Article Text

PDF

Neutralising antibodies to interferon β during the treatment of multiple sclerosis
  1. C H Polman1,
  2. L Kappos2,
  3. J Petkau3,
  4. A Thompson4
  1. 1Department of Neurology, VU Medical Centre, 1007 MB Amsterdam, Netherlands
  2. 2Department of Neurology, University Hospitals, Basel, Switzerland
  3. 3Department of Statistics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
  4. 4Institute of Neurology, University College London, UK
  1. Correspondence to:
 Professor C H Polman;
 ch.polman{at}vumc.nl

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Giovannoni and colleagues are to be commended for their detailed analysis of the impact of neutralising antibodies (NAB) to interferon β (IFNβ) during the treatment of multiple sclerosis.1 We are in general agreement with many of their statements and conclusions, but a few points should be discussed in a wider context.

With respect to the clinical significance of neutralising antibodies to IFNβ, the authors state that “IFNβ has little if any clinical and MRI efficacy in the presence of neutralising antibodies.” We think it is appropriate to be more circumspect, as most published studies suggest that in NAB positive patients, clinical (and MRI) efficacy of interferon treatment is present when compared to placebo, and that there is some evidence that more immunogenic higher dose treatment can be more effective than less immunogenic lower dose treatment.2 Giovannoni et al appear to base their statement on the increase in T2 burden of disease in the NAB positive group in the PRISMS extension study, but they do not mention similar comparisons which, if interpreted in the same way, would indicate that the NAB positive group does better than the placebo group.3 For example, the relapse rate in placebo patients was 1.3/year in years one to two, whereas it was 0.81 and 0.50 in NAB positive and NAB negative high dose patients in years three to four. We recognise that this specific comparison is fraught with difficulties owing to time trends in the relapse data, but these potential difficulties are present in all such comparisons. In a recent paper we report—in probably the largest study of neutralising antibodies in multiple sclerosis, describing 100 NAB positive patients in the European SPMS study—that high titres of neutralising antibodies do have a clinical impact, but that this impact is rather limited, and that on both clinical and MRI measures patients on active treatment who develop neutralising antibodies continue to do consistently better than those on placebo.4 The main conclusions of this paper are based on longitudinal analyses of the data on those patients who switched from NAB negative to NAB positive status; this is the only statistical approach that allows a direct assessment of whether the change from NAB negative to NAB positive status is associated with diminished efficacy of a treatment. Cross sectional comparisons are not fully reliable for establishing the impact of neutralising antibody positivity, as NAB positive and negative subgroups may differ on baseline variables (maybe unobserved) that are predictive of both neutralising antibody formation and diminished clinical response.

Giovannoni et al also state that during continued treatment “in the case of IFNβ-1b some NAB positive patients revert to NAB negative status over two to five years of follow up” and that “patients with high titres of neutralising antibodies seldom revert to being negative.” In the European study of IFNβ-1b in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis the proportion of treated patients who have been NAB positive and subsequently revert back to being NAB negative is about 40% after a treatment duration up to three years (without convincing evidence that patients with higher titres revert less frequently), whereas in the study by Rice et al this percentage is close to 80% after a mean treatment duration of more than eight years.4,5

In our opinion, these data suggest that the clinical impact of neutralising antibodies to IFNβ during the treatment of multiple sclerosis may be more limited and more transient than suggested in the editorial, and that the development of neutralising antibodies in itself does not provide justification for switching treatments or for considering (aggressive) strategies to reduce or revert the development of neutralising antibodies. Given the current rather uncertain state of knowledge concerning the impact of neutralising antibodies, we advocate that treatment decisions should be based on clinical grounds rather than on neutralising antibody titres.

References

View Abstract

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.