Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: the 2013 revisions

Fred D Lublin, Stephen C Reingold, Jeffrey A Cohen, Gary R Cutter, Per Soelberg Sørensen, Alan J Thompson, Jerry S Wolinsky, Laura J Balcer, Brenda Banwell, Frederik Barkhof, Bruce Bebo Jr, Peter A Calabresi, Michel Clanet, Giancarlo Comi, Robert J Fox, Mark S Freedman, Andrew D Goodman, Matilde Inglese, Ludwig Kappos, Bernd C Kieseier, John A Lincoln, Catherine Lubetzki, Aaron E Miller, Xavier Montalban, Paul W O'Connor, John Petkau, Carlo Pozzilli, Richard A Rudick, Maria Pia Sormani, Olaf Stüve, Emmanuelle Waubant, Chris H Polman, Fred D Lublin, Stephen C Reingold, Jeffrey A Cohen, Gary R Cutter, Per Soelberg Sørensen, Alan J Thompson, Jerry S Wolinsky, Laura J Balcer, Brenda Banwell, Frederik Barkhof, Bruce Bebo Jr, Peter A Calabresi, Michel Clanet, Giancarlo Comi, Robert J Fox, Mark S Freedman, Andrew D Goodman, Matilde Inglese, Ludwig Kappos, Bernd C Kieseier, John A Lincoln, Catherine Lubetzki, Aaron E Miller, Xavier Montalban, Paul W O'Connor, John Petkau, Carlo Pozzilli, Richard A Rudick, Maria Pia Sormani, Olaf Stüve, Emmanuelle Waubant, Chris H Polman

Abstract

Accurate clinical course descriptions (phenotypes) of multiple sclerosis (MS) are important for communication, prognostication, design and recruitment of clinical trials, and treatment decision-making. Standardized descriptions published in 1996 based on a survey of international MS experts provided purely clinical phenotypes based on data and consensus at that time, but imaging and biological correlates were lacking. Increased understanding of MS and its pathology, coupled with general concern that the original descriptors may not adequately reflect more recently identified clinical aspects of the disease, prompted a re-examination of MS disease phenotypes by the International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials of MS. While imaging and biological markers that might provide objective criteria for separating clinical phenotypes are lacking, we propose refined descriptors that include consideration of disease activity (based on clinical relapse rate and imaging findings) and disease progression. Strategies for future research to better define phenotypes are also outlined.

© 2014 American Academy of Neurology.

Figures

Figure 1. The 1996 vs 2013 multiple…
Figure 1. The 1996 vs 2013 multiple sclerosis phenotype descriptions for relapsing disease
*Activity determined by clinical relapses and/or MRI activity (contrast-enhancing lesions; new or unequivocally enlarging T2 lesions assessed at least annually); if assessments are not available, activity is “indeterminate.” **CIS, if subsequently clinically active and fulfilling current multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnostic criteria, becomes relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS).
Figure 2. The 1996 vs 2013 multiple…
Figure 2. The 1996 vs 2013 multiple sclerosis phenotype descriptions for progressive disease
*Activity determined by clinical relapses assessed at least annually and/or MRI activity (contrast-enhancing lesions; new and unequivocally enlarging T2 lesions). **Progression measured by clinical evaluation, assessed at least annually. If assessments are not available, activity and progression are “indeterminate.” MS = multiple sclerosis; PP = primary progressive; PR = progressive relapsing; SP = secondary progressive.

References

    1. Lublin FD, Reingold SC. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: results of an international survey. Neurology 1996;46:907–911
    1. Polman CH, Reingold SC, Banwell B, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 2011;69:292–302
    1. Miller D, Barkhof F, Montalban X, Thompson A, Filippi M. Clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis, part I: natural history, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and prognosis. Lancet Neurol 2005;4:281–288
    1. Tintore M, Rovira A, Martinez MJ, et al. Isolated demyelinating syndromes: comparison of different MR imaging criteria to predict conversion to clinically definite multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:702–706
    1. O'Riordan JI, Thompson AJ, Kingsley DP, et al. The prognostic value of brain MRI in clinically isolated syndromes of the CNS: a 10-year follow-up. Brain 1998;121:495–503
    1. Filippi M, Horsfield MA, Morrissey SP, et al. Quantitative brain MRI lesion load predicts the course of clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1994;44:635–641
    1. Morrissey SP, Miller DH, Kendall BE, et al. The significance of brain magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities at presentation with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis: a 5-year follow-up study. Brain 1993;116:135–146
    1. Jacobs LD, Beck RW, Simon JH, et al. Intramuscular interferon beta-1a therapy initiated during a first demyelinating event in multiple sclerosis: CHAMPS Study Group. N Engl J Med 2000;343:898–904
    1. Comi G, Filippi M, Barkhof F, et al. Effect of early interferon treatment on conversion to definite multiple sclerosis: a randomised study. Lancet 2001;357:1576–1582
    1. Kappos L, Polman CH, Freedman MS, et al. Treatment with interferon beta-1b delays conversion to clinically definite and McDonald MS in patients with clinically isolated syndromes. Neurology 2006;67:1242–1249
    1. Comi G, Martinelli V, Rodegher M, et al. Effect of glatiramer acetate on conversion to clinically definite multiple sclerosis in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (PreCISe study): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2009;374:1503–1511
    1. Miller DH, Weinshenker BG, Filippi M, et al. Differential diagnosis of suspected multiple sclerosis: a consensus approach. Mult Scler 2008;14:1157–1174
    1. Lebrun C, Bensa C, Debouverie M, et al. Association between clinical conversion to multiple sclerosis in radiologically isolated syndrome and magnetic resonance imaging, cerebrospinal fluid, and visual evoked potential: follow-up of 70 patients. Arch Neurol 2009;66:841–846
    1. Siva A, Saip S, Altintas A, Jacob A, Keegan BM, Kantarci OH. Multiple sclerosis risk in radiologically uncovered asymptomatic possible inflammatory-demyelinating disease. Mult Scler 2009;15:918–927
    1. Okuda DT, Mowry EM, Beheshtian A, et al. Incidental MRI anomalies suggestive of multiple sclerosis: the radiologically isolated syndrome. Neurology 2009;72:800–805
    1. Okuda DT, Mowry EM, Cree BA, et al. Asymptomatic spinal cord lesions predict disease progression in radiologically isolated syndrome. Neurology 2011;76:686–692
    1. Giorgio A, Stromillo ML, Rossi F, et al. Cortical lesions in radiologically isolated syndrome. Neurology 2011;77:1896–1899
    1. Lassmann H, van Horssen J, Mahad D. Progressive multiple sclerosis: pathology and pathogenesis. Nat Rev Neurol 2012;8:647–656
    1. Lassmann H, Bruck W, Lucchinetti CF. The immunopathology of multiple sclerosis: an overview. Brain Pathol 2007;17:210–218
    1. Ebers GC. Natural history of primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2004;10(suppl 1):S8–S13
    1. Confavreux C, Vukusic S. Natural history of multiple sclerosis: a unifying concept. Brain 2006;129:606–616
    1. Thorpe JW, Kidd D, Moseley IF, et al. Serial gadolinium-enhanced MRI of the brain and spinal cord in early relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1996;46:373–378
    1. Bot JC, Barkhof F. Spinal-cord MRI in multiple sclerosis: conventional and nonconventional MR techniques. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2009;19:81–99
    1. Wolinsky JS. The PROMiSe trial: baseline data review and progress report. Mult Scler 2004;10(suppl 1):S65–S71
    1. Hauser SL, Waubant E, Arnold DL, et al. B-cell depletion with rituximab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2008;358:676–688
    1. Rudick RA, Kappos L. Measuring disability in relapsing-remitting MS. Neurology 2010;75:296–297
    1. Bielekova B, Kadom N, Fisher E, et al. MRI as a marker for disease heterogeneity in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2005;65:1071–1076
    1. van den Elskamp IJ, Boden B, Dattola V, et al. Cerebral atrophy as outcome measure in short-term phase 2 clinical trials in multiple sclerosis. Neuroradiology 2010;52:875–881
    1. Galetta KM, Calabresi PA, Frohman EM, Balcer LJ. Optical coherence tomography (OCT): imaging the visual pathway as a model for neurodegeneration. Neurotherapeutics 2011;8:117–132
    1. Thompson AJ, Kermode AG, Wicks D, et al. Major differences in the dynamics of primary and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1991;29:53–62
    1. Ingle GT, Sastre-Garriga J, Miller DH, Thompson AJ. Is inflammation important in early PPMS? A longitudinal MRI study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005;76:1255–1258

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit