Tag Archives: NFL

Treatment strategy

Do I understand the concepts of treat-2-target and NEDA?

Has anyone discussed a treatment target with you, including the need to rebaseline your disease activity? Have the concepts of preventing end-organ damage to the central nervous system (the ‘end-organ’ in MS) and brain volume loss or atrophy been broached?

Key points

  • Achieving long-term remission is a well-established treatment target in MS and several other autoimmune diseases.
  • Key measures of MS disease activity are used to define composite treatment targets; they provide objective means for monitoring and decision-making.
  • To demonstrate a target of no evident disease activity (NEDA) requires a minimum of three criteria to be met: no relapses, no MRI activity and no disability progression.
  • More stringent definitions of NEDA targets have evolved and will continue to do so as new predictors of treatment response are developed.

If you are on a disease-modifying therapy (DMT), what is the objective or treatment target for your MS? This is another question to be answered before committing yourself to a specific treatment strategy.

Treat-2-target

Relapses and ongoing focal inflammatory activity on MRI (new or enlarging T2 lesions and T1 gadolinium-enhancing lesions [Gd-enhancing]) are associated with poor outcomes. This has led to the adoption of ‘no evident disease activity’ (NEDA) as a treatment target in MS. NEDA, or NEDA-3, is a composite of three related measures of MS disease activity: (i) no relapses, (ii) no MRI activity (new or enlarging T2 lesions or Gd-enhancing lesions) and (iii) no disability progression. NEDA is an important goal for treating individuals with MS.

When to rebaseline

To use NEDA as a treatment target in day-to-day clinical practice, it is advisable to be ‘rebaselined’ after the onset of action of the DMT you have been started on. The timing of the MRI to provide a new baseline depends on the DMT concerned. The recommendations for immune reconstitution therapies (IRTs) are very different from those for maintenance therapies. In the case of an IRT (for example alemtuzumab or cladribine, which are given as short courses), breakthrough disease activity can be used as an indicator to retreat rather than necessarily to switch therapy. Therefore, a rebaselining MRI should be delayed until after the final course of therapy, e.g. 2 years, or close enough to the time when a third, or subsequent course, can be administered.

Determining treatment failure: IRTs

Questions remain of how many treatment cycles need to be given before considering that a specific IRT has not been effective.

  • For alemtuzumab, the threshold is three cycles under NHS England’s treatment algorithm (based on their cost-effectiveness analysis). Alemtuzumab is a biological or protein-based treatment, so the risk of developing neutralising anti-drug antibodies increases with each infusion.
  • Cladribine on the other hand is a small molecule, so neutralising antibodies are not a problem and there is no real limit on the number of courses that can be given.
  • Although HSCT tends to be a one-off treatment, there are rare reports of people with MS receiving more than one cycle.

Please note there are potentially cumulative risks associated with multiple cycles of an IRT: secondary malignancies in the case of HSCT and persistent lymphopaenia with cladribine. 

Determining treatment failure: maintenance therapies

In comparison to IRTs, if you have disease activity on a particular maintenance DMT, and provided you have been adherent to your treatment, this is usually interpreted as a suboptimal response or non-response and it should trigger a switch to another class of DMT. 

A criticism of NEDA is the omission of so-called ‘non-relapse-associated disease worsening’ as a component of the treatment target (in addition to evidence of incomplete recovery from relapses). I refer to this disease worsening as smouldering MS. Worsening disability in the absence of relapses may have little to do with ongoing focal inflammatory activity. It may simply represent a delayed dying-off of axons and nerve fibres following earlier focal inflammatory lesions. As a result, many neurologists feel uncomfortable switching, or stopping a DMT, based simply on non-relapse-associated worsening disability. For more information, please see Getting worse – smouldering MS.

Beyond NEDA-3

The definition of NEDA is evolving with clinical practice. Some centres are now testing for brain volume loss (that is, brain atrophy) and/or increased neurofilament light chain (NFL) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) as part of the NEDA-3 treatment target. NEDA-4 builds on NEDA-3, by including the target of normalising brain atrophy rates to within the normal range. The problem we have found with this is that the measurement of brain atrophy in an individual with MS level is very unreliable. For example, dehydration, excessive alcohol consumption and some symptomatic medications can cause the brain to shrink temporarily. We, therefore, think that CSF NFL levels are a better treatment target, less prone to misinterpretation. Neurofilaments are proteins that are found in nerves and axons (nerve fibres) and are released in proportion to the amount of nerve fibre damage that occurs in MS. Normalising CSF NFL levels, which would indicate that nerve damage is stopped, is referred to as NEDA-5. From a scientific perspective, including a more objective end-organ biomarker makes sense and will almost certainly be incorporated into our treatment target in the future.  

Table format updated 180625 SS

The components of NEDA-recommended targets are expanding as our ability to measure predictors of treatment response grows.
CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; MRI, Magnetic resonance imaging; NEDA, no evident disease activity; NEIDA, no evident inflammatory disease activity; NFL, neurofilament light; PROMS, patient-related outcome measures.

End-organ damage

The combination of relapses, the development of new MRI lesions and brain volume loss over 2 years in clinical trials predicts quite accurately who will become disabled over the same time period. From a treatment perspective, it is important to stop relapses, new MRI lesions and brain volume loss if we are to prevent or slow down worsening disability. Therefore, we must go beyond NEIDA (no evident inflammatory activity), which refers to relapses and focal MRI activity, and normalise brain volume loss if we can. 

Alternatives to NEDA?

Many neurologists are critical of using NEDA as a treatment target in clinical practice, fearing that it encourages people with MS to take highly effective DMTs that they consider may be ‘more risky’ (see short summaries of the available DMTs for information about individual drugs). Such neurologists, therefore, promote a less proactive approach and allow for some residual MS disease activity, but at a lower level. This treatment target is referred to as minimal evidence of disease activity, or MEDA.

In my opinion, MEDA flies in the face of the science of focal inflammatory lesions being ‘bad’ and it is associated with poor short-term, intermediate and long-term outcomes. If most people with MS end up receiving so-called high-efficacy therapies because of breakthrough disease activity, then this is what they probably need, that is, to have their MS treated adequately. Compelling evidence has emerged from trials, large registries and real-world data that people with MS treated early with highly effective DMTs (flipping the pyramid) do better than those who have delayed access to more effective DMTs.1,2,3 You can find a short summary of some key findings on the MS Brain Health website.

Implementing NEDA in clinical practice

Please note that achieving long-term remission, or NEDA, is a well-established treatment target in other autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, autoimmune kidney disease and inflammatory bowel disease. People with MS treated to a target of NEDA do better than those with breakthrough disease activity. I would therefore strongly encourage you to discuss this treatment target with your own MS neurologist. 

The flowchart below illustrates how we implement a treat-2-target of NEDA strategy. The important take-home message is that the treatment targets in MS have moved; goal-setting and the active monitoring of outcomes is now required to achieve these goals. 

Treat to target NEDA algorithm

Recommended approaches to implementing a treat-2-target of NEDA strategy, using maintenance ̶ escalation or immune reconstitution therapy (IRT). The dotted lines indicate that if treatment fails you can either switch within the class (maintenance or IRT) or reassess the strategy. From Giovannoni, Curr Opin Neurol.4
Alem, alemtuzumab; Clad, cladribine; DMF, dimethyl fumarate; Fingo, fingolimod; GA, glatiramer acetate; HSCT, haematopoietic stem cell transplantation; IFNβ, interferon-beta; Mitox, mitoxantrone; NEDA, no evident disease activity; Nz, natalizumab; Ocre, ocrelizumab; Ofat, ofatumumab; Teri, teriflunomide.

There is also a clear need to update the definition of NEDA regularly as new technologies become available and are validated as predictors of treatment response. I therefore envisage the definition of NEDA changing still further in future to include more objective measures, particularly ones measuring end-organ damage and the inclusion of patient-related outcome measures.

References

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. 

Diagnosis, Stages of MS

Do I have active MS?

Before deciding to start a disease-modifying therapy you need to know if you have active MS.

Key points

  • To qualify for a disease-modifying treatment for MS you must have active disease.
  • Active MS is characterised by relapses (new symptomatic or asymptomatic lesions); the clinical diagnosis of relapse may be supported by MRI or CSF evidence of activity.
  • Different levels of disease activity qualify for different types of DMT.
  • Diagnostic criteria for MS have evolved considerably over the past two decades; this has helped to make treatment decisions earlier and easier, both for MS neurologists and for people with MS.

To be eligible for disease-modifying therapy (DMT) you must have ‘active MS’. This term is increasingly used to refer to current or recent evidence of focal inflammatory activity, i.e. new lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or a relapse. Inflammation damages axons, or nerve processes. When a lesion develops, the effects of inflammatory mediators can cut (transect) axons, demyelinate them or stop them from working.

By contrast, the gradual worsening of disability that occurs in people with more advanced MS (which may, or may not, occur in the presence of focal inflammatory activity) has many potential causes, only one of which is focal inflammation.

Signs of active MS

Relapses

When a new MS lesion occurs in an eloquent part of the central nervous system it causes new symptoms or exacerbates old ones – this is usually interpreted as a relapse. Relapses, by definition, last at least 24 hours in the absence of infection or fever.

Criteria for ‘active’ MS accepted by many MS health professionals. CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; NFL, neurofilament light.
*Some neurologists accept 24 months, 36 months or even more when assessing MRI activity. There is no international consensus on the gap between the baseline and new MRI scan to define active disease.

Asymptomatic lesions

Most focal MS disease activity does not cause any overt symptoms because the brain has a way of compensating for damage. For every clinical relapse, there are at least 10 or more lesions on MRI. Therefore, what we see clinically in terms of relapses is the tip of the iceberg. Even standard MRI is relatively insensitive in detecting and monitoring MS disease activity; it misses new lesions that are smaller than 3 ̶ 4 mm in size and does not detect most lesions that occur in the grey matter of the brain (cortex and deep grey matter nuclei, e.g. thalamus and basal ganglia). Therefore, MRI scans also reveal just the tip of the iceberg. This is one of the reasons we also use cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) neurofilament levels as a marker of this microscopic activity.

Disease activity levels

Inactive MS

Many people with MS experience frequent intermittent symptoms or ‘pseudorelapses’ that come on when they are tired, after exercise or have a raised body temperature from a fever, exercise, hot bath or a warm environment. These intermittent symptoms are usually quite stereotyped and last minutes to hours. They are indicative of a previously damaged pathway but do not represent a relapse or disease activity.

Active MS

Most neurologists require evidence of disease activity in the last 12 months, with some of us accepting a 24-month or 36-month window if there is no serial or regular MRI support. However, if you have had no relapses or MRI evidence of new lesions in the last 24 months, then your MS is defined as inactive. (This does not mean your MS is necessarily stable; you could have worsening disability as part of the progressive or smouldering phase of the disease.) Inactive MS needs to be monitored in case it reactivates, in which case you could become eligible for treatment.

Inactive MS - format updated 180625 SS

Schematic showing different levels of MS disease activity.
*Some neurologists accept MRI activity in the last 24 months, 36 months or even longer as a criterion for active MS.

Highly active MS and rapidly evolving severe MS

Active MS has been divided into an additional two categories that have implications for DMT prescribing (depending on where you live).

  • Highly active MS describes MS with unchanged or increased relapse rates, or ongoing severe relapses compared with the previous year, despite treatment with beta-interferon or another so-called first-line therapy. In England, patients in this subgroup are eligible for natalizumab, alemtuzumab, fingolimod and cladribine.
  • Rapidly evolving severe MS (RES) is defined as two disabling relapses and MRI evidence of activity within a 12-month period. In England, patients in this subgroup are eligible for natalizumab, alemtuzumab and cladribine.

Evolution of diagnostic criteria

In the early 2000s, disease activity was defined using clinical criteria only; you needed at least two documented relapses in the last 2 years to be eligible for DMT.1 This meant that a neurologist had to examine you to confirm abnormalities compatible with a relapse. However, many people with MS without rapid access to a neurologist would recover before being assessed, meaning that their relapses often could not be documented. This was very frustrating for someone wanting to start a DMT. If patients had MRI evidence to support recent disease activity, how could we deny them access to a DMT because they were not seen in a timely way to have their relapse documented in the clinical notes?

In 2009, the criteria for diagnosing MS incorporated MRI into the definition to allow us to treat so-called high-risk patients with CIS (clinically isolated syndromes compatible with demyelination). These criteria required patients with CIS to have nine or more T2 lesions on MRI or at least one gadolinium-enhancing lesion. These MRI criteria were based on the McDonald diagnostic criteria at the time.2 These eligibility criteria evolved further in 2014, once alemtuzumab was licensed, to include clinical or MRI activity.

References

  1. McDonald WI, et al. Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from the International Panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2001;50:121–7.
  2. Polman CH, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 2011;69:292–302.
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.
Stages of MS

What type of MS do I have?

MS has historically been classified into different subtypes, and this subdivision dictates what treatments you are eligible for. These MS disease subtypes are not supported biologically, however, and many MS neurologists are of the opinion that MS is one disease.1

Key points

  • The difference between relapsing MS and non-relapsing progressive MS is explained.
  • The stages of MS have different labels, for historical development and reimbursement reasons, but biologically MS is one disease.
  • From a treatment perspective, the key thing is to know if your MS is active or inactive.
  • Active MS can be differentiated from inactive MS by relapses, MRI evidence of disease activity and raised neurofilament levels in the cerebrospinal fluid.

Type of MS

You should be able to classify yourself as having either relapsing MS or non-relapsing progressive MS. Knowing what type of MS has been diagnosed and whether your MS is active or inactive will allow you to ask your MS neurologist questions about the MS treatments available to you. 

Around 85–90% of people with MS start with so-called relapse-onset MS, i.e. they have a definite attack of symptoms that is usually followed by a period of complete or incomplete recovery. A single attack may be labelled as a clinically isolated syndrome (CIS): it does not fulfil the current diagnostic criteria for full-blown MS, but it means someone is at risk of further attacks and hence of developing MS in the future.

EDSS, Expanded Disability Status Scale score
EDSS, Expanded Disability Status Scale score

Once you have more attacks, either clinically in the form of relapse or subclinically with new lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), then you are usually diagnosed as having MS. The diagram below illustrates the typical course of repeated relapses and remissions, with worsening disability over time, that characterises so-called relapsing–remitting MS (RRMS).

After a variable period, people with relapse-onset MS may notice worsening neurological function without improvement. This is called secondary progressive MS (SPMS) and it can occur with superimposed relapses (so-called relapsing SPMS [RSPMS]) or without relapses.

EDSS, Expanded Disability Status Scale score
EDSS, Expanded Disability Status Scale score

A small number of people with MS (10–15%) will present with worsening neurological function without a prior history of relapses; this is called primary progressive MS (PPMS).

Interestingly, some people with PPMS go on to have relapses, and this is referred to as progressive relapsing MS (PRMS).

EDSS, Expanded Disability Status Scale score
EDSS, Expanded Disability Status Scale score

Rarely, someone may present with worsening neurological function, similar to PPMS, but have a prior history of just one relapse. This is referred to as single-attack progressive MS (SAP), but most MS specialists classify these patients as having SPMS. 

In summary …

  • Relapsing MS captures all people with MS who are still having relapses, i.e. within the last 2 years, and includes RRMS, RSPMS and PRMS.
  • Non-relapsing progressive MS refers to SPMS and PPMS: these latter two groups should have no history of recent relapses, i.e. in the last 2 years.

To further confuse things, non-relapsing progressive MS used to be referred to as chronic progressive MS (see below). 

Why is this important?

Different DMTs are licensed for different types of MS, and many treatment guidelines specifically state the type of MS for which a particular drug can be used.

Is MS one or more diseases?

In the past, MS was regarded as one disease: either you had MS, or you did not. The stages were referred to as early relapsing MS or chronic progressive MS, but MS was still one disease. 

When disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) were developed, MS was split into multiple sub-types. This categorisation was driven by commercial considerations, and it allowed interferon-beta to be licensed in the US under the Orphan Drug Act. The classification of orphan disease in the US requires there to be fewer than 200,000 people with that diagnosis. Dividing MS into RRMS, SPMS, PPMS and later CIS ensured that each category met this criterion. 

Since then, PRMS and radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS) have been added as potential subtypes. These classifications tend to be arbitrary and overlap, but there is no biological basis to support MS being more than one disease. 

Is your MS active or inactive?

From a treatment perspective, it is important to know if your disease is active or inactive. In active MS, there is evidence of ongoing inflammation in the brain and spinal cord. If you are having relapses, are developing new lesions on MRI or have raised neurofilament (NFL) levels in your cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or blood, your MS is active. 

Active MS responds to anti-inflammatory treatments; inactive MS is less responsive to currently licensed DMTs. 

Criteria for ‘active’ MS accepted by many MS health professionals. CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; NFL, neurofilament light.
*Some neurologists accept 24 months, 36 months or even longer when assessing MRI activity. There is no international consensus on the gap between the baseline and new MRI scan to define active disease.

The term progressive MS refers to the stage of MS when your disability gets worse – independent of relapses, and possibly of focal inflammatory lesions. I say ‘possibly’, because our current MRI scans don’t show new or enlarging microscopic lesions but only those that are larger than ~3–4 mm. NFL measurements in either the CSF or blood have the advantage of being additive and integrating inflammatory activity. In my experience, about one in ten patients classified as ‘inactive’ based on clinical and MRI activity is found to have active MS when CSF NFL levels are analysed. Unfortunately, however, many MS neurologists, regulators and payers do not accept this latest definition of MS disease activity because tests for NFL levels are currently not widely available. 

In conclusion, knowing the type of MS you have and whether your disease is active or inactive will allow you to discuss with your MS specialist the kinds of treatment available to you. 

References

Giovannoni G, et al. Smouldering multiple sclerosis: the ‘real MS’. Ther Adv Neurol Disord 2022;15:17562864211066751.