LayerRx Mapping ID
471
Slot System
Featured Buckets
Featured Buckets Admin
Reverse Chronological Sort
Allow Teaser Image
Medscape Lead Concept
918

Alemtuzumab’s Benefits May Be Sustained for Three Years in Patients With MS

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Alemtuzumab’s Benefits May Be Sustained for Three Years in Patients With MS

PHILADELPHIA—Alemtuzumab may prevent disease activity for as long as three years in patients with active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), according to research presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

The drug appears to suppress gadolinium-enhancing activity and new or enlarging T2 lesions efficiently among treatment-naïve patients and patients who have relapsed on previous therapy. In addition, alemtuzumab reduces brain volume loss to a rate similar to that associated with normal aging, said Douglas Arnold, MD, a neurologist at the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital.

Douglas Arnold, MD

Dr. Arnold and colleagues presented three-year MRI outcomes from the Comparison of Alemtuzumab and Rebif Efficacy in MS (CARE-MS) I and II trials, which lasted for two years. CARE-MS I included treatment-naïve participants, and CARE-MS II included participants who had relapsed on prior therapy. In both trials, patients with MS were randomized to alemtuzumab or interferon beta-1a. Patients randomized to alemtuzumab received 12 mg at baseline and at one year. In CARE-MS I, alemtuzumab reduced relapse rates, compared with interferon beta-1a. In CARE-MS II, alemtuzumab reduced relapse rates and sustained accumulation of disability, compared with interferon beta-1a.

Alemtuzumab Slowed the Rate of Brain Atrophy
A total of 349 participants in CARE-MS I and 393 participants in CARE-MS II entered the extension trial. At year three, the researchers administered alemtuzumab again to patients with recurrence of disease activity. Approximately 18% of patients in CARE-MS I and 20% of patients in CARE-MS II had recurrence. Fewer than 3% of patients had taken any other therapy at year three.

“At year three, patients maintained approximately 90% suppression of gadolinium-enhancing activity and about 75% suppression of new or enlarging T2 lesion formation,” said Dr. Arnold. Similar proportions of patients had new or active gadolinium-enhancing lesions at year three and at year two (9.6% and 7.1%, respectively). Also, similar proportions of patients had new and enlarging T2 lesions at year three and at year two (27.4% and 23.1%, respectively). Approximately 75% of patients in both trials had no MRI activity.

The rate of change in brain volume slowed progressively from year one to year three. At year three, the rate of change was 0.19% per year in CARE-MS I and 0.1% per year in CARE-MS II.

Positive Outcomes Despite Two-Year Lack of Treatment
“These findings provide strong support for the efficacy of alemtuzumab in treatment-naïve patients and patients who have relapsed on prior therapy,” said Dr. Arnold. “It is important to note that the majority of patients in this three-year follow-up received no treatment for two years, since they received their second course of alemtuzumab at the beginning of year two. Despite being treatment-free for two years, they had these remarkable outcomes on MRI.”

Erik Greb

References

Suggested Reading
Cohen JA, Coles AJ, Arnold DL, et al. Alemtuzumab versus interferon beta 1a as first-line treatment for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2012;380(9856):1819-1828.
Coles AJ, Twyman CL, Arnold DL, et al. Alemtuzumab for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis after disease-modifying therapy: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2012;380(9856):1829-1839.

Author and Disclosure Information

Issue
Neurology Reviews - 22(9)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
33
Legacy Keywords
alemtuzumab, multiple sclerosis, neurology reviews, erik greb, douglas arnold, sustained
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

PHILADELPHIA—Alemtuzumab may prevent disease activity for as long as three years in patients with active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), according to research presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

The drug appears to suppress gadolinium-enhancing activity and new or enlarging T2 lesions efficiently among treatment-naïve patients and patients who have relapsed on previous therapy. In addition, alemtuzumab reduces brain volume loss to a rate similar to that associated with normal aging, said Douglas Arnold, MD, a neurologist at the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital.

Douglas Arnold, MD

Dr. Arnold and colleagues presented three-year MRI outcomes from the Comparison of Alemtuzumab and Rebif Efficacy in MS (CARE-MS) I and II trials, which lasted for two years. CARE-MS I included treatment-naïve participants, and CARE-MS II included participants who had relapsed on prior therapy. In both trials, patients with MS were randomized to alemtuzumab or interferon beta-1a. Patients randomized to alemtuzumab received 12 mg at baseline and at one year. In CARE-MS I, alemtuzumab reduced relapse rates, compared with interferon beta-1a. In CARE-MS II, alemtuzumab reduced relapse rates and sustained accumulation of disability, compared with interferon beta-1a.

Alemtuzumab Slowed the Rate of Brain Atrophy
A total of 349 participants in CARE-MS I and 393 participants in CARE-MS II entered the extension trial. At year three, the researchers administered alemtuzumab again to patients with recurrence of disease activity. Approximately 18% of patients in CARE-MS I and 20% of patients in CARE-MS II had recurrence. Fewer than 3% of patients had taken any other therapy at year three.

“At year three, patients maintained approximately 90% suppression of gadolinium-enhancing activity and about 75% suppression of new or enlarging T2 lesion formation,” said Dr. Arnold. Similar proportions of patients had new or active gadolinium-enhancing lesions at year three and at year two (9.6% and 7.1%, respectively). Also, similar proportions of patients had new and enlarging T2 lesions at year three and at year two (27.4% and 23.1%, respectively). Approximately 75% of patients in both trials had no MRI activity.

The rate of change in brain volume slowed progressively from year one to year three. At year three, the rate of change was 0.19% per year in CARE-MS I and 0.1% per year in CARE-MS II.

Positive Outcomes Despite Two-Year Lack of Treatment
“These findings provide strong support for the efficacy of alemtuzumab in treatment-naïve patients and patients who have relapsed on prior therapy,” said Dr. Arnold. “It is important to note that the majority of patients in this three-year follow-up received no treatment for two years, since they received their second course of alemtuzumab at the beginning of year two. Despite being treatment-free for two years, they had these remarkable outcomes on MRI.”

Erik Greb

PHILADELPHIA—Alemtuzumab may prevent disease activity for as long as three years in patients with active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), according to research presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

The drug appears to suppress gadolinium-enhancing activity and new or enlarging T2 lesions efficiently among treatment-naïve patients and patients who have relapsed on previous therapy. In addition, alemtuzumab reduces brain volume loss to a rate similar to that associated with normal aging, said Douglas Arnold, MD, a neurologist at the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital.

Douglas Arnold, MD

Dr. Arnold and colleagues presented three-year MRI outcomes from the Comparison of Alemtuzumab and Rebif Efficacy in MS (CARE-MS) I and II trials, which lasted for two years. CARE-MS I included treatment-naïve participants, and CARE-MS II included participants who had relapsed on prior therapy. In both trials, patients with MS were randomized to alemtuzumab or interferon beta-1a. Patients randomized to alemtuzumab received 12 mg at baseline and at one year. In CARE-MS I, alemtuzumab reduced relapse rates, compared with interferon beta-1a. In CARE-MS II, alemtuzumab reduced relapse rates and sustained accumulation of disability, compared with interferon beta-1a.

Alemtuzumab Slowed the Rate of Brain Atrophy
A total of 349 participants in CARE-MS I and 393 participants in CARE-MS II entered the extension trial. At year three, the researchers administered alemtuzumab again to patients with recurrence of disease activity. Approximately 18% of patients in CARE-MS I and 20% of patients in CARE-MS II had recurrence. Fewer than 3% of patients had taken any other therapy at year three.

“At year three, patients maintained approximately 90% suppression of gadolinium-enhancing activity and about 75% suppression of new or enlarging T2 lesion formation,” said Dr. Arnold. Similar proportions of patients had new or active gadolinium-enhancing lesions at year three and at year two (9.6% and 7.1%, respectively). Also, similar proportions of patients had new and enlarging T2 lesions at year three and at year two (27.4% and 23.1%, respectively). Approximately 75% of patients in both trials had no MRI activity.

The rate of change in brain volume slowed progressively from year one to year three. At year three, the rate of change was 0.19% per year in CARE-MS I and 0.1% per year in CARE-MS II.

Positive Outcomes Despite Two-Year Lack of Treatment
“These findings provide strong support for the efficacy of alemtuzumab in treatment-naïve patients and patients who have relapsed on prior therapy,” said Dr. Arnold. “It is important to note that the majority of patients in this three-year follow-up received no treatment for two years, since they received their second course of alemtuzumab at the beginning of year two. Despite being treatment-free for two years, they had these remarkable outcomes on MRI.”

Erik Greb

References

Suggested Reading
Cohen JA, Coles AJ, Arnold DL, et al. Alemtuzumab versus interferon beta 1a as first-line treatment for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2012;380(9856):1819-1828.
Coles AJ, Twyman CL, Arnold DL, et al. Alemtuzumab for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis after disease-modifying therapy: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2012;380(9856):1829-1839.

References

Suggested Reading
Cohen JA, Coles AJ, Arnold DL, et al. Alemtuzumab versus interferon beta 1a as first-line treatment for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2012;380(9856):1819-1828.
Coles AJ, Twyman CL, Arnold DL, et al. Alemtuzumab for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis after disease-modifying therapy: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2012;380(9856):1829-1839.

Issue
Neurology Reviews - 22(9)
Issue
Neurology Reviews - 22(9)
Page Number
33
Page Number
33
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Alemtuzumab’s Benefits May Be Sustained for Three Years in Patients With MS
Display Headline
Alemtuzumab’s Benefits May Be Sustained for Three Years in Patients With MS
Legacy Keywords
alemtuzumab, multiple sclerosis, neurology reviews, erik greb, douglas arnold, sustained
Legacy Keywords
alemtuzumab, multiple sclerosis, neurology reviews, erik greb, douglas arnold, sustained
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Clinical and Subclinical Factors Strongly Influence MS Treatment Decisions

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Clinical and Subclinical Factors Strongly Influence MS Treatment Decisions

PHILADELPHIA—After a patient with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) has been on a first-line drug for two years, the factors that most influence neurologists’ decision to consider changing therapies are clinical measures such as relapse rate and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score and subclinical measures such as MRI, according to research presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. In contrast, quality-of-life measures do not contribute significantly to treatment decisions, the researchers said.

Stephan Schmidt, MD, PhD, a neurologist at Neurologische Gemeinschaftspraxis in Bonn, Germany, and colleagues performed an interim analysis of data from EPIDEM, an ongoing retrospective, noninterventional study that collects cross-sectional data for 5,000 patients at 150 sites in Germany. Eligible patients had received immunomodulatory treatment (ie, interferon beta or glatiramer acetate) continuously during the two years before enrollment. The researchers collected information about demographics, immunomodulatory treatment, EDSS score, MRI, John Cunningham virus (JCV) status, and quality of life (using MSQoL-54).

During the study, the participants’ neurologists were asked whether they were considering a switch to a second-line therapy, and the researchers performed χ2 homogeneity analysis to identify factors that influenced this treatment decision. The study did not document whether patients switched to a second-line therapy, however.

Most Patients Had No Relapses or MRI Activity
The interim analysis included 2,500 patients from October 2011 to April 2013. Patients’ mean EDSS score was 2.2 at the beginning of the period and remained stable. Approximately 65% of patients had been relapse-free during the previous 24 months, and about 35% of patients had had at least one relapse.

MRI data were available for two-thirds of the participants. The mean duration between the documentation visit and the last MRI was 9.4 months. Approximately 74% of patients had neither increased T2 lesion load nor new gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions, compared with the last MRI. About 23% of patients had increased MRI activity, compared with the last MRI.

The STRATIFY-JCV assay to determine JCV antibody status became available in Germany in May 2011. Neurologists determined the JCV antibody status of 6.1% of participants, and 56.9% of reported test results were positive.

Most Patients Reported Good Health
A total of 2,018 patients underwent MSQoL-54, and 74% of patients rated their general state of health as good to excellent. In addition, 21% of participants rated their overall health as fair, and 2% rated their health as poor.

Neurologists described the course of disease as stable in 81% of patients, improved in 3% of patients, and worse in 15% of patients. In contrast, 57% of patients described their course of disease as stable, 17% as improved, and 24% as worse.

Neurologists considered changing the current treatment regimen for 11% of the patients. The availability of JCV-antibody test results, relapse rate, EDSS score, and MRI activity had the strongest influence when considering second-line therapies. Quality-of-life parameters, treatment duration, disease duration, and number of previous disease-modifying therapies had little or no influence on therapeutic considerations.

Erik Greb

References

Suggested Reading
Mäurer M, Dachsel R, Domke S, et al. Health care situation of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis receiving immunomodulatory therapy: a retrospective survey of more than 9000 German patients with MS. Eur J Neurol. 2011;18(8):1036-1045.
Sørensen PS. Balancing the benefits and risks of disease-modifying therapy in patients with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. 2011;311(suppl 1):S29-S34.

Author and Disclosure Information

Issue
Neurology Reviews - 22(9)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
27
Legacy Keywords
multiple sclerosis, relapse rate, EDSS, erik greb, Stephan Schmidt, neurology reviews
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

PHILADELPHIA—After a patient with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) has been on a first-line drug for two years, the factors that most influence neurologists’ decision to consider changing therapies are clinical measures such as relapse rate and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score and subclinical measures such as MRI, according to research presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. In contrast, quality-of-life measures do not contribute significantly to treatment decisions, the researchers said.

Stephan Schmidt, MD, PhD, a neurologist at Neurologische Gemeinschaftspraxis in Bonn, Germany, and colleagues performed an interim analysis of data from EPIDEM, an ongoing retrospective, noninterventional study that collects cross-sectional data for 5,000 patients at 150 sites in Germany. Eligible patients had received immunomodulatory treatment (ie, interferon beta or glatiramer acetate) continuously during the two years before enrollment. The researchers collected information about demographics, immunomodulatory treatment, EDSS score, MRI, John Cunningham virus (JCV) status, and quality of life (using MSQoL-54).

During the study, the participants’ neurologists were asked whether they were considering a switch to a second-line therapy, and the researchers performed χ2 homogeneity analysis to identify factors that influenced this treatment decision. The study did not document whether patients switched to a second-line therapy, however.

Most Patients Had No Relapses or MRI Activity
The interim analysis included 2,500 patients from October 2011 to April 2013. Patients’ mean EDSS score was 2.2 at the beginning of the period and remained stable. Approximately 65% of patients had been relapse-free during the previous 24 months, and about 35% of patients had had at least one relapse.

MRI data were available for two-thirds of the participants. The mean duration between the documentation visit and the last MRI was 9.4 months. Approximately 74% of patients had neither increased T2 lesion load nor new gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions, compared with the last MRI. About 23% of patients had increased MRI activity, compared with the last MRI.

The STRATIFY-JCV assay to determine JCV antibody status became available in Germany in May 2011. Neurologists determined the JCV antibody status of 6.1% of participants, and 56.9% of reported test results were positive.

Most Patients Reported Good Health
A total of 2,018 patients underwent MSQoL-54, and 74% of patients rated their general state of health as good to excellent. In addition, 21% of participants rated their overall health as fair, and 2% rated their health as poor.

Neurologists described the course of disease as stable in 81% of patients, improved in 3% of patients, and worse in 15% of patients. In contrast, 57% of patients described their course of disease as stable, 17% as improved, and 24% as worse.

Neurologists considered changing the current treatment regimen for 11% of the patients. The availability of JCV-antibody test results, relapse rate, EDSS score, and MRI activity had the strongest influence when considering second-line therapies. Quality-of-life parameters, treatment duration, disease duration, and number of previous disease-modifying therapies had little or no influence on therapeutic considerations.

Erik Greb

PHILADELPHIA—After a patient with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) has been on a first-line drug for two years, the factors that most influence neurologists’ decision to consider changing therapies are clinical measures such as relapse rate and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score and subclinical measures such as MRI, according to research presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. In contrast, quality-of-life measures do not contribute significantly to treatment decisions, the researchers said.

Stephan Schmidt, MD, PhD, a neurologist at Neurologische Gemeinschaftspraxis in Bonn, Germany, and colleagues performed an interim analysis of data from EPIDEM, an ongoing retrospective, noninterventional study that collects cross-sectional data for 5,000 patients at 150 sites in Germany. Eligible patients had received immunomodulatory treatment (ie, interferon beta or glatiramer acetate) continuously during the two years before enrollment. The researchers collected information about demographics, immunomodulatory treatment, EDSS score, MRI, John Cunningham virus (JCV) status, and quality of life (using MSQoL-54).

During the study, the participants’ neurologists were asked whether they were considering a switch to a second-line therapy, and the researchers performed χ2 homogeneity analysis to identify factors that influenced this treatment decision. The study did not document whether patients switched to a second-line therapy, however.

Most Patients Had No Relapses or MRI Activity
The interim analysis included 2,500 patients from October 2011 to April 2013. Patients’ mean EDSS score was 2.2 at the beginning of the period and remained stable. Approximately 65% of patients had been relapse-free during the previous 24 months, and about 35% of patients had had at least one relapse.

MRI data were available for two-thirds of the participants. The mean duration between the documentation visit and the last MRI was 9.4 months. Approximately 74% of patients had neither increased T2 lesion load nor new gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions, compared with the last MRI. About 23% of patients had increased MRI activity, compared with the last MRI.

The STRATIFY-JCV assay to determine JCV antibody status became available in Germany in May 2011. Neurologists determined the JCV antibody status of 6.1% of participants, and 56.9% of reported test results were positive.

Most Patients Reported Good Health
A total of 2,018 patients underwent MSQoL-54, and 74% of patients rated their general state of health as good to excellent. In addition, 21% of participants rated their overall health as fair, and 2% rated their health as poor.

Neurologists described the course of disease as stable in 81% of patients, improved in 3% of patients, and worse in 15% of patients. In contrast, 57% of patients described their course of disease as stable, 17% as improved, and 24% as worse.

Neurologists considered changing the current treatment regimen for 11% of the patients. The availability of JCV-antibody test results, relapse rate, EDSS score, and MRI activity had the strongest influence when considering second-line therapies. Quality-of-life parameters, treatment duration, disease duration, and number of previous disease-modifying therapies had little or no influence on therapeutic considerations.

Erik Greb

References

Suggested Reading
Mäurer M, Dachsel R, Domke S, et al. Health care situation of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis receiving immunomodulatory therapy: a retrospective survey of more than 9000 German patients with MS. Eur J Neurol. 2011;18(8):1036-1045.
Sørensen PS. Balancing the benefits and risks of disease-modifying therapy in patients with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. 2011;311(suppl 1):S29-S34.

References

Suggested Reading
Mäurer M, Dachsel R, Domke S, et al. Health care situation of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis receiving immunomodulatory therapy: a retrospective survey of more than 9000 German patients with MS. Eur J Neurol. 2011;18(8):1036-1045.
Sørensen PS. Balancing the benefits and risks of disease-modifying therapy in patients with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. 2011;311(suppl 1):S29-S34.

Issue
Neurology Reviews - 22(9)
Issue
Neurology Reviews - 22(9)
Page Number
27
Page Number
27
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Clinical and Subclinical Factors Strongly Influence MS Treatment Decisions
Display Headline
Clinical and Subclinical Factors Strongly Influence MS Treatment Decisions
Legacy Keywords
multiple sclerosis, relapse rate, EDSS, erik greb, Stephan Schmidt, neurology reviews
Legacy Keywords
multiple sclerosis, relapse rate, EDSS, erik greb, Stephan Schmidt, neurology reviews
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Peginterferon beta-1a approved for treating relapsing MS

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Peginterferon beta-1a approved for treating relapsing MS

Peginterferon beta-1a has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis, based on the results of the ADVANCE trial, the manufacturer, Biogen Idec, announced on August 15.

This is the only pegylated interferon approved for treating relapsing MS, according to a statement from the company.

Biogen Idec will be marketing the drug as Plegridy. The recommended dose is 125 mcg administered subcutaneously every 14 days. It can be administered with a prefilled syringe or a new autoinjector the company is marketing as the Plegridy Pen, according to the statement.

The approval is based on the results of the ADVANCE study, a randomized, double-blind, phase III, 2-year study of about 1,516 patients with relapsing MS, which was placebo-controlled during the first year. The annualized relapse rate, the primary outcome, was reduced by 36% among those treated with peginterferon beta-1a, compared with those on placebo, a statistically significant difference.

Secondary outcomes including the proportion of patients who relapsed, which was reduced by 19%, compared with placebo; the mean number of new or newly enlarging T2 hyperintense lesions, which was reduced by 67%, compared with placebo; and the mean number of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions, which was reduced by 86%, compared with placebo.

Injection-site erythema, influenzalike illness, fever, headache, myalgia, chills, injection site pain, asthenia, injection site pruritus, and arthralgia were the most common adverse events associated with treatment, affecting at least 10% of treated patients and occurring at a rate that was at least 2% greater than among those on placebo, according to the prescribing information.

Postmarketing studies that the company will be required to conduct include a pediatric study and a registry study in the United States that will compare the maternal, fetal, and infant outcomes, including birth defects, of women with MS who are treated with peginterferon beta-1a during pregnancy against women with MS who are not treated with the drug during pregnancy and women who do not have MS.

The product has already been approved in Europe.

Serious adverse events associated with this product should be reported to the FDA at 800-332-1088 or www. fda.gov/medwatch.

emechcatie@frontlinemedcom.com

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
Peginterferon beta-1a, Food and Drug Administration, FDA, multiple sclerosis, ADVANCE trial, Biogen Idec, pegylated interferon, Plegridy,
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Peginterferon beta-1a has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis, based on the results of the ADVANCE trial, the manufacturer, Biogen Idec, announced on August 15.

This is the only pegylated interferon approved for treating relapsing MS, according to a statement from the company.

Biogen Idec will be marketing the drug as Plegridy. The recommended dose is 125 mcg administered subcutaneously every 14 days. It can be administered with a prefilled syringe or a new autoinjector the company is marketing as the Plegridy Pen, according to the statement.

The approval is based on the results of the ADVANCE study, a randomized, double-blind, phase III, 2-year study of about 1,516 patients with relapsing MS, which was placebo-controlled during the first year. The annualized relapse rate, the primary outcome, was reduced by 36% among those treated with peginterferon beta-1a, compared with those on placebo, a statistically significant difference.

Secondary outcomes including the proportion of patients who relapsed, which was reduced by 19%, compared with placebo; the mean number of new or newly enlarging T2 hyperintense lesions, which was reduced by 67%, compared with placebo; and the mean number of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions, which was reduced by 86%, compared with placebo.

Injection-site erythema, influenzalike illness, fever, headache, myalgia, chills, injection site pain, asthenia, injection site pruritus, and arthralgia were the most common adverse events associated with treatment, affecting at least 10% of treated patients and occurring at a rate that was at least 2% greater than among those on placebo, according to the prescribing information.

Postmarketing studies that the company will be required to conduct include a pediatric study and a registry study in the United States that will compare the maternal, fetal, and infant outcomes, including birth defects, of women with MS who are treated with peginterferon beta-1a during pregnancy against women with MS who are not treated with the drug during pregnancy and women who do not have MS.

The product has already been approved in Europe.

Serious adverse events associated with this product should be reported to the FDA at 800-332-1088 or www. fda.gov/medwatch.

emechcatie@frontlinemedcom.com

Peginterferon beta-1a has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis, based on the results of the ADVANCE trial, the manufacturer, Biogen Idec, announced on August 15.

This is the only pegylated interferon approved for treating relapsing MS, according to a statement from the company.

Biogen Idec will be marketing the drug as Plegridy. The recommended dose is 125 mcg administered subcutaneously every 14 days. It can be administered with a prefilled syringe or a new autoinjector the company is marketing as the Plegridy Pen, according to the statement.

The approval is based on the results of the ADVANCE study, a randomized, double-blind, phase III, 2-year study of about 1,516 patients with relapsing MS, which was placebo-controlled during the first year. The annualized relapse rate, the primary outcome, was reduced by 36% among those treated with peginterferon beta-1a, compared with those on placebo, a statistically significant difference.

Secondary outcomes including the proportion of patients who relapsed, which was reduced by 19%, compared with placebo; the mean number of new or newly enlarging T2 hyperintense lesions, which was reduced by 67%, compared with placebo; and the mean number of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions, which was reduced by 86%, compared with placebo.

Injection-site erythema, influenzalike illness, fever, headache, myalgia, chills, injection site pain, asthenia, injection site pruritus, and arthralgia were the most common adverse events associated with treatment, affecting at least 10% of treated patients and occurring at a rate that was at least 2% greater than among those on placebo, according to the prescribing information.

Postmarketing studies that the company will be required to conduct include a pediatric study and a registry study in the United States that will compare the maternal, fetal, and infant outcomes, including birth defects, of women with MS who are treated with peginterferon beta-1a during pregnancy against women with MS who are not treated with the drug during pregnancy and women who do not have MS.

The product has already been approved in Europe.

Serious adverse events associated with this product should be reported to the FDA at 800-332-1088 or www. fda.gov/medwatch.

emechcatie@frontlinemedcom.com

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Peginterferon beta-1a approved for treating relapsing MS
Display Headline
Peginterferon beta-1a approved for treating relapsing MS
Legacy Keywords
Peginterferon beta-1a, Food and Drug Administration, FDA, multiple sclerosis, ADVANCE trial, Biogen Idec, pegylated interferon, Plegridy,
Legacy Keywords
Peginterferon beta-1a, Food and Drug Administration, FDA, multiple sclerosis, ADVANCE trial, Biogen Idec, pegylated interferon, Plegridy,
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

MS disability linked to abnormalities of spinal cord grey matter

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
MS disability linked to abnormalities of spinal cord grey matter

Disability in patients with multiple sclerosis was independently linked to microstructural abnormalities of spinal cord grey matter on diffusion tensor imaging study in a prospective study of healthy controls and patients at various stages of disease.

Spinal cord atrophy and abnormal grey matter radial diffusivity explained 77% of variance in scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), said Dr. Hugh Kearney of the Queen Square MS Centre at the University College London Institute of Neurology and his associates. Grey matter involvement was already present in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) but was more pronounced in those with secondary progressive disease, the investigators said.

The researchers performed 3 T spinal cord magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion tensor imaging on 113 subjects – 30 healthy controls, 21 individuals with a clinically isolated syndrome, 33 who had relapsing-remitting MS and 29 who had secondary progressive MS (J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2014 Aug. 5 [doi:10.1136/jnnp-2014-308241]).

Compared with controls and subjects with relapsing-remitting MS, those with secondary progressive disease had significantly worse abnormalities in measures of spinal cord radial diffusivity, fractional anisotropy, and mean diffusivity in the grey matter and posterior columns, the investigators said.

Furthermore, spinal cord grey matter radial diffusivity and cord area were independently associated with EDSS disability scores (beta = 0.33 and P less than .01; beta = –0.45 and P less than .01, respectively), and radial diffusivity was independently linked to scores on a 9-hole peg test (beta = –0.33; P less than .01) and timed walk (beta = –0.20, P = .04), the researchers said.

Based on the findings, grey matter pathology in the spinal cord may underlie physical disability in MS, including the irreversible disability that characterizes secondary progressive disease, Dr. Kearney and his associates said. Investigators should next examine longitudinal changes in diffusion tensor imaging measures of spinal cord grey matter and how these changes relate to clinical progression, they said.

The research was funded by the MS Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, UCLH-UCL Biomedical Research Centre, the International Spinal Research Trust, and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. The authors reported no competing interests.

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
Disability, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord grey matter, diffusion tensor imaging, Disability Status, Dr. Hugh Kearney,
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Disability in patients with multiple sclerosis was independently linked to microstructural abnormalities of spinal cord grey matter on diffusion tensor imaging study in a prospective study of healthy controls and patients at various stages of disease.

Spinal cord atrophy and abnormal grey matter radial diffusivity explained 77% of variance in scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), said Dr. Hugh Kearney of the Queen Square MS Centre at the University College London Institute of Neurology and his associates. Grey matter involvement was already present in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) but was more pronounced in those with secondary progressive disease, the investigators said.

The researchers performed 3 T spinal cord magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion tensor imaging on 113 subjects – 30 healthy controls, 21 individuals with a clinically isolated syndrome, 33 who had relapsing-remitting MS and 29 who had secondary progressive MS (J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2014 Aug. 5 [doi:10.1136/jnnp-2014-308241]).

Compared with controls and subjects with relapsing-remitting MS, those with secondary progressive disease had significantly worse abnormalities in measures of spinal cord radial diffusivity, fractional anisotropy, and mean diffusivity in the grey matter and posterior columns, the investigators said.

Furthermore, spinal cord grey matter radial diffusivity and cord area were independently associated with EDSS disability scores (beta = 0.33 and P less than .01; beta = –0.45 and P less than .01, respectively), and radial diffusivity was independently linked to scores on a 9-hole peg test (beta = –0.33; P less than .01) and timed walk (beta = –0.20, P = .04), the researchers said.

Based on the findings, grey matter pathology in the spinal cord may underlie physical disability in MS, including the irreversible disability that characterizes secondary progressive disease, Dr. Kearney and his associates said. Investigators should next examine longitudinal changes in diffusion tensor imaging measures of spinal cord grey matter and how these changes relate to clinical progression, they said.

The research was funded by the MS Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, UCLH-UCL Biomedical Research Centre, the International Spinal Research Trust, and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. The authors reported no competing interests.

Disability in patients with multiple sclerosis was independently linked to microstructural abnormalities of spinal cord grey matter on diffusion tensor imaging study in a prospective study of healthy controls and patients at various stages of disease.

Spinal cord atrophy and abnormal grey matter radial diffusivity explained 77% of variance in scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), said Dr. Hugh Kearney of the Queen Square MS Centre at the University College London Institute of Neurology and his associates. Grey matter involvement was already present in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) but was more pronounced in those with secondary progressive disease, the investigators said.

The researchers performed 3 T spinal cord magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion tensor imaging on 113 subjects – 30 healthy controls, 21 individuals with a clinically isolated syndrome, 33 who had relapsing-remitting MS and 29 who had secondary progressive MS (J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2014 Aug. 5 [doi:10.1136/jnnp-2014-308241]).

Compared with controls and subjects with relapsing-remitting MS, those with secondary progressive disease had significantly worse abnormalities in measures of spinal cord radial diffusivity, fractional anisotropy, and mean diffusivity in the grey matter and posterior columns, the investigators said.

Furthermore, spinal cord grey matter radial diffusivity and cord area were independently associated with EDSS disability scores (beta = 0.33 and P less than .01; beta = –0.45 and P less than .01, respectively), and radial diffusivity was independently linked to scores on a 9-hole peg test (beta = –0.33; P less than .01) and timed walk (beta = –0.20, P = .04), the researchers said.

Based on the findings, grey matter pathology in the spinal cord may underlie physical disability in MS, including the irreversible disability that characterizes secondary progressive disease, Dr. Kearney and his associates said. Investigators should next examine longitudinal changes in diffusion tensor imaging measures of spinal cord grey matter and how these changes relate to clinical progression, they said.

The research was funded by the MS Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, UCLH-UCL Biomedical Research Centre, the International Spinal Research Trust, and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. The authors reported no competing interests.

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
MS disability linked to abnormalities of spinal cord grey matter
Display Headline
MS disability linked to abnormalities of spinal cord grey matter
Legacy Keywords
Disability, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord grey matter, diffusion tensor imaging, Disability Status, Dr. Hugh Kearney,
Legacy Keywords
Disability, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord grey matter, diffusion tensor imaging, Disability Status, Dr. Hugh Kearney,
Article Source

FROM JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, NEUROSURGERY & PSYCHIATRY

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

Key clinical point: Pathology of spinal cord grey matter contributes to disability in MS, especially in patients with secondary-progressive MS.

Major finding: Spinal cord area and radial diffusivity of the spinal cord grey matter together accounted for 77% of variance of scores on the EDSS.

Data source: A prospective study that compared diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) results between 30 controls, 21 patients with a clinically isolated syndrome, 33 with relapsing-remitting MS, and 29 with secondary progressive MS.

Disclosures: The research was funded by the MS Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, UCLH-UCL Biomedical Research Centre, the International Spinal Research Trust, and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. The authors reported no competing interests.

Older age at primary progressive MS onset predicted faster disability accumulation

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Older age at primary progressive MS onset predicted faster disability accumulation

In patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis, older age and bilateral motor symptoms at disease onset predicted faster disability progression in a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

Age was the most important predictor, but both factors seemed to affect disability accumulation throughout the course of primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS), in contrast to the distinct stages and risk factors that characterize relapsing-remitting disease, said Dr. Marcus W. Koch and his associates at the University of Calgary (Alta.).

Primary progressive disease affects about 10%-20% of MS patients. To study its natural history, the investigators analyzed data on 446 patients with PPMS who were followed for a median of 14 years from disease onset (J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2014 Aug. 4 [doi:10.1136/jnnp-2014-307948]).

Patients reached Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores of 4 and 6 a median of 5 and 9 years after disease onset, the researchers said. Median age at EDSS = 4 was 51 years, and median age at EDSS = 6 was 55 years, they added. For each 1-year increase in age at disease onset, time to progression to EDSS = 4 decreased by 3% (hazard ratio per 1-year increase, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.04), and time from onset to EDSS = 6 decreased by 4% (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05), the researchers reported.

Patients with bilateral motor onset symptoms also progressed to EDSS scores of 4 and 6 significantly faster than did patients with unilateral onset motor symptoms (P = .005 and .03, respectively), the investigators reported.

The researchers excluded some patients from analyses because of missing data, and these patients were significantly more likely to be female and to have a younger age at onset than were the patients who were included in analyses. They also did not subgroup PPMS patients by disease course because the criteria for these subcategories were not published until after the study began, they said (Neurology 2014;83:278-86).

Funding information for the study was not available. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
primary progressive multiple sclerosis, bilateral motor symptoms, faster disability progression, PPMS, Dr. Marcus W. Koch, University of Calgary,
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

In patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis, older age and bilateral motor symptoms at disease onset predicted faster disability progression in a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

Age was the most important predictor, but both factors seemed to affect disability accumulation throughout the course of primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS), in contrast to the distinct stages and risk factors that characterize relapsing-remitting disease, said Dr. Marcus W. Koch and his associates at the University of Calgary (Alta.).

Primary progressive disease affects about 10%-20% of MS patients. To study its natural history, the investigators analyzed data on 446 patients with PPMS who were followed for a median of 14 years from disease onset (J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2014 Aug. 4 [doi:10.1136/jnnp-2014-307948]).

Patients reached Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores of 4 and 6 a median of 5 and 9 years after disease onset, the researchers said. Median age at EDSS = 4 was 51 years, and median age at EDSS = 6 was 55 years, they added. For each 1-year increase in age at disease onset, time to progression to EDSS = 4 decreased by 3% (hazard ratio per 1-year increase, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.04), and time from onset to EDSS = 6 decreased by 4% (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05), the researchers reported.

Patients with bilateral motor onset symptoms also progressed to EDSS scores of 4 and 6 significantly faster than did patients with unilateral onset motor symptoms (P = .005 and .03, respectively), the investigators reported.

The researchers excluded some patients from analyses because of missing data, and these patients were significantly more likely to be female and to have a younger age at onset than were the patients who were included in analyses. They also did not subgroup PPMS patients by disease course because the criteria for these subcategories were not published until after the study began, they said (Neurology 2014;83:278-86).

Funding information for the study was not available. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

In patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis, older age and bilateral motor symptoms at disease onset predicted faster disability progression in a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

Age was the most important predictor, but both factors seemed to affect disability accumulation throughout the course of primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS), in contrast to the distinct stages and risk factors that characterize relapsing-remitting disease, said Dr. Marcus W. Koch and his associates at the University of Calgary (Alta.).

Primary progressive disease affects about 10%-20% of MS patients. To study its natural history, the investigators analyzed data on 446 patients with PPMS who were followed for a median of 14 years from disease onset (J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2014 Aug. 4 [doi:10.1136/jnnp-2014-307948]).

Patients reached Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores of 4 and 6 a median of 5 and 9 years after disease onset, the researchers said. Median age at EDSS = 4 was 51 years, and median age at EDSS = 6 was 55 years, they added. For each 1-year increase in age at disease onset, time to progression to EDSS = 4 decreased by 3% (hazard ratio per 1-year increase, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.04), and time from onset to EDSS = 6 decreased by 4% (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05), the researchers reported.

Patients with bilateral motor onset symptoms also progressed to EDSS scores of 4 and 6 significantly faster than did patients with unilateral onset motor symptoms (P = .005 and .03, respectively), the investigators reported.

The researchers excluded some patients from analyses because of missing data, and these patients were significantly more likely to be female and to have a younger age at onset than were the patients who were included in analyses. They also did not subgroup PPMS patients by disease course because the criteria for these subcategories were not published until after the study began, they said (Neurology 2014;83:278-86).

Funding information for the study was not available. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Older age at primary progressive MS onset predicted faster disability accumulation
Display Headline
Older age at primary progressive MS onset predicted faster disability accumulation
Legacy Keywords
primary progressive multiple sclerosis, bilateral motor symptoms, faster disability progression, PPMS, Dr. Marcus W. Koch, University of Calgary,
Legacy Keywords
primary progressive multiple sclerosis, bilateral motor symptoms, faster disability progression, PPMS, Dr. Marcus W. Koch, University of Calgary,
Article Source

FROM JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, NEUROSURGERY & PSYCHIATRY

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

Key clinical point: Older age at disease onset predicted faster disability accumulation in patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis.

Major finding: For each 1-year increase in age at disease onset, time to progression to EDSS = 4 fell by 3% (HR per 1-year increase, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04), and time to EDSS = 6 dropped by 4% (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05).

Data source: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on 446 patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis who were followed for a median of 14 years from disease onset.

Disclosures: Funding information was not available. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Evidence-based guideline: assessment and management of psychiatric disorders in individuals with MS. Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Evidence-based guideline: assessment and management of psychiatric disorders in individuals with MS. Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

Major Recommendations

Definitions of the levels of the recommendations (A, B, C, U) and classification of the evidence (Class I-IV) are provided at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Screening and Diagnosis

What Clinical Evaluation Procedures and Screening and Diagnostic Tools Can Be Used to Accurately Identify Symptoms and Make Diagnoses of Emotional Disorders in Individuals with Multiple Sclerosis (MS)?

Conclusions and Recommendations

In individuals with MS, the Center for Neurologic Study Emotional Lability Scale (CNS-LS) is possibly effective and may be considered for screening for pseudobulbar affect (PBA) (Level C, 1 Class II study [Smith et al., 2004]). The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) (Goldberg & Hillier, 1979) is possibly effective and may be considered for identifying individuals with broadly defined emotional disturbances (Level C, 1 Class II study [Rabins & Brooks, 1981]). The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (Beck et al., 1961) and a 2-question screen (Whooley et al., 1997) are possibly effective and may be considered for identifying individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) (Level C, 1 Class II study each [Sullivan et al., 1995; Mohr et al., 2007]). There is insufficient evidence to support/refute using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Rating Scale (CES-D) (Radloff, 1977) to screen for depressive symptoms (Pandya, Metz, & Patten, 2005) or a single question to screen for MDD (Vahter et al., 2007) (Level U, 1 Class III study each); the possibility that somatic or neurovegetative symptoms negatively affect the accuracy of BDI results (Level U, 2 conflicting Class III studies) (Mohr et al., 1997; Randolph et al., 2000); and the use of specific instruments or clinical evaluation procedures to diagnose emotional disorders in individuals with MS (Level U).

Clinical Context

Because emotional disorders may be unrecognized in medical settings, validated screening tools might improve identification of individuals who could benefit from further evaluation and treatment. The true positive rate of a screening tool depends not only on its sensitivity but also on the point prevalence of the disorder in the population under study. Clinically, false-positive results are not a major concern because individuals with the conditions typically identified (e.g., adjustment and subthreshold depressive disorders) can benefit from further assessment. Administratively, however, screening tools with high false-positive rates unnecessarily increase resource use.

Treatments

What Are the Effective Treatments for Disorders of Mood in Individuals with MS?

Conclusion and Recommendations

For individuals with MS, a 16-week program of individual telephone-administered cognitive behavioral therapy (T-CBT) program is possibly effective and may be considered in treating depressive symptoms (Level C, 1 Class II study [Mohr et al., 2005], 1 Class III study [Mohr, et al., 2000]). There is insufficient evidence to support/refute the efficacy and use of 1) sertraline (Mohr et al., 2001), desipramine (Schiffer & Wineman, 1990), paroxetine (Ehde et al., 2008), individual in-person cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) (Mohr et al., 2001), individual in-person CBT plus relaxation training (Foley et al., 1987), or CBT-based group therapy (Forman & Lincoln, 2010) for depressive symptoms; or 2) individual in-person CBT plus relaxation training (Foley et al., 1987), group relaxation and imagery (Maguire, 1996), or CBT-based group therapy (Forman & Lincoln, 2010) for anxiety (Level U, 1 Class III study each).

Clinical Context

There is evidence supporting the efficacy of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for depressed mood and anxiety in individuals without MS. Despite the lack of evidence in individuals with MS, these therapies are frequently used to treat emotional disorders in this population.

What Are the Effective Treatments for Disorders of Affect in Individuals with MS?

Conclusion and Recommendations

Dextromethorphan and quinidine (DM/Q) is possibly effective and safe and may be considered for treating individuals with MS with PBA (Level C, 1 Class II study) (Panitch et al., 2006).

Clinical Context

DM/Q is the only drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for PBA treatment, although other drugs are used in clinical practice (e.g., selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants). There are no randomized placebo-controlled trials of these other agents.

Definitions:

Classification of Evidence

Screening Articles

Class I: A statistical, population based sample of patients studied at a uniform point in time (usually early) during the course of the condition. All patients undergo the intervention of interest. The outcome, if not objective, is determined in an evaluation that is masked to the patients' clinical presentations.

Class II: A statistical, non-referral clinic based sample of patients studied at a uniform point in time (usually early) during the course of the condition. Most patients undergo the intervention of interest. The outcome, if not objective, is determined in an evaluation that is masked to the patients' clinical presentations.

Class III: A sample of patients studied during the course of the condition. Some patients undergo the intervention of interest. The outcome, if not objective, is determined in an evaluation by someone other than the treating physician.

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II, or III criteria, including consensus, expert opinion or a case report.

Diagnostic Articles

Class I: A cohort study with prospective data collection of a broad spectrum of persons with the suspected condition, using an acceptable reference standard for case definition. The diagnostic test is objective or performed and interpreted without knowledge of the patient's clinical status. Study results allow calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy.

Class II: A case control study of a broad spectrum of persons with the condition established by an acceptable reference standard compared to a broad spectrum of controls or a cohort study where a broad spectrum of persons with the suspected condition where the data was collected retrospectively. The diagnostic test is objective or performed and interpreted without knowledge of disease status. Study results allow calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy.

Class III: A case control study or cohort study where either persons with the condition or controls are of a narrow spectrum. The condition is established by an acceptable reference standard. The reference standard and diagnostic test are objective or performed and interpreted by different observers. Study results allow calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy.

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II, or III criteria including consensus, expert opinion, or a case report.

Therapeutic Articles

Class I: A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest with masked or objective outcome assessment, in a representative population. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

The following are also required:

  1. Concealed allocation
  2. Primary outcome(s) clearly defined
  3. Exclusion/inclusion criteria clearly defined
  4. Adequate accounting for dropouts (with at least 80% of enrolled subjects completing the study) and crossovers with numbers sufficiently low to have minimal potential for bias.
  5. For noninferiority or equivalence trials claiming to prove efficacy for one or both drugs, the following are also required*:
    1. The authors explicitly state the clinically meaningful difference to be excluded by defining the threshold for equivalence or noninferiority.
    2. The standard treatment used in the study is substantially similar to that used in previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment (e.g., for a drug, the mode of administration, dose and dosage adjustments are similar to those previously shown to be effective).
    3. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection and the outcomes of patients on the standard treatment are comparable to those of previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment.
    4. The interpretation of the results of the study is based upon a per protocol analysis that takes into account dropouts or crossovers.

Class II: A randomized controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest in a representative population with masked or objective outcome assessment that lacks one criteria a–e above or a prospective matched cohort study with masked or objective outcome assessment in a representative population that meets b–e above. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

Class III: All other controlled trials (including well-defined natural history controls or patients serving as own controls) in a representative population, where outcome is independently assessed, or independently derived by objective outcome measurement.**

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II, or III criteria including consensus or expert opinion.

*Note that numbers 1-3 in Class Ie are required for Class II in equivalence trials. If any one of the three is missing, the class is automatically downgraded to Class III.

**Objective outcome measurement: an outcome measure that is unlikely to be affected by an observer's (patient, treating physician, investigator) expectation or bias (e.g., blood tests, administrative outcome data).

Classification of Recommendations

Level A = Established as effective, ineffective or harmful (or established as useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level A rating requires at least two consistent Class I studies.)*

Level B = Probably effective, ineffective or harmful (or probably useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level B rating requires at least one Class I study or two consistent Class II studies.)

Level C = Possibly effective, ineffective or harmful (or possibly useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level C rating requires at least one Class II study or two consistent Class III studies.)

Level U = Data inadequate or conflicting; given current knowledge, treatment (test, predictor) is unproven.

* In exceptional cases, one convincing Class I study may suffice for an "A" recommendation if 1) all criteria are met, 2) the magnitude of effect is large (relative rate improved outcome >5 and the lower limit of the confidence interval is >2).

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Major Recommendations

Definitions of the levels of the recommendations (A, B, C, U) and classification of the evidence (Class I-IV) are provided at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Screening and Diagnosis

What Clinical Evaluation Procedures and Screening and Diagnostic Tools Can Be Used to Accurately Identify Symptoms and Make Diagnoses of Emotional Disorders in Individuals with Multiple Sclerosis (MS)?

Conclusions and Recommendations

In individuals with MS, the Center for Neurologic Study Emotional Lability Scale (CNS-LS) is possibly effective and may be considered for screening for pseudobulbar affect (PBA) (Level C, 1 Class II study [Smith et al., 2004]). The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) (Goldberg & Hillier, 1979) is possibly effective and may be considered for identifying individuals with broadly defined emotional disturbances (Level C, 1 Class II study [Rabins & Brooks, 1981]). The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (Beck et al., 1961) and a 2-question screen (Whooley et al., 1997) are possibly effective and may be considered for identifying individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) (Level C, 1 Class II study each [Sullivan et al., 1995; Mohr et al., 2007]). There is insufficient evidence to support/refute using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Rating Scale (CES-D) (Radloff, 1977) to screen for depressive symptoms (Pandya, Metz, & Patten, 2005) or a single question to screen for MDD (Vahter et al., 2007) (Level U, 1 Class III study each); the possibility that somatic or neurovegetative symptoms negatively affect the accuracy of BDI results (Level U, 2 conflicting Class III studies) (Mohr et al., 1997; Randolph et al., 2000); and the use of specific instruments or clinical evaluation procedures to diagnose emotional disorders in individuals with MS (Level U).

Clinical Context

Because emotional disorders may be unrecognized in medical settings, validated screening tools might improve identification of individuals who could benefit from further evaluation and treatment. The true positive rate of a screening tool depends not only on its sensitivity but also on the point prevalence of the disorder in the population under study. Clinically, false-positive results are not a major concern because individuals with the conditions typically identified (e.g., adjustment and subthreshold depressive disorders) can benefit from further assessment. Administratively, however, screening tools with high false-positive rates unnecessarily increase resource use.

Treatments

What Are the Effective Treatments for Disorders of Mood in Individuals with MS?

Conclusion and Recommendations

For individuals with MS, a 16-week program of individual telephone-administered cognitive behavioral therapy (T-CBT) program is possibly effective and may be considered in treating depressive symptoms (Level C, 1 Class II study [Mohr et al., 2005], 1 Class III study [Mohr, et al., 2000]). There is insufficient evidence to support/refute the efficacy and use of 1) sertraline (Mohr et al., 2001), desipramine (Schiffer & Wineman, 1990), paroxetine (Ehde et al., 2008), individual in-person cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) (Mohr et al., 2001), individual in-person CBT plus relaxation training (Foley et al., 1987), or CBT-based group therapy (Forman & Lincoln, 2010) for depressive symptoms; or 2) individual in-person CBT plus relaxation training (Foley et al., 1987), group relaxation and imagery (Maguire, 1996), or CBT-based group therapy (Forman & Lincoln, 2010) for anxiety (Level U, 1 Class III study each).

Clinical Context

There is evidence supporting the efficacy of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for depressed mood and anxiety in individuals without MS. Despite the lack of evidence in individuals with MS, these therapies are frequently used to treat emotional disorders in this population.

What Are the Effective Treatments for Disorders of Affect in Individuals with MS?

Conclusion and Recommendations

Dextromethorphan and quinidine (DM/Q) is possibly effective and safe and may be considered for treating individuals with MS with PBA (Level C, 1 Class II study) (Panitch et al., 2006).

Clinical Context

DM/Q is the only drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for PBA treatment, although other drugs are used in clinical practice (e.g., selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants). There are no randomized placebo-controlled trials of these other agents.

Definitions:

Classification of Evidence

Screening Articles

Class I: A statistical, population based sample of patients studied at a uniform point in time (usually early) during the course of the condition. All patients undergo the intervention of interest. The outcome, if not objective, is determined in an evaluation that is masked to the patients' clinical presentations.

Class II: A statistical, non-referral clinic based sample of patients studied at a uniform point in time (usually early) during the course of the condition. Most patients undergo the intervention of interest. The outcome, if not objective, is determined in an evaluation that is masked to the patients' clinical presentations.

Class III: A sample of patients studied during the course of the condition. Some patients undergo the intervention of interest. The outcome, if not objective, is determined in an evaluation by someone other than the treating physician.

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II, or III criteria, including consensus, expert opinion or a case report.

Diagnostic Articles

Class I: A cohort study with prospective data collection of a broad spectrum of persons with the suspected condition, using an acceptable reference standard for case definition. The diagnostic test is objective or performed and interpreted without knowledge of the patient's clinical status. Study results allow calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy.

Class II: A case control study of a broad spectrum of persons with the condition established by an acceptable reference standard compared to a broad spectrum of controls or a cohort study where a broad spectrum of persons with the suspected condition where the data was collected retrospectively. The diagnostic test is objective or performed and interpreted without knowledge of disease status. Study results allow calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy.

Class III: A case control study or cohort study where either persons with the condition or controls are of a narrow spectrum. The condition is established by an acceptable reference standard. The reference standard and diagnostic test are objective or performed and interpreted by different observers. Study results allow calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy.

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II, or III criteria including consensus, expert opinion, or a case report.

Therapeutic Articles

Class I: A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest with masked or objective outcome assessment, in a representative population. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

The following are also required:

  1. Concealed allocation
  2. Primary outcome(s) clearly defined
  3. Exclusion/inclusion criteria clearly defined
  4. Adequate accounting for dropouts (with at least 80% of enrolled subjects completing the study) and crossovers with numbers sufficiently low to have minimal potential for bias.
  5. For noninferiority or equivalence trials claiming to prove efficacy for one or both drugs, the following are also required*:
    1. The authors explicitly state the clinically meaningful difference to be excluded by defining the threshold for equivalence or noninferiority.
    2. The standard treatment used in the study is substantially similar to that used in previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment (e.g., for a drug, the mode of administration, dose and dosage adjustments are similar to those previously shown to be effective).
    3. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection and the outcomes of patients on the standard treatment are comparable to those of previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment.
    4. The interpretation of the results of the study is based upon a per protocol analysis that takes into account dropouts or crossovers.

Class II: A randomized controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest in a representative population with masked or objective outcome assessment that lacks one criteria a–e above or a prospective matched cohort study with masked or objective outcome assessment in a representative population that meets b–e above. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

Class III: All other controlled trials (including well-defined natural history controls or patients serving as own controls) in a representative population, where outcome is independently assessed, or independently derived by objective outcome measurement.**

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II, or III criteria including consensus or expert opinion.

*Note that numbers 1-3 in Class Ie are required for Class II in equivalence trials. If any one of the three is missing, the class is automatically downgraded to Class III.

**Objective outcome measurement: an outcome measure that is unlikely to be affected by an observer's (patient, treating physician, investigator) expectation or bias (e.g., blood tests, administrative outcome data).

Classification of Recommendations

Level A = Established as effective, ineffective or harmful (or established as useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level A rating requires at least two consistent Class I studies.)*

Level B = Probably effective, ineffective or harmful (or probably useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level B rating requires at least one Class I study or two consistent Class II studies.)

Level C = Possibly effective, ineffective or harmful (or possibly useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level C rating requires at least one Class II study or two consistent Class III studies.)

Level U = Data inadequate or conflicting; given current knowledge, treatment (test, predictor) is unproven.

* In exceptional cases, one convincing Class I study may suffice for an "A" recommendation if 1) all criteria are met, 2) the magnitude of effect is large (relative rate improved outcome >5 and the lower limit of the confidence interval is >2).

Major Recommendations

Definitions of the levels of the recommendations (A, B, C, U) and classification of the evidence (Class I-IV) are provided at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Screening and Diagnosis

What Clinical Evaluation Procedures and Screening and Diagnostic Tools Can Be Used to Accurately Identify Symptoms and Make Diagnoses of Emotional Disorders in Individuals with Multiple Sclerosis (MS)?

Conclusions and Recommendations

In individuals with MS, the Center for Neurologic Study Emotional Lability Scale (CNS-LS) is possibly effective and may be considered for screening for pseudobulbar affect (PBA) (Level C, 1 Class II study [Smith et al., 2004]). The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) (Goldberg & Hillier, 1979) is possibly effective and may be considered for identifying individuals with broadly defined emotional disturbances (Level C, 1 Class II study [Rabins & Brooks, 1981]). The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (Beck et al., 1961) and a 2-question screen (Whooley et al., 1997) are possibly effective and may be considered for identifying individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) (Level C, 1 Class II study each [Sullivan et al., 1995; Mohr et al., 2007]). There is insufficient evidence to support/refute using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Rating Scale (CES-D) (Radloff, 1977) to screen for depressive symptoms (Pandya, Metz, & Patten, 2005) or a single question to screen for MDD (Vahter et al., 2007) (Level U, 1 Class III study each); the possibility that somatic or neurovegetative symptoms negatively affect the accuracy of BDI results (Level U, 2 conflicting Class III studies) (Mohr et al., 1997; Randolph et al., 2000); and the use of specific instruments or clinical evaluation procedures to diagnose emotional disorders in individuals with MS (Level U).

Clinical Context

Because emotional disorders may be unrecognized in medical settings, validated screening tools might improve identification of individuals who could benefit from further evaluation and treatment. The true positive rate of a screening tool depends not only on its sensitivity but also on the point prevalence of the disorder in the population under study. Clinically, false-positive results are not a major concern because individuals with the conditions typically identified (e.g., adjustment and subthreshold depressive disorders) can benefit from further assessment. Administratively, however, screening tools with high false-positive rates unnecessarily increase resource use.

Treatments

What Are the Effective Treatments for Disorders of Mood in Individuals with MS?

Conclusion and Recommendations

For individuals with MS, a 16-week program of individual telephone-administered cognitive behavioral therapy (T-CBT) program is possibly effective and may be considered in treating depressive symptoms (Level C, 1 Class II study [Mohr et al., 2005], 1 Class III study [Mohr, et al., 2000]). There is insufficient evidence to support/refute the efficacy and use of 1) sertraline (Mohr et al., 2001), desipramine (Schiffer & Wineman, 1990), paroxetine (Ehde et al., 2008), individual in-person cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) (Mohr et al., 2001), individual in-person CBT plus relaxation training (Foley et al., 1987), or CBT-based group therapy (Forman & Lincoln, 2010) for depressive symptoms; or 2) individual in-person CBT plus relaxation training (Foley et al., 1987), group relaxation and imagery (Maguire, 1996), or CBT-based group therapy (Forman & Lincoln, 2010) for anxiety (Level U, 1 Class III study each).

Clinical Context

There is evidence supporting the efficacy of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for depressed mood and anxiety in individuals without MS. Despite the lack of evidence in individuals with MS, these therapies are frequently used to treat emotional disorders in this population.

What Are the Effective Treatments for Disorders of Affect in Individuals with MS?

Conclusion and Recommendations

Dextromethorphan and quinidine (DM/Q) is possibly effective and safe and may be considered for treating individuals with MS with PBA (Level C, 1 Class II study) (Panitch et al., 2006).

Clinical Context

DM/Q is the only drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for PBA treatment, although other drugs are used in clinical practice (e.g., selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants). There are no randomized placebo-controlled trials of these other agents.

Definitions:

Classification of Evidence

Screening Articles

Class I: A statistical, population based sample of patients studied at a uniform point in time (usually early) during the course of the condition. All patients undergo the intervention of interest. The outcome, if not objective, is determined in an evaluation that is masked to the patients' clinical presentations.

Class II: A statistical, non-referral clinic based sample of patients studied at a uniform point in time (usually early) during the course of the condition. Most patients undergo the intervention of interest. The outcome, if not objective, is determined in an evaluation that is masked to the patients' clinical presentations.

Class III: A sample of patients studied during the course of the condition. Some patients undergo the intervention of interest. The outcome, if not objective, is determined in an evaluation by someone other than the treating physician.

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II, or III criteria, including consensus, expert opinion or a case report.

Diagnostic Articles

Class I: A cohort study with prospective data collection of a broad spectrum of persons with the suspected condition, using an acceptable reference standard for case definition. The diagnostic test is objective or performed and interpreted without knowledge of the patient's clinical status. Study results allow calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy.

Class II: A case control study of a broad spectrum of persons with the condition established by an acceptable reference standard compared to a broad spectrum of controls or a cohort study where a broad spectrum of persons with the suspected condition where the data was collected retrospectively. The diagnostic test is objective or performed and interpreted without knowledge of disease status. Study results allow calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy.

Class III: A case control study or cohort study where either persons with the condition or controls are of a narrow spectrum. The condition is established by an acceptable reference standard. The reference standard and diagnostic test are objective or performed and interpreted by different observers. Study results allow calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy.

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II, or III criteria including consensus, expert opinion, or a case report.

Therapeutic Articles

Class I: A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest with masked or objective outcome assessment, in a representative population. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

The following are also required:

  1. Concealed allocation
  2. Primary outcome(s) clearly defined
  3. Exclusion/inclusion criteria clearly defined
  4. Adequate accounting for dropouts (with at least 80% of enrolled subjects completing the study) and crossovers with numbers sufficiently low to have minimal potential for bias.
  5. For noninferiority or equivalence trials claiming to prove efficacy for one or both drugs, the following are also required*:
    1. The authors explicitly state the clinically meaningful difference to be excluded by defining the threshold for equivalence or noninferiority.
    2. The standard treatment used in the study is substantially similar to that used in previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment (e.g., for a drug, the mode of administration, dose and dosage adjustments are similar to those previously shown to be effective).
    3. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection and the outcomes of patients on the standard treatment are comparable to those of previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment.
    4. The interpretation of the results of the study is based upon a per protocol analysis that takes into account dropouts or crossovers.

Class II: A randomized controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest in a representative population with masked or objective outcome assessment that lacks one criteria a–e above or a prospective matched cohort study with masked or objective outcome assessment in a representative population that meets b–e above. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

Class III: All other controlled trials (including well-defined natural history controls or patients serving as own controls) in a representative population, where outcome is independently assessed, or independently derived by objective outcome measurement.**

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II, or III criteria including consensus or expert opinion.

*Note that numbers 1-3 in Class Ie are required for Class II in equivalence trials. If any one of the three is missing, the class is automatically downgraded to Class III.

**Objective outcome measurement: an outcome measure that is unlikely to be affected by an observer's (patient, treating physician, investigator) expectation or bias (e.g., blood tests, administrative outcome data).

Classification of Recommendations

Level A = Established as effective, ineffective or harmful (or established as useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level A rating requires at least two consistent Class I studies.)*

Level B = Probably effective, ineffective or harmful (or probably useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level B rating requires at least one Class I study or two consistent Class II studies.)

Level C = Possibly effective, ineffective or harmful (or possibly useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level C rating requires at least one Class II study or two consistent Class III studies.)

Level U = Data inadequate or conflicting; given current knowledge, treatment (test, predictor) is unproven.

* In exceptional cases, one convincing Class I study may suffice for an "A" recommendation if 1) all criteria are met, 2) the magnitude of effect is large (relative rate improved outcome >5 and the lower limit of the confidence interval is >2).

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Evidence-based guideline: assessment and management of psychiatric disorders in individuals with MS. Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology
Display Headline
Evidence-based guideline: assessment and management of psychiatric disorders in individuals with MS. Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

OBJECTIVE: To make evidence-based recommendations for screening, diagnosing, and treating psychiatric disorders in individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS).

METHODS: We reviewed the literature (1950 to August 2011) and evaluated the available evidence.

Guidelines are copyright © 2014 American Academy of Neurology. All rights reserved. The summary is provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.


Summary of evidence-based guideline: complementary and alternative medicine in multiple sclerosis. Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Summary of evidence-based guideline: complementary and alternative medicine in multiple sclerosis. Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

Major Recommendations

Definitions of the levels of the recommendations (A, B, C, U) and classification of the evidence (Class I-IV) are provided at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Cannabinoids

Cannabinoid Practice Recommendations

Clinicians might offer oral cannabis extract (OCE) to patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) to reduce patient-reported symptoms of spasticity and pain (excluding central neuropathic pain) (Level A) and might counsel patients that this symptomatic benefit is possibly maintained for 1 year (Level C), although OCE is probably ineffective for improving objective spasticity measures (short-term) or tremor (Level B).

Clinicians might offer tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to patients with MS to reduce patient-reported symptoms of spasticity and pain (excluding central neuropathic pain) (Level B). Clinicians might counsel patients that this symptomatic benefit is possibly maintained for 1 year (Level C), although THC is probably ineffective for improving objective spasticity measures (short-term) or tremor (Level B).

Clinicians might offer Sativex oromucosal cannabinoid spray (nabiximols), where available, to reduce symptoms of spasticity, pain, or urinary frequency, although it is probably ineffective for improving objective spasticity measures or number of urinary incontinence episodes (Level B).

Clinicians might choose not to offer Sativex oromucosal cannabinoid spray to reduce MS-related tremor (Level C).

Data are inadequate to support or refute use of the following in MS (Level U):

  1. OCE/THC for bladder urge incontinence and overall symptoms
  2. Synthetic THC (Marinol) for central neuropathic pain
  3. Sativex oromucosal cannabinoid spray for overall bladder symptoms, anxiety symptoms/sleep problems, cognitive symptoms, quality of life (QOL), and fatigue
  4. Smoked cannabis for spasticity, pain, balance/posture, and cognition

Data are inadequate to determine the abuse potential or effect on psychopathologic symptoms of Sativex cannabinoid spray (Level U).

Clinical Context

The cannabinoid studies have limitations that physicians and patients must be aware of. Most studies were of short duration (6 to 15 weeks). Another limitation was the potential for central side effects to unmask patients to treatment assignment — a concern with regard to all masked trials involving treatments with prominent side effects. It is also important to recognize that the Ashworth scale used for objective measurement may be insensitive to spasticity changes. These factors may contribute to the discordant effects of cannabinoids on subjective and objective spasticity measures.

Ginkgo Biloba (GB)

GB Practice Recommendations

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that GB is established as ineffective for improving cognitive function (Level A).

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that GB is possibly effective for reducing fatigue (Level C).

Clinical Context

GB and other supplements are not U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulated. Their quality control may play a role in their effectiveness and adverse effect (AE) risk. Moreover, interactions of supplements with other medications, especially disease-modifying therapies for MS, are a clinical concern.

Low-Fat Diet with Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation (Omega-3)

Omega-3 Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients that a low-fat diet with fish oil supplementation is probably ineffective for reducing relapses, disability, or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions, or for improving fatigue or QOL in MS (Level B).

Lofepramine

Lofepramine Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that lofepramine plus L-phenylalanine with vitamin B12 (Cari Loder regimen) is possibly ineffective for treating disability, symptoms, depression, or fatigue (Level C).

Reflexology

Reflexology Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that reflexology is possibly effective for reducing paresthesia (Level C).

Bee Venom

Bee Venom Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that bee sting therapy is possibly ineffective for reducing relapses, disability, fatigue, total MRI lesion burden, new gadolinium-enhancing lesion volume, or health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (Level C).

Clinical Context

Bee stings can be associated with anaphylactic reaction and possible death.

Magnetic Therapy

Magnetic Therapy Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that magnetic therapy is probably effective for reducing fatigue (Level B) and probably ineffective for reducing depression (Level B).

Other CAM Therapies Practice Recommendation

Clinicians should counsel patients with MS that the safety and efficacy of other reviewed CAM, or the interaction of CAM with disease-modifying therapies for MS, are unknown (Level U).

Definitions:

Classification of Evidence for Therapeutic Interventions

Class I: A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest with masked or objective outcome assessment, in a representative population. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

The following are also required:

  1. Concealed allocation
  2. Primary outcome(s) clearly defined
  3. Exclusion/inclusion criteria clearly defined
  4. Adequate accounting for drop-outs (with at least 80% of enrolled subjects completing the study) and cross-overs with numbers sufficiently low to have minimal potential for bias.
  5. For noninferiority or equivalence trials claiming to prove efficacy for one or both drugs, the following are also required*:
    1. The authors explicitly state the clinically meaningful difference to be excluded by defining the threshold for equivalence or noninferiority.
    2. The standard treatment used in the study is substantially similar to that used in previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment (e.g., for a drug, the mode of administration, dose and dosage adjustments are similar to those previously shown to be effective).
    3. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection and the outcomes of patients on the standard treatment are comparable to those of previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment.
    4. The interpretation of the results of the study is based upon a per protocol analysis that takes into account dropouts or crossovers.

Class II: A randomized controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest in a representative population with masked or objective outcome assessment that lacks one criteria a-e above or a prospective matched cohort study with masked or objective outcome assessment in a representative population that meets b-e above. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

Class III: All other controlled trials (including well-defined natural history controls or patients serving as own controls) in a representative population, where outcome is independently assessed, or independently derived by objective outcome measurement.**

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II or III criteria including consensus or expert opinion.

*Note that numbers 1-3 in Class Ie are required for Class II in equivalence trials. If any one of the three is missing, the class is automatically downgraded to Class III.

**Objective outcome measurement: an outcome measure that is unlikely to be affected by an observer's (patient, treating physician, investigator) expectation or bias (e.g., blood tests, administrative outcome data).

Classification of Recommendations

Level A = Established as effective, ineffective, or harmful (or established as useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level A rating requires at least two consistent Class I studies.)*

Level B = Probably effective, ineffective, or harmful (or probably useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level B rating requires at least one Class I study or at least two consistent Class II studies.)

Level C = Possibly effective, ineffective, or harmful (or possibly useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level C rating requires at least one Class II study or two consistent Class III studies.)

Level U = Data inadequate or conflicting; given current knowledge, treatment (test, predictor) is unproven.

*In exceptional cases, one convincing Class I study may suffice for an "A" recommendation if 1) all criteria are met, 2) the magnitude of effect is large (relative rate improved outcome >5 and the lower limit of the confidence interval is >2).

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Major Recommendations

Definitions of the levels of the recommendations (A, B, C, U) and classification of the evidence (Class I-IV) are provided at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Cannabinoids

Cannabinoid Practice Recommendations

Clinicians might offer oral cannabis extract (OCE) to patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) to reduce patient-reported symptoms of spasticity and pain (excluding central neuropathic pain) (Level A) and might counsel patients that this symptomatic benefit is possibly maintained for 1 year (Level C), although OCE is probably ineffective for improving objective spasticity measures (short-term) or tremor (Level B).

Clinicians might offer tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to patients with MS to reduce patient-reported symptoms of spasticity and pain (excluding central neuropathic pain) (Level B). Clinicians might counsel patients that this symptomatic benefit is possibly maintained for 1 year (Level C), although THC is probably ineffective for improving objective spasticity measures (short-term) or tremor (Level B).

Clinicians might offer Sativex oromucosal cannabinoid spray (nabiximols), where available, to reduce symptoms of spasticity, pain, or urinary frequency, although it is probably ineffective for improving objective spasticity measures or number of urinary incontinence episodes (Level B).

Clinicians might choose not to offer Sativex oromucosal cannabinoid spray to reduce MS-related tremor (Level C).

Data are inadequate to support or refute use of the following in MS (Level U):

  1. OCE/THC for bladder urge incontinence and overall symptoms
  2. Synthetic THC (Marinol) for central neuropathic pain
  3. Sativex oromucosal cannabinoid spray for overall bladder symptoms, anxiety symptoms/sleep problems, cognitive symptoms, quality of life (QOL), and fatigue
  4. Smoked cannabis for spasticity, pain, balance/posture, and cognition

Data are inadequate to determine the abuse potential or effect on psychopathologic symptoms of Sativex cannabinoid spray (Level U).

Clinical Context

The cannabinoid studies have limitations that physicians and patients must be aware of. Most studies were of short duration (6 to 15 weeks). Another limitation was the potential for central side effects to unmask patients to treatment assignment — a concern with regard to all masked trials involving treatments with prominent side effects. It is also important to recognize that the Ashworth scale used for objective measurement may be insensitive to spasticity changes. These factors may contribute to the discordant effects of cannabinoids on subjective and objective spasticity measures.

Ginkgo Biloba (GB)

GB Practice Recommendations

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that GB is established as ineffective for improving cognitive function (Level A).

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that GB is possibly effective for reducing fatigue (Level C).

Clinical Context

GB and other supplements are not U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulated. Their quality control may play a role in their effectiveness and adverse effect (AE) risk. Moreover, interactions of supplements with other medications, especially disease-modifying therapies for MS, are a clinical concern.

Low-Fat Diet with Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation (Omega-3)

Omega-3 Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients that a low-fat diet with fish oil supplementation is probably ineffective for reducing relapses, disability, or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions, or for improving fatigue or QOL in MS (Level B).

Lofepramine

Lofepramine Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that lofepramine plus L-phenylalanine with vitamin B12 (Cari Loder regimen) is possibly ineffective for treating disability, symptoms, depression, or fatigue (Level C).

Reflexology

Reflexology Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that reflexology is possibly effective for reducing paresthesia (Level C).

Bee Venom

Bee Venom Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that bee sting therapy is possibly ineffective for reducing relapses, disability, fatigue, total MRI lesion burden, new gadolinium-enhancing lesion volume, or health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (Level C).

Clinical Context

Bee stings can be associated with anaphylactic reaction and possible death.

Magnetic Therapy

Magnetic Therapy Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that magnetic therapy is probably effective for reducing fatigue (Level B) and probably ineffective for reducing depression (Level B).

Other CAM Therapies Practice Recommendation

Clinicians should counsel patients with MS that the safety and efficacy of other reviewed CAM, or the interaction of CAM with disease-modifying therapies for MS, are unknown (Level U).

Definitions:

Classification of Evidence for Therapeutic Interventions

Class I: A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest with masked or objective outcome assessment, in a representative population. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

The following are also required:

  1. Concealed allocation
  2. Primary outcome(s) clearly defined
  3. Exclusion/inclusion criteria clearly defined
  4. Adequate accounting for drop-outs (with at least 80% of enrolled subjects completing the study) and cross-overs with numbers sufficiently low to have minimal potential for bias.
  5. For noninferiority or equivalence trials claiming to prove efficacy for one or both drugs, the following are also required*:
    1. The authors explicitly state the clinically meaningful difference to be excluded by defining the threshold for equivalence or noninferiority.
    2. The standard treatment used in the study is substantially similar to that used in previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment (e.g., for a drug, the mode of administration, dose and dosage adjustments are similar to those previously shown to be effective).
    3. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection and the outcomes of patients on the standard treatment are comparable to those of previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment.
    4. The interpretation of the results of the study is based upon a per protocol analysis that takes into account dropouts or crossovers.

Class II: A randomized controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest in a representative population with masked or objective outcome assessment that lacks one criteria a-e above or a prospective matched cohort study with masked or objective outcome assessment in a representative population that meets b-e above. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

Class III: All other controlled trials (including well-defined natural history controls or patients serving as own controls) in a representative population, where outcome is independently assessed, or independently derived by objective outcome measurement.**

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II or III criteria including consensus or expert opinion.

*Note that numbers 1-3 in Class Ie are required for Class II in equivalence trials. If any one of the three is missing, the class is automatically downgraded to Class III.

**Objective outcome measurement: an outcome measure that is unlikely to be affected by an observer's (patient, treating physician, investigator) expectation or bias (e.g., blood tests, administrative outcome data).

Classification of Recommendations

Level A = Established as effective, ineffective, or harmful (or established as useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level A rating requires at least two consistent Class I studies.)*

Level B = Probably effective, ineffective, or harmful (or probably useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level B rating requires at least one Class I study or at least two consistent Class II studies.)

Level C = Possibly effective, ineffective, or harmful (or possibly useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level C rating requires at least one Class II study or two consistent Class III studies.)

Level U = Data inadequate or conflicting; given current knowledge, treatment (test, predictor) is unproven.

*In exceptional cases, one convincing Class I study may suffice for an "A" recommendation if 1) all criteria are met, 2) the magnitude of effect is large (relative rate improved outcome >5 and the lower limit of the confidence interval is >2).

Major Recommendations

Definitions of the levels of the recommendations (A, B, C, U) and classification of the evidence (Class I-IV) are provided at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Cannabinoids

Cannabinoid Practice Recommendations

Clinicians might offer oral cannabis extract (OCE) to patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) to reduce patient-reported symptoms of spasticity and pain (excluding central neuropathic pain) (Level A) and might counsel patients that this symptomatic benefit is possibly maintained for 1 year (Level C), although OCE is probably ineffective for improving objective spasticity measures (short-term) or tremor (Level B).

Clinicians might offer tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to patients with MS to reduce patient-reported symptoms of spasticity and pain (excluding central neuropathic pain) (Level B). Clinicians might counsel patients that this symptomatic benefit is possibly maintained for 1 year (Level C), although THC is probably ineffective for improving objective spasticity measures (short-term) or tremor (Level B).

Clinicians might offer Sativex oromucosal cannabinoid spray (nabiximols), where available, to reduce symptoms of spasticity, pain, or urinary frequency, although it is probably ineffective for improving objective spasticity measures or number of urinary incontinence episodes (Level B).

Clinicians might choose not to offer Sativex oromucosal cannabinoid spray to reduce MS-related tremor (Level C).

Data are inadequate to support or refute use of the following in MS (Level U):

  1. OCE/THC for bladder urge incontinence and overall symptoms
  2. Synthetic THC (Marinol) for central neuropathic pain
  3. Sativex oromucosal cannabinoid spray for overall bladder symptoms, anxiety symptoms/sleep problems, cognitive symptoms, quality of life (QOL), and fatigue
  4. Smoked cannabis for spasticity, pain, balance/posture, and cognition

Data are inadequate to determine the abuse potential or effect on psychopathologic symptoms of Sativex cannabinoid spray (Level U).

Clinical Context

The cannabinoid studies have limitations that physicians and patients must be aware of. Most studies were of short duration (6 to 15 weeks). Another limitation was the potential for central side effects to unmask patients to treatment assignment — a concern with regard to all masked trials involving treatments with prominent side effects. It is also important to recognize that the Ashworth scale used for objective measurement may be insensitive to spasticity changes. These factors may contribute to the discordant effects of cannabinoids on subjective and objective spasticity measures.

Ginkgo Biloba (GB)

GB Practice Recommendations

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that GB is established as ineffective for improving cognitive function (Level A).

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that GB is possibly effective for reducing fatigue (Level C).

Clinical Context

GB and other supplements are not U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulated. Their quality control may play a role in their effectiveness and adverse effect (AE) risk. Moreover, interactions of supplements with other medications, especially disease-modifying therapies for MS, are a clinical concern.

Low-Fat Diet with Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation (Omega-3)

Omega-3 Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients that a low-fat diet with fish oil supplementation is probably ineffective for reducing relapses, disability, or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions, or for improving fatigue or QOL in MS (Level B).

Lofepramine

Lofepramine Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that lofepramine plus L-phenylalanine with vitamin B12 (Cari Loder regimen) is possibly ineffective for treating disability, symptoms, depression, or fatigue (Level C).

Reflexology

Reflexology Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that reflexology is possibly effective for reducing paresthesia (Level C).

Bee Venom

Bee Venom Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that bee sting therapy is possibly ineffective for reducing relapses, disability, fatigue, total MRI lesion burden, new gadolinium-enhancing lesion volume, or health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (Level C).

Clinical Context

Bee stings can be associated with anaphylactic reaction and possible death.

Magnetic Therapy

Magnetic Therapy Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that magnetic therapy is probably effective for reducing fatigue (Level B) and probably ineffective for reducing depression (Level B).

Other CAM Therapies Practice Recommendation

Clinicians should counsel patients with MS that the safety and efficacy of other reviewed CAM, or the interaction of CAM with disease-modifying therapies for MS, are unknown (Level U).

Definitions:

Classification of Evidence for Therapeutic Interventions

Class I: A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest with masked or objective outcome assessment, in a representative population. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

The following are also required:

  1. Concealed allocation
  2. Primary outcome(s) clearly defined
  3. Exclusion/inclusion criteria clearly defined
  4. Adequate accounting for drop-outs (with at least 80% of enrolled subjects completing the study) and cross-overs with numbers sufficiently low to have minimal potential for bias.
  5. For noninferiority or equivalence trials claiming to prove efficacy for one or both drugs, the following are also required*:
    1. The authors explicitly state the clinically meaningful difference to be excluded by defining the threshold for equivalence or noninferiority.
    2. The standard treatment used in the study is substantially similar to that used in previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment (e.g., for a drug, the mode of administration, dose and dosage adjustments are similar to those previously shown to be effective).
    3. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection and the outcomes of patients on the standard treatment are comparable to those of previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment.
    4. The interpretation of the results of the study is based upon a per protocol analysis that takes into account dropouts or crossovers.

Class II: A randomized controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest in a representative population with masked or objective outcome assessment that lacks one criteria a-e above or a prospective matched cohort study with masked or objective outcome assessment in a representative population that meets b-e above. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

Class III: All other controlled trials (including well-defined natural history controls or patients serving as own controls) in a representative population, where outcome is independently assessed, or independently derived by objective outcome measurement.**

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II or III criteria including consensus or expert opinion.

*Note that numbers 1-3 in Class Ie are required for Class II in equivalence trials. If any one of the three is missing, the class is automatically downgraded to Class III.

**Objective outcome measurement: an outcome measure that is unlikely to be affected by an observer's (patient, treating physician, investigator) expectation or bias (e.g., blood tests, administrative outcome data).

Classification of Recommendations

Level A = Established as effective, ineffective, or harmful (or established as useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level A rating requires at least two consistent Class I studies.)*

Level B = Probably effective, ineffective, or harmful (or probably useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level B rating requires at least one Class I study or at least two consistent Class II studies.)

Level C = Possibly effective, ineffective, or harmful (or possibly useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level C rating requires at least one Class II study or two consistent Class III studies.)

Level U = Data inadequate or conflicting; given current knowledge, treatment (test, predictor) is unproven.

*In exceptional cases, one convincing Class I study may suffice for an "A" recommendation if 1) all criteria are met, 2) the magnitude of effect is large (relative rate improved outcome >5 and the lower limit of the confidence interval is >2).

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Summary of evidence-based guideline: complementary and alternative medicine in multiple sclerosis. Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology
Display Headline
Summary of evidence-based guideline: complementary and alternative medicine in multiple sclerosis. Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

OBJECTIVE:

To develop evidence-based recommendations for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in multiple sclerosis (MS).

METHODS:

We searched the literature (1970-March 2011; March 2011-September 2013 MEDLINE search), classified articles, and linked recommendations to evidence.

Guidelines are copyright © 2014 American Academy of Neurology. All rights reserved. The summary is provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.


How Common Is Medical Marijuana Use Among Patients With MS?

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
How Common Is Medical Marijuana Use Among Patients With MS?

PHILADELPHIA—Cannabis is used by 8.6% of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), making it the second most commonly used alternative therapy in this patient population, according to research reported at the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Patients with MS most frequently used marijuana for such symptoms as fatigue, heat sensitivity, and numbness, tingling, and pain. Massage was the leading alternative therapy used by patients with MS, reported by 12% of this group, said Stanley Cohan, MD, PhD, and his research colleagues.

The researchers sent surveys with questions related to demographics, symptoms of MS, disability status, quality of life, use of MS medications, and alternative therapies to patients with MS (ages 18 and older) who were enrolled in the Pacific Northwest MS Registry. Oregon and Washington are among the 20 states that allow the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, and Washington is one of two states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use.

The investigators conducted analyses to determine the percentage of responders who reported cannabis use for MS symptoms and compared the data with those of nonusers according to demographic characteristics, score on the MS Impact Scale, responses on the Patient Determined Disease Steps questionnaire, and current symptoms using χ2 and t-tests.

A total of 1,701 surveys (70%) were returned by patients in the registry; 8.6% of respondents reported current use of medical marijuana for their MS symptoms. The investigators found that patients who had used marijuana for MS were more likely to be younger, have more progressive disease or greater disability, be male, be unable to work due to MS, and smoke tobacco.

“There were no significant differences between cannabis users and nonusers in the use of MS medications, mean disease duration, or seeing a neurologist for treatment of MS,” stated Dr. Cohan, who is a neurologist and Medical Director of the Providence MS Center in Portland, Oregon.

Other complementary or alternative therapies used for MS included “other” (reported by 7.5% of survey responders), chiropractic (7.1%), acupuncture or acupressure (6.9%), naturopathy (3.8%), and biofeedback (0.6%). Regarding which MS symptoms were targeted by marijuana users, 82.2% used marijuana for fatigue, 76% for heat sensitivity, 74.7% for numbness, tingling, or pain, 68.5% for problems with thinking or memory, 67.1% for stiffness, spasms, or tremors in limbs, 62.3% for difficulty walking or maintaining balance, 58.2% for pain related to MS, 47.9% for impaired coordination, and 47.3% for depression and for problems with urination.

“Participants who used cannabis for their symptom management also reported higher unemployment due to MS, a higher impact of MS on quality of life, and greater disability,” Dr. Cohan commented. “The results highlight the need for in-depth studies on the impact of medical marijuana for management of MS symptoms. Follow-up studies will investigate the patient-reported impact of cannabis on symptom management.”

Colby Stong

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Issue
Neurology Reviews - 22(8)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
33
Legacy Keywords
Colby Stong, Medical Marijuana, Cannabis, multiple sclerosis, Stanley Cohan, Neurology Reviews
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

PHILADELPHIA—Cannabis is used by 8.6% of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), making it the second most commonly used alternative therapy in this patient population, according to research reported at the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Patients with MS most frequently used marijuana for such symptoms as fatigue, heat sensitivity, and numbness, tingling, and pain. Massage was the leading alternative therapy used by patients with MS, reported by 12% of this group, said Stanley Cohan, MD, PhD, and his research colleagues.

The researchers sent surveys with questions related to demographics, symptoms of MS, disability status, quality of life, use of MS medications, and alternative therapies to patients with MS (ages 18 and older) who were enrolled in the Pacific Northwest MS Registry. Oregon and Washington are among the 20 states that allow the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, and Washington is one of two states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use.

The investigators conducted analyses to determine the percentage of responders who reported cannabis use for MS symptoms and compared the data with those of nonusers according to demographic characteristics, score on the MS Impact Scale, responses on the Patient Determined Disease Steps questionnaire, and current symptoms using χ2 and t-tests.

A total of 1,701 surveys (70%) were returned by patients in the registry; 8.6% of respondents reported current use of medical marijuana for their MS symptoms. The investigators found that patients who had used marijuana for MS were more likely to be younger, have more progressive disease or greater disability, be male, be unable to work due to MS, and smoke tobacco.

“There were no significant differences between cannabis users and nonusers in the use of MS medications, mean disease duration, or seeing a neurologist for treatment of MS,” stated Dr. Cohan, who is a neurologist and Medical Director of the Providence MS Center in Portland, Oregon.

Other complementary or alternative therapies used for MS included “other” (reported by 7.5% of survey responders), chiropractic (7.1%), acupuncture or acupressure (6.9%), naturopathy (3.8%), and biofeedback (0.6%). Regarding which MS symptoms were targeted by marijuana users, 82.2% used marijuana for fatigue, 76% for heat sensitivity, 74.7% for numbness, tingling, or pain, 68.5% for problems with thinking or memory, 67.1% for stiffness, spasms, or tremors in limbs, 62.3% for difficulty walking or maintaining balance, 58.2% for pain related to MS, 47.9% for impaired coordination, and 47.3% for depression and for problems with urination.

“Participants who used cannabis for their symptom management also reported higher unemployment due to MS, a higher impact of MS on quality of life, and greater disability,” Dr. Cohan commented. “The results highlight the need for in-depth studies on the impact of medical marijuana for management of MS symptoms. Follow-up studies will investigate the patient-reported impact of cannabis on symptom management.”

Colby Stong

PHILADELPHIA—Cannabis is used by 8.6% of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), making it the second most commonly used alternative therapy in this patient population, according to research reported at the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Patients with MS most frequently used marijuana for such symptoms as fatigue, heat sensitivity, and numbness, tingling, and pain. Massage was the leading alternative therapy used by patients with MS, reported by 12% of this group, said Stanley Cohan, MD, PhD, and his research colleagues.

The researchers sent surveys with questions related to demographics, symptoms of MS, disability status, quality of life, use of MS medications, and alternative therapies to patients with MS (ages 18 and older) who were enrolled in the Pacific Northwest MS Registry. Oregon and Washington are among the 20 states that allow the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, and Washington is one of two states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use.

The investigators conducted analyses to determine the percentage of responders who reported cannabis use for MS symptoms and compared the data with those of nonusers according to demographic characteristics, score on the MS Impact Scale, responses on the Patient Determined Disease Steps questionnaire, and current symptoms using χ2 and t-tests.

A total of 1,701 surveys (70%) were returned by patients in the registry; 8.6% of respondents reported current use of medical marijuana for their MS symptoms. The investigators found that patients who had used marijuana for MS were more likely to be younger, have more progressive disease or greater disability, be male, be unable to work due to MS, and smoke tobacco.

“There were no significant differences between cannabis users and nonusers in the use of MS medications, mean disease duration, or seeing a neurologist for treatment of MS,” stated Dr. Cohan, who is a neurologist and Medical Director of the Providence MS Center in Portland, Oregon.

Other complementary or alternative therapies used for MS included “other” (reported by 7.5% of survey responders), chiropractic (7.1%), acupuncture or acupressure (6.9%), naturopathy (3.8%), and biofeedback (0.6%). Regarding which MS symptoms were targeted by marijuana users, 82.2% used marijuana for fatigue, 76% for heat sensitivity, 74.7% for numbness, tingling, or pain, 68.5% for problems with thinking or memory, 67.1% for stiffness, spasms, or tremors in limbs, 62.3% for difficulty walking or maintaining balance, 58.2% for pain related to MS, 47.9% for impaired coordination, and 47.3% for depression and for problems with urination.

“Participants who used cannabis for their symptom management also reported higher unemployment due to MS, a higher impact of MS on quality of life, and greater disability,” Dr. Cohan commented. “The results highlight the need for in-depth studies on the impact of medical marijuana for management of MS symptoms. Follow-up studies will investigate the patient-reported impact of cannabis on symptom management.”

Colby Stong

References

References

Issue
Neurology Reviews - 22(8)
Issue
Neurology Reviews - 22(8)
Page Number
33
Page Number
33
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
How Common Is Medical Marijuana Use Among Patients With MS?
Display Headline
How Common Is Medical Marijuana Use Among Patients With MS?
Legacy Keywords
Colby Stong, Medical Marijuana, Cannabis, multiple sclerosis, Stanley Cohan, Neurology Reviews
Legacy Keywords
Colby Stong, Medical Marijuana, Cannabis, multiple sclerosis, Stanley Cohan, Neurology Reviews
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Targeting B Cells May Help With MS

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Targeting B Cells May Help With MS
And Other News From the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology

PHILADELPHIA—A new study suggests that targeting B cells may be associated with reduced disease activity for people with multiple sclerosis (MS). The study was presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

A total of 231 people with relapsing-remitting MS received either a placebo or one of several low dosages of ofatumumab, an anti-B cell antibody, for 24 weeks, the first 12 of which were the placebo-controlled period.

The main objective was to determine the effects of ofatumumab dosing regimens, compared with placebo, on the total number of new brain lesions assessed every four weeks during a 12-week period.

All dose groups, including placebo, showed lesion activity in the first four weeks. Lesion suppression occurred in all ofatumumab dose groups from weeks four to 12. Researchers measured the amount of B cells in participants and compared it with the total number of new brain lesions that appeared on brain scans, which is a marker of disease activity.

When B cells were reduced to below a threshold of 64 cells/µL, disease activity, as measured by appearance of new brain lesions, was significantly reduced. On average, participants had an annualized rate of less than one new brain lesion per year when B cells were maintained below a threshold of 32 to 64 cells/µL, compared with 16 lesions without treatment.

The most common side effects, defined as those occurring in at least 5% of participants and at a rate twice that of placebo for weeks zero to 12, were injection-related reaction, dizziness, anxiety, fever, respiratory tract infection, and nerve pain.

Study author Daren Austin, PhD, of GlaxoSmithKline in Uxbridge, United Kingdom, said that the study results also suggest that peripheral, rather than central, B cells may be the most relevant target for anti-B cell therapy.

“These results need to be validated, of course, but the findings are interesting,” Dr. Austin said. “They provide new insight into the mechanism of B cells in MS and present a possible new target threshold for exploring the potential benefit of anti-B cell therapy.”

Ofatumumab is not approved anywhere in the world for use in the treatment of MS.

NR Narrowing of Carotid Artery Without Warning May Signal Memory and Cognitive Decline
Narrowing of the carotid artery without any symptoms may be linked to problems in learning, memory, thinking, and decision-making, compared with people with similar risk factors but no narrowing of the carotid artery, according to a study presented by Moira Dux, PhD.

“To date, the focus of diagnosis and management of carotid artery blockages has been prevention of stroke, since that was the only harm that these blockages were thought to cause to patients,” said principal investigator Brajesh K. Lal, MD, of the VA Maryland Health Care System’s Baltimore VA Medical Center and the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. “These results underscore the importance of assessing the status of memory and thinking in people with carotid artery narrowing.”

The study involved 67 people with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) and a 50% reduction in the diameter of the artery and 60 people with vascular risk factors but without the condition. Risk factors included diabetes, high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, and coronary artery disease. The participants underwent extensive testing for overall thinking abilities and for specific aspects of thinking, such as processing speed, learning, memory, decision-making, and language.

Patients with ACS performed significantly worse on the overall memory and thinking tests. On testing of specific aspects of thinking, they performed worse on tests for motor and processing speed and tests for learning and memory. Language scores did not differ between the two groups.

“If these findings are confirmed in larger studies, they [will] hold significant implications for new treatment targets and open the door for more questions such as: should these patients be treated more aggressively with medications, cognitive rehabilitation, or even surgery to open up the artery,” said Dr. Lal. “I anticipate a large number of follow-up studies searching for causes and the best treatment option for this newly identified morbidity associated with carotid narrowing.”

Study Examines Risk of Early Death for People With Mild Cognitive Impairment
One of the first studies to look at a relationship between death and the two types of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) suggests that people who have cognitive problems but no memory problems might have a higher death rate in a period of six years, compared with people who have no cognitive or memory problems. The same increased death rate was suggested in the study for individuals who have MCI with memory decline. Patients with MCI and no memory loss had the highest death rate, however.

 

 

“Currently, there is little information about death and the types of memory loss that affect many millions of Americans,” said study author Maria Vassilaki, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. “Exploring how memory may or may not be linked with the length of life a person has is of tremendous significance as the population ages.” For the study, 862 people with thinking problems and 1,292 with no thinking problems between the ages of 70 and 89 were followed for nearly six years. Participants were from Olmsted County, Minnesota, and were given tests at the start of the study and every 15 months to assess their thinking abilities.

After six years, 331 of the group with MCI and 224 of the group without MCI died. Those who had MCI had an 80% higher death rate during the study than those without MCI. People with MCI and no memory loss had more than twice the death rate during the study than those without MCI, while people with MCI with memory loss had a 68% higher death rate during the study than those without MCI.

Low Tolerance for Pain? The Reason May Be Genetic
Researchers may have identified genes that affect individuals’ tolerance for pain. “Our study is quite significant because it provides an objective way to understand pain and why different individuals have different pain tolerance levels,” said study author Tobore Onojjighofia, MD, MPH, who is affiliated with Proove Biosciences. “Identifying whether a person has these four genes could help doctors better understand a patient’s perception of pain.”

Researchers evaluated 2,721 people diagnosed with chronic pain for the genes COMT, DRD2, DRD1, and OPRK1. Participants, all of whom were taking prescription opioid pain medications, were asked to rate their perception of pain on a scale from 0 to 10. People who rated their pain as 0 were excluded from further study. Low pain perception was defined as a score of 1, 2, or 3; moderate pain perception as a score of 4, 5, or 6; and high pain perception as a score of 7 or higher. Approximately 9% of the participants had low pain perception, 46% had moderate pain perception, and 45% had high pain perception. The researchers found that the DRD1 gene variant was 33% more prevalent in the low pain group than in the high pain group. Among people with a moderate pain perception, the COMT and OPRK variants were found 25% and 19% more often, respectively, than in individuals with a high pain perception. The DRD2 variant was 25% more common among people with a high pain perception, compared with people with moderate pain.

“Chronic pain can affect every other part of life,” said Dr. Onojjighofia. “Finding genes that may play a role in pain perception could provide a target for developing new therapies.

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Issue
Neurology Reviews - 22(8)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
10, 11
Legacy Keywords
Neurology Reviews, Cognitive Decline, Carotid Artery, Chronic Pain, Pain, Ofatumumab
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

And Other News From the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology
And Other News From the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology

PHILADELPHIA—A new study suggests that targeting B cells may be associated with reduced disease activity for people with multiple sclerosis (MS). The study was presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

A total of 231 people with relapsing-remitting MS received either a placebo or one of several low dosages of ofatumumab, an anti-B cell antibody, for 24 weeks, the first 12 of which were the placebo-controlled period.

The main objective was to determine the effects of ofatumumab dosing regimens, compared with placebo, on the total number of new brain lesions assessed every four weeks during a 12-week period.

All dose groups, including placebo, showed lesion activity in the first four weeks. Lesion suppression occurred in all ofatumumab dose groups from weeks four to 12. Researchers measured the amount of B cells in participants and compared it with the total number of new brain lesions that appeared on brain scans, which is a marker of disease activity.

When B cells were reduced to below a threshold of 64 cells/µL, disease activity, as measured by appearance of new brain lesions, was significantly reduced. On average, participants had an annualized rate of less than one new brain lesion per year when B cells were maintained below a threshold of 32 to 64 cells/µL, compared with 16 lesions without treatment.

The most common side effects, defined as those occurring in at least 5% of participants and at a rate twice that of placebo for weeks zero to 12, were injection-related reaction, dizziness, anxiety, fever, respiratory tract infection, and nerve pain.

Study author Daren Austin, PhD, of GlaxoSmithKline in Uxbridge, United Kingdom, said that the study results also suggest that peripheral, rather than central, B cells may be the most relevant target for anti-B cell therapy.

“These results need to be validated, of course, but the findings are interesting,” Dr. Austin said. “They provide new insight into the mechanism of B cells in MS and present a possible new target threshold for exploring the potential benefit of anti-B cell therapy.”

Ofatumumab is not approved anywhere in the world for use in the treatment of MS.

NR Narrowing of Carotid Artery Without Warning May Signal Memory and Cognitive Decline
Narrowing of the carotid artery without any symptoms may be linked to problems in learning, memory, thinking, and decision-making, compared with people with similar risk factors but no narrowing of the carotid artery, according to a study presented by Moira Dux, PhD.

“To date, the focus of diagnosis and management of carotid artery blockages has been prevention of stroke, since that was the only harm that these blockages were thought to cause to patients,” said principal investigator Brajesh K. Lal, MD, of the VA Maryland Health Care System’s Baltimore VA Medical Center and the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. “These results underscore the importance of assessing the status of memory and thinking in people with carotid artery narrowing.”

The study involved 67 people with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) and a 50% reduction in the diameter of the artery and 60 people with vascular risk factors but without the condition. Risk factors included diabetes, high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, and coronary artery disease. The participants underwent extensive testing for overall thinking abilities and for specific aspects of thinking, such as processing speed, learning, memory, decision-making, and language.

Patients with ACS performed significantly worse on the overall memory and thinking tests. On testing of specific aspects of thinking, they performed worse on tests for motor and processing speed and tests for learning and memory. Language scores did not differ between the two groups.

“If these findings are confirmed in larger studies, they [will] hold significant implications for new treatment targets and open the door for more questions such as: should these patients be treated more aggressively with medications, cognitive rehabilitation, or even surgery to open up the artery,” said Dr. Lal. “I anticipate a large number of follow-up studies searching for causes and the best treatment option for this newly identified morbidity associated with carotid narrowing.”

Study Examines Risk of Early Death for People With Mild Cognitive Impairment
One of the first studies to look at a relationship between death and the two types of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) suggests that people who have cognitive problems but no memory problems might have a higher death rate in a period of six years, compared with people who have no cognitive or memory problems. The same increased death rate was suggested in the study for individuals who have MCI with memory decline. Patients with MCI and no memory loss had the highest death rate, however.

 

 

“Currently, there is little information about death and the types of memory loss that affect many millions of Americans,” said study author Maria Vassilaki, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. “Exploring how memory may or may not be linked with the length of life a person has is of tremendous significance as the population ages.” For the study, 862 people with thinking problems and 1,292 with no thinking problems between the ages of 70 and 89 were followed for nearly six years. Participants were from Olmsted County, Minnesota, and were given tests at the start of the study and every 15 months to assess their thinking abilities.

After six years, 331 of the group with MCI and 224 of the group without MCI died. Those who had MCI had an 80% higher death rate during the study than those without MCI. People with MCI and no memory loss had more than twice the death rate during the study than those without MCI, while people with MCI with memory loss had a 68% higher death rate during the study than those without MCI.

Low Tolerance for Pain? The Reason May Be Genetic
Researchers may have identified genes that affect individuals’ tolerance for pain. “Our study is quite significant because it provides an objective way to understand pain and why different individuals have different pain tolerance levels,” said study author Tobore Onojjighofia, MD, MPH, who is affiliated with Proove Biosciences. “Identifying whether a person has these four genes could help doctors better understand a patient’s perception of pain.”

Researchers evaluated 2,721 people diagnosed with chronic pain for the genes COMT, DRD2, DRD1, and OPRK1. Participants, all of whom were taking prescription opioid pain medications, were asked to rate their perception of pain on a scale from 0 to 10. People who rated their pain as 0 were excluded from further study. Low pain perception was defined as a score of 1, 2, or 3; moderate pain perception as a score of 4, 5, or 6; and high pain perception as a score of 7 or higher. Approximately 9% of the participants had low pain perception, 46% had moderate pain perception, and 45% had high pain perception. The researchers found that the DRD1 gene variant was 33% more prevalent in the low pain group than in the high pain group. Among people with a moderate pain perception, the COMT and OPRK variants were found 25% and 19% more often, respectively, than in individuals with a high pain perception. The DRD2 variant was 25% more common among people with a high pain perception, compared with people with moderate pain.

“Chronic pain can affect every other part of life,” said Dr. Onojjighofia. “Finding genes that may play a role in pain perception could provide a target for developing new therapies.

PHILADELPHIA—A new study suggests that targeting B cells may be associated with reduced disease activity for people with multiple sclerosis (MS). The study was presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

A total of 231 people with relapsing-remitting MS received either a placebo or one of several low dosages of ofatumumab, an anti-B cell antibody, for 24 weeks, the first 12 of which were the placebo-controlled period.

The main objective was to determine the effects of ofatumumab dosing regimens, compared with placebo, on the total number of new brain lesions assessed every four weeks during a 12-week period.

All dose groups, including placebo, showed lesion activity in the first four weeks. Lesion suppression occurred in all ofatumumab dose groups from weeks four to 12. Researchers measured the amount of B cells in participants and compared it with the total number of new brain lesions that appeared on brain scans, which is a marker of disease activity.

When B cells were reduced to below a threshold of 64 cells/µL, disease activity, as measured by appearance of new brain lesions, was significantly reduced. On average, participants had an annualized rate of less than one new brain lesion per year when B cells were maintained below a threshold of 32 to 64 cells/µL, compared with 16 lesions without treatment.

The most common side effects, defined as those occurring in at least 5% of participants and at a rate twice that of placebo for weeks zero to 12, were injection-related reaction, dizziness, anxiety, fever, respiratory tract infection, and nerve pain.

Study author Daren Austin, PhD, of GlaxoSmithKline in Uxbridge, United Kingdom, said that the study results also suggest that peripheral, rather than central, B cells may be the most relevant target for anti-B cell therapy.

“These results need to be validated, of course, but the findings are interesting,” Dr. Austin said. “They provide new insight into the mechanism of B cells in MS and present a possible new target threshold for exploring the potential benefit of anti-B cell therapy.”

Ofatumumab is not approved anywhere in the world for use in the treatment of MS.

NR Narrowing of Carotid Artery Without Warning May Signal Memory and Cognitive Decline
Narrowing of the carotid artery without any symptoms may be linked to problems in learning, memory, thinking, and decision-making, compared with people with similar risk factors but no narrowing of the carotid artery, according to a study presented by Moira Dux, PhD.

“To date, the focus of diagnosis and management of carotid artery blockages has been prevention of stroke, since that was the only harm that these blockages were thought to cause to patients,” said principal investigator Brajesh K. Lal, MD, of the VA Maryland Health Care System’s Baltimore VA Medical Center and the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. “These results underscore the importance of assessing the status of memory and thinking in people with carotid artery narrowing.”

The study involved 67 people with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) and a 50% reduction in the diameter of the artery and 60 people with vascular risk factors but without the condition. Risk factors included diabetes, high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, and coronary artery disease. The participants underwent extensive testing for overall thinking abilities and for specific aspects of thinking, such as processing speed, learning, memory, decision-making, and language.

Patients with ACS performed significantly worse on the overall memory and thinking tests. On testing of specific aspects of thinking, they performed worse on tests for motor and processing speed and tests for learning and memory. Language scores did not differ between the two groups.

“If these findings are confirmed in larger studies, they [will] hold significant implications for new treatment targets and open the door for more questions such as: should these patients be treated more aggressively with medications, cognitive rehabilitation, or even surgery to open up the artery,” said Dr. Lal. “I anticipate a large number of follow-up studies searching for causes and the best treatment option for this newly identified morbidity associated with carotid narrowing.”

Study Examines Risk of Early Death for People With Mild Cognitive Impairment
One of the first studies to look at a relationship between death and the two types of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) suggests that people who have cognitive problems but no memory problems might have a higher death rate in a period of six years, compared with people who have no cognitive or memory problems. The same increased death rate was suggested in the study for individuals who have MCI with memory decline. Patients with MCI and no memory loss had the highest death rate, however.

 

 

“Currently, there is little information about death and the types of memory loss that affect many millions of Americans,” said study author Maria Vassilaki, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. “Exploring how memory may or may not be linked with the length of life a person has is of tremendous significance as the population ages.” For the study, 862 people with thinking problems and 1,292 with no thinking problems between the ages of 70 and 89 were followed for nearly six years. Participants were from Olmsted County, Minnesota, and were given tests at the start of the study and every 15 months to assess their thinking abilities.

After six years, 331 of the group with MCI and 224 of the group without MCI died. Those who had MCI had an 80% higher death rate during the study than those without MCI. People with MCI and no memory loss had more than twice the death rate during the study than those without MCI, while people with MCI with memory loss had a 68% higher death rate during the study than those without MCI.

Low Tolerance for Pain? The Reason May Be Genetic
Researchers may have identified genes that affect individuals’ tolerance for pain. “Our study is quite significant because it provides an objective way to understand pain and why different individuals have different pain tolerance levels,” said study author Tobore Onojjighofia, MD, MPH, who is affiliated with Proove Biosciences. “Identifying whether a person has these four genes could help doctors better understand a patient’s perception of pain.”

Researchers evaluated 2,721 people diagnosed with chronic pain for the genes COMT, DRD2, DRD1, and OPRK1. Participants, all of whom were taking prescription opioid pain medications, were asked to rate their perception of pain on a scale from 0 to 10. People who rated their pain as 0 were excluded from further study. Low pain perception was defined as a score of 1, 2, or 3; moderate pain perception as a score of 4, 5, or 6; and high pain perception as a score of 7 or higher. Approximately 9% of the participants had low pain perception, 46% had moderate pain perception, and 45% had high pain perception. The researchers found that the DRD1 gene variant was 33% more prevalent in the low pain group than in the high pain group. Among people with a moderate pain perception, the COMT and OPRK variants were found 25% and 19% more often, respectively, than in individuals with a high pain perception. The DRD2 variant was 25% more common among people with a high pain perception, compared with people with moderate pain.

“Chronic pain can affect every other part of life,” said Dr. Onojjighofia. “Finding genes that may play a role in pain perception could provide a target for developing new therapies.

References

References

Issue
Neurology Reviews - 22(8)
Issue
Neurology Reviews - 22(8)
Page Number
10, 11
Page Number
10, 11
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Targeting B Cells May Help With MS
Display Headline
Targeting B Cells May Help With MS
Legacy Keywords
Neurology Reviews, Cognitive Decline, Carotid Artery, Chronic Pain, Pain, Ofatumumab
Legacy Keywords
Neurology Reviews, Cognitive Decline, Carotid Artery, Chronic Pain, Pain, Ofatumumab
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

MS brain lesions appear identical to those for optic neuropathy associated with MS

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
MS brain lesions appear identical to those for optic neuropathy associated with MS

Conventional MRI brain images of patients with multiple sclerosis are "indistinguishable to the expert eye" from those of patients who have an MS-like disease associated with Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy, according to a retrospective, case-control study.

Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON), a mitochondrial abnormality inherited through the maternal line, is characterized by painless, subacute bilateral loss of vision that usually occurs in early adulthood. Very rarely, it is associated with a coexisting MS-like disease, which is often referred to as Harding’s disease. If the brain-imaging traits of these two disorders were found to be similar, it would suggest that they share a common pathophysiologic mechanism, said Dr. Lucy Matthews of the Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences at Oxford (England) University, and her associates.

In what they described as "the first blinded observational study of the MRI features of LHON and LHON-associated MS," Dr. Matthews and her colleagues reviewed brain MRIs from patients treated at six clinical sites in Oxford; Milan and Siena, Italy; London; Bochum, Germany; and Copenhagen. A total of 31 patients had LHON, including 11 with LHON-associated MS. Their MRIs were compared with those from 30 age-matched control subjects who had MS alone (J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2014 July 22 [doi:10.1136/jnnp-2014-308186]).

Three experts in the field of MRI and MS who were blinded to patients’ clinical and demographic data independently reviewed these MRIs. They found that the morphology and location of cerebral lesions were identical in LHON-associated MS and MS. Brain atrophy and hypointense T1 lesions were observed in both disorders.

In contrast, patients who had LHON alone showed T2 hyperintense white matter lesions, notably fewer oval lesions, and no Dawson’s fingers or diffuse-type lesions. Most of their lesions were 2-5 mm in size, while most of the lesions in the MS and LHON-associated MS patients were larger, some as big as 25 mm.

In addition, T2 lesions showed a similar distribution between patients with MS and patients with LHON-associated MS, while T2 lesions in the LHON-only group were uncommon in the corpus callosum and nonexistent in the cerebellum.

A total of 90% of the patients with MS and 73% of those with LHON-associated MS fulfilled McDonald’s criterion for the spatial dissemination of brain lesions, compared with only 6.7% of the patients who had LHON alone.

These findings support the idea that "MRI changes in LHON-associated MS are due to MS pathology and not a separate Leber’s mitochondrial-related process." They also suggest that mitochondrial pathways may be important in the development of MS, the investigators said.

The researchers also observed an "intriguing" influence of gender in these disorders. "The penetrance of LHON in women is much lower than in men. However, it appears that once a woman develops LHON clinically, she has a very high risk of developing either radiological or clinical MS. It is [neither] clear whether those with asymptomatic lesions at the time of MRI will develop clinical features in the future, nor what the risk is in asymptomatic female carriers of Leber’s mutation," they added.

This study was supported in part by the U.K. Medical Research Council. Dr. Matthews’s associates reported numerous ties to industry sources.

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Conventional MRI brain images of patients with multiple sclerosis are "indistinguishable to the expert eye" from those of patients who have an MS-like disease associated with Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy, according to a retrospective, case-control study.

Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON), a mitochondrial abnormality inherited through the maternal line, is characterized by painless, subacute bilateral loss of vision that usually occurs in early adulthood. Very rarely, it is associated with a coexisting MS-like disease, which is often referred to as Harding’s disease. If the brain-imaging traits of these two disorders were found to be similar, it would suggest that they share a common pathophysiologic mechanism, said Dr. Lucy Matthews of the Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences at Oxford (England) University, and her associates.

In what they described as "the first blinded observational study of the MRI features of LHON and LHON-associated MS," Dr. Matthews and her colleagues reviewed brain MRIs from patients treated at six clinical sites in Oxford; Milan and Siena, Italy; London; Bochum, Germany; and Copenhagen. A total of 31 patients had LHON, including 11 with LHON-associated MS. Their MRIs were compared with those from 30 age-matched control subjects who had MS alone (J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2014 July 22 [doi:10.1136/jnnp-2014-308186]).

Three experts in the field of MRI and MS who were blinded to patients’ clinical and demographic data independently reviewed these MRIs. They found that the morphology and location of cerebral lesions were identical in LHON-associated MS and MS. Brain atrophy and hypointense T1 lesions were observed in both disorders.

In contrast, patients who had LHON alone showed T2 hyperintense white matter lesions, notably fewer oval lesions, and no Dawson’s fingers or diffuse-type lesions. Most of their lesions were 2-5 mm in size, while most of the lesions in the MS and LHON-associated MS patients were larger, some as big as 25 mm.

In addition, T2 lesions showed a similar distribution between patients with MS and patients with LHON-associated MS, while T2 lesions in the LHON-only group were uncommon in the corpus callosum and nonexistent in the cerebellum.

A total of 90% of the patients with MS and 73% of those with LHON-associated MS fulfilled McDonald’s criterion for the spatial dissemination of brain lesions, compared with only 6.7% of the patients who had LHON alone.

These findings support the idea that "MRI changes in LHON-associated MS are due to MS pathology and not a separate Leber’s mitochondrial-related process." They also suggest that mitochondrial pathways may be important in the development of MS, the investigators said.

The researchers also observed an "intriguing" influence of gender in these disorders. "The penetrance of LHON in women is much lower than in men. However, it appears that once a woman develops LHON clinically, she has a very high risk of developing either radiological or clinical MS. It is [neither] clear whether those with asymptomatic lesions at the time of MRI will develop clinical features in the future, nor what the risk is in asymptomatic female carriers of Leber’s mutation," they added.

This study was supported in part by the U.K. Medical Research Council. Dr. Matthews’s associates reported numerous ties to industry sources.

Conventional MRI brain images of patients with multiple sclerosis are "indistinguishable to the expert eye" from those of patients who have an MS-like disease associated with Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy, according to a retrospective, case-control study.

Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON), a mitochondrial abnormality inherited through the maternal line, is characterized by painless, subacute bilateral loss of vision that usually occurs in early adulthood. Very rarely, it is associated with a coexisting MS-like disease, which is often referred to as Harding’s disease. If the brain-imaging traits of these two disorders were found to be similar, it would suggest that they share a common pathophysiologic mechanism, said Dr. Lucy Matthews of the Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences at Oxford (England) University, and her associates.

In what they described as "the first blinded observational study of the MRI features of LHON and LHON-associated MS," Dr. Matthews and her colleagues reviewed brain MRIs from patients treated at six clinical sites in Oxford; Milan and Siena, Italy; London; Bochum, Germany; and Copenhagen. A total of 31 patients had LHON, including 11 with LHON-associated MS. Their MRIs were compared with those from 30 age-matched control subjects who had MS alone (J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2014 July 22 [doi:10.1136/jnnp-2014-308186]).

Three experts in the field of MRI and MS who were blinded to patients’ clinical and demographic data independently reviewed these MRIs. They found that the morphology and location of cerebral lesions were identical in LHON-associated MS and MS. Brain atrophy and hypointense T1 lesions were observed in both disorders.

In contrast, patients who had LHON alone showed T2 hyperintense white matter lesions, notably fewer oval lesions, and no Dawson’s fingers or diffuse-type lesions. Most of their lesions were 2-5 mm in size, while most of the lesions in the MS and LHON-associated MS patients were larger, some as big as 25 mm.

In addition, T2 lesions showed a similar distribution between patients with MS and patients with LHON-associated MS, while T2 lesions in the LHON-only group were uncommon in the corpus callosum and nonexistent in the cerebellum.

A total of 90% of the patients with MS and 73% of those with LHON-associated MS fulfilled McDonald’s criterion for the spatial dissemination of brain lesions, compared with only 6.7% of the patients who had LHON alone.

These findings support the idea that "MRI changes in LHON-associated MS are due to MS pathology and not a separate Leber’s mitochondrial-related process." They also suggest that mitochondrial pathways may be important in the development of MS, the investigators said.

The researchers also observed an "intriguing" influence of gender in these disorders. "The penetrance of LHON in women is much lower than in men. However, it appears that once a woman develops LHON clinically, she has a very high risk of developing either radiological or clinical MS. It is [neither] clear whether those with asymptomatic lesions at the time of MRI will develop clinical features in the future, nor what the risk is in asymptomatic female carriers of Leber’s mutation," they added.

This study was supported in part by the U.K. Medical Research Council. Dr. Matthews’s associates reported numerous ties to industry sources.

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
MS brain lesions appear identical to those for optic neuropathy associated with MS
Display Headline
MS brain lesions appear identical to those for optic neuropathy associated with MS
Article Source

FROM THE JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, NEUROSURGERY, AND PSYCHIATRY

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

Key clinical point: MRI should always be used in the context of the clinical picture when making the diagnosis of MS, and rarer overlap disorders such as LHON, should be considered.

Major finding: The morphology and location of cerebral lesions were identical between LHON-associated MS and MS; both disorders were characterized by brain atrophy and hypointense T1 lesions, while LHON alone was not.

Data source: A retrospective analysis of conventional MRI brain images from 20 patients with LHON alone, 11 with LHON plus its associated MS-like illness, and 30 control subjects with MS alone.

Disclosures: This study was supported in part by the U.K. Medical Research Council. Dr. Matthews’s associates reported numerous ties to industry sources.