Maraviroc and Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy

things that we take for granted. Clinically, the PML lesion appeared inactive and there was a reduction in the inflammation around her brain.

The drug costs around £480 a month, but by the end of June this year Ms Rai could no longer afford to pay for it herself, so she has since been without it. Although her health has been stable so far, such is the condition that it could dramatically change at any time.

Aside from the issue of funding, I have been surprised over the past year by inconsistencies in NHS policy and advice. We all believe in an NHS that is free at the point of need. This is a situation where the patient, leading neurologists and all involved in her care agree that she should have the drug. In November 2018, consultant neurologist Dr Michael Gross, who was also supporting Amarjit’s care as an expert advocate, wrote to Kartik:

“Thank you for confirming further information about Amarjit Rai... Professors Johnson and Ciccarelli agree that this is the appropriate treatment for Amarjit. Long term steroids have already generated severe osteoporosis in 2016 and are not her choice.

You will have already proved in what is an N=1 trial that her treatment would appear to be effective. There will almost certainly never be the size of trials in this rare disorder that would allow a definitive statement by a funding organisation.

I think we have to ask who is making the decision, given that there are now three senior consultants confirming this is the right decision… Quite frankly I am appalled by the lack of humanity that is being demonstrated here.”

In November 2018 I wrote again to the Minister. I received a response from Lord O’Shaughnessy in the other place, who helpfully said the following:

“Maraviroc is not licenced for the treatment of symptoms of PML. There are clinical situations when the use of unlicensed medicines or use of medicines outside the terms of the licence, known as off-label, may be judged by the prescriber to be in the best interest of the patient on the basis of available evidence. The responsibility for that falls on healthcare professionals.”

Sadly, this made no difference.

Following the lack of progress, I wrote again to the Secretary of State in March 2019. I quoted the helpful response that I had received from Lord O’Shaughnessy. The Health Minister in the other place, Baroness Blackwood, responded in May and referred again to the individual funding request process. She stated that the IFR can be considered only if the patient can be demonstrated to be clinically exceptional. She said that

“an IFR can only be considered if the patient can be demonstrated to be clinically exceptional compared to the wider group of patients and is likely to derive greater benefit from the treatment.”

At face value, all of this would appear to be true for my constituent, but the use of Maraviroc is an area where policy appears to be in some confusion.

In response to a parliamentary question I asked in July about the assessment that NHS England has made of the availability of Maraviroc to patients with PML, a third Health Minister, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy), wrote:

“We are informed by NHS England and NHS Improvement that it does not commission Maraviroc for progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy… NHS England and NHS Improvement have published a do not commission policy for ‘Natalizumab-induced progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in relation to immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome in multiple sclerosis.’”

That response seems to contradict earlier responses and advice. First, “does not routinely commission” is different from “does not commission”. Secondly, it made no reference to the IFR process, which two Ministers had previously mentioned.

I tabled a further parliamentary question last week to ask what assessment the Secretary of State had made of the effectiveness of Maraviroc in patients with PML. A fourth Health Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), responded to my question. The response I received today was mind-boggling:

“Maraviroc is currently authorised for the treatment of patients who are infected with HIV type 1. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency which is responsible for the regulation of medicines in the UK is not aware of any application for use in patients with PML and therefore cannot comment on the efficacy of this drug in patients with PML.”

It might be helpful if I highlight for the Minister findings from wider medical journals that the House of Commons Library has helped me to compile. In December 2016, the American Academy of Neurology published an article entitled “Severe early natalizumab-associated PML in MS: Effective control of PML-IRIS with maraviroc”. A summary of a case involving a 55-year-old Caucasian HIV-negative man diagnosed with relapsing, remitting MS in 2013 shows that that led to a subsequent diagnosis of PML. Clinically, the patient deteriorated rapidly, according to the article. Oral Maraviroc was initiated six days after his admission. Eight days after Maraviroc initiation, MRI follow-up revealed stable PML lesion size. Over the following weeks, the patient improved continuously. After 25 weeks of Maraviroc treatment, the John Cunningham virus DNA was no longer detectable. Maraviroc was continued and well tolerated at a stable dose. The patient survived both PML and IRIS.

A subsequent article was published by the American Academy of Neurology entitled “Maraviroc as possible treatment for PML-IRIS in natalizumab-treated patients with MS” in December 2016. It cited a 34-year-old man treated with Natalizumab for three years without previous immuno-suppression. After a period of time, the patient was admitted with seizures, headaches, and impaired memory, and an MRI scan subsequently confirmed PML. Twelve months after diagnosis with PML and six months after the start of Mariviroc, PML-IRIS lesions were resolved, and no new MS disease activity was detectable.

An article in 2017 by Steiner and Benninger published by the American Academy of Neurology built the medical explanation for why Maraviroc had been effective in cases of PML in MS sufferers. In summary, the condition for which the cause is believed to be the John Cunningham virus, which infects the central nervous system in patients with low immune conditions, became more prevalent and was observed in around 5% of patients with HIV prior to the availability of highly active antiretroviral therapy, or HAART. The article goes on to describe how the era of

“monoclonal antibodies for immune-mediated conditions such as Natalizumab for MS and Crohn disease heralded another context for PML. As of November 2016, there have been 698 reported cases of PML under natalizumab.”

The research goes on, and it is true that some research such as that published in The Journal of the Neurological Sciences in July 2017 confirms that it does not work in all circumstances, and steroids may be more effective in some patients. However, an article in Neurology Times in January 2018 states that in PML treatment options are limited. Maraviroc has been used successfully in some PML patients to avoid IRIS, although not all patients respond to Maraviroc. It recommends further research and testing in identifying patients at risk of IRIS and tailoring treatments accordingly.

In that context, let me make reference to the urgent clinical commissioning policy statement on Natalizumab-induced PML, which was published by NHS England in March 2018. It said:

“It has been assessed that the development of a full policy is not needed at this time as there is currently little evidence into its effectiveness for this indication”.

I do not believe that that policy statement takes account of all the research available or indeed that which has appeared subsequent to its publication. The research is more nuanced, the medical benefits for my constituent are undeniably clear, and the denial of funding is inexplicable to her and renowned experts in the country.

Maraviroc, or Celsentri, as defined by the European Medicines Agency—formerly in London, it is now based elsewhere in the European Union—is a medicine that is routinely prescribed for HIV. Although it does not cure HIV infection or AIDS, it may hold off the damage to the immune system and the development of other infections and diseases.

Medical research has identified that the JCV most associated with HIV patients with low immunity has found another context in patients with PML. My constituent’s condition is incredibly rare, affecting, potentially, 10 or fewer people in the country. Given that very few options are available, she is not the only patient for whom, in anecdotal studies, the drug Maraviroc has shown remarkable results. With no other options available, my very ill constituent has been paying £500 a month privately for the past year to fund Maraviroc herself, but she can no longer afford to do so. Amarjit’s consultant neurologist and other specialists support her receiving the treatment. There is an irony in the fact that more is potentially being spent by the NHS in a month on treatment and tests that do not benefit her as much, and have damaging side-effects. The IFR system in the NHS should be able to review and respond to that situation on the basis of medical need, and I cannot see how that has been done in this case.

Will the Minister tell me how her Department liaises with and challenges NHS England on cases such as this, and how well-researched the Department’s responses to me have been? Will she tell me with what medical advice the treatment has been refused, although three of the leading experts in the country support it in this rare case, and whether their advice can be shared with my constituent and her consultant, Professor Ciccarelli? Will she also agree to a meeting with me, my constituent and her consultant, and a senior member from NHS England to discuss the IFR process?

This is a matter of £500 a month, and of demonstrable medical benefits to my constituent. I should be grateful for the Minister’s response, and her advice on how we can move forward.

In fact, as the hon. Lady mentioned, NHS England and NHS Improvement were asked in 2018 to develop a commissioning policy on the use of Maraviroc for the treatment of Natalizumab-induced PML. They concluded, however, that there was insufficient evidence of benefit and advised against routine commissioning. Maraviroc is not currently appraised or recommended by national bodies for the treatment of PML, because there is a lack of evidence of effectiveness and a lack of any evidence-based clinical support in the treatment of PML. NHS England has therefore concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to support the routine commissioning of the drug—a conclusion that clinical commissioning groups are minded to follow. Of course, that position would be reviewed should further evidence become available.

Despite Maraviroc not being routinely commissioned by the NHS, it remains possible for patients to access the drug through the individual funding request, which, as the hon. Lady has said, her constituent did. An independent panel would have considered the circumstances of the request before making a decision. In this case I understand that the IFR was rejected, which I know would have been upsetting for the hon. Lady’s constituent. Following the outcome of the IFR, the reasons for the decision would, I am sure, have been explained to her constituent. If not, I urge the hon. Lady to ensure that they are explained in full.