Use of interferon in multiple sclerosis
D. McFarlin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.410180403
IF: 11.2
1985-10-01
Annals of Neurology
Abstract:Recently, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of natural alpha interferon (IFN) in active exacerbating-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) was completed 131. The clinical results are encouraging but inconclusive. The study included a crossover of IFN and the placebo; exacerbations were reduced during both phases, but the greatest reduction in exacerbations was observed when IFN administration followed the use of placebo. Because IFN is associated with systemic side effects, a learning effect was appropriately postulated. Considerable insight was gained for the design of future IFN trials. In addition, laboratory assessments of these patients have provided new but disturbing information described in the two reports by Rice’s and Panitch’s groups which follow in this issue of the Annuls. Both studies show that the treatment was followed by elevated levels of serum IgG and that some of the antibody was directed at a non-IFN component of the preparation given to patients. The data of k c e and associates indicate that this is a Sendai virus protein and that 50% of the patients had circulating immune complexes that may have produced significant clinical side effects. The findings of Panitch‘s group show that IgG synthesis in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was also increased in 50%, and analysis of Tlymphocyte phenotypes showed a rise in the TdTS ratios. The carefully obtained but somewhat alarming findings underline both how little is actually known about the MS process and the unpredictability of therapeutic trials in the disease. In attempting to treat MS, one therapeutic goal might be to correct the known laboratory abnormalities such as increased CSF IgG synthesis and elevated TDS ratios which some, but not all, investigators have observed. Modification of such laboratory parameters may or may not be reasonable; however, it is noteworthy that the opposite effects were obtained in the present studies in addition to the occurrence of immune complex disease in a significant portion of patients. The alpha IFN used in these studies was generated by incubating human lymphocytes with Sendai virus. Although the preparation was concentrated 5,000-fold and purified approximately 100 times, it still contained substances other than alpha IFN 121. After repeated injections of this preparation, an immune response against the impurities may have produced some or even all of the findings described in these reports. Similar effects are well known in interferon research, and laboratory studies of this substance should always include the use of a “mock interferon” control that contains the non-IFN impurities. Administration of such material cannot be part of a clinical trial. Extensive advances have recently occurred in IFN research [ 1, 51. These include the application of monoclonal antibody and recombinant DNA technology to the problem of large-scale IFN production {I]. It would seem that a simple solution to the problems that remain following the alpha IFN trial in MS would be to conduct a similar trial with highly purified IFN preparations which are currently available. It is, however, not this simple! The IFN system has been shown to be highly complex { 51. There are three major types, designated as alpha, beta, and gamma IFN, as well as a variety of subtypes that differ in chemical, biological, and pharmacological properties. For example, at least twenty alpha IFN genes have been identified but it is not even known if all are correlated with proteins [5]. For the clinical investigator interested in treating MS or any other disease, this new information produces a number of questions. In addition to deciding which IFN preparation to give, there is the difficult but essential task of explaining all this to patients. The 1980s seem destined to be recorded as the decade of therapeutic trials in MS. A number of studies are now in progress throughout the world. Although patients favor this approach, there are numerous ethical 14,61 and economic {7] issues as well as the potential for exploitation of sick, frightened people 143. The reports by Panitch’s and Rice’s groups point out that the experimental trials are directed at the treatment of a disease which is not understood and that there is considerable potential for unexpected results and in some cases serious side effects. This does not mean that efforts to identify effective therapy should be abandoned; however, it does reinforce the belief that experimental treatments should be used in welldesigned trials that are capable of accurately assessing the effect of the treatment and identifying the associated risks. Good design, close monitoring, and critical evaluation of the findings are essential. Such an approach not only provides the best chance of identifying an appropriate treatment for MS, but should also minimize the risks of experimental treatment. As trials and publicity about new findings increase, physicians will continue to face the difficult task of advising patients about such matters. Patients interested in becoming research subjects should be referred to centers where such studies are conducted. An issue that frequently occurs is whether the trials, to date, have identified a treatment that can be recommended