Immune reconstitution therapy (IRT) in multiple sclerosis: the rationale

Immunotherapy of multiple sclerosis (MS) and other neuroimmune diseases is rapidly evolving. For the past 25years, there has been an accelerating inclusion of new immunomodulating drugs. Based on their molecular construction and their basic mechanism of action, immunotherapeutic agents belong to the following categories: (1) cytotoxic drugs, (2) synthetic immunomodulators, (3) monoclonal antibodies, (4) vaccines (T cell vaccines, antigen vaccines), (5) oral tolerizing agents, (6) modalities that act as indirect immunosuppressants (plasmapheresis, intravenous immunoglobulins [IVIG]), and (7) cellular therapies. MS immunotherapies may also be classified in a different way, into treatments that are given continuously (chronic treatments) and medications that are applied intermittently (IRTs). The principle behind the latter is depletion of the immune system that allows it to rebuild itself. Upon its reconstitution/resetting, the immune system regains the ability to respond to infections and survey the periphery for cancer. An IRT by definition is given at short intermittent courses and not continuously. IRT modalities were shown to induce long-term remission of MS that, in some cases, is close to the definition of a cure. There are cohorts of patients having been treated with the IRTs, alemtuzumab, and HSCT, who experience-under these modalities-no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) for over 10years. Most importantly, IRTs cause radical changes in the lymphocyte repertoire after the reconstitution phase that may explain the long-term beneficial effects of IRT and the possibility of re-induction of self-tolerance to self/myelin antigens. In comparison, a chronic treatment cannot result in cure of the autoimmune reactivity, because it only blocks the immune system, as long as it is given; it cannot therefore radicallyaffect the immunopathogenesis of the disease. The risks of adverse events related to immune suppression (such as opportunistic infections and secondary malignancies)with IRTs are lower andfront-loaded, whereas the common side effects of chronic immunomodulationare higher andaccumulate with time. In conclusion, IRT provides a novel concept for MS therapy with substantial advantages over chronic immunosuppression. IRT therapies have shown a significantly higher level of efficacy in MS. The Holy grail of thetreatment of autoimmunity, which is to re-induce the disrupted self-tolerance, seems to be achievable-at least in part-with this approach. Moreover, the benefits of IRT, administered in short pulses, include significantly higher adherence to treatment and lower risks for accumulative side effects that are typically associated with chronic immunosuppression.