Neurological Sciences

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 521–528

Natalizumab is effective in multiple sclerosis patients switching from other disease modifying therapies in clinical practice

  • R. Lanzillo
  • S. Bonavita
  • M. Quarantelli
  • G. Vacca
  • G. Lus
  • L. Amato
  • A. Carotenuto
  • G. Tedeschi
  • G. Orefice
  • V. Brescia Morra
Original Article

Abstract

Natalizumab is one option for multiple sclerosis patients responding poorly to classical immunomodulators, but pilot studies did not point to its effectiveness as a second-line therapy. Aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of natalizumab as second-line therapy in patients switching from disease modifying therapies (DMTs) in a clinical setting. We retrospectively selected patients who had been treated with natalizumab for at least 12 months after switching from one or more DMTs. We collected clinical and neuroradiological data and we analysed the reduction in annualised relapse rate (ARR), the change of Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the reduction of contrast-enhancing lesions (CELs) at magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain at 12 months of natalizumab and of previous DMT therapy. Fifty patients were included in the analysis (11 males, 39 females).We observed a reduction of ARR on natalizumab (p = 0.000) and a statistically significant different trend of relapse event between the two treatments (p = 0.0149). EDSS was stable during natalizumab therapy whilst it showed an increase on DMTs (p = 0.0244). The number of CELs decreased significantly (p = 0.006) during the 12 months of treatment with natalizumab, whilst it was stable on DMTs. Natalizumab showed to decrease ARR, stabilize EDSS, increase the percentage of CELs free patients and decrease the number of CELs in a group of 50 poor responders to classical DMT, after the first 12 months of therapy.

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis Natalizumab Treatment failure Longitudinal study Annualised relapse rate 

References

  1. 1.
    Polman CH, O’Connor PW, Havrdova E, Hutchinson M, Kappos L, Miller DH et al (2006) A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 354:899–910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yousry TA, Major EO, Ryschkewitsch C, Fahle G, Fischer S, Hou J et al (2006) Evaluation of patients treated with natalizumab for progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. N Engl J Med 354:924–933PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gorelik L, Lerner M, Bixler S, Crossman M, Schlain B, Simon K et al (2010) Anti-JC virus antibodies: implications for PML risk stratification. Ann Neurol 68(3):295–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Rudick RA, Stuart WH, Calabresi PA, Confavreux C, Galetta SL, Radue EW et al (2006) Natalizumab plus interferon-β 1a for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 354:911–923PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group and The University of British Columbia MS/MRI Analysis Group (1995) Interferon beta-1b in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: final outcome of the randomized controlled trial. Neurology 45(7):1277–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klawiter EC, Cross AH, Naismith RT (2009) The present efficacy of multiple sclerosis therapeutics: is the new 66 % just the old 33 %? Neurology 73(12):984–990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lanzillo R, Quarantelli M, Bonavita S, Ventrella G, Lus G, Vacca G, Prinster A, Orefice G, Tedeschi G, Brescia Morra V (2011) Natalizumab vs interferon beta 1a in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a head-to-head retrospective study. Acta Neurol Scand. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2011.01622.x
  9. 9.
    Prosperini L, Giannì C, Leonardi L, De Giglio L, Borriello G, Galgani S, Pozzilli C, Gasperini C (2012) Escalation to natalizumab or switching among immunomodulators in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 18(1):64–71 PubMed PMID: 21828195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sangalli F, Moiola L, Bucello S, Annovazzi P, Rizzo A, Radaelli M et al (2011) Efficacy and tolerability of natalizumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients: a post-marketing observational study. Neurol Sci 31(3):299–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prosperini L, Borriello G, Fubelli F, Marinelli F, Pozzilli C (2011) Natalizumab treatment in multiple sclerosis: the experience of S. Andrea MS Centre in Rome. Neurol Sci 31(Suppl 3):303–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Castillo-Trivino T, Mowry EM, Gajofatto A, Chabas D, Crabtree-Hartman E, Cree BA et al (2011) Switching multiple sclerosis patients with breakthrough disease to second-line therapy. PLoS ONE 6(2):e16664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Poser CM, Paty DW, Scheinberg L, McDonald WI, Davis FA, Ebers GC et al (1983) New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines for research protocols. Ann Neurol 13:227–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McDonald WI, Compston A, Edan G, Goodkin D, Hartung HP, Lublin FD et al (2001) Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from the International Panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 50:121–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lublin FD, Reingold SC (1996) Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: results of an international survey. National Multiple Sclerosis Society (USA) Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials of New Agents in Multiple Sclerosis. Neurology 46(4):907–911PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kappos L, Bates D, Hartung HP et al (2007) Natalizumab treatment for multiple sclerosis: recommendations for patient selection and monitoring. Lancet Neurol 6:431–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Río J, Tintoré M, Sastre-Garriga J, Nos C, Castilló J, Tur C, Comabella M,Montalban X (2012) Change in the clinical activity of multiple sclerosis after treatment switch for suboptimal response. Eur J Neurol. doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.2011.03648.x. (Epub ahead of print)
  18. 18.
    Putzki N, Yaldizli O, Bühler R, Schwegler G, Curtius D, Tettenborn B (2010) Natalizumab reduces clinical and MRI activity in multiple sclerosis patients with high disease activity: results from a multicenter study in Switzerland. Eur Neurol 63(2):101–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Outteryck O, Ongagna JC, Zéphir H, Fleury MC, Lacour A, Blanc F et al (2010) Demographic and clinic characteristics of French patients treated with natalizumab in clinical practice. J Neurol 257(2):207–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Belachew S, Phan-Ba R, Bartholomé E, Delvaux V, Hansen I, Calay P et al (2011) Natalizumab induces a rapid improvement of disability status and ambulation after failure of previous therapy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Eur J Neurol 18(2):240–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oturai AB, Koch-Henriksen N, Petersen T et al (2009) Efficacy of natalizumab in multiple sclerosis patients with high disease activity: a Danish nationwide study. Eur J Neurol 16:420–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Lanzillo
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. Bonavita
    • 3
  • M. Quarantelli
    • 4
    • 5
  • G. Vacca
    • 1
  • G. Lus
    • 3
  • L. Amato
    • 1
  • A. Carotenuto
    • 1
  • G. Tedeschi
    • 2
    • 3
  • G. Orefice
    • 1
  • V. Brescia Morra
    • 1
  1. 1.Neurological Sciences DepartmentFederico II UniversityNaplesItaly
  2. 2.Hermitage Capodimonte IDCNaplesItaly
  3. 3.Department of Neurological SciencesSecond University of NaplesNaplesItaly
  4. 4.Diagnostic Imaging DepartmentFederico II UniversityNaplesItaly
  5. 5.Biostructure and Bioimaging Institute, National Research CouncilNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations