Medical Director
Neurologique
info@neurologique.org
www.neurologique.org
Neurology patient care, education and research. Dr. Daniel Kantor specializes in MS (Multiple Sclerosis and migraine / headache medicine.
NK (Natural Killer) cells are cytotoxic (cyto - cells; toxic - kill) lymphocytes (white blood cells); they help with rejecting tumor cells and viruses. Their mechanism is that the release granules with proteins (perforin and granzyme) inside that cause the cells they are attacking to die by programmed cell death (apoptosis).
In multiple sclerosis (MS), we usually talk about T-cells and, more recently, B-cells -- but NK cells are also differentiated from lymphoid progenitors.
NK-cells do not express T-cell antigen receptors (TCR) or Pan T marker CD3 or surface immunoglobulins (Ig) B cell receptor but they usually express the surface markers CD16 (FcγRIII) and CD56 in humans, and NK1.1/NK1.2 in certain strains of mice. Up to 80% of NK cells also express CD8.
Why is this important?
XMRV has been associated with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) by infecting NK cells, but XMRV is also found in prostate cancer cells, so maybe we are just learning more about a different retrovirus.
Still, this gives us pause.
Also, we are paused by NASA's NASA's Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS), planned and successful crsh into the moon to raise a plume of debris, which was collected by a probe, to search for evidence of ice on the "dark side" of the moon (the other side seems to be too fizzled out by the sun to have any water.
This has been seen as damage to our moon (and even "poking" out the face of the man in the moon). At first, I was also bothered by our fiddling (pun) with the moon, but then I remembered how much we do so with out own planet.
Food for thought.
The ethics of placebo-controlled trials.
Is the FDA justified in demanding placebo-controlled trials nowadays when there are other FDA approved medications available.
We are seeing that nowadays our trials with placebo arms have milder patients than in the past; this is probably because a more severe patient is not going to be enrolled in a placebo-controlled trial when there are other therapeutic options available to them.
This does not only make it difficult for us to compare current ”modern” clinical trials to older ones, it also only gives us data for how these medicines work in milder patients than in more severe patients.
This means that when you face a patient with more severe disease, it is harder to know how much these medicines will really help.
Placebo-controlled trials are skewed (and unfair?) in that they select for milder patients.
So, not only do we not have medications for primary and secondary MS, we know relatively little about how these medications work in more severe relapsing-remitting MS.
As doctors, we always look out for our patients.
So, we have to ask ourselves:
1. Is this fair?
2. How can we fix this inequality?
Studies like Genzyme’s Care-MS II trial of Campath (alemtuzumab) vs. placebo, in patients who had had a relapse despite having been on a disease modifying agent for t least 6 months, may help us in studying a sicker MS population.
Many of us focus on the ethics of exposing patients to placebo, but what about the patients discriminated against who cant enter the trial for fear of worsening on placebo?
Looking for answers: comparing notes
OR
How global trials work
Yes, it isn’t good statistics to compare between (or among) different clinical trials, but the temptation is there.
So, how do we reconcile the impressive TRANSFORMS data (Fingolimod did over 50% better than Avonex in terms of annualized relapse rate), while FREEDOMS showed an almost similar (a little more) reduction in annualized relapse rate for those receiving Fingolimod rather than placebo.
In other words, if Fingolimod beat Avonex by so much, why didn’t it beat placebo even more?
Also, why don’t we (so far) ee the cancer risk we saw in TRANSFORMS, in FREEDOMS.
People and countries.
FREEDOMS was ex-US, so maybe the melanoma detection wasn’t as good as in the global trial, TRANSFORMS or maybe you need two things to develop melanoma from Fingolimod:
1. An underlying risk factor (genetic or environmental) for melanoma
2. Exposure to Fingolimod.
Maybe the patients in TRANSFORMS are fundamentally different from those in FREEDOM. Before we celebrate the relative lack of cancer in FREEDOMS, we need to wait for FREEDOMS II to help us further understand this risk.
FREEDOMS was placebo-controlled, which means that patients enrolling in the trial were more likely to be milder than those entering TRANSFORMS, where there was an active comparator (Avonex). This means that the reason the placebo arm in FREEDOMS did so well is the same reason why the CLARITY placebo arm did well, because the patients weren’t that sick (otherwise they wouldn’t have been enrolled in a placebo-controlled trial. So, if the patients enrolled in FREEDOMS had been similar to those enrolled in AFFIRM (Tysabri compared to placebo), then we may have seen an even greater reduction in annualized relapse rate in those receiving Fingolimod vs. those receiving placebo.
If we assume that Fingolimod’s annualized relapse rate reduction is superior to Cladribine (TRANSFORMS vs. CLARITY ), then why didn’t Fingolimod blow away placebo even more than it did in FREEDOMS?
At a certain point, even with a relatively mild patient group (where even the placebo will have a low annualized relapse rate), the arm receiving active drug cannot get below a certain annualized relapse rate. Remember, patients in these trials have had a relapse in the last year (or two in the last two years), so it would be hard for any drug to reach an annualized relapse rate below a certain threshold,. So, for example, if Fingolimod is superior to Avonex and even more so to placebo, we might not see that huge a reduction because the annualized relapse rate (almost by definition) is constrained (and will never become much lower, in the absence of a “cure”).
So, Cladribine got to an annualized relapse rate of 0.14 – 0.15 with the mildest patient population (see the placebo arm); Fingolimod got to an annualized relapse rate of 0.16 – 0.18 with a slightly sicker patient population (than the CLARITY study), and when the population was a little more severe (TRANFORMS), Fingolimod’s annualized relapse rate was 0.16 – 0.20. Finally, in AFFIRM, Tysabri’s annualized relapse rate was 0.25 in the sickest of all these MS populations.
What would have happened in a Tysabri vs. Fingolimod vs. Cladribine trial?