Currently, disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS) use 4 mechanisms of action: immune modulation, suppressing immune cell proliferation, inhibiting immune cell migration, or cellular depletion. Over the last decades, the repertoire substantially increased because of the conceptual progress that not only T cells but also B cells play an important pathogenic role in MS, fostered by the empirical success of B cell–depleting antibodies against the surface molecule CD20. Notwithstanding this advance, a continuous absence of B cells may harbor safety risks, such as a decline in the endogenous production of immunoglobulins. Accordingly, novel B cell–directed MS therapies are in development, such as inhibitors targeting Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK).
BTK is centrally involved in the B cell receptor–mediated activation of B cells, one key requirement in the development of autoreactive B cells, but also in the activation of myeloid cells, such as macrophages and microglia. Various compounds in development differ in their binding mode, selectivity and specificity, relative inhibitory concentration, and potential to enter the central nervous system. The latter may be important in assessing whether BTK inhibition is a promising strategy to control inflammatory circuits within the brain, the key process that is assumed to drive MS progression. Accordingly, clinical trials using BTK inhibitors are currently conducted in patients with relapsing-remitting MS as well as progressive MS, so far generating encouraging data regarding efficacy and safety.
Conclusions and Relevance
While the novel approach of targeting BTK is highly promising, several questions remain unanswered, such as the long-term effects of using BTK inhibitors in the treatment of inflammatory CNS disease. Potential changes in circulating antibody levels should be evaluated and compared with B cell depletion. Also important is the potential of BTK inhibitors to enter the CNS, which depends on the given compound. Remaining questions involve where BTK inhibitors fit in the landscape of MS therapeutics. A comparative analysis of their distinct properties is necessary to identify which inhibitors may be used in relapsing vs progressive forms of MS as well as to clarify which agent may be most suitable for sequential use after anti-CD20 treatment.
Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates
JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC
CME Disclosure Statement: Unless noted, all individuals in control of content reported no relevant financial relationships. If applicable, all relevant financial relationships have been mitigated.
Accepted for Publication: December 9, 2022.
Published Online: February 13, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.5332
Corresponding Author: Martin S. Weber, MD, Department of Neuropathology, Department of Neurology, University Medical Center, Georg August University, Robert-Koch-Straße 40, 37099 Göttingen, Germany (email@example.com).
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Torke reported receiving travel support from EMD Serono and research support from the Universitätsmedizin Göttingen. Dr Weber reported receiving research support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (WE 3547/5-1, WE3547/7-1, in association with SFB TRR 274), Novartis, TEVA, Biogen-Idec, Roche, Merck, and the ProFutura Program of the Universitätsmedizin Göttingen; serving as an editor for PLOS One; receiving travel funding and/or speaker honoraria from Biogen-Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, TEVA, Bayer, and Genzyme; and being an employee of the Universitätsmedizin Göttingen and Fraunhofer Gesellschaft, Germany. No other disclosures were reported.
Credit Designation Statement: The American Medical Association designates this Journal-based CME activity activity for a maximum of 1.00 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to:
It is the CME activity provider's responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting MOC credit.
You currently have no searches saved.
You currently have no courses saved.