Tag Archives: memory impairment

Detail, DMTsDetail, Treatment strategy

What are the attributes of the specific DMTs?

Multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment has evolved rapidly, with 11 classes of disease-modifying therapy (DMT) now available in the UK. I will summarise them briefly and explain how they fit within a treatment paradigm for effective and safe use.

Maintenance therapies versus immune reconstitution: what’s the difference?

There is a divide between the two main treatment philosophies: maintenance ̶ escalation versus immune reconstitution therapies (IRTs).

An IRT is given as a short course – a one-off treatment in the case of autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) or intermittently for alemtuzumab, cladribine or mitoxantrone. IRTs are not given continuously, and additional courses are given only if inflammatory activity recurs. IRTs can induce long-term remission and, in some cases, potentially a cure.

Maintenance therapies, by comparison, are given continuously without an interruption in dosing (‘continuous’ administration may be daily, one or more times weekly, monthly or even once every few months). Although maintenance therapies can induce long-term remission, they cannot, by definition, result in a cure. The recurrence or continuation of inflammatory activity indicates a suboptimal response to treatment and typically requires a treatment switch. Ideally, this switch should be an escalation to a more effective class of DMT.

An article in our list of key questions, entitled How do I want my MS to be treated?, provides a more detailed comparison of maintenance and IRT therapies, including frequency of administration, efficacy, risks, use in pregnancy, vaccine response and potential for a cure.

The DMTs currently licensed in the UK (in August 2024) are listed in the table under the relevant category.

table format updated 180625 SS

Disease-modifying therapies for MS licensed in the UK. *Please note, Bonspri is available in other markets but not the UK.

How effective are the different DMTs?

The measures used to assess the effectiveness of a DMT include its ability to reduce or prevent relapses, focal inflammatory activity (that is, new or enlarging lesions) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and disability progression. Additional factors that can help to assess the relative efficacy of DMTs include the proportion of clinical trial subjects who experience improvement in disability and the impact of the treatment on brain volume loss.

The MS-Selfie InfoCards are an easy-to-use resource to help people with MS compare the key features of each DMT. They contain bite-sized information designed to aid treatment choices and an overview of the key aspects of each DMT.

Efficacy of the licensed DMTs for MS can be visualised as pyramid, with the moderately effective treatments at the bottom and the more effective approaches at the top. What determines the most appropriate DMT efficacy level for an individual depends on several factors, such as baseline prognostic profile, family planning requirements, local or national treatment guidelines, socioeconomic factors, consideration of any co-existing illnesses, cognitive impairment, risk aversion and lifestyle issues.

Pyramid format updated 180625 SS

UK licensed DMTs for MS, in ascending order of efficacy.
HSCT/AHSCT, haematopoietic stem cell transplantation/autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

What is the goal of treatment? Introducing NEIDA as a target

In the past, we used no evident disease activity (NEDA) as a treatment target. ‘Disease activity’ included progression or disease worsening independent of relapse activity (termed smouldering MS). Although some of the more effective DMTs may modify this stage of the disease, many neurologists feel uncomfortable switching or stopping a DMT based simply on smouldering MS disease activity. 

Relapses and ongoing focal MRI activity are associated with a worse short-term to intermediate-term prognosis. These observations have led to the increasing adoption of ‘no evident inflammatory disease activity’ (NEIDA) as a new treatment target. For more information about treatment targets, please see the article in our key questions, Do I understand the concepts of treat-2-target and NEDA?

Many healthcare professionals (HCPs) remain sceptical of using NEIDA as a treatment target, fearing that this could lead to more people with MS being on ‘riskier’ high-efficacy therapies. However, achieving long-term remission, or NEIDA, is a well-established treatment target in other autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. People with MS treated-to-target of NEIDA from the outset do better than those whose treatment is escalated following breakthrough disease (at a clinical or subclinical/MRI level)1. I would, therefore, strongly encourage people with MS and their HCPs to adopt NEIDA as an initial treatment target.

Flipping the pyramid

The effectiveness, or relative effectiveness, of individual DMTs becomes less critical in the context of a treatment target of NEIDA. Choosing a DMT with a lower efficacy rate simply means that a greater proportion of treated people with MS will need to be switched to higher efficacy therapies over time to achieve NEIDA. We refer to the latter of these three approaches – starting with high-efficacy treatment – as flipping the pyramid. In recent trials of alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab and ublituximab, people with MS randomised to 2 years of lower efficacy DMTs (interferon-beta-1a or teriflunomide) had poorer outcomes than those receiving highly active therapy from the outset. Real-world data from registries also support this; groups of people with MS with delayed access to high-efficacy DMTs did worse than those who received high-efficacy treatments early.1,2

Horizontal versus vertical switching

If we consider the conventional step care paradigm, people with MS who switch horizontally from interferon-beta to glatiramer acetate, or vice-versa (i.e. from one moderate efficacy DMT to another moderate efficacy DMT) do less well than those who switch vertically to fingolimod, a highly effective DMT. Similarly, people with MS escalating to natalizumab, a very high-efficacy DMT, do better than those being escalated to the less effective, but still high-efficacy, DMT fingolimod. 

Continuous and intermittent immunosuppression

Another useful way of classifying DMTs is whether they are immunosuppressive, that is, they reduce the activation, or effectiveness, of the immune system. Drug regulators stipulate that a drug may be classified as immunosuppressive if it (1) causes significant lymphopaenia (low lymphocyte count) or leukopenia (low white blood cell count), (2) is associated with opportunistic infections, (3) reduces the antibody and immune response to vaccines and (4) increases the risk of secondary malignancies.

The duration and intensity of immunosuppression further determine the risks. For example, short-term or intermittent immunosuppression associated with IRTs front-loads the risks, which are substantially lower once the immune system has reconstituted itself. In comparison, long-term continuous or persistent immunosuppression, which occurs with some of the maintenance DMTs, accumulates problems over time, particularly opportunistic infections and secondary malignancies. You can read more detail on this topic in the key question How immunosuppressed am I? The following table summarises the main attributes of intermittent and persistent immunosuppression.

How immunosuppressed are you table updated format 180625 SS

The main characteristics of continuous (persistent) and short-term (intermittent) immunosuppression. Modified from Giovannoni, Curr Opin Neurol.2
AHSCT, autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation; PML, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

Adverse effects, monitoring and risk reduction

The complications associated with immunosuppression vary from DMT to DMT. Each individual drug summary in the DMTs section of MS-Selfie contains detailed information about the main adverse events, key monitoring requirements, use (or contraindication) during pregnancy and breastfeeding, and response to vaccines. The MS-Selfie InfoCards provide bite-sized summaries of several practical aspects, including side effects, to enable easy comparison of any treatments you are considering; some of this information is collated below for easy reference.

Short-term versus long-term adverse effects

Each drug has been given scores from 1 to 10 based on published analyses of its short-term and long-term side effects. Short-term refers to side effects that emerge when a treatment is started and decrease in severity or disappear within days or weeks. A well-known example of short-term side effects on starting interferon-beta is flu-like symptoms that typically abate within 4 ̶ 8 weeks.

A long-term side effect persists for months or doesn’t disappear on continuing the DMT. Examples include intermittent but persistent flushing after taking dimethyl fumarate, or low B lymphocyte counts with anti-CD20 therapies that may lead to low antibody or immunoglobulin levels (hypogammaglobulinaemia).

A low score denotes few or rare side effects; a high score denotes many or frequent side effects. The score does not correlate to a percentage. More information can be found in each drug summary and the manufacturer’s Summary of Product Characteristics.

Scores for short-term and long-term side effects assigned to the individual DMTs summarised in the MS-Selfie InfoCards, based on a published network meta-analysis.3
Alem, alemtuzumab; GA, glatiramer acetate; HSCT, haematopoietic stem cell transplantation; IFN-beta; interferon-beta; Nat, natalizumab.

Monitoring and risk reduction

Numerous tests are carried out at the start of treatment, and ongoing monitoring is required for many factors, to reduce the risk from adverse events. The key question, How can I reduce my chances of adverse events on specific DMTs?, explains what needs to be done at the start of DMT administration (baseline) and during subsequent monitoring. The specifics vary from DMT to DMT; please refer to the individual summaries for details such as baseline tests, follow-up, infection prevention, cancer risk, pregnancy, breastfeeding and vaccination. It is important to remember that all licensed MS DMTs have had a thorough risk ̶ benefit assessment, and their benefits are considered to outweigh the potential risks.

Administration and other practical considerations

Routes and frequency of administration

The MS-Selfie InfoCards contain a symbol for each DMT, showing how it is administered. Some DMTs are available in more than one formulation (e.g. tablets and injection). The frequency of administration varies greatly from DMT to DMT; please consult the relevant summary in the DMTs section and discuss your preferences and priorities with your MS HCP.

The route of administration for each drug in the MS-Selfie InfoCards is clearly identified by the relevant symbol. (If a DMT is available in more than one formulation, there is a separate card for each delivery route.)

Number of clinic visits

It may be important for you to consider the frequency of clinic visits. This will depend on factors such as the delivery route of your DMT, the monitoring requirements of the drug regulators and the risk of specific side effects. The table below summarises the assessments from the MS-Selfie InfoCards. This is another factor to consider in discussions with your MS HCPs about the most appropriate DMT for you.

Conclusions

People with MS must understand the objectives of MS treatments and the different treatment strategies currently available to achieve these objectives. Although the MS therapeutic landscape is complex and hence may seem overwhelming, framing the choices using a relatively simple construct should help each individual to make informed decisions about managing their MS. MS-Selfie aims to guide you in the process of deciding on the most appropriate therapeutic strategy and specific DMT for treating your disease.

References

  1. Rotstein D, et al. Association of No Evidence of Disease Activity with no long-term disability progression in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurology 2022;99:e209̶ ̶ 20.
  2. Giovannoni G. Disease-modifying treatments for early and advanced multiple sclerosis: a new treatment paradigm. Curr Opin Neurol 2018;31:233 ̶ 43.
  3. Samjoo IA, et al. Efficacy classification of modern therapies in multiple sclerosis. J Comp Eff Res 2021;10:495–507.
Brain health and holistic management of MS, Treatment strategy

What are the consequences of not treating MS?

Are there valid reasons not to treat MS with a disease-modifying therapy? What are the consequences of not treating MS? Is watchful waiting justified?

Key points

  • Untreated MS will, given time, result in physical disability, impaired quality of life and ‘hidden’ problems such as cognitive impairment, anxiety and depression.
  • Brain atrophy, or shrinkage, occurs at a faster rate in people with MS than in healthy individuals.
  • Optic neuritis, inflammation or destruction of nerve fibres in the brain and spinal cord, and extensive damage to the cerebral cortex (grey matter) are some consequences of MS lesion development.
  • Quality of life impacts may include reduced mobility, relationship difficulties, increased likelihood of unemployment and memory impairment.
  • Without treatment, the life expectancy of people with MS is reduced by about 6 ̶ 8 years.
  • There are, however, several valid reasons why some people with MS prefer not to receive disease-modifying treatments.

Risks from no disease-modifying treatment

Many patients ask me what will happen to their MS if they don’t take a disease-modifying treatment (DMT) and how effective DMTs are at preventing negative outcomes. Here I try and address questions you need to ask yourself before starting a DMT.

If you are an individual with MS, predicting your disease course is difficult. However, many studies monitoring groups of people with MS show patterns in relation to the progression of the disease and its outcome, with various data sets being consistent.

Given sufficient time, most people with MS who are not treated will become disabled. Most people focus on physical disability, but MS causes many hidden problems, such as cognitive impairment, anxiety and depression.

How untreated MS can progress – headline results

The slides below summarise some of the outcomes of untreated MS; these include brain changes (atrophy), further MS lesion development, reduced health-related quality of life, long-term impact on physical and mental health and shorter life expectancy. (To enlarge an individual slide, click on the arrow at the top right.)

Brain changes
MS lesion development
Quality of life impact
Long-term outlook

DMTs have changed the landscape

It is important to note that these outcomes are from the pre-DMT era and don’t apply to populations of people with MS treated with DMTs. New real-life data indicate that DMTs, particularly high-efficacy DMTs, are preventing many of these problems. By not being on a DMT, if you have active MS, you are at risk of acquiring damage from focal inflammatory lesions. Early in the disease course, you may not be aware of this damage because of the remarkable capacity of the nervous system to compensate for damage (neurological reserve). However, once the compensatory mechanisms have been exhausted, further damage results in overt disability. It is important to regard DMTs as preventive treatments, i.e. their aim is to delay, and hopefully prevent, future disability.

Possible reasons for not receiving a DMT

Many people with MS will not be on a DMT, for a variety of reasons. The list below is probably not extensive; if you know of other reasons why someone who qualifies is not taking a DMT, please let me know.

Inactive MS

Someone with inactive MS will not be eligible for a DMT. There is no standard definition of active MS. To me, active MS is recent evidence of focal inflammatory disease activity, defined as:

  • clinical relapse(s) in the last 2 years
  • OR magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity in the last 12 ̶ 36 months (new or enlarging T2 lesions or T1 Gd-enhancing lesions)
  • OR a raised cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) neurofilament light chain level in the last 12 months.

Worsening disability in MS without focal inflammatory disease activity is not active disease. It can be due to damage caused by past inflammation, smouldering MS or the effects of premature ageing; anti-inflammatory DMTs can’t address this problem. We need different types of DMTs to address these mechanisms – for example, neuroprotective and/or remyelination therapies and anti-ageing therapies.

Watchful waiting

In many situations, some neurologists think someone with MS will end up having benign disease, so they are not prepared to start treatment until the patient develops some overt disability. I abhor this practice and it is one of the reasons I spend so much of my time disseminating knowledge and getting involved with health politics. Watchful waiting, in terms of treating MS, is not supported by data. The earlier and more effectively you treat MS, the better the outcome. The only situation I could condone watchful waiting in someone with active MS is when the diagnosis of MS is in question. Sometimes in neurology, time is the best diagnostician. If the person has MS, it will declare itself with further disease activity, and this would be the trigger to start a DMT.

Family planning

Trying to fall pregnant, pregnancy or breastfeeding are common reasons to interrupt or stop DMTs. Please note that most neurologists now have options to treat MS during pregnancy and while breastfeeding, so this is becoming a less common reason for not taking a DMT.

Risk aversion

Some people with MS are not prepared to take the potential risks associated with DMTs.

Personal reasons

Some people with MS don’t believe in having their MS treated, preferring to try alternative medicines and turn down traditional DMTs. If you are one of these people, I would recommend you continue to interact with your MS team and have regular monitoring of your MS (clinical, MRI, patient-related outcome measures [PROMS] and possibly CSF analyses). Then, if these alternative strategies don’t work, you will keep open the option of treatment with a ‘traditional DMT‘. Most alternative treatment strategies for MS are compatible with DMTs and hence should be viewed as complementary. Understanding the difference between complementary and alternative treatments is important. Complementary treatment strategies are part of the holistic management of MS.

Financial constraints

In some parts of the world, MS treatment is not covered by a national health service or medical insurance scheme and some people with MS simply can’t afford DMTs. Even in rich countries, people with MS who are disenfranchised don’t have access to treatment; these may include illegal immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers waiting for their applications to be processed.

Progressive or more advanced MS

In most countries, neurologists don’t initiate treatment in patients with more advanced MS. This approach is based on a lack of evidence of the effectiveness of DMTs in this population. However, we are increasingly offering ocrelizumab (for active primary progressive MS), siponimod (for active secondary progressive MS) or off-label therapies on a compassionate basis to people with more advanced MS. In addition, there is also the potential to participate in clinical trials of new treatments for more advanced MS.

Ageism

Some healthcare systems and some neurologists are reluctant to start DMTs in people with MS who are over a certain age. This is based on a lack of evidence of the effectiveness of DMTs in this population, and it is why we need to do clinical trials in older people with MS.

Comorbidities

Many people have other medical problems for which the treatment takes priority over the treatment of MS. For example, a patient of mine was diagnosed with stage four bowel cancer. After her surgery, she started an intensive period of chemotherapy during which we stopped her DMT.

References

  1. Fisher E, et al. Gray matter atrophy in multiple sclerosis: a longitudinal study. Ann Neurol 2008;64:255–65.
  2. Barkhof F, et al. Imaging outcomes for neuroprotection and repair in multiple sclerosis trials. Nat Rev Neurol 2009;5:256–66.
  3. Simon JH. Brain atrophy in multiple sclerosis: what we know and would like to know. Mult Scler 2006;12:679–87.
  4. Ziemssen T, et al. Optimizing treatment success in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 2016;263:1053–65.
  5. Hickman SJ, et al. Detection of optic nerve atrophy following a single episode of unilateral optic neuritis by MRI using a fat-saturated short-echo fast FLAIR sequence. Neuroradiology 2001;43:123–8.
  6. Trapp BD, et al. Axonal transection in the lesions of multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 1998;338:278–85.
  7. Peterson JW, et al. Transected neurites, apoptotic neurons, and reduced inflammation in cortical multiple sclerosis lesions. Ann Neurol 2001;50:389–400.
  8. Orme M, et al. The effect of disease, functional status, and relapses on the utility of people with multiple sclerosis in the UK. Value Health 2007;10:54–60.
  9. Pfleger CC, et al. Social consequences of multiple sclerosis (1): early pension and temporary unemployment – a historical prospective cohort study. Mult Scler 2010;16:121–6.
  10. Kobelt G, et al. Costs and quality of life of patients with multiple sclerosis in Europe. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2006;77:918–26.
  11. Feuillet L, et al. Early cognitive impairment in patients with clinically isolated syndrome suggestive of multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2007;13:124–7. 
  12. Confavreux C and Compston A. Chapter 4. The natural history of multiple sclerosis. In: McAlpine’s Multiple Sclerosis, Fourth Edition, 2006; 183 ̶ 272. Churchill Livingstone.
  13. Weinshenker BG et al. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study. I. Clinical course and disability. Brain 1989;112:133 ̶ 46.
  14. Torkildsen GN, et al. Survival and cause of death in multiple sclerosis: results from a 50-year follow-up in Western Norway. Mult Scler 2008;14:1191–8.
  15. Kingwell E, et al. Relative mortality and survival in multiple sclerosis: findings from British Columbia, Canada. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2012;83:61–6.
  16. Sadovnick AD, et al. Cause of death in patients attending multiple sclerosis clinics. Neurology 1991;41:1193–6.
  17. Brenner P, et al. Multiple sclerosis and risk of attempted and completed suicide – a cohort study. Eur J Neurol 2016;23:1329–36. 

Brain health and holistic management of MS, Causes and prevention of MS

What prognostic group do I fall into?

Having some idea of how bad your MS is, or not, will allow you to discuss important issues with your neurologist so that you can make an informed decision about your MS treatment.

Key points

  • It is hard to predict the disease course of MS accurately for an individual.
  • Population data allow us to define three broad prognostic MS categories: good, indeterminate or poor.
  • Given sufficient time, most people with MS will do badly without treatment.
  • Factors linked to poor prognosis in untreated people with MS are listed.
  • The wide use of disease-modifying therapies is changing the natural history of MS for the better.
  • Adopting a healthy lifestyle, in parallel with appropriate treatment, can help to improve outcomes.  

Predicting MS outcomes: an imperfect science

We can’t predict the prognosis of an individual person with MS very accurately. So don’t let your neurologist mislead you if he or she says you are likely to have benign MS. ‘Benign MS’ is a relative term and can only be used retrospectively once you have had MS for many years or decades. In the era before disease-modifying treatments (DMTs), most people with MS would eventually become disabled, which is why I prefer not to use the term benign MS to predict outcomes. I now use it as a treatment aim, because we want all people with MS to have benign disease.

Three broad prognostic categories

Applying population data to place an individual into a broad prognostic group is often helpful. It allows you to frame your disease in terms of potential outcomes and may help you balance the risks of some treatments against the potential impact of MS later in your life. Predicting outcomes in MS is comparable to an actuary working in the insurance industry; we try to give you an average prognosis with a wide range of possibilities or errors. For this reason, I try to keep it simple and classify people with MS into three prognostic categories: poor, indeterminate, or good. Poor in this context means that if you leave MS to its own devices and let it run its natural course, the average person in this category will do badly.

Most people with a predicted poor prognosis will do badly without treatment for their MS.

Given sufficient time, most people with MS will deteriorate without treatment. This is why I actively promote treatment based on the scientific rationale that preventing damage now will protect your brain reserve and cognitive reserve and improve your long-term outcome. This is the philosophy behind the MS Brain Health initiative and the report Brain health: time matters in multiple sclerosis,1 which everyone with MS should take time to read. 

Factors linked to poor prognosis

Below is a list of factors that have been linked to poor prognosis in people who have not received a DMT. If you have fewer than five of these factors, you are likely to have a good outcome. In comparison, people with ten or more of these factors fall into the poor prognostic group. Most people with MS fall into the intermediate (indeterminate) prognostic group, with 5–10 of these factors. Some of these baseline factors are modifiable,2,3 so you can make the effort to help improve your own prognosis. 

Please note that the factors listed here only apply to people with MS who are untreated.  It is clear that DMTs are changing the outcome of MS.

  1. Older age of onset (greater than 40 years).
  2. Male sex.
  3. Multifocal onset – more than one site in the nervous system involved with the initial attack.
  4. Efferent or effector system is affected early – that is, the motor (power), cerebellar (balance and coordination) or bladder and bowel functions.  
  5. Partial or no recovery from initial relapses – do you have residual deficits from your initial attacks?
  6. A high relapse rate in the first 2 years – that is, more than two relapses. 
  7. Early disability – an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score > 3.0 within 5 years of symptom onset indicates a poor prognosis. You can calculate your EDSS using an online calculator (web-EDSS calculator).
  8. Abnormal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan with large lesion load – more than nine T2 lesions (white blobs) on the baseline MRI.
  9. Active or enhancing lesions on your baseline (initial) MRI – enhancing lesions imply that the lesions are new and actively inflamed.
  10. Posterior fossa lesions on the MRI – these refer to lesions in the back of the brain that involve the brainstem and cerebellum.
  11. Lesions in the spinal cord on MRI.
  12. Obvious early brain atrophy on MRI – brain atrophy refers to premature shrinkage of the brain over and above what you would expect for your age. This information is unlikely to be available to you because neuroradiologists often do not measure or comment on it. 
  13. Retinal thinning on optic coherence tomography (OCT) – people with MS who have lost a lot of retinal nerve fibres do worse than people with a normal retina. Yes, the eye is truly a window into what is happening in the brain of someone with MS. 
  14. Abnormal cerebrospinal fluid – positive immunoglobulin (Ig) bands (known as oligoclonal bands, OCBs) in the spinal fluid.
  15. Raised neurofilament levels in your spinal fluid – this test may not be part of routine care at your neurology centre. Neurofilaments are proteins that are released from damaged nerve fibres, and high neurofilament levels indicate greater damage and poorer outcome than low levels.
  16. Low vitamin D levels – this is controversial, but several studies have shown that people with MS with low vitamin D levels do worse than those with higher levels. These observations do not necessarily imply that by taking vitamin D you will do better. Low vitamin D levels may be related to reverse causation, in that the MS-associated inflammation uses up vitamin D; more inflammation indicates worse MS and is therefore linked with greater depletion of vitamin D levels.
  17. Smoking – smokers with MS do worse than non-smokers. This is modifiable and it is one of many reasons why you should try and give up smoking. 
  18. Comorbidities – people with MS who are obese, have diabetes, prediabetes, hypertension or raised cholesterol do worse than people with MS without these comorbidities.4
  19. Cognitive impairment – people with MS with poor cognitive function do worse than people with MS with good cognition. You can’t really assess your own cognition at present; you need to have it tested by a neuropsychologist.

‘It won’t happen to me’

Humans have interesting psychology in that they tend to consider themselves to be the exception to the rule. Gamblers don’t enter a casino to lose; they always believe they will win. A person with lung cancer who starts chemotherapy believes they will be one of the 10% who is cured. When someone is diagnosed with MS, they believe they will be one of the 30% with benign disease. (The current view among MS neurologists is that 30% of untreated people with MS will have benign disease.) 

This definition of ‘benign MS’ is based on having no or little disability at 15 years since onset, i.e., an EDSS score of 3.0 or less (no visible disability). However, when you interrogate people with so-called benign MS you find that more than 50% of them have hidden symptoms of depression, anxiety or cognitive impairment. Can we really justify this definition of benign MS? What is more, when you follow people with benign MS past 15 years, only 15% remain benign at 25 years and 5% at 30 years. If you get to 40 years of follow-up, half of these with benign MS will become disabled over the next 10 years.

Moving towards a more favourable outcome

Many will state that these figures are now out of date and there are newer and better figures, which show MS is a more benign disease. You are right, and there are several very good reasons for this. In population-based studies, the proportion of subjects with benign MS is greater than in hospital- or clinic-based studies; for example, in the Olmsted Mayo Clinic MS population, about 45% have benign disease at 15 years. The reason for this is that people with MS with benign disease often drop out of hospital follow-up, but still show up in population-based studies. 

The earlier diagnosis of MS, that is, identification of those who would not have been diagnosed in the past, is changing the definition of MS. For example, most people with a clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) are now being diagnosed as having MS. The wide use of DMTs is beginning to change the natural history of MS for the better; making sure that people with MS adopt a healthy lifestyle is another strategy that can be done in parallel. 

With currently available high-efficacy DMTs and the prospect of effective combination treatments in the future, the proportion of people with MS who experience normal ageing is set to increase. The blue areas illustrate the likely number of people with MS in each prognostic category.
With currently available high-efficacy DMTs and the prospect of effective combination treatments in the future, the proportion of people with MS who experience normal ageing is set to increase. The blue areas illustrate the likely number of people with MS in each prognostic category.
With currently available high-efficacy DMTs and the prospect of effective combination treatments in the future, the proportion of people with MS who experience normal ageing is set to increase. The blue areas illustrate the likely number of people with MS in each prognostic category.
With currently available high-efficacy DMTs and the prospect of effective combination treatments in the future, the proportion of people with MS who experience normal ageing is set to increase. The blue areas illustrate the likely number of people with MS in each prognostic category.

With currently available high-efficacy DMTs and the prospect of effective combination treatments in the future, the proportion of people with MS who experience normal ageing is set to increase. The blue areas illustrate the likely proportion of people with MS in each prognostic category.

The above figures illustrate what we aim to do with currently available high-efficacy DMTs (compared with older, lower efficacy treatments). We are simply trying to move you to the right, into a more favourable prognostic group. In other words, we want to make sure your MS is benign and that you reach old age with as healthy a brain as possible. Your brain reserve and cognitive reserve protect you from developing age-related cognitive impairment and dementia. MS reduces both of these reserves, which is why it is so important to protect them. With the prospect of effective combination treatments in the future, the proportion of people with MS who experience normal ageing is set to increase.

References

  1. Giovannoni G, et al. Brain health: time matters in multiple sclerosis. 2015, Oxford Health Policy Forum CIC.
  2. Miller DH, et al. Clinically isolated syndromes. Lancet Neurol 2012: 11:157–69.
  3. Weld-Blundell IV, et al. Lifestyle and complementary therapies in multiple sclerosis guidelines: Systematic review. Acta Neurol Scand 2022;145:379–92.
  4. Kappus N, et al. Cardiovascular risk factors are associated with increased lesion burden and brain atrophy in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2016;87:181–7.