delayed Rituxan’s development and then eventually stopped it altogether. It’s misleading to paint Roche and its scientists as heroic now, she said.

“When they stopped Rituxan’s development, it was the main reason I left Genentech,” she said. “I told them ‘you’re just withholding a highly effective treatment for MS patients for another decade’–and that is exactly what happened.”

This article is so good that it speaks for itself, but I would like to add a few thoughts on a factor which hasn’t been much discussed in regards to the launch of Ocrevus. As we all should be aware by now, it’s common practice for drug companies to funnel payments directly to doctors who prescribe their drugs through the use of “consulting fees”, “honoraria, and other vehicles. According to the website Dollars For Docs (click here), Genentech, the maker of Ocrevus, leads the list of companies that engage in these practices, having doled out to doctors an eye-popping $727 million between August 2013 and December 2015. To put this in perspective, the next company on the list is on the hook for $167 million during the same period.

I’ve heard from several of my neurologist contacts that Genentech has been quite copious with its payments to MS doctors in advance of the Ocrevus launch. There is absolutely nothing illegal about this, and there is no saying how much such payments influence any individual doctor, but drug companies wouldn’t engage in these practices if they weren’t seeing a healthy return on investment. MS Neuros are among the largest recipients of pharmaceutical company monies, a fact that must be kept in mind by well-informed patients when discussing potential therapies. The Dollars for Docs website (click here) allows patients to search for any individual physician and see how much that doctor received from pharmaceutical companies during the time period mentioned above. I’d encourage all patients to take advantage of this resource by looking up their own physician to better inform themselves of what could be a motivating factor in their doctor’s decision-making practice.

If your doctor seems to have taken an inordinate amount of money from Big Pharma, don’t be shy about asking them the how’s and why’s of what you’ve learned. It’s your health that’s at stake here, and you have every right to ask as many questions as needed to make informed decisions on your course of treatment. If your doctor refuses to give you those answers, or answers in ways that leave you uncomfortable, I’d say it’s time to find a new doctor. Remember, your doctor works for you, you don’t work for your doctor.

Gee, I may just have lost a few of my neurologist friends…

Ocrevus Approved by FDA for Relapsing MS and Progressive MS

The new MS drug Ocrevus (generic name ocrelizumab) was approved today for use in patients with both relapsing multiple sclerosis AND progressive multiple sclerosis (click here). Ocrevus is the first drug to receive FDA approval for the treatment of progressive multiple sclerosis, thus representing a milestone in the history of MS treatments.

While this is exciting news for people with progressive MS, it's important that patients keep their expectations reasonable and in line with what was shown in the Ocrevus clinical trials. Ocrevus could very well prove to be the most effective relapsing MS drug available when it hits the market (which should be in about 2 weeks); it will be the only FDA approved MS drug for progressive MS when it hits the shelves. Based on the Ocrevus progressive MS trial results, some patients may expect to see a slowing of their disease progression by about 25%. There is some reason to believe that the drug will work best on patients with enhancing lesions on their MRIs. While this is not nearly the kind of momentous intervention all patients with progressive MS crave, it is a start, and one would expect to see an increase in research for this type of MS as other pharmaceutical companies race to get competing drugs on the market.

I've reposted a commentary on Ocrevus I wrote back in January, after interviewing one of the lead researchers on the drug, Dr. Peter Chin. I would encourage all readers with an interest in Ocrevus to read my commentary (click here) and the interview with Dr. Chin (click here). Both include important info for patients considering taking this drug.

As long-time readers of Wheelchair Kamikaze are undoubtedly aware, I've often been skeptical when it comes to MS drugs. However, I owe it to myself and my readers to go where the science takes me, and there is an ever increasing body of evidence that the newer generation of immunosuppressive MS drugs do positively impact the course of the disease, sometimes dramatically. Many of them do carry with them a list of serious and sometimes fatal potential side effects, and as always a frank discussion with your neurologist is mandatory when considering the risk/reward ratio before beginning any drug treatment. Let's hope that with time Ocrevus shows itself to be even more effective than was demonstrated in its clinical trials, and that its safety profile proves robust.

Wishing all WK readers and those who love them the realization of their fondest dreams…

MS Research Roundup-HSCT, Ocrevus, MS Blood Test, and More

Longtime Wheelchair Kamikaze readers will remember that I used to post articles comprised of veritable potpourris of MS related info on a fairly regular basis, and that I’d title those posts “Bits and Pieces”. I’ve kind of fallen down on the job in that regard lately, but over the last month or so a bunch of MS research related articles caught my eye, so I figured I compile them here. Came up with the snappy and uber-original title “MS Research Roundup” since any readers new to the blog wouldn’t know what in tarnation I was talking about with the “Bits and Pieces” rigmarole. And what’s the use of a rigmarole if people find it befuddling? A befuddling rigmarole defeats the whole purpose of rigmaroles, and that would put me and my readers in a quandary wrapped in a conundrum. Who the hell needs that?

So, without any further bandying about willy-nilly, here are some items I hope you find of interest:

♦ First up, a bit of self-congratulations. The UK-based website Stairlift Reviews (click here) has named Wheelchair Kamikaze one of the 100 Best Blogs for Disabled People and Carers. Much thanks to them, and I must say they’ve done a really good job compiling the list as there are lots of really, really good blogs on there. Pretty sure Wheelchair Kamikaze got in by way of clerical error.

♦ Ocrevus (ocrelizumab) has its much awaited date with destiny on March 28, as it goes up before the FDA for approval. The new MS drug was originally scheduled for FDA review this past December, but the review was delayed due to manufacturing issues. Ocrevus is up for approval for the treatment of both relapsing MS and progressive MS, and if approved for the latter would be the first drug on the market for this form of the disease. Based on the trial results, I’d say the odds of the FDA giving the drug the go-ahead are excellent, especially for relapsing MS. I’d say Ocrevus has at least a 90% chance of approval for relapsing MS. Probably closer to 95%, as a rejection for this form of the disease would really be a shock given the robust trial results. Things aren’t quite as sure for progressive MS, but I’d still peg the odds of approval here at about 70%. I’d say there is probably a 20% chance that the drug is only approved for progressive patients who have enhancing lesions, and a 10% chance that it is rejected outright, most likely because of the higher cancer rates seen versus placebo in the progressive MS trials. I’ll put up a quick post on these pages after the results of the FDA review are announced on Tuesday.

♦ HSCT, the type of stem cell therapy that first wipes out the immune system using chemotherapy drugs and then reboots it by way of bone marrow transplant, has once again been making waves. The results of two trials were recently released, both showing that the treatment is remarkably effective in completely shutting down the disease for years long periods of time in many patients. In one 24 person trial, comprised exclusively of RRMS patients and sponsored by the National Institutes Of Health, 69% of trial subjects experienced no MS progression, relapses, or central nervous system lesions 5 years after undergoing HSCT (click here). Some of them even regained lost function. Pretty damned impressive.

A second study looked at the long-term results of HSCT using retrospective data gleaned from 25 treatment centers around the world (click here). The study looked at 281 patients treated between 1995 in 2006, and found that just under half of the treated patients showed no sign of progression 5 years after treatment. The patient population looked at in this study was about 70% progressive MS patients (the overwhelming majority of these SPMS), which accounts for its lower rate of efficacy than the smaller NIH sponsored study cited above.

Through some physician friends of mine I was able to get my hands on a copy of the actual paper, which revealed that when the numbers were broken down according to disease subtype, 73% of RRMS patients, 33% of SPMS patients, and less than 20% of PPMS patients were progression free after 5 years. It should be noted that there were very few PPMS patients included in this study (only 24 out of the original 281 trial subjects, and only one PPMS patient was tracked through 5 years). The authors of the study conclude by saying that these results warrant serious further trials of HSCT as first-line or second-line treatment in “patients with highly active relapsing MS… Furthermore, our results raise the question whether HSCT may attenuate the progression of disability in patients with progressive forms of MS, a possibility that is more plausible in patients with MRI evidence of central nervous system inflammatory activity before transplant.” Evidence of “central nervous system inflammatory activity” means enhancing lesions as seen on an MRI, and many other HSCT studies have also concluded that the treatment works best on patients exhibiting these types of lesions.

The results of these 2 studies further strengthen the case for the use of HSCT in MS patients who have enhancing lesions. It is beyond absurd that over 20 years since the testing of HSCT on MS patients started, we still haven’t had an actual placebo-controlled trial on what appears to be a highly effective treatment, perhaps the most effective MS treatment to date. This probably has to do with the fact that the pharmaceutical companies can’t make gazillions of dollars on HSCT, since the drugs used to knock out the immune system are all older drugs that have come off patent. Combine this with the fact that HSCT puts patients into long-term remission for years at a time, during which they have no use for the hyper expensive MS drugs marketed by the pharmaceutical companies, and the reasons why HSCT remains understudied becomes a bit less cloudy. MS patients and those who love them deserve more.

I’m working on getting an interview with a prominent HSCT researcher, so hopefully I’ll be able to bring some “straight from the horse’s mouth” info to Wheelchair Kamikaze sometime soon.

♦ For those interested in the history of multiple sclerosis, here’s really good article entitled “The Story of Multiple Sclerosis And Its Major Milestones” (click here). Lots of fascinating stuff here, including the fact that in the 19^th century MS was often treated with bloodletting, leeches to the temple, an all meat diet, arsenic, or injections of silver or gold. Heck, if someone showed me some halfway convincing proof that any of these treatments were of use in treating my non-inflammatory progressive MS, I’d go for it in a heartbeat. Leeches to the temple? Bring. Them. On. Couldn’t be any less effective than all of the other crap I’ve tried in the 14 years since my diagnosis, and at least for a little while I’d have a couple of new pets.

♦ Looks like a blood test that will diagnose MS is going to be released in May, 2017 (click here). Not sure why this hasn’t been major news, since if this is true it’s a really big deal. Multiple sclerosis is notoriously hard to diagnose, with many patients waiting months if not years to get a definitive diagnosis. Damn, I’ve had this thing for at least 14 years and the doctors still aren’t sure if it’s actually MS. According to this article, the blood test is supposed to be 90% accurate. The test looks at a patient’s RNA and genetic profile to make it disease determination. I’ll have to do more poking around on this…

♦ Finally, here’s a New York Times article from 2016 detailing just how misleading some of the prescription drug TV commercials can be (click here). This article focuses on the drug Opdivo, which is targeted at a form of lung cancer. It’s hard to miss the Opdivo commercials here in The States. I’m sure many if not all of the yanks reading this post know exactly which ads I’m talking about. They are the ones that show hearty looking cancer patients staring joyfully up at claims of the drug’s effectiveness projected on the buildings of a big city. Turns out that Opdivo only works in about one in five Stage IV non-small cell lung cancer patients, and in those patients it extends life for about 11 months. Of course, an extra 11 months for a patient dying with lung cancer are priceless, but the ad makes it sound like the drug makes lung cancer just a few notches more serious than a sore throat.

I’m not going to go off on a rant here, I promise, but WHY THE HELL ARE DRUG COMPANIES ALLOWED TO ADVERTISE PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS ON TELEVISION?!?! The United States and New Zealand are the only two countries that allow such lunacy, and even the American Medical Association has stated that this practice must be stopped. Maybe if the drug companies stopped spending more on marketing than they do on research (click here) we’d have some drugs for MS that don’t carry with them death as a possible side effect. One thing I’ll say for those leeches to the temples, they didn’t cost $80,000 per year and didn’t cause PML. Of course, they didn’t do anything for MS, so there’s that. But if the leeches were effective, they’d make for some great TV commercials:

Setting: An extreme roller coaster in a giant amusement park. We open with a wide shot of the park, bustling with men so handsome, women so beautiful, and children so adorable that they put to shame the Nazi ideal of human perfection. Amidst the laughter and merriment we find our two thirty-something female protagonists, a stunning redhead and a willowy blonde, energetically climbing into a car on the roller coaster and getting ready for the ride. Both glow with radiant health. The blonde has leeches stuck to her perfect temples, with drops of blood trickling down her almost impossibly high cheekbones.

MS Patient’ s Friend (laughing): “Jane, you’ve got some horrible bloodsucking monsters stuck to your temples!”

MS Patient (cutely giggling): “Oh Susan, don’t be silly. They’re not bloodsucking monsters! They’re Leechabri, my new MS treatment. Last week I couldn’t swallow or get out of bed, but tomorrow I’m climbing Mount Everest!”

The roller coaster then takes off, and the shot widens to follow our heroes as the coaster does a loop the loop. Quick cut to a close-up of our MS patient, laughing hysterically as her leeches flap in the breeze.

And with that image stuck in your mind, I’ll take my leave. I’ll be back with a quick post just as soon as the FDA decision on Ocrevus is announced…

Ocrelizumab PPMS Trial Data Released, Offers Reasons for Hope and Concern

Last month, at the annual ACTRIMS (American Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis) conference, the full trial results for the Ocrelizumab PPMS drug trial were finally revealed. These results had been much anticipated by the MS community, as there are currently no proven effective treatments for Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis, and many previous PPMS drug trials have ended in failure.

Coincidentally, a few days before the conference, Ocrelizumab received “fast-track status” by the FDA (click here). The “Fast-Track” designation is given to drugs which promise to fill a prior unmet need, and generally shortens the approval process from 10 to 6 months. Since PPMS has no approved treatments, Ocrelizumab fits the requirements for the designation. Though fast-track designation means that Ocrelizumab will have an expedited approval process, it does not guarantee that the drug will ultimately be approved.

The anticipation over Ocrelizumab, which was developed by Roche Pharmaceuticals subsidiary Genentech, stems from the fact that trial results appear to demonstrate the drug to be effective in slowing down progression of disability in PPMS patients. In results presented at ACTRIMS, Ocrelizumab showed itself to be very potent in treating RRMS (click here), and in PPMS the drug slowed down disability progression by 24% (click here), making it the first major pharmaceutical product to demonstrate effectiveness in treating Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis in a scientifically rigorous placebo-controlled trial.

The data set presented at ACTRIMS confirmed info originally released last year, but the numbers revealed at the recent conference provided more details on the patient population included in the study (click here). Specifically, results were provided for two different subsets of patients – those with enhancing lesions (which signify acute immune activity within the central nervous system) and those without enhancing lesions. Only about 15% of patients with PPMS display enhancing lesions on their MRIs, and it was widely assumed that Ocrelizumab would likely only be effective in treating those patients. The results provided by Genentech at ACTRIMS , however, demonstrated that the drug appears to be just as effective in patients whose MRIs did not show any signs of enhancing lesions.

Great news, right? Well, if the numbers hold up it is great news, but there are certain aspects of the Ocrelizumab PPMS trials that raise some red flags. Ocrelizumab is a close cousin of the decades old drug Rituxan, which is also manufactured by Genentech. Both drugs work in almost the exact same fashion, by targeting and destroying immune system B cells, effectively ridding the body of the cells for periods of at least six or seven months. Ocrelizumab, like Rituxan, is administered approximately every six months, in two intravenous doses given one or two weeks apart.

Rituxan was originally intended for use against blood cancers, but was later found to be effective in treating a variety of autoimmune diseases, including Lupus, Rheumatoid Arthritis, and Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis. The human immune system consists of a wide variety of cells, but is primarily made up of B cells and T cells. Therefore, Ocrelizumab and Rituxan both eliminate a major component of the very complex immune system, which, it’s assumed, is why they are effective in treating so-called autoimmune diseases. Though Rituxan was never officially approved for use in MS, many MS neurologists prescribe the drug “off label” for their RRMS patients, in whom it has proven to be very effective in reducing relapses and the occurrence of MS lesions.

Back in 2008, trials of Rituxan on PPMS patients were deemed a failure, much to the intense disappointment of many patients, myself included. Subsequent analysis of the data generated by that failed trial, however, revealed that a subset of patients did seem to have a somewhat positive response to Rituxan – namely younger patients who displayed enhancing lesions, had been more recently diagnosed, and were less disabled than other trial participants (click here). Instead of pursuing more targeted trials with Rituxan, though, the drug’s manufacturer, Genentech, decided to develop a newer version of the compound, and thus Ocrelizumab was born.

Why invent a new version of an older, proven drug that uses the exact same mechanism of action as that older drug? Well, Genentech says it was done to develop a safer, more effective product, but a cynical person might point out that Rituxan had already proven itself to be relatively safe and quite effective but was due to come off patent in 2015, meaning that its window for generating tremendous profits was rapidly closing. By the time new trials were completed, Rituxan would no longer have patent protection. A new version of the drug, on the other hand, could be a golden egg laying goose. But, of course, only a very cynical person would point that out, not someone is bright eyed and bushy tailed as me.

Anyway, back to the current Ocrelizumab PPMS trials. Based on the lessons learned from the failed Rituxan trials, it looks like Genentech populated the Ocrelizumab PPMS trials with patients who were selected specifically because they were more likely to respond to treatment (click here). Whereas only about 15% of PPMS patients display enhancing lesions on their MRIs, the Ocrelizumab trial included about 27% of such patients. When compared to the trial’s placebo group, the patients that received the actual drug had twice as many enhancing lesions, meaning their disease was much more immunologically active. In addition, compared to other PPMS trials (all failed), patients in the Ocrelizumab trial were generally more recently diagnosed, and were much less likely to have been on any prior disease modifying medications (in the parlance of the medical research community, most of the patients were “treatment naïve”).

Still, when the numbers were broken down at ACTRIMS, they showed that the drug decreased the rate of disability progression by about 24% in both patients with enhancing lesions and without enhancing lesions. However, each subset of patients was too small to make these results statistically significant, meaning that the trial was, in the parlance of the medical research community, “underpowered”. Knowing that this was sure to be a very important issue, why would Genentech go ahead with a trial that was underpowered in this regard? Wouldn’t logic dictate that they design the trial to settle this vital issue in a statistically definitive manner? Seems kind of strange, no?

What may ultimately turn out to be the most troubling aspect of the Ocrelizumab PPMS trial, however, is that 11 cancers were detected in patients taking Ocrelizumab, versus only two in the placebo group. Eight of the cancers in the Ocrelizumab patients were breast cancers, versus zero in the placebo group. This is especially concerning because back in 2010, when Ocrelizumab was first developed, trials were started not only in MS but also on lupus and rheumatoid arthritis patients. Both the lupus and rheumatoid arthritis trials were halted because of patient deaths (due mostly to opportunistic infections), but the MS trials were allowed to continue because it was thought that MS patients would have a higher tolerance for risk (click here). Interestingly, in the Ocrelizumab RRMS trials, which actually included more patients than the PPMS trials, “only” four cancers were detected in the drug group, versus two in the placebo group.

Incidentally, in its over two decades of service, Rituxan has not been associated with the development of cancers or an alarming number of opportunistic infections, although rare instances of PML (the brain infection that is so concerning in patients taking Tysabri) have been seen in patients taking the drug.

If anything derails an FDA approval for Ocrelizumab in treating PPMS it may very well turn out to be the cancer issue. Even though the positive effect on PPMS generated by Ocrelizumab isn’t overwhelming (a 24% decrease in progression rates is nothing to sneeze at, but then again it’s hardly the dramatic effect PPMS patients are desperately seeking), on its own it would seem encouraging enough to garner an approval. However, given some of the questions regarding trial design and safety issues, it will be very interesting to see what the FDA decides. Another one time promising MS drug, Cladribine, was rejected by the FDA primarily because of cancers detected during drug trials (click here).

For some expert opinions on Ocrelizumab, here are two videos. The first is a video of Ottawa MS neurologist Dr. Mark Freedman discussing progressive MS in general, and then commenting specifically on the Ocrelizumab PPMS trial results. For those of you with short attention spans, he starts talking about Ocrelizumab at the 3:50 mark of the video. Dr. Freedman has some very interesting comments regarding the drug and its effectiveness, and B cell therapy in general. The video is well worth watching.





Here’s another MS neurologist, Dr. Clyde Markowitz, Director of the MS Center at the University of Pennsylvania, who seems much more enthusiastic about Ocrelizumab and its prospects for treating PPMS:





Being the always curious person that I am, and also hyperaware that drug companies often funnel money to doctors who prescribe their products, I did some quick checking and found that Dr. Markowitz received $64,461 from various pharmaceutical companies between August 2013 to December 2014, mostly for “consulting” and “honoraria” fees (click here). At least $6000 of this rather large sum came from Genentech, which, it turns out, was the number one drug company in handing out payments to doctors during that period (click here). And this was before the Ocrelizumab trials were completed.

One can only imagine that Genentech is now going all out to, um, “influence” key doctors in its efforts to get the drug approved, much like politicians target key precincts and states in their quest to get elected. I’ve done plenty of ranting on the subject of drug companies making direct payments to the doctors who prescribe their products in previous blog posts, so I’ll refrain from launching into yet another insane tirade here, but suffice it to say I’ve yet to find any logical argument as to why this practice is tolerated, much less legal.

In all fairness, since Dr. Freedman practices in Canada, I was not able to find any info on payments he might’ve taken from drug companies. The truth is that very few MS neurologists are not on the pharmaceutical company dole. I’d encourage you to enter your doctor’s name in the “Dollars for Docs” database (click here), and see if your neuro has his hand in the cookie jar. Again, this doesn’t mean that the doctors named in the database allow pharmaceutical company money to affect their decision making process, but then again, the pharmaceutical companies wouldn’t be doling out millions and millions of dollars if they weren’t getting an appreciable return on investment.

Okay, sorry, I got a little sidetracked there. I certainly hope that all of my concerns about Ocrelizumab turn out to be completely unfounded, as having even a modestly effective treatment readily available for PPMS would be a major step forward in fighting the disease. However, it seems clear (to me, at least) that going after the immune system isn’t going to be the magic bullet that solves the Progressive Multiple Sclerosis problem, or the broader overall Multiple Sclerosis riddle.. Researchers urgently need to step outside the box and start coming at the issue from new angles if any truly dramatic progress is ever going to be made. In the meantime, here’s to hoping that Ocrelizumab proves itself to be a safe and reliable option for Primary Progressive patients, whose desperation for proven treatment options is beyond words.

An Interview with Dr. Saud Sadiq – FDA Approves Phase II MS Stem Cell Study Conducted by Tisch Research Center of New York

In some dramatic news regarding stem cell treatments for Multiple Sclerosis, the FDA has given its first ever approval for a Phase II Multiple Sclerosis regenerative stem cell trial to the Tisch MS Research Center of New York.

Most previous attempts at using stem cells to repair MS damage have involved intravenously infusing a basic type of stem cell (called mesenchymal stem cells) back into the patient from which they were taken. The Tisch Center (click here) takes this approach several steps further, using proprietary methods to transform raw mesenchymal stem cells into a type of stem cell known as neural progenitors, which are specific to the central nervous system. The cells are then injected directly into the spinal fluid of trial subjects, where, in theory, they should be more effective than raw mesenchymal stem cells at effecting repairs and combating the disease. The Phase I results of the Tisch center’s trial thus far have been quite impressive, offering MS patients worldwide a glimpse into the future of MS treatments and some tangible reasons for hope.

A press release put out by the Tisch Center provides details on what has already been accomplished in the Phase I trial, and what is being planned for the upcoming Phase II study:

"Our unprecedented Phase I results have propelled us into the next phase of research," said Dr. Saud A. Sadiq, Chief Research Scientist at Tisch MSRCNY and the study's principal investigator. He added, "No treatment has shown reversal of established disability until now. The objective improvement experienced in bladder function, vision and walking speed in both secondary and primary progressive MS is remarkable. We now plan to establish efficacy of stem cells as a reparative therapy in Phase II."

The Phase II trial will be a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial with forty patients in a crossover design. Stem cells are taken from the patient’s bone marrow and manipulated to become brain-like neural cells, a process created and found only at Tisch MSRCNY.  All treatments and research will be conducted at the Tisch MS Research Center of New York and will expand to include an additional leading MS center.

The main obstacle in intiating the study is the need for critical funding. Once funding is obtained, patients will be recruited and the study is anticipated to commence in the summer of 2016.

I had the chance to talk with Dr. Sadiq (who just so happens to be my MS neurologist) about this ongoing and groundbreaking MS stem cell trial, as well as other stem cell related topics. The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity…

How long did it take the Tisch Center laboratories to develop the proprietary process to produce neural progenitor cells from raw mesenchymal stem cells?

Dr. Sadiq: It took about 2 ½ years of intensive lab work, and our lab is the only lab in the world currently using this process.

Is this type of stem cell treatment considered a cure, or can patients expect to require repeated treatments in order to maintain whatever benefits they achieve?

Dr. Sadiq: All of this is still in the experimental phases, so we really don’t know how long the treatments will need to be continued in order to maintain benefit. It’s likely there will be an initial induction period where we will do a number of frequent treatments to induce repair and then to maintain the benefits I think it will require less frequent treatments. But I anticipate that some treatments will need to be given for the duration of the illness, until we find the cure.

What was the treatment protocol during the Phase I trial, and what will the treatment protocol be during the Phase II trial?

Dr. Sadiq: In Phase I we did three treatments over the course of one year, which seemed necessary in order to get some benefit. We don’t know whether the Phase I patients will continue to show benefit or not without further treatment. In the Phase II trial, we are proposing six treatments over a year followed by no treatments over a year to see if benefits are sustained. There will be a control group as well, who will get no treatments the first year and then get six treatments the second year. I anticipate less frequent treatments will be needed to maintain benefit for the duration of the disease until we find a cure.

And would this hold true for any type of regenerative stem cell treatment, such as those being offered by some of the for-profit clinics at which many patients are seeking a single treatment or a single round of treatments over a relatively short period of time?

Dr. Sadiq: Most likely yes, it’s been shown that one treatment probably would be insufficient to even start regeneration. You’ll need multiple treatments…

Are the effects of the regenerative stem cell treatments cumulative?

Dr. Sadiq: You know, we don’t know that yet, in the Phase II trial we intend to collect data on this question…

How much more effective are the neural progenitor cells than the raw mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) that have been used in other trials?

Dr. Sadiq: Well, as far as I’m aware, the way MSCs have been used in trials so far, there’s not been a single trial that has shown real substantial benefit with MSCs. There’s been some very mild improvements seen in the Cambridge trials, which used one dose given intravenously. It could be that they didn’t use fresh cells or they didn’t use the proper route of administration. Our trial administers the cells intrathecally, directly into the spinal canal. It could be that raw MSCs are in fact effective, but the trials I’ve seen didn’t use multiple dosing. So it’s very difficult to compare the two. But in our hands we found that neural progenitor cells given intrathecally are more effective than raw MSCs.

How much funding is needed for the Phase II trial?

Dr. Sadiq: For the Phase II trial alone we need about $3 million, but for the actual support that we need to build out and expand the labs I’m looking to get $10 million. We need expanded lab facilities and an animal testing facility in place to properly conduct the Phase II trials.

And how much money have you already raised?

Dr. Sadiq: Planning for Phase II we just started, so we haven’t raised anything yet. We have talked to the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, we’ve talked to the National Institutes of Health. We are submitting a grant proposal to the NIH, and the MS Society Is in consultation with me currently to try to arrange funding. We’ll will have to apply for funding grant from the NMSS. We do have a pledge of about $3 million from one donor.

Wow, you have a pledge of $3 million from one donor?

Dr. Sadiq: Yes.

Is the Phase II trial on hold until all of the funding is in place?

Dr. Sadiq: The trial is not on hold, we are really just starting to think about implementation. We just received FDA approval, and we are going to get another MS center involved, I’m in talks with another MS center here in New York, and then after they’re on board we will get things going. So even if we got all the funding right now, we wouldn’t be able to start the trial until late summer 2016. Right now were planning on starting the trial in July or August 2016.

Assuming everything goes as planned, and there aren’t any unforeseen problems, how long do you think it would be until the type of treatment you are trialing would reach common clinical practice?

Dr. Sadiq: It will probably be by the end of the decade, by 2020 I hope if everything goes well.

Do you think there’s any difference in effectiveness between bone marrow derived and adipose (fat cell) derived stem cells?

Dr. Sadiq: Well, we’re not sure. We started working with bone marrow derived cells from the beginning, but adipose derived may turn out to be better because adipose tissues contain a greater number of MSCs, so you may be able to get a better harvest. But because the FDA oversees every project from start to finish, and our trials began using bone marrow derived cells, if we started using adipose cells now we have to go back to the drawing board with the FDA. So in order to continue our ongoing trial protocols, since we started with bone marrow derived cells, we will continue using bone marrow derived cells.

Do you have any thoughts on the clinics that are currently doing mini liposuctions and then re-injecting the cells intravenously the same day or the day after?

Dr. Sadiq: These clinics are just using the stromal fraction, and nobody really knows what that achieves. This process is really not a stem cell therapy, since the stromal fraction only includes a small number of MSCs. It seems like these clinics just want to make money, there’s no evidence that this method would be effective, at least when dealing with neurodegeneration.

What other avenues of research are being pursued in the Tisch MS center’s labs that you consider most promising?

Dr. Sadiq: My goal in life is to find the cause of MS, and that’s really where I concentrate my efforts. I think we have a number of discoveries that are coming together now and I hope that one day soon we will be able to declare that we’ve found the cause of MS.

We do a lot of work with biomarkers as well. In this Phase II trial we are going to look at all the biomarkers that are associated with clinical response, to be able to identify a marker that will be able to predict which patients have the best chance of responding and seeing benefit, and through what mechanisms they are getting better. This is very important work but it’s not the work that drives me to come into the clinic every day at 4 AM.

What does drive you to come to work every day at four in the morning?

Dr. Sadiq: That’s to find the cure to this damned disease.



I can personally attest to Dr. Sadiq’s obsession with finding the cause of and cure for MS. Through the years, Dr. Sadiq and I have developed quite a strong bond, and I know from experience that he can be found hard at work in his clinic and laboratory nearly round the clock, very often at least six days a week. I’ve spoken to Dr. Sadiq via telephone at all hours of the day and night, and have even had office visits with him on the day after Christmas. He once showed up at my bedside at 3 AM when I was hospitalized and suffering miserably from MS related symptoms, to simply be there with me and literally hold my hand. Not your typical doctor, to be sure.

As Dr. Sadiq makes clear, funding is of the utmost importance in order to get this trial up and running in as timely a fashion as possible. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done, and all donations, no matter how small, will make a difference.

As a long-suffering MS patient myself, I know that friends and family are often eager for ways to help fight the disease. While there are many worthy MS charities, in my opinion the biggest bang for the MS donation buck can be had by donating to the Tisch MS Research Center of New York. Donations to the Tisch Center will directly serve to hasten the completion of these stem cell trials and hopefully bring this exciting technology to MS patients worldwide. Please pass the word along, and (click here) to donate.

A big thank you to all who participate in and contribute to this project, and to all the Wheelchair Kamikaze readers that have made their voices heard at the NMSS in regard to funding the Tisch Center’s efforts. It appears that the MS Society may finally be ready to listen, and hopefully the NMSS will this time come through with funding for this vital research.

I’ll keep you posted…

Ocrelizumab Update – RRMS Trials Successful; PPMS Trial Shows Positive Effect, But Many Questions Left Unanswered

When I last posted to Wheelchair Kamikaze, I profiled the experimental MS drug Ocrelizumab, which was developed by Swiss drug giant Roche (and their US subsidiary Genentech). In press releases put out by the company two weeks ago (click here), Ocrelizumab was touted as the first MS drug shown capable of putting the brakes on Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (PPMS) – a subtype of the disease which until now has been largely untreatable – as well as it being highly effective in treating the more common Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS). These results were even more noteworthy because Ocrelizumab is the first MS drug to specifically target immune system B cells, while other currently available MS drugs (Tysabri, Gilenya) were developed to target T cells, which until now were believed by many to be the primary culprits driving the MS disease process.

Though the initial Ocrelizumab press releases were scant on details, the news certainly appeared promising, though reservations were expressed by many MS researchers based on Ocrelizumab’s development history and its close similarity with another Roche product, Rituxan, a much older drug that had gone through early trials in RRMS (very successful) and PPMS (largely a failure, but with some hints of success) back in 2005-2008. Rituxan’s development as an MS treatment was halted by Roche because of what many believe to be strictly financial concerns. Reading my previous essay (click here) will provide much background on Ocrelizumab’s development and the issues surrounding the drug.

Roche presented the details of the Ocrelizumab RRMS and PPMS trials this past weekend at the ECTRIMS conference in Barcelona, Spain. The RRMS trials were named OPERA I and OPERA II, and the PPMS trial was named ORATORIO. The results of the OPERA I and OPERA II RRMS studies were indeed impressive. These studies compared Ocrelizumab to Rebif, an interferon drug long used to treat RRMS, and found that treatment with Ocrelizumab resulted in a 50% reduction of annualized relapse rates, a 40% reduction in progression, and an 80% reduction in enhancing lesions as shown on MRI when compared to patients taking Rebif (click here – login required, but sign-up process is easy and well worth it). Adverse events were found to be similar in both groups, which is encouraging as Rebif is considered one of the safer MS medications currently available.

It should be noted, however, that the two-year length of these trials may be insufficient to detect longer-term problems that may develop as a result of the intense B cell suppression that is Ocrelizumab’s primary mechanism of action. Nevertheless, it does appear that Ocrelizumab will become a very valuable weapon in the growing arsenal of drugs used to combat RRMS, though, like all current MS drugs, it doesn’t do a thing towards actually curing the disease. But I’ll save that rant for another day…

(Please note, the following information and accompanying commentary were largely gleaned from materials contained in articles and interviews that can be accessed by clicking here, here, here, and here. I would urge all to read them for greater context and background)

Results of the ORATORIO PPMS study, while initially impressive, still remain riddled with questions. Despite the screaming headlines hailing Ocrelizumab as a “revolutionary new MS drug” by the – as usual – hyperbolic mainstream medical media (click here), the actual picture remains far more nuanced. The ORATORIO trial design was heavily influenced by the results of the failed Rituxan PPMS trial back in 2008. Though that trial was officially deemed unsuccessful, subsequent examination of the data revealed that a subset of PPMS patients in the study were seemingly helped by the drug. These patients were generally younger, had shorter disease duration, were less disabled, and had enhancing lesions on their MRIs. It’s thought that patients who fall within these parameters make up about 15% of the overall PPMS population.

It appears that in designing the ORATORIO study, Roche chose trial subjects who were most likely to benefit from Ocrelizumab treatment, specifically those who fit the demographic and disease parameters outlined above. As presented at ECTRIMS, the results of the ORATORIO study are indeed impressive, demonstrating a marked slowing of disease progression, a reduction in MS enhancing lesions, a reduction in brain volume loss, and a stable time to walk 25 feet when compared to trial subjects given a placebo. Of course, these results also mean that many of the ORATORIO trial subjects were patients with enhancing lesions (only a fraction of PPMSer’s have such lesions) and who were relatively less disabled (as evidenced by the fact that they could still walk). The majority of trial subjects also appear to have been relatively recently diagnosed, with a disease duration of approximately 3-5 years, and were under 50 years old.

Unfortunately, when Roche presented the ORATORIO results at ECTRIMS, they declined to detail the breakdown of results by patient subgroups, claiming that such subgroup analysis had not yet been satisfactorily completed. This beggars belief, as one would think that examining the data in such a way as to determine which patient groups benefited the most from treatment would be among the highest research priorities, especially given the mixed results of the previous Rituxan PPMS trials. Instead, Roche chose to give a broad overview of favorable trial results without answering some of the most important questions about those results, primary among them whether or not the patients who most benefited were those with enhancing lesions. Indeed, in the Q&A period following Roche’s presentation, presenters were questioned on just this issue by conference attendees, who were given no suitable answers other than promises that the data would be forthcoming. Roche's presentation led several experts to say the primary progressive data were less impressive than those seen with Ocrelizumab in relapsing remitting disease.

Although Roche portrayed the safety profile of Ocrelizumab in the ORATORIO trial to be excellent, they did note that there were 11 cancers detected during the ORATORIO trial on patients taking Ocrelizumab, versus only two in the placebo group.

The results of the Ocrelizumab RRMS and PPMS studies have not yet been published in any scientific journals, and it is expected that much additional data will need to be provided to publishers before the trial results will be deemed fit for publication. Getting the drug through the regulatory approval process required by government agencies such as the FDA will also necessitate a much greater detailing of trial results, including subgroup analysis which will shed light on just which patient groups were treatment responders. While it seems that the RRMS results will likely stand up to more intense scrutiny, the PPMS results may prove to be less dramatic than originally portrayed when subjected to the spotlight of journal publication and regulatory approval.

That said, even in a worst-case scenario in which only a small subgroup of PPMS patients, those with enhancing lesions,  prove to benefit from Ocrelizumab treatment, the fact that any headway at all has been made in treating PPMS is a significant step forward. If in fact the drug’s efficacy is limited to patients with enhancing lesions, and such lesions are most likely to be found in patients in the earliest stages of the disease, the importance of early diagnosis will be brought to the forefront. Given current diagnostic tools and techniques, many patients with PPMS aren’t correctly diagnosed until the disease has long since taken hold, beyond the period when enhancing lesions are likely to be present. Additionally, the fact that Ocrelizumab targets B cells should open up new avenues of investigation for MS researchers worldwide, as this potential mechanism of MS disease action has until now been largely discounted by most mainstream researchers. Perhaps these investigations might finally unravel some of the deepest mysteries of the disease, and (crossing the fingers I can still cross) eventually lead to a cure for all forms of the disease.

At this point, only time will provide us with the answers we seek. The next chapters of the Ocrelizumab saga will be getting these studies peer-reviewed and published in medical journals, a process which will shed much light on issues still in need of clarification. Roche is targeting the first quarter of 2016 for regulatory approval in both RRMS and PPMS. It will be very interesting to see whether or not Ocrelizumab is approved for the PPMS population as a whole, or, as many researchers suspect, for only a subgroup of progressive MS patients. Again, even if the latter case holds true, we will have at least made some headway in the fight against an insidious form of Multiple Sclerosis that until now has defied efforts to combat it.

At long last, it appears that the attentions of Multiple Sclerosis researchers are finally focusing on progressive MS, an area of investigation which until very recently had largely been neglected. The confounding problems represented by progressive MS will never be solved until well-funded trials are directed specifically at this disease subtype, a circumstance that finally seems to be coming to fruition. And that’s no small thing…

Recent Research on HSCT, the Stem Cell Therapy That May Soon Change the MS Treatment Landscape.

(Please note: the following article is quite long. Though it covers a very important topic and I’ve tried to make it as accessible as possible, I’d suggest getting comfy and grabbing a nice beverage before diving in…)

Over the last six months or so, there has been a wave of new and encouraging research published regarding HSCT (Hematopoietic Stem Cell Therapy) for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. HSCT is the type of stem cell therapy in which a patient’s existing immune system is completely eradicated through the use of powerful chemotherapy drugs and is then rebooted via an infusion of their own stem cells. Some of the results reported have been nothing short of astounding, and even previously skeptical neurologists are now being forced to consider HSCT as a potential game changer that may significantly impact the MS treatment landscape sometime in the not-too-distant future.

So that this article doesn’t take on the length of a Russian novel, rather than getting into the detailed specifics of what HSCT is and isn't I’d like to concentrate on the recent HSCT published research and its implications. For a comprehensive overview of HSCT, please read my previous post on the subject by (clicking here). For a rundown on the different types of stem cell therapies currently being trialed in MS, please (click here).

Just a few things before delving into the research. It’s vitally important that patients not confuse HSCT with regenerative stem cell therapy, which attempts to directly repair the central nervous system damage done by MS. HSCT is a completely different approach with a completely different goal. Regenerative stem cell therapy, such as that being trialed at the Tisch Center in New York (click here) generally does not involve any direct manipulation of patients’ immune systems. HSCT, on the other hand, is entirely directed at providing patients with a new immune system after completely wiping out their presumably defective existing set of immune cells. The two treatment approaches couldn’t be any more different; their only similarity is that they both use stem cells in an attempt to combat multiple sclerosis, albeit in very different ways.

There are currently two forms of HSCT being trialed on MS patients, termed the myeloblative and non-myeloblative treatment protocols. The myeloblative protocol uses a combination of very strong chemotherapy drugs to completely ablate (a fancy word for “destroy”) patients’ immune systems as well as their bone marrow (immune system cells are manufactured in the bone marrow). Non-myeloblative HSCT uses a gentler chemotherapy regimen that takes down the immune system but leaves bone marrow intact. There is some debate among researchers as to which treatment protocol is best suited for combating MS, an issue that is still being sorted out.

There’s also the question of which patients are most likely to respond to HSCT. Because HSCT is directed entirely at replacing a patient’s presumably defective immune system with a new one that doesn’t attack the body’s own nervous system cells, the prevailing thinking is that only patients displaying the hallmarks of immune system driven multiple sclerosis would likely respond well to the treatment. With this in mind, most HSCT research and treatment centers restrict the treatment to patients with active inflammatory MS, meaning that eligible patients must have recently experienced multiple MS relapses and/or displayed enhancing lesions on their MRI images (enhancing lesions are indicators of immune activity within the central nervous system). Since this excludes many secondary progressive (SPMS) and most primary progressive (PPMS) patients, who experience increasing disability in the complete absence of relapses or enhancing lesions, these requirements are understandably the source of much consternation among this patient population (myself included), who are currently presented with no effective treatment options. More on this later.

With these issues in mind, let’s take a look at some of the recently published HSCT research and explore the issues they raise…

A study out of Chicago that used the gentler, non-myeloblative form of HSCT on 151 MS patients (123 RRMS, 28 SPMS) resulted in some startling results on the RRMS patients taking part in the trial (click here). Not only did the vast majority of these patients see their disease stop in its tracks, but a large proportion also saw their levels of disability improve. Four years after treatment, 80% of trial subjects remained relapse free, and 87% showed no signs of disease progression. Furthermore, and perhaps even more astounding, there was a decrease in the disability scores in 50% of patients two years after treatment, and in 64% of patients four years after undergoing the treatment protocol without any further follow-up treatment (click here). Given that a reduction in disability scores is almost unheard of when treating MS patients, these are eye-popping results, to say the least, tempered only by the fact that the SPMS patients included in the trial were reported to have shown no benefit.

This trial was headed up by Dr. Richard Burt of Northwestern University, a leading HSCT researcher. I tried to reach out to Dr. Burt via email with several questions before writing this piece, but unfortunately received no reply. A very informative interview with Dr. Burt is available by (clicking here). If anybody out there knows Dr. Burt, please tell him I’m still patiently waiting for his email reply, fully understanding that he’s a very busy man. In the meantime, if Dr. Burt should find himself in New York City and happens to get run over by a speeding wheelchair, I’ll swear on a stack of research papers that I had nothing to do with it.

A smaller, 25 patient study, called HALT-MS, which used a harsher myeloblative chemotherapy regimen on patients with highly active relapsing disease who had failed to see benefit from at least two previous MS drugs reported impressive interim results (click here). Though study subjects are scheduled to be tracked for five years, the results reported were a snapshot of these patients at the three year mark after treatment. After three years, 78.4% of trial subjects were reported to be free of any disability progression, relapses, or new lesions. Digging deeper into the results revealed that 90.9% of subjects were progression free and 86.3% were relapse free after 36 months. Very impressive.

I managed to get hold of the full published paper of this study, which indicated that although the numbers had not yet been fully crunched, it did appear that the effect of the treatment lessened with time, as fewer patients were reported to be free of signs of the disease at the four and five year marks (68.6% and 58.8% respectively). Again, though, these four and five year numbers were very preliminary, as not all patients had reached this duration after treatment.

A friend of mine, Dave Bexfield, who runs the terrific MS website/forum Active MSers (click here) was one of the participants in the HALT-MS trial. Five years ago Dave was getting absolutely slammed by his disease despite having been on a series of MS drugs. He qualified for the HALT-MS trial and received myeloblative HSCT. His tremendously aggressive RRMS was put entirely into remission for several years, but unfortunately, after five years, Dave recently reported that his disease has shown signs of reawakening (click here) and he is now planning on going on one of the newer, more powerful MS drugs. Dave told me that even though his disease has returned, he has no regrets about undergoing HSCT back in 2010. Without the treatment he is sure the disease would have by now left him completely disabled, and HSCT bought him time at a point when it looked like multiple sclerosis would get the better of him. There are highly effective treatment options available today that weren’t available five years ago, and despite the reemergence of some of his MS symptoms, Dave is very grateful to have taken part in the study.

An Italian team did a head-to-head test of the effectiveness of HSCT versus mitoxantrone (also known as Novantrone) on SPMS patients who had enhancing lesions on their MRIs (click here), the presence of which indicated that they still had an active inflammatory component to their disease.

Currently, mitoxantrone is the only approved drug for use on patients suffering from SPMS. It’s a fairly wicked drug, so toxic to the heart that patients can only stay on it for a limited amount of time. Additionally, mitoxantrone has been linked to a dangerous increase in specific forms of leukemia and lymphoma. As a result of this daunting side effect profile, the use of mitoxantrone has largely fallen out of favor with most MS neurologists.

This phase 2 study used an intensive myeloblative form of HSCT on a small group of study subjects (21, 17 of whom completed the study), and the primary endpoint of the study was a reduction in the number of enhancing lesions detected by MRI. Four years after treatment, HSCT resulted in a 79% reduction in new lesions as compared to those treated with mitoxantrone Unfortunately, no difference in disease progression was reported, but the study was not ideally set up to detect changes in disease progression, a metric which has proven to be very difficult to track even in studies specifically designed to detect disability progression. An editorial accompanying the study, which adds commentary to the statistics provided in the study abstract, should be of interest to all readers (click here).

A very small study out of Hamburg, Germany attempted to directly address the difference in effectiveness of HSCT between RRMS patients with enhancing lesions and progressive MS patients not displaying lesion enhancement (click here). This very small 10 patient trial (four progressive MSers, six with RRMS) compared the results between the two groups two and half years after treatment. The researchers found that although five of the six RRMS patients did show benefit from treatment, none of the progressive patients followed suit. It should be noted that the RRMS patients were considerably less disabled at the start of the study than the progressive test subjects (EDSS 4.25 versus EDSS 6.25).

Previous studies have found that approximately 40% of patients with early PPMS display enhancing lesions on their MRIs (click here) and the presence of such lesions early in the disease may be an indicator of a more aggressive disease course. Patients undergoing the transition from RRMS to SPMS frequently continue to have enhancing lesions for some time after their disease has gone mostly progressive. Remember, enhancing lesions are a sign of active inflammation in the central nervous system, an indicator that the immune system is playing a primary role in driving the disease forward. Since HSCT directly attacks the peripheral immune system, it stands to reason that the treatment would be most effective on patients with active immune system involvement. In the later stages of SPMS, and in the majority of cases of PPMS, it appears that some other as yet undiscovered neurodegenerative process is at work, a process which seems impervious to treatments targeting the peripheral immune system. Studies testing some of the latest potent immunosuppressive drugs – which are highly effective in treating RRMS – on progressive patients have repeatedly failed, the latest such study involving the drug Gilenya (click here). For those of us with progressive MS such failures are very discouraging, and it is with great hope that I’ve looked for hard data supporting the notion that HSCT may benefit even hard-core progressive MSers, which leads us to the final study to be discussed…

Lastly, a study out of Moscow, Russia (click here) provided data suggesting that HSCT might be beneficial to progressive patients who don’t have enhancing lesions (as stated earlier, this includes many SPMS patients and the majority of PPMS patients). Unlike most HSCT treatment centers, the center in Moscow accepts patients with all types of MS (RRMS, SPMS, PRMS, and PPMS), regardless of whether or not they have enhancing lesions on their MRIs or have recently experienced relapses.. A total of 99 patients were included in the study, 43 with RRMS and 56 with various forms of progressive MS.

The summary of this study revealed that 49 months after undergoing treatment, 83.3% of RRMS patients and 75.5% of progressive patients exhibited no signs of relapses or disease progression. After eight years, 45% of treated patients exhibited an improvement in mobility scores, while 45% remained stable. These are compelling numbers, to say the least, particularly for someone like me who has never had enhancing lesions but has nevertheless experienced a constant progression of disability. So compelling, in fact, that I asked a physician friend of mine to provide me the full paper (I could have bought it myself for $40 but most doctors can get research papers for free, and, hey, that’s what friends are for) so that I could dig deeper into this apparently promising research.

Upon reading the full paper (sorry, I can’t link to it because of copyright laws) my enthusiasm was tempered a bit. Although the paper states that only 40% of study subjects had exhibited enhancing lesions before undergoing HSCT, it turns out that this statistic was based on a single MRI done soon before the patients underwent therapy. A single MRI can easily miss enhancing lesions, especially if patients had been on disease modifying drugs, which is why most HSCT centers require patients to have exhibited enhancing lesions and/or relapses (which are almost universally accompanied by enhancing lesions) at some point during the full year prior to treatment.

Additionally, the scope of the disease histories of the patients treated in Moscow varied widely and in many cases was severely deficient. The full paper clearly states this, saying that “patients enrolled in the study previously have been treated in different centers, and the information about disease activity prior in the disease course and its treatment was inhomogeneous and in some cases quite scarce.” I found this sentence to be disquieting, as without comprehensive disease and treatment histories it’s almost impossible to accurately assess the disease state of any individual patient suffering from an illness as complicated as multiple sclerosis. In fact, the abstract of the study, which is available to the general public, even warns that because of this dearth of patient info “comparison with the results in the literature should be done with caution.” This line throws up a big red flag, as the ability to compare and replicate results from study to study is among the foundational basics of the scientific method.

Furthermore, despite publishing statistics that appear to indicate the treatment as practiced in Moscow was effective across a wide spectrum of MS patients, the authors state that “the best candidates for transplantation seem to be relatively young patients with active inflammatory lesions of relatively short duration and rapidly progressive disease, but still low disability scores, unresponsive to conventional therapy.” This was among a number of apparently contradictory elements contained in this research that left me with more questions than answers. While these results certainly can’t be discounted entirely, without a comprehensive, detailed data set it’s impossible to properly discern their value and validity when compared to other studies, a point the authors themselves reiterate on several occasions.

Based on this accumulated HSCT research, certain trends seem clear. HSCT treatment definitely seems remarkably effective on patients with active inflammatory relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis, in the majority of cases resulting in complete remission of the disease for five or more years, sometimes accompanied by a reduction in disability as well. This is far more effective than any of the currently approved disease modifying drugs with the possible exception of Lemtrada, whose mechanism of action in many ways mirrors that of HSCT (for more information on Lemtrada, which was recently approved by the FDA and is covered by most insurance companies, please click here and here).

The safety profile of HSCT as now practiced seems quite robust. None of the above studies reported any HSCT related mortalities, although some serious adverse events above and beyond those that would be considered normal for patients undergoing chemotherapy were described (most in the form of opportunistic infections). Clearly, the decision to undergo HSCT should not be taken lightly, as at its heart the treatment involves using strong chemotherapy drugs to completely eradicate a patient’s existing immune system. Multiple sclerosis is serious business, though, and many patients would gladly accept this risk/reward scenario for a chance at complete remission lasting years or even decades.

Despite the fact that there are credible anecdotal reports on various HSCT websites from progressive MS patients who state that they’ve been helped by the treatment, and even though I’ve desperately wanted – for my own selfish reasons – to find research to back up such statements, I’ve yet to come across any hard data to back up these claims. Research has shown that the treatment can be effective on progressive patients showing signs of active inflammatory disease (enhancing lesions), but there is little hard objective evidence to support the notion that HSCT benefits patients experiencing progression in the absence of active inflammation.

Because the rate of disability progression varies widely from patient to patient suffering from progressive MS, and can sometimes temporarily “plateau” or even cease entirely, predicting disease progression can be quite difficult, even for patients themselves. Using myself as an example, my wife likes to chide me that I’ve been telling her that I’ll probably be bedridden in six months for the last five years. In order to properly assess the effectiveness of any treatment for progressive MS using disability scores as markers, studies would need to last much longer than the 2-3 years typical MS trials generally run, which is among the reasons why so few trials on progressive MS have been conducted. Even in the recent, much talked about successful study involving the use of biotin to treat progressive MS patients (click here), it was shown that after one year only 13% of patients taking placebo showed evidence of disease progression (compared to 4% taking biotin). I certainly hope that the patients with nonenhancing progressive MS reporting benefit do turn out to be success stories and that some form of HSCT does demonstrably prove effective on noninflammatory multiple sclerosis, but so far, at least, the data is lacking.

Also lacking is long-term data on the durability of HSCT derived benefits on patients of all stripes. One older study (click here) looked at patients with aggressive multiple sclerosis 15 years after treatment and found that 44% of patients who had exhibited enhancing lesions before treatment and 10% who didn’t remained progression free. It should be noted that the patients included in this study were treated with earlier, much harsher forms of chemotherapy, and one would hope that the refinements made in the technique more recently would increase durability.

Although all of the studies reported on in this article are considered early to mid-stage trials, they do suggest that HSCT is an extremely promising and potentially game changing treatment for multiple sclerosis. Further trials will be necessary before HSCT receives any kind of official approval for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Although the treatment is being offered to patients in quite a few clinics around the world, the cost is quite high and most insurance companies will not cover the expense. Given the exorbitant cost of multiple sclerosis drugs, though, as more reliable data is released this situation should change. Paying $100,000 for a one-time treatment that keeps the disease at bay for even 5-7 years is far more cost-effective than paying the roughly $50,000-$60,000 per year currently charged for the FDA approved disease modifying drugs, a point that I’m sure will not be lost on the insurance company bean counters. It should be interesting to see how the pharmaceutical companies react to the HSCT threat to their bottom lines.

Those patients currently considering HSCT therapy should limit their choice of treatment centers to those which have extensive experience administering HSCT, as study after study has shown that safety and efficacy increases exponentially with the number of procedures done. This treatment is not to be taken lightly, and cutting corners for cost or convenience could prove quite the egregious mistake.

Given the current quickening pace of HSCT research, I would guess that the treatment could approach widespread acceptance sometime within the next five years, as long as the financial considerations of the pharmaceutical companies don’t get in the way (and that may prove to be a mighty big if). Based on the latest data, once approved HSCT should prove to be the most effective treatment available for patients with very aggressive active inflammatory multiple sclerosis, but will likely be reserved for those patients who have first failed current frontline therapies. As for patients with nonenhancing progressive disease, though objective hard data supporting the use of HSCT is lacking, given the anecdotal evidence I hope and expect expect future research will be done on such patients in an attempt to clarify the matter. The stakes are quite high for these patients, and even if the odds of success seem slight, the potential gains warrant further investigation. With neuroregenerative and neuroprotective compounds now in the research pipeline, and with HSCT offering so much promise, there is much reason for MSers to harbor hope for a brighter future.

Stay strong, my friends…

Geez, what was that I said about this article not becoming as long as a Russian novel? Maybe I should change my name to Tolstoy (many apologies to Tolstoy)…