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
Neurology and Therapy
Published in: Neurology and Therapy 6/2023

Open Access 11-10-2023 | Multiple Sclerosis | REVIEW

No Evidence of Disease Activity (NEDA) as a Clinical Assessment Tool for Multiple Sclerosis: Clinician and Patient Perspectives [Narrative Review]

Authors: Scott D. Newsome, Cherie Binns, Ulrike W. Kaunzner, Seth Morgan, June Halper

Published in: Neurology and Therapy | Issue 6/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

The emergence of high-efficacy therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS), which target inflammation more effectively than traditional disease-modifying therapies, has led to a shift in MS management towards achieving the outcome assessment known as no evidence of disease activity (NEDA). The most common NEDA definition, termed NEDA-3, is a composite of three related measures of disease activity: no clinical relapses, no disability progression, and no radiological activity. NEDA has been frequently used as a composite endpoint in clinical trials, but there is growing interest in its use as an assessment tool to help patients and healthcare professionals navigate treatment decisions in the clinic. Raising awareness about NEDA may therefore help patients and clinicians make more informed decisions around MS management and improve overall MS care. This review aims to explore the potential utility of NEDA as a clinical decision-making tool and treatment target by summarizing the literature on its current use in the context of the expanding treatment landscape. We identify current challenges to the use of NEDA in clinical practice and detail the proposed amendments, such as the inclusion of alternative outcomes and biomarkers, to broaden the clinical information captured by NEDA. These themes are further illustrated with the real-life perspectives and experiences of our two patient authors with MS. This review is intended to be an educational resource to support discussions between clinicians and patients on this evolving approach to MS-specialized care.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Filippi M, Amato MP, Centonze D, et al. Early use of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies makes the difference in people with multiple sclerosis: an expert opinion. J Neurol. 2022;269:5382–94.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Comi G, Radaelli M, Soelberg SP. Evolving concepts in the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. Lancet. 2017;389:1347–56.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Rae-Grant A, Day GS, Marrie RA, et al. Comprehensive systematic review summary: disease-modifying therapies for adults with multiple sclerosis: report of the guideline development, dissemination, and implementation subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2018;90:789–800.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Samjoo IA, Worthington E, Drudge C, et al. Efficacy classification of modern therapies in multiple sclerosis. J Comp Eff Res. 2021;10:495–507.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Steinman L, Fox E, Hartung HP, et al. Ublituximab versus teriflunomide in relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2022;387:704–14.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Freeman L, Longbrake EE, Coyle PK, Hendin B, Vollmer T. High-efficacy therapies for treatment-naive individuals with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. CNS Drugs. 2022;36:1285–99.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
Havrdova E, Galetta S, Stefoski D, Comi G. Freedom from disease activity in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2010;74:S3-7.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Giovannoni G, Turner B, Gnanapavan S, Offiah C, Schmierer K, Marta M. Is it time to target no evident disease activity (NEDA) in multiple sclerosis? Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2015;4:329–33.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Giovannoni G, Tomic D, Bright JR, Havrdova E. “No evident disease activity”: the use of combined assessments in the management of patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2017;23:1179–87.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Hegen H, Bsteh G, Berger T. ’No evidence of disease activity’—is it an appropriate surrogate in multiple sclerosis? Eur J Neurol. 2018;25:1107-e101.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
Dobson R, Rudick RA, Turner B, Schmierer K, Giovannoni G. Assessing treatment response to interferon-beta: is there a role for MRI? Neurology. 2014;82:248–54.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
Havrdova E, Galetta S, Hutchinson M, et al. Effect of natalizumab on clinical and radiological disease activity in multiple sclerosis: a retrospective analysis of the Natalizumab Safety and Efficacy in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (AFFIRM) study. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8:254–60.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Giovannoni G, Cook S, Rammohan K, et al. Sustained disease-activity-free status in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treated with cladribine tablets in the CLARITY study: a post-hoc and subgroup analysis. Lancet Neurol. 2011;10:329–37.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Hauser SL, Bar-Or A, Comi G, et al. Ocrelizumab versus interferon β-1a in relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:221–34.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Vermersch P, Oreja-Guevara C, Siva A, et al. Efficacy and safety of ocrelizumab in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with suboptimal response to prior disease-modifying therapies: a primary analysis from the phase 3b CASTING single-arm, open-label trial. Eur J Neurol. 2022;29:790–801.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Weinstock-Guttman B, Bermel R, Cutter G, et al. Ocrelizumab treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis after a suboptimal response to previous disease-modifying therapy: a nonrandomized controlled trial. Mult Scler. 2022;28:790–800.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Hauser SL, Bar-Or A, Cohen JA, et al. Ofatumumab versus teriflunomide in multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:546–57.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Gärtner J, Hauser SL, Bar-Or A, et al. Efficacy and safety of ofatumumab in recently diagnosed, treatment-naive patients with multiple sclerosis: results from ASCLEPIOS I and II. Mult Scler. 2022;28:1562–75.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Kappos L, Fox RJ, Burcklen M, et al. Ponesimod compared with teriflunomide in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis in the active-comparator phase 3 OPTIMUM study: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol. 2021;78:558–67.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Havrdova E, Giovannoni G, Gold R, et al. Effect of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate on no evidence of disease activity in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: integrated analysis of the phase III DEFINE and CONFIRM studies. Eur J Neurol. 2017;24:726–33.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
23.
Perumal J, Fox RJ, Balabanov R, et al. Outcomes of natalizumab treatment within 3 years of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis diagnosis: a prespecified 2-year interim analysis of STRIVE. BMC Neurol. 2019;19:116.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
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;22:1297–305.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Ziemssen T, Kern R, Cornelissen C. Study design of PANGAEA 2.0, a non-interventional study on RRMS patients to be switched to fingolimod. BMC Neurol. 2016;16:129.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
Arnold DL, Calabresi PA, Kieseier BC, et al. Effect of peginterferon beta-1a on MRI measures and achieving no evidence of disease activity: results from a randomized controlled trial in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurol. 2014;14:240.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Arnold DL, Calabresi PA, Kieseier BC, et al. Peginterferon beta-1a improves MRI measures and increases the proportion of patients with no evidence of disease activity in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: 2-year results from the ADVANCE randomized controlled trial. BMC Neurol. 2017;17:29.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
Traboulsee A, Li DKB, Cascione M, Fang J, Dangond F, Miller A. Effect of interferon beta-1a subcutaneously three times weekly on clinical and radiological measures and no evidence of disease activity status in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis at year 1. BMC Neurol. 2018;18:143.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
Coyle PK, Reder AT, Freedman MS, Fang J, Dangond F. Early MRI results and odds of attaining “no evidence of disease activity” status in MS patients treated with interferon β-1a in the EVIDENCE study. J Neurol Sci. 2017;379:151–6.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Havrdova E, Giovannoni G, Stefoski D, et al. Disease-activity-free status in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treated with daclizumab high-yield process in the SELECT study. Mult Scler. 2014;20:464–70.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Nixon R, Bergvall N, Tomic D, Sfikas N, Cutter G, Giovannoni G. No evidence of disease activity: indirect comparisons of oral therapies for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Adv Ther. 2014;31:1134–54.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
Parks NE, Flanagan EP, Lucchinetti CF, Wingerchuk DM. NEDA treatment target? No evident disease activity as an actionable outcome in practice. J Neurol Sci. 2017;383:31–4.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Baroncini D, Ghezzi A, Annovazzi PO, et al. Natalizumab versus fingolimod in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis non-responding to first-line injectable therapies. Mult Scler. 2016;22:1315–26.PubMedCrossRef
34.
35.
Ozakbas S, Piri Cinar B, Baba C, Kosehasanogullari G, Multiple Sclerosis Research Group. Self-injectable DMTs in relapsing MS: NEDA assessment at 10 years in a real-world cohort. Acta Neurol Scand. 2022;145:557–64.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Prosperini L, Annovazzi P, Boffa L, et al. No evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) and disability improvement after alemtuzumab treatment for multiple sclerosis: a 36-month real-world study. J Neurol. 2018;265:2851–60.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Petracca M, Ruggieri S, Barbuti E, et al. Predictors of cladribine effectiveness and safety in multiple sclerosis: a real-world, multicenter, 2-year follow-up study. Neurol Ther. 2022;11:1193–208.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
Herman JA, Khalighinejad F, York K, et al. A real-world cohort analysis of alemtuzumab outcomes in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2021;47:102619.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Rotstein D, Solomon JM, Sormani MP, et al. Association of no evidence of disease activity with no long-term disability progression in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurology. 2022;99:e209-20.CrossRef
40.
Rotstein DL, Healy BC, Malik MT, Chitnis T, Weiner HL. Evaluation of no evidence of disease activity in a 7-year longitudinal multiple sclerosis cohort. JAMA Neurol. 2015;72:152–8.PubMedCrossRef
41.
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;380:1819–28.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Weinstock-Guttman B, Medin J, Khan N, et al. Assessing “no evidence of disease activity” status in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis receiving fingolimod in routine clinical practice: a retrospective analysis of the Multiple Sclerosis Clinical and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Outcomes in the USA (MS-MRIUS) study. CNS Drugs. 2018;32:75–84.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Wattjes MP, Ciccarelli O, Reich DS, et al. 2021 MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS consensus recommendations on the use of MRI in patients with multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20:653–70.PubMedCrossRef
44.
45.
Kappos L, Butzkueven H, Wiendl H, et al. Greater sensitivity to multiple sclerosis disability worsening and progression events using a roving versus a fixed reference value in a prospective cohort study. Mult Scler. 2018;24:963–73.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Kappos L, Wolinsky JS, Giovannoni G, et al. Contribution of relapse-independent progression vs relapse-associated worsening to overall confirmed disability accumulation in typical relapsing multiple sclerosis in a pooled analysis of 2 randomized clinical trials. JAMA Neurol. 2020;77:1132–40.PubMedCrossRef
47.
48.
Masanneck L, Rolfes L, Regner-Nelke L, et al. Detecting ongoing disease activity in mildly affected multiple sclerosis patients under first-line therapies. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2022;63:103927.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Banwell B, Giovannoni G, Hawkes C, Lublin F. Editors’ welcome and a working definition for a multiple sclerosis cure. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2013;2:65–7.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Dadalti FY. Why some of us do not like the expression “no evidence of disease activity” (NEDA) in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2015;4:383–4.CrossRef
51.
Roddam H, Rog D, Janssen J, et al. Inequalities in access to health and social care among adults with multiple sclerosis: a scoping review of the literature. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019;28:290–304.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Mayo CD, Farzam-Kia N, Ghahari S. Identifying barriers to and facilitators of health service access encountered by individuals with multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care. 2021;23:37–44.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
53.
Wattjes MP, Rovira À, Miller D, et al. Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis—establishing disease prognosis and monitoring patients. Nat Rev Neurol. 2015;11:597–606.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Min M, Spelman T, Lugaresi A, et al. Silent lesions on MRI imaging—shifting goal posts for treatment decisions in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2018;24:1569–77.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Guevara C, Garrido C, Martinez M, et al. Prospective assessment of no evidence of disease activity-4 status in early disease stages of multiple sclerosis in routine clinical practice. Front Neurol. 2019;10:788.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
56.
Stangel M, Penner IK, Kallmann BA, Lukas C, Kieseier BC. Towards the implementation of “no evidence of disease activity” in multiple sclerosis treatment: the multiple sclerosis decision model. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2015;8:3–13.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
57.
Combes AJE, Clarke MA, O’Grady KP, Schilling KG, Smith SA. Advanced spinal cord MRI in multiple sclerosis: current techniques and future directions. Neuroimage Clin. 2022;36:103244.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
58.
59.
Weinshenker BG, Bass B, Rice GP, et al. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study. I. Clinical course and disability. Brain. 1989;112:133–46.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Cerqueira JJ, Compston DAS, Geraldes R, et al. Time matters in multiple sclerosis: can early treatment and long-term follow-up ensure everyone benefits from the latest advances in multiple sclerosis? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018;89:844–50.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Scalfari A, Neuhaus A, Degenhardt A, et al. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study 10: relapses and long-term disability. Brain. 2010;133:1914–29.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
62.
63.
Prosperini L, Ruggieri S, Haggiag S, Tortorella C, Pozzilli C, Gasperini C. Prognostic accuracy of NEDA-3 in long-term outcomes of multiple sclerosis. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2021;8: e1059.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
64.
Cellerino M, Boffa G, Lapucci C, et al. Predictors of ocrelizumab effectiveness in patients with multiple sclerosis. Neurotherapeutics. 2021;18:2579–88.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
65.
Fernandez-Velasco JI, Monreal E, Kuhle J, et al. Baseline inflammatory status reveals dichotomic immune mechanisms involved in primary-progressive multiple sclerosis pathology. Front Immunol. 2022;13:842354.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
66.
Meyer-Moock S, Feng YS, Maeurer M, Dippel FW, Kohlmann T. Systematic literature review and validity evaluation of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) in patients with multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurol. 2014;14:58.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
67.
Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983;33:1444–52.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Cadavid D, Cohen JA, Freedman MS, et al. The EDSS-Plus, an improved endpoint for disability progression in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2017;23:94–105.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Smith AL, Cohen JA, Hua LH. Therapeutic targets for multiple sclerosis: current treatment goals and future directions. Neurotherapeutics. 2017;14:952–60.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
70.
Drake AS, Weinstock-Guttman B, Morrow SA, Hojnacki D, Munschauer FE, Benedict RH. Psychometrics and normative data for the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite: replacing the PASAT with the Symbol Digit Modalities Test. Mult Scler. 2010;16:228–37.PubMedCrossRef
71.
Prosperini L, Mancinelli C, Haggiag S, et al. Minimal evidence of disease activity (MEDA) in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2020;91:271–7.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Rio J, Castilló J, Rovira A, et al. Measures in the first year of therapy predict the response to interferon beta in MS. Mult Scler. 2009;15:848–53.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Sormani MP, Rio J, Tintorè M, et al. Scoring treatment response in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2013;19:605–12.PubMedCrossRef
74.
75.
76.
77.
Gershon RC, Lai JS, Bode R, et al. Neuro-QOL: quality of life item banks for adults with neurological disorders: item development and calibrations based upon clinical and general population testing. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:475–86.PubMedCrossRef
78.
Hobart J, Lamping D, Fitzpatrick R, Riazi A, Thompson A. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain. 2001;124:962–73.PubMedCrossRef
79.
De Stefano N, Airas L, Grigoriadis N, et al. Clinical relevance of brain volume measures in multiple sclerosis. CNS Drugs. 2014;28:147–56.PubMedCrossRef
80.
Jacobsen C, Hagemeier J, Myhr K-M, et al. Brain atrophy and disability progression in multiple sclerosis patients: a 10-year follow-up study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2014;85:1109–15.PubMedCrossRef
81.
Moridi T, Stawiarz L, McKay KA, et al. Association between brain volume and disability over time in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. 2022;8:20552173221144230.PubMedPubMedCentral
82.
Jacobsen C, Zivadinov R, Myhr KM, et al. Brain atrophy and clinical characteristics predicting SDMT performance in multiple sclerosis: a 10-year follow-up study. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. 2021;7:2055217321992394.PubMedPubMedCentral
83.
Bagnato F, Gauthier SA, Laule C, et al. Imaging mechanisms of disease progression in multiple sclerosis: beyond brain atrophy. J Neuroimaging. 2020;30:251–66.PubMedCrossRef
84.
Baetge SJ, Dietrich M, Filser M, et al. Association of retinal layer thickness with cognition in patients with multiple sclerosis. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2021;8:e1018.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
85.
Glasner P, Sabisz A, Chylińska M, Komendziński J, Wyszomirski A, Karaszewski B. Retinal nerve fiber and ganglion cell complex layer thicknesses mirror brain atrophy in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2022;40:35–42.PubMed
86.
Birkeldh U, Manouchehrinia A, Hietala MA, et al. Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness associates with cognitive impairment and physical disability in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019;36: 101414.PubMedCrossRef
87.
Esmael A, Elsherif M, Abdelsalam M, Sabry D, Mamdouh M, Belal T. Retinal thickness as a potential biomarker of neurodegeneration and a predictor of early cognitive impairment in patients with multiple sclerosis. Neurol Res. 2020;42:564–74.PubMedCrossRef
88.
Lambe J, Fitzgerald KC, Murphy OC, et al. Association of spectral-domain OCT with long-term disability worsening in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2021;96:e2058-69.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
89.
90.
Damasceno A, Damasceno BP, Cendes F. No evidence of disease activity in multiple sclerosis: implications on cognition and brain atrophy. Mult Scler. 2016;22:64–72.PubMedCrossRef
91.
Guevara C, Villa E, Diaz V, et al. Inclusion of the Symbol Digit Modalities Test in a revised assessment of “no evidence of disease activity-4 (NEDA-4)” in Latin-American patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020;42:102076.PubMedCrossRef
92.
Castrogiovanni N, Mostert J, Repovic P, et al. Longitudinal changes in cognitive test scores in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: an analysis of the DECIDE dataset. Neurology. 2023;101:e1–11.PubMedCrossRef
93.
Fischer JS, Rudick RA, Cutter GR, Reingold SC. The Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite Measure (MSFC): an integrated approach to MS clinical outcome assessment. Mult Scler. 1999;5:244–50.PubMedCrossRef
94.
Rudick RA, Cutter G, Reingold S. The Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite: a new clinical outcome measure for multiple sclerosis trials. Mult Scler. 2002;8:359–65.PubMedCrossRef
95.
Rudick RA, Cutter G, Baier M, et al. Use of the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite to predict disability in relapsing MS. Neurology. 2001;56:1324–30.PubMedCrossRef
96.
Solheim AM, Mygland A, Ljostad U. Quality of multiple sclerosis out-patient health care services with focus on patient reported experiences. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10:250.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
97.
Lakin L, Davis BE, Binns CC, Currie KM, Rensel MR. Comprehensive approach to management of multiple sclerosis: addressing invisible symptoms-a narrative review. Neurol Ther. 2021;10:75–98.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
98.
Sparaco M, Lavorgna L, Conforti R, Tedeschi G, Bonavita S. The role of wearable devices in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Int. 2018;2018:7627643.PubMedPubMedCentral
99.
Gasperini C, Prosperini L, Tintore M, et al. Unraveling treatment response in multiple sclerosis: a clinical and MRI challenge. Neurology. 2019;92:180–92.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
100.
Rotstein D, Montalban X. Reaching an evidence-based prognosis for personalized treatment of multiple sclerosis. Nat Rev Neurol. 2019;15:287–300.PubMedCrossRef
101.
Giovannoni G. Disease-modifying treatments for early and advanced multiple sclerosis: a new treatment paradigm. Curr Opin Neurol. 2018;31:233–43.PubMedCrossRef
102.
103.
Ontaneda D, Tallantyre EC, Raza PC, et al. Determining the effectiveness of early intensive versus escalation approaches for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: the DELIVER-MS study protocol. Contemp Clin Trials. 2020;95:106009.PubMedCrossRef
104.
105.
106.
Khalil M, Teunissen CE, Otto M, et al. Neurofilaments as biomarkers in neurological disorders. Nat Rev Neurol. 2018;14:577–89.PubMedCrossRef
107.
108.
Barro C, Benkert P, Disanto G, et al. Serum neurofilament as a predictor of disease worsening and brain and spinal cord atrophy in multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2018;141:2382–91.PubMedCrossRef
109.
Chitnis T, Gonzalez C, Healy BC, et al. Neurofilament light chain serum levels correlate with 10-year MRI outcomes in multiple sclerosis. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2018;5:1478–91.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
110.
Kuhle J, Kropshofer H, Haering DA, et al. Blood neurofilament light chain as a biomarker of MS disease activity and treatment response. Neurology. 2019;92:e1007–15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
111.
Kuhle J, Barro C, Disanto G, et al. Serum neurofilament light chain in early relapsing remitting MS is increased and correlates with CSF levels and with MRI measures of disease severity. Mult Scler. 2016;22:1550–9.PubMedCrossRef
112.
Novakova L, Zetterberg H, Sundstrom P, et al. Monitoring disease activity in multiple sclerosis using serum neurofilament light protein. Neurology. 2017;89:2230–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
113.
Uher T, McComb M, Galkin S, et al. Neurofilament levels are associated with blood-brain barrier integrity, lymphocyte extravasation, and risk factors following the first demyelinating event in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2021;27:220–31.PubMedCrossRef
114.
Håkansson I, Tisell A, Cassel P, et al. Neurofilament levels, disease activity and brain volume during follow-up in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroinflammation. 2018;15:209.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
115.
Szilasiová J, Rosenberger J, Fedičová M, et al. Neurofilament light chain levels are associated with disease activity determined by no evident disease activity in multiple sclerosis patients. Eur Neurol. 2021;84:272–9.PubMedCrossRef
116.
Bonnan M, Marasescu R, Demasles S, Krim E, Barroso B. No evidence of disease activity (NEDA) in MS should include CSF biology—towards a “Disease-Free Status Score.” Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2017;11:51–5.PubMedCrossRef
117.
Giovannoni G, Bermel R, Phillips T, Rudick R. A brief history of NEDA. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2018;20:228–30.PubMedCrossRef
118.
Abdelhak A, Foschi M, Abu-Rumeileh S, et al. Blood GFAP as an emerging biomarker in brain and spinal cord disorders. Nat Rev Neurol. 2022;18:158–72.PubMedCrossRef
119.
Martínez MA, Olsson B, Bau L, et al. Glial and neuronal markers in cerebrospinal fluid predict progression in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2015;21:550–61.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
120.
Axelsson M, Malmestrom C, Nilsson S, Haghighi S, Rosengren L, Lycke J. Glial fibrillary acidic protein: a potential biomarker for progression in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol. 2011;258:882–8.PubMedCrossRef
121.
122.
123.
Harding K, Williams O, Willis M, et al. Clinical outcomes of escalation vs early intensive disease-modifying therapy in patients with multiple sclerosis. JAMA Neurol. 2019;76:536–41.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
124.
He A, Merkel B, Brown JWL, et al. Timing of high-efficacy therapy for multiple sclerosis: a retrospective observational cohort study. Lancet Neurol. 2020;19:307–16.PubMedCrossRef
125.
Buron MD, Chalmer TA, Sellebjerg F, et al. Initial high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy in multiple sclerosis: a nationwide cohort study. Neurology. 2020;95:e1041-51.PubMedCrossRef
126.
Spelman T, Magyari M, Piehl F, et al. Treatment escalation vs immediate initiation of highly effective treatment for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: data from 2 different national strategies. JAMA Neurol. 2021;78:1197–204.PubMedCrossRef
127.
Brown JWL, Coles A, Horakova D, et al. Association of initial disease-modifying therapy with later conversion to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. JAMA. 2019;321:175–87.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
128.
Montalban X, Gold R, Thompson AJ, et al. ECTRIMS/EAN guideline on the pharmacological treatment of people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2018;24:96–120.PubMedCrossRef
129.
Rae-Grant A, Day GS, Marrie RA, et al. Practice guideline recommendations summary: disease-modifying therapies for adults with multiple sclerosis: report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2018;90:777–88.PubMedCrossRef
130.
Simonsen CS, Flemmen HO, Broch L, et al. Early high efficacy treatment in multiple sclerosis is the best predictor of future disease activity over 1 and 2 years in a Norwegian population-based registry. Front Neurol. 2021;12:693017.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
131.
Wiendl H, Cohen JA, Gold R, et al. AAN Annual Meeting 2023–P016. Efficacy of early ofatumumab versus late switch from teriflunomide: subgroup analysis of the ALITHIOS open-label extension study by previous disease-modifying therapy exposure and age. Neurology. 2023;100:3378.
132.
Temmerman J, Van Der Veken F, Engelborghs S, et al. Brain volume loss can occur at the rate of normal aging in patients with multiple sclerosis who are free from disease activity. J Clin Med. 2022;11:523.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
133.
Jokubaitis VG, Spelman T, Kalincik T, et al. Predictors of long-term disability accrual in relapse-onset multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 2016;80:89–100.PubMedCrossRef
134.
Kern DM, Cepeda MS. Treatment patterns and comorbid burden of patients newly diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in the United States. BMC Neurol. 2020;20:296.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
135.
Engmann NJ, Sheinson D, Bawa K, Ng CD, Pardo G. Persistence and adherence to ocrelizumab compared with other disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis in U.S. commercial claims data. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021;27:639–49.PubMed
136.
Geiger C, Sheinson D, To T, Jones D, Bonine N. ACTRIMS Forum 2022–P330. Characteristics of newly diagnosed MS patients initiating high, moderate, and low-efficacy disease modifying therapies as first-line treatment. Mult Scler. 2022;28:20–214.
137.
Heesen C, Kasper J, Kopke S, Richter T, Segal J, Mühlhauser I. Informed shared decision making in multiple sclerosis—inevitable or impossible? J Neurol Sci. 2007;259:109–17.PubMedCrossRef
138.
Colhoun S, Wilkinson C, Izat A, White S, Pull E, Roberts M. Multiple sclerosis and disease modifying therapies: results of two UK surveys on factors influencing choice. Br J Neurosci Nurs. 2015;11:7–13.CrossRef
139.
Río J, Tintoré M, Sastre-Garriga J, et al. Change in the clinical activity of multiple sclerosis after treatment switch for suboptimal response. Eur J Neurol. 2012;19:899–904.PubMedCrossRef
140.
Castillo-Trivino T, Mowry EM, Gajofatto A, et al. Switching multiple sclerosis patients with breakthrough disease to second-line therapy. PLoS One. 2011;6:e16664.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
141.
Prosperini L, Gianni C, Leonardi L, et al. Escalation to natalizumab or switching among immunomodulators in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2012;18:64–71.PubMedCrossRef
142.
Salter AR, Marrie RA, Agashivala N, et al. Patient perspectives on switching disease-modifying therapies in the NARCOMS registry. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:971–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
143.
Utz KS, Hoog J, Wentrup A, et al. Patient preferences for disease-modifying drugs in multiple sclerosis therapy: a choice-based conjoint analysis. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2014;7:263–75.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
144.
145.
Giovannoni G, Butzkueven H, Dhib-Jalbut S, et al. Brain health: time matters in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2016;9:S5-48.PubMedCrossRef
146.
Burtchell J, Fetty K, Miller K, Minden K, Kantor D. Two sides to every story: perspectives from four patients and a healthcare professional on multiple sclerosis disease progression. Neurol Ther. 2019;8:185–205.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
147.
Peloquin S, Schmierer K, Leist TP, Oh J, Murray S, Lazure P. Challenges in multiple sclerosis care: results from an international mixed-methods study. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2021;50:102854.PubMedCrossRef
148.
Meehan M, Doody O. The role of the clinical nurse specialist multiple sclerosis, the patients’ and families’ and carers’ perspective: an integrative review. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020;39:101918.PubMedCrossRef
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
Coban H, Siddiqui A, Creed MA, Rai W, Imitola J. Preventive neurology concepts for training the next-generation and closing gaps in real-world multiple sclerosis care. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2021;47:102631.PubMedCrossRef
154.
Synnot AJ, Hill SJ, Garner KA, et al. Online health information seeking: how people with multiple sclerosis find, assess and integrate treatment information to manage their health. Health Expect. 2016;19:727–37.PubMedCrossRef
155.
Kantor D, Bright JR, Burtchell J. Perspectives from the patient and the healthcare professional in multiple sclerosis: social media and participatory medicine. Neurol Ther. 2018;7:37–49.PubMedCrossRef
156.
Kantor D, Bright JR, Burtchell J. Perspectives from the patient and the healthcare professional in multiple sclerosis: social media and patient education. Neurol Ther. 2018;7:23–36.PubMedCrossRef
157.
Colombo C, Mosconi P, Confalonieri P, et al. Web search behavior and information needs of people with multiple sclerosis: focus group study and analysis of online postings. Interact J Med Res. 2014;3:e12.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
158.
Marrie RA, Salter AR, Tyry T, Fox RJ, Cutter GR. Preferred sources of health information in persons with multiple sclerosis: degree of trust and information sought. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15:e67.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
159.
160.
Köpke S, Solari A, Rahn A, Khan F, Heesen C, Giordano A. Information provision for people with multiple sclerosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;10:CD008757.PubMed
161.
Tintoré M, Alexander M, Costello K, et al. The state of multiple sclerosis: current insight into the patient/health care provider relationship, treatment challenges, and satisfaction. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;11:33–45.PubMedCrossRef
162.
Rieckmann P, Centonze D, Elovaara I, et al. Unmet needs, burden of treatment, and patient engagement in multiple sclerosis: a combined perspective from the MS in the 21st Century Steering Group. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2018;19:153–60.PubMedCrossRef
163.
Laranjo L, Arguel A, Neves AL, et al. The influence of social networking sites on health behavior change: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22:243–56.PubMedCrossRef
164.
165.
Lavorgna L, Lanzillo R, Brescia Morra V, Abbadessa G, Tedeschi G, Bonavita S. Social media and multiple sclerosis in the posttruth age. Interact J Med Res. 2017;6:e18.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
No Evidence of Disease Activity (NEDA) as a Clinical Assessment Tool for Multiple Sclerosis: Clinician and Patient Perspectives [Narrative Review]
Authors
Scott D. Newsome
Cherie Binns
Ulrike W. Kaunzner
Seth Morgan
June Halper
Publication date
11-10-2023
Publisher
Springer Healthcare
Published in
Neurology and Therapy / Issue 6/2023
Print ISSN: 2193-8253
Electronic ISSN: 2193-6536
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40120-023-00549-7

Other articles of this Issue 6/2023

Neurology and Therapy 6/2023 Go to the issue

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Identification of miRNAs Involved in Intracranial Aneurysm Rupture in Cigarette-Smoking Patients

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Efficacy of Erenumab for Migraine Prevention in Japanese Patients with Episodic and Chronic Migraine: Results of a Post-Hoc Pooled Analysis

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Predicting of Mechanical Ventilation and Outcomes by Using Models and Biomarker in Guillain-Barré Syndrome

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Continuous Subcutaneous Foslevodopa/Foscarbidopa in Parkinson’s Disease: Safety and Efficacy Results From a 12-Month, Single-Arm, Open-Label, Phase 3 Study

REVIEW

Immunotherapies Targeting Amyloid and Tau Protein in Alzheimer’s Disease: Should We Move Away from Diseases and Focus on Biological Targets? A Systematic Review and Expert Opinion

GUIDELINES

Consensus-Based Recommendations on the Use of CGRP-Based Therapies for Migraine Prevention in the UAE