Assessment of serum inflammatory parameters in RRMS and SPMS patients.

OBJECTIVES: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease. Patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) and secondary progressive MS (SPMS) differ in their responses to treatment; therefore, the correct diagnosis of the particular type of MS is crucial, and biomarkers that can differentiate between the forms of MS need to be identified. The aim of this study was to compare the levels of inflammatory parameters in serum samples from patients with RRMS and SPMS. METHODS: The study group consisted of 60 patients with diagnosed MS. The patients were divided into RRMS and SPMS groups. In the RRMS patients, the usage of disease-modifying treatment was included in our analysis. The serum levels of inflammatory parameters were evaluated. RESULTS: The serum levels of BAFF, gp130 and osteopontin were significantly higher in SPMS patients than in RRMS patients. The serum levels of BAFF correlated with age in both RRMS and SPMS patients. The serum levels of MMP-2 were significantly higher in RRMS patients than in SPMS patients and correlated with the number of past relapses. The serum levels of IL-32 were significantly higher in RRMS treatment-naïve patients than in RRMS patients treated with disease-modifying therapy. DISCUSSION: Significant differences were found in BAFF, gp130, MMP-2 and osteopontin levels between RRMS and SPMS patients. Serum IL-32 levels were statistically lower in RRMS patients treated with disease-modifying therapy than in treatment-naïve patients.

A comparison of serum inflammatory parameters in progressive forms of multiple sclerosis.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, inflammatory demyelinating disease of the central nervous system. Primary progressive MS (PPMS) is diagnosed in approximately 10-15 % of MS patients. Disease-modifying therapies (DMT) are less effective in modifying the course of progressive types of MS. It seems that inflammatory processes differ in the MS subtypes. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess differences in the inflammatory parameters between PPMS and other courses of MS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 84 subjects were included in the study. The study group was divided according to the course of MS into the following categories: PPMS (n = 24); SPMS-secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (n = 14); RRMS-relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (n = 46). PPMS patients were further divided into treated with ocrelizumab and treatment-naive groups. The concentrations of serum inflammatory parameters were evaluated. RESULTS: PPMS and SPMS significantly differed in the serum levels of sCD30, gp130, sIL-6R alpha, osteopontin, pentraxin-3 and sTNF-R1. The serum concentrations of IFN-alpha2, IL-10, IL-20, IL-29 and osteopontin significantly differed between PPMS and RRMS. The serum levels of BAFF, IL-19, IL-20, pentraxin-3, s-TNF-R1 and s-TNF-R2 significantly differed between PPMS treated with ocrelizumab and treatment-naive. CONCLUSION: Although inflammatory processes take part in the pathogenesis of all types of MS, they differ between MS courses. Serum inflammatory parameters seem to be promising biomarkers in helping to differentiate courses of MS, and in assessing reactions to DMT treatment. Further investigations on their usage are required.

OCRELIZUMAB THERAPY IN PATIENTS WITH ANTI-HBC ANTIBODIES - A PRELIMINARY STUDY.

OBJECTIVE: Aim: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory neurodegenerative disease resulting in cognitive impairment, physical disabilities, and neurological symptoms. Ocrelizumab is an effective drug used in MS treatment. However, it causes a risk of hepatitis B reactivation in anti-HBc positive patients. We describe the impact of entecavir and tenofovir on HBV reactivation during treatment with ocrelizumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and methods: Our study included eight patients (aged 18-70 years) with positive anti-HBc antibodies who were diagnosed with MS based on the 2017 McDonald criteria. The subjects were treated with ocrelizumab and were given anti-HBV prophylaxis with nucleoside analogs. The mean time from the beginning of therapy with nucleoside analogs to the initiation of ocrelizumab treatment was 27.5 days. Patients were administered ocrelizumab and none of them was diagnosed with HBV reactivation. RESULTS: Results: None of the laboratory parameters worsened. No severe adverse effects were observed. These results suggest that entecavir and tenofovir are effective in HBV reactivation prophylaxis. Additionally, positive anti-HBc antibodies do not rule out treatment with ocrelizumab. CONCLUSION: Conclusions: In patients with positive anti-HBc antibodies, nucleoside analogs, such as entecavir or tenofovir, should be administered before ocrelizumab administration to reduce the risk of viral reactivation. Further studies on simultaneous treatment with ocrelizumab and nucleoside analogs are required to confirm our findings.