Skip to main content
Advertisement
  • Neurology.org
  • Journals
    • Neurology
    • Clinical Practice
    • Genetics
    • Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
    • Education
  • Online Sections
    • Neurology Video Journal Club
    • Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Anti-racism, & Social Justice (IDEAS)
    • Innovations in Care Delivery
    • Practice Buzz
    • Practice Current
    • Residents & Fellows
    • Without Borders
  • Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Disputes & Debates
    • Health Disparities
    • Infographics
    • Null Hypothesis
    • Patient Pages
    • Translations
    • Topics A-Z
  • Podcast
  • CME
  • About
    • About the Journals
    • Contact Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Center

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Neurology.org
  • Journals
    • Neurology
    • Clinical Practice
    • Genetics
    • Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
    • Education
  • Online Sections
    • Neurology Video Journal Club
    • Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Anti-racism, & Social Justice (IDEAS)
    • Innovations in Care Delivery
    • Practice Buzz
    • Practice Current
    • Residents & Fellows
    • Without Borders
  • Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Disputes & Debates
    • Health Disparities
    • Infographics
    • Null Hypothesis
    • Patient Pages
    • Translations
    • Topics A-Z
  • Podcast
  • CME
  • About
    • About the Journals
    • Contact Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Center
  • Home
  • Latest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Practice Current
  • Practice Buzz

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Neurology Clinical Practice
Home
A peer-reviewed clinical neurology journal for the practicing neurologist
  • Subscribe
  • My Alerts
  • Log in
Site Logo
  • Home
  • Latest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Practice Current
  • Practice Buzz

Share

December 2011; 1 (1) Current Controversies

Multiple sclerosis therapeutic strategies

Start safe and effective, reassess early, and escalate if necessary

Robert T. Naismith
First published December 1, 2011, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0b013e31823cc2b0
Robert T. Naismith
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Full PDF
Citation
Multiple sclerosis therapeutic strategies
Start safe and effective, reassess early, and escalate if necessary
Robert T. Naismith
Neurol Clin Pract Dec 2011, 1 (1) 69-72; DOI: 10.1212/CPJ.0b013e31823cc2b0

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Permissions

Make Comment

See Comments

Downloads
1468

Share

  • Article
  • Info & Disclosures
Loading

Embedded Image

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a serious disease that, if left untreated, often leads to disability and reduced quality of life.1 Some of the newer and emerging MS therapies (e.g., natalizumab, fingolimod) hold potential for enhanced efficacy in comparison to more established treatments (i.e., interferon and glatiramer acetate).2 However, the increased efficacy appears to sometimes come at the costs of safety and monitoring. In assessing the risk/benefit ratio for the individual patient, clinicians must synthesize many factors to decide upon an ideal treatment strategy. Acknowledging that there may be the rare patient with fulminant and rapidly disabling early MS who may need a highly effective treatment at the beginning, agents with considerable safety concerns should generally be used as “second line.” The initiation of a safe and effective first-line agent should include a comprehensive plan for monitoring disease activity, with potential for rapid changes in therapy if necessary.

Rationale for a stepped approach to treat patients with MS

  1. New agents will require several years and tens of thousands of patients before we understand their full safety profile. While recent phase III MS clinical trials are relatively large and reasonably long, important adverse events may be discovered only after the approved medicine is launched. Serious safety concerns may be missed if they are uncommon or associated with a long latency. For example, the multistep process of neoplastic growth and metastasis may take many years to realize. Slow viral infections (e.g., progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy) may peak after the second year of treatment. In addition, clinical trials recruit relatively young and healthy patients, reducing the generalizability of safety to all our patients with MS. Phase III trials cannot provide all the data on safety to offer full counseling to our patients.

  2. Patients with MS with aggressive early disease may still respond optimally to a safe, first-line agent.3 A dramatic initial presentation does not always portend an uncontrollable future disease course. Such patients need to be diligently monitored, but a significant number will respond favorably to a “first-line” agent when provided the chance.

  3. MS is a disease of years to decades, not weeks to months. The first-line agents are well-established to reduce relapse rates and severity and MRI lesions. The overwhelming majority of patients will have time to try one first-line medication for 3–12 months to determine whether the initial response is optimal. Malignant and fulminant MS, which may result in sustained disability over a short interval, is uncommon. Continued disease activity despite this first treatment can provide strong rationale for a switch, and would be reassuring to both clinician and patient that a more aggressive approach is warranted.

  4. “Induction” strategies remain unproven in MS. While some have advocated for brief and early intervention with a immunosuppressive agent, no evidence supports the concept that we can “reset” this disease to make it more manageable and easier to treat.4 In addition, even brief treatment with an immunosuppressive agent may carry significant risks for complications due to idiosyncratic and nondose related toxicities.

  5. The target population for early and aggressive therapies remains undefined. Properly designed studies are needed to establish who would benefit the most. We do not yet know the number needed to treat nor the number needed to harm. Head-to-head comparisons are lacking between newer and more established medications with regards to reduction in disability progression. Consensus and evidence-based practice guidelines will need to be developed to assist clinicians in these decisions. Should we be attempting to treat the worst 5% of MS, the worst 20%, or the worst 50% with these second-line agents?

Embedded Image

Acknowledging that there may be the rare patient with fulminant and rapidly disabling early MS who may need a highly effective treatment at the beginning, agents with considerable safety concerns should generally be used as “second line.”

Recommendations for newly diagnosed patients with MS

  1. At the earliest opportunity after the MS diagnosis, begin a long-established safe and effective agent, along with an individualized plan to monitor response.

  2. Utilize early prognostic factors to determine when to make an initial reassessment of treatment response. Those with the most concerning prognostic factors should return early (i.e., 3–6 months) to assess compliance, clinical response, and to obtain imaging studies to assess disease activity on treatment. Concerning prognostic factors might include short interval between first and second relapse, early motor or cerebellar involvement, incomplete relapse recovery, large burden of cerebral T2 lesions, numerous contrast-enhancing lesions at baseline, older age, male gender, and African American ethnicity.

  3. Those with less concerning prognostic factors should return for an assessment of medication efficacy at approximately 6 to 12 months. This will allow time for dose titration and full therapeutic effect.

  4. One does not need to try all available first-line agents before moving to second line. Some patients cannot wait several years for multiple therapies to fail before switching to what would hopefully be a more definitive treatment.

MS therapeutic research is evolving rapidly. Our level of comfort for an agent will become refined with time and experience, and in the context of other available therapeutics. Additional tools will be integrated into our decision algorithm. For example, the JC virus antibody assay may provide an effective means to help stratify patients into high or low risk for PML.5 Biomarkers for disease prognosis and treatment response are being vigorously pursued. The safety of sequential therapy remains an important consideration (e.g., PML risk with natalizumab and prior immunosuppression). Head-to-head studies are needed which demonstrate improvement in disability with newer agents. Whether other future agents should be used as first line would depend upon mechanism of action, the initial safety signal from phase III study, prior experience in other diseases with similar compounds, and the therapeutic half-life.

Over the past 2 decades, early treatment of relapsing MS has led to improved outcomes. Considerable numbers of patients have had excellent control of their disease for many years. However, patients can still become disabled despite effective therapies and our best efforts. The next generation of medications holds promise for improving outcomes even further. With increasing options, vigilance in monitoring disease activity will be an increasing part of our clinical practice.

DISCLOSURES

Dr. Naismith has received funding for travel and speaker honoraria from Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen Idec, Genzyme Corporation, Merck Serono, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; serves as an Associate Editor for Journal Watch; serves on speakers' bureaus for Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen Idec, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; and receives research support from Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. and the NIH.

Figure
  • Copyright © 2011 by AAN Enterprises, Inc.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Roxburgh RH,
    2. Seaman SR,
    3. Masterman T,
    4. et al
    . Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score: using disability and disease duration to rate disease severity. Neurology 2005;64:1144–1151.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Klawiter EC,
    2. Cross AH,
    3. Naismith RT
    . The present efficacy of multiple sclerosis therapeutics: is the new 66% just the old 33%? Neurology 2009;73:984–990.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Lucchinetti CF,
    2. Gavrilova RH,
    3. Metz I,
    4. et al
    . Clinical and radiographic spectrum of pathologically confirmed tumefactive multiple sclerosis. Brain 2008;131:1759–1775.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Comi G
    . Induction vs escalating therapy in multiple sclerosis: practical implications. Neurol Sci 2008;29:253–255.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Gorelik L,
    2. Lerner M,
    3. Bixler S,
    4. et al
    . Anti-JC virus antibodies: implications for PML risk stratification. Ann Neurol 2010;68:295–303.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract

The Nerve!: Rapid online correspondence

No comments have been published for this article.
Comment

REQUIREMENTS

If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org

Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.

If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.

Submission specifications:

  • Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
  • Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
  • Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
  • Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
  • Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.

More guidelines and information on Disputes & Debates

Compose Comment

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
NOTE: The first author must also be the corresponding author of the comment.
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Publishing Agreement
NOTE: All authors, besides the first/corresponding author, must complete a separate Publishing Agreement Form and provide via email to the editorial office before comments can be posted.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

You May Also be Interested in

Back to top
  • Article
    • DISCLOSURES
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Disclosures
Advertisement

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.

Topics Discussed

  • Multiple sclerosis

Alert Me

  • Alert me when eletters are published
Neurology: Clinical Practice: 12 (3)

Articles

  • Ahead of Print
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Popular Articles

About

  • About the Journals
  • Ethics Policies
  • Editors & Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise

Submit

  • Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Information for Reviewers
  • AAN Guidelines
  • Permissions

Subscribers

  • Subscribe
  • Activate a Subscription
  • Sign up for eAlerts
  • RSS Feed
Site Logo
  • Visit neurology Template on Facebook
  • Follow neurology Template on Twitter
  • Visit Neurology on YouTube
  • Neurology
  • Neurology: Clinical Practice
  • Neurology: Genetics
  • Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • Neurology: Education
  • AAN.com
  • AANnews
  • Continuum
  • Brain & Life
  • Neurology Today

Wolters Kluwer Logo

Neurology: Clinical Practice |  Print ISSN: 2163-0402
Online ISSN: 2163-0933

© 2022 American Academy of Neurology

  • Privacy Policy
  • Feedback
  • Advertise