Switching from natalizumab administration at the day hospital to administration at home. A 1 year prospective study of patient experience and quality of life in 30 consecutive patients with multiple sclerosis (TYSAD-35).

BACKGROUND: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, French health authorities allowed the home administration of natalizumab by a healthcare-at-home service. We evaluated the patients' perception of care quality following the transition from day-hospital to home natalizumab administration. METHODS: Thirty relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) patients treated with natalizumab were prospectively evaluated for one year after changing onto a home treatment procedure, using MusiCare, the first MS-specific questionnaire to evaluate patient experience and MusiQol. A numerical rating scale score for satisfaction and a dedicated questionnaire concerning patient experience were completed after each infusion. The primary endpoint was the mean difference in MusiCare score between baseline and 12 months. RESULTS: From June 2020 to November 2021, 306 infusions were performed at home. Three patients withdrew from the study (one lost to follow-up and two preferred to return at the day hospital). No worsening of patient experience or quality of life was observed. The mean scores of the Musicare dimensions were higher at 12 months than at baseline, significantly for the "relationship with healthcare professionals" (p = 0.0203). The MusiQol global score remained stable but the coping and friendship dimensions were significantly better at M12 than at baseline (p = 0.0491 and p = 0.0478, respectively). The satisfaction questionnaire highlighted some pain during the infusions (21.8%) and contradictions between healthcare professionals (17.2%). The mean score for satisfaction with care was 9.1/10. No safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSION: The positive experience of patients with home natalizumab administration provides an important opportunity to improve the quality of patient care.

Relapsing-remitting and primary progressive multiple sclerosis treated with ocrelizumab: A comparative study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical and radiological effectiveness of ocrelizumab in primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) and relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in a clinical practice setting and describe its tolerability and adverse events. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted comparing clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data of all patients with (pw)PPMS and RRMS who had received treatment with ocrelizumab at least one cycle and have been followed up for one year at minimum. RESULTS: 42 patients (27 women) treated with ocrelizumab: 29 had RRMS and 13 PPMS. The follow-up period was 26.4 ± 8.4 months. The proportion of pwRRMS with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) in the first year was 69.2% and in the second was 80%. In the first year, radiological activity was reduced by 80.0% in pwRRMS and 91.7% in pwPPMS. In the second year, radiological activity was completely reduced in both groups. A statistically significant difference (p<0.05) was observed between the pre-ocrelizumab rate of disability progression vs. the first year rate of progression for pwRRMS and pwPPMS. However, an increase in the disability progression rate in the second year of treatment was found in pwPPMS. Ocrelizumab was mostly well tolerated and some adverse effects were reported: infusion-related reactions (IRRs) were the most frequent adverse event, followed by infections and hematological side effects. Discontinuations were due to infections, hematological complications, and perception of ineffectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Ocrelizumab was very effective in reducing relapses and MRI activity. The rate of progression was slowed down; however, the effect was more evident for pwRRMS than for pwPPMS over time.

Ocrelizumab concentration and antidrug antibodies are associated with B-cell count in multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients with multiple sclerosis on ocrelizumab have B-cell depletion after standard interval dosing of 26 weeks. With B-cell-guided dosing patients receive their next dose when B-cell repopulation occurs. Prediction of B-cell repopulation using ocrelizumab concentrations could aid in personalising treatment regimes. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the association between ocrelizumab drug concentration, antidrug antibodies (ADAs) and CD19 B-cell count, and to define a cut-off ocrelizumab concentration for start of B-cell repopulation (defined by ≥10 CD19+ B cells/µL). METHODS: In this investigator-initiated prospective study, blood samples at various time points during ocrelizumab treatment were collected from a biobank. Serum ocrelizumab concentrations and ADAs were measured with two different assays developed for this study. Data were analysed using linear mixed effect models. An receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine a cut-off ocrelizumab concentration for start of B-cell repopulation (defined by ≥10 cells/µL). RESULTS: A total of 452 blood samples from 72 patients were analysed. Ocrelizumab concentrations were detectable up until 53.3 weeks after last infusion and ranged between <0.0025 and 204 µg/mL after 1-67 weeks. Ocrelizumab concentration was negatively associated with B-cell count, with body mass index identified as effect modifier. We found a cut-off value of 0.06 µg/mL for start of B-cell repopulation of ≥10 cells/µL. Ocrelizumab ADAs were detectable in four patients (5.7%) with corresponding low ocrelizumab concentrations and start of B-cell repopulation. CONCLUSIONS: Serum ocrelizumab concentration was strongly associated with B-cell count. Measurement of ocrelizumab drug concentrations and ADAs could play an important role to further personalise treatment and predict the start of B-cell repopulation.

Nosocomial Infections in COVID-19 Patients Treated with Immunomodulators: A Narrative Review.

Nosocomial infections pose an imminent challenge to hospitalized Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) patients due to complex interplay of dysregulated immune response combined with immunomodulator therapy. In the pre-pandemic era, immunomodulatory therapy has shown benefit in certain autoimmune conditions with untamed inflammatory response. Efforts to recapitulate these immunomodulatory effects in COVID-19 patients has gained impetus and were followed by NIH COVID-19 expert panel recommendations. The current NIH guideline recommends interleukin-6 inhibitors (tocilizumab and sarilumab) and Janus kinase inhibitors (baricitinib and tofacitinib). Several landmark research trials like COVAVTA, EMPACTA, REMDACTA, STOP-COVID and COV BARRIER have detailed the various effects associated with administration of immunomodulators. The historical evidence of increased infection among patients receiving immunomodulators for autoimmune conditions, raised concerns regarding administration of immunomodulators in COVID-19 patients. The aim of this review article is to provide a comprehensive update on the currently available literature surrounding this issue. We reviewed 40 studies out of which 37 investigated IL-6 inhibitors and 3 investigated JAK inhibitors. Among the studies reviewed, the reported rates of nosocomial infections among the COVID-19 patients treated with immunomodulators were similar to patients receiving standard of care for COVID-19. However, these studies were not powered to assess the side effect profile of these medications. Immunomodulators, by dampening the pyrogenic response and inflammatory markers may delay detection of infections among the patients. This underscores the importance of long-term surveillance which are necessary to discover the potential risks associated with these agents.

Is It Time for Ocrelizumab Extended Interval Dosing in Relapsing Remitting MS? Evidence from An Italian Multicenter Experience During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

In the COVID-19 pandemic era, safety concerns have been raised regarding the risk of severe infection following administration of ocrelizumab (OCR), a B-cell-depleting therapy. We enrolled all relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients who received maintenance doses of OCR from January 2020 to June 2021. Data were extracted in December 2021. Standard interval dosing (SID) was defined as a regular maintenance interval of OCR infusion every 6 months, whereas extended interval dosing (EID) was defined as an OCR infusion delay of at least 4 weeks. Three infusions were considered in defining SID vs. EID (infusions A, B, and C). Infusion A was the last infusion before January 2020. The primary study outcome was a comparison of disease activity during the A-C interval, which was defined as either clinical (new relapses) or radiological (new lesions on T1-gadolinium or T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences). Second, we aimed to assess confirmed disability progression (CDP). A total cohort of 278 patients (174 on SID and 104 on EID) was enrolled. Patients who received OCR on EID had a longer disease duration and a higher rate of vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (p < 0.05). EID was associated with an increased risk of MRI activity during the A-C interval (OR 5.373, 95% CI 1.203-24.001, p = 0.028). Being on SID or EID did not influence CDP (V-Cramer 0.47, p = 0.342). EID seemed to be associated with a higher risk of MRI activity in our cohort. EID needs to be carefully considered for OCR-treated patients.

An overview of pivotal trials and real-world evidence for CD20-depleting therapy in multiple sclerosis : Immunotherapy with rituximab, ocrelizumab, and ofatumumab.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the central nervous system leading to demyelination and neurodegeneration of brain tissue. For a long time, research focused on T cells as the primary mechanism of disease. Driven by reports on the clinical results of B cell-depleting therapies, this therapeutic approach has come into focus in the last decade, and new highly effective treatments have been developed and are now complementing the therapeutic landscape. This review provides an overview of the development of B cell-depleting therapies and shows the advantages and disadvantages of current developments. In addition, we discuss basic considerations for CD20-depleted MS patients in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Anti-PF4 testing for vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT): Results from a NEQAS, ECAT and SSC collaborative exercise in 385 centers worldwide.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) following the administration of the AstraZeneca (AZ) ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 vaccine is a well recognized clinical phenomenon. The associated clinical and laboratory features have included thrombosis at unusual sites, thrombocytopenia, raised D-dimer levels and positivity for immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibodies. OBJECTIVES: A collaborative external quality assessment (EQA) exercise was carried out by distributing five lyophilized samples from subjects with VITT and one from a healthy subject to 500 centers performing heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) testing. METHODS: Participating centers employed their locally validated testing methods for HIT assays, with some participants additionally reporting results for VITT modified assays. RESULTS: A total of 385 centers returned results for anti-PF4 immunoassay and functional assays. The ELISA assays used in the detection of anti-PF4 antibodies for the samples distributed had superior sensitivities compared with both the functional assays and the non-ELISA methods. CONCLUSION: ELISA-based methods to detect anti PF4 antibodies have a greater sensitivity in confirmation of VITT compared with functional assays regardless of whether such functional assays were modified to be specific for VITT. Rapid immunoassays should not be employed to detect VITT antibodies.

Safety of Natalizumab infusion in multiple sclerosis patients during active SARS-CoV-2 infection.

COVID-19 pandemic represented a challenge in the management of treatments for Multiple Sclerosis (MS), such as Natalizumab (NTZ). NTZ interferes with the homing of lymphocytes into the central nervous system, reducing immune surveillance against opportunistic infection. Although NTZ efficacy starts to decline 8 weeks after the last infusion, increasing the risk of disease reactivation, evidence is lacking on the safety of reinfusion during active SARS-CoV-2 infection. We report clinical outcomes of 18 pwMS receiving NTZ retreatment during confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. No worsening of infection or recovery delay was observed. Our data supports the safety of NTZ redosing in these circumstances.

Safety evaluation of ustekinumab for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis.

INTRODUCTION: Ustekinumab is a human IgG1 kappa monoclonal antibody that targets the p40 subunit of interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23 and blocks the binding of these cytokines to the IL-12Rß1 chain of their receptors. Ustekinumab is approved for treating moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC). AREAS COVERED: We reviewed the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of ustekinumab. Future challenges for optimizing UC treatment with ustekinumab are discussed. EXPERT OPINION: Ustekinumab has favorable clinical efficacy and safety profiles for moderately-to-severely active UC. Ustekinumab is the first biologic for targeting IL-12/IL-23 pathways. Therefore, ustekinumab can be a therapeutic option following the failure of other biologics, including anti-tumor necrosis factor-α antagonists and anti-α4ß7 integrin antagonists. However, the positioning of ustekinumab in the therapeutic strategy for UC remains unclear. The efficacy of combinations of ustekinumab and immunomodulators over ustekinumab monotherapy has not been supported in studies. Ustekinumab is a human immunoglobulin G monoclonal antibody with low immunogenicity. Therefore, ustekinumab monotherapy, which should be safe, could be sufficient for treating UC. Further studies are required to understand the efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in patients with UC, particularly in special situations, and to optimize UC treatment with ustekinumab.

Efficacy and safety of CD24Fc in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Non-antiviral therapeutic options are required for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. CD24Fc is an immunomodulator with potential to reduce the exaggerated inflammatory response to tissue injuries. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CD24Fc in hospitalised adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen support. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study at nine medical centres in the USA. Hospitalised patients (age ≥18 years) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were receiving oxygen support and standard of care were randomly assigned (1:1) by site-stratified block randomisation to receive a single intravenous infusion of CD24Fc 480 mg or placebo. The study funder, investigators, and patients were masked to treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement over 28 days, defined as time that elapsed between a baseline National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ordinal scale score of 2-4 and reaching a score of 5 or higher or hospital discharge. The prespecified primary interim analysis was done when 146 participants reached the time to clinical improvement endpoint. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04317040. FINDINGS: Between April 24 and Sept 22, 2020, 243 hospitalised patients were assessed for eligibility and 234 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive CD24Fc (n=116) or placebo (n=118). The prespecified interim analysis was done when 146 participants reached the time to clinical improvement endpoint among 197 randomised participants. In the interim analysis, the 28-day clinical improvement rate was 82% (81 of 99) for CD24Fc versus 66% (65 of 98) for placebo; median time to clinical improvement was 6·0 days (95% CI 5·0-8·0) in the CD24Fc group versus 10·0 days (7·0-15·0) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·61, 95% CI 1·16-2·23; log-rank p=0·0028, which crossed the prespecified efficacy boundary [α=0·0147]). 37 participants were randomly assigned after the interim analysis data cutoff date; among the 234 randomised participants, median time to clinical improvement was 6·0 days (95% CI 5·0-9·0) in the CD24Fc group versus 10·5 days (7·0-15·0) in the placebo group (HR 1·40, 95% CI 1·02-1·92; log-rank p=0·037). The proportion of participants with disease progression within 28 days was 19% (22 of 116) in the CD24Fc group versus 31% (36 of 118) in the placebo group (HR 0·56, 95% CI 0·33-0·95; unadjusted p=0·031). The incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in both groups. No treatment-related adverse events were observed. INTERPRETATION: CD24Fc is generally well tolerated and accelerates clinical improvement of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who are receiving oxygen support. These data suggest that targeting inflammation in response to tissue injuries might provide a therapeutic option for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. FUNDING: Merck & Co, National Cancer Institute, OncoImmune.

Corona Virus Disease 2019 and Paediatric Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Global Experience and Provisional Guidance (March 2020) from the Paediatric IBD Porto Group of European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition.

INTRODUCTION: With the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, concerns have been raised about the risk to children with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). We aimed to collate global experience and provide provisional guidance for managing paediatric IBD (PIBD) in the era of COVID-19. METHODS: An electronic reporting system of children with IBD infected with SARS-CoV-2 has been circulated among 102 PIBD centres affiliated with the Porto and Interest-group of ESPGHAN. A survey has been completed by major PIBD centres in China and South-Korea to explore management during the pandemic. A third survey collected current practice of PIBD treatment. Finally, guidance points for practice have been formulated and voted upon by 37 PIBD authors and Porto group members. RESULTS: Eight PIBD children had COVID-19 globally, all with mild infection without needing hospitalization despite treatment with immunomodulators and/or biologics. No cases have been reported in China and South Korea but biologic treatment has been delayed in 79 children, of whom 17 (22%) had exacerbation of their IBD. Among the Porto group members, face-to-face appointments were often replaced by remote consultations but almost all did not change current IBD treatment. Ten guidance points for clinicians caring for PIBD patients in epidemic areas have been endorsed with consensus rate of 92% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary data for PIBD patients during COVID-19 outbreak are reassuring. Standard IBD treatments including biologics should continue at present through the pandemic, especially in children who generally have more severe IBD course on one hand, and milder SARS-CoV-2 infection on the other.

Are we facing a crashing wave of neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19? Neuropsychiatric symptoms and potential immunologic mechanisms.

The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic is a significant psychological stressor in addition to its tremendous impact on every facet of individuals' lives and organizations in virtually all social and economic sectors worldwide. Fear of illness and uncertainty about the future precipitate anxiety- and stress-related disorders, and several groups have rightfully called for the creation and dissemination of robust mental health screening and treatment programs for the general public and front-line healthcare workers. However, in addition to pandemic-associated psychological distress, the direct effects of the virus itself (several acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus; SARS-CoV-2), and the subsequent host immunologic response, on the human central nervous system (CNS) and related outcomes are unknown. We discuss currently available evidence of COVID-19 related neuropsychiatric sequelae while drawing parallels to past viral pandemic-related outcomes. Past pandemics have demonstrated that diverse types of neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as encephalopathy, mood changes, psychosis, neuromuscular dysfunction, or demyelinating processes, may accompany acute viral infection, or may follow infection by weeks, months, or longer in recovered patients. The potential mechanisms are also discussed, including viral and immunological underpinnings. Therefore, prospective neuropsychiatric monitoring of individuals exposed to SARS-CoV-2 at various points in the life course, as well as their neuroimmune status, are needed to fully understand the long-term impact of COVID-19, and to establish a framework for integrating psychoneuroimmunology into epidemiologic studies of pandemics.

Sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with severe or critical COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. METHODS: We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04327388; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. FINDINGS: Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference -1·7 [-9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [-6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI -7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 11% (17 of 159) were in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 10% (18 of 173) were in the sarilumab 400 mg group. INTERPRETATION: This trial did not show efficacy of sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Tocilizumab plus standard care versus standard care in patients in India with moderate to severe COVID-19-associated cytokine release syndrome (COVINTOC): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Global randomised controlled trials of the anti-IL-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 have shown conflicting results but potential decreases in time to discharge and burden on intensive care. Tocilizumab reduced progression to mechanical ventilation and death in a trial population enriched for racial and ethnic minorities. We aimed to investigate whether tocilizumab treatment could prevent COVID-19 progression in the first multicentre randomised controlled trial of tocilizumab done entirely in a lower-middle-income country. METHODS: COVINTOC is an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done at 12 public and private hospitals across India. Adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with moderate to severe COVID-19 (Indian Ministry of Health grading) confirmed by positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result were randomly assigned (1:1 block randomisation) to receive tocilizumab 6 mg/kg plus standard care (the tocilizumab group) or standard care alone (the standard care group). The primary endpoint was progression of COVID-19 (from moderate to severe or from severe to death) up to day 14 in the modified intention-to-treat population of all participants who had at least one post-baseline assessment for the primary endpoint. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients. The trial is completed and registered with the Clinical Trials Registry India (CTRI/2020/05/025369). FINDINGS: 180 patients were recruited between May 30, 2020, and Aug 31, 2020, and randomly assigned to the tocilizumab group (n=90) or the standard care group (n=90). One patient randomly assigned to the standard care group inadvertently received tocilizumab at baseline and was included in the tocilizumab group for all analyses. One patient randomly assigned to the standard care group withdrew consent after the baseline visit and did not receive any study medication and was not included in the modified intention-to-treat population but was still included in safety analyses. 75 (82%) of 91 in the tocilizumab group and 68 (76%) of 89 in the standard care group completed 28 days of follow-up. Progression of COVID-19 up to day 14 occurred in eight (9%) of 91 patients in the tocilizumab group and 11 (13%) of 88 in the standard care group (difference -3·71 [95% CI -18·23 to 11·19]; p=0·42). 33 (36%) of 91 patients in the tocilizumab group and 22 (25%) of 89 patients in the standard care group had adverse events; 18 (20%) and 15 (17%) had serious adverse events. The most common adverse event was acute respiratory distress syndrome, reported in seven (8%) patients in each group. Grade 3 adverse events were reported in two (2%) patients in the tocilizumab group and five (6%) patients in the standard care group. There were no grade 4 adverse events. Serious adverse events were reported in 18 (20%) patients in the tocilizumab group and 15 (17%) in the standard care group; 13 (14%) and 15 (17%) patients died during the study. INTERPRETATION: Routine use of tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with moderate to severe COVID-19 is not supported. However, post-hoc evidence from this study suggests tocilizumab might still be effective in patients with severe COVID-19 and so should be investigated further in future studies. FUNDING: Medanta Institute of Education and Research, Roche India, Cipla India, and Action COVID-19 India.

Oral booster probiotic bifidobacteria in SARS-COV-2 patients.

Oral booster-single strain probiotic bifidobacteria could be a potential strategy for SARS-CoV-2. This study aims to evaluate the role of oral probiotic Bifidobacterium on moderate/severe SARS-CoV-2 inpatients. In this single-center study, we analyzed data of 44 moderate/severe inpatients with diagnosed COVID-19 in Istanbul Maltepe University Medical Faculty Hospital, 2020 from 1 November 2020 to 15 December 2020. Clinical and medication features were compared and analyzed between patients with or without probiotic. In result, 19 of the 44 patients (43.18%) who were administrated with oral booster-single strain probiotic were discharged with the median inpatient day of 7.6 days which were significantly shorter than those of patients without probiotic. There were significant differences in inpatient days, radiological improvement at day 6 and week 3, and reduction in interleukin-6 levels in those receiving oral probiotic therapy. Although the mortality rate was 5% in the probiotic group, it was 25% in the non-probiotic group. Booster-single strain probiotic bifidobacteria could be an effective treatment strategy for moderate/severe SARS-CoV-2 inpatients to reduce the mortality and length of stay in hospital.

The wearing-off phenomenon of ocrelizumab in patients with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are treated with monoclonal antibodies frequently report an increase of MS-related symptoms prior to the next dose known as the wearing-off phenomenon. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence and predicting factors of the wearing-off phenomenon in patients with MS using ocrelizumab. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study in patients with MS receiving ocrelizumab ≥1 year. Most participants received B-cell guided personalized extended interval dosing to limit ocrelizumab exposure and hospital visits during the COVID-19 pandemic (cut-off ≥ 10 cells/µL). Participants completed questionnaires during ocrelizumab infusion and 2 weeks thereafter. Demographics, clinical and radiological characteristics, CD19 B-cell counts, and serum neurofilament light (sNfL) levels were collected. Data were analyzed using logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Seventy-one (61%) out of 117 participants reported the wearing-off phenomenon during ocrelizumab treatment. The most frequently reported symptoms were fatigue, cognitive disability and sensory symptoms. Wearing-off symptoms started < 1 week (11%), 1-4 weeks (49%) or more than 4 weeks (37%) before ocrelizumab infusion. Fifty participants (43%) reported a current wearing-off phenomenon at the first questionnaire. Higher body mass index (threshold BMI ≥ 25) increased the odds of reporting a current wearing-off phenomenon (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.26 to 5.80, p = .011). Infusion interval, EDSS score, MRI disease activity, clinical relapses, CD19 B-cell counts, and sNfL levels were no predictors. Disappearance of the wearing-off phenomenon occurred in the first week after ocrelizumab infusion in most participants. Participants with a current wearing-off phenomenon significantly improved in self-reported physical and psychological functioning after ocrelizumab infusion. Reporting the wearing-off phenomenon did not influence treatment satisfaction. Forty of 109 participants (37%) reported post-infusion symptoms, such as fatigue, flu-like symptoms or walking difficulties. These post-infusion symptoms started directly or in the first week after ocrelizumab infusion and disappeared within 2 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The wearing-off phenomenon is reported by more than half of patients with MS using ocrelizumab. Only BMI was identified as a predicting factor. The wearing-off phenomenon was not elicited by extending infusion intervals or higher B-cell counts. The wearing-off phenomenon of ocrelizumab therefore does not seem to reflect suboptimal control of MS disease activity.

Product review on MAbs (alemtuzumab and ocrelizumab) for the treatment of multiple sclerosis.

Traditionally, the management of active relapsing remitting MS was based on the, so-called, maintenance therapy, which is characterized by continuous treatment with particular disease modifying therapy (DMT), and a return of disease activity when the drug is discontinued. Another approach is characterized by a short treatment course of a DMT, which is hypothesized to act as an immune reconstitution therapy (IRT), with the potential to protect against relapses for years after a short course of treatment. Introduction of monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of MS has revolutionized MS treatment in the last decade. However, given the increasingly complex landscape of DMTs approved for MS, people with MS and neurologists are constantly faced with the question which DMT is the most appropriate for the given patient, a question we still do not have an answer to. In this product review, we will discuss the first DMT that acts as IRT, an anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab and an anti CD20 monoclonal antibody, ocrelizumab that has the potential to act as an IRT, but is administered continuously. Special emphasis will be given on safety in the context of COVID-19 pandemics and vaccination strategies.