High-dose immunosuppressive therapy and autologous HCT for relapsing-remitting MS

Richard A Nash, George J Hutton, Michael K Racke, Uday Popat, Steven M Devine, Kaitlyn C Steinmiller, Linda M Griffith, Paolo A Muraro, Harry Openshaw, Peter H Sayre, Olaf Stuve, Douglas L Arnold, Mark H Wener, George E Georges, Annette Wundes, George H Kraft, James D Bowen, Richard A Nash, George J Hutton, Michael K Racke, Uday Popat, Steven M Devine, Kaitlyn C Steinmiller, Linda M Griffith, Paolo A Muraro, Harry Openshaw, Peter H Sayre, Olaf Stuve, Douglas L Arnold, Mark H Wener, George E Georges, Annette Wundes, George H Kraft, James D Bowen

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and durability of multiple sclerosis (MS) disease stabilization after high-dose immunosuppressive therapy (HDIT) and autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT).

Methods: High-Dose Immunosuppression and Autologous Transplantation for Multiple Sclerosis (HALT-MS) is a phase II clinical trial of HDIT/HCT for patients with relapsing-remitting (RR) MS who experienced relapses with disability progression (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] 3.0-5.5) while on MS disease-modifying therapy. The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS), defined as survival without death or disease activity from any one of: disability progression, relapse, or new lesions on MRI. Participants were evaluated through 5 years posttransplant. Toxicities were reported using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (AE).

Results: Twenty-five participants were evaluated for transplant and 24 participants underwent HDIT/HCT. Median follow-up was 62 months (range 12-72). EFS was 69.2% (90% confidence interval [CI] 50.2-82.1). Progression-free survival, clinical relapse-free survival, and MRI activity-free survival were 91.3% (90% CI 74.7%-97.2%), 86.9% (90% CI 69.5%-94.7%), and 86.3% (90% CI 68.1%-94.5%), respectively. AE due to HDIT/HCT were consistent with expected toxicities and there were no significant late neurologic adverse effects noted. Improvements were noted in neurologic disability with a median change in EDSS of -0.5 (interquartile range -1.5 to 0.0; p = 0.001) among participants who survived and completed the study.

Conclusion: HDIT/HCT without maintenance therapy was effective for inducing long-term sustained remissions of active RRMS at 5 years.

Clinicaltrialsgov identifier: NCT00288626.

Classification of evidence: This study provides Class IV evidence that participants with RRMS experienced sustained remissions with toxicities as expected from HDIT/HCT.

Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology.

Figures

Figure 1. Patient-level pretransplant characteristics and outcomes
Figure 1. Patient-level pretransplant characteristics and outcomes
Patient-level pretransplant characteristics and study outcomes are presented for the 24 transplanted participants. Time is measured in months relative to day 0, the day of graft infusion. The eligibility window is defined as the period of time beginning 18 months prior to the screening visit. At screening, the number of relapses, as defined in the protocol, that occurred during the eligibility window were identified retrospectively and documented in the clinical database, for the purpose of determining eligibility. The period of screening to transplant is defined as the time from determination of protocol eligibility until day 0. To obtain a more complete understanding of the events that occurred during the time from screening to day 0, we retrospectively investigated reports of multiple sclerosis (MS) attack, to determine if the participant had met the protocol definition of relapse, or if the event was a less severe MS worsening event. MS worsening is a new neurologic sign or symptom that does not meet criteria for relapse, and was documented only during the period from screening to day 0. Patients 2, 6, 14, 15, 19, and 22 experienced an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) increase of at least 0.5 during the period of screening to transplant. Study completion for some participants occurred beyond the 28-day visit window for the year 5 visit, due to scheduling difficulties. The participant flow diagram is presented as figure e-1 in the current publication. A total of 18 participants completed the year 4 assessment and 17 participants completed the year 5 assessment. MS disease activity is reduced for participants posttransplant as compared to prior to treatment. DMT = disease-modifying therapy.
Figure 2. Neurologic outcomes: Composite primary endpoint…
Figure 2. Neurologic outcomes: Composite primary endpoint and components
Kaplan-Meier plots of the probability an event will not occur were calculated. The number of participants at risk is presented at each time point along the x axis. Short vertical bars on the curves indicate censored data. Participants who withdrew early were censored at the date of last follow-up. (A) Event-free survival (without death or disease activity from any one of: loss of neurologic function, relapse, or new lesions on MRI). (B) Summary of all primary endpoint and subsequent events by participant with type and time of event since transplant. Primary endpoint events are bolded and starred. (C) Progression-free survival (increased Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] greater than 0.5 from baseline). (D) Relapse-free survival. (E) MRI activity-free survival (presence of 2 or more independent multiple sclerosis lesions indicated on MRI). Note that the MRI event that occurred at 11.9 months was not a primary endpoint event, but rather an event that occurred subsequently after the participant met primary endpoint via clinical relapse at 5.1 months. (F) Overall survival. For each of the 3 deaths, the participant had previously met primary endpoint. In the analysis of the individual components comprising event-free survival (C–F), follow-up for any component was not censored by earlier events (see text).
Figure 3. Clinical outcomes
Figure 3. Clinical outcomes
(A) Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). (B) Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC). (C) MSFC component: 3-second Paced Auditory Serial Addition test (PASAT-3). (D) MSFC component: 9-Hole Peg Test. Average of trials from the dominant and nondominant hands. (E) MSFC component: Timed 25-Foot Walk Test. (F) Quality of life: 29-Item Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29). The p values from a Wilcoxon signed-rank test are presented at each postbaseline visit along the x-axis assessing the change from baseline. The p value in the MSFC components in panels C through E assesses a change in the component Z score from baseline. The median component Z scores can be found in table e-3.
Figure 4. MRI studies
Figure 4. MRI studies
(A) New gadolinium-enhancing (GD+) lesions occurring after transplant. The GD + lesions as seen at years 3 and 4 are 2 different GD+ lesions observed in the same participant, and thus this individual met primary endpoint. (B) New T2 lesions since previous visit. The new T2 lesions seen at year 4 are in one individual, who met primary endpoint. (C) T2 lesion volume (mL) change from baseline. There was a decrease in T2 lesion volume at year 5 (p < 0.001). (D) T1 lesion volume (mL) change from baseline. There was an increase in T1 lesion volume at year 5 (p = 0.015). (E) Percentage of change in brain volume from screening. At year 5, brain volume was significantly decreased compared to baseline (p < 0.001); however, there was stabilization in brain volume from year 3 to 5 (p = 0.311) after transplant.

References

    1. Nash RA, Hutton GJ, Racke MK, et al. . High-dose immunosuppressive therapy and autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (HALT-MS): a 3-year interim report. JAMA Neurol 2015;72:159–169.
    1. Muraro PA, Douek DC, Packer A, et al. . Thymic output generates a new and diverse TCR repertoire after autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple sclerosis patients. J Exp Med 2005;201:805–816.
    1. Muraro PA, Robins H, Malhotra S, et al. . T cell repertoire following autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple sclerosis. J Clin Invest 2014;124:1168–1172.
    1. Sormani MP, Muraro PA, Saccardi R, Mancardi G. NEDA status in highly active MS can be more easily obtained with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation than other drugs. Mult Scler Epub 2016 Apr 26.
    1. Imitola J, Racke MK. Is no evidence of disease activity a realistic goal for patients with multiple sclerosis? JAMA Neurol 2015;72:145–147.
    1. Torkildsen O, Myhr K-M, Bo L. Disease-modifying treatments for multiple sclerosis: a review of approved medications. Eur J Neurol 2015;23(suppl 1):18–27.
    1. Havrdova E, Galetta S, Hutchinson M, et al. . Effect of natalizumab on clinical and radiological disease activity in multiple sclerosis: a retrospective analysis of the natalizumab safety and efficacy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (AFFIRM) study. Lancet Neurol 2009;8:254–260.
    1. Cohen JA, Coles AJ, Arnold DL, et al. . Alemtuzumab versus interferon beta 1a as first-line treatment for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 2012;380:1819–1828.
    1. Rotstein DL, Healy BC, Malik MT, Chitnis T, Weiner HL. Evaluation of no evidence of disease activity in a 7-year longitudinal multiple sclerosis cohort. JAMA Neurol 2015;72:152–158.
    1. McDonald WI, Compston A, Edan G, et al. . Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from the International Panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2001;50:121–127.
    1. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983;33:1444–1452.
    1. Fassas A, Anagnostopoulos A, Kazis A, et al. . Peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in the treatment of progressive multiple sclerosis: first results of a pilot study. Bone Marrow Transpl 1997;20:631–638.
    1. Nash RA, Bowen JD, McSweeney PA, et al. . High-dose immunosuppressive therapy and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation for severe multiple sclerosis. Blood 2003;102:2364–2372.
    1. Freedman MS, Thompson EJ, Deisenhammer F, et al. . Recommended standard of cerebrospinal fluid analysis in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: a consensus statement. Arch Neurol 2005;62:865–870.
    1. Cutter GR, Baier ML, Rudick RA, et al. . Development of a multiple sclerosis functional composite as a clinical trial outcome measure. Brain 1999;122:871–882.
    1. Burman J, Iacobaeus E, Svenningsson A, et al. . Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for aggressive multiple sclerosis: the Swedish experience. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2014;85:1116–1121.
    1. Burt RK, Balabanov R, Han X, et al. . Association of nonmyeloablative hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with neurological disability in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. JAMA 2015;313:275–284.
    1. Atkins HL, Bowman M, Allan D, et al. . Immunoablation and autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation for aggressive multiple sclerosis: a multicentre single-group phase 2 trial. Lancet 2016;388:576–585.
    1. Mancardi GL, Sormani MP, Di Gioia M, et al. . Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation with an intermediate intensity conditioning regimen in multiple sclerosis: the Italian multi-centre experience. Mult Scler 2012;18:835–842.
    1. Burt RK, Loh Y, Cohen B, et al. . Autologous non-myeloablative haemopoietic stem cell transplantation in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a phase I/II study. Lancet Neurol 2009;8:244–253.
    1. Mancardi GL, Sormani MP, Gualandi F, et al. . Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in multiple sclerosis: a phase II trial. Neurology 2015;84:981–988.
    1. Mancardi G, Saccardi R. Autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol 2008;7:626–636.
    1. Rush CA, MacLean HJ, Freedman MS. Aggressive multiple sclerosis: proposed definition and treatment algorithm. Nat Rev Neurol 2015;11:379–389.
    1. Frischer JM, Bramow S, Dal-Bianco A, et al. . The relation between inflammation and neurodegeneration in multiple sclerosis brains. Brain 2009;132:1175–1189.
    1. Bowen JD, Kraft GH, Wundes A, et al. . Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation following high-dose immunosuppressive therapy for advanced multiple sclerosis: long-term results. Bone Marrow Transpl 2012;47:946–951.
    1. Farge D, Labopin M, Tyndall A, et al. . Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for autoimmune diseases: an observational study on 12 years' experience from the European group for blood and marrow transplantation working party on autoimmune diseases. Haematologica 2010;95:284–292.
    1. Hirst C, Ingram G, Swingler R, Compston DA, Pickersgill T, Robertson NP. Change in disability in patients with multiple sclerosis: a 20-year prospective population-based analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2008;79:1137–1143.
    1. Daumer M, Griffith LM, Meister W, Nash RA, Wolinsky JS. Survival, and time to an advanced disease state or progression, of untreated patients with moderately severe multiple sclerosis in a multicenter observational database: relevance for design of a clinical trial for high dose immunosuppressive therapy with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Mult Scler 2006;12:174–179.
    1. Sormani MP, Bruzzi P. MRI lesions as a surrogate for relapses in multiple sclerosis: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet Neurol 2013;12:669–676.
    1. Sormani MP, Bonzano L, Roccatagliata L, Mancardi GL, Uccelli A, Bruzzi P. Surrogate endpoints for EDSS worsening in multiple sclerosis. A meta-analytic approach. Neurology 2010;75:302–309.
    1. Fassas A, Kimiskidis VK, Sakellari I, et al. . Long-term results of stem cell transplantation for MS: a single-center experience. Neurol 2011;76:1066–1070.
    1. Chen JT, Collins DL, Atkins HL, Freedman MS, Galal A, Arnold DL. Brain atrophy after immunoablation and stem cell transplantation in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2006;66:1935–1937.
    1. Jager HR, Williams EJ, Savage DG, et al. . Assessment of brain changes with registered MR before and after bone marrow transplantation for chronic myeloid leukemia. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1996;17:1275–1282.
    1. Roccatagliata L, Rocca M, Valsasina P, et al. . The long-term effect of AHSCT on MRI measures of MS evolution: a five-year follow-up study. Mult Scler 2007;13:1068–1070.
    1. Lee H, Narayanan S, Brown RA, et al. . Brain atrophy after bone marrow transplantation for treatment of multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Epub 2016 May 31.
    1. Fisniku LK, Brex PA, Altmann DR, et al. . Disability and T2 MRI lesions: a 20-year follow-up of patients with relapse onset of multiple sclerosis. Brain 2008;131:808–817.
    1. Stangel M, Penner IK, Kallmann BA, Lukas C, Kieseier BC. Towards the implementation of “no evidence of disease activity” in multiple sclerosis treatment: the multiple sclerosis decision model. Ther Adv Neurol Disord 2015;8:3–13.
    1. Saccardi R, Freedman MS, Sormani MP, et al. . A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for aggressive multiple sclerosis: a position paper. Mult Scler 2012;18:825–834.

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera