Multiple Sclerosis

New data from two phase 3 studies found that in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), the new anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody drug, ublituximab, is associated with significant improvement in the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score, a measure of disability, compared with teriflunomide (Aubagio).

The results were presented by Lawrence Steinman, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).   

Main results from the ULTIMATE I and II phase 3 trials, reported previously, showed a significant reduction in annualized relapse rate (ARR) over a 96-week period (22 months) with ublituximab versus teriflunomide, as well as significant reductions in MRI lesions and improvements in the number of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA).

Data from these two trials are being used to support a recent approval application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for ublituximab to treat patients with relapsing remitting MS.

Although ublituximab was associated with an increased proportion of patients with 12-week and 24-week confirmed disability improvement compared with teriflunomide, there was no significant difference between the two groups in confirmed disability progression.

Another ULTIMATE investigator, University of California, San Francisco neurologist Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, explained that the measures of confirmed disability improvement and confirmed disability progression used in MS clinical trials are based on changes in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). But he pointed out that this scale is a challenging score to use, as it typically changes very slightly over the course of a trial. He adds that the scale can also be variable.  

“Because confirmed disability worsening was not met as one of the secondary endpoints, one of the critiques of these trials could be that there wasn’t an effect of ublituximab. But worsening disability was rare in both treatment arms, so it would be very difficult, if not impossible to demonstrate a difference without much greater numbers of patients being included,” he said.

Dr. Cree noted that the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score was an alternative, more sensitive, measure of disability that includes three different tests: the 9-hole peg test, which assesses upper arm mobility; the timed 25-foot walk test, which gauges walking ability; and the paced auditory serial addition test (PASAT), a measure of attention and processing.

He reported results showing that ublituximab significantly improved the MFSC score in ULTIMATE I by 76% and by 89% in ULTIMATE II, compared with teriflunomide. In ULTIMATE 1, the MSFC score improved by 0.266 points during the 96-week trial in the teriflunomide group and by 0.469 points in the ublituximab group (P = .048). In ULTIMATE II, the MSFC score improved by 0.275 points in the teriflunomide group and by 0.521 points in the ublituximab group (P = .017).

These changes were driven by improvements in the 9-hole peg test and the timed 25-foot walk test, with no difference seen in the PASAT test.

Asked how ublituximab compares with other anti-CD20 antibodies already in use such as ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), Dr. Cree noted that ublituximab is associated with fewer infusion reactions, so it can be infused more quickly. It is given over just 1 hour, compared with several hours needed for the ocrelizumab infusion.

“In the ULTIMATE studies the only reaction with ublituximab during infusion was a mild increase in temperature, and this can be minimized by pretreatment with acetaminophen. The allergic-type reactions of itchiness and scratchiness seen with ocrelizumab infusions were far less common with ublituximab.”

Dr. Cree attributes this to the glycol-engineering of the ublituximab antibody, which he says “allows the cytokines released from the B cells to be metabolized within phagocytes rather than to be released into the bloodstream.”

The ULTIMATE trials were funded by TG Therapeutics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from two phase 3 studies found that in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), the new anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody drug, ublituximab, is associated with significant improvement in the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score, a measure of disability, compared with teriflunomide (Aubagio).

The results were presented by Lawrence Steinman, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).   

Main results from the ULTIMATE I and II phase 3 trials, reported previously, showed a significant reduction in annualized relapse rate (ARR) over a 96-week period (22 months) with ublituximab versus teriflunomide, as well as significant reductions in MRI lesions and improvements in the number of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA).

Data from these two trials are being used to support a recent approval application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for ublituximab to treat patients with relapsing remitting MS.

Although ublituximab was associated with an increased proportion of patients with 12-week and 24-week confirmed disability improvement compared with teriflunomide, there was no significant difference between the two groups in confirmed disability progression.

Another ULTIMATE investigator, University of California, San Francisco neurologist Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, explained that the measures of confirmed disability improvement and confirmed disability progression used in MS clinical trials are based on changes in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). But he pointed out that this scale is a challenging score to use, as it typically changes very slightly over the course of a trial. He adds that the scale can also be variable.  

“Because confirmed disability worsening was not met as one of the secondary endpoints, one of the critiques of these trials could be that there wasn’t an effect of ublituximab. But worsening disability was rare in both treatment arms, so it would be very difficult, if not impossible to demonstrate a difference without much greater numbers of patients being included,” he said.

Dr. Cree noted that the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score was an alternative, more sensitive, measure of disability that includes three different tests: the 9-hole peg test, which assesses upper arm mobility; the timed 25-foot walk test, which gauges walking ability; and the paced auditory serial addition test (PASAT), a measure of attention and processing.

He reported results showing that ublituximab significantly improved the MFSC score in ULTIMATE I by 76% and by 89% in ULTIMATE II, compared with teriflunomide. In ULTIMATE 1, the MSFC score improved by 0.266 points during the 96-week trial in the teriflunomide group and by 0.469 points in the ublituximab group (P = .048). In ULTIMATE II, the MSFC score improved by 0.275 points in the teriflunomide group and by 0.521 points in the ublituximab group (P = .017).

These changes were driven by improvements in the 9-hole peg test and the timed 25-foot walk test, with no difference seen in the PASAT test.

Asked how ublituximab compares with other anti-CD20 antibodies already in use such as ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), Dr. Cree noted that ublituximab is associated with fewer infusion reactions, so it can be infused more quickly. It is given over just 1 hour, compared with several hours needed for the ocrelizumab infusion.

“In the ULTIMATE studies the only reaction with ublituximab during infusion was a mild increase in temperature, and this can be minimized by pretreatment with acetaminophen. The allergic-type reactions of itchiness and scratchiness seen with ocrelizumab infusions were far less common with ublituximab.”

Dr. Cree attributes this to the glycol-engineering of the ublituximab antibody, which he says “allows the cytokines released from the B cells to be metabolized within phagocytes rather than to be released into the bloodstream.”

The ULTIMATE trials were funded by TG Therapeutics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from two phase 3 studies found that in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), the new anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody drug, ublituximab, is associated with significant improvement in the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score, a measure of disability, compared with teriflunomide (Aubagio).

The results were presented by Lawrence Steinman, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).   

Main results from the ULTIMATE I and II phase 3 trials, reported previously, showed a significant reduction in annualized relapse rate (ARR) over a 96-week period (22 months) with ublituximab versus teriflunomide, as well as significant reductions in MRI lesions and improvements in the number of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA).

Data from these two trials are being used to support a recent approval application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for ublituximab to treat patients with relapsing remitting MS.

Although ublituximab was associated with an increased proportion of patients with 12-week and 24-week confirmed disability improvement compared with teriflunomide, there was no significant difference between the two groups in confirmed disability progression.

Another ULTIMATE investigator, University of California, San Francisco neurologist Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, explained that the measures of confirmed disability improvement and confirmed disability progression used in MS clinical trials are based on changes in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). But he pointed out that this scale is a challenging score to use, as it typically changes very slightly over the course of a trial. He adds that the scale can also be variable.  

“Because confirmed disability worsening was not met as one of the secondary endpoints, one of the critiques of these trials could be that there wasn’t an effect of ublituximab. But worsening disability was rare in both treatment arms, so it would be very difficult, if not impossible to demonstrate a difference without much greater numbers of patients being included,” he said.

Dr. Cree noted that the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score was an alternative, more sensitive, measure of disability that includes three different tests: the 9-hole peg test, which assesses upper arm mobility; the timed 25-foot walk test, which gauges walking ability; and the paced auditory serial addition test (PASAT), a measure of attention and processing.

He reported results showing that ublituximab significantly improved the MFSC score in ULTIMATE I by 76% and by 89% in ULTIMATE II, compared with teriflunomide. In ULTIMATE 1, the MSFC score improved by 0.266 points during the 96-week trial in the teriflunomide group and by 0.469 points in the ublituximab group (P = .048). In ULTIMATE II, the MSFC score improved by 0.275 points in the teriflunomide group and by 0.521 points in the ublituximab group (P = .017).

These changes were driven by improvements in the 9-hole peg test and the timed 25-foot walk test, with no difference seen in the PASAT test.

Asked how ublituximab compares with other anti-CD20 antibodies already in use such as ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), Dr. Cree noted that ublituximab is associated with fewer infusion reactions, so it can be infused more quickly. It is given over just 1 hour, compared with several hours needed for the ocrelizumab infusion.

“In the ULTIMATE studies the only reaction with ublituximab during infusion was a mild increase in temperature, and this can be minimized by pretreatment with acetaminophen. The allergic-type reactions of itchiness and scratchiness seen with ocrelizumab infusions were far less common with ublituximab.”

Dr. Cree attributes this to the glycol-engineering of the ublituximab antibody, which he says “allows the cytokines released from the B cells to be metabolized within phagocytes rather than to be released into the bloodstream.”

The ULTIMATE trials were funded by TG Therapeutics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Three or more cortical lesions at the time of multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis predicts long-term cognitive decline, according to findings from a new analysis. The findings had good accuracy, and could help clinicians monitor and treat cognitive impairment as it develops, according to Stefano Ziccardi, PhD, who is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Verona in Italy.

“The number of cortical lesions at MS diagnosis accurately discriminates between the presence or the absence of cognitive impairment after diagnosis of MS, and this should be considered a predictive marker of long-term cognitive impairment in these patients. Early cortical lesion evaluation should be conducted in each MS patient to anticipate the manifestation of cognitive problems to improve the monitoring of cognitive abilities, improve the diagnosis of cognitive impairment, enable prompt intervention as necessary,” said Dr. Ziccardi at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

Cortical lesions are highly prevalent in MS, perhaps more so than white matter lesions, said Dr. Ziccardi. They are associated with clinical disability and lead to disease progression. “However, prognostic data about the role of early cortical lesions with reference to long-term cognitive impairment are still missing,” said Dr. Ziccardi.

That’s important because cognitive impairment is very common in MS, affecting between one-third and two-thirds of patients. It may appear early in the disease course and worsen over time, and it predicts worse clinical and neurological progression. And it presents a clinical challenge. “Clinicians struggle to predict the evolution of cognitive abilities over time,” said Dr. Ziccardi.

The findings drew praise from Iris-Katharina Penner, PhD, who comoderated the session. “I think the important point … is that the predictive value of cortical lesions is very high, because it indicates finally that we probably have a patient at risk for developing cognitive impairment in the future,” said Dr. Penner, who is a neuropsychologist and cognitive neuroscientist at Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany.

Clinicians often don’t pay enough attention to cognition and the complexities of MS, said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment. “It’s just adding layers of complexity. We’re peeling back the onion and you realize it’s a really complicated disease. It’s not just white matter plaques, gray matter plaques, disconnection syndrome, wires cut, atrophy, ongoing inflammation, immune deficiency. All these diseases are fascinating. And we think we’re experts. But the fact is, we have much to learn,” said Dr. Gudesblatt, who is medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, New York.

The researchers analyzed data from 170 patients with MS who had a disease duration of approximately 20 years. Among the study cohort 62 patients were female, and the mean duration of disease was 19.2 years. Each patient had had a 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scan to look for cortical lesions within 3 years of diagnosis. They had also undergone periodic MRIs as well as neuropsychological exams, and underwent a neuropsychological assessment at the end of the study, which included the Brief Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Tests (BRB-NT) and the Stroop Test.

A total of 41% of subjects had no cortical lesions according to their first MRI; 19% had 1-2 lesions, and 40% had 3 or more. At follow-up, 50% were cognitively normal (failed no tests), 25% had mild cognitive impairment (failed one or more tests), and 25% had severe cognitive impairment (failed three or more tests).

In the overall cohort, the median number of cortical lesions at baseline was 1 (interquartile range, 5.0). Among the 50% with normal cognitive function, the median was 0 (IQR, 2.5), while for the remaining 50% with cognitive impairment, the median was 3 (IQR, 7.0).

Those with 3 or more lesions had increased odds of cognitive impairment at follow-up (odds ratio, 3.70; P < .001), with an accuracy of 65% (95% confidence interval, 58%-72%), specificity of 75% (95% CI, 65%-84%), and a sensitivity of 55% (95% CI, 44%-66%). Three or more lesions discriminated between cognitive impairment and no impairment with an area under the curve of 0.67.

Individuals with no cognitive impairment had a median 0 lesions (IQR, 2.5), those with mild cognitive impairment had a median of 2.0 (IQR, 6.0), and those with severe cognitive impairment had 4.0 (IQR, 7.25).

In a multinomial regression model, 3 or more baseline cortical lesions were associated with a greater than threefold risk of severe cognitive impairment (OR, 3.33; P = .01).

Of subjects with 0 baseline lesions, 62% were cognitively normal at follow-up. In the 1-2 lesion group, 64% were normal. In the 3 or more group, 31% were cognitively normal (P < .001). In the 0 lesion group, 26% had mild cognitive impairment and 12% had severe cognitive impairment. In the 3 or more group, 28% had mild cognitive impairment, and 41% had severe cognitive impairment.

During the Q&A session following the talk, Dr. Ziccardi was asked if the group compared cortical lesions to other MRI correlates of cognitive impairment, such as gray matter volume or white matter integrity. He responded that the group is looking into those comparisons, and recently found that neither the number nor the volume of white matter lesions improved the accuracy of the predictive models based on the number of cortical lesions. The group is also looking into the applicability of gray matter volume.

Three or more cortical lesions at the time of multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis predicts long-term cognitive decline, according to findings from a new analysis. The findings had good accuracy, and could help clinicians monitor and treat cognitive impairment as it develops, according to Stefano Ziccardi, PhD, who is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Verona in Italy.

“The number of cortical lesions at MS diagnosis accurately discriminates between the presence or the absence of cognitive impairment after diagnosis of MS, and this should be considered a predictive marker of long-term cognitive impairment in these patients. Early cortical lesion evaluation should be conducted in each MS patient to anticipate the manifestation of cognitive problems to improve the monitoring of cognitive abilities, improve the diagnosis of cognitive impairment, enable prompt intervention as necessary,” said Dr. Ziccardi at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

Cortical lesions are highly prevalent in MS, perhaps more so than white matter lesions, said Dr. Ziccardi. They are associated with clinical disability and lead to disease progression. “However, prognostic data about the role of early cortical lesions with reference to long-term cognitive impairment are still missing,” said Dr. Ziccardi.

That’s important because cognitive impairment is very common in MS, affecting between one-third and two-thirds of patients. It may appear early in the disease course and worsen over time, and it predicts worse clinical and neurological progression. And it presents a clinical challenge. “Clinicians struggle to predict the evolution of cognitive abilities over time,” said Dr. Ziccardi.

The findings drew praise from Iris-Katharina Penner, PhD, who comoderated the session. “I think the important point … is that the predictive value of cortical lesions is very high, because it indicates finally that we probably have a patient at risk for developing cognitive impairment in the future,” said Dr. Penner, who is a neuropsychologist and cognitive neuroscientist at Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany.

Clinicians often don’t pay enough attention to cognition and the complexities of MS, said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment. “It’s just adding layers of complexity. We’re peeling back the onion and you realize it’s a really complicated disease. It’s not just white matter plaques, gray matter plaques, disconnection syndrome, wires cut, atrophy, ongoing inflammation, immune deficiency. All these diseases are fascinating. And we think we’re experts. But the fact is, we have much to learn,” said Dr. Gudesblatt, who is medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, New York.

The researchers analyzed data from 170 patients with MS who had a disease duration of approximately 20 years. Among the study cohort 62 patients were female, and the mean duration of disease was 19.2 years. Each patient had had a 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scan to look for cortical lesions within 3 years of diagnosis. They had also undergone periodic MRIs as well as neuropsychological exams, and underwent a neuropsychological assessment at the end of the study, which included the Brief Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Tests (BRB-NT) and the Stroop Test.

A total of 41% of subjects had no cortical lesions according to their first MRI; 19% had 1-2 lesions, and 40% had 3 or more. At follow-up, 50% were cognitively normal (failed no tests), 25% had mild cognitive impairment (failed one or more tests), and 25% had severe cognitive impairment (failed three or more tests).

In the overall cohort, the median number of cortical lesions at baseline was 1 (interquartile range, 5.0). Among the 50% with normal cognitive function, the median was 0 (IQR, 2.5), while for the remaining 50% with cognitive impairment, the median was 3 (IQR, 7.0).

Those with 3 or more lesions had increased odds of cognitive impairment at follow-up (odds ratio, 3.70; P < .001), with an accuracy of 65% (95% confidence interval, 58%-72%), specificity of 75% (95% CI, 65%-84%), and a sensitivity of 55% (95% CI, 44%-66%). Three or more lesions discriminated between cognitive impairment and no impairment with an area under the curve of 0.67.

Individuals with no cognitive impairment had a median 0 lesions (IQR, 2.5), those with mild cognitive impairment had a median of 2.0 (IQR, 6.0), and those with severe cognitive impairment had 4.0 (IQR, 7.25).

In a multinomial regression model, 3 or more baseline cortical lesions were associated with a greater than threefold risk of severe cognitive impairment (OR, 3.33; P = .01).

Of subjects with 0 baseline lesions, 62% were cognitively normal at follow-up. In the 1-2 lesion group, 64% were normal. In the 3 or more group, 31% were cognitively normal (P < .001). In the 0 lesion group, 26% had mild cognitive impairment and 12% had severe cognitive impairment. In the 3 or more group, 28% had mild cognitive impairment, and 41% had severe cognitive impairment.

During the Q&A session following the talk, Dr. Ziccardi was asked if the group compared cortical lesions to other MRI correlates of cognitive impairment, such as gray matter volume or white matter integrity. He responded that the group is looking into those comparisons, and recently found that neither the number nor the volume of white matter lesions improved the accuracy of the predictive models based on the number of cortical lesions. The group is also looking into the applicability of gray matter volume.

Three or more cortical lesions at the time of multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis predicts long-term cognitive decline, according to findings from a new analysis. The findings had good accuracy, and could help clinicians monitor and treat cognitive impairment as it develops, according to Stefano Ziccardi, PhD, who is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Verona in Italy.

“The number of cortical lesions at MS diagnosis accurately discriminates between the presence or the absence of cognitive impairment after diagnosis of MS, and this should be considered a predictive marker of long-term cognitive impairment in these patients. Early cortical lesion evaluation should be conducted in each MS patient to anticipate the manifestation of cognitive problems to improve the monitoring of cognitive abilities, improve the diagnosis of cognitive impairment, enable prompt intervention as necessary,” said Dr. Ziccardi at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

Cortical lesions are highly prevalent in MS, perhaps more so than white matter lesions, said Dr. Ziccardi. They are associated with clinical disability and lead to disease progression. “However, prognostic data about the role of early cortical lesions with reference to long-term cognitive impairment are still missing,” said Dr. Ziccardi.

That’s important because cognitive impairment is very common in MS, affecting between one-third and two-thirds of patients. It may appear early in the disease course and worsen over time, and it predicts worse clinical and neurological progression. And it presents a clinical challenge. “Clinicians struggle to predict the evolution of cognitive abilities over time,” said Dr. Ziccardi.

The findings drew praise from Iris-Katharina Penner, PhD, who comoderated the session. “I think the important point … is that the predictive value of cortical lesions is very high, because it indicates finally that we probably have a patient at risk for developing cognitive impairment in the future,” said Dr. Penner, who is a neuropsychologist and cognitive neuroscientist at Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany.

Clinicians often don’t pay enough attention to cognition and the complexities of MS, said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment. “It’s just adding layers of complexity. We’re peeling back the onion and you realize it’s a really complicated disease. It’s not just white matter plaques, gray matter plaques, disconnection syndrome, wires cut, atrophy, ongoing inflammation, immune deficiency. All these diseases are fascinating. And we think we’re experts. But the fact is, we have much to learn,” said Dr. Gudesblatt, who is medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, New York.

The researchers analyzed data from 170 patients with MS who had a disease duration of approximately 20 years. Among the study cohort 62 patients were female, and the mean duration of disease was 19.2 years. Each patient had had a 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scan to look for cortical lesions within 3 years of diagnosis. They had also undergone periodic MRIs as well as neuropsychological exams, and underwent a neuropsychological assessment at the end of the study, which included the Brief Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Tests (BRB-NT) and the Stroop Test.

A total of 41% of subjects had no cortical lesions according to their first MRI; 19% had 1-2 lesions, and 40% had 3 or more. At follow-up, 50% were cognitively normal (failed no tests), 25% had mild cognitive impairment (failed one or more tests), and 25% had severe cognitive impairment (failed three or more tests).

In the overall cohort, the median number of cortical lesions at baseline was 1 (interquartile range, 5.0). Among the 50% with normal cognitive function, the median was 0 (IQR, 2.5), while for the remaining 50% with cognitive impairment, the median was 3 (IQR, 7.0).

Those with 3 or more lesions had increased odds of cognitive impairment at follow-up (odds ratio, 3.70; P < .001), with an accuracy of 65% (95% confidence interval, 58%-72%), specificity of 75% (95% CI, 65%-84%), and a sensitivity of 55% (95% CI, 44%-66%). Three or more lesions discriminated between cognitive impairment and no impairment with an area under the curve of 0.67.

Individuals with no cognitive impairment had a median 0 lesions (IQR, 2.5), those with mild cognitive impairment had a median of 2.0 (IQR, 6.0), and those with severe cognitive impairment had 4.0 (IQR, 7.25).

In a multinomial regression model, 3 or more baseline cortical lesions were associated with a greater than threefold risk of severe cognitive impairment (OR, 3.33; P = .01).

Of subjects with 0 baseline lesions, 62% were cognitively normal at follow-up. In the 1-2 lesion group, 64% were normal. In the 3 or more group, 31% were cognitively normal (P < .001). In the 0 lesion group, 26% had mild cognitive impairment and 12% had severe cognitive impairment. In the 3 or more group, 28% had mild cognitive impairment, and 41% had severe cognitive impairment.

During the Q&A session following the talk, Dr. Ziccardi was asked if the group compared cortical lesions to other MRI correlates of cognitive impairment, such as gray matter volume or white matter integrity. He responded that the group is looking into those comparisons, and recently found that neither the number nor the volume of white matter lesions improved the accuracy of the predictive models based on the number of cortical lesions. The group is also looking into the applicability of gray matter volume.

The number of cortical lesions at baseline may indicate a patient’s risk of developing secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), according to new research. Cortical lesions also may be an early marker of future disability accumulation.

In the study, patients who had developed secondary progressive MS after 20 years of follow-up had approximately 7 cortical lesions at baseline. This number was significantly higher than the baseline number of cortical lesions in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), relapsing-remitting MS, or primary progressive MS at 20 years.

“Our study represented a clear indication that the assessment, presence, and high number of cortical lesions at diagnosis is one of the tools at the disposal of the neurologist for the early identification of patients with more serious disease course,” said Gian Marco Schiavi, MD, a neurology resident at the University of Verona, Italy, during the presentation of his research.

The study was presented October 14 at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).
 

Accumulation of disability

Previous research has indicated that cortical lesions play a role in the accumulation of disability in MS and the conversion to secondary progressive MS. Other observations suggest that the number of cortical lesions after 30 years of follow-up explains more than 40% of the difference in disability between patients with secondary progressive MS.

The current investigators sought to understand whether cortical lesions at diagnosis could predict a patient’s risk for development of secondary progressive MS and risk for disability accumulation. They included 220 patients with MS and approximately 20 years of follow-up in their study.

At the time of diagnosis, all participants underwent 1.5-T MRI with double inversion recovery. Participants also presented for periodic MRI and clinical evaluations.

The researchers used analysis of variance to compare the baseline number of cortical lesions between patients with CIS, relapsing-remitting MS, secondary progressive MS, and primary progressive MS at 20 years. They also performed a multivariable regression analysis to predict patients’ final scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Variables included participants’ demographic, clinical, and radiological characteristics.
 

Lesions and disease progression

At baseline (the time of diagnosis), 162 patients had relapsing-remitting MS, 45 had CIS, and 12 had primary progressive MS. In all, 106 patients had no cortical lesions, 47 had 3 or fewer cortical lesions, and 67 had more than 3 cortical lesions.

At 20 years, 12 patients still had CIS, 152 had relapsing-remitting MS, and 44 had developed secondary progressive MS.

The mean number of cortical lesions at diagnosis was 6.6 in patients with secondary progressive MS at 20 years, which was significantly higher than the mean 1.3 cortical lesions in the other patients (P < .001).

In addition, post-hoc analysis showed that the median number of cortical lesions was significantly higher in patients with secondary progressive MS (6), compared with those with CIS (0; P < .001), relapsing-remitting MS (0; P < .001), and primary progressive MS (4.5; P = .013). Patients with primary progressive MS had a higher number of cortical lesions than patients with CIS and those with relapsing-remitting MS (P = .001).

The investigators also examined disability at 20 years. At that timepoint, mean EDSS score was 1.5 in patients with no cortical lesions, 3.0 in patients with 1 to 3 cortical lesions at baseline, and 6.0 in patients with more than 3 cortical lesions.

In a regression analysis, the number of cortical lesions and EDSS at diagnosis were the best predictors of long-term disability (P < .001). These factors explained about 57% of the variance in EDSS score after 20 years.
 

‘Important study’

“This important study supports that the presence of cortical lesions at the time of diagnosis is associated with long-term disability and transition to a secondary progressive disease course,” said Elias S. Sotirchos, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. The study size and long duration of follow-up are important strengths of the findings, he added.

Still, further research is needed to validate cortical lesions as a biomarker in clinical practice. Aside from technical validation issues relating to the identification of cortical lesions, whether cortical lesion burden can be used to guide therapeutic decision-making in MS is not clear, said Dr. Sotirchos.

“Notably, these patients were diagnosed and enrolled in this study 20 years ago, prior to the availability of newer disease-modifying therapies [DMTs] that are more effective at preventing inflammatory disease activity in MS,” he said, referring to the participants in the current study.

While recent observational studies have suggested that early initiation of higher-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) may reduce long-term disability and risk for transition to secondary progressive MS, the optimal approach to treatment in patients with a new diagnosis remains unclear, said Dr. Sotirchos.

Furthermore, it is unknown whether use of higher-efficacy DMTs may affect the risk of future disability in patients with high cortical lesion burden at baseline, said Dr. Sotirchos. “Or is it too late, especially considering the modest effects of DMTs in progressive patients and that cortical lesion burden was higher in patients that are progressive?”

One additional question to be addressed is how baseline cortical lesion burden adds to other factors that neurologists use in clinical practice to stratify patients’ risk of future disability, such as spinal cord involvement, motor or sphincter symptoms at onset, poor recovery from attacks, and white matter lesion burden, said Dr. Sotirchos.

The source of funding for this study was not reported. Dr. Schiavi and Dr. Sotirchos have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of cortical lesions at baseline may indicate a patient’s risk of developing secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), according to new research. Cortical lesions also may be an early marker of future disability accumulation.

In the study, patients who had developed secondary progressive MS after 20 years of follow-up had approximately 7 cortical lesions at baseline. This number was significantly higher than the baseline number of cortical lesions in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), relapsing-remitting MS, or primary progressive MS at 20 years.

“Our study represented a clear indication that the assessment, presence, and high number of cortical lesions at diagnosis is one of the tools at the disposal of the neurologist for the early identification of patients with more serious disease course,” said Gian Marco Schiavi, MD, a neurology resident at the University of Verona, Italy, during the presentation of his research.

The study was presented October 14 at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).
 

Accumulation of disability

Previous research has indicated that cortical lesions play a role in the accumulation of disability in MS and the conversion to secondary progressive MS. Other observations suggest that the number of cortical lesions after 30 years of follow-up explains more than 40% of the difference in disability between patients with secondary progressive MS.

The current investigators sought to understand whether cortical lesions at diagnosis could predict a patient’s risk for development of secondary progressive MS and risk for disability accumulation. They included 220 patients with MS and approximately 20 years of follow-up in their study.

At the time of diagnosis, all participants underwent 1.5-T MRI with double inversion recovery. Participants also presented for periodic MRI and clinical evaluations.

The researchers used analysis of variance to compare the baseline number of cortical lesions between patients with CIS, relapsing-remitting MS, secondary progressive MS, and primary progressive MS at 20 years. They also performed a multivariable regression analysis to predict patients’ final scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Variables included participants’ demographic, clinical, and radiological characteristics.
 

Lesions and disease progression

At baseline (the time of diagnosis), 162 patients had relapsing-remitting MS, 45 had CIS, and 12 had primary progressive MS. In all, 106 patients had no cortical lesions, 47 had 3 or fewer cortical lesions, and 67 had more than 3 cortical lesions.

At 20 years, 12 patients still had CIS, 152 had relapsing-remitting MS, and 44 had developed secondary progressive MS.

The mean number of cortical lesions at diagnosis was 6.6 in patients with secondary progressive MS at 20 years, which was significantly higher than the mean 1.3 cortical lesions in the other patients (P < .001).

In addition, post-hoc analysis showed that the median number of cortical lesions was significantly higher in patients with secondary progressive MS (6), compared with those with CIS (0; P < .001), relapsing-remitting MS (0; P < .001), and primary progressive MS (4.5; P = .013). Patients with primary progressive MS had a higher number of cortical lesions than patients with CIS and those with relapsing-remitting MS (P = .001).

The investigators also examined disability at 20 years. At that timepoint, mean EDSS score was 1.5 in patients with no cortical lesions, 3.0 in patients with 1 to 3 cortical lesions at baseline, and 6.0 in patients with more than 3 cortical lesions.

In a regression analysis, the number of cortical lesions and EDSS at diagnosis were the best predictors of long-term disability (P < .001). These factors explained about 57% of the variance in EDSS score after 20 years.
 

‘Important study’

“This important study supports that the presence of cortical lesions at the time of diagnosis is associated with long-term disability and transition to a secondary progressive disease course,” said Elias S. Sotirchos, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. The study size and long duration of follow-up are important strengths of the findings, he added.

Still, further research is needed to validate cortical lesions as a biomarker in clinical practice. Aside from technical validation issues relating to the identification of cortical lesions, whether cortical lesion burden can be used to guide therapeutic decision-making in MS is not clear, said Dr. Sotirchos.

“Notably, these patients were diagnosed and enrolled in this study 20 years ago, prior to the availability of newer disease-modifying therapies [DMTs] that are more effective at preventing inflammatory disease activity in MS,” he said, referring to the participants in the current study.

While recent observational studies have suggested that early initiation of higher-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) may reduce long-term disability and risk for transition to secondary progressive MS, the optimal approach to treatment in patients with a new diagnosis remains unclear, said Dr. Sotirchos.

Furthermore, it is unknown whether use of higher-efficacy DMTs may affect the risk of future disability in patients with high cortical lesion burden at baseline, said Dr. Sotirchos. “Or is it too late, especially considering the modest effects of DMTs in progressive patients and that cortical lesion burden was higher in patients that are progressive?”

One additional question to be addressed is how baseline cortical lesion burden adds to other factors that neurologists use in clinical practice to stratify patients’ risk of future disability, such as spinal cord involvement, motor or sphincter symptoms at onset, poor recovery from attacks, and white matter lesion burden, said Dr. Sotirchos.

The source of funding for this study was not reported. Dr. Schiavi and Dr. Sotirchos have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of cortical lesions at baseline may indicate a patient’s risk of developing secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), according to new research. Cortical lesions also may be an early marker of future disability accumulation.

In the study, patients who had developed secondary progressive MS after 20 years of follow-up had approximately 7 cortical lesions at baseline. This number was significantly higher than the baseline number of cortical lesions in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), relapsing-remitting MS, or primary progressive MS at 20 years.

“Our study represented a clear indication that the assessment, presence, and high number of cortical lesions at diagnosis is one of the tools at the disposal of the neurologist for the early identification of patients with more serious disease course,” said Gian Marco Schiavi, MD, a neurology resident at the University of Verona, Italy, during the presentation of his research.

The study was presented October 14 at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).
 

Accumulation of disability

Previous research has indicated that cortical lesions play a role in the accumulation of disability in MS and the conversion to secondary progressive MS. Other observations suggest that the number of cortical lesions after 30 years of follow-up explains more than 40% of the difference in disability between patients with secondary progressive MS.

The current investigators sought to understand whether cortical lesions at diagnosis could predict a patient’s risk for development of secondary progressive MS and risk for disability accumulation. They included 220 patients with MS and approximately 20 years of follow-up in their study.

At the time of diagnosis, all participants underwent 1.5-T MRI with double inversion recovery. Participants also presented for periodic MRI and clinical evaluations.

The researchers used analysis of variance to compare the baseline number of cortical lesions between patients with CIS, relapsing-remitting MS, secondary progressive MS, and primary progressive MS at 20 years. They also performed a multivariable regression analysis to predict patients’ final scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Variables included participants’ demographic, clinical, and radiological characteristics.
 

Lesions and disease progression

At baseline (the time of diagnosis), 162 patients had relapsing-remitting MS, 45 had CIS, and 12 had primary progressive MS. In all, 106 patients had no cortical lesions, 47 had 3 or fewer cortical lesions, and 67 had more than 3 cortical lesions.

At 20 years, 12 patients still had CIS, 152 had relapsing-remitting MS, and 44 had developed secondary progressive MS.

The mean number of cortical lesions at diagnosis was 6.6 in patients with secondary progressive MS at 20 years, which was significantly higher than the mean 1.3 cortical lesions in the other patients (P < .001).

In addition, post-hoc analysis showed that the median number of cortical lesions was significantly higher in patients with secondary progressive MS (6), compared with those with CIS (0; P < .001), relapsing-remitting MS (0; P < .001), and primary progressive MS (4.5; P = .013). Patients with primary progressive MS had a higher number of cortical lesions than patients with CIS and those with relapsing-remitting MS (P = .001).

The investigators also examined disability at 20 years. At that timepoint, mean EDSS score was 1.5 in patients with no cortical lesions, 3.0 in patients with 1 to 3 cortical lesions at baseline, and 6.0 in patients with more than 3 cortical lesions.

In a regression analysis, the number of cortical lesions and EDSS at diagnosis were the best predictors of long-term disability (P < .001). These factors explained about 57% of the variance in EDSS score after 20 years.
 

‘Important study’

“This important study supports that the presence of cortical lesions at the time of diagnosis is associated with long-term disability and transition to a secondary progressive disease course,” said Elias S. Sotirchos, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. The study size and long duration of follow-up are important strengths of the findings, he added.

Still, further research is needed to validate cortical lesions as a biomarker in clinical practice. Aside from technical validation issues relating to the identification of cortical lesions, whether cortical lesion burden can be used to guide therapeutic decision-making in MS is not clear, said Dr. Sotirchos.

“Notably, these patients were diagnosed and enrolled in this study 20 years ago, prior to the availability of newer disease-modifying therapies [DMTs] that are more effective at preventing inflammatory disease activity in MS,” he said, referring to the participants in the current study.

While recent observational studies have suggested that early initiation of higher-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) may reduce long-term disability and risk for transition to secondary progressive MS, the optimal approach to treatment in patients with a new diagnosis remains unclear, said Dr. Sotirchos.

Furthermore, it is unknown whether use of higher-efficacy DMTs may affect the risk of future disability in patients with high cortical lesion burden at baseline, said Dr. Sotirchos. “Or is it too late, especially considering the modest effects of DMTs in progressive patients and that cortical lesion burden was higher in patients that are progressive?”

One additional question to be addressed is how baseline cortical lesion burden adds to other factors that neurologists use in clinical practice to stratify patients’ risk of future disability, such as spinal cord involvement, motor or sphincter symptoms at onset, poor recovery from attacks, and white matter lesion burden, said Dr. Sotirchos.

The source of funding for this study was not reported. Dr. Schiavi and Dr. Sotirchos have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Melatonin improved sleep time and sleep efficiency in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who also had sleep disturbance, according to a new pilot study.

The study included only 30 patients, but the findings suggest that melatonin could potentially help patients with MS who have sleep issues, according to Wan-Yu Hsu, PhD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

There is no optimal management of sleep issues for these patients, and objective studies of sleep in patients with MS are scarce, said Dr. Hsu, who is an associate specialist in the department of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco. She worked with Riley Bove, MD, who is an associate professor of neurology at UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences.

“Melatonin use was associated with improvement in sleep quality and sleep disturbance in MS patients, although there was no significant change in other outcomes, like daytime sleepiness, mood, and walking ability” Dr. Hsu said in an interview.

Melatonin is inexpensive and readily available over the counter, but it’s too soon to begin recommending it to MS patients experiencing sleep problems, according to Dr. Hsu. “It’s a good start that we’re seeing some effects here with this relatively small group of people. Larger studies are needed to unravel the complex relationship between MS and sleep disturbances, as well as develop successful interventions. But for now, since melatonin is an over-the-counter, low-cost supplement, many patients are trying it already.”

Melatonin regulates the sleep-wake cycle, and previous research has shown a decrease in melatonin serum levels as a result of corticosteroid administration. Other work has suggested that the decline of melatonin secretion in MS may reflect progressive failure of the pineal gland in the pathogenesis of MS. “The cause of sleep problems can be lesions and neural damage to brain structures involved in sleep, or symptoms that indirectly disrupt sleep,” she said.

Indeed, sleep issues in MS are common and wide-ranging, according to Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. His group previously reported that 65% of people with MS who reported fatigue had undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea. He also pointed out that disruption of the neural network also disrupts sleep. “That is not only sleep-disordered breathing, that’s sleep onset, REM latency, and sleep efficiency,” said Dr. Gudesblatt, who is medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y.

Dr. Gudesblatt cautioned that melatonin, as a dietary supplement, is unregulated. The potency listed on the package may not be accurate and also may not be the correct dose for the patient. “It’s fraught with problems, but ultimately it’s relatively safe,” said Dr. Gudesblatt.

The study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Participants had a Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) score of 5 or more, or an Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) score higher than 14 at baseline. Other baseline assessments included patient-reported outcomes for sleep disturbances, sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, fatigue, walking ability, and mood. Half of the participants received melatonin for the first 2 weeks and then switched to placebo. The other half started with placebo and moved over to melatonin at the beginning of week 3.

Participants in the trial started out at 0.5 mg melatonin and were stepped up to 3.0 mg after 3 days if they didn't feel it was working, both when taking melatonin and when taking placebo. Of the 30 patients, 24 stepped up to 3.0 mg when they were receiving melatonin.*

During the second and fourth weeks, participants wore an actigraph watch to measure their physical and sleep activities, and then repeated the patient-reported outcome measures at the end of weeks 2 and 4. Melatonin improved average sleep time (6.96 vs. 6.67 hours; P = .03) as measured by the actigraph watch. Sleep efficiency was also nominally improved (84.7% vs. 83.2%), though the result was not statistically significant (P = .07). Other trends toward statistical significance included improvements in ISI (–3.5 vs. –2.4; P = .07), change in PSQI component 1 (–0.03 vs. 0.0; P = .07), and change in the NeuroQoL-Fatigue score (–4.7 vs. –2.4; P = .06).

Dr. Hsu hopes to conduct larger studies to examine how the disease-modifying therapies might affect the results of the study.

The study was funded by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Dr. Hsu and Dr. Gudesblatt have no relevant financial disclosures.

*This article was updated on Oct. 15.

Melatonin improved sleep time and sleep efficiency in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who also had sleep disturbance, according to a new pilot study.

The study included only 30 patients, but the findings suggest that melatonin could potentially help patients with MS who have sleep issues, according to Wan-Yu Hsu, PhD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

There is no optimal management of sleep issues for these patients, and objective studies of sleep in patients with MS are scarce, said Dr. Hsu, who is an associate specialist in the department of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco. She worked with Riley Bove, MD, who is an associate professor of neurology at UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences.

“Melatonin use was associated with improvement in sleep quality and sleep disturbance in MS patients, although there was no significant change in other outcomes, like daytime sleepiness, mood, and walking ability” Dr. Hsu said in an interview.

Melatonin is inexpensive and readily available over the counter, but it’s too soon to begin recommending it to MS patients experiencing sleep problems, according to Dr. Hsu. “It’s a good start that we’re seeing some effects here with this relatively small group of people. Larger studies are needed to unravel the complex relationship between MS and sleep disturbances, as well as develop successful interventions. But for now, since melatonin is an over-the-counter, low-cost supplement, many patients are trying it already.”

Melatonin regulates the sleep-wake cycle, and previous research has shown a decrease in melatonin serum levels as a result of corticosteroid administration. Other work has suggested that the decline of melatonin secretion in MS may reflect progressive failure of the pineal gland in the pathogenesis of MS. “The cause of sleep problems can be lesions and neural damage to brain structures involved in sleep, or symptoms that indirectly disrupt sleep,” she said.

Indeed, sleep issues in MS are common and wide-ranging, according to Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. His group previously reported that 65% of people with MS who reported fatigue had undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea. He also pointed out that disruption of the neural network also disrupts sleep. “That is not only sleep-disordered breathing, that’s sleep onset, REM latency, and sleep efficiency,” said Dr. Gudesblatt, who is medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y.

Dr. Gudesblatt cautioned that melatonin, as a dietary supplement, is unregulated. The potency listed on the package may not be accurate and also may not be the correct dose for the patient. “It’s fraught with problems, but ultimately it’s relatively safe,” said Dr. Gudesblatt.

The study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Participants had a Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) score of 5 or more, or an Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) score higher than 14 at baseline. Other baseline assessments included patient-reported outcomes for sleep disturbances, sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, fatigue, walking ability, and mood. Half of the participants received melatonin for the first 2 weeks and then switched to placebo. The other half started with placebo and moved over to melatonin at the beginning of week 3.

Participants in the trial started out at 0.5 mg melatonin and were stepped up to 3.0 mg after 3 days if they didn't feel it was working, both when taking melatonin and when taking placebo. Of the 30 patients, 24 stepped up to 3.0 mg when they were receiving melatonin.*

During the second and fourth weeks, participants wore an actigraph watch to measure their physical and sleep activities, and then repeated the patient-reported outcome measures at the end of weeks 2 and 4. Melatonin improved average sleep time (6.96 vs. 6.67 hours; P = .03) as measured by the actigraph watch. Sleep efficiency was also nominally improved (84.7% vs. 83.2%), though the result was not statistically significant (P = .07). Other trends toward statistical significance included improvements in ISI (–3.5 vs. –2.4; P = .07), change in PSQI component 1 (–0.03 vs. 0.0; P = .07), and change in the NeuroQoL-Fatigue score (–4.7 vs. –2.4; P = .06).

Dr. Hsu hopes to conduct larger studies to examine how the disease-modifying therapies might affect the results of the study.

The study was funded by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Dr. Hsu and Dr. Gudesblatt have no relevant financial disclosures.

*This article was updated on Oct. 15.

Melatonin improved sleep time and sleep efficiency in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who also had sleep disturbance, according to a new pilot study.

The study included only 30 patients, but the findings suggest that melatonin could potentially help patients with MS who have sleep issues, according to Wan-Yu Hsu, PhD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

There is no optimal management of sleep issues for these patients, and objective studies of sleep in patients with MS are scarce, said Dr. Hsu, who is an associate specialist in the department of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco. She worked with Riley Bove, MD, who is an associate professor of neurology at UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences.

“Melatonin use was associated with improvement in sleep quality and sleep disturbance in MS patients, although there was no significant change in other outcomes, like daytime sleepiness, mood, and walking ability” Dr. Hsu said in an interview.

Melatonin is inexpensive and readily available over the counter, but it’s too soon to begin recommending it to MS patients experiencing sleep problems, according to Dr. Hsu. “It’s a good start that we’re seeing some effects here with this relatively small group of people. Larger studies are needed to unravel the complex relationship between MS and sleep disturbances, as well as develop successful interventions. But for now, since melatonin is an over-the-counter, low-cost supplement, many patients are trying it already.”

Melatonin regulates the sleep-wake cycle, and previous research has shown a decrease in melatonin serum levels as a result of corticosteroid administration. Other work has suggested that the decline of melatonin secretion in MS may reflect progressive failure of the pineal gland in the pathogenesis of MS. “The cause of sleep problems can be lesions and neural damage to brain structures involved in sleep, or symptoms that indirectly disrupt sleep,” she said.

Indeed, sleep issues in MS are common and wide-ranging, according to Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. His group previously reported that 65% of people with MS who reported fatigue had undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea. He also pointed out that disruption of the neural network also disrupts sleep. “That is not only sleep-disordered breathing, that’s sleep onset, REM latency, and sleep efficiency,” said Dr. Gudesblatt, who is medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y.

Dr. Gudesblatt cautioned that melatonin, as a dietary supplement, is unregulated. The potency listed on the package may not be accurate and also may not be the correct dose for the patient. “It’s fraught with problems, but ultimately it’s relatively safe,” said Dr. Gudesblatt.

The study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Participants had a Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) score of 5 or more, or an Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) score higher than 14 at baseline. Other baseline assessments included patient-reported outcomes for sleep disturbances, sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, fatigue, walking ability, and mood. Half of the participants received melatonin for the first 2 weeks and then switched to placebo. The other half started with placebo and moved over to melatonin at the beginning of week 3.

Participants in the trial started out at 0.5 mg melatonin and were stepped up to 3.0 mg after 3 days if they didn't feel it was working, both when taking melatonin and when taking placebo. Of the 30 patients, 24 stepped up to 3.0 mg when they were receiving melatonin.*

During the second and fourth weeks, participants wore an actigraph watch to measure their physical and sleep activities, and then repeated the patient-reported outcome measures at the end of weeks 2 and 4. Melatonin improved average sleep time (6.96 vs. 6.67 hours; P = .03) as measured by the actigraph watch. Sleep efficiency was also nominally improved (84.7% vs. 83.2%), though the result was not statistically significant (P = .07). Other trends toward statistical significance included improvements in ISI (–3.5 vs. –2.4; P = .07), change in PSQI component 1 (–0.03 vs. 0.0; P = .07), and change in the NeuroQoL-Fatigue score (–4.7 vs. –2.4; P = .06).

Dr. Hsu hopes to conduct larger studies to examine how the disease-modifying therapies might affect the results of the study.

The study was funded by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Dr. Hsu and Dr. Gudesblatt have no relevant financial disclosures.

*This article was updated on Oct. 15.

New data on COVID vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) has shown a reduced humoral response in patients treated with the anti-CD20 antibodies ocrelizumab or rituximab, but not in those receiving the similar product, ofatumumab.

The results also show a reduced response to COVID vaccination in some patients on fingolimod.

The data come from a new series of vaccinated patients with MS from Madrid, which was presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

Presenting the data, Celia Oreja-Guevara, MD, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, concluded that “currently approved COVID-19 vaccines appear safe in MS patients and are effective in most patients. However, vaccine strategy in patients treated with anti-CD20 and S1P inhibitors [such as fingolimod] need further study.”

“We showed that patients on ocrelizumab or rituximab had a very low or no antibody response to COVID vaccination,” she added. “However, some previous studies have shown some T-cell response to vaccination in these patients, and we are looking at that now.”
 

Assessing postvaccination antibody response

For the current study, the researchers analyzed the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination at week 3, week 6, and month 3 after the first dose in 165 patients with MS and 200 healthy controls.

Of the patients with MS, 120 received both doses of mRNA vaccine and 42 received the AstraZeneca vaccine. The mean age of the MS patients was 45 years and 46 years in the healthy controls.

Adverse events were similar in the two groups, and no increase in relapse activity was seen in the patients with MS.

Mean antibody titers were slightly lower in the patients with MS versus the healthy controls. At 3 weeks, mean titers were 7,910 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 9,397 in the healthy controls. At 6 weeks, mean levels were 16,347 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 18,120 in the healthy controls.

Patients with MS treated with interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, and natalizumab who received mRNA vaccines developed a similar postvaccination humoral response as the healthy controls at each of 3, 6, and 12 weeks after the first dose.

Patients with MS receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine mounted a lower humoral response than those receiving the mRNA vaccine, but this same effect was also seen in the healthy controls.

However, patients on the anti-CD20 drugs ocrelizumab or rituximab showed a lower humoral response to COVID vaccination. Only 3 of 20 patients who had been treated with ocrelizumab developed antibodies, but these patients had longer washout periods (at least 6 months) between receiving ocrelizumab and the COVID vaccine. All six patients treated with rituximab had no antibody response to the COVID vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that ocrelizumab-treated patients may have a worse outcome after COVID-19 infection. “In the first wave of infection in Madrid, we recorded five patients on ocrelizumab with COVID-19, four of whom were hospitalized,” she noted.

“In patients on ocrelizumab we need to try and have a long interval between giving this drug and giving the COVID vaccine. The longer the washout period, the more antibodies are seen,” she said.

She noted that two patients in the study received the COVID vaccine 1 year after ocrelizumab administration and had a normal humoral response, similar to the healthy controls.

The new anti-CD20 drug, ofatumumab, did not seem to affect the COVID vaccine antibody response as much as ocrelizumab or rituximab. In the current study, four of five patients treated with ofatumumab had an antibody response.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that this was probably because the depletion of B cells is not so strong with ofatumumab. “This drug is dosed every 4 weeks and it doesn’t deplete all the B cells and they are replaced quite quickly.”

Fingolimod is another MS drug that seems to affect the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara described the response to COVID vaccination in patients on fingolimod as “very variable.” Of 16 patients treated with fingolimod, 4 failed to develop a humoral response, 7 had a low antibody response, and 5 had a similar response to that seen in the healthy controls (three of these patients had also had a previous COVID-19 infection). The response to vaccination in fingolimod-treated patients did not appear to be related to lymphopenia.
 

Cellular response also impaired with fingolimod

These data are consistent with those from another cohort from Israel reported previously.

In that study, which was published earlier in 2021, a team led by Anat Achiron, MD, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv, analyzed humoral immunity in 125 patients with MS 1 month after the second dose of the Pfizer COVID vaccine. A group of healthy people similarly vaccinated served as control.

Results showed that protective humoral immunity occurred in 97.9% of the control group after vaccination, compared with 100% in untreated patients and 100% in patients treated with cladribine but in just 22.7% of those treated with ocrelizumab and only 3.8% of those taking fingolimod.

For ocrelizumab-treated patients, the failure to mount appropriate IgG immune response was regardless of the absolute lymphocyte counts that were in the normal range or to the time interval from the last ocrelizumab treatment dose that ranged from 3.1 to 8.9 months, “suggesting the need to postpone the next dosing to enable an effective postvaccination humoral response,” the authors said.

They noted that the majority of the fingolimod-treated patients in the study had a low lymphocyte count (<1,000 cells/mm³), which may be the cause for failing to mount an immune response. But even in the small group of fingolimod-treated MS patients with an absolute lymphocyte count above 1,000 cells/mm³, no humoral response was detected.

At the ECTRIMS meeting, Dr. Achiron presented further results from this study on memory B-cell and T-cell responses to the COVID vaccine in these patients.

The results showed that COVID-specific B- and T-cell responses were only present in about half of healthy subjects, untreated patients with MS, and those treated with cladribine.

While the B-cell response was almost completely impaired in the ocrelizumab-treated patients, the T-cell response was present to the same extent as in the control group. But fingolimod patients showed no B- or T-cell responses.

Dr. Achiron concluded that patients on ocrelizumab should wait at least 9 months following the last dose before receiving COVID vaccination, and that patients taking fingolimod should consider a switch to a different medication.

But she pointed out that, despite the lack of humoral cellular responses in the fingolimod group, in this study there does not seem to have been an increase in COVID infection in patients taking fingolimod in a large registry study.

“This leads us to the idea that maybe lymphopenia is not the only story, and maybe innate immunity is playing a role. We still don’t really know the answer for that.”

Dr. Achiron said she was also surprised to see that even untreated and healthy subjects did not develop complete B-cell and T-cell responses after double COVID vaccination. And similar results have been seen in patients who have recovered from natural COVID infection, where the B-cell response is “not 100%,” she added.

“This points to the suggestion that everyone might need a third vaccination, MS patients or not,” she concluded.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data on COVID vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) has shown a reduced humoral response in patients treated with the anti-CD20 antibodies ocrelizumab or rituximab, but not in those receiving the similar product, ofatumumab.

The results also show a reduced response to COVID vaccination in some patients on fingolimod.

The data come from a new series of vaccinated patients with MS from Madrid, which was presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

Presenting the data, Celia Oreja-Guevara, MD, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, concluded that “currently approved COVID-19 vaccines appear safe in MS patients and are effective in most patients. However, vaccine strategy in patients treated with anti-CD20 and S1P inhibitors [such as fingolimod] need further study.”

“We showed that patients on ocrelizumab or rituximab had a very low or no antibody response to COVID vaccination,” she added. “However, some previous studies have shown some T-cell response to vaccination in these patients, and we are looking at that now.”
 

Assessing postvaccination antibody response

For the current study, the researchers analyzed the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination at week 3, week 6, and month 3 after the first dose in 165 patients with MS and 200 healthy controls.

Of the patients with MS, 120 received both doses of mRNA vaccine and 42 received the AstraZeneca vaccine. The mean age of the MS patients was 45 years and 46 years in the healthy controls.

Adverse events were similar in the two groups, and no increase in relapse activity was seen in the patients with MS.

Mean antibody titers were slightly lower in the patients with MS versus the healthy controls. At 3 weeks, mean titers were 7,910 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 9,397 in the healthy controls. At 6 weeks, mean levels were 16,347 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 18,120 in the healthy controls.

Patients with MS treated with interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, and natalizumab who received mRNA vaccines developed a similar postvaccination humoral response as the healthy controls at each of 3, 6, and 12 weeks after the first dose.

Patients with MS receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine mounted a lower humoral response than those receiving the mRNA vaccine, but this same effect was also seen in the healthy controls.

However, patients on the anti-CD20 drugs ocrelizumab or rituximab showed a lower humoral response to COVID vaccination. Only 3 of 20 patients who had been treated with ocrelizumab developed antibodies, but these patients had longer washout periods (at least 6 months) between receiving ocrelizumab and the COVID vaccine. All six patients treated with rituximab had no antibody response to the COVID vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that ocrelizumab-treated patients may have a worse outcome after COVID-19 infection. “In the first wave of infection in Madrid, we recorded five patients on ocrelizumab with COVID-19, four of whom were hospitalized,” she noted.

“In patients on ocrelizumab we need to try and have a long interval between giving this drug and giving the COVID vaccine. The longer the washout period, the more antibodies are seen,” she said.

She noted that two patients in the study received the COVID vaccine 1 year after ocrelizumab administration and had a normal humoral response, similar to the healthy controls.

The new anti-CD20 drug, ofatumumab, did not seem to affect the COVID vaccine antibody response as much as ocrelizumab or rituximab. In the current study, four of five patients treated with ofatumumab had an antibody response.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that this was probably because the depletion of B cells is not so strong with ofatumumab. “This drug is dosed every 4 weeks and it doesn’t deplete all the B cells and they are replaced quite quickly.”

Fingolimod is another MS drug that seems to affect the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara described the response to COVID vaccination in patients on fingolimod as “very variable.” Of 16 patients treated with fingolimod, 4 failed to develop a humoral response, 7 had a low antibody response, and 5 had a similar response to that seen in the healthy controls (three of these patients had also had a previous COVID-19 infection). The response to vaccination in fingolimod-treated patients did not appear to be related to lymphopenia.
 

Cellular response also impaired with fingolimod

These data are consistent with those from another cohort from Israel reported previously.

In that study, which was published earlier in 2021, a team led by Anat Achiron, MD, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv, analyzed humoral immunity in 125 patients with MS 1 month after the second dose of the Pfizer COVID vaccine. A group of healthy people similarly vaccinated served as control.

Results showed that protective humoral immunity occurred in 97.9% of the control group after vaccination, compared with 100% in untreated patients and 100% in patients treated with cladribine but in just 22.7% of those treated with ocrelizumab and only 3.8% of those taking fingolimod.

For ocrelizumab-treated patients, the failure to mount appropriate IgG immune response was regardless of the absolute lymphocyte counts that were in the normal range or to the time interval from the last ocrelizumab treatment dose that ranged from 3.1 to 8.9 months, “suggesting the need to postpone the next dosing to enable an effective postvaccination humoral response,” the authors said.

They noted that the majority of the fingolimod-treated patients in the study had a low lymphocyte count (<1,000 cells/mm³), which may be the cause for failing to mount an immune response. But even in the small group of fingolimod-treated MS patients with an absolute lymphocyte count above 1,000 cells/mm³, no humoral response was detected.

At the ECTRIMS meeting, Dr. Achiron presented further results from this study on memory B-cell and T-cell responses to the COVID vaccine in these patients.

The results showed that COVID-specific B- and T-cell responses were only present in about half of healthy subjects, untreated patients with MS, and those treated with cladribine.

While the B-cell response was almost completely impaired in the ocrelizumab-treated patients, the T-cell response was present to the same extent as in the control group. But fingolimod patients showed no B- or T-cell responses.

Dr. Achiron concluded that patients on ocrelizumab should wait at least 9 months following the last dose before receiving COVID vaccination, and that patients taking fingolimod should consider a switch to a different medication.

But she pointed out that, despite the lack of humoral cellular responses in the fingolimod group, in this study there does not seem to have been an increase in COVID infection in patients taking fingolimod in a large registry study.

“This leads us to the idea that maybe lymphopenia is not the only story, and maybe innate immunity is playing a role. We still don’t really know the answer for that.”

Dr. Achiron said she was also surprised to see that even untreated and healthy subjects did not develop complete B-cell and T-cell responses after double COVID vaccination. And similar results have been seen in patients who have recovered from natural COVID infection, where the B-cell response is “not 100%,” she added.

“This points to the suggestion that everyone might need a third vaccination, MS patients or not,” she concluded.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data on COVID vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) has shown a reduced humoral response in patients treated with the anti-CD20 antibodies ocrelizumab or rituximab, but not in those receiving the similar product, ofatumumab.

The results also show a reduced response to COVID vaccination in some patients on fingolimod.

The data come from a new series of vaccinated patients with MS from Madrid, which was presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

Presenting the data, Celia Oreja-Guevara, MD, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, concluded that “currently approved COVID-19 vaccines appear safe in MS patients and are effective in most patients. However, vaccine strategy in patients treated with anti-CD20 and S1P inhibitors [such as fingolimod] need further study.”

“We showed that patients on ocrelizumab or rituximab had a very low or no antibody response to COVID vaccination,” she added. “However, some previous studies have shown some T-cell response to vaccination in these patients, and we are looking at that now.”
 

Assessing postvaccination antibody response

For the current study, the researchers analyzed the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination at week 3, week 6, and month 3 after the first dose in 165 patients with MS and 200 healthy controls.

Of the patients with MS, 120 received both doses of mRNA vaccine and 42 received the AstraZeneca vaccine. The mean age of the MS patients was 45 years and 46 years in the healthy controls.

Adverse events were similar in the two groups, and no increase in relapse activity was seen in the patients with MS.

Mean antibody titers were slightly lower in the patients with MS versus the healthy controls. At 3 weeks, mean titers were 7,910 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 9,397 in the healthy controls. At 6 weeks, mean levels were 16,347 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 18,120 in the healthy controls.

Patients with MS treated with interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, and natalizumab who received mRNA vaccines developed a similar postvaccination humoral response as the healthy controls at each of 3, 6, and 12 weeks after the first dose.

Patients with MS receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine mounted a lower humoral response than those receiving the mRNA vaccine, but this same effect was also seen in the healthy controls.

However, patients on the anti-CD20 drugs ocrelizumab or rituximab showed a lower humoral response to COVID vaccination. Only 3 of 20 patients who had been treated with ocrelizumab developed antibodies, but these patients had longer washout periods (at least 6 months) between receiving ocrelizumab and the COVID vaccine. All six patients treated with rituximab had no antibody response to the COVID vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that ocrelizumab-treated patients may have a worse outcome after COVID-19 infection. “In the first wave of infection in Madrid, we recorded five patients on ocrelizumab with COVID-19, four of whom were hospitalized,” she noted.

“In patients on ocrelizumab we need to try and have a long interval between giving this drug and giving the COVID vaccine. The longer the washout period, the more antibodies are seen,” she said.

She noted that two patients in the study received the COVID vaccine 1 year after ocrelizumab administration and had a normal humoral response, similar to the healthy controls.

The new anti-CD20 drug, ofatumumab, did not seem to affect the COVID vaccine antibody response as much as ocrelizumab or rituximab. In the current study, four of five patients treated with ofatumumab had an antibody response.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that this was probably because the depletion of B cells is not so strong with ofatumumab. “This drug is dosed every 4 weeks and it doesn’t deplete all the B cells and they are replaced quite quickly.”

Fingolimod is another MS drug that seems to affect the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara described the response to COVID vaccination in patients on fingolimod as “very variable.” Of 16 patients treated with fingolimod, 4 failed to develop a humoral response, 7 had a low antibody response, and 5 had a similar response to that seen in the healthy controls (three of these patients had also had a previous COVID-19 infection). The response to vaccination in fingolimod-treated patients did not appear to be related to lymphopenia.
 

Cellular response also impaired with fingolimod

These data are consistent with those from another cohort from Israel reported previously.

In that study, which was published earlier in 2021, a team led by Anat Achiron, MD, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv, analyzed humoral immunity in 125 patients with MS 1 month after the second dose of the Pfizer COVID vaccine. A group of healthy people similarly vaccinated served as control.

Results showed that protective humoral immunity occurred in 97.9% of the control group after vaccination, compared with 100% in untreated patients and 100% in patients treated with cladribine but in just 22.7% of those treated with ocrelizumab and only 3.8% of those taking fingolimod.

For ocrelizumab-treated patients, the failure to mount appropriate IgG immune response was regardless of the absolute lymphocyte counts that were in the normal range or to the time interval from the last ocrelizumab treatment dose that ranged from 3.1 to 8.9 months, “suggesting the need to postpone the next dosing to enable an effective postvaccination humoral response,” the authors said.

They noted that the majority of the fingolimod-treated patients in the study had a low lymphocyte count (<1,000 cells/mm³), which may be the cause for failing to mount an immune response. But even in the small group of fingolimod-treated MS patients with an absolute lymphocyte count above 1,000 cells/mm³, no humoral response was detected.

At the ECTRIMS meeting, Dr. Achiron presented further results from this study on memory B-cell and T-cell responses to the COVID vaccine in these patients.

The results showed that COVID-specific B- and T-cell responses were only present in about half of healthy subjects, untreated patients with MS, and those treated with cladribine.

While the B-cell response was almost completely impaired in the ocrelizumab-treated patients, the T-cell response was present to the same extent as in the control group. But fingolimod patients showed no B- or T-cell responses.

Dr. Achiron concluded that patients on ocrelizumab should wait at least 9 months following the last dose before receiving COVID vaccination, and that patients taking fingolimod should consider a switch to a different medication.

But she pointed out that, despite the lack of humoral cellular responses in the fingolimod group, in this study there does not seem to have been an increase in COVID infection in patients taking fingolimod in a large registry study.

“This leads us to the idea that maybe lymphopenia is not the only story, and maybe innate immunity is playing a role. We still don’t really know the answer for that.”

Dr. Achiron said she was also surprised to see that even untreated and healthy subjects did not develop complete B-cell and T-cell responses after double COVID vaccination. And similar results have been seen in patients who have recovered from natural COVID infection, where the B-cell response is “not 100%,” she added.

“This points to the suggestion that everyone might need a third vaccination, MS patients or not,” she concluded.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Vikram Bhise, MD, Is an Associate Professor at Rutgers – Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.  He specializes in Epilepsy and Pediatric Neuroimmunology, and runs the pediatric demyelinating diseases program, evaluating children with multiple sclerosis, autoimmune encephalopathy, and related diseases.  He trained in Pediatrics and Pediatric Neurology, at Maimonides Medical Center and Montefiore Medical Center, respectively.  He subsequently received additional training in Clinical Neurophysiology with a focus on Epilepsy at SUNY Downstate Medical Center, and in Pediatric Multiple Sclerosis at SUNY Stony Brook Medical Center. Dr. Bhise conducts clinical research focused on biomarkers and quality of life in pediatric multiple sclerosis, as well as studies in epilepsy and neurogenetics. 

Q1. As a specialist who focuses on neuroimmunology, what forms of measurement do you use to make an evaluation or diagnosis for children with multiple sclerosis?

A1. There's a lot that goes into evaluating or diagnosing children with MS. Usually we start off with the story that the family brings to us. We look at what the child is experiencing and what the parents are seeing. Then we do a dedicated examination trying to substantiate the findings that they're describing and look for others they may not even be aware of. If they are having some blurred vision in their eye, can we tell if there's some abnormalities there that are correlating with what they see?

We try to get a good sense of the time-course of things, observing whether this is the first time something's happened or if this has this been going on for a while. Have there been multiple things going on, multiple episodes? We're primarily looking for events called relapses, which are neurologic attacks that are not quick. They don’t last for seconds or hours; they can last for days to weeks, sometimes even months. Individuals will have episodes that tend to get worse and then tend to get better. This is the type of description we’re looking to come from the families.

Once that assessment is complete, we've found that the MRI is one of the best tools in helping us confirm the diagnosis. It's not just diagnostic but the MRI also  has some prognostic potential and we're looking specifically for patterns in the MRIs. For children, that pattern can be a little bit more challenging. Their patterns can often overlap with patterns of other inflammatory diseases of the brain like ADEM for example and make it much more difficult for us to characterize someone as truly having MS.

There are also some other diseases which have been discovered in the past decade or elaborated upon like neuromyelitis optica and MOG antibody disorder, which can look exactly like MS in the early stages. Sometimes,  that's just not all the information we need. Sometimes it's more difficult to make those distinctions and in these cases, we will look at a spinal tap, a lumbar puncture, and for specific studies from those procedures to help us get a better understanding. There may be other ancillary tests that we use, such as evoked potentials, for example.

Evoked potential testing has kind of fallen to the wayside over the past decade because of the MRI studies becoming a much more useful tool, but we may still use the visual evoked potential to see if there are subtle lesions that can't be seen on the MRI. Other methods might include optical coherence tomography, which is another test looking at the eye that gives you a specific look at the retinal nerve fiber layer, which gets thinned after attacks on the eye on the optic nerve.

We may do neuropsychological testing, which is a battery of tests looking at different cognitive domains and trying to get a sense of a person's cognitive profile to see if that matches what we would expect in somebody with MS. This test could be more challenging for a teen and a child, particularly a younger child. When it comes to pediatric neuropsychology, it's a little bit harder sometimes to get good data, particularly from younger kids.

In addition, we have a battery of tests that we do on the serum. Some disorders, like NMO and MOG, have antibodies that help us identify them. We don't have a specific test that says, yes, you have MS and no, you don't have MS. It's really the combination of all the tools.

We do these tests often to look for things that mimic MS. We look for other neuroinflammatory or neurobiological diseases that can look a lot like MS and fool us. Most of the time they don't look exactly like MS, but every now and then you get a case that's virtually indistinguishable. There are other tools which may be in less use, but we put the combination of all these things together to help us make the most informed judgment.

The goal is to be able to have honest discussions with families that these tools are just tools that we're trying to play catch up with a disease and try to make a decision as fast as possible to prevent someone from going untreated.

Q2.  How does a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis affect the overall quality of life for a child/teen, and how does it affect their overall psychosocial health? Education?  Transition needs? Etc.

A2. It can be quite profound, just hearing the diagnosis can be truly life changing for most folks. It would really depend on the family the first time that we meet them. If they have no suspicion that this is what's going on, that can be a shock. Other families may be more aware of what’s going on. Perhaps another physician has already suggested it, or they came from the ER which had already done some of the baseline tests like the MRI, and they had some kind of  suspicion. Maybe they googled it and they saw something to be worried about, so they may be prepared. But even then,  once you confirm the diagnosis, it's really like the sky falling at that point.

Past the diagnosis stage, there's really an adjustment phase that we see, and we've been doing some work in this. We started doing some work looking at quality of life. We've interviewed a large  number of families and asked them some key questions such as, “What's important to you?” It is key for them to tell us rather than us telling them. By doing this, we’re finding out things that may not have been on the forefront of our minds, although it was certainly in the forefront of their minds,  so it's a good learning opportunity.

These may be things that we've seen in other quality of life studies in other diseases, but you also have to consider each disease unique and make sure you're looking at this from the perspective of the people that are really being affected. One of the great examples was that the teens really cared more about visible symptoms. For example, an adult with MS may have fatigue, severe fatigue. They may be unable to perform well in their job and that could be a game changer for them. Yet if they had a mild limp, they'd say, yeah, it's kind of embarrassing but I can keep going forward. I can hang in there and my colleagues at work might even support me; but for a teenager, they may care less about the fatigue and way more about having this limp that all their peers can now notice. The symptoms that are important to them can be totally different depending on the age group.

What we found is that teenagers look at things quite differently in trying to optimize their outcomes, and we don't just want them to be medically well. We want them to succeed in school, we want them to succeed in getting into college, or going into the workforce. So, we asked a lot about what it takes to get you there. We asked a lot of the young adults who had pediatric onset MS if they were  successful? And if you were, what got you there; and the ones who hadn't reached that yet we asked-- what do you need?

When it came to transition needs, by far, we’ve found almost complete silence on the teenager’s part, which was a little surprising for us. We thought that there would be a little bit of discussion. They didn’t understand what a 504 is. We don't expect the average individual to know, but we thought that they might understand what the tools were, yet they really had no language for discussing that with us. We realized that the start of our transition talks had to be focused on the things that we use for that language.

For example, if I wanted to get a ding in my car fixed. I had to spend 20 minutes explaining to the dealership what I wanted. It was a regular car dealership, so it was integrated. But I had to find the right words to say. I want “auto body.” If I said vehicle repair, they said, oh, you want your car tires replaced? No, no, no. so, it’s very important to speak the right language just to get the process started. Those are some of the things that we found.

Q3. In what ways do environmental and genetic risk factors influence therapeutic decisions in pediatric patients with MS? 

A3. They really play a big role in terms of the risk. We find that the more risk factors you have, likely we're dealing with a more severe disease. It doesn't necessarily always work that way, but you may be prepared to use a more potent therapy for individuals that are hitting more of the categories of concern.

But in addition to just the main disease modifying medications and MS, we look at vitamin D. And the data is yet to come out on that. There are some big studies that are trying to confirm or refute if vitamin D really has a therapeutic role, but we find that our teens and our kids have lower than average low vitamin D levels. We know that kids have low vitamin D levels nationwide in this country, but our patients are even lower than that. And that's one thing that we try to supplement and hope that by supplementing it, that it's going to be helpful. Maybe it's not as potent to therapy as the main medications, but we're hoping that's something to add on.

Q4. Overall, what are some advances, trends or recent studies regarding therapies that might support positive outcomes in children with MS? 

A4  Interestingly, we just don't have a lot of that research in kids. There's been tons and tons of great research in adults. Like many other fields, you take what you learn from that and you apply it to the teens and kids. But we've learned time and time again they're not just little adults. They're truly a separate group, and we must consider them as such, and we really need those studies in kids.

The first study that came out confirmed that fingolimod was a good and effective therapy in children. But does that mean that you're only limited to using the only FDA approved option, or do you really want to try to offer families the litany of choices that you do for an adult with MS? When I meet families for the first time, we’re spending a good hour just talking about the different treatment choices with them and looking at the risks, the benefits, why one option might be chosen over another,  how it's going to affect their lifestyle, and how it might fit into their life.

We want to still be able to make those decisions. I think we can make a more informed decision with fingolimod, but we don't want to just jump to conclusions with all those other therapies. We're a little bit behind the mark when it comes to therapies with kids, and we really need all those studies. They are active, and they are being done now; we're really waiting for those results to come out. That's going to be a huge change. Basically, that's the real trend. We're now going to see those studies in adults being replicated in kids one by one. Every time a new therapy comes out for adults, it must be validated in children as well.

Part of the regulations now do stipulate that these studies must be done. If you do a study in the adult population, you must see if you can do it in the pediatric population. You can't just say, hey, you know we're done. That's really what we're looking for in terms of getting the big therapeutic outcomes.

Vikram Bhise, MD, Is an Associate Professor at Rutgers – Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.  He specializes in Epilepsy and Pediatric Neuroimmunology, and runs the pediatric demyelinating diseases program, evaluating children with multiple sclerosis, autoimmune encephalopathy, and related diseases.  He trained in Pediatrics and Pediatric Neurology, at Maimonides Medical Center and Montefiore Medical Center, respectively.  He subsequently received additional training in Clinical Neurophysiology with a focus on Epilepsy at SUNY Downstate Medical Center, and in Pediatric Multiple Sclerosis at SUNY Stony Brook Medical Center. Dr. Bhise conducts clinical research focused on biomarkers and quality of life in pediatric multiple sclerosis, as well as studies in epilepsy and neurogenetics. 

Q1. As a specialist who focuses on neuroimmunology, what forms of measurement do you use to make an evaluation or diagnosis for children with multiple sclerosis?

A1. There's a lot that goes into evaluating or diagnosing children with MS. Usually we start off with the story that the family brings to us. We look at what the child is experiencing and what the parents are seeing. Then we do a dedicated examination trying to substantiate the findings that they're describing and look for others they may not even be aware of. If they are having some blurred vision in their eye, can we tell if there's some abnormalities there that are correlating with what they see?

We try to get a good sense of the time-course of things, observing whether this is the first time something's happened or if this has this been going on for a while. Have there been multiple things going on, multiple episodes? We're primarily looking for events called relapses, which are neurologic attacks that are not quick. They don’t last for seconds or hours; they can last for days to weeks, sometimes even months. Individuals will have episodes that tend to get worse and then tend to get better. This is the type of description we’re looking to come from the families.

Once that assessment is complete, we've found that the MRI is one of the best tools in helping us confirm the diagnosis. It's not just diagnostic but the MRI also  has some prognostic potential and we're looking specifically for patterns in the MRIs. For children, that pattern can be a little bit more challenging. Their patterns can often overlap with patterns of other inflammatory diseases of the brain like ADEM for example and make it much more difficult for us to characterize someone as truly having MS.

There are also some other diseases which have been discovered in the past decade or elaborated upon like neuromyelitis optica and MOG antibody disorder, which can look exactly like MS in the early stages. Sometimes,  that's just not all the information we need. Sometimes it's more difficult to make those distinctions and in these cases, we will look at a spinal tap, a lumbar puncture, and for specific studies from those procedures to help us get a better understanding. There may be other ancillary tests that we use, such as evoked potentials, for example.

Evoked potential testing has kind of fallen to the wayside over the past decade because of the MRI studies becoming a much more useful tool, but we may still use the visual evoked potential to see if there are subtle lesions that can't be seen on the MRI. Other methods might include optical coherence tomography, which is another test looking at the eye that gives you a specific look at the retinal nerve fiber layer, which gets thinned after attacks on the eye on the optic nerve.

We may do neuropsychological testing, which is a battery of tests looking at different cognitive domains and trying to get a sense of a person's cognitive profile to see if that matches what we would expect in somebody with MS. This test could be more challenging for a teen and a child, particularly a younger child. When it comes to pediatric neuropsychology, it's a little bit harder sometimes to get good data, particularly from younger kids.

In addition, we have a battery of tests that we do on the serum. Some disorders, like NMO and MOG, have antibodies that help us identify them. We don't have a specific test that says, yes, you have MS and no, you don't have MS. It's really the combination of all the tools.

We do these tests often to look for things that mimic MS. We look for other neuroinflammatory or neurobiological diseases that can look a lot like MS and fool us. Most of the time they don't look exactly like MS, but every now and then you get a case that's virtually indistinguishable. There are other tools which may be in less use, but we put the combination of all these things together to help us make the most informed judgment.

The goal is to be able to have honest discussions with families that these tools are just tools that we're trying to play catch up with a disease and try to make a decision as fast as possible to prevent someone from going untreated.

Q2.  How does a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis affect the overall quality of life for a child/teen, and how does it affect their overall psychosocial health? Education?  Transition needs? Etc.

A2. It can be quite profound, just hearing the diagnosis can be truly life changing for most folks. It would really depend on the family the first time that we meet them. If they have no suspicion that this is what's going on, that can be a shock. Other families may be more aware of what’s going on. Perhaps another physician has already suggested it, or they came from the ER which had already done some of the baseline tests like the MRI, and they had some kind of  suspicion. Maybe they googled it and they saw something to be worried about, so they may be prepared. But even then,  once you confirm the diagnosis, it's really like the sky falling at that point.

Past the diagnosis stage, there's really an adjustment phase that we see, and we've been doing some work in this. We started doing some work looking at quality of life. We've interviewed a large  number of families and asked them some key questions such as, “What's important to you?” It is key for them to tell us rather than us telling them. By doing this, we’re finding out things that may not have been on the forefront of our minds, although it was certainly in the forefront of their minds,  so it's a good learning opportunity.

These may be things that we've seen in other quality of life studies in other diseases, but you also have to consider each disease unique and make sure you're looking at this from the perspective of the people that are really being affected. One of the great examples was that the teens really cared more about visible symptoms. For example, an adult with MS may have fatigue, severe fatigue. They may be unable to perform well in their job and that could be a game changer for them. Yet if they had a mild limp, they'd say, yeah, it's kind of embarrassing but I can keep going forward. I can hang in there and my colleagues at work might even support me; but for a teenager, they may care less about the fatigue and way more about having this limp that all their peers can now notice. The symptoms that are important to them can be totally different depending on the age group.

What we found is that teenagers look at things quite differently in trying to optimize their outcomes, and we don't just want them to be medically well. We want them to succeed in school, we want them to succeed in getting into college, or going into the workforce. So, we asked a lot about what it takes to get you there. We asked a lot of the young adults who had pediatric onset MS if they were  successful? And if you were, what got you there; and the ones who hadn't reached that yet we asked-- what do you need?

When it came to transition needs, by far, we’ve found almost complete silence on the teenager’s part, which was a little surprising for us. We thought that there would be a little bit of discussion. They didn’t understand what a 504 is. We don't expect the average individual to know, but we thought that they might understand what the tools were, yet they really had no language for discussing that with us. We realized that the start of our transition talks had to be focused on the things that we use for that language.

For example, if I wanted to get a ding in my car fixed. I had to spend 20 minutes explaining to the dealership what I wanted. It was a regular car dealership, so it was integrated. But I had to find the right words to say. I want “auto body.” If I said vehicle repair, they said, oh, you want your car tires replaced? No, no, no. so, it’s very important to speak the right language just to get the process started. Those are some of the things that we found.

Q3. In what ways do environmental and genetic risk factors influence therapeutic decisions in pediatric patients with MS? 

A3. They really play a big role in terms of the risk. We find that the more risk factors you have, likely we're dealing with a more severe disease. It doesn't necessarily always work that way, but you may be prepared to use a more potent therapy for individuals that are hitting more of the categories of concern.

But in addition to just the main disease modifying medications and MS, we look at vitamin D. And the data is yet to come out on that. There are some big studies that are trying to confirm or refute if vitamin D really has a therapeutic role, but we find that our teens and our kids have lower than average low vitamin D levels. We know that kids have low vitamin D levels nationwide in this country, but our patients are even lower than that. And that's one thing that we try to supplement and hope that by supplementing it, that it's going to be helpful. Maybe it's not as potent to therapy as the main medications, but we're hoping that's something to add on.

Q4. Overall, what are some advances, trends or recent studies regarding therapies that might support positive outcomes in children with MS? 

A4  Interestingly, we just don't have a lot of that research in kids. There's been tons and tons of great research in adults. Like many other fields, you take what you learn from that and you apply it to the teens and kids. But we've learned time and time again they're not just little adults. They're truly a separate group, and we must consider them as such, and we really need those studies in kids.

The first study that came out confirmed that fingolimod was a good and effective therapy in children. But does that mean that you're only limited to using the only FDA approved option, or do you really want to try to offer families the litany of choices that you do for an adult with MS? When I meet families for the first time, we’re spending a good hour just talking about the different treatment choices with them and looking at the risks, the benefits, why one option might be chosen over another,  how it's going to affect their lifestyle, and how it might fit into their life.

We want to still be able to make those decisions. I think we can make a more informed decision with fingolimod, but we don't want to just jump to conclusions with all those other therapies. We're a little bit behind the mark when it comes to therapies with kids, and we really need all those studies. They are active, and they are being done now; we're really waiting for those results to come out. That's going to be a huge change. Basically, that's the real trend. We're now going to see those studies in adults being replicated in kids one by one. Every time a new therapy comes out for adults, it must be validated in children as well.

Part of the regulations now do stipulate that these studies must be done. If you do a study in the adult population, you must see if you can do it in the pediatric population. You can't just say, hey, you know we're done. That's really what we're looking for in terms of getting the big therapeutic outcomes.

Vikram Bhise, MD, Is an Associate Professor at Rutgers – Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.  He specializes in Epilepsy and Pediatric Neuroimmunology, and runs the pediatric demyelinating diseases program, evaluating children with multiple sclerosis, autoimmune encephalopathy, and related diseases.  He trained in Pediatrics and Pediatric Neurology, at Maimonides Medical Center and Montefiore Medical Center, respectively.  He subsequently received additional training in Clinical Neurophysiology with a focus on Epilepsy at SUNY Downstate Medical Center, and in Pediatric Multiple Sclerosis at SUNY Stony Brook Medical Center. Dr. Bhise conducts clinical research focused on biomarkers and quality of life in pediatric multiple sclerosis, as well as studies in epilepsy and neurogenetics. 

Q1. As a specialist who focuses on neuroimmunology, what forms of measurement do you use to make an evaluation or diagnosis for children with multiple sclerosis?

A1. There's a lot that goes into evaluating or diagnosing children with MS. Usually we start off with the story that the family brings to us. We look at what the child is experiencing and what the parents are seeing. Then we do a dedicated examination trying to substantiate the findings that they're describing and look for others they may not even be aware of. If they are having some blurred vision in their eye, can we tell if there's some abnormalities there that are correlating with what they see?

We try to get a good sense of the time-course of things, observing whether this is the first time something's happened or if this has this been going on for a while. Have there been multiple things going on, multiple episodes? We're primarily looking for events called relapses, which are neurologic attacks that are not quick. They don’t last for seconds or hours; they can last for days to weeks, sometimes even months. Individuals will have episodes that tend to get worse and then tend to get better. This is the type of description we’re looking to come from the families.

Once that assessment is complete, we've found that the MRI is one of the best tools in helping us confirm the diagnosis. It's not just diagnostic but the MRI also  has some prognostic potential and we're looking specifically for patterns in the MRIs. For children, that pattern can be a little bit more challenging. Their patterns can often overlap with patterns of other inflammatory diseases of the brain like ADEM for example and make it much more difficult for us to characterize someone as truly having MS.

There are also some other diseases which have been discovered in the past decade or elaborated upon like neuromyelitis optica and MOG antibody disorder, which can look exactly like MS in the early stages. Sometimes,  that's just not all the information we need. Sometimes it's more difficult to make those distinctions and in these cases, we will look at a spinal tap, a lumbar puncture, and for specific studies from those procedures to help us get a better understanding. There may be other ancillary tests that we use, such as evoked potentials, for example.

Evoked potential testing has kind of fallen to the wayside over the past decade because of the MRI studies becoming a much more useful tool, but we may still use the visual evoked potential to see if there are subtle lesions that can't be seen on the MRI. Other methods might include optical coherence tomography, which is another test looking at the eye that gives you a specific look at the retinal nerve fiber layer, which gets thinned after attacks on the eye on the optic nerve.

We may do neuropsychological testing, which is a battery of tests looking at different cognitive domains and trying to get a sense of a person's cognitive profile to see if that matches what we would expect in somebody with MS. This test could be more challenging for a teen and a child, particularly a younger child. When it comes to pediatric neuropsychology, it's a little bit harder sometimes to get good data, particularly from younger kids.

In addition, we have a battery of tests that we do on the serum. Some disorders, like NMO and MOG, have antibodies that help us identify them. We don't have a specific test that says, yes, you have MS and no, you don't have MS. It's really the combination of all the tools.

We do these tests often to look for things that mimic MS. We look for other neuroinflammatory or neurobiological diseases that can look a lot like MS and fool us. Most of the time they don't look exactly like MS, but every now and then you get a case that's virtually indistinguishable. There are other tools which may be in less use, but we put the combination of all these things together to help us make the most informed judgment.

The goal is to be able to have honest discussions with families that these tools are just tools that we're trying to play catch up with a disease and try to make a decision as fast as possible to prevent someone from going untreated.

Q2.  How does a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis affect the overall quality of life for a child/teen, and how does it affect their overall psychosocial health? Education?  Transition needs? Etc.

A2. It can be quite profound, just hearing the diagnosis can be truly life changing for most folks. It would really depend on the family the first time that we meet them. If they have no suspicion that this is what's going on, that can be a shock. Other families may be more aware of what’s going on. Perhaps another physician has already suggested it, or they came from the ER which had already done some of the baseline tests like the MRI, and they had some kind of  suspicion. Maybe they googled it and they saw something to be worried about, so they may be prepared. But even then,  once you confirm the diagnosis, it's really like the sky falling at that point.

Past the diagnosis stage, there's really an adjustment phase that we see, and we've been doing some work in this. We started doing some work looking at quality of life. We've interviewed a large  number of families and asked them some key questions such as, “What's important to you?” It is key for them to tell us rather than us telling them. By doing this, we’re finding out things that may not have been on the forefront of our minds, although it was certainly in the forefront of their minds,  so it's a good learning opportunity.

These may be things that we've seen in other quality of life studies in other diseases, but you also have to consider each disease unique and make sure you're looking at this from the perspective of the people that are really being affected. One of the great examples was that the teens really cared more about visible symptoms. For example, an adult with MS may have fatigue, severe fatigue. They may be unable to perform well in their job and that could be a game changer for them. Yet if they had a mild limp, they'd say, yeah, it's kind of embarrassing but I can keep going forward. I can hang in there and my colleagues at work might even support me; but for a teenager, they may care less about the fatigue and way more about having this limp that all their peers can now notice. The symptoms that are important to them can be totally different depending on the age group.

What we found is that teenagers look at things quite differently in trying to optimize their outcomes, and we don't just want them to be medically well. We want them to succeed in school, we want them to succeed in getting into college, or going into the workforce. So, we asked a lot about what it takes to get you there. We asked a lot of the young adults who had pediatric onset MS if they were  successful? And if you were, what got you there; and the ones who hadn't reached that yet we asked-- what do you need?

When it came to transition needs, by far, we’ve found almost complete silence on the teenager’s part, which was a little surprising for us. We thought that there would be a little bit of discussion. They didn’t understand what a 504 is. We don't expect the average individual to know, but we thought that they might understand what the tools were, yet they really had no language for discussing that with us. We realized that the start of our transition talks had to be focused on the things that we use for that language.

For example, if I wanted to get a ding in my car fixed. I had to spend 20 minutes explaining to the dealership what I wanted. It was a regular car dealership, so it was integrated. But I had to find the right words to say. I want “auto body.” If I said vehicle repair, they said, oh, you want your car tires replaced? No, no, no. so, it’s very important to speak the right language just to get the process started. Those are some of the things that we found.

Q3. In what ways do environmental and genetic risk factors influence therapeutic decisions in pediatric patients with MS? 

A3. They really play a big role in terms of the risk. We find that the more risk factors you have, likely we're dealing with a more severe disease. It doesn't necessarily always work that way, but you may be prepared to use a more potent therapy for individuals that are hitting more of the categories of concern.

But in addition to just the main disease modifying medications and MS, we look at vitamin D. And the data is yet to come out on that. There are some big studies that are trying to confirm or refute if vitamin D really has a therapeutic role, but we find that our teens and our kids have lower than average low vitamin D levels. We know that kids have low vitamin D levels nationwide in this country, but our patients are even lower than that. And that's one thing that we try to supplement and hope that by supplementing it, that it's going to be helpful. Maybe it's not as potent to therapy as the main medications, but we're hoping that's something to add on.

Q4. Overall, what are some advances, trends or recent studies regarding therapies that might support positive outcomes in children with MS? 

A4  Interestingly, we just don't have a lot of that research in kids. There's been tons and tons of great research in adults. Like many other fields, you take what you learn from that and you apply it to the teens and kids. But we've learned time and time again they're not just little adults. They're truly a separate group, and we must consider them as such, and we really need those studies in kids.

The first study that came out confirmed that fingolimod was a good and effective therapy in children. But does that mean that you're only limited to using the only FDA approved option, or do you really want to try to offer families the litany of choices that you do for an adult with MS? When I meet families for the first time, we’re spending a good hour just talking about the different treatment choices with them and looking at the risks, the benefits, why one option might be chosen over another,  how it's going to affect their lifestyle, and how it might fit into their life.

We want to still be able to make those decisions. I think we can make a more informed decision with fingolimod, but we don't want to just jump to conclusions with all those other therapies. We're a little bit behind the mark when it comes to therapies with kids, and we really need all those studies. They are active, and they are being done now; we're really waiting for those results to come out. That's going to be a huge change. Basically, that's the real trend. We're now going to see those studies in adults being replicated in kids one by one. Every time a new therapy comes out for adults, it must be validated in children as well.

Part of the regulations now do stipulate that these studies must be done. If you do a study in the adult population, you must see if you can do it in the pediatric population. You can't just say, hey, you know we're done. That's really what we're looking for in terms of getting the big therapeutic outcomes.

This young patient is probably presenting with pediatric multiple sclerosis (MS). It is estimated that MS onset before the age of 18 years accounts for 3%-5% of the general population of patients with this autoimmune disease. The condition represents the most common nontraumatic, disabling neurologic disorder among young adults. Disease prevalence is highest between the ages of 13 and 16. In children older than 10, a female predominance is seen, suggesting a hormonal role in pathogenesis. The vast majority (up to 98%) of children and adolescents with MS have a relapsing-remitting course. Overall, pediatric MS has a milder course than adult MS but can lead to significant disability at an early age. Although pediatric patients may experience more frequent relapses, data also suggest that children seem to recover more quickly from episodes than adults.

In children and adolescents, MS most typically manifests with sensory disturbances and impaired coordination. The most commonly reported symptoms in pediatric MS are sensory, motor, and brainstem dysfunction, though cognitive and emotional disorders can emerge over time.

Younger children will often show multifocal symptoms but with the onset of adolescence may begin to present with only a single focal symptom, as is often the case with adult patients.

Diagnosis of pediatric MS goes hand-in-hand with a diagnosis of clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) or sporadic acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). CIS is diagnosed when symptoms last for over 24 hours with possible inflammatory demyelination but without encephalopathy. To confirm an MS diagnosis, two or more clinical episodes must occur at least 30 days apart. MRI can both confirm diagnosis and offer great value in monitoring disease progression in the brain and spinal cord. Of note, differentiating the first episode of juvenile MS from ADEM is a significant clinical challenge.

When it comes to treating relapses, the approach in children is similar to that of adults. Therapy may consist of an intravenous pulse of methylprednisolone (20-30 mg/kg/day for 3-5 days). In 2018, the FDA approved the use of the oral MS therapy Gilenya (fingolimod) for the treatment of patients 10 years of age or older with relapsing forms of MS. Providers can also adapt treatments approved for adults for pediatric patients. 

Krupa Pandey, MD, Director, Multiple Sclerosis Center, Department of Neurology & Neuroscience Institute, Hackensack University Medical Center; Neurologist, Department of Neurology, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, NJ

Krupa Pandey, MD, has serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Biogen; Alexion; Genentech; Sanofi-Genzyme

This young patient is probably presenting with pediatric multiple sclerosis (MS). It is estimated that MS onset before the age of 18 years accounts for 3%-5% of the general population of patients with this autoimmune disease. The condition represents the most common nontraumatic, disabling neurologic disorder among young adults. Disease prevalence is highest between the ages of 13 and 16. In children older than 10, a female predominance is seen, suggesting a hormonal role in pathogenesis. The vast majority (up to 98%) of children and adolescents with MS have a relapsing-remitting course. Overall, pediatric MS has a milder course than adult MS but can lead to significant disability at an early age. Although pediatric patients may experience more frequent relapses, data also suggest that children seem to recover more quickly from episodes than adults.

In children and adolescents, MS most typically manifests with sensory disturbances and impaired coordination. The most commonly reported symptoms in pediatric MS are sensory, motor, and brainstem dysfunction, though cognitive and emotional disorders can emerge over time.

Younger children will often show multifocal symptoms but with the onset of adolescence may begin to present with only a single focal symptom, as is often the case with adult patients.

Diagnosis of pediatric MS goes hand-in-hand with a diagnosis of clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) or sporadic acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). CIS is diagnosed when symptoms last for over 24 hours with possible inflammatory demyelination but without encephalopathy. To confirm an MS diagnosis, two or more clinical episodes must occur at least 30 days apart. MRI can both confirm diagnosis and offer great value in monitoring disease progression in the brain and spinal cord. Of note, differentiating the first episode of juvenile MS from ADEM is a significant clinical challenge.

When it comes to treating relapses, the approach in children is similar to that of adults. Therapy may consist of an intravenous pulse of methylprednisolone (20-30 mg/kg/day for 3-5 days). In 2018, the FDA approved the use of the oral MS therapy Gilenya (fingolimod) for the treatment of patients 10 years of age or older with relapsing forms of MS. Providers can also adapt treatments approved for adults for pediatric patients. 

Krupa Pandey, MD, Director, Multiple Sclerosis Center, Department of Neurology & Neuroscience Institute, Hackensack University Medical Center; Neurologist, Department of Neurology, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, NJ

Krupa Pandey, MD, has serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Biogen; Alexion; Genentech; Sanofi-Genzyme

This young patient is probably presenting with pediatric multiple sclerosis (MS). It is estimated that MS onset before the age of 18 years accounts for 3%-5% of the general population of patients with this autoimmune disease. The condition represents the most common nontraumatic, disabling neurologic disorder among young adults. Disease prevalence is highest between the ages of 13 and 16. In children older than 10, a female predominance is seen, suggesting a hormonal role in pathogenesis. The vast majority (up to 98%) of children and adolescents with MS have a relapsing-remitting course. Overall, pediatric MS has a milder course than adult MS but can lead to significant disability at an early age. Although pediatric patients may experience more frequent relapses, data also suggest that children seem to recover more quickly from episodes than adults.

In children and adolescents, MS most typically manifests with sensory disturbances and impaired coordination. The most commonly reported symptoms in pediatric MS are sensory, motor, and brainstem dysfunction, though cognitive and emotional disorders can emerge over time.

Younger children will often show multifocal symptoms but with the onset of adolescence may begin to present with only a single focal symptom, as is often the case with adult patients.

Diagnosis of pediatric MS goes hand-in-hand with a diagnosis of clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) or sporadic acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). CIS is diagnosed when symptoms last for over 24 hours with possible inflammatory demyelination but without encephalopathy. To confirm an MS diagnosis, two or more clinical episodes must occur at least 30 days apart. MRI can both confirm diagnosis and offer great value in monitoring disease progression in the brain and spinal cord. Of note, differentiating the first episode of juvenile MS from ADEM is a significant clinical challenge.

When it comes to treating relapses, the approach in children is similar to that of adults. Therapy may consist of an intravenous pulse of methylprednisolone (20-30 mg/kg/day for 3-5 days). In 2018, the FDA approved the use of the oral MS therapy Gilenya (fingolimod) for the treatment of patients 10 years of age or older with relapsing forms of MS. Providers can also adapt treatments approved for adults for pediatric patients. 

Krupa Pandey, MD, Director, Multiple Sclerosis Center, Department of Neurology & Neuroscience Institute, Hackensack University Medical Center; Neurologist, Department of Neurology, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, NJ

Krupa Pandey, MD, has serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Biogen; Alexion; Genentech; Sanofi-Genzyme

The patient is probably presenting with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). MS is characterized by symptomatic episodes that are heralded by symptoms of central nervous system involvement. These attacks last longer than 24 hours and may occur months or years apart and affect different anatomic locations. Consistent with other autoimmune conditions, MS is more common in women. Patients are usually diagnosed between the ages of 20 and 49 years. The condition presents differently from patient to patient; some experience cognitive changes or visual symptoms, while others may have numbness, ataxia, clumsiness, hemiparesis, paraparesis, depression, or seizures. Symptoms can also include fatigue, impaired mobility, mood diagnosed changes, elimination dysfunction, and pain.

Of the four disease courses identified in MS, the most common is RRMS, characterized by a cycle of relapse and remission. In the initial stages, RRMS is characterized largely by an inflammatory pathology which, over time, becomes largely neurodegenerative. Most cases of RRMS evolve to secondary progressive MS after about 15 years. Early in the spectrum of demyelinating disease is clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), defined by a single episode of neurologic symptoms and MRI showing more than two classic lesions seen in MS. CIS patients subsequently will present with a second episode or relapse, at which point the diagnosis of RRMS is usually confirmed.

MS is diagnosed on the basis of clinical findings, exclusion of mimickers, and supporting evidence from the workup, namely MRI of the brain and spinal cord as well as cerebrospinal fluid examination. From a clinical perspective, presentation must align with the constellation of neurologic deficits seen in MS. Typically, the duration of deficit is days to weeks, as seen in the present case. While MRI alone cannot be used to diagnose MS, imaging may confirm diagnosis and offer value in monitoring disease progression in the brain and spinal cord. New lesions on MRI usually occur with relapses in RRMS. 

Treatment of MS encompasses immunomodulatory therapy to address the underlying immune disorder together with therapies to relieve symptoms. In general, disease-modifying therapy (DMT) should be considered for patients who have experienced a single demyelinating event and exhibit two or more brain lesions on MRI testing. This recommendation holds true even for patients with CIS or those who have experienced their first clinical event and have MRI features consistent with MS, so long as all other conditions in the differential are ruled out. Pivotal trials support the early initiation of DMT with CIS to delay disability.

Krupa Pandey, MD, Director, Multiple Sclerosis Center, Department of Neurology & Neuroscience Institute, Hackensack University Medical Center; Neurologist, Department of Neurology, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, NJ

Krupa Pandey, MD, has serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Biogen; Alexion; Genentech; Sanofi-Genzyme

The patient is probably presenting with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). MS is characterized by symptomatic episodes that are heralded by symptoms of central nervous system involvement. These attacks last longer than 24 hours and may occur months or years apart and affect different anatomic locations. Consistent with other autoimmune conditions, MS is more common in women. Patients are usually diagnosed between the ages of 20 and 49 years. The condition presents differently from patient to patient; some experience cognitive changes or visual symptoms, while others may have numbness, ataxia, clumsiness, hemiparesis, paraparesis, depression, or seizures. Symptoms can also include fatigue, impaired mobility, mood diagnosed changes, elimination dysfunction, and pain.

Of the four disease courses identified in MS, the most common is RRMS, characterized by a cycle of relapse and remission. In the initial stages, RRMS is characterized largely by an inflammatory pathology which, over time, becomes largely neurodegenerative. Most cases of RRMS evolve to secondary progressive MS after about 15 years. Early in the spectrum of demyelinating disease is clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), defined by a single episode of neurologic symptoms and MRI showing more than two classic lesions seen in MS. CIS patients subsequently will present with a second episode or relapse, at which point the diagnosis of RRMS is usually confirmed.

MS is diagnosed on the basis of clinical findings, exclusion of mimickers, and supporting evidence from the workup, namely MRI of the brain and spinal cord as well as cerebrospinal fluid examination. From a clinical perspective, presentation must align with the constellation of neurologic deficits seen in MS. Typically, the duration of deficit is days to weeks, as seen in the present case. While MRI alone cannot be used to diagnose MS, imaging may confirm diagnosis and offer value in monitoring disease progression in the brain and spinal cord. New lesions on MRI usually occur with relapses in RRMS. 

Treatment of MS encompasses immunomodulatory therapy to address the underlying immune disorder together with therapies to relieve symptoms. In general, disease-modifying therapy (DMT) should be considered for patients who have experienced a single demyelinating event and exhibit two or more brain lesions on MRI testing. This recommendation holds true even for patients with CIS or those who have experienced their first clinical event and have MRI features consistent with MS, so long as all other conditions in the differential are ruled out. Pivotal trials support the early initiation of DMT with CIS to delay disability.

Krupa Pandey, MD, Director, Multiple Sclerosis Center, Department of Neurology & Neuroscience Institute, Hackensack University Medical Center; Neurologist, Department of Neurology, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, NJ

Krupa Pandey, MD, has serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Biogen; Alexion; Genentech; Sanofi-Genzyme

The patient is probably presenting with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). MS is characterized by symptomatic episodes that are heralded by symptoms of central nervous system involvement. These attacks last longer than 24 hours and may occur months or years apart and affect different anatomic locations. Consistent with other autoimmune conditions, MS is more common in women. Patients are usually diagnosed between the ages of 20 and 49 years. The condition presents differently from patient to patient; some experience cognitive changes or visual symptoms, while others may have numbness, ataxia, clumsiness, hemiparesis, paraparesis, depression, or seizures. Symptoms can also include fatigue, impaired mobility, mood diagnosed changes, elimination dysfunction, and pain.

Of the four disease courses identified in MS, the most common is RRMS, characterized by a cycle of relapse and remission. In the initial stages, RRMS is characterized largely by an inflammatory pathology which, over time, becomes largely neurodegenerative. Most cases of RRMS evolve to secondary progressive MS after about 15 years. Early in the spectrum of demyelinating disease is clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), defined by a single episode of neurologic symptoms and MRI showing more than two classic lesions seen in MS. CIS patients subsequently will present with a second episode or relapse, at which point the diagnosis of RRMS is usually confirmed.

MS is diagnosed on the basis of clinical findings, exclusion of mimickers, and supporting evidence from the workup, namely MRI of the brain and spinal cord as well as cerebrospinal fluid examination. From a clinical perspective, presentation must align with the constellation of neurologic deficits seen in MS. Typically, the duration of deficit is days to weeks, as seen in the present case. While MRI alone cannot be used to diagnose MS, imaging may confirm diagnosis and offer value in monitoring disease progression in the brain and spinal cord. New lesions on MRI usually occur with relapses in RRMS. 

Treatment of MS encompasses immunomodulatory therapy to address the underlying immune disorder together with therapies to relieve symptoms. In general, disease-modifying therapy (DMT) should be considered for patients who have experienced a single demyelinating event and exhibit two or more brain lesions on MRI testing. This recommendation holds true even for patients with CIS or those who have experienced their first clinical event and have MRI features consistent with MS, so long as all other conditions in the differential are ruled out. Pivotal trials support the early initiation of DMT with CIS to delay disability.

Krupa Pandey, MD, Director, Multiple Sclerosis Center, Department of Neurology & Neuroscience Institute, Hackensack University Medical Center; Neurologist, Department of Neurology, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, NJ

Krupa Pandey, MD, has serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Biogen; Alexion; Genentech; Sanofi-Genzyme