Tag Archives: rate

Diagnosis

Am I sure that I have MS?

The multiple sclerosis misdiagnosis rate is around 5% and this has major implications for individuals and the treatment of MS.

Key points

  • A wrong diagnosis of MS may have financial, social and psychological consequences for the individuals concerned, affecting major life decisions.
  • Some MS treatments have life-threatening complications and should only be prescribed for people with a clear diagnosis of MS.
  • Some of the diseases that mimic MS can be made worse by disease-modifying treatments for MS.
  • Diagnostic criteria for MS have evolved and now take account of clinical, electrical, laboratory and magnetic resonance imaging findings.

A case study

She had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis 8 years ago and had been taking interferon-beta since her diagnosis. I told her that I didn’t think she had MS and that her diagnosis was almost certainly complicated migraine with aura. The lesions on her magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan were non-specific white matter lesions and not inflammatory. Her neurological examination, spinal fluid analysis and evoked potentials (EPs) were normal. What clinched the non-MS diagnosis for me was the history of neurological events, which were too short-lived and migratory to be MS attacks. The final piece of the jigsaw was that a special MRI sequence showed none of her white matter lesions had a central vein, which told me that none of her white matter lesions was an MS lesion.  Her anger was palpable. She was angry because she had decided not to start a family and had changed her career because of the fear of becoming disabled in the future and not being able to work or look after a child.  This case illustrates why I always try to review the diagnosis of patients referred to me with MS and why it is important to answer this question before starting a disease-modifying therapy (DMT).   

Making a diagnosis of MS

Unfortunately, there is no single test to diagnose MS. Rather, MS is diagnosed by combining a set of clinical and MRI findings, electrical or neurophysiological investigations and laboratory tests. If these tests fulfil a set of so-called MS diagnostic criteria, the healthcare professional (HCP) or neurologist makes a diagnosis of MS. 

The underlying principles of diagnosing MS are to show the dissemination of lesions in space and time and exclude possible mimics of MS. The diagnostic criteria have evolved over time from 1) being based purely on clinical attacks,1 to 2) include electrical and spinal fluid tests as well as clinical attacks,2 and 3) to add on the use of MRI to help confirm dissemination in time and space.3–6  

Dissemination in time 

This means that two attacks or MS lesions must occur at least 30 days apart or that oligoclonal bands (OCBs) of immunoglobulins can be detected in the spinal fluid.

Dissemination in space 

This requires MS lesions to occur in different locations, for example, the optic nerve and the spinal cord. 

Electrical tests

The electrical or neurophysiological tests are called evoked potential (EPs) and test electrical conduction in a particular pathway. They can show lesions in nerve pathways that are not evident on the neurological examination or seen on MRI. The EPs can also show slow electrical conduction, which is one of the hallmarks of diseases that affect myelin, the insulation around nerves that is responsible for speeding up the electrical conduction of nerve impulses.

Laboratory tests

The laboratory tests are typically done to exclude other diseases that can mimic MS. Examining the spinal fluid for the presence of OCBs is useful in helping to make an MS diagnosis. OCBs are the fingerprint of a specific type of immune activation within the central nervous system (CNS). The OCB fingerprint is relatively specific for the diagnosis of MS in the correct clinical context. (OCBs are also found in CNS infections and other autoimmune diseases, but these are relatively easy to differentiate from MS.)

Please be aware that you may have MS according to the latest diagnostic criteria when you could not be diagnosed with MS using past criteria.

Why is a correct diagnosis important?

Neurologists get the diagnosis wrong in approximately 5% of people with MS. In other words, one in 20 people who have a diagnosis of MS in life does not have MS when their brain is studied post mortem. This data is based on a large study in a region of Denmark.7 More recently, a study from a specialist MS centre in the United States reported a misdiagnosis rate of approximately 15% in patients with presumed MS referred to their centre for treatment.8 

Why is getting the diagnosis of MS correct so important? Firstly, some MS treatments have life-threatening complications; you don’t want to expose people without MS to these complications. More concerning is that some of the diseases that mimic MS can be made worse by MS DMTs. Finally, a diagnosis of MS has many psychological, social, financial and economic implications. Even if you turn out to have ‘benign disease’, just having a diagnosis of MS, has implications for your life choices and may impact your ability to get insurance cover, to name obvious examples. I, therefore, advise you to make sure you have MS and not an MS mimic.

Common MS mimics

References

  1. Schumacher GA, et al. Problems of experimental trials of therapy in multiple sclerosis: Report by the Panel on the Evaluation of Experimental Trials of Therapy in Multiple Sclerosis. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1965;122:552–68.
  2. Poser CM, et al. New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines for research protocols. Ann Neurol 1983;13:227–31.
  3. 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.
  4. Polman CH, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald Criteria”. Ann Neurol 2005;58:840–6.
  5. Polman CH, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 2011;69:292–302.
  6. Thompson AJ, et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol 2018;17:162–73.
  7. Engell T. A clinico-pathoanatomical study of multiple sclerosis diagnosis. Acta Neurol Scand 1988;78:39–44.
  8. Kaisey M, et al. Incidence of multiple sclerosis misdiagnosis in referrals to two academic centers. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2019;30:51–6.
DMTs, Treatment strategy

Am I eligible for an MS disease-modifying therapy?

Key points

Do you know the eligibility criteria for MS disease-modifying therapies? And who decides what drugs can be prescribed for your MS?

  • Disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) change the long-term trajectory of MS and protect the central nervous system from further damage.
  • Regulators such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) decide in which group(s) of patients a particular drug can be used, based on the results of clinical trials.
  • Once a drug has been licensed in your region, local payers decide whether to make it available within your country, based on cost-effective assessments.
  • If you have active MS, your level of disease activity, its severity and speed of development will determine which DMTs you can be offered.
  • In some countries, ocrelizumab has been approved for the treatment of active primary progressive MS (PPMS) and siponimod has been approved for the treatment of active secondary progressive MS.
  • Protecting upper limb function has been a neglected area; studies are now ongoing, however, with a view to finding DMTs that limit the progression of upper limb disability.

What do disease-modifying drugs do?

Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are treatments that change the natural history – that is, the long-term trajectory – of the disease. They reduce the rate of disability worsening and so protect the end-organ (in the case of MS, this is the central nervous system). To simplify, let’s say that a person with MS on no treatment may manage for an average of 18-20 years before needing to use a walking stick (corresponding to Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] 6.0), while someone on treatment might manage without aid for 24 years, i.e. a 4-6-year delay, then the treatment can be called disease-modifying. (Please note, the treatment effect or 4-6-year delay in reaching EDSS 6.0 is an average and some people with MS will do better than others. Conversely, some will do worse than average.) 

Is interferon a DMT?

In the early days of interferon therapy, there was debate about whether simply reducing the relapse rate by 30% relative to placebo treatment, without slowing down the worsening of the disease over 2 years, was disease-modification. However, subsequent trials and follow-up of people with MS treated with interferon-beta showed a slowing down of disease worsening, delays in developing secondary progressive MS and a favourable impact on survival.1 

Do symptomatic treatments modify the disease?

Symptomatic treatments improve the symptoms associated with MS without affecting the natural history. Treatments are classified as symptomatic in relation to their mode of action; but some classes of treatment may yet prove to be disease-modifying. For example, we often use sodium channel blocking agents, such as phenytoin, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine and lamotrigine, for MS-related neuralgia and other pain syndromes. However, there is evidence that this class of therapy may be neuroprotective and hence disease-modifying. 

Who decides on eligibility for a licensed DMT?

Regulators decide in which group of people with MS the DMT can be used, and they grant a licence for its use. Regulators include the EMA, the FDA and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA in the UK).

Payers hold the purse strings and decide which licensed drugs to make available. They makecost-effectiveness assessments to try and optimise the use of the drug in clinical practice. Payers include medical insurance companies and the NHS in the UK. 

Guidelines are formulated to help healthcare professionals use DMTs in the most appropriate way within a particular healthcare system. Guidelines often go much further than the regulators and payers, in that they try to address potential ambiguities in the prescribing of DMTs. National, regional or local guidelines that provide expert clinical guidance include the UK NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) MS management guidelines and the Association of British Neurologists guidelines. 

In the NHS in England, we must abide by NHS England’s algorithm that is predominantly based on NICE technology appraisals, NICE standards of care and the Association of British Neurologists guidelines. To navigate the specifics of the eligibility criteria is quite complex. However, a simpler way of looking at this is to start by defining how active your MS is. 

How does disease activity affect my treatment options?

To be eligible for DMTs, you must have active MS. A summary of the four categories of disease activity is given below. Further details can be found in the section entitled Do I have active MS?

  1. Inactive MS – you are not currently eligible for DMTs.
  2. Active MS – you should be eligible for a so-called platform therapy (interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate or ponesimod) and ocrelizumab or ofatumumab.
  3. Highly active MS – you are eligible for all therapies except natalizumab. Please note in England fingolimod can only be used as a second-line therapy (after another DMT has failed).
  4. Rapidly evolving severe MS – you should be eligible for all DMTs.

Advanced or progressive MS

Ocrelizumab and siponimod are now approved in several countries for the treatment of active PPMS and active SPMS, respectively. A classification of active PPMS requires recent MRI evidence of disease activity, that is, the formation of new T2 lesions and/or the presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions in the last 3 years. Active SPMS is confirmed by the occurrence of superimposed relapses and/or the presence of new T2 lesions and/or gadolinium-enhancing lesions in the last 2 years. Based on these very narrow definitions, most patients with PPMS and SPMS will not be eligible for ocrelizumab or siponimod, respectively. The differences between the MRI criteria for active PPMS and active SPMS reflect the reality that people with PPMS are less likely to be having regular monitoring MRI scans.

Stages of MS currently not eligible for treatment

In the UK, people with MS who are wheelchair users are not eligible for DMTs. The reason for this is that patients with more advanced MS have generally been excluded from phase 3 clinical trials; hence there are no data to show whether licensed DMTs are effective in this group.

There is a long-held view that inflammation is reduced or absent in advanced MS. However, clinical, imaging and pathological data show that inflammation still plays a large, and possibly a major, role in advanced MS. Therefore, not targeting more advanced MS with an anti-inflammatory is counterintuitive.

The importance of upper limb function

In 2016, the #ThinkHand campaign was launched to raise awareness of the importance of hand and arm function in people with MS and the need for clinical trials in this population. Studies currently ongoing that focus on limiting upper limb disability progression include ChariotMS (oral cladribine)2 in people with advanced MS (UK only) and the global, multicentre O’HAND trial  (ocrelizumab)3 in participants with PPMS. 

Once someone with MS becomes a wheelchair user, they still have neuronal systems that are potentially modifiable – for example, upper limb, bulbar (speech and swallowing), cognition and visual function. There is an extensive evidence base showing that several licensed DMTs can slow the worsening of upper limb function despite subjects having advanced MS. Now that ocrelizumab and siponimod have been licensed for active primary and secondary progressive MS, respectively, these DMTs may form the platform for future add-on trials. 

References

  1. Goodin DS, et al. Survival in MS: a randomized cohort study 21 years after the start of the pivotal IFNβ-1b trial. Neurology 2012;78:1315 ̶ 22.
  2. National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). MS clinical trial to focus on people who can’t walk. November 2020. Available at https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/ms-clinical-trial-to-focus-on-people-who-cant-walk/26227 (accessed June 2022).
  3. US National Library of Medicine. A Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Ocrelizumab in Adults With Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (O’HAND). First posted July 2019. Available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04035005 (accessed June 2022).
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.