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 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.

Glimmers of Hope for Progressive MS: Human Stem Cell Trial, Biotin Study Both Show Efficacy

Progressive multiple sclerosis is a particularly horrendous and intractable illness. Unlike the relapsing remitting form of the disease, for which there are currently 12 approved treatment options (however imperfect these may be), there is tragically little available for progressive MS patients (one very flawed treatment option for SPMS and none for PPMS). At the recent American Academy of Neurology meetings, held last week in Washington DC, some rays of hope for progressive MS finally shone through, among them studies done on honest-to-goodness human progressive MS patients – as opposed to those done on mice or in test tubes – that show particular promise.

As I’ve written about extensively (click here ), the Tisch MS Research Center of New York is currently conducting the only FDA approved regenerative human stem cell trial on MS patients in the United States. Yes, this is the very same study that the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has repeatedly refused to fund (click here). Though this phase 1 trial is not yet complete, interim results were released at the AAN meeting, and they look impressive.

The Tisch Center utilizes a unique approach to using stem cells to treat MS, quite unlike the techniques used in previous regenerative stem cell trials or the stem cell treatments being offered by for-profit operations scattered around the world. Employing proprietary methodology developed in the Tisch Center’s research laboratories, raw mesenchymal stem cells – harvested from each patient’s bone marrow – are transformed into stem cells specific to the human nervous system, called neural progenitor cells. The 20 patients enrolled in this early stage trial will each receive three spinal (intrathecal) injections of neural progenitor cells, spaced three months apart. The interim results released last week report on the nine patients who have thus far begun treatment (click here).

Of these nine patients, seven displayed some form of disease improvement. Six of these seven patients suffer from SPMS, and one from PPMS. Based on neurologic exams, five of these seven patients displayed improved motor functions, including better balance, increase muscle strength, and improved ambulation. Six of the patients reported better bladder function. No significant adverse events were reported. Here’s a graphic detailing the Tisch Center stem cell trial results on a patient by patient basis, taken from the poster presented at the AAN meetings. To view the full poster, please (click here).

While exciting, it’s important to keep these results in perspective. We’re looking at a very small patient population taking part in an early phase 1 trial whose primary endpoint is establishing the safety of the treatment. That said, given the intractability of progressive MS, seeing any significant improvement is extremely encouraging, and these early results certainly validate the approach to regenerative stem cell therapy being taken by the Tisch Center.

Alarmingly, though, the Tisch Center is now facing a fund-raising crisis that threatens to impede the phase 2 extension of this study, as well as much of the other groundbreaking MS research currently underway in the Tisch laboratories. In previous posts I’ve expressed my extreme distress at the NMSS’s repeated refusals to fund research being done at the Tisch Center, and due to unforeseen circumstances the Center’s funding shortfall is now being felt quite acutely. The animal research laboratory used by Tisch Center scientists is being closed as a result of the sale of the hospital in which it’s located (only a block away from the Tisch MS Center), leaving the Center with no viable alternative other than constructing their own facility, which will require a massive fund-raising effort.

Since I’d rather this post concentrate on the research itself, I urge all readers to click here for more information regarding this fund-raising crunch, and to spread the word far and wide. While the Tisch Center is actively conducting the only current FDA approved MS stem cell trial on human beings, the NMSS funds preclinical stem cell experiments being done in test tubes and on mice that, even if spectacularly successful, won’t reach MS patients for more than a decade. Just saying…

(Full disclosure: I am a patient at the MS clinic directly associated with the Tisch MS Research Center of New York, and my MS as well as other physical ailments have been totally kicking my ass lately. So, yeah, I might take this crap just a wee bit personally.)

Another much-anticipated study presented at last week’s AAN conference provided yet more hope for progressive MS patients, though perhaps not as much as originally anticipated. The French pharmaceutical company MedDay released the results of a stage III clinical trial involving the use of massive doses of Biotin to treat patients with Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (PPMS) and Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (SPMS).

Biotin (vitamin B7, also known As Vitamin H or Coenzyme R) has been used in much lower doses as an over-the-counter “nutraceutical” supplement to treat brittle hair and nails, some skin conditions, and neuropathy brought on by type II diabetes, among other applications (click here). Biotin is known to be necessary for cell growth, the production of fatty acids, and the metabolism of fats and amino acids (click here).

A small pilot study researching the use of high doses of Biotin to treat MS was conducted by MedDay starting in 2013. This initial study produced astounding results, with 91.3% of the 23 progressive MS patients involved displaying improvements in their neurologic condition (click here). This small, unblinded, non-placebo-controlled trial created much excitement, leaving patients and researchers awaiting the results of a much larger placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, which was completed in late 2014. The results of this phase 3 trial were presented at the AAN conferences on Friday, April 24, 2015.

In this late stage study, conducted at 19 centers around France, patients were given 300 mg of Biotin per day, which is the equivalent of approximately 10,000 times the maximum daily recommended dosage. The study involved 154 patients, 103 given Biotin and 51 given a placebo. The results of this study (click here), while positive, don’t appear to be nearly as compelling as had been anticipated based on the early pilot study results.

The results of MedDay’s late stage study revealed that after 12 months, 12.3% of the Biotin treated patients displayed a verified improvement in disability scores, as opposed to 0% of the placebo group. Secondarily, 4% of Biotin treated patients displayed disease progression after one year, versus 13% in the placebo group. Very few adverse events, all considered non-serious, were reported. While these numbers pale in comparison with those seen in the initial pilot study, they still represent a breakthrough of sorts in treating advanced progressive MS, which thus far has defied almost all attempts at treatment.

Looked at another way, about 1 in 8 patients treated with Biotin saw their disability scores improve, while 1 in 25 saw their disease progress. Interestingly, only 1 in 8 (I’m using ballpark figures here) untreated patients experienced disease progression. While these aren’t the kind of results many hoped for based on the early Biotin study results (9 in 10 patients experiencing neurologic improvement), they are still better than nothing, which is what mainstream medicine currently offers patients with advanced (non-relapsing) progressive MS.

Given these factors, many patients with progressive MS (myself included) have expressed great interest in giving Biotin a try, especially since the stuff is readily available in over-the-counter form. The highest dose capsules commercially available are 10 mg, meaning that a patient would need to take 30 capsules a day to replicate the doses used in MedDay’s trials, which administered 100 mg of biotin three times a day. There are a few serious problems with this approach, though, above and beyond the huge amount of capsules that would need to be ingested to replicate the doses used in MedDay’s trial.

First, the compound used in the MedDay trial is a highly concentrated and purified pharmaceutical grade form of Biotin called D-Biotin, a stereoisomer of Biotin that is extremely bioavailable (easily absorbed by the body) and contains active enzymes (click here). This type of Biotin is generally not available in over-the-counter capsules. Second, over-the-counter nutraceuticals are completely unregulated, and it’s almost impossible to know the purity of the compounds contained within the capsules or what other ingredients might also be present. One study found that a shocking one third of herbal supplements tested contained not a trace of primary ingredient the listed on the bottle (click here)! Additionally, some Biotin supplements contain calcium, which if taken in greater amounts can cause hypercalcemia, a potentially very serious medical condition (click here).

After consulting with a naturopathic physician, I'm looking into procuring ultra high grade, USP certified (click here) D-Biotin from a reputable wholesaler and having it put into properly dosed capsules through a compounding pharmacy (I'm doing this with my naturopath's help, of course, and will need a prescription in order to get the drug). While this approach is likely to be much more expensive than using over-the-counter product (probably about $300-$400/month), it will offer the best chance at replicating MedDay’s trials, and would certainly eliminate the vast uncertainties involved in consuming huge quantities of over-the-counter nutraceutical supplements.

So, there you have it, two clinical trials targeting progressive MS in very different ways, but coming up with encouraging results to one degree or another. While the Tisch Center stem cell therapy is still in early trials and is at least several years away from moving from the experimental stage to general clinical use, MedDay’s Biotin compound should be ready for FDA approval by the end of this year, and highly motivated patients might try to get a head start on things by taking matters into their own hands. Although the results of MedDay’s late stage phase 3 trial were a bit underwhelming, they do represent an important advance over the status quo, and many progressive MS patients are well past the “any port in a storm” stage.

As mentioned above, though, please take caution if you plan on going the over-the-counter Biotin route. Here’s a video featuring the terrific John Oliver explaining in his usual brilliant and sardonic fashion the pitfalls and perils of placing your trust in the nutritional supplements industry. If you are planning on trying over-the-counter biotin in the quantities required by the MedDay trial, this is an absolute must watch:

Bits and Pieces: Multiple Universes Edition (includingLemtrada,theMS-Gut Connection, Progressive MS, Pharma to Doctor Payola,andmore…)

(For those receiving this via email, this post contains videos which can be viewed on the Wheelchair Kamikaze website – click here)

I’ve been reading about the very real possibility of the existence of multiple universes, a collection of hypotheses which state that our universe is actually part of a Multiverse made up of perhaps an infinite number of parallel or alternate universes (click here). As fantastical as this might sound, more and more physicists and cosmologists are coming to accept the notion that our universe is but one of many. In fact, most of the latest cosmological theories and mathematical models of existence point directly to the reality of a physical realm comprised of multitudinous universes, as well as many dimensions beyond the three which our tiny little brains can experience and comprehend.

The form that these multiple universes might take varies from theory to theory, from each universe abiding to its own unique set of physical laws and properties (and therefore some being quite bizarre and very different from our own), to a limitless number of universes similar to this one, with perhaps only subtle changes distinguishing each. The latter model supposes that there may even be an infinite number of like universes each playing out different timelines based on the boundless possible choices each of us makes on a daily basis. In other words, there could very well be universes out there where I don’t have MS, or where I finished that novel I started in 1988, or where my parents never got divorced. Of course, that would also mean that there are universes in which my parents never even met, in which case those universes would have never been graced by my presence. Such a pity.

Given the fact that I have way too much time on my hands and have been able to parse my old healthy life rather obsessively and in minute detail, picking out key instances when a different decision or action on my part might very well have resulted in an entirely different existence, maybe even one devoid of this damnable creeping paralysis, I find the idea of multiple or parallel universes extremely appealing. It gives me great pleasure to imagine a universe in which I am at this very moment driving a sleek convertible sports car way too fast down the Pacific Coast Highway. Or a universe where I would have never spent a minute watching a Tom Cruise movie (sorry, he makes my skin crawl). Or one in which my wife Karen and I just returned home from a long, leisurely walk in the park, strolling arm and arm with effortless grace and ease. How nice to think that all of these scenarios could very well be playing out as I write this, in universes coexisting with our own. Hey, the greatest minds in science say it's possible, and who am I to argue with the greatest minds in science?

Alas, here I am rooted in this universe, in which it’s time for yet another edition of Bits and Pieces, my semi regular compendium of mostly MS related news and items of interest. I hope you find this batch interesting, enjoyable, or at least tolerable, and here’s to the notion that in most other universes there’s no such thing as MS and thus no reason for some alternate version of me to write this blog or for some alternate version of you to read it.

Anyway, on with the show (I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but as I was writing it news broke that the MS drug Lemtrada had been approved by the FDA, which is a pretty big deal, so make yourself comfortable, this may be a long one)…

♦ Reversing a decision it made late last year, the FDA has approved the powerful drug Lemtrada for use in MS patients (click here). Since the drug was initially denied approval in the USA last December it was approved in over 40 other countries, including most nations in the European Union. US patients and neurologists had been agitating for its approval since last year’s FDA denial, as the drug had been shown to be remarkably effective in trials and had been used off label for some years to treat MS patients here in the USA (it was previously known as Campath). One MS neurologist I spoke to soon after the initial denial was quite upset by the FDA’s actions, telling me that the drug had not only rescued one of his patients who had been ravaged by a particularly aggressive case of relapsing remitting MS, but had actually allowed the patient to recover all the way from completely bedridden to back to work.

Lemtrada (chemical name alemtuzumab) is an intravenous drug that works by wiping out a patient’s existing immune system and then allowing it to reconstitute, presumably without the autoimmune tendencies that many believe play a major role in the MS disease process. In some respects, this is the same mechanism as HSCT, the type of stem cell therapy in which a patient’s immune system is ablated using a powerful chemotherapy regimen and then rebooted using the patient’s own bone marrow derived stem cells. It appears that Lemtrada achieves this same goal in less dramatic fashion.

Unlike all other existing MS disease modifying drugs, Lemtrada is not meant to be used indefinitely by the patients to whom it is given. Instead, the drug is administered intravenously for five consecutive days, and then again one year later for three consecutive days. Some patients may require additional infusions at some point down the line, but most do not. Trials have shown that in about 70% of patients with active RRMS the drug eliminates all signs of disease activity (relapses and new lesions) for at least three years after treatment, and in some cases for many years more. In other words, Lemtrada has been shown to put the long-term kibosh on all MS symptoms for the majority of patients with active relapsing remitting disease who have gone through the treatment protocol without further dosing, a result not seen with any other existing MS drug therapy. Some patients have even experienced a reversal of their symptoms, regaining neurological function that had been lost to the disease. As has been the case for all MS drugs so far, Lemtrada unfortunately has no apparent benefit for patients suffering from progressive MS.

These astounding results do not come without risk, however, as a majority of treated patients develop some secondary autoimmune disorders (most often autoimmune thyroid disease, which can typically be controlled with medication), and a small percentage (1%-3%) develop a very serious autoimmune blood disorder, which if caught early can be remedied before any harm is done. As might be imagined, the long term effects on MS patients by a drug this powerful are hard to predict, but the drug has been used to treat patients suffering from various blood cancers for decades. For these reasons, patients treated with Lemtrada must be monitored very closely (most likely in the form of monthly blood tests) for years after their last infusion of the drug.

In the UK, Lemtrada has been approved as a first-line therapy for patients with highly active RRMS. Here in the USA, the FDA has approved Lemtrada only as a third line drug, to be given to patients whose disease has not previously responded to two different MS therapies. This restriction may prove to be problematic, since there are indications that early treatment with the drug provides patients with the best chance for success, in the form of a complete and long-lasting remission of all MS signs and symptoms. For a full discussion of Lemtrada and its associated issues, I urge you read this article recently posted on the always informative Multiple Sclerosis Research Blog, which is maintained by neurologists at Barts and the London Medical School in the UK (click here).

Lemtrada could be a game changing drug for many RRMS patients, particularly those hardest hit by the disease, but the drug’s risk/reward scenario may prove daunting to many patients and neurologists. It will be very interesting to see how adoption of this drug plays out over the coming months and years. Will the prospect of years without any disease symptoms whatsoever tempt patients to try Lemtrada despite the drug’s potentially serious side effect profile?

Wouldn’t it be nice if researchers could come up with a highly effective MS therapy that didn’t scare the living shit out of the patients who it is supposed to help? Perhaps in an alternate universe all forms of MS can be effectively treated with hot fudge sundaes. I hope some version of me is living in that universe.

Edited To Add: a reader who has worked with this drug in her job as an oncology nurse left the following comment, which I thought valuable enough to place into the body of this post.:

As a former oncology nurse, I am familiar with Campath and this drug scares me. You can say that it has been used in treatment for blood cancer for years, but you may not know is that it is not used often and the practice I worked for stopped giving it in our usual outpatient clinic because of severe infusion reactions. There were even deaths, although that did not happen at our facility. I treated several patients with the drug and the infusion reactions were significant. The dosage and frequency of treatment is likely very different for MS, but I have seen what it can do and it is definitely a big gun that should be used very carefully.

As I previously noted, Lemtrada (the same drug as Campath) is used differently to treat MS than it was to treat cancer, but the concerns raised are certainly valid. Infusion reactions are reactions that occur while the drug is being given intravenously to a patient. Such reactions were noted in the Lemtrada MS trials, but were not deemed to be dangerous enough to prohibit the approval for the drug for use in the treatment of active relapsing remitting MS. Still, yet another variable to consider when presented with the option of using Lemtrada to treat your disease. As always, knowledge is power, and I thank Mary Beth Knapp for contributing this information.

Edited Again to Add: the folks at the Multiple Sclerosis Research Blog have posted some very interesting and valuable information on taking the risk out of Lemtrada. One of the topics discussed are infusion reactions, so this is a very pertinent and important read (click here).

♦ There has been a lot of chatter recently about the relationship between the gut and the nervous system, with evidence pointing to a direct connection between dysfunction within the digestive system and disorders of the brain and spine. One study found a relationship between a disease known as “leaky gut syndrome” and multiple sclerosis and other inflammatory diseases, at least in mice (click here). Researchers found that mice with leaky gut syndrome had higher levels of inflammatory immune cells and lower levels of immune cells that suppress inflammation, leading those mice to suffer more severely when induced to develop the mouse version of MS (on a side note, the mouse version of MS is an absolutely horrible mimic of the human disease and I usually tend to discount almost all studies that rely on it, but in this case the findings are backed up by similar observations in people).

A fascinating article in the New York Times explored the relationship between celiac disease and disorders of the nervous system (click here). Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder of the gut triggered by the gluten proteins contained in wheat and other grains. The article details several cases in which diseases supposedly rooted in the central nervous system, like dementia and autism, were completely reversed when patients were found to have celiac disease and put on gluten-free diets. Pretty amazing stuff, which only further fuels my suspicion that many if not most MS patients (and patients suffering from other nervous system disorders) are afflicted with some as yet unidentified systemic disease rather than one confined strictly to the brain and spinal cord. Unfortunately, modern medicine has become so specialized that each physician tends to focus only at those areas of their particular expertise when examining a patient without giving enough thought to other areas of physiology that might be impacting the patient’s condition, in effect missing the forest for the trees.

Other studies have looked at the trillions of single celled organisms that populate the gut (known as the gut biome), and found that the gut biome of MS patients is often markedly different than those not suffering from the disease (click here). Normally the relationship between our bodies and the microbes that inhabit the gut is mutually beneficial. However, it seems that in patients with MS and some other immune related diseases the mix of microbes in the gut is noticeably altered. There is so much mounting evidence that links the gut biome to MS that four major US multiple sclerosis research centers have formed the MS Microbiome Consortium to further investigate the role of the microbiome in multiple sclerosis. Turns out that 80% of our immune system is contained within our gut. Who knew?

If you find all of this interesting and who would like the chance to discover just what little buggers are residing in your gut, then you’re in luck! The Human Food Project is currently running the American Gut program, which for $99 will provide a kit with which you can sample your saliva, skin, and poop (I know, yuck) to find out precisely what microbes are living on and in you (click here). The Human Food Project will do a complete DNA analysis of your samples and return a full report. The American Gut program is a crowd funded research effort, so your $99 will not only go towards purchasing your sampling kit but also help fund this ongoing project. I ran all of this info past the naturopath who works at my MS clinic before signing up, and she said that there is no guarantee that the results of this analysis will turn up anything actionable, but that you never know. At worst I’d be helping out with a valuable research initiative. Good enough for me, so I’m currently awaiting the arrival of my saliva/skin/poop testing kit. BTW, for readers residing in the UK, there is also a UK Gut program, so all you British folks can participate as well (click here).

♦ I’ve previously written about the problem of misdiagnosing MS on quite a few occasions, and here I go again. It’s estimated that between 5%-15% of patients diagnosed with MS are not actually suffering from the disease but instead from one of the dozens of other conditions that can mimic multiple sclerosis, a notion that is quite disconcerting to say the least. I myself am suffering from some strange mix of increasingly debilitating symptoms that may or may not be multiple sclerosis, so this issue is of particular interest to me. The website EmaxHealth has recently run a series of short and easily digestible articles on this subject, all of which are worth reading. The first is titled simply “Misdiagnosing Multiple Sclerosis” (click here). Other articles in this series include “Is the Diagnosis of Lupus or Multiple Sclerosis?” (click here), “Is It Multiple Sclerosis or Transverse Myelitis?” (click here), and “Is Multiple Sclerosis Mainly an Autoimmune Disease?” (click here). As I’ve also stated previously it’s easy to drive yourself nuts with this kind of information, so be careful, but if you suspect you may have been misdiagnosed these articles could be very valuable reading.

♦ Progressive multiple sclerosis is a particularly nasty form of the disease, in which patients don’t suffer from the onset of MS attacks (relapses), but instead suffer a steady neurologic decline without ever returning to their previous level of functionality. If I do have MS, it’s of the progressive type, and I’ve been forced to watch myself go from slight limp to nearly complete gimp over the last 11 ½ years without any respite or period of stability. Take it for me, this sucks. Roughly 10% of MS patients suffer from progressive disease from the outset, a form of MS called Primary Progressive (PPMS). A substantial number of people with relapsing remitting disease (RRMS) eventually transition to Secondary Progressive disease (SPMS), at which time they stop experiencing relapses and remissions and instead start accumulating ever-increasing neurologic dysfunction. Currently, there are no effective treatments for any form of progressive multiple sclerosis.

The International Progressive MS Alliance (click here) was formed in 2012 to specifically address the vexing problems posed by progressive multiple sclerosis, and to speed up research and the development of therapies aimed specifically at this form of the disease. The Alliance recently announced the funding of 22 research projects in nine countries, all aimed at helping to unravel the mysteries of progressive MS and to eventually smite this horrendous beast (click here). Let’s hope the Alliance realizes its ambitious goals sooner rather than later, as patients suffering from progressive MS have for too long been ignored by the medical research community.

They say a picture is worth 1000 words, so a video must be worth millions, and the following video put out by The International Progressive MS Alliance sums up the horrendous nature of progressive MS and the problems the disease presents to researchers better than any of my long-winded blog posts ever could. Please watch, but I’ll try to sum up the message of the video in one word: “Help!”



♦ I’ve always found it mind-boggling that pharmaceutical companies are allowed to pay off the doctors who prescribe their drugs. Of course, these actions are never quite as blatant as bald-faced bribery, and instead these payments are dressed up as speakers’ fees, trips to educational seminars, meals provided to office staff, etc. Despite this song and dance, the fact remains that many doctors receive significant amounts of money from pharmaceutical companies, and let’s face it, Big Pharma wouldn’t be doling out all that dough if they didn’t believe it was influencing the actions of the doctors receiving their “generosity”.

If you’ve ever wondered just what kinds of gifts, honorariums, and other payments your doctors may be getting from their pharmaceutical masters (oops, I mean partners), you are now in luck, at least if you live in the USA. Courtesy of the much-maligned Affordable Care Act, a new website is now online that allows patients to enter their doctors' name, click a button, and discover just what pharmaceutical company payments their physicians received in 2013 (click here). I just entered the name of one of my physicians and came up with four pages of pharmaceutical company payments to him, most for “food and beverage” expenditures. It sure is nice to know that he and his staff are well fed.

Let me be clear, I genuinely like this doctor, but the fact that pharmaceutical companies are legally allowed to engage in this kind of crap makes me want to vomit in my mouth. Perhaps if we all print out the info we get from this website and present it to our physicians, along with some pointed questions, our esteemed doctors may think twice about engaging in such activities. Whoops, there I go, crossing over into yet another parallel universe. Silly me.

♦ Okay, now that this blog post is threatening to rival the length of Webster’s Unabridged, I’ll mercifully bring it to a close. As has become my tradition (and I really do enjoy creating my own traditions) I’ll end this edition of Bits and Pieces with a music video by an artist in the “retro-soul/neo-soul” genre. This time around I present you with Sharon Jones, a sublime belter who simply oozes all of the innumerable and unquantifiable qualities that define the notions of funk and soul. This video dates back to 2007, so I guess it’s kind of old at this point, but Sharon Jones is still going strong and deserves as much attention as she can get. Though the video looks like it was made in the 1960s, trust me, it’s a product of the 21^st century, although it was shot with vintage TV cameras that its producers bought on eBay for about 50 bucks. So get ready all you cuties to shake your booties to the infectious sounds of Sharon Jones and the Dap-Kings, a righteous, mighteous, and out of sighteous infection for which I want no vaccination! Bring it on…

A Potentially Effective Treatment for Progressive MS: Hiding in Plain Sight?

Methotrexate (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

While all of the varieties of Multiple Sclerosis are vile, especially troublesome are the progressive flavors of the disease. Over the last two decades, strides have been made in understanding and treating Relapsing Remitting MS, the most common form of the illness. While the available treatments for RRMS are far from universally effective, don’t address the still unknown root cause of the disease, and some carry with them downright frightening side effect profiles, they do significantly improve the quality of life for many of the patients taking them. No such strides have been made in the fight against progressive MS. Patients suffering from Secondary Progressive MS (SPMS) or Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (PPMS) are left with few if any treatment options, and their care often amounts to nothing more than aggressive attempts at symptom management. The reasons for this are many, including the relatively small patient population, and the difficulty in designing cost-effective treatment trials with readily measurable endpoints.

Given the confusion regarding the subtypes of MS that I see on Internet forums, it seems that a quick rundown of the subtypes may be in order. Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis, RRMS, is marked by distinct disease relapses, during which a patient suffers a significant onset of symptoms, followed by periods of remission, when those symptoms subside and the patient returns to their former physical state, albeit sometimes with additional accumulated disability. After a period of years, the disease of many RRMS patients transitions into Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis, SPMS, at which point they stop having relapses and remissions, and instead suffer a steady accumulation of symptoms. Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis, PPMS, is much like SPMS, in that patients experience a steady increase in symptoms and disability, without the peaks and valleys that signify RRMS. The difference between SPMS and PPMS is that, by definition, all SPMS patients must have had RRMS first, whereas PPMS patients experience progressive illness from the onset of their disease. If a patient has ever experienced relapses and remissions then they cannot have PPMS. If such patients find themselves, over time, suffering from a strictly progressive course of the disease, they would fall into the SPMS category. As mentioned above, both SPMS and PPMS, though distinct subtypes of the disease, unfortunately share the same lack of effective treatment options.

There is, though, one treatment, called intrathecal methotrexate, that has shown promise in limited real-world implementation when used to treat progressive MS, both in anecdotal patient reports and retrospective studies conducted by the one MS clinic that makes extensive use of the treatment. Unfortunately, most MS neurologists are unaware of the potential benefits of intrathecal methotrexate for progressive MS patients, and many who are aware of the protocol are often too dubious of the treatment to give it serious consideration.

The intrathecal methotrexate treatment protocol involves injecting the drug methotrexate directly into the spinal fluid of progressive MS patients, via a lumbar puncture. The treatment is typically given every eight weeks, using a very thin needle to inject the medication into the lumbar region of the spine. While many patients may be understandably queasy about the prospect of having a lumbar puncture every eight weeks, when done by experienced medical personnel the procedure should cause minimal discomfort with few side effects. When weighed against the insidious nature of progressive MS left untreated, periodic lumbar punctures, as unsavory a prospect they may be, certainly are preferable to an inexorable slide towards significant disability.

Used extensively by the International Multiple Sclerosis Treatment Center of New York (where I am a patient), the use of intrathecal methotrexate has been shown to be widely effective in limited studies published by the clinic’s researchers and practicing physicians, led by Dr. Saud Sadiq. In one such study of 121 patients, disability scores were found to be stable or improved in 89% of SPMS patients and 82% of PPMS patients one year after their last treatment (click here). A longer-term study (click here) found that 48% of patients experienced no increase in disability after treatment periods ranging from 3 to 6 years. As noted, both studies looked at small patient populations, and did not include a placebo group for comparison, but their findings do offer some intriguing evidence of the efficacy of this treatment in a notoriously hard to treat group of patients. It is thought that intrathecal methotrexate, which has known anti-inflammatory properties, also may inhibit the progression of MS by interacting with astrocytes, cells that are associated with the formation of MS lesions (click here).

When given orally or intravenously, methotrexate’s side effects are typical of many chemotherapy drugs, and include hair loss and nausea. In the tiny doses used in intrathecal injections, though, the side effects are negligible. I experienced absolutely no side effects from the treatment, and neither has any patient I’ve met have has also undergone the protocol.

In my time under Dr. Sadiq’s care (since 2004), I have tried the treatment on two occasions, totaling eight intrathecal injections of methotrexate. Unfortunately, the treatment did me no benefit, but I am a very poor example upon which to base any opinions, since my disease is highly atypical, if it is even MS at all (click here). Another popular MS blogger, my good friend Mitch, who writes the terrific MS blog “Enjoying the Ride”, suffers from classic PPMS, and recently happily announced that after five spinal injections of methotrexate, the progression of his disease has slowed to a trickle, and may have even stopped (click here for all of Mitch's methotrexate posts). As documented in his blog, Mitch had to do a bit of heavy lifting to get his neurologist to agree to treat him with intrathecal methotrexate, but he eventually got his neurologist to agree after providing him with research documentation linked to in the above paragraph. Mitch's experiences with the treatment haven't always been easy, but have been well worth it if indeed the progression of his illness has been beneficially impacted.

Why has the use of intrathecal methotrexate for the treatment of progressive MS not been studied more extensively? You’d think that a treatment as potentially effective as this would attract researchers and pharmaceutical companies like flies to honey. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that it all comes down to money. Methotrexate is a very old drug (click here), first developed in the 1950s to treat certain forms of leukemia. It has since been shown to be effective in treating other kinds of cancer, as well as lupus and a variety of other autoimmune diseases. It was granted FDA approval for use in treating rheumatoid arthritis in 1988. Because the drug is so old, any patents held on it have long since expired, and it’s available as a cheap generic compound. In the extremely small doses used to treat MS intrathecally, each shot costs about five dollars. Therefore, there is very little profit to be derived from marketing methotrexate, and so it receives no attention from the pharmaceutical companies, which at this point fund the vast majority of medical research conducted in the USA. Many other potentially effective treatments, such as low dose naltrexone (LDN), also fall into this same trap, left largely untested and unheralded simply because facilitating robust trials would not be cost-effective. Forget about patient well-being, the financial bottom line has become THE bottom line in medicine as it is now practiced, oftentimes to the detriment of the very people the system supposedly exists to benefit. When patients are viewed first as consumers, something is very wrong.

Based on what I know about this treatment, I’d suggest that any patient with progressive MS at least discuss intrathecal methotrexate with their MS neurologist. Be prepared for pushback. As noted previously, most neuros are reticent to try this approach. This is where the importance of patient education and self advocacy comes in. When talking to your doctor, bring back up materials, such as printouts of the research linked to in this post, and some of Mitch’s blog entries from Enjoying the Ride. With other treatment options limited if not nonexistent, and the long-term prognosis of those suffering from progressive multiple sclerosis so daunting, all options need to be put on the table.

Although having a chemotherapy drug injected directly into the spinal fluid may sound a bit radical, when broken down to its individual bits the protocol really isn’t all that scary. Methotrexate has been used safely and effectively for decades, and in the tiny doses used in this protocol presents very little risk. Lumbar punctures, while no joyride, are routine for most neurologists, and the use of very fine needles minimizes the chance of postprocedure complications. Many neurologists are willing to try the new generation of powerful immunosuppressant drugs now used to treat RRMS on their progressive patients, with no proof whatsoever of their efficacy in treating the progressive forms of MS. Given the potentially dire consequences of leaving progressive MS untreated, shouldn’t a potential therapy that has already helped hundreds of patients be given serious consideration, regardless of its "outside the box" designation?

On the day of my diagnosis, I vowed that if this disease was going to take me down, I was going to go down swinging, both fists battered and bloodied, all guns blazing. Progressive MS (or whatever it is that I’ve got) isn’t very likely to show much mercy, and as a guy who grew up on the streets of New York City I know that when faced with such an adversary, all bets are off. You do what you have to do, throw any rules right out the window, and meet fire with fire. Like it or not, this is mortal combat, and if getting a spike in the back every couple of months provides even the slightest chance of beating this thing back, I was, and am, willing to take it. Treatment with intrathecal methotrexate did not work for me, but it has worked for some, and that alone should give all engaged in the struggle reason enough to give it serious consideration. Talk to your doctor, and pay close attention to their advice, but always remember that in the fight against your disease, the doctor-patient relationship should not be a dictatorship, but a partnership. Treatment with intrathecal methotrexate may be unconventional, but, as it stands now, the conventional modality for treating progressive MS has been nothing but an abject failure. Hopefully, with ongoing research, this situation will turn, but in the meantime I say self educate, agitate, and take an active role in mapping the attack on your illness.