PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12521562

Disease-modifying Therapies for Multiple Sclerosis.

Abstract

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is likely an autoimmune disorder, although this remains unproven. Immunotherapeutic treatments have been shown to be helpful, especially in relapsing forms of the illness, but the treatments are incomplete, and many patients continue to worsen over time, even with standard therapy. Immunotherapies presently available appear to have their greatest effect when used early in the course of the illness. In relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), there is overwhelming Class I data from large clinical trials that supports the use of interferon-beta-1a (IFNbeta-1a), interferon-beta-1b (IFNbeta-1b), and glatiramer acetate. Comparative data are limited, and results published in different trials support the idea that treatment outcomes with the various drugs are more similar than different. Decisions about treatment choice should be tailored to the needs of the individual patient. With the exception of a small number of patients with benign MS, all RRMS patients should be treated with one of the interferons or glatiramer acetate. There are Class I data consistent with the idea that higher dose or more frequent administration of interferon-beta (IFNbeta) is associated with better clinical outcome and reduced progression of changes on brain MRI scans. The duration of this effect is not clear, and higher dose with more frequent administration is associated with higher cost, more side effects, and greater production of interferon antibodies. Interferon antibodies possibly reduce efficacy of IFNbeta in RRMS and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS). Clinically isolated syndromes (CIS) of demyelination in the central nervous system can be reliably diagnosed, and the risk of further episodes of demyelination is consistent with the diagnosis of RRMS stratified by use of brain MRI scans. Patients at high risk of developing RRMS after CIS achieve significant benefit after treatment with IFNbeta-1a, and initiation of therapy after CIS should be given strong consideration. There are no similar data for IFNbeta-1b or glatiramer acetate, but logic would dictate a similar response with these agents. In SPMS, there are Class I data that treatment with IFNbeta-1a or IFNbeta-1b has a significant effect on progression of brain MRI lesions, but clinical outcomes are less clearly affected. It is justifiable to treat SPMS patients with IFNbeta. Mitoxantrone may be effective in slowing progression of SPMS, and its risks are moderate. It should be used in patients with SPMS, but potential long-term risks must be discussed with the patient in detail. Results of treatment of SPMS in advanced cases (Extended Disability Status Score greater than 6.5, or restricted to wheelchair) is mostly unknown. These patients are at high risk of developing infections, especially if they use indwelling catheters, and the use of agents that induce immunosuppression may be risky. There are no effective therapies for primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS). Although PPMS patients are frequently treated with one or more therapeutic agents, there is no medical justification for this now.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

John R. Corboy, Douglas S. Goodin, Elliot M. Frohman. 2003. Disease-modifying Therapies for Multiple Sclerosis.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11940-003-0021-0

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗