Tuesday, 3 January 2017

#NatureSpeak: outlook supplement on MS

A supplement on MS for those of you with a more scientific outlook. #NatureSpeak #MSBlog




21 comments:

  1. The Logo on the front page perhaps says it all. Sponsored by Roche

    "Ocrelizumab could fill that gap" "The door is ajar for the first time" for PwPPMS

    In the study population as a whole, rituximab did not outperform a placebo. But Roche, the Swiss pharmaceutical company behind the drug, noticed some improvements in younger patients with primary progressive MS, particularly in those with active inflammation. Taking those lessons on board, the company adjusted the enrolment criteria and other design features for its late-stage ocrelizumab trial to study younger patients who were more likely to have active disease — and the change paid off.

    Take home message don't take rituximab:-(

    One thing the perhaps may not have liked to be said is

    "the benefit was “really modest” and that ocrelizumab might not work for older patients in the more advanced stages of disease. “We have to be careful how this is communicated to patients”

    On the plus side.

    "To address these knowledge gaps and accelerate progress in new therapeutic directions, the (National MS) society teamed up in 2013 with other research and advocacy non-profit groups from around the world to launch the Progressive MS Alliance. This €22.4 million (US$24.0 million) initiative will be “a catalyst that brings together the best institutions worldwide”, says Alan Thompson, dean of brain sciences at University College London and chair of the alliance's scientific steering committee. “This has never happened in the world of MS before,” he says.

    In 2014, the alliance funded a series of 20 small-scale research projects on topics ranging from genetics and disease models to proof-of-concept trials. And earlier this year it handed out three larger grants worth a total of €12.6 million for drug-discovery efforts and biomarker development.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MD you make Ocrelizamub sound so appealing! lol

      Delete
    2. Dear Bo
      Ocrelizumab is very appealing and will be a great drug for RRMS, but I think we need to be realistic about its likely effects on non-active PPMS.

      Delete
  2. 'This Outlook has been supported by a grant from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, which has had no control over the editorial content of this activity.'

    Of course we have to take this with a pinch of salt, but if a Journal like Nature sways to Pharma then their is not much hope for the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you read the articles, they have such a low information/low-interest content that they must insult the intelligence of the average scientist.

      An article full of pretty pictures, in 2017 its a new revelation that MS is associated with EBV, Vitamin D and genetics- one asks which rock we have been living under?

      It tells us "neurology to become a more daring clinical discipline"

      It also uses freelance writers. Will they give their time for free or are the sponsors providing this.... This is nothing more than an infommercial.

      Open access in a top science journal as Nature is a glossy advert.

      Delete
    2. Yep, essentially the equivalent of the "Science bit" in those shampoo/skin care adverts fronted by Jennifer Anniston. I'm surprised she wasn't asked to contribute an article.

      Delete
    3. I was, but I have too much integrity :-)

      Delete
    4. How about you guys' doing a critical review of each of the articles?

      Delete
    5. The pictures are pretty. Will this do?

      Delete
    6. Appears to be mainly (presumably paid by Roche) articles by freelance science writers and a couple of Nature staffers plus one actually working in the MS field if you click on the author links.

      Delete
    7. The supplement is crap. Your blog posts are a better source of unbiased information. I suggest you take down the post. In fact wWhy did you post it?

      Delete
    8. We highlighted the Lancet supplement on MS that was published in January 2015.

      http://multiple-sclerosis-research.blogspot.com/2015/01/focus-on-progressive-ms.html

      If you do it for one journal it only seems fair to do it for another journal. Both the Lancet and Nature stable of journals are highly regarded. As I already posted this piece it is going to be difficult taking it down.

      Delete
    9. The list of in the pipeline treatments was interesting, it would be good to hear from the team what they are pinning their hopes on next after Ocrelizumab.

      Delete
  3. Glad to see this post is generating some discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This make Roche look bad; why aren't they more discriminate with their funding and marketing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thye have us talking about this product so have they done bad...does it say anything about the review process and the Journal?

      Can we buy outputs in Nature..the answer is clearly yes:-(

      They accept adverts is an imnformmercial just ad different way as an advert and until ocrelizumab gets a licence it keeps the compound visible

      Delete
    2. It is bad publicity, though. I was considering ocrelizumab but after reading this I want alemtuzumab! or HSCT.

      Delete
  5. The LP debate angers me. At diagnosis I objected to having an LP, my perception at the time was that my neurologist only spoke in Klingon and was not to be trusted. Nowadays, I can have a sensible conversation with my neuro and his track record with me would suggest that I was a bit rash in my initial assumptions. I still find the fear for my future the worst thing about MS (I'm lucky). If, as part of a trial or as part of routine care, he offered me an LP that would provide prognostic value I would be overjoyed. I think you (neuro - collective) need to sort the PPI and work on the markers (you could even put it as an embedded mechanistic study in the rework of your failed EME grant ;-)).

    I don't really care about the COI. Pharma has money & that makes the world go around. Thank you for the link; it was refreshing to read something that was not the immediate conclusions of your team. The Progressive Steps section was fascinating and I enjoyed the tone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "(you could even put it as an embedded mechanistic study in the rework of your failed EME grant ;-))."

      We did this in CLEAR:MS (wasn't funded regardless), but will keep trying.

      Re PPI there's something in here http://www.clinicspeak.com/lumbar-puncture/ Agree though our PPI/translation must yet improve further.

      Delete

Please note that all comments are moderated and any personal or marketing-related submissions will not be shown.