Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Guillain–Barré syndrome is the most frequent cause of acute flaccid paralysis worldwide and constitutes a neurologic emergency. This review considers the current understanding, diagnosis, and management of the syndrome. The Guillain–Barré syndrome, which is characterized by acute areflexic paralysis with albuminocytologic dissociation (i.e., high levels of protein in the cerebrospinal fluid and normal cell counts), was described in 1916. 1 Since poliomyelitis has nearly been eliminated, the Guillain–Barré syndrome is currently the most frequent cause of acute flaccid paralysis worldwide and constitutes one of the serious emergencies in neurology. A common misconception is that the Guillain–Barré syndrome has a good prognosis — but up to 20% of patients remain severely disabled and approximately 5% die, despite immunotherapy. 2 The Miller Fisher syndrome, which is characterized by ophthalmoplegia, ataxia, and areflexia, was . . .

The importance of reported neurological manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still unclear. Nevertheless, an immediate and ongoing neurological challenge posed by the COVID-19 pandemic is the management of patients who are undergoing immunotherapy for existing neuroimmunological disease.

Neuroimmunological diseases and their treatment compromise the immune system, thereby increasing the risk of infections and serious illness. Consequently, vaccinations to protect against infections are an important part of the clinical management of these diseases. However, the wide variety of immunotherapies that are currently used to treat neuroimmunological disease — particularly multiple sclerosis and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders — can also impair immunological responses to vaccinations. In this Review, we discuss what is known about the effects of various immunotherapies on immunological responses to vaccines and what these effects mean for the safe and effective use of vaccines in patients with a neuroimmunological disease. The success of vaccination in patients receiving immunotherapy largely depends on the specific mode of action of the immunotherapy. To minimize the risk of infection when using immunotherapy, assessment of immune status and exclusion of underlying chronic infections before initiation of therapy are essential. Selection of the required vaccinations and leaving appropriate time intervals between vaccination and administration of immunotherapy can help to safeguard patients. We also discuss the rapidly evolving knowledge of how immunotherapies affect responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and how these effects should influence the management of patients on these therapies during the COVID-19 pandemic.In this Review, the authors discuss how various immunotherapies for neuroimmunological diseases interact with vaccination responses, including responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, and the implications for the safe and effective use of vaccines in patients with these diseases.

In two parallel randomized trials in patients with MS, ublituximab resulted in lower relapse rates and fewer brain lesions on MRI than teriflunomide over a period of 96 weeks but did not affect disability.

Ozanimod, a sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulator, selectively binds to receptor subtypes 1 and 5 with high affinity. The RADIANCE phase 2 study showed that ozanimod had better efficacy than placebo on MRI measures, with a favourable safety profile, in participants with relapsing multiple sclerosis. The SUNBEAM study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ozanimod versus intramuscular interferon beta-1a in participants with relapsing multiple sclerosis. SUNBEAM was a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled phase 3 trial done at 152 academic medical centres and clinical practices in 20 countries. We enrolled participants aged 18–55 years with relapsing multiple sclerosis, baseline expanded disability status scale (EDSS) score of 0·0–5·0, and either at least one relapse within the 12 months before screening or at least one relapse within 24 months plus at least one gadolinium-enhancing lesion within 12 months before screening. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 by a blocked algorithm stratified by country and baseline EDSS score to at least 12 months treatment of either once-daily oral ozanimod 1·0 mg or 0·5 mg or weekly intramuscular interferon beta-1a 30 μg. Participants, investigators, and study staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was annualised relapse rate (ARR) during the treatment period and was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all participants according to the highest dose of ozanimod received. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02294058 and EudraCT, number 2014–002320–27. Between Dec 18, 2014, and Nov 12, 2015, 1346 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to ozanimod 1·0 mg (n=447), ozanimod 0·5 mg (n=451), or interferon beta-1a (n=448). 91 (6·8%) participants discontinued the study drug (29 in the ozanimod 1·0 mg group; 26 in the ozanimod 0·5 mg group; and 36 in the interferon beta-1a group). Adjusted ARRs were 0·35 (0·28–0·44) for interferon beta-1a, 0·18 (95% CI 0·14–0·24) for ozanimod 1·0 mg (rate ratio [RR] of 0·52 [0·41–0·66] vs interferon beta-1a; p<0·0001), and 0·24 (0·19–0·31) for ozanimod 0·5 mg (RR 0·69 [0·55–0·86] vs interferon beta-1a; p=0·0013). Few ozanimod-treated participants discontinued treatment because of adverse events (13 [2·9%] who received ozanimod 1·0 mg; seven [1·5%] who received ozanimod 0·5 mg; and 16 [3·6%] who received interferon beta-1a). No first-dose, clinically significant bradycardia or second-degree or third-degree atrioventricular block was reported. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and similar across treatment groups (13 [2·9%] participants who received ozanimod 1·0 mg; 16 [3·5%] who received ozanimod 0·5 mg; and 11 [2·5%] who received interferon beta-1a). No serious opportunistic infections occurred in ozanimod-treated participants. In participants with relapsing multiple sclerosis treated for at least 12 months, ozanimod was well tolerated and demonstrated a significantly lower relapse rate than interferon beta-1a. These findings provide support for ozanimod as an oral therapy for individuals with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Celgene International II.

Ozanimod is a sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulator, which selectively binds to sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor subtypes 1 and 5 with high affinity. In the RADIANCE phase 2 study in participants with relapsing multiple sclerosis, ozanimod was associated with better efficacy than placebo on MRI measures and was well tolerated. The RADIANCE phase 3 study aimed to confirm the safety and efficacy of ozanimod versus interferon beta-1a in individuals with relapsing multiple sclerosis. We did a 24-month, multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy phase 3 trial in participants with relapsing multiple sclerosis at 147 medical centres and clinical practices in 21 countries. Participants were aged 18–55 years, had multiple sclerosis according to 2010 McDonald criteria, a relapsing clinical course, brain MRI lesions consistent with multiple sclerosis, an expanded disability status scale score of 0·0–5·0, and either at least one relapse within 12 months before screening or at least one relapse within 24 months before screening plus at least one gadolinium-enhancing lesion within the 12 months before randomisation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via an interactive voice response system to daily oral ozanimod 1·0 mg or 0·5 mg or weekly intramuscular interferon beta-1a 30 μg. Participants, investigators, and study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was annualised relapse rate (ARR) over 24 months. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population of all participants who received study drug and safety was assessed in all randomly assigned participants who received study drug, grouped by highest dose of ozanimod received. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02047734, and EudraCT, 2012-002714-40. Between Dec 27, 2013, and March 31, 2015, we screened 1695 participants, of which 375 did not meet inclusion criteria. 1320 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to a group, of whom 1313 received study drug (433 assigned to ozanimod 1·0 mg, 439 assigned to ozanimod 0·5 mg, and 441 assigned to interferon beta-1a) and 1138 (86·7%) completed 24 months of treatment. Adjusted ARRs were 0·17 (95% CI 0·14–0·21) with ozanimod 1·0 mg, 0·22 (0·18–0·26) with ozanimod 0·5 mg, and 0·28 (0·23–0·32) with interferon beta-1a, with rate ratios versus interferon beta-1a of 0·62 (95% CI 0·51–0·77; p<0·0001) for ozanimod 1·0 mg and 0·79 (0·65 to 0·96; p=0·0167) for ozanimod 0·5 mg. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was higher in the interferon beta-1a group (365 [83·0%] of 440 participants) than in the ozanimod 1·0 mg group (324 [74·7%] of 434) or the ozanimod 0·5 mg group (326 [74·3%] of 439). More participants in the interferon beta-1a group had treatment-emergent adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation than in the ozanimod groups. Incidences of infections and serious treatment-emergent adverse events were similar across treatment groups. No cases of ozanimod-related symptomatic reduction in heart rate and no second-degree or third-degree cases of atrioventricular block were reported. In this 24-month phase 3 study in participants with relapsing multiple sclerosis, ozanimod was well tolerated and associated with a significantly lower rate of clinical relapses than intramuscular interferon beta-1a. These findings show the potential of ozanimod as an effective oral therapy for individuals with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Celgene International II.

Inebilizumab, an anti-CD19 B-cell-depleting antibody, demonstrated safety and efficacy in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder in the randomised controlled period of the N-MOmentum trial. Here, end-of-study data, including the randomised controlled period and open-label extension period, are reported. In the double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 N-MOmentum trial, adults aged 18 years and older with an neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder diagnosis, Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 8·0 or less, and history of either at least one acute inflammatory attack requiring rescue therapy in the past year or two attacks requiring rescue therapy in the past 2 years, were recruited from 81 outpatient specialty clinics or hospitals in 24 countries. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (3:1), using a central interactive voice system or interactive web response system, and a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size of 4), to receive intravenous inebilizumab (300 mg) or identical placebo on days 1 and 15 of the randomised period, which lasted up to 197 days. Participants and all study staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint of the randomised period of the trial was time to onset of adjudicated neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder attack on or before day 197. Participants in the randomised controlled period who had an adjudicated attack, completed 197 days in the study, or were in the randomised controlled period when enrolment stopped, could voluntarily enter the open-label period. In the open-label period, participants either initiated inebilizumab if assigned placebo (receiving 300 mg on days 1 and 15 of the open-label period) or continued treatment if assigned inebilizumab (receiving 300 mg on day 1 and placebo on day 15, to maintain B-cell depletion and masking of the randomised controlled period). All participants subsequently received inebilizumab 300 mg every 6 months for a minimum of 2 years. The end-of-study analysis endpoints were time to adjudicated attack and annualised attack rate (assessed in all participants who received inebilizumab at any point during the randomised controlled period or open-label period [any inebilizumab population] and the aquaporin-4 [AQP4]-IgG seropositive subgroup [any inebilizumab-AQP4-IgG seropositive population]) and safety outcomes (in all participants who were exposed to inebilizumab, analysed as-treated). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02200770, and is now complete. Between Jan 6, 2015, and Sept 24, 2018, 467 individuals were screened, 231 were randomly assigned, and 230 received at least one dose of inebilizumab (n=174) or placebo (n=56). Between May 19, 2015, and Nov 8, 2018, 165 (95%) of 174 participants in the inebilizumab group and 51 (91%) of 56 in the placebo group entered the open-label period (mean age 42·9 years [SD 12·4], 197 [91%] of 216 were female, 19 [9%] were male, 115 [53%] were White, 45 [21%] were Asian, 19 [9%] were American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 19 [9%] were Black or African American). As of data cutoff for this end of study analysis (Dec 18, 2020; median exposure 1178 days [IQR 856-1538], total exposure of 730 person-years) 225 participants formed the any inebilizumab population, and 208 (92%) participants were AQP4-IgG seropositive. Overall, 63 adjudicated neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder attacks occurred in 47 (21%) of 225 treated participants (60 attacks occurred in 44 [21%] of 208 in the AQP4-IgG seropositive subgroup); 40 (63%) of 63 attacks occurred in 34 (15%) of 225 treated participants during the first year of treatment. Of individuals who had an adjudicated attack while receiving inebilizumab, 36 (77%) of 47 were subsequently attack-free at the end of 4 years. Annualised attack rates decreased year-on-year, with end-of-study adjusted annualised attack rates being similar in the any inebilizumab-AQP4-IgG seropositive subgroup (0·097 [95% CI 0·070-0·14]) and any inebilizumab populations (0·092 [0·067-0·13]). Overall, 208 (92%) of 225 participants who received any inebilizumab had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, the most frequent of which were urinary tract infection (59 [26%]), nasopharyngitis (47 [21%]), and arthralgia (39 [17%]). Infection rates did not increase over 4 years. Three (1%) of 225 participants in the any inebilizumab population died during the open-label period (one each due to a CNS event of unknown cause and pneumonia, respiratory insufficiency resulting from an neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder attack and viral pneumonia related to COVID-19), all of which were deemed to be unrelated to treatment. Data from the end-of-study analysis of the N-MOmentum trial showed continued and sustained clinical benefits of long-term inebilizumab treatment in individuals with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, which supports the role of inebilizumab as a CD19+ B-cell-depleting therapy in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. MedImmune and Viela Bio/Horizon Therapeutics, now part of Amgen.

The safety and efficacy of ocrelizumab in primary progressive multiple sclerosis were shown in the phase 3 ORATORIO trial. In this study, we assessed the effects of maintaining or switching to ocrelizumab therapy on measures of disease progression and safety in the open-label extension phase of ORATORIO. ORATORIO was an international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 182 study locations including academic centres, hospitals, and community speciality centres within 29 countries across the Americas, Australia, Europe, Israel, New Zealand, and Russia. Patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis aged 18–55 years who had an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 3·0–6·5 were eligible for enrolment. Those who had previous treatment with B-cell-targeted therapies or other immunosuppressive medications were excluded. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either intravenous infusion of 600 mg of ocrelizumab (two 300 mg infusions 14 days apart) or placebo every 24 weeks for at least 120 weeks until a prespecified number (n=253) of disability events occurred. After the double-blind phase, patients entered an extended controlled period of variable duration, during which they and investigators became aware of treatment allocation. Following this period, patients could enter an optional open-label extension, during which they continued ocrelizumab or switched from placebo to ocrelizumab. Time to onset of disability progression was confirmed at 24 weeks with four measures (ie, increase in EDSS score, ≥20% increase in time to complete the 9-Hole Peg Test [9HPT], ≥20% increase in time to perform the Timed 25-Foot Walk [T25FW], and composite progression defined as the first confirmed occurrence of any of these three individual measures), as was time to requiring a wheelchair (EDSS ≥7). Conventional MRI measures were also analysed. The intention-to-treat population was used for the safety and efficacy analyses; all analyses, and their timings, were done post hoc. ORATORIO is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01194570, and is ongoing. From March 3, 2011, to Dec 27, 2012, 488 patients were randomly assigned to the ocrelizumab group and 244 to the placebo group. The extended controlled period started on July 24, 2015, and ended on April 27, 2016, when the last patient entered the open-label extension. Overall, 544 (74%) of 732 participants completed the double-blind period to week 144; 527 (97%) of 544 entered the open-label extension phase, of whom 451 (86%) are ongoing in the open-label extension. After at least 6·5 study years (48 weeks per study year) of follow-up, the proportion of patients with progression on disability measures was lower in those who initiated ocrelizumab early than in those initially receiving placebo for most of the measures of 24-week confirmed disability progression: EDSS, 51·7% vs 64·8% (difference 13·1% [95% CI 4·9–21·3]; p=0·0018); 9HPT, 30·6% vs 43·1% (12·5% [4·1–20·9]); p=0·0035); T25FW, 63·2% vs 70·7% (7·5% [–0·3 to 15·2]; p=0·058); composite progression, 73·2% vs 83·3% (10·1% [3·6–16·6]; p=0·0023); and confirmed time to requiring a wheelchair, 11·5% vs 18·9% (7·4% [0·8–13·9]; p=0·0274). At study end, the percentage change from baseline was lower in those who initiated ocrelizumab early than in those initially receiving placebo for T2 lesion volume (0·45% vs 13·00%, p<0·0001) and T1 hypointense lesion volume (36·68% vs 60·93%, p<0·0001). Over the entire period, in the ORATORIO all ocrelizumab exposure population, the rate of adverse events was 238·09 (95% CI 232·71–243·57) per 100 patient-years and serious adverse events was 12·63 (95% CI 11·41–13·94) per 100 patient-years; the most common serious adverse events were infections at 4·13 (95% CI 3·45–4·91) per 100 patient-years. No new safety signals emerged compared with the double-blind phase of ORATORIO. Compared with patients switching from placebo, earlier and continuous ocrelizumab treatment provided sustained benefits on measures of disease progression over the 6·5 study years of follow-up. Although this study shows the benefit of earlier intervention with ocrelizumab in primary progressive disease, progression remains an important unmet need in multiple sclerosis. Further research should focus on how the potential benefits described in this study might be improved upon, particularly over longer time periods. F Hoffmann-La Roche.