Zabeti, Aram

Background: There is growing support for high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy (DMT) in multiple sclerosis (MS), but escalation (ESC) approaches remain common. Objective: To describe decision-making in a pragmatic trial of early high-efficacy treatment (EHT) versus ESC. Methods: DELIVER-MS is a multi-center, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a parallel observational study (OBS), which enrolled treatment-naïve people with RRMS in 31 UK/US sites. Primary outcome was as follows: 36-month brain volume loss according to initial treatment approach (EHT vs. ESC). Stepwise multivariable logistic regression was used to predict participation in RCT versus OBS and choice of EHT versus ESC within the OBS cohort. Results: In total, 816 people with MS were enrolled. Participants declined randomization due to preference for a particular DMT (85%), efficacy concerns (20%), and safety concerns (9%). RCT versus OBS participation was associated with lower relapse rate ( p = 0.043) and greater brain parenchymal fraction ( p = 0.002). Among 374 in the OBS cohort, 125 (33%) chose ESC and 249 (67%) chose EHT. People commencing EHT had higher education attainment ( p < 0.001) and relapse rate ( p = 0.025). Conclusion: Baseline DELIVER-MS data demonstrate that participants with milder disease are more likely to participate in RCT. The choice of EHT versus ESC was associated with demographic factors and disease activity. Clinical trial registration: NCT03535298

Objective: This post hoc analysis of the CHAMPION-NMOSD trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of ravulizumab in patients with aquaporin-4 antibody-positive (AQP4-Ab+) neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) previously exposed or naïve to rituximab (RTX). Methods: Patients received weight-based intravenous ravulizumab with a loading dose followed by maintenance dosing every 8 weeks. Patients were stratified by prior RTX exposure: no RTX exposure (RTX-naïve) vs RTX exposure > 3 months before initiating ravulizumab (RTX-exposed). Key outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious TEAEs (TESAEs), relapse rates, and vaccination timing from the last RTX dose. Results: Of the 58 patients enrolled, 89.7% were female, with a mean age of 47.4 years, and 21/58 (36.2%) were RTX-exposed. Relapses occurred in 12/21 (57.1%) RTX-exposed patients between their first RTX dose and study entry. The safety profile of ravulizumab was generally similar between RTX-exposed and RTX-naïve groups. Common TEAEs included COVID-19, headache, urinary tract infection, and upper respiratory tract infection. UTIs were more frequent in RTX-exposed individuals. One patient in each group experienced a meningococcal infection. No adjudicated on-trial relapses were reported while on ravulizumab. Conclusions: Following initiation of ravulizumab, RTX-exposed and RTX-naïve patients with AQP4-Ab+ NMOSD achieved sustained disease control and demonstrated a manageable safety profile. Clinical Trial Information: The CHAMPION-NMOSD Trial; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04201262 (registered October 06, 2020).

ABSTRACT Objective The optimal treatment for neurosarcoidosis myelitis is uncertain. We characterize incident neurosarcoidosis myelitis and assess treatment response by MRI and clinical scales. Methods Incident probable or definite neurosarcoidosis myelitis in adults was retrospectively identified from 13 academic medical centers. Cases were analyzed by initial treatment. The primary outcome was T1 post‐contrast gadolinium enhancement resolution at 6 months post‐treatment. Secondary outcomes were changes in modified Rankin scale (mRS) and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) from nadir to final follow‐up. Results Two hundred two patients were identified (median diagnosis age: 47 years (IQR 39–55); male: female 1.3:1). Median nadir mRS and EDSS were 2 (IQR 2–3) and 4 (IQR 2.5–6). At initial treatment, 129 (63.9%) received prolonged corticosteroids ≥ 4 weeks (group A 1 ), 36 (17.8%) received corticosteroids < 4 weeks (B 1 ), 21 (10.4%) received corticosteroids plus sarcoidosis‐directed immunosuppressant (E), and 16 (7.9%) received corticosteroids plus non‐sarcoidosis‐directed agents (F). In 167 cases with sufficient imaging, there were no significant differences in contrast enhancement resolution at 6 months (A 1 27/106 (25.5%), B 1 9/28 (32.1%), E 5/19 (26.3%), F 5/14 (35.7%); Fisher's exact p = 0.76). There were no significant differences in changes in mRS or EDSS among treatment groups (Kruskal–Wallis p = 0.69 and 0.63, respectively) after median follow‐up of 46.5 months (IQR 18–91.3). Interpretation Different initial immunosuppression strategies did not correlate with MRI contrast enhancement resolution at 6 months or clinical scales (mRS, EDSS). However, conclusions are limited by retrospective design, imbalanced cohorts, and insensitivity of binary MRI outcomes and available clinical scales for treatment response in neurosarcoidosis.