Advertisement

Journal of Neurology

, Volume 265, Issue 11, pp 2688–2694 | Cite as

Efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil in progressive multiple sclerosis patients

  • Rami Fakih
  • Marcelo Matiello
  • Tanuja Chitnis
  • James M. Stankiewicz
Original Communication

Abstract

Objectives

There are increasingly effective therapies for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS); however, the options for the progressive patient population are limited. The effect of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), a disease-modifying agent for several autoimmune diseases, in progressive MS has not been explored effectively. We performed a prospective study to assess the safety and efficacy of MMF in progressive MS patients.

Methods

We identified 64 patients enrolled in the comprehensive longitudinal database at the Partners MS Center, who fulfilled our inclusion criteria. They were exposed to MMF for at least 1 year with recorded clinical outcomes. Efficacy was assessed by comparing the absolute relapse rate (ARR), and the mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and timed 25 foot walk (T25FW) test scores before and after MMF treatment.

Results

At the start of MMF, 78% of patients (n = 50) were in the 4–7.5 EDSS range. There was a slight increase in mean EDSS from 5.49 ± 1.65 (n = 48) 1 year before MMF start to 5.85 ± 1.56 (n = 48) 1 year after (p = 0.020). The mean T25FW score increased 1 year before MMF from 12.3 ± 9.6 s (n = 38) to 15.6 ± 12.3 s (n = 38) 1 year after (p = 0.009). The ARR in the 2 years pre-MMF period was 0.30 ± 0.63, which decreased to a 0.09 ± 0.29 (p = 0.022) 2 years post MMF.

Conclusion

MMF did not affect disease progression but did influence relapse rate. We believe that other medication options should be considered before MMF in advanced progressive patients.

Keywords

Progressive multiple sclerosis Mycophenolate mofetil Disease-modifying therapy Efficacy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Mariann Polgar and Brian Healy from the Translational Neuroimmunology Research Center.

Funding

We thank Merck Serono and the National MS Society Nancy Davis Center Without Walls for their support of the CLIMB study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

RF declares no conflict of interests. MM was a consultant for TerumoBCT and Octapharma. TC has received consulting/advisory fees from Biogen and Celgene, and serves on clinical trial advisory committees for Novartis and Sanofi-Genzyme. JS was a consultant for Biogen Idec, Genzyme, Celgene, Bayer, and EMD Serono.

Ethics approval

All subjects gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. The Partners Institutional Review Board approved this study.

References

  1. 1.
    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):907–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stuve O et al (2004) Mitoxantrone as a potential therapy for primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 10(Suppl 1):S58–S61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Montalban X et al (2017) Ocrelizumab versus placebo in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 376(3):209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hauser SL et al (2017) Ocrelizumab versus interferon beta-1a in relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 376(3):221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vermersch P, Stojkovic T, de Seze J (2005) Mycophenolate mofetil and neurological diseases. Lupus 14(Suppl 1):s42–s5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen H et al (2016) The efficacy and tolerability of mycophenolate mofetil in treating neuromyelitis optica and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder in Western China. Clin Neuropharmacol 39(2):81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stankiewicz JM et al (2013) Role of immunosuppressive therapy for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Neurotherapeutics 10(1):77–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xiao Y et al (2014) Mycophenolate mofetil for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD010242Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vermersch P et al (2007) Combination of IFN beta-1a (avonex) and mycophenolate mofetil (cellcept) in multiple sclerosis. Eur J Neurol 14(1):85–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Etemadifar M et al (2011) Mycophenolate mofetil in combination with interferon beta-1a in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a preliminary study. J Res Med Sci 16(1):1–5PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frohman EM et al (2010) A randomized, blinded, parallel-group, pilot trial of mycophenolate mofetil (CellCept) compared with interferon beta-1a (Avonex) in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Ther Adv Neurol Disord 3(1):15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Remington GM et al (2010) A one-year prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, quadruple-blinded, phase II safety pilot trial of combination therapy with interferon beta-1a and mycophenolate mofetil in early relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (TIME MS). Ther Adv Neurol Disord 3(1):3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Michel L et al (2014) Mycophenolate mofetil in multiple sclerosis: a multicentre retrospective study on 344 patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 85(3):279–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pandit L et al (2014) Mycophenolate mofetil in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: a preliminary report. Neurol India 62(6):646–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frohman EM et al (2004) Mycophenolate mofetil in multiple sclerosis. Clin Neuropharmacol 27(2):80–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Polman CH et al (2011) Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 69(2):292–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Healy BC, Engler D et al (2013) Assessment of definitions of sustained disease progression in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Int 2013:189624PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kaufman M, Moyer D, Norton J (2000) The significant change for the timed 25-foot walk in the multiple sclerosis functional composite. Mult Scler 6(4):286–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Allison AC, Eugui EM (2000) Mycophenolate mofetil and its mechanisms of action. Immunopharmacology 47(2):85–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weiner HL (2009) The challenge of multiple sclerosis: how do we cure a chronic heterogeneous disease? Ann Neurol 65(3):239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karnell JL et al (2011) “Mycophenolic acid differentially impacts B cell function depending on the stage of differentiation. J Immunol 187(7):3603–3612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mahad DH, Trapp BD, Lassmann H (2015) Pathological mechanisms in progressive multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol 14(2):183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ebers G, Daumer M, Scalfari A (2010) Predicting a window of therapeutic opportunity in multiple sclerosis. Brain 133(Pt 12):e162 (author reply e163)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women’s HospitalPartners Multiple Sclerosis CenterBostonUSA
  2. 2.Harvard Medical SchoolMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations