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 Commentary: A New MS Drug With Breakthrough Potential And A Complicated History.

(What follows is my analysis of the potential promises and pitfalls associated with the new MS drug Ocrevus (Ocrelizumab). For those who have not already done so, I urge you to read – or at least scan – the interview I conducted with Dr. Peter Chin, one of the pioneering researchers who worked on this drug. Dr. Chin is the Group Medical Director of Neuroscience at the pharmaceutical company that makes ocrelizumab, Genentech – click here for the interview)


Ocrevus, a new MS drug which was approved by the FDA on March 28, 2017, has garnered breathless headlines in both the mainstream and medical press as a breakthrough medicine which has the potential to change the MS treatment landscape. Particularly heralded is the drug’s success in clinical studies in treating Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (PPMS), a pernicious subtype of MS that currently has no approved therapies.

Assessing the overall potential of Ocrevus is more difficult than with most new drugs, as the therapy has a complicated history that must be considered when synthesizing informed views about it. Ocrevus, which will be marketed under the brand name Ocrevus, is a close sibling of the much older drug Rituxan (rituximab), whose mechanism of action Ocrevus closely mirrors. Rituximab, which is manufactured by the same company that makes Ocrevus, is already being used in many parts of the world as an effective MS therapy, even though it was never officially approved for this purpose. The reasons why Ocrevus rather than rituximab was advanced in studies as an MS therapy are somewhat controversial; complicating matters further are Ocrevus’s failure in trials for use in treating other autoimmune diseases (lupus and rheumatoid arthritis). Therefore, when attempting to make a sober assessment of Ocrevus, one must look not only at the drug itself, but also at how it currently came to be on the verge of FDA approval.

First, let’s look at Ocrevus itself, in terms of how the drug works and what recent clinical trials reveal about its effectiveness in the treatment of both relapsing and primary progressive multiple sclerosis.

Ocrevus is the first B cell therapy for MS proven to be effective in late stage clinical trials. In very simplistic terms, the human immune system is comprised chiefly of 2 types of cells, T cells and B cells, which each use different mechanisms to attack and kill invading bacteria or viruses. Until very recently, the vast majority of MS researchers, who see MS as an autoimmune disease in which the immune system turns against the body’s own cells, considered the multiple sclerosis disease process to be driven almost exclusively by T cells. MS drugs such as Tysabri and Gilenya were designed to specifically target these cells. B cells were given short shrift, and were largely dismissed as having no real relevance in the MS disease process.

The success of Ocrevus – a drug which destroys B cells – in treating MS has upended these prior assumptions and has forced researchers to rethink their multiple sclerosis disease models. In clinical trials, Ocrevus, an intravenous drug administered approximately every 6 months, proved to be remarkably effective in treating relapsing multiple sclerosis, and even had a modest effect on PPMS. Let’s look at the actual trial results.

Two separate trials were conducted testing Ocrevus against the interferon drug Rebif in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. These two trials were called OPERA 1 and OPERA 2 (click here). Both two-year trials involved one group of patients taking Ocrevus and another taking the interferon drug Rebif, and comparisons were made as to the overall effectiveness of Ocrevus versus the interferon drug. The results were very impressive. Compared to the Rebif treated patients, the Ocrevus trial subjects experienced a reduction in relapse rates of 46% and 47% in the two trials. Additionally, there was a 40% reduction in confirmed disability progression and a 95% reduction in new enhancing lesions. These results rival or surpass any of the other MS drugs currently on the market. There were no significant differences in the number of adverse events (bad side effects) between the Ocrevus and Rebif treated patient populations in the relapsing multiple sclerosis trials.

The Ocrevus PPMS trial was named ORATORIO (click here). This trial lasted 2 ½ years, and randomly assigned 732 patients in a 2 to 1 ratio to receive either Ocrevus or a placebo. In other words, twice as many trial subjects received Ocrevus than received placebo. The highlight of this study was that the Ocrevus treated patients experienced a 25% reduction in time to progression when compared to their placebo-controlled counterparts. Specifically, 29.6% of Ocrevus treated patients and 35.7% of placebo treated patients experienced a measure of disability progression over the course of the study. This is the first time in a placebo-controlled scientific trial that any multiple sclerosis drug has displayed effectiveness in slowing down the progression of disability in Primary Progressive patients. Ocrevus also displayed efficacy over placebo in a number of other outcome measures as well, including the timed 25 foot walk.

As I discussed with Dr. Chin during our interview, it’s important to understand that Ocrevus did not reverse or even stop the progression of disability in trial subjects. It slowed progression by about 25%. What does this mean for patients in a real-world setting? Well, speaking strictly in a broadly hypothetical basis, if an individual PPMS patient left untreated might need a cane four years after diagnosis, that same patient, if responsive to Ocrevus, might not need a cane for five years. Again, this is strictly a hypothetical case; PPMS effects patients in widely varying degrees of severity. Additionally, the ORATORIO trial only lasted 2 and half years. How the drug's effectiveness manifests over longer periods of time is not yet understood.

Unlike the relapsing multiple sclerosis Ocrevus trials, the PPMS trial did reveal some potentially troubling adverse events. Opportunistic infections (mostly respiratory infections and oral herpes) were more common in Ocrevus than placebo, and the rate of cancer in Ocrevus treated patients was approximately 3 times that found in placebo treated patients, 2.3% versus 0.8%. Though Genentech says that no direct causal relationship between the cancers in Ocrevus treated patients could be established, the fact that slightly more than 1 in 50 trial subjects on the drug developed cancer is sure to raise eyebrows, but since similar cancer rates were not seen in the relapsing multiple sclerosis trials these numbers are surely open to question.

There are also some concerns regarding the design ORATORIO study. Back in the mid-2000’s, Genentech conducted a PPMS trial using rituximab, which at first was deemed a failure. Later review of the trial data revealed, though, that a subset of PPMS patients did appear to gain benefit from rituximab therapy (click here). These patients were generally younger than 50 years old, were less disabled, and had enhancing lesions on their MRIs. It’s generally thought that patients fitting this description account for between 10%-15% of the overall PPMS population. The Ocrevus PPMS trial, though, included about 26% of patients fitting this profile, or approximately double that seen among real-life PPMSer’s. This means that the ORATORIO trial was heavily weighted with patients who were likely to respond to Ocrevus, since the drug acts in much the same way as rituximab. The Ocrevus PPMS trial was not designed to discern differences in the effectiveness of the drug between patients with enhancing lesions and those without, but Genentech says there was a “directional consistency” to the trial results, suggesting that the drug was effective in all patient subgroups to one degree or another. Still, the fact that the trial was frontloaded with likely responders is another eyebrow raiser, and may be something that the FDA looks at when making its approval decisions.

Okay, now that we’ve looked at the Ocrevus MS trials themselves, let’s dive into the history of the drug. Back in the early 2000’s, some MS researchers began investigating whether therapies that destroy B cells might be effective in treating MS. As mentioned earlier, at the time this with a rather radical idea. The drug that was chosen for study was Rituxan (whose generic name is rituximab – click here), a drug developed by Genentech years earlier that had been approved in 1997 for use in fighting non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and certain types of leukemia. Rituximab, like Ocrevus, works by zeroing in on a protein found on most types of B cells, called CD20, and then killing the cells on which this protein is located. Though both drugs target and kill B cells, they do so in slightly different ways, and these differences may result in variances in safety and efficacy. Think of the drugs as two hitmen; one likes to slit his victims throats, the other prefers to strangle them. Both get the job done, but their differing killing techniques might effect witnesses differently. In the case of Ocrevus and rituximab, these differences may effect the actions of other immune cells, thus accounting for possible differences in the safety and efficacy of the drugs.

In the mid-2000’s, MS researchers put rituximab to the test by using it in “proof of concept” trials in patients with RRMS and PPMS. When the trial results were revealed in 2008, the drug proved itself to be extremely effective in treating relapsing remitting MS, but not effective in treating PPMS (click here and here). It’s important to note that the RRMS trials were small, early stage trials, but the PPMS trial was larger and later stage. As mentioned earlier, later parsing of the PPMS data did reveal a subgroup of patients on whom the drug appeared to have some positive effect.

Given the success of the rituximab RRMS trials, the fact that a subset of the PPMS trial population appeared to benefit from the drug, and rituximab’s long history as a successful oncology drug, it’s reasonable to assume that the drug would have been greenlighted for further development as an MS treatment. Instead, all development of rituximab as an MS treatment was halted, and the focus shifted instead to Ocrevus, a new experimental Genentech product that also targeted B cells via the CD20 protein. While there is some perfectly valid scientific rationale for this choice, many facts and circumstances point to financial motivations playing an oversized role in the decision to advance Ocrevus rather than rituximab as a potential treatment for MS.

The scientific rationale for choosing to proceed with Ocrevus is that the drug is comprised primarily of human proteins (the drug is a “humanized” monoclonal antibody), while rituximab contains a mix of mouse and human proteins (making it a “chimeric” monoclonal antibody, meaning that it contains proteins from more than one species). Theoretically, a humanized molecule should be better tolerated by patients than a chimeric drug, especially when used for treating chronic diseases which require continued administrations of the drug. That said, rituximab did have a very good safety profile in its role as an oncology drug, and very few adverse effects were seen in the early rituximab MS trials.

Genentech’s financial motivations for switching from rituximab to Ocrevus were many. First and foremost was the fact that rituximab was due to come off patent in 2015, meaning that other drugmakers would be free to come in and market their own versions of the drug at that time. As Ocrevus is a brand-new product, Genentech will have exclusive rights on it for decades to come. In addition, several corporate partnerships were also at play which made Ocrevus the preferred candidate for further development. Here’s an explanation of the situation, from an article that appeared on the biotech industry news site Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News in 2010 (click here). Keep in mind that Roche is the parent company of Genentech:

“The operating profits for Rituxan are currently split 60–40 between Roche and Biogen Idec, respectively. But profits for Ocrevus would be split 70–30 in Genentech's favor, accounting for Genentech’s enthusiasm to move ahead with the development of Ocrevus in MS, at the expense of Rituxan, which loses patent protection in 2015.”

Of course, there is no direct proof that the switch from Rituxan to Ocrevus was driven primarily by financial considerations (except, perhaps, in files tucked away in the executive offices at Genentech), but I’ve learned through my years researching and writing about these topics that one can never be too jaded in assessing the motivations of the upper echelon decision-makers of Big Pharma. These are publicly traded companies whose officers are, by law, mandated to be beholden to their shareholders, not to the patients taking their products. Welcome to the realities of the medical industrial complex, in which diseases have been transformed into multibillion-dollar a year industries.

Whatever the circumstances, plans for further studies into the use of rituximab in treating MS were abandoned, and early trials using Ocrevus to treat MS were initiated. In addition to the MS trials, Ocrevus trials were also started on patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and lupus erythematosus (LE). It’s interesting to note that rituximab was approved for use in treating rheumatoid arthritis in 2007, and has been used effectively and safely in that role since then (click here).

Genentech’s grand plans for Ocrevus were almost completely disrupted in 2010, when the trials in RA and lupus were halted due to patient deaths and the occurrence of opportunistic infections (click here ). In the parlance of medical research, the risk versus benefit analysis in these trials did not warrant further study. In the parlance of everyday people, dead patients suck. It should be noted that patients in the Ocrevus rheumatoid arthritis trial were also taking other immunosuppressive drugs, but then again so are most of the patients who have been using rituximab to treat their RA since its approval in 2007.

Ocrevus studies in MS were continued because these disastrous infections and patient deaths were not seen in early Ocrevus MS trials, and also because it’s generally assumed that MS patients and their doctors have a higher tolerance for risk due to the potentially catastrophic nature of the disease (click here). This assumption is borne out by the MS community’s acceptance of drugs like Tysabri, which has a proven link to the deadly brain infection PML. Hundreds of MS patients have contracted this infection due to their taking Tysabri. Other MS drugs, such as Gilenya and Tecfidera, have also been linked to opportunistic infections such as PML. MS certainly isn’t a disease for the faint of heart.

In the years since the rituximab MS studies were shelved by Genentech, MS neurologists have been using the drug on an “off label” basis due to the obvious potential of the drug displayed in those early trials. “Off label” refers to the fact that doctors are free to prescribe any FDA approved drug for any indication whatsoever, even if the drug has not been approved for that purpose (click here). Many MS neurologists here in the USA as well as in Europe have been using rituximab to treat MS patients safely and effectively for years. The use of rituximab in MS is especially prevalent in Sweden, and a recent study out of that country that took a retrospective look at MS patients treated with rituximab found that the drug was startlingly effective and had an excellent safety profile (click here). As noted earlier, rituximab has also proven safe and effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis. Remember, the RA trials for Ocrevus had to be halted due to opportunistic infections and patient deaths.

It should be noted that over its 20-year history rituximab has been linked to some cases of PML, but to a far lesser degree than drugs like Tysabri. In rheumatoid arthritis patients, it appears the rate of PML in Rituxan treated patients is on the order of 1 in 25,000 (click here). Rituximab has also been linked to other opportunistic infections, but again, at a lower rate than is seen in most other MS drugs. Let’s face it, any drug that profoundly changes the highly evolved human immune system is bound to open patients up to infections they wouldn’t otherwise contract. Ocrevus and rituximab both destroy B cells, one of the major components of the human immune system. No one knows what the long-term effects of living without any B cells might be. We do know, though, that the long-term effects of living with MS can be harrowing. Such is the state of the current MS treatment paradigm.

In conclusion, while the excitement generated by the impending approval of Ocrevus for relapsing multiple sclerosis and primary progressive multiple sclerosis is certainly warranted, expectations, especially for those with PPMS, should be kept realistic. Ocrevus will likely slow the rate of disability progression for some progressive MS patients, and even though this isn’t the revolutionary change patients battling PPMS are so fervently hoping for, it is a start. Relapsing multiple sclerosis patients can expect Ocrevus to be among the most effective disease modifying drugs on the market.

The fact that rituximab, a very similar drug with a proven record of efficacy and safety, is an available and very viable option should play into treatment decisions, as should the failed Ocrevus trials in RA and lupus, and the increased cancer rates seen in the Ocrevus PPMS trials (again, these rates could be aberrations). These factors need not make patients shy away from Ocrevus, but there is every reason to explore them with your neurologist. Don’t be afraid to ask your doctor why they might favor one drug over another. This holds true when deciding on any MS treatment. Remember, the doctor-patient relationship should never be a dictatorship, but a partnership. Here’s to hoping that Ocrevus proves itself worthy of the buzz it’s generated in advance of its anticipated FDA approval.

And here’s to more desperate hoping that MS researchers soon come up with methods other than profoundly kneecapping the human immune system in their search for ways to treat MS.

Ocrelizumab Commentary: A New MS Drug With Breakthrough Potential And A Complicated History.

(What follows is my analysis of the potential promises and pitfalls associated with the experimental MS drug ocrelizumab. For those who have not already done so, I urge you to read – or at least scan – the interview I conducted with Dr. Peter Chin, one of the pioneering researchers who worked on this drug. Dr. Chin is the Group Medical Director of Neuroscience at the pharmaceutical company that makes ocrelizumab, Genentech – click here for the interview)

Ocrelizumab, a new MS drug scheduled for review by the FDA on March 28, 2017, has garnered breathless headlines in both the mainstream and medical press as a breakthrough medicine which has the potential to change the MS treatment landscape. Particularly heralded is the drug’s success in clinical studies in treating Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (PPMS), a pernicious subtype of MS that currently has no approved therapies.

Assessing the overall potential of ocrelizumab is more difficult than with most new drugs, as the therapy has a complicated history that must be considered when synthesizing informed views about it. Ocrelizumab, which will be marketed under the brand name Ocrevus, is a close sibling of the much older drug Rituxan (rituximab), whose mechanism of action ocrelizumab closely mirrors. Rituximab, which is manufactured by the same company that makes ocrelizumab, is already being used in many parts of the world as an effective MS therapy, even though it was never officially approved for this purpose. The reasons why ocrelizumab rather than rituximab was advanced in studies as an MS therapy are somewhat controversial; complicating matters further are ocrelizumab’s failure in trials for use in treating other autoimmune diseases (lupus and rheumatoid arthritis). Therefore, when attempting to make a sober assessment of ocrelizumab, one must look not only at the drug itself, but also at how it currently came to be on the verge of FDA approval.

First, let’s look at ocrelizumab itself, in terms of how the drug works and what recent clinical trials reveal about its effectiveness in the treatment of both relapsing and primary progressive multiple sclerosis.

Ocrelizumab is the first B cell therapy for MS proven to be effective in late stage clinical trials. In very simplistic terms, the human immune system is comprised chiefly of 2 types of cells, T cells and B cells, which each use different mechanisms to attack and kill invading bacteria or viruses. Until very recently, the vast majority of MS researchers, who see MS as an autoimmune disease in which the immune system turns against the body’s own cells, considered the multiple sclerosis disease process to be driven almost exclusively by T cells. MS drugs such as Tysabri and Gilenya were designed to specifically target these cells. B cells were given short shrift, and were largely dismissed as having no real relevance in the MS disease process.

The success of ocrelizumab – a drug which destroys B cells – in treating MS has upended these prior assumptions and has forced researchers to rethink their multiple sclerosis disease models. In clinical trials, ocrelizumab, an intravenous drug administered approximately every 6 months, proved to be remarkably effective in treating relapsing multiple sclerosis, and even had a modest effect on PPMS. Let’s look at the actual trial results.

Two separate trials were conducted testing ocrelizumab against the interferon drug Rebif in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. These two trials were called OPERA 1 and OPERA 2 (click here). Both two-year trials involved one group of patients taking ocrelizumab and another taking the interferon drug Rebif, and comparisons were made as to the overall effectiveness of ocrelizumab versus the interferon drug. The results were very impressive. Compared to the Rebif treated patients, the ocrelizumab trial subjects experienced a reduction in relapse rates of 46% and 47% in the two trials. Additionally, there was a 40% reduction in confirmed disability progression and a 95% reduction in new enhancing lesions. These results rival or surpass any of the other MS drugs currently on the market. There were no significant differences in the number of adverse events (bad side effects) between the ocrelizumab and Rebif treated patient populations in the relapsing multiple sclerosis trials.

The ocrelizumab PPMS trial was named ORATORIO (click here). This trial lasted 2 ½ years, and randomly assigned 732 patients in a 2 to 1 ratio to receive either ocrelizumab or a placebo. In other words, twice as many trial subjects received ocrelizumab than received placebo. The highlight of this study was that the ocrelizumab treated patients experienced a 25% reduction in time to progression when compared to their placebo-controlled counterparts. Specifically, 29.6% of ocrelizumab treated patients and 35.7% of placebo treated patients experienced a measure of disability progression over the course of the study. This is the first time in a placebo-controlled scientific trial that any multiple sclerosis drug has displayed effectiveness in slowing down the progression of disability in Primary Progressive patients. Ocrelizumab also displayed efficacy over placebo in a number of other outcome measures as well, including the timed 25 foot walk.

As I discussed with Dr. Chin during our interview, it’s important to understand that ocrelizumab did not reverse or even stop the progression of disability in trial subjects. It slowed progression by about 25%. What does this mean for patients in a real-world setting? Well, speaking strictly in a broadly hypothetical basis, if an individual PPMS patient left untreated might need a cane four years after diagnosis, that same patient, if responsive to ocrelizumab, might not need a cane for five years. Again, this is strictly a hypothetical case; PPMS effects patients in widely varying degrees of severity. Additionally, the ORATORIO trial only lasted 2 and half years. How the drug's effectiveness manifests over longer periods of time is not yet understood.

Unlike the relapsing multiple sclerosis ocrelizumab trials, the PPMS trial did reveal some potentially troubling adverse events. Opportunistic infections (mostly respiratory infections and oral herpes) were more common in ocrelizumab than placebo, and the rate of cancer in ocrelizumab treated patients was approximately 3 times that found in placebo treated patients, 2.3% versus 0.8%. Though Genentech says that no direct causal relationship between the cancers in ocrelizumab treated patients could be established, the fact that slightly more than 1 in 50 trial subjects on the drug developed cancer is sure to raise eyebrows, but since similar cancer rates were not seen in the relapsing multiple sclerosis trials these numbers are surely open to question.

There are also some concerns regarding the design ORATORIO study. Back in the mid-2000’s, Genentech conducted a PPMS trial using rituximab, which at first was deemed a failure. Later review of the trial data revealed, though, that a subset of PPMS patients did appear to gain benefit from rituximab therapy (click here). These patients were generally younger than 50 years old, were less disabled, and had enhancing lesions on their MRIs. It’s generally thought that patients fitting this description account for between 10%-15% of the overall PPMS population. The ocrelizumab PPMS trial, though, included about 26% of patients fitting this profile, or approximately double that seen among real-life PPMSer’s. This means that the ORATORIO trial was heavily weighted with patients who were likely to respond to ocrelizumab, since the drug acts in much the same way as rituximab. The ocrelizumab PPMS trial was not designed to discern differences in the effectiveness of the drug between patients with enhancing lesions and those without, but Genentech says there was a “directional consistency” to the trial results, suggesting that the drug was effective in all patient subgroups to one degree or another. Still, the fact that the trial was frontloaded with likely responders is another eyebrow raiser, and may be something that the FDA looks at when making its approval decisions.

Okay, now that we’ve looked at the ocrelizumab MS trials themselves, let’s dive into the history of the drug. Back in the early 2000’s, some MS researchers began investigating whether therapies that destroy B cells might be effective in treating MS. As mentioned earlier, at the time this with a rather radical idea. The drug that was chosen for study was Rituxan (whose generic name is rituximab – click here), a drug developed by Genentech years earlier that had been approved in 1997 for use in fighting non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and certain types of leukemia. Rituximab, like ocrelizumab, works by zeroing in on a protein found on most types of B cells, called CD20, and then killing the cells on which this protein is located. Though both drugs target and kill B cells, they do so in slightly different ways, and these differences may result in variances in safety and efficacy. Think of the drugs as two hitmen; one likes to slit his victims throats, the other prefers to strangle them. Both get the job done, but their differing killing techniques might effect witnesses differently. In the case of ocrelizumab and rituximab, these differences may effect the actions of other immune cells, thus accounting for possible differences in the safety and efficacy of the drugs.

In the mid-2000’s, MS researchers put rituximab to the test by using it in “proof of concept” trials in patients with RRMS and PPMS. When the trial results were revealed in 2008, the drug proved itself to be extremely effective in treating relapsing remitting MS, but not effective in treating PPMS (click here and here). It’s important to note that the RRMS trials were small, early stage trials, but the PPMS trial was larger and later stage. As mentioned earlier, later parsing of the PPMS data did reveal a subgroup of patients on whom the drug appeared to have some positive effect.

Given the success of the rituximab RRMS trials, the fact that a subset of the PPMS trial population appeared to benefit from the drug, and rituximab’s long history as a successful oncology drug, it’s reasonable to assume that the drug would have been greenlighted for further development as an MS treatment. Instead, all development of rituximab as an MS treatment was halted, and the focus shifted instead to ocrelizumab, a new experimental Genentech product that also targeted B cells via the CD20 protein. While there is some perfectly valid scientific rationale for this choice, many facts and circumstances point to financial motivations playing an oversized role in the decision to advance ocrelizumab rather than rituximab as a potential treatment for MS.

The scientific rationale for choosing to proceed with ocrelizumab is that the drug is comprised primarily of human proteins (the drug is a “humanized” monoclonal antibody), while rituximab contains a mix of mouse and human proteins (making it a “chimeric” monoclonal antibody, meaning that it contains proteins from more than one species). Theoretically, a humanized molecule should be better tolerated by patients than a chimeric drug, especially when used for treating chronic diseases which require continued administrations of the drug. That said, rituximab did have a very good safety profile in its role as an oncology drug, and very few adverse effects were seen in the early rituximab MS trials.

Genentech’s financial motivations for switching from rituximab to ocrelizumab were many. First and foremost was the fact that rituximab was due to come off patent in 2015, meaning that other drugmakers would be free to come in and market their own versions of the drug at that time. As ocrelizumab is a brand-new product, Genentech will have exclusive rights on it for decades to come. In addition, several corporate partnerships were also at play which made ocrelizumab the preferred candidate for further development. Here’s an explanation of the situation, from an article that appeared on the biotech industry news site Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News in 2010 (click here). Keep in mind that Roche is the parent company of Genentech:

“The operating profits for Rituxan are currently split 60–40 between Roche and Biogen Idec, respectively. But profits for Ocrelizumab would be split 70–30 in Genentech's favor, accounting for Genentech’s enthusiasm to move ahead with the development of Ocrelizumab in MS, at the expense of Rituxan, which loses patent protection in 2015.”

Of course, there is no direct proof that the switch from Rituxan to ocrelizumab was driven primarily by financial considerations (except, perhaps, in files tucked away in the executive offices at Genentech), but I’ve learned through my years researching and writing about these topics that one can never be too jaded in assessing the motivations of the upper echelon decision-makers of Big Pharma. These are publicly traded companies whose officers are, by law, mandated to be beholden to their shareholders, not to the patients taking their products. Welcome to the realities of the medical industrial complex, in which diseases have been transformed into multibillion-dollar a year industries.

Whatever the circumstances, plans for further studies into the use of rituximab in treating MS were abandoned, and early trials using ocrelizumab to treat MS were initiated. In addition to the MS trials, ocrelizumab trials were also started on patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and lupus erythematosus (LE). It’s interesting to note that rituximab was approved for use in treating rheumatoid arthritis in 2007, and has been used effectively and safely in that role since then (click here).

Genentech’s grand plans for ocrelizumab were almost completely disrupted in 2010, when the trials in RA and lupus were halted due to patient deaths and the occurrence of opportunistic infections (click here ). In the parlance of medical research, the risk versus benefit analysis in these trials did not warrant further study. In the parlance of everyday people, dead patients suck. It should be noted that patients in the ocrelizumab rheumatoid arthritis trial were also taking other immunosuppressive drugs, but then again so are most of the patients who have been using rituximab to treat their RA since its approval in 2007.

Ocrelizumab studies in MS were continued because these disastrous infections and patient deaths were not seen in early ocrelizumab MS trials, and also because it’s generally assumed that MS patients and their doctors have a higher tolerance for risk due to the potentially catastrophic nature of the disease (click here). This assumption is borne out by the MS community’s acceptance of drugs like Tysabri, which has a proven link to the deadly brain infection PML. Hundreds of MS patients have contracted this infection due to their taking Tysabri. Other MS drugs, such as Gilenya and Tecfidera, have also been linked to opportunistic infections such as PML. MS certainly isn’t a disease for the faint of heart.

In the years since the rituximab MS studies were shelved by Genentech, MS neurologists have been using the drug on an “off label” basis due to the obvious potential of the drug displayed in those early trials. “Off label” refers to the fact that doctors are free to prescribe any FDA approved drug for any indication whatsoever, even if the drug has not been approved for that purpose (click here). Many MS neurologists here in the USA as well as in Europe have been using rituximab to treat MS patients safely and effectively for years. The use of rituximab in MS is especially prevalent in Sweden, and a recent study out of that country that took a retrospective look at MS patients treated with rituximab found that the drug was startlingly effective and had an excellent safety profile (click here). As noted earlier, rituximab has also proven safe and effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis. Remember, the RA trials for ocrelizumab had to be halted due to opportunistic infections and patient deaths.

It should be noted that over its 20-year history rituximab has been linked to some cases of PML, but to a far lesser degree than drugs like Tysabri. In rheumatoid arthritis patients, it appears the rate of PML in Rituxan treated patients is on the order of 1 in 25,000 (click here). Rituximab has also been linked to other opportunistic infections, but again, at a lower rate than is seen in most other MS drugs. Let’s face it, any drug that profoundly changes the highly evolved human immune system is bound to open patients up to infections they wouldn’t otherwise contract. Ocrelizumab and rituximab both destroy B cells, one of the major components of the human immune system. No one knows what the long-term effects of living without any B cells might be. We do know, though, that the long-term effects of living with MS can be harrowing. Such is the state of the current MS treatment paradigm.

In conclusion, while the excitement generated by the impending approval of ocrelizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis and primary progressive multiple sclerosis is certainly warranted, expectations, especially for those with PPMS, should be kept realistic. Ocrelizumab will likely slow the rate of disability progression for some progressive MS patients, and even though this isn’t the revolutionary change patients battling PPMS are so fervently hoping for, it is a start. Relapsing multiple sclerosis patients can expect ocrelizumab to be among the most effective disease modifying drugs on the market.

The fact that rituximab, a very similar drug with a proven record of efficacy and safety, is an available and very viable option should play into treatment decisions, as should the failed ocrelizumab trials in RA and lupus, and the increased cancer rates seen in the ocrelizumab PPMS trials (again, these rates could be aberrations). These factors need not make patients shy away from ocrelizumab, but there is every reason to explore them with your neurologist. Don’t be afraid to ask your doctor why they might favor one drug over another. This holds true when deciding on any MS treatment. Remember, the doctor-patient relationship should never be a dictatorship, but a partnership. Here’s to hoping that ocrelizumab proves itself worthy of the buzz it’s generated in advance of its anticipated FDA approval.

And here’s to more desperate hoping that MS researchers soon come up with methods other than profoundly kneecapping the human immune system in their search for ways to treat MS.

Greed Trumps Common Sense Once Again, Courtesy Big Pharma

Image by Images_of_Money via Flickr

The mix of money and medicine often makes for a strange brew. Far too often, conflicts arise between what is best for the patient and what is best for the bottom line. Over the last several decades, treating chronic illness has mushroomed into a worldwide multibillion dollar industry. To the megacorporations reaping these profits, patients are seen first as consumers, rather than sick individuals needing to be healed. This truth is often camouflaged with warm and fuzzy programs designed for patient outreach and education, but CEOs of publicly traded medical corporations, as mandated by law, are beholden to their shareholders, not to the patients consuming their company's products, a mission which is sometimes at odds with what should be the goal of all involved in the healing professions: the curing of illness and the alleviation of suffering.

We see this unfortunate circumstance play out time and time again in the world of multiple sclerosis. Since Big Pharma finances the vast majority of medical research done in the USA, promising therapies with little profit-making potential are left to wither on the vine. Thus, medical research increasingly involves only therapies that stand to attain blockbuster status. We therefore have very little scientifically reliable data on the effectiveness of Low Dose Naltrexone, dietary supplements, acupuncture, naturopathic remedies, and other largely benign practices and substances. Alternative theories about the disease, such as CCSVI, are met with a fusillade of negativity instead of intellectual curiosity, as might be expected in the case of a disease as intractable as multiple sclerosis.

One of the oddest examples of the profit motive trumping common sense involves the drug Rituxan (click here), a compound first formulated to battle B cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, for which it was approved by the FDA in 1997. Rituxan was the first monoclonal antibody used to fight cancer, and proved to be both safe and effective in that role. The compound works by destroying B cells, one of the major components of the human immune system. Therefore, in addition to its lymphoma fighting abilities, Rituxan is a powerful immunosuppressant. Due to these immunosuppressive properties, the drug was tried with varying degrees of success on a number of autoimmune diseases, and has been approved for use in patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis.

Several years ago, clinical trials were started testing Rituxan's efficacy in fighting multiple sclerosis. These trials included not only RRMS patients, as is typical of MS trials, but also PPMS patients, a population for which there are no approved therapies. Phase 1 and 2 trials showed the drug to be extremely effective, dramatically reducing the amount of enhancing lesions seen on patient MRIs, and cutting by half the number of relapses experienced by RRMS trial subjects (click here). The trial results were at least equal to those seen with the drug Tysabri, which to date had been the most effective MS drug on the market. Rituxan had the added advantage of having a long history of use, which showed it to have a much lower incidence than Tysabri in expexposing patients on the therapy to to the possibility of developing PML , a sometimes fatal brain infection. Trials for PPMS were not as successful, although analysis of the data did seem to indicate that a subgroup of PPMS patients did appear to benefit from Rituxan therapy (click here).

So, it would seem that all systems were "go", and that Rituxan would be quickly shepherded into phase 3 multiple sclerosis trials, the final step needed before FDA approval to go to market, right? Well, this is where things go a little bonkers. It turns out that Rituxan's patent is due to expire in 2015, meaning that the company that makes it, Genentech, will no longer have exclusive rights to the drug, and generic versions of it could come on the market, esseessentially stripping Rituxan of its profit-making potential. Because of the complexity involved in making monoclonal antibodies, it was at first thought that the production of generics would be too costly to be seriously considered, but other companies, sensing opportunity, did indeed step into the arena (click here). Given this situation, despite the great promise shown in the earlier trials, Genentech pulled the plug on further MS Rituxan trials. Nevermind that Rituxan appeared to be safe and effective in alleviating some of the suffering caused by a dread disease, there was no money to be made from it, so any further development hit a brick wall.

Instead, Genentech did some tinkering with the production methods used to make the drug, and came up with a compound called Ocrelizumab (click here), another monoclonal antibody that destroys B cells, which was quickly put into clinical trials for rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis, and hematological cancers. By developing this new compound, so similar to Rituxan, Genentech was insured of maintaining exclusive rights to the drug for several decades, with no threat to the tremendous profits a drug equally as effective as Rituxan could generate. Ah, but the best laid plans of man sometimes go awry, and things didn't work out quite the way Genentech intended.

In 2010, Genentech was forced to suspend Ocrelizumab trials in rheumatoid arthritis and lupus due to deaths resulting from opportunistic infections attacking trial participants (click here). Of course, this was a tremendous blow to Genentech's wily plan to circumvent Rituxan's patent issues (click here), and a serious kick in the bottom line. But, alas, all was not lost, as trials continued testing Ocrelizumab's use in multiple sclerosis. Recently released phase 2 clinical trial results have shown Ocrelizumab to be highly effective in reducing enhancing lesions and relapses in RRMS patients (click here), and Genentech is now in the process of recruiting patients for phase 3 trials for both RRMS and PPMS (click here, here, and here). Apparently, the perception is that tolerance for risk is higher in the MS population than it is among lupus or RA patients, so it's full speed ahead, torpedoes be damned.

Rituxan is currently still on the market, often used off label for the treatment of MS, and has proven to be very effective in relieving some of the suffering of RRMS patients. Unfortunately, since it is not FDA approved for use in MS, many insurance companies refuse to pay for it, as it is an extremely expensive therapy (over $40,000 per year). Once the generics do hit the market in several years, the price of the drug should plummet. Should Ocrelizumab pass its phase 3 trials for MS, and be approved by the FDA, rest assured that Genentech's marketing machine will use every trick in the book to get this newer, less proven, and possibly more dangerous drug given preferential treatment over its low-rent cousin.

Of course, neither of these drugs does one whit to cure MS, but why try to cure something when treating it is so immensely profitable? Rituxan has proven to be quite effective and relatively safe (the PML rate is in the range of 1 in 100,000) when used to treat MS, and the fact that it will never even be given the chance to get FDA approval as an MS therapy simply because its power to generate millions of dollars in profits will soon disappear is nothing short of a travesty, further compounded by the emergence of Ocrelizumab, whose sole reason for existence is to sop up the profits that will be lost when Rituxan goes off patent. Might not the money used to develop and test Ocrelizumab, a figure undoubtedly in the millions of dollars, have been better spent on research that might further our knowledge of how to combat MS, rather than simply finding a way to mimic the actions of an already existing drug in a form conveniently different enough to be patentable (and, apparently, more dangerous)?

Unlike some other MS advocates, who label all of the available mainstream disease modifying drugs nothing more than snake oil, I recognize their value in improving the quality of life of many of the patients taking them. Certainly, even if they do nothing to halt the progression of the disease, dramatically reducing the amount of relapses suffered by RRMS patients has great value, and I know of many patients whose lives have been tremendously improved through the use of today's DMDs. What I can't stomach, though, is the blatant profiteering practiced by the big pharmaceutical companies, as is so clearly illustrated in the Rituxan/Ocrelizumab saga. People's lives are at stake, but I suppose in the world of big money modern medicine that concern pales in comparison with the chase for the almighty dollar.

I say shame on all involved…

Share |

Related articles

• New drug shows promise against multiple sclerosis (eurekalert.org)
• New Multiple Sclerosis Therapy Promising In Early Trial (nlm.nih.gov)
• Ph2 Roche study delivers promising long-term ocrelizumab data on MS (fiercebiotech.com)