Skip to main content
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2017 Jun 18;8(3):233–243. doi: 10.1111/cen3.12397

Neurological safety of fingolimod: An updated review

Fumihito Yoshii 1,2,, Yusuke Moriya 2, Tomohide Ohnuki 2, Masafuchi Ryo 2, Wakoh Takahashi 2
PMCID: PMC5575715  PMID: 28932291

Abstract

Fingolimod (FTY) is the first oral medication approved for treatment of relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Its effectiveness and safety were confirmed in several phase III clinical trials, but proper evaluation of safety in the real patient population requires long‐term post‐marketing monitoring. Since the approval of FTY for RRMS in Japan in 2011, it has been administered to approximately 5000 MS patients, and there have been side‐effect reports from 1750 patients. Major events included infectious diseases, hepatobiliary disorders, nervous system disorders and cardiac disorders. In the present review, we focus especially on central nervous system adverse events. The topics covered are: (i) clinical utility of FTY; (ii) safety profile; (iii) post‐marketing adverse events in Japan; (iv) white matter (tumefactive) lesions; (v) rebound after FTY withdrawal; (vi) relationship between FTY and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy; (vii) FTY and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy‐related immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome; and (viii) neuromyelitis optica and leukoencephalopathy.

Keywords: fingolimod, leukoencephalopathy, multiple sclerosis, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders, safety

Clinical utility of fingolimod

Fingolimod (FTY) is a sphingosine‐1‐phosphate receptor modulator that prevents egress of selected lymphocyte subsets (e.g. CCR7 positive‐naïve T cells, central memory T cells) from lymph nodes, thereby reducing the number of lymphocytes in peripheral blood and their infiltration into the central nervous system.1, 2 It is the first disease‐modifying therapy (DMT) drug that can be orally administered, offering a clear advantage over other DMT drugs that must be injected daily (s.c., glatiramer acetate), every other day (s.c., interferon beta‐1b [IFN‐β1b]), weekly (i.m., IFN‐β1a) or monthly (i.v., natalizumab [NTZ]).

Two large, phase III, double‐blind, randomized trials have shown superior efficacy of FTY compared with placebo (2‐year FREEDOMS and FREEDOMS II studies)3, 4 or i.m. IFN‐β1a (1‐year TRANSFORMS and extended TRANSFORMS studies).5, 6 FTY reduced the annualized relapse rate and slowed the progression of neurological disability in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Significant and sustained reductions in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesion counts and brain volume loss have been reported in both short‐term3, 5 and long‐term studies.6, 7

Six randomized controlled trials of FTY versus placebo in RRMS patients who met various selection criteria showed that FTY 0.5 mg increased the probability of being relapse‐free at 24 months (risk ratio [RR] 1.44, 95% CI 1.28–1.63), but in contrast, had little or no effect in preventing disability progression (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02–1.11).8 Benefit was also observed in terms of gadolinium‐enhancing lesions in MRI (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.27–1.45). The effects were similar to those of intramuscular IFN‐β1a at 1 year: there was an increase in the number of patients free from relapse (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09–1.27) and decreased MRI‐assessed activity (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05–1.19). However, inability to prevent or delay disability progression was confirmed (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99–1.06).

In Japan, clinical trials of once‐daily FTY 0.5 mg or 1.25 mg for patients with RRMS showed a higher proportion of relapse‐free patients and a reduction in the number of newly developed gadolinium‐enhanced MRI lesions during a 6‐month period, compared with the placebo. Additionally, the annualized relapse rate over 6 months was significantly reduced by FTY 0.5 mg and 1.25 mg versus the placebo, with relative reductions of 49% and 58%, respectively. Based on these results, once‐daily oral FTY 0.5 mg (Gilenya, Novartis Pharma AG, Tokyo, Japan; or Imusera, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Osaka, Japan) was approved in September 2011 for the treatment of patients with RRMS, including those who failed to respond to first‐line DMT.9, 10

Safety profile of fingolimod therapy

The safety profile of FTY therapy has been carefully examined, particularly in the light of its anticipated long‐term use. FTY was generally well tolerated in the aforementioned trials of up to 2 years' duration, with most adverse events (AE) being manageable and of mild‐to‐moderate severity.3, 4, 6 The cumulative datasets from clinical trials and their extensions, plus post‐marketing studies, have well delineated the safety profile of FTY in patients with RRMS.11

The most common AE were cardiovascular events, including bradycardia and first‐degree or second‐degree atrioventricular block, after administration of the first dose.12 These AE usually occur within 1 h after administration of the drug, and bradycardia usually lasts for several days. In addition, a mild dose‐dependent blood pressure increase over the course of 2 years was reported.

Because FTY causes a decrease of circulating lymphocytes, patients might be susceptible to serious infections, such as disseminated or central nervous system herpetic infection; indeed, two deaths were reported during the trial period as a result of primary disseminated varicella zoster infection and Herpes simplex encephalitis in the 1.25 mg/day group.5 Upper respiratory infections including nasopharyngitis or pharyngitis occurred in approximately 45% of patients in the Japanese clinical trial.9 Overseas trials found that the frequency of serious or opportunistic infection seems to be unrelated to lymphocyte count, and was not significantly increased even in patients whose lymphocyte counts had decreased to <200/mm3.13

Macular edema was confirmed in <1% of patients taking the currently approved dose (0.5 mg/day).1, 5 It was mostly asymptomatic, though some patients complained of blurred vision or reduced visual acuity. Patients with diabetes mellitus have increased risk for onset of macular edema.

Localized skin cancer (basal‐cell carcinoma and melanoma) and breast cancer were also reported,1 and a case of primary cutaneous T‐cell lymphoma was recently reported in an MS patient treated with FTY.14 Throughout the core study and a 3‐year phase 2 extension study in Japan, one case each of breast cancer and lymphoma were reported in patients receiving continuous FTY 0.5 mg/day.15 Further long‐term follow‐up study is required to clarify the risk of cancer.

Regarding laboratory test abnormalities, peripheral blood lymphocyte counts were reduced by approximately 75% from baseline after the first month.1, 3, 5 Mean lymphocyte counts began to rise within days of discontinuation, and reached the lower limit of normal by 4–8 weeks.16 Asymptomatic elevations in liver enzyme levels were seen more frequently.1, 17 In the Japanese clinical trial, abnormal liver function was reported in 21.1% of the FTY 0.5 mg/day group and 33.3% of the FTY 1.25 mg/day group, mostly within 3 months after initiation of FTY.9 In general, the abnormal data reverted to the normal range after cessation of FTY.

Post‐marketing adverse events of fingolimod in Japan

Since the marketing authorization of FTY 0.5 mg/day in Japan as an oral therapy for RRMS in November 2011, approximately 5175 patients have been treated in the 5 years until October 2016.18 With regard to AE, 1750 patients (33.8%) made some kind of report. Infections were most common (16.1%), followed by hepatobiliary disorders (16.0%), nervous system disorders (10.9%) and cardiac disorders (9.0%).18

The two major infections were Herpes zoster and nasopharyngitis, each accounting for 22% of all infections. There are reports of bronchitis in a small number of patients (6%). Liver dysfunction (elevated liver enzyme levels) accounted for 81% of hepatobiliary disorders. Although most nervous system disorders were reported to involve recurrence of MS lesions (23%), this might have included cases whose symptoms were worsened by FTY administration. This issue will be discussed in more detail below. Other nervous system symptoms included headache (16%) and dizziness (11%). Epileptic seizure was observed in <1% of all cases. Bradycardia or atrioventricular block was observed in 4.3%, and macular edema was seen in <1.0%. Benign and malignant tumors have been reported in 31 patients, including four cervical carcinoma, three gastric cancer, two cervical adenocarcinoma and two lymphoma. As for lymphopenia during treatment with FTY, 623 cases (18.2% of all cases reporting AE) were found.

Fingolimod induced white matter (tumefactive) lesions

Regarding neurological deterioration, there might have been some cases of MS relapse as a result of insufficient effect of FTY. However, there have been several case reports of paradoxically expanded inflammatory, demyelinating lesions. These lesions suggest that exacerbation can be divided into the multiple scattered type and space‐occupying tumefactive type. Tumefactive‐type lesions mimic tumors clinically and radiologically, and characteristically present large size (>2.0 cm) with a mass effect, edema and open ring enhancement. In general, the pathology of tumefactive lesions in the acute phase is characterized by massive demyelination associated with perivascular inflammation, reactive astrocytosis and infiltration of macrophages.19 In chronic lesions, demyelinated lesions with relative axonal preservation and sharply‐defined margins were major findings.20

It has been found that switching from other DMT to FTY can trigger tumefactive lesions in some MS patients. Development of these lesions indicates unusual activation of the immune system associated with FTY use. Table 1 summarizes some case reports where MS lesions were exacerbated after administration of FTY.21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 The heterogeneity of these cases regarding disease duration, prior therapy, time to relapse on FTY, neurological symptoms and so on might be related to interindividual differences among patients with a susceptible immune constitution and sensitivity to FTY. Patients have been reported to suffer from confusion, dizziness and weakness, or to mimic neoplasm with symptoms such as headaches, aphasia and/or seizures. Diagnosis is commonly carried out using MRI, based on open ring enhancement in T1‐weighted images with the use of gadolinium.

Table 1.

Some case reports of active/tumefactive lesions after administration of fingolimod

No. Author Year Age (years) Sex MS type Duration of MS (years) Prior treatment (just before) Time to relapse on FTY FTY dose MRI findings Relapse treatment FTY continued After Tx
1 Leypoldt 2009 28 F RRMS 4 Steroid 7 months 1.25 mg Ring, necrotic & hemorrhagic core No Daclizmab (antibiotics)
2 Castrop 2012 26 F RRMS 1.3 IFN‐β1a IFN‐β1b 6 weeks Multiple active MS lesions PLEX No NTZ
3 Daelman 2012 40 F RRMS 23 NTZ 11 days Extensive active MS lesion IVMP Yes
4 Jander 2012 49 M RRMS 2.3 NTZ 8 weeks Tumefactive Steroid pulse Yes
5 Visser 2012 23 F RRMS 3.5 IFN‐β 4 months 0.5 mg Tumefactive IVMP No GA
6 Centonze 2012 25 F RRMS 4 NTZ 16 days Multiple active MS lesions IVMP
32 F RRMS 6 NTZ 19 days Multiple active MS lesions IVMP
25 F RRMS 13 NTZ 6 days Multiple active MS lesions IVMP
7 Kinney 2013 28 F 6 GA 1 month Tumefactive IVMP
8 Yokoseki 2013 24 M RRMS 9 INF‐β1a 10 days Active MS spinal cord lesion IVMP Yes
9 Pilz 2013 25 F RRMS 10 NTZ 8 months Tumefactive PLEX steroid Yes
10 Hellmann 2014 35 F RRMS 14 INF‐β1b 2 months, 14 months Tumefactive IVMP steroid No Steroid
Rituximab
11 Totaro 2014 33 F RRMS 6 NTZ 13 months Tumefactive IVMP No NTZ
12 Lindå 2015 38 F RRMS GA 21 months 0.5 mg PRES Yes
13 Endo 2015 46 F RRMS 14 20 days 0.5 mg Multiple active MS lesions IVMP No
14 Harirchian 2015 43 M RRMS 4.5 INF‐β1b 18 weeks Tumefactive IVMP steroid Yes
15 Fragoso 2016 28 F RRMS 3 NTZ 20 months Tumefactive IVMP No NTZ
35 F RRMS 2 NTZ 15 months Tumefactive No NTZ

F, female; FTY, fingolimod; GA, glatiramer; INF, interferon; IVMP, intravenous methylprednisolone treatment; M, male; NTZ, natalizumab; PLEX, plasma exchange; PRES, posterior reversible encephelapathy syndrome; RRMS, relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis.

Tumefactive lesions usually accompany early MS attack, and are relatively rare in patients who have had MS for several years.36, 37 However, FTY‐induced tumefactive lesions often occur in patients with longstanding MS, suggesting that the medication causes a redistribution of immune cells.30 Because some patients developed these lesions soon after discontinuing the preceding DMT, it is unclear whether the cause of the lesions was starting FTY, stopping the other DMT or the combination of both. As the lesions occurred soon after switching to FTY therapy in some cases, it seems likely that FTY induced these lesions as a paradoxical effect.

How might FTY cause multiple extensive or tumefactive MS lesions? One possibility is that lymphocyte subsets in some patients treated with FTY might be shifted in a way that promotes MS disease activity.36 Pilz et al. observed changes in peripheral lymphocyte phenotypes, with a significant reduction in CD4+/CD8+ T‐cell ratio.29 CD8+ effector cells in the central nervous system compartment can induce cytotoxicity through release of perforin, and might consequently induce the development of multiple scattered or tumefactive lesions.36 In contrast, Fujii et al. reported that the frequencies of CD56+ T cells and granzyme B‐, perforin‐ and Fas ligand‐positive T cells were significantly increased during FTY treatment, and each T cell subpopulation further increased during relapse.38

It is important to be alert to the possibility that FTY can activate MS in some individuals. Unfortunately, up to now, no predictive features have been identified; hence, special caution is required at the initiation of FTY. No standard treatment exists, but high‐dose intravenous corticosteroids (methylprednisolone 1 g for 3–5 days) followed by oral tapering hasten clinical and radiological improvement in approximately 80% of patients.39 Plasma exchange (PLEX) has been used in the absence of response to corticosteroids.40 Some patients with tumefactive demyelination refractory to corticosteroids or PLEX might still benefit from rituximab.41

Rebound after withdrawal of fingolimod

In some patients, disease activity can surpass pretreatment activity shortly after discontinuation of FTY treatment, indicating a rebound effect. Such a rebound effect has previously been described after interruption of NTZ treatment. An analysis of >1800 patients who stopped NTZ therapy showed that relapse of disease activity was particularly evident in patients who had had highly active disease before NTZ therapy.42 Similarly, there are some case reports of exacerbation after discontinuation of FTY.43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 Patients with highly active disease before the start of treatment with FTY51 or who showed a good therapeutic response to FTY53 might be predisposed to severe rebound after withdrawal. A case of severe rebound of spinal cord MS activity after FTY withdrawal was also reported.49

Depressed peripheral lymphocyte counts increase to the normal range within 4–8 weeks after cessation.16, 54 In accordance with this, several case reports have described rebound events approximately 2–4 months after stopping FTY.43, 44, 45, 47, 50, 51, 53, 55 Overexpression of sphingosine‐1‐phosphate receptors in entrapped lymphocytes and massive egress of lymphocytes after FTY cessation, observed in animal models, seem to be plausible explanations for such an aggressive disease reactivation in some patients.2 Alternatively, differential changes of lymphocyte subset populations might play a role in rebound.54 As the absolute number of circulating Th17 cells decreased after FTY initiation in approximately 50% of patients, discontinuation of FTY could result in an increase in the number of circulating Th17 cells, leading to a rebound associated with reconstruction of the immune system.48

Berger et al. reported that partial recovery was achieved after steroid pulse therapy followed by PLEX.51 However, most of the cases did not immediately respond to steroid.54 Serious, steroid‐refractory neurological deterioration after FTY discontinuation can be treated with selective immune‐adsorption therapy, which, unlike PLEX, is a column‐based method for eliminating pathogenetically immune‐relevant elements from plasma by using the binding properties of tryptophan.52

Up to now, there have been no predictive factors defining this risk group. Therefore, patients should be informed about this potential effect after withdrawal, and closely monitored for several months after stopping FTY.

Fingolimod and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy

Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) is a rare opportunistic infection of the central nervous system caused by reactivation of John Cunningham virus (JCV), and is a life‐threatening condition. It occurs almost exclusively in patients with suppressed cell‐mediated immunity, and is associated with the use of immunosuppressing medications, such as NTZ, in patients with MS. As of 7 September 2016, there have been 682 confirmed PML cases among NTZ users.57 Factors increasing the risk of PML in patients receiving NTZ include the presence of anti‐JCV antibody in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), the duration of treatment >2 years and prior treatment with immunosuppressive agents (azathioprine, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide etc.), all of which are now routinely considered before and during NTZ therapy.58

Clinically, patients might present with symptoms suggestive of exacerbation of MS. However, PML should be ruled out when the clinical picture is different from typical MS exacerbation and suggests infection. PML often leads to progressive weakness, gait abnormalities, clumsiness, visual field defects, confusion, seizures, and changes in thinking, memory, orientation and personality.

Characteristic MRI features include one or more foci of T2/fluid‐attenuated inversion recovery hyperintensity in a subcortical location involving U‐fibers with an ill‐defined border towards white matter. White matter involvement is typically peripheral, and lesions vary in shape and coalesce as they increase in size. Lesions >3 cm in size are more likely to be associated with PML than MS.59 As there is little inflammation pathologically, contrast enhancement is uncommon (approximately 30%59). The lesions can occur virtually anywhere in the brain, but the frontal lobes and parieto‐occipital regions appear to be most commonly affected.

The presence of JCV DNA in CSF as evidenced by polymerase chain reaction is required for a diagnosis of PML. However, because polymerase chain reaction testing for JCV antibody in CSF is limited in sensitivity, the JCV antibody index was introduced as a novel biomarker. Even in NTZ‐treated anti‐JCV antibody‐positive MS patients with no prior immunosuppressant use, a higher anti‐JCV antibody index can help to distinguish patients with an increased risk of PML.60

The histopathology was characterized by a classical triad of multifocal demyelination, enlarged bizarre astrocytes with lobulated hyperchromatic nuclei and hyperchromatic, enlarged oligodendroglial nuclear inclusions, which signify the presence of JCV.61 Definite PML diagnosis requires these characteristic neuropathological features coupled with evidence of the presence of JCV by electron microscopy.61

In an analysis of 336 MS patients taking NTZ who developed PML, factors associated with improved survival and clinical outcomes were younger age, less functional disability, low viral load in the CSF and more localized brain involvement by MRI.62 In general, the prognosis of MS patients with PML is better than that of patients with other underlying diseases, such as HIV infection or transplant recipient status, presumably because of the quick immunological recovery on drug removal.63 Furthermore, the discrepancies in prognosis between the different categories of PML can probably be explained by their various degrees of immunosuppression. The more specifically the immune system is targeted (as in NTZ‐induced PML), the better the prognosis in general. In contrast, if the immune system is suppressed as an intrinsic consequence of the disease process, such as PML as a result of HIV infection or hematological malignancies, the prognosis is generally poor.64, 65

If PML is suspected, the drug should be immediately discontinued and PLEX should be considered for the rapid removal of NTZ. However, Landi et al. recently reviewed a total of 193 international and 34 Italian NTZ‐PML cases in the medical literature, and concluded that PLEX did not improve the survival or clinical outcome of patients with MS and NTZ‐PML.66

Fingolimod has become a common switch choice for patients previously taking NTZ. Initially, cases of PML during FTY treatment were identified among this group, so it was difficult to determine whether PML was related to FTY or was a “carry‐over” effect of NTZ use. Among patients receiving FTY after previous NTZ treatment, there were 17 suspected cases of PML up to the end of 2015.67

The first case of PML in a patient taking FTY, but not previously exposed to NTZ therapy, was identified in 2013.68 The patient was a 49‐year‐old man who developed probable PML after taking FTY for approximately 4 years. The patient had a 5‐year history of MS, and had previously been treated with IFN‐β1a for 10 months in addition to short‐term corticosteroids, before and during FTY treatment. The second case was a 54‐year‐old man who developed PML after taking FTY for approximately 2.5 years.68 The patient had a 13‐ to 14‐year history of MS, and had previously been treated with IFN‐β1a for approximately 11 years, as well as with mesalazine for ulcerative colitis for the past 4 years. The third case, a 51‐year‐old woman with RRMS, was reported in 2015. She had been treated with FTY for 3 years, and the diagnosis of PML was made based on suggestive clinical symptoms, MRI findings and tests for JCV.69

Through to September 2016, there have been nine probable or definite PML cases (including two cases from Japan18) in the absence of any prior NTZ treatment.70 One patient developed PML 3 years after withdrawal of NTZ. All patients had been treated for at least 18 months (18–54 months). The risk has been estimated as 0.056/1000 patients (95% CI 0.026–0.106).

No medications have proved consistently effective to treat FTY‐PML in MS patients. Most patients should be treated with rapid removal of FTY by utilizing PLEX, as with cases of NTZ‐PML. As the pathological pictures of PML are often mixed with PML‐related immune reconstruction inflammatory syndrome (IRIS),71 some patients might be better treated with corticosteroids.65

We suggest that FTY should be used with caution in patients with JCV‐seropositive or high anti‐JCV antibody index (>1.5).72, 73 Patients who develop new neurological symptoms suggestive of PML should be urgently evaluated at very early stage and have expeditious MRI and JCV‐polymerase chain reaction analysis.

Fingolimod and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy‐related immune reconstruction inflammatory syndrome

The use of NTZ to treat MS has been associated with the development of PML, but a new problem – IRIS – has emerged after cessation of NTZ (PML‐related IRIS [PML‐IRIS]).74, 75 Clinical presentation is characterized by rapid worsening of previous neurological deficits as a result of an overwhelming immune response to JCV antigen, which leads to massive destruction of virus‐infected and non‐infected neuronal and glial tissues.76 Therefore, the onset of this syndrome is accelerated by PLEX, occurring in the majority of the patients within days to several weeks.65, 77

MRI shows an increase in size of pre‐existing T2/fluid‐attenuated inversion recovery lesions with either a patchy, punctate, irregular or ill‐defined appearance in the border of the PML lesion with contrast enhancement.76, 78 Contrast enhancement is the most common imaging sign suggestive of PML‐IRIS, seen in 92.3% of patients.78 This is accompanied by increasing edema, cerebral swelling and mass effect, which are not typical of PML.76 Differentiation between PML‐IRIS and rebound exacerbation of MS is usually possible by applying well‐defined MRI criteria.79

Autopsy showed massive cavitary lesions containing abundant perivascular and parenchymal CD8‐positive T‐cell infiltrates, and numerous macrophages within lesions.75, 80 Plasma cells are also prominent as compared with typical MS lesions. It should be noted that, because PML‐IRIS inevitably occurs after cessation of NTZ, most of the published pathological pictures represent mixtures of PML and PML‐IRIS.71

PML‐IRIS itself causes significant morbidity and mortality, and is fatal in almost one‐third of patients.75 The outcome of PML‐IRIS was studied separately for patients before and after withdrawal/removal of NTZ. Patients with contrast enhancement of PML lesions on MRI at the time of diagnosis (early PML‐IRIS) showed more severe symptoms and had worse Expanded Disability Status Scale scores at follow up than patients who developed contrast enhancement only after withdrawal/removal of NTZ (late PML‐IRIS).81 That is, earlier onset was associated with greater residual disability. However, mortality was similar in the two groups (21.9 ± 11% vs 21.7 ± 8.8%).

To our knowledge, four cases of PML‐IRIS during FTY treatment have been reported so far, and all were linked to prior NTZ therapy.82, 83, 84, 85 Killestein et al. reported a 52‐year‐old RRMS male patient switched to FTY from NTZ as a result of a positive JCV antibody test.82 The patient presented with partial epileptic seizures of the left arm, followed by an increase in fatigue and difficulties in fine hand movements, as well as mild weakness of his left arm, initially interpreted as MS exacerbation. His lymphocyte count decreased to 600/mm3 during the course. He received intravenous methylprednisolone for 3 days every week, and FTY was discontinued. Brain MRI carried out 7 days later showed evolution and an enhancement pattern suggestive of PML‐IRIS. This case suggest that IRIS in the context of PML can occur even in a low lymphocyte state under FTY treatment. In another case, IRIS was similarly shown to occur with lymphopenia during FTY administration.85

In the above cases, FTY was administered after a washout period of 1–3 months after discontinuation of NTZ. However, there is no established guideline on an appropriate washout period between NTZ and FTY. A study in a French prospective cohort recommended a washout period shorter than 3 months,86 whereas a large prospective international registry advised a maximum 2‐month treatment gap for switches to FTY to reduce the risk of relapse.87 These studies suggest that a prolonged washout period might do more harm than good, and washout should be no longer than 2 months.

There are limited therapeutic options for PML‐IRIS, but high‐dose i.v. methylprednisolone (1 g per day) for 3–5 days,50, 65, 76, 77, 81 or intravenous immunoglobulin83 is currently being tried in an attempt to control the deleterious effects of an exuberant inflammatory cascade, although no controlled studies have been carried out to prove its effectiveness. As PML‐IRIS can persist for several months, long‐term oral steroid therapy might be necessary, together with close clinical and MRI monitoring.77 Recently, maraviroc, a C‐C chemokine‐receptor type 5 antagonist, has shown promise in the prevention and treatment of NTZ‐associated PML‐IRIS.88, 89 Unfortunately, to date, there are no biomarkers to predict the onset and severity of PML‐IRIS.

Neuromyelitis optica and leukoencephalopathy

Neuromyelitis optica (NMO) or neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is a disabling autoimmune astrocytopathy characterized by severe and recurrent attacks of optic neuritis and longitudinally extensive myelitis. NMO is typically associated with a disease‐specific serum NMO‐immunoglobulin G antibody that selectively binds aquaporin‐4 (AQP‐4). Therefore, testing of antiAQP‐4 antibody is essential, and is a most important laboratory finding for the diagnostic work‐up of suspected NMO.90 A new antigen target, myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein, was discovered recently and seems to be positive in approximately 20% of seronegative patients.91 However, its specificity needs to be evaluated more precisely in the future.

Therapy of NMO should be initiated as soon as the diagnosis is made. During acute attacks, high‐dose i.v. methylprednisolone (1 g/day for 3–5 days) or, in some cases, PLEX was used.92 All patients are started on an immunosuppressive agent at the same time. Azathioprine and rituximab are suggested as a first‐line treatment, and other immunosuppressive drugs, such as methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil and mitoxantron, are recommended as second‐line treatments.90

Fingolimod might exacerbate NMOSD. Min et al. reported a patient who developed extensive bilateral brain lesions during FTY treatment in the TRANSFORMS study.93 The initial diagnosis was MS, but after antiAQP‐4 antibody was detected, it was changed to NMOSD. Brain MRI showed lesions predominantly involving the right frontal and parietal lobes, with vasogenic edema and enhancement. He had residual encephalomalacia and no recurrence with steroid treatment over 3 years after withdrawal of FTY.

We also reported a 54‐year‐old woman with leukoencephalopathy, mainly involving the cerebral white matter and brainstem, which occurred soon after switching to FTY from IFN‐β1a therapy.94 She showed a relapsing–remitting course of optic neuritis and myelitis for 6 years. The patient was diagnosed initially as MS, but was recognized to be positive for antiAQP‐4 antibody during FTY treatment. After discontinuation of FTY, the multiple lesions that appeared at the white matter and brainstem completely cleared concomitantly with clinical improvement. There are a few other case reports describing the development of extensive brain lesions during FTY treatment in NMOSD patients.10, 95, 96

Before starting FTY, the diagnosis of MS should be verified and, in any doubtful cases, particularly with opticospinal manifestations, antibodies to AQP‐4 should be tested.

Conclusion

Fingolimod is a widely used medication for RRMS, and its oral route of administration is advantageous. The pivotal phase III trials showed that FTY is effective in comparison with placebo or IFN‐β1a, and is generally well tolerated, but it remains necessary to accumulate further post‐marketing data to assess its real‐world safety profile.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Acknowledgments

We thank Mrs Isa Yoshinari at the Department of Neurology, Saiseikai Hiratsuka Hospital, for technical assistance. All authors hereby declare that submission of this manuscript for publication has been approved by Saiseikai Hiratsuka Hospital and Tokai University Oiso Hospital.

References

  • 1. Pelletier D, Hafler DA. Fingolimod for multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 339–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Ayzenberg I, Hoepner R, Kleiter I. Fingolimod for multiple sclerosis and emerging indications: appropriate patient selection, safety precautions, and special considerations. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2016; 12: 261–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Kappos L, Radue EW, O'Connor P, et al. A placebo‐controlled trial of oral fingolimod in relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362: 387–401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Calabresi PA, Radue EW, Goodin D, et al. Safety and efficacy of fingolimod in patients with relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis (FREEDOMS II): a double‐blind, randomised, placebo‐controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2014; 13: 545–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Cohen JA, Barkhof F, Comi G, et al. Oral fingolimod or intramuscular interferon for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362: 402–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Cohen JA, Khatri B, Barkhof F, et al. Long‐term (up to 4.5 years) treatment with fingolimod in multiple sclerosis: results from the extension of the randomised TRANSFORMS study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2016; 87: 468–75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Radue EW, O'Connor P, Polman CH, et al. Impact of fingolimod therapy on magnetic resonance imaging outcomes in patients with multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol. 2012; 69: 1259–69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. La Mantia L, Tramacere I, Firwana B, Pacchetti I, Palumbo R, Filippini G. Fingolimod for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 4: CD009371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Saida T, Kikuchi S, Itoyama Y, et al. Arandomized, controlled trial of fingolimod (FTY720) in Japanese patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2012; 18: 1269–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Kira J, Itoyama Y, Kikuchi S, et al. Fingolomod (FTY720) therapy in Japanese patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis over 12 months: result of a phase 2 observational extension. BMC Neurol. 2014; 14: 21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Kappos L, Cohen J, Collins W, et al. Fingolimod in relapsing multiple sclerosis: an integrated analysis of safety findings. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2014; 3: 494–504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Laroni A, Brogi D, Morra VB, et al. Safety of the first dose of fingolimod for multiple sclerosis: results of an open‐label clinical trial. BMC Neurol. 2014; 14: 65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Francis G, Kappos L, O'Connor P, et al. Temporal profile of lymphocyte counts and relationship with infections with fingolimod therapy. Mult Scler. 2014; 20: 471–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Papathemeli D, Gräfe R, Hildebrandt U, Zettl UK, Ulrich J. Development of a primary cutaneous CD30(+) anaplastic large‐cell T‐cell lymphoma during treatment of multiple sclerosis with fingolimod. Mult Scler. 2016; 22: 1888–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Saida T, Itoyama Y, Kikuchi S, et al. Long‐term efficacy and safety of fingolimod in Japanese patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis: 3‐year results of the phase 2 extension study. BMC Neurol. 2017; 17: 17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Willis MA, Cohen JA. Fingolimod therapy for multiple sclerosis. Semin Neurol. 2013; 33: 37–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Khatri BO. Fingolimod in the treatment of relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis: long‐term experience and an update on the clinical evidence. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2016; 9: 130–47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. https://drs-net.novartis.co.jp/dr/products/product/gilenya/. Accessed December 1, 2016.
  • 19. Hu W, Lucchinetti CF. The pathological spectrum of CNS inflammatory demyelinating diseases. Semin Immunopathol. 2009; 31: 439–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Sun C, Liu J, Gui Q, Lu D, Qi X. Analysis of pathological characteristics of acute and chronic cerebral tumefactive demyelinating lesions. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2014; 94: 3557–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Leypoldt F, Münchau A, Moeller F, Bester M, Gerloff C, Heesen C. Hemorrhaging focal encephalitis under fingolimod (FTY720) treatment: a case report. Neurology. 2009; 72: 1022–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Castrop F, Kowarik MC, Albrecht H, et al. Severe multiple sclerosis relapse under fingolimod therapy: incident or coincidence? Neurology. 2012; 78: 928–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Daelman L, Maitrot A, Maarouf A, Chaunu MP, Papeix C, Tourbah A. Severe multiple sclerosis reactivation under fingolimod 3 months after natalizumab withdrawal. Mult Scler. 2012; 18: 1647–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Jander S, Turowski B, Kieseier BC, Hartung HP. Emerging tumefactive multiple sclerosis after switching therapy from natalizumab to fingolimod. Mult Scler. 2012; 18: 1650–2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Visser F, Wattjes MP, Pouwels PJ, Linssen WH, van Oosten BW. Tumefactive multiple sclerosis lesions under fingolimod treatment. Neurology. 2012; 79: 2000–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Centonze D, Rossi S, Rinaldi F, Gallo P. Severe relapses under fingolimod treatment prescribed after natalizumab. Neurology. 2012; 79: 2004–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Kinney MO, McDonnell G. Re: Tumefactive multiple sclerosis lesions under fingolimod treatment. Neurology. 2013; 81: 403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Yokoseki A, Saji E, Arakawa M, et al. Relapse of multiple sclerosis in a patient retaining CCR7‐expressing T cells in CSF under fingolimod therapy. Mult Scler. 2013; 19: 1230–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Pilz G, Harrer A, Wipfler P, et al. Tumefactive MS lesions under fingolimod: a case report and literature review. Neurology. 2013; 81: 1654–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Hellmann MA, Lev N, Lotan I, et al. Tumefactive demyelination and a malignant course in an MS patient during and following fingolimod therapy. J Neurol Sci. 2014; 344: 193–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Totaro R, Di Carmine C, Carolei A. Tumefactive demyelinating lesions in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis treated with fingolimod. J Neurol Neurophysiol. 2014; S12, http://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9562.S12-006. [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Lindå H, von Heijne A. A case of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome associated with gilenya(®) (fingolimod) treatment for multiple sclerosis. Front Neurol. 2015; 6: 39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Endo H, Chihara N, Sekiguchi K, Kowa H, Kanda F, Toda T. A case of multiple sclerosis who relapsed early after fingolimod therapy introduced. Rinsho Shinkeigaku (Clin Neurol). 2015; 55: 417–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Harirchian MH, Taalimi A, Siroos B. Emerging tumefactive MS after switching therapy from interferon‐beta to fingolimod: a case report. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2015; 4: 400–2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Fragoso YD, Sato HK. Catastrophic magnetic resonance images in the central nervous system of patients undergoing treatment with fingolimod. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2016; 22: 633–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Paul F, Bourdette D. Tumefactive multiple sclerosis and fingolimod: immunotherapies and unintended consequences. Neurology. 2013; 81: 1648–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Lovera J, Villemarette‐Pittman N. Tumefactive multiple sclerosis and fingolimod. J Neurol Sci. 2014; 344: 1–2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Fujii C, Kondo T, Ochi H, et al. Altered T cell phenotypes associated with clinical relapse of multiple sclerosis patients receiving fingolimod therapy. Sci Rep. 2016; 6: 35314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Totaro R, Di Carmine C, Marini C, Carolei A. Tumefactive demyelinating lesions: spectrum of disease, diagnosis and treatment. Curr Neurobiol. 2016; 7: 21–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Ikeda KM, Lee DH, Fraser JA, Mirsattari S, Morrow SA. Plasma exchange in a patient with tumefactive, corticosteroid‐resistant multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care. 2015; 17: 231–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Sempere AP, Feliu‐Rey E, Sanchez‐Perez R, Nieto‐Navarro J. Rituximab for tumefactive demyelination refractory to corticosteroids and plasma exchange. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2013; 84: 1338–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. O'Connor PW, Goodman A, Kappos L, et al. Disease activity return during natalizumab treatment interruption in patients with multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2011; 76: 1858–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Havla JB, Pellkofer HL, Meinl I, Gerdes LA, Hohlfeld R, Kümpfel T. Rebound of disease activity after withdrawal of fingolimod (FTY720) treatment. Arch Neurol. 2012; 69: 262–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Hakiki B, Portaccio E, Giannini M, Razzolini L, Pastò L, Amato MP. Withdrawal of fingolimod treatment for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis: report of six cases. Mult Scler. 2012; 18: 1636–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Ghezzi A, Rocca MA, Baroncini D, et al. Disease reactivation after fingolimod discontinuation in two multiple sclerosis patients. J Neurol. 2013; 260: 327–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Beran RG, Hegazi Y, Schwartz RS, Cordato DJ. Rebound exacerbation multiple sclerosis following cessation of oral treatment. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2013; 2: 252–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Sempere AP, Berenguer‐Ruiz L, Feliu‐Rey E. Rebound of disease activity during pregnancy after withdrawal of fingolimod. Eur J Neurol. 2013; 20: e109–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. La Mantia L, Prone V, Marazzi MR, Erminio C, Protti A. Multiple sclerosis rebound after fingolimod discontinuation for lymphopenia. Neurol Sci. 2014; 35: 1485–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Vecchio D, Naldi P, Stecco A, Cantello R, Leone MA. Severe rebound of spinal cord multiple sclerosis activity after fingolimod withdrawal. Clin Exp Neuroimmunol. 2014; 5: 378–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Alroughani R, Almulla A, Lamdhade S, Thussu A. Multiple sclerosis reactivation postfingolimod cessation: is it IRIS? BMJ Case Rep. 2014; 2014: bcr2014206314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Berger B, Baumgartner A, Rauer S, et al. Severe disease reactivation in four patients with relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis after fingolimod cessation. J Neuroimmunol. 2015; 282: 118–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. De Masi R, Accoto S, Orlando S, et al. Dramatic recovery of steroid‐refractory relapsed multiple sclerosis following fingolimod discontinuation using selective immune adsorption. BMC Neurol. 2015; 15: 125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Faissner S, Hoepner R, Lukas C, Chan A, Gold R, Ellrichmann G. Tumefactive multiple sclerosis lesions in two patients after cessation of fingolimod treatment. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2015; 8: 233–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Hatcher SE, Waubant E, Nourbakhsh B, Crabtree‐Hartman E, Graves JS. Rebound syndrome in patients with multiple sclerosis after cessation of fingolimod treatment. JAMA Neurol. 2016; 73: 790–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Salam S, Mihalova T, Siripurapu R. Severe tumefactive rebound of multiple sclerosis following fingolimod cessation. BMJ Case Rep. 2016; 2016: bcr2016215596. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Gündüz T, Kürtüncü M, Eraksoy M. Severe rebound after withdrawal of fingolimod treatment in patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2017; 11: 1–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. https://www.ms-supportnavi.com/ja-jp/home/med/tys/safety/04.html. Accessed December 1, 2016.
  • 58. Bloomgren G, Richman S, Hotermans C, et al. Risk of natalizumab‐associated progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 1870–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Igra MS, Palind D, Wattjes MP, Connolly DJA, Hoggard N. Multiple Sclerosis Update: use of MRI for early diagnosis, disease monitoring and assessment of treatment related complications. Br J Radiol. 2017; 90: 20160721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Plavina T, Subramanyam M, Bloomgren G, et al. Anti‐JC virus antibody levels in serum or plasma further define risk of natalizumab‐associated progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Ann Neurol. 2014; 76: 802–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Berger JR, Aksamit AJ, Clifford DB, et al. PML diagnostic criteria: consensus statement from the AAN neuroinfectious disease section. Neurology. 2013; 80: 1430–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Dong‐Si T, Gheuens S, Gangadharan A, et al. Predictors of survival and functional outcomes in natalizumab‐associated progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. J Neurovirol. 2015; 21: 637–44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Vermersch P, Kappos L, Gold R, et al. Clinical outcomes of natalizumab‐associated progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Neurology. 2011; 76: 1697–704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Maas RP, Muller‐Hansma AH, Esselink RA, et al. Drug‐associated progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy: a clinical, radiological, and cerebrospinal fluid analysis of 326 cases. J Neurol. 2016; 263: 2004–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Pavlovic D, Patera AC, Nyberg F, et al. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy: current treatment options and future perspectives. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2015; 8: 255–73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Landi D, De Rossi N, Zagaglia S, et al. No evidence of beneficial effects of plasmapheresis in natalizumab‐associated PML. Neurology. 2017; 88: 1144–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Dubey D, Cano CA, Stüve O. Update on monitoring and adverse effects of approved second‐generation disease‐modifying therapies in relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. Curr Opin Neurol. 2016; 29: 278–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm456919.htm. Accessed December 1, 2016.
  • 69. Gyang TV, Hamel J, Goodman AD, Gross RA, Samkoff L. Fingolimod‐associated PML in a patient with prior immunosuppression. Neurology. 2016; 86: 1843–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Berger JR. Classifying PML risk with disease modifying therapies. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2017; 12: 59–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Kanda T. Neuropathology of natalizumab‐associated progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Brain Nerve. 2015; 67: 891–901. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Cambron M, Hadhoum N, Duhin E, Lacour A, Chouraki A, Vermersch P. JCV serology in time: 3 years of follow‐up. Acta Neurol Scand. 2017; 136: 54–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73. Hegen H, Auer M, Bsteh G, et al. Stability and predictive value of anti‐JCV antibody index in multiple sclerosis: a 6‐year longitudinal study. PLoS ONE. 2017; 12: e0174005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Gheuens S, Smith DR, Wang X, Alsop DC, Lenkinski RE, Koralnik IJ. Simultaneous PML‐IRIS after discontinuation of natalizumab in a patient with MS. Neurology. 2012; 78: 1390–3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75. Kleinschmidt‐DeMasters BK, Miravalle A, Schowinsky J, Corboy J, Vollmer T. Update on PML and PML‐IRIS occurring in multiple sclerosis patients treated with natalizumab. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2012; 71: 604–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76. Honce JM, Nagae L, Nyberg E. Neuroimaging of natalizumab complications in multiple sclerosis: PML and other associated entities. Mult Scler Int. 2015; 2015: 809252. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77. Purohit B, Ganewatte E, Kollias SS. Natalizumab‐related progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy‐immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome: a case report highlighting clinical and MRI features. Malays J Med Sci. 2016; 23: 91–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78. Wattjes MP, Wijburg MT, Vennegoor A, et al. MRI characteristics of early PML‐IRIS after natalizumab treatment in patients with MS. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2016; 87: 879–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79. Bauer J, Gold R, Adams O, Lassmann H. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy and immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS). Acta Neuropathol. 2015; 130: 751–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80. Metz I, Radue EW, Oterino A, et al. Pathology of immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome in multiple sclerosis with natalizumab‐associated progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Acta Neuropathol. 2012; 123: 235–45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81. Tan IL, McArthur JC, Clifford DB, Major EO, Nath A. Immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome in natalizumab‐associated PML. Neurology. 2011; 77: 1061–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82. Killestein J, Vennegoor A, van Golde AE, Bourez RL, Wijlens ML, Wattjes MP. PML‐IRIS during fingolimod diagnosed after natalizumab discontinuation. Case Rep Neurol Med. 2014; 2014: 307872. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83. Calic Z, Cappelen‐Smith C, Hodgkinson SJ, McDougall A, Cuganesan R, Brew BJ. Treatment of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy‐immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome with intravenous immunoglobulin in a patient with multiple sclerosis treated with fingolimod after discontinuation of natalizumab. J Clin Neurosci. 2015; 22: 598–600. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84. N'gbo N'gbo Ikazabo R, Mostosi C, Quivron B, Delberghe X, El Hafsi K, Lysandropoulos AP. Immune‐reconstitution inflammatory syndrome in multiple sclerosis patients treated with natalizumab: a series of 4 cases. Clin Ther. 2016; 38: 670–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85. Sinnecker T, Othman J, Kühl M, et al. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in a multiple sclerosis patient diagnosed after switching from natalizumab to fingolimod. Case Rep Neurol Med. 2016; 2016: 5876798. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86. Cohen M, Maillart E, Tourbah A, et al. Switching from natalizumab to fingolimod in multiple sclerosis: a French prospective study. JAMA Neurol. 2014; 71: 436–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87. Jokubaitis VG, Li V, Kalincik T, et al. Fingolimod after natalizumab and the risk of short‐term relapse. Neurology. 2014; 82: 1204–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88. Bsteh G, Auer M, Iglseder S, et al. Severe early natalizumab‐associated PML in MS: effective control of PML‐IRIS with maraviroc. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2017; 4: e323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89. Hodecker SC, Stürner KH, Becker V, et al. Maraviroc as possible treatment for PML‐IRIS in natalizumab‐treated patients with MS. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2017; 4: e325. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90. Trebst C, Jarius S, Berthele A, et al. Update on the diagnosis and treatment of neuromyelitis optica: recommendations of the Neuromyelitis Optica Study Group (NEMOS). J Neurol. 2014; 261: 1–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91. de Sèze J, Kremer L, Collongues N. Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD): a new concept. Rev Neurol (Paris). 2016; 172: 256–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92. Crout TM, Parks LP, Majithia V. Neuromyelitis Optica (Devic's syndrome): an appraisal. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2016; 18: 54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93. Min JH, Kim BJ, Lee KH. Development of extensive brain lesions following fingolimod (FTY720) treatment in a patient with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. Mult Scler. 2012; 18: 113–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94. Yoshii F, Moriya Y, Ohnuki T, Ryo M, Takahashi W. Fingolimod‐induced leukoencephalopathy in a patient with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2016; 7: 53–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95. Izaki S, Narukawa S, Kubota A, Mitsui T, Fukaura H, Nomura K. A case of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder developing a fulminant course with multiple white‐matter lesions following fingolimod treatment. Rinsho Shinkeigaku (Clin Neurol). 2013; 53: 513–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96. Tanaka M, Oono M, Motoyama R, Tanaka K. Longitudinally extensive spinal cord lesion after initiation, and multiple extensive brain lesions after cessation of fingolimod treatment in a patient with recurrent myelitis and anti‐aquaporin 4 antibodies. Clin Exp Neuroimmunol. 2013; 4: 239–40. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Clinical & Experimental Neuroimmunology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES