Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Neurotherapeutics
Published in: Neurotherapeutics 4/2017

01-10-2017 | Review

Assessing Repair in Multiple Sclerosis: Outcomes for Phase II Clinical Trials

Authors: Maria Pia Sormani, Matteo Pardini

Published in: Neurotherapeutics | Issue 4/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) pathology is complex and includes inflammatory processes, neurodegeneration, and demyelination. While multiple drugs have been developed to tackle MS-related inflammation, to date there is scant evidence regarding which therapeutic approach, if any, could be used to reverse demyelination, foster tissue repair, and thus positively impact on chronic disability. Here, we reviewed the current structural and functional markers (magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, optical coherence tomography, and visual evoked potentials) which could be used in phase II clinical trials of new compounds aimed to foster tissue repair in MS. Magnetic transfer ratio recovery in newly formed lesions currently represents the most widely used biomarker of tissue repair in MS, even if other markers, such as optical coherence tomography and positron emission tomography hold great promise to complement magnetic transfer ratio in tissue repair clinical trials. Future studies are needed to better characterize the different possible biomarkers to study tissue repair in MS, especially regarding their pathological specificity, sensitivity to change, and their relationship with disease activity.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Kutzelnigg A, Lassmann H. Pathology of multiple sclerosis and related inflammatory demyelinating diseases. Handb Clin Neurol 2014;122:15-58.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Colman D, Lubetzki C, Reingold S. Multiple paths towards repair in multiple sclerosis. Trends Neurosci 2003;26(2):59-61.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Miller DH, Grossman RI, Reingold SC, McFarland HF. The role of magnetic resonance techniques in understanding and managing multiple sclerosis. Brain 1998;121:3-24.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Vavasour IM, Li DK, Laule C, Traboulsee AL, Moore GR, Mackay AL. Multi-parametric MR assessment of T(1) black holes in multiple sclerosis : evidence that myelin loss is not greater in hypointense versus isointense T(1) lesions. J Neurol 2007;254(12):1653-1659.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Barkhof F, Bruck W, De Groot CJ, et al. Remyelinated lesions in multiple sclerosis: magnetic resonance image appearance. Arch Neurol 2003;60(8):1073-1081.CrossRefPubMed
6.
van Walderveen MA, Kamphorst W, Scheltens P, et al. Histopathologic correlate of hypointense lesions on T1-weighted spin-echo MRI in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1998;50(5):1282-1288.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Meier DS, Weiner HL, Guttmann CR. Time-series modeling of multiple sclerosis disease activity: a promising window on disease progression and repair potential? Neurotherapeutics 2007;4(3):485-498.CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
Meier DS, Weiner HL, Guttmann CR. MR imaging intensity modeling of damage and repair in multiple sclerosis: relationship of short-term lesion recovery to progression and disability. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28(10):1956-1963.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Miller DH, Soon D, Fernando KT, et al. MRI outcomes in a placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab in relapsing MS. Neurology 2007;68(17):1390-1401.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Schmierer K, Scaravilli F, Altmann DR, Barker GJ, Miller DH. Magnetization transfer ratio and myelin in postmortem multiple sclerosis brain. Ann Neurol 2004;56(3):407-415.CrossRefPubMed
12.
van Waesberghe JH, Kamphorst W, De Groot CJ, et al. Axonal loss in multiple sclerosis lesions: magnetic resonance imaging insights into substrates of disability. Ann Neurol 1999;46(5):747-754.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Filippi M, Rocca MA, Martino G, Horsfield MA, Comi G. Magnetization transfer changes in the normal appearing white matter precede the appearance of enhancing lesions in patients with multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1998;43(6):809-814.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Richert ND, Ostuni JL, Bash CN, Leist TP, McFarland HF, Frank JA. Interferon beta-1b and intravenous methylprednisolone promote lesion recovery in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2001;7(1):49-58.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Filippi M, Rocca MA, Sormani MP, Pereira C, Comi G. Short-term evolution of individual enhancing MS lesions studied with magnetization transfer imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 1999;17(7):979-984.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Chen JT, Collins DL, Atkins HL, Freedman MS, Arnold DL, Canadian MSBMTSG. Magnetization transfer ratio evolution with demyelination and remyelination in multiple sclerosis lesions. Ann Neurol 2008;63(2):254-262.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Altmann DR, Button T, Schmierer K, et al. Sample sizes for lesion magnetisation transfer ratio outcomes in remyelination trials for multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2014;3(2):237-243.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Mallik S, Samson RS, Wheeler-Kingshott CA, Miller DH. Imaging outcomes for trials of remyelination in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2014;85(12):1396-1404.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
van den Elskamp IJ, Knol DL, Vrenken H, et al. Lesional magnetization transfer ratio: a feasible outcome for remyelinating treatment trials in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2010;16(6):660-669.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Schwartzbach CJ, Grove RA, Brown R, Tompson D, Then Bergh F, Arnold DL. Lesion remyelinating activity of GSK239512 versus placebo in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a randomised, single-blind, phase II study. J Neurol 2017;264(2):304-315.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Levesque IR, Sled JG, Narayanan S, et al. Reproducibility of quantitative magnetization-transfer imaging parameters from repeated measurements. Magn Reson Med 2010;64(2):391-400.PubMed
22.
Simon JH. Brain atrophy in multiple sclerosis: what we know and would like to know. Mult Scler 2006;12(6):679-687.CrossRefPubMed
23.
De Stefano N, Airas L, Grigoriadis N, et al. Clinical relevance of brain volume measures in multiple sclerosis. CNS Drugs 2014;28(2):147-156.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zivadinov R, Jakimovski D, Gandhi S, et al. Clinical relevance of brain atrophy assessment in multiple sclerosis. Implications for its use in a clinical routine. Expert Rev Neurother 2016;16(7):777-793.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Wang C, Beadnall HN, Hatton SN, et al. Automated brain volumetrics in multiple sclerosis: a step closer to clinical application. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2016;87(7):754-757.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Kappos L, De Stefano N, Freedman MS, et al. Inclusion of brain volume loss in a revised measure of 'no evidence of disease activity' (NEDA-4) in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2016;22(10):1297-1305.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Anderson VM, Bartlett JW, Fox NC, Fisniku L, Miller DH. Detecting treatment effects on brain atrophy in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: sample size estimates. J Neurol 2007;254(11):1588-1594.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Altmann DR, Jasperse B, Barkhof F, et al. Sample sizes for brain atrophy outcomes in trials for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2009;72(7):595-601.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Toth E, Szabo N, Csete G, et al. Gray matter atrophy is primarily related to demyelination of lesions in multiple sclerosis: a diffusion tensor imaging MRI study. Front Neuroanat 2017;11:23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Biberacher V, Boucard CC, Schmidt P, et al. Atrophy and structural variability of the upper cervical cord in early multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2015;21(7):875-884.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Kalkers NF, Barkhof F, Bergers E, van Schijndel R, Polman CH. The effect of the neuroprotective agent riluzole on MRI parameters in primary progressive multiple sclerosis: a pilot study. Mult Scler 2002;8(6):532-533.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Liptak Z, Berger AM, Sampat MP, et al. Medulla oblongata volume: a biomarker of spinal cord damage and disability in multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29(8):1465-1470.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Liu Z, Yaldizli O, Pardini M, et al. Cervical cord area measurement using volumetric brain magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2015;4(1):52-57.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Wattjes MP, Harzheim M, Lutterbey GG, et al. Does high field MRI allow an earlier diagnosis of multiple sclerosis? J Neurol 2008;255(8):1159-1163.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Vrenken H, Geurts JJ, Knol DL, et al. Normal-appearing white matter changes vary with distance to lesions in multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:2005-2011.PubMed
36.
Liu Z, Pardini M, Yaldizli O, et al. Magnetization transfer ratio measures in normal-appearing white matter show periventricular gradient abnormalities in multiple sclerosis. Brain 2015;138(Pt 5):1239-1246.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Pardini M, Sudre CH, Prados F, et al. Relationship of grey and white matter abnormalities with distance from the surface of the brain in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2016;87(11):1212-1217.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Brown JW, Pardini M, Brownlee WJ, et al. An abnormal periventricular magnetization transfer ratio gradient occurs early in multiple sclerosis. Brain 2017;140(Pt 2):387-398.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Evangelou N, Esiri MM, Smith S, Palace J, Matthews PM. Quantitative pathological evidence for axonal loss in normal appearing white matter in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2000;47(3):391-395.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Kutzelnigg A, Lucchinetti CF, Stadelmann C, et al. Cortical demyelination and diffuse white matter injury in multiple sclerosis. Brain 2005;128(Pt 11):2705-2712.CrossRefPubMed
41.
42.
Song SK, Yoshino J, Le TQ, et al. Demyelination increases radial diffusivity in corpus callosum of mouse brain. Neuroimage 2005;26(1):132-140.CrossRefPubMed
43.
44.
Wang Y, Wang Q, Haldar JP, et al. Quantification of increased cellularity during inflammatory demyelination. Brain 2011;134(Pt 12):3590-3601.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Wheeler-Kingshott CA, Cercignani M. About "axial" and "radial" diffusivities. Magn Reson Med 2009;61(5):1255-1260.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Zhang H, Schneider T, Wheeler-Kingshott CA, Alexander DC. NODDI: practical in vivo neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging of the human brain. Neuroimage 2012;61(4):1000-1016.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Muller HP, Turner MR, Grosskreutz J, et al. A large-scale multicentre cerebral diffusion tensor imaging study in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2016;87(6):570-579.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Mesaros S, Rocca M, Sormani M, et al. Bimonthly assessment of magnetization transfer magnetic resonance imaging parameters in multiple sclerosis: a 14-month, multicentre, follow-up study. Mult Scler 2010;16(3):325-331.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Arnold DL, Gold R, Kappos L, et al. Magnetization transfer ratio in the delayed-release dimethyl fumarate DEFINE study. J Neurol 2014;261(12):2429-2437.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Schiepers C, Van Hecke P, Vandenberghe R, et al. Positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and proton NMR spectroscopy of white matter in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 1997;3(1):8-17.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Stankoff B, Freeman L, Aigrot MS, et al. Imaging central nervous system myelin by positron emission tomography in multiple sclerosis using [methyl-(1)(1)C]-2-(4'-methylaminophenyl)- 6-hydroxybenzothiazole. Ann Neurol 2011;69(4):673-680.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Bodini B, Veronese M, Garcia-Lorenzo D, et al. Dynamic imaging of individual remyelination profiles in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2016 Feb 18.
53.
Matias-Guiu JA, Cabrera-Martin MN, Matias-Guiu J, et al. Amyloid PET imaging in multiple sclerosis: an (18)F-florbetaben study. BMC Neurol 2015;15:243.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
54.
Jezzard P, Buxton RB. The clinical potential of functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;23(6):787-793.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Enzinger C, Pinter D, Rocca MA, et al. Longitudinal fMRI studies: Exploring brain plasticity and repair in MS. Mult Scler 2016;22(3):269-278.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Bonzano L, Pardini M, Mancardi GL, Pizzorno M, Roccatagliata L. Structural connectivity influences brain activation during PVSAT in Multiple Sclerosis. Neuroimage 2009;44(1):9-15.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Rocca MA, Colombo B, Falini A, et al. Cortical adaptation in patients with MS: a cross-sectional functional MRI study of disease phenotypes. Lancet Neurol 2005;4(10):618-626.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Filippi M, Rocca MA, Falini A, et al. Correlations between structural CNS damage and functional MRI changes in primary progressive MS. Neuroimage 2002;15(3):537-546.CrossRefPubMed
59.
60.
Bonzano L, Pardini M, Roccatagliata L, Mancardi GL, Bove M. How people with multiple sclerosis cope with a sustained finger motor task: a behavioural and fMRI study. Behav Brain Res 2017;325(Pt A):63-71CrossRefPubMed
61.
62.
Gorgolewski KJ, Storkey AJ, Bastin ME, Whittle I, Pernet C. Single subject fMRI test-retest reliability metrics and confounding factors. Neuroimage 2013;69:231-243.CrossRefPubMed
63.
Bosnell R, Wegner C, Kincses ZT, et al. Reproducibility of fMRI in the clinical setting: implications for trial designs. Neuroimage 2008;42(2):603-610.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Kelly C, Biswal BB, Craddock RC, Castellanos FX, Milham MP. Characterizing variation in the functional connectome: promise and pitfalls. Trends Cogn Sci 2012;16(3):181-188.CrossRefPubMed
65.
Parisi L, Rocca MA, Valsasina P, Panicari L, Mattioli F, Filippi M. Cognitive rehabilitation correlates with the functional connectivity of the anterior cingulate cortex in patients with multiple sclerosis. Brain Imaging Behav 2014;8(3):387-393.CrossRefPubMed
66.
Dichter GS, Gibbs D, Smoski MJ. A systematic review of relations between resting-state functional-MRI and treatment response in major depressive disorder. J Affect Disord 2015;172:8-17.CrossRefPubMed
67.
Moccia M, Ciccarelli O. Molecular and metabolic imaging in multiple sclerosis. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2017;27(2):343-356.CrossRefPubMed
68.
Ge Y, Gonen O, Inglese M, Babb JS, Markowitz CE, Grossman RI. Neuronal cell injury precedes brain atrophy in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2004;62(4):624-627.CrossRefPubMed
69.
Khan O, Seraji-Bozorgzad N, Bao F, et al. The relationship between brain MR spectroscopy and disability in multiple sclerosis: 20-year data from the U.S. glatiramer acetate extension study. J Neuroimaging 2017;27(1):97-106.CrossRefPubMed
70.
Pardini M, Botzkowski D, Muller S, et al. The association between retinal nerve fibre layer thickness and N-acetyl aspartate levels in multiple sclerosis brain normal-appearing white matter: a longitudinal study using magnetic resonance spectroscopy and optical coherence tomography. Eur J Neurol 2016;23(12):1769-1774.CrossRefPubMed
71.
72.
Hackmack K, Weygandt M, Wuerfel J, et al. Can we overcome the 'clinico-radiological paradox' in multiple sclerosis? J Neurol 2012;259(10):2151-2160.CrossRefPubMed
73.
Matthews PM, Pioro E, Narayanan S, et al. Assessment of lesion pathology in multiple sclerosis using quantitative MRI morphometry and magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Brain 1996;119 (Pt 3):715-722.CrossRefPubMed
74.
75.
Bommarito G, Bellini A, Pardini M, et al. Composite MRI measures and short-term disability in patients with clinically isolated syndrome suggestive of MS. Mult Scler 2017:1352458517704077.
76.
Balcer LJ, Raynowska J, Nolan R, et al. Validity of low-contrast letter acuity as a visual performance outcome measure for multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2017;23(5):734-747.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
77.
Gordon-Lipkin E, Calabresi PA. Optical coherence tomography: a quantitative tool to measure neurodegeneration and facilitate testing of novel treatments for tissue protection in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimmunol 2017;304:93-96.CrossRefPubMed
78.
Galetta KM, Calabresi PA, Frohman EM, Balcer LJ. Optical coherence tomography (OCT): imaging the visual pathway as a model for neurodegeneration. Neurotherapeutics 2011;8(1):117-132.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
79.
Costello F, Coupland S, Hodge W, et al. Quantifying axonal loss after optic neuritis with optical coherence tomography. Ann Neurol 2006;59(6):963-969.CrossRefPubMed
80.
Guan Y, Shindler KS, Tabuena P, Rostami AM. Retinal ganglion cell damage induced by spontaneous autoimmune optic neuritis in MOG-specific TCR transgenic mice. J Neuroimmunol 2006;178(1-2):40-48.CrossRefPubMed
81.
Suhs KW, Hein K, Sattler MB, et al. A randomized, double-blind, phase 2 study of erythropoietin in optic neuritis. Ann Neurol 2012;72(2):199-210.CrossRefPubMed
82.
Syc SB, Saidha S, Newsome SD, et al. Optical coherence tomography segmentation reveals ganglion cell layer pathology after optic neuritis. Brain 2012;135(Pt 2):521-533.CrossRefPubMed
83.
Talman LS, Bisker ER, Sackel DJ, et al. Longitudinal study of vision and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2010;67(6):749-760.PubMedPubMedCentral
84.
Button J, Al-Louzi O, Lang A, et al. Disease-modifying therapies modulate retinal atrophy in multiple sclerosis: a retrospective study. Neurology 2017;88(6):525-532.CrossRefPubMed
85.
Thurtell MJ, Bala E, Yaniglos SS, Rucker JC, Peachey NS, Leigh RJ. Evaluation of optic neuropathy in multiple sclerosis using low-contrast visual evoked potentials. Neurology 2009;73(22):1849-1857.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
86.
Naismith RT, Tutlam NT, Xu J, et al. Optical coherence tomography is less sensitive than visual evoked potentials in optic neuritis. Neurology 2009;73(1):46-52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
87.
Jung P, Beyerle A, Ziemann U. Multimodal evoked potentials measure and predict disability progression in early relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2008;14(4):553-556.CrossRefPubMed
88.
Iodice R, Carotenuto A, Dubbioso R, Cerillo I, Santoro L, Manganelli F. Multimodal evoked potentials follow up in multiple sclerosis patients under fingolimod therapy. J Neurol Sci 2016;365:143-146.CrossRefPubMed
89.
Sedel F, Papeix C, Bellanger A, et al. High doses of biotin in chronic progressive multiple sclerosis: a pilot study. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2015;4(2):159-169.CrossRefPubMed
90.
Tsakiri A, Kallenbach K, Fuglo D, Wanscher B, Larsson H, Frederiksen J. Simvastatin improves final visual outcome in acute optic neuritis: a randomized study. Mult Scler 2012;18(1):72-81.CrossRefPubMed
91.
Niklas A, Sebraoui H, Hess E, Wagner A, Then Bergh F. Outcome measures for trials of remyelinating agents in multiple sclerosis: retrospective longitudinal analysis of visual evoked potential latency. Mult Scler 2009;15(1):68-74.CrossRefPubMed
92.
Pluchino S, Zanotti L, Brini E, Ferrari S, Martino G. Regeneration and repair in multiple sclerosis: the role of cell transplantation. Neurosci Lett 2009;456(3):101-106.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Assessing Repair in Multiple Sclerosis: Outcomes for Phase II Clinical Trials
Authors
Maria Pia Sormani
Matteo Pardini
Publication date
01-10-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Neurotherapeutics / Issue 4/2017
Print ISSN: 1933-7213
Electronic ISSN: 1878-7479
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13311-017-0558-3

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

Neurotherapeutics 4/2017 Go to the issue

Original Article

Fingolimod Exerts only Temporary Antiepileptogenic Effects but Longer-Lasting Positive Effects on Behavior in the WAG/Rij Rat Absence Epilepsy Model

Review

Daclizumab: Development, Clinical Trials, and Practical Aspects of Use in Multiple Sclerosis

Review

Cladribine to Treat Relapsing Forms of Multiple Sclerosis

Current Perspectives

Therapeutic Approaches for Zika Virus Infection of the Nervous System

Review

Ethical Considerations of Patient-Funded Research for Multiple Sclerosis Therapeutics

Review

Sphingosine 1-Phosphate Receptor Modulators for the Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis