Abstract
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 180-192 |
Number of pages | 13 |
Journal | Neurology |
Volume | 92 |
Issue number | 4 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 22 Jan 2019 |
Access to Document
Other files and links
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver
}
In: Neurology, Vol. 92, No. 4, 22.01.2019, p. 180-192.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › Academic › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Unraveling treatment response in multiple sclerosis
T2 - A clinical and MRI challenge
AU - Gasperini, Claudio
AU - Prosperini, Luca
AU - Tintoré, Mar
AU - Sormani, Maria Pia
AU - Filippi, Massimo
AU - Rio, Jordi
AU - Palace, Jacqueline
AU - Rocca, Maria A.
AU - Ciccarelli, Olga
AU - Barkhof, Frederik
AU - Sastre-Garriga, Jaume
AU - Vrenken, Hugo
AU - Frederiksen, Jette L.
AU - Yousry, Tarek A.
AU - Enzinger, Christian
AU - Rovira, Alex
AU - Kappos, Ludwig
AU - Pozzilli, Carlo
AU - Montalban, Xavier
AU - de Stefano, Nicola
N1 - Funding Information: From the Department of Neurosciences (C.G., L.P.), San Camillo-Forlanini Hospital, Rome, Italy; Centre d’Esclerosi Multiple de Catalunya (Cemcat), Department of Neurology/ Neuroimmunology (M.T., J.R., J.S.-G., X.M.), and Magnetic Resonance Unit, Department of Radiology (A.R.), Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Spain; Biostatistics Unit (M.P.S.), Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa; Neuroimaging Research Unit (M.F., M.A.R.), Institute of Experimental Neurology, Division of Neuroscience, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy; Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (J.P.), West Wing, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford; Institutes of Neurology & Healthcare Engineering (O.C., F.B.), University College London (O.C.), UK; Amsterdam Neuroscience and Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (F.B., H.V.), VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Neurology (J.L.F.), Rigshospitalet Glostrup and University of Copenhagen, Denmark; Neuroradiological Academic Unit (T.A.Y.), Institute of Neurology, London, UK; Department of Neurology (C.E.), Medical University of Graz, Austria; Neurologic Clinic and Policlinic, Department of Medicine (L.K.), Clinical Research, Biomedicine and Biomedical Engineering, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Switzerland; Department of Neurology and Psychiatry (C.P.), Sapienza University, Rome; and Neurology and Neurometabolic Unit, Department of Neurological and Behavioral Sciences (N.D.S.), University of Siena, Italy. Funding Information: T.A.Y., O.C., and F.B. are supported by the National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. Funding Information: C. Gasperini: fees as invited speaker or travel expenses for attending meeting from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis, and Genzyme. L. Prosperini: consulting fees from Biogen, Novartis, and Roche; speaking honoraria from Almir-all, Biogen, Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, and Teva; travel grants from Biogen, Genzyme, Novartis, and Teva; research grants from the Italian MS Society (Associazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla) and Genzyme. M. Tintore: support for scientific meetings and honorariums for advisory work from Almirall, Bayer, Biogen, Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Roche, and Teva; co-editor of MSJ-ETC. M. Sormani: personal compensation for consulting services and for speaking activities from Genzyme, Merck Serono, Teva, Synthon, Roche, Novartis, and Biogen. M. Filippi: Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Neurology; compensation for consulting services and/or speaking activities from Biogen Idec, Merck-Serono, Novartis, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries; research support from Biogen Idec, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Novartis, Italian Ministry of Health, Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla, Cure PSP, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF), the Jacques and Gloria Goss-weiler Foundation (Switzerland), and ARiSLA (Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per la SLA). J. Rio: speaking honoraria and personal compensation for participating in advisory boards from Almirall, Bayer-Schering Healthcare, Biogen-Idec, Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva, and Sanofi-Aventis. J. Palace: funding for highly specialized services to run a national congenital myasthenia service and a neuromyelitis service; support for scientific meetings and honorariums for advisory work from Merck Serono, Biogen Idec, Novartis, Teva, Abide, Chugai Pharma, Alexion, MedDay, Argenx, Bayer Schering, and Medimmune, and unrestricted grants from Merck Serono, Novartis, Biogen Idec, Chugai, Alexion, and Bayer Schering; MS Society and Guthy-Jackson Foundation research grants. M. Rocca: speaking honoraria from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Teva Neurosciences, Genzyme, Merck Serono, and Roche; research support from the Italian Ministry of Health and Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla. O. Ciccarelli: support by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC); consulting fees from Roche, Teva, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, and Biogen. F. Barkhof: support by the NIHR UCLH BRC; consultancy fees from Bayer, Roche, Merck, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, IXICO, Biogen, GeNeuro, Apitope, and Novartis, either as central reader or by serving on steering committees, advisory boards, and data safety monitoring committees. J. Sastre-Garriga: compensation for participating on advisory boards, speaking honoraria, and travel expenses for scientific meetings, consulting services, or research support from Celgene, Novartis, Biogen, Teva, Merck, Almirall, and Genzyme. H. Vrenken: research support from Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, and Teva; speaker honoraria from Novartis; all funds were paid directly to his institution. J. Frederiksen: funding for scientific advisory boards and for travel related to these activities as well as honoraria from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, Novartis, Genzyme, and Almirall; speaking honoraria from Santhera, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Teva, and Novartis; advisor on preclinical development for Takeda. T. Yousry: research support from Biogen, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Schering AG; honoraria from Biogen, Bayer Schering, Hikma, and Novartis. C. Enzinger: funding for travel and speaking honoraria from Biogen, Bayer Schering, Merck Serono, Novartis, Shire, Gen-zyme, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., and Sanofi-Aventis. A. Rovira: scientific advisory boards for Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Icometrix, SyntheticMRI, and OLEA Medical; speaking honoraria from Bayer, Sanofi-Genzyme, Bracco, Merck-Serono, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Novartis, Roche, and Biogen Idec; agreements with Siemens AG and Icometrix. L. Kappos’ institute (University Hospital Basel, Switzerland): steering committee, advisory board, and consultancy fees from Actelion, Addex, Bayer, Biogen, Biotica, Genzyme, Eli-Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Receptos, Sanofi, Santhera, Siemens, Teva, UCB, and XenoPort; speaker fees from Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva; support of educational activities from Bayer, Biogen, CSL Behring, Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva; royalties from Neurostatus; grants from Bayer Healthcare, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Roche Research Foundations. C. Pozzilli: scientific advisory boards for Actelion, Biogen, Genzyme, Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Merck-Serono, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva; consulting and/or speaking fees, research support, and travel grants from Allergan, Almirall, Biogen, Gen-zyme, Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Merck-Serono, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. X. Montalban: personal fees for consultancy and speaking from Actelion, Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, Hoffmann-La Roche, Merck, Novartis, Oryzon Genomics, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva. N. De Stefano: honoraria from Biogen, Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Schering, and Teva for consulting services, speaking, and travel support; advisory boards for Biogen, Merck, and Novartis. Go to Neurology.org/N for full disclosures. Publisher Copyright: © 2019 American Academy of Neurology. Copyright: Copyright 2019 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/1/22
Y1 - 2019/1/22
N2 - Over the last few decades, the improved diagnostic criteria, the wide use of MRI, and the growing availability of effective pharmacologic treatments have led to substantial advances in the management of multiple sclerosis (MS). The importance of early diagnosis and treatment is now well-Established, but there is still no consensus on how to define and monitor response to MS treatments. In particular, the clinical relevance of the detection of minimal MRI activity is controversial and recommendations on how to define and monitor treatment response are warranted. An expert panel of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging in MS Study Group analyzed and discussed published studies on treatment response in MS. The evolving concept of no evidence of disease activity and its effect on predicting long-term prognosis was examined, including the option of defining a more realistic target for daily clinical practice: minimal evidence of disease activity. Advantages and disadvantages associated with the use of MRI activity alone and quantitative scoring systems combining on-treatment clinical relapses and MRI active lesions to detect treatment response in the real-world setting were also discussed. While most published studies on this topic involved patients treated with interferon-β, special attention was given to more recent studies providing evidence based on treatment with other and more efficacious oral and injectable drugs. Finally, the panel identified future directions to pursue in this research field.
AB - Over the last few decades, the improved diagnostic criteria, the wide use of MRI, and the growing availability of effective pharmacologic treatments have led to substantial advances in the management of multiple sclerosis (MS). The importance of early diagnosis and treatment is now well-Established, but there is still no consensus on how to define and monitor response to MS treatments. In particular, the clinical relevance of the detection of minimal MRI activity is controversial and recommendations on how to define and monitor treatment response are warranted. An expert panel of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging in MS Study Group analyzed and discussed published studies on treatment response in MS. The evolving concept of no evidence of disease activity and its effect on predicting long-term prognosis was examined, including the option of defining a more realistic target for daily clinical practice: minimal evidence of disease activity. Advantages and disadvantages associated with the use of MRI activity alone and quantitative scoring systems combining on-treatment clinical relapses and MRI active lesions to detect treatment response in the real-world setting were also discussed. While most published studies on this topic involved patients treated with interferon-β, special attention was given to more recent studies providing evidence based on treatment with other and more efficacious oral and injectable drugs. Finally, the panel identified future directions to pursue in this research field.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060185367&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000006810
DO - https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000006810
M3 - Review article
C2 - 30587516
SN - 0028-3878
VL - 92
SP - 180
EP - 192
JO - Neurology
JF - Neurology
IS - 4
ER -