A 42 Year Old Man with Altered Sensation in The Lower Limbs Question

OVERVIEWNeurological disorders are diseases of the peripheral and central nervous systems.
Hundreds of
millions of people worldwide are affected by neurological disorders, and thus are a
common
presentation in medical practice.
INSTRUCTIONS
• Select a neurological disease from the list below. If you would like to use a
neurological
Asperger Syndrome
Chiari Malformaion
Friedrich’s ataxia
Guillain-Barre Syndrome
Meningioma
Multiple sclerosis
Narcolepsy
Oligoastrocytomas
Oligodendroglioma
PNET (primitive neuroectodermal tumor)
Rett syndrome
Spina bifida
Spinal muscular atrophy
Tay-Sachs disease
Von Hippel-Lindau disease
Wallenberg syndrome
• After selecting your disease, find a case study from a scholarly journal based on this
disease. The case study should primarily focus on your selected neurological disease.
• Write a paper based on this case study, following the outline below:
o Part I (1–2 pp.) – Case Study Summary
1) What are the main points of the case study?
2) Who was the person?
3) What happened to them?
4) How did (or could) the condition influence him/her and the lives of those
close to him/her?
o Part II (4–6 pp.) – Literature Review
1) Review the normal anatomy and physiology of the area of the nervous
system affected by this condition and how the neurological disease alters
this.
2) What causes this condition?
3) What are the typical symptoms?
4) What is the prognosis?
5) What is the treatment?
6) What information is still outstanding regarding the development and
treatment of this condition? Is there anything we still don’t know about
how this disease develops? Are there holes in our ability to treat this
disease?
2. Your paper must be 5–8 pages, double-spaced, and in 12-point, Times New Roman
font
with 1-inch margins. You must include a title page and bibliography, which do not count
toward the page total. Images and/or figures are welcome additions to your paper;
however, they also do not count toward the page total. Images can either be embedded
into the paper text or included as an appendix. Papers may not be more than 8 pages
without prior approval from the instructor.
3. The Case Study Review must include at least 5 sources in addition to the article
itself.
Additional sources are limited to journal articles, manuscripts, and scholarly textbooks.
Sources must be listed in a bibliography at the end of the paper using current APA
format. All citations must be in current APA format. Refer to the Liberty University
Writing Center for more information.
The Ne w E n g l a nd Jo u r n a l o f Me d ic i ne
Review Article
Medical Progress
M ULTIPLE S CLEROSIS
JOHN H. NOSEWORTHY, M.D., CLAUDIA LUCCHINETTI, M.D.,
MOSES RODRIGUEZ, M.D.,
AND BRIAN G. WEINSHENKER, M.D.
M
ORE than 100 years has passed since
Charcot, Carswell, Cruveilhier, and others
described the clinical and pathological
characteristics of multiple sclerosis.1 This enigmatic,
relapsing, and often eventually progressive disorder
of the white matter of the central nervous system
continues to challenge investigators trying to understand the pathogenesis of the disease and prevent its
progression.2 There are 250,000 to 350,000 patients
with multiple sclerosis in the United States.3 Multiple
sclerosis typically begins in early adulthood and has
a variable prognosis. Fifty percent of patients will need
help walking within 15 years after the onset of disease.4 Advanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
and spectroscopy may allow clinicians to follow the
pathological progression of the disease and monitor
the response to treatment. Recent progress has occurred in understanding the cause, the genetic components, and the pathologic process of multiple sclerosis. The short-term clinical and MRI manifestations
of disease activity have been reduced by new therapies,
although the degree of presumed long-term benefit
from these treatments will require further study.
CLINICAL COURSE AND DIAGNOSIS
A patient’s presenting symptoms and the temporal
evolution of the clinical findings may suggest the correct diagnosis. In relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis — the type present in 80 percent of patients —
symptoms and signs typically evolve over a period of
several days, stabilize, and then often improve, spontaneously or in response to corticosteroids, within
weeks. Relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis typi-
From the Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minn. Address reprint requests to Dr. Noseworthy at the
Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, 200 First
St., SW, Rochester, MN 55905.
©2000, Massachusetts Medical Society.
938 ·
cally begins in the second or third decade of life and
has a female predominance of approximately 2:1. The
tendency for corticosteroids to speed recovery from
relapses often diminishes with time. Persistent signs of
central nervous system dysfunction may develop after
a relapse, and the disease may progress between relapses (secondary progressive multiple sclerosis). Twenty
percent of affected patients have primary progressive
multiple sclerosis, which is characterized by a gradually progressive clinical course and a similar incidence
among men and women.
Relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis typically
starts with sensory disturbances, unilateral optic neuritis, diplopia (internuclear ophthalmoplegia), Lhermitte’s sign (trunk and limb paresthesias evoked by
neck flexion), limb weakness, clumsiness, gait ataxia,
and neurogenic bladder and bowel symptoms. Many
patients describe fatigue that is worse in the afternoon
and is accompanied by physiologic increases in body
temperature. The onset of symptoms post partum and
symptomatic worsening with increases in body temperature (Uhthoff ’s symptom) and pseudoexacerbations with fever suggest the diagnosis. Some patients
have recurring, brief, stereotypical phenomena (paroxysmal pain or paresthesias, trigeminal neuralgia, episodic clumsiness or dysarthria, and tonic limb posturing) that are highly suggestive of multiple sclerosis.
Prominent cortical signs (aphasia, apraxia, recurrent
seizures, visual-field loss, and early dementia) and extrapyramidal phenomena (chorea and rigidity) only
rarely dominate the clinical picture. Eventually, cognitive impairment, depression, emotional lability, dysarthria, dysphagia, vertigo, progressive quadriparesis
and sensory loss, ataxic tremors, pain, sexual dysfunction, spasticity, and other manifestations of central
nervous system dysfunction may become troublesome.
Patients who have primary progressive multiple sclerosis often present with a slowly evolving uppermotor-neuron syndrome of the legs (“chronic progressive myelopathy”). Typically, this variant worsens
gradually, and quadriparesis, cognitive decline, visual
loss, brain-stem syndromes, and cerebellar, bowel,
bladder, and sexual dysfunction may develop.
The diagnosis is based on established clinical and,
when necessary, laboratory criteria.5 Advances in cerebrospinal fluid analysis and MRI, in particular, have
simplified the diagnostic process (Fig. 1).6 The relapsing forms are considered clinically definite when neurologic dysfunction becomes “disseminated in space
and time.” Primary progressive multiple sclerosis may
be suggested clinically by a progressive course that
lasts longer than six months, but laboratory studies
to obtain supportive evidence and efforts to exclude
S eptem b er 2 8 , 2 0 0 0
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org by Maryam Adeelah on April 2, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2000 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
MED ICA L PROGR ES S
B
A
C
D
Figure 1. MRI Scans of the Brain of a 25-Year-Old Woman with Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis.
An axial FLAIR (fluid-attenuated inversion recovery) image shows multiple ovoid and confluent hyperintense lesions in the periventricular white matter (Panel A). Nine months later, the number and size of the lesions have substantially increased (Panel B). After
the administration of gadolinium, many of the lesions demonstrate ring or peripheral enhancement, indicating the breakdown of
the blood–brain barrier (Panel C). In Panel D, a parasagittal T1-weighted MRI scan shows multiple regions in which the signal is
diminished (referred to as “black holes”) in the periventricular white matter and corpus callosum. These regions correspond to the
chronic lesions of multiple sclerosis.
Vol ume 343
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org by Maryam Adeelah on April 2, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2000 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Numb e r 13
·
939
The Ne w E n g l a nd Jo u r n a l o f Me d ic i ne
other, potentially treatable illnesses are advised; for
example, structural or metabolic myelopathy can be
identified by appropriate laboratory studies, including
spinal MRI (Table 1). On MRI, findings of multifocal lesions of various ages, especially those involving
the periventricular white matter, brain stem, cerebellum, and spinal cord white matter, support the clinical impression. The presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions on MRI indicates current sites of presumed
inflammatory demyelination (active lesions).
When there is diagnostic uncertainty, repeated
MRI after several months may provide evidence that
the lesions are “disseminated in time.” Cerebrospinal fluid analysis often shows increased intrathecal
synthesis of immunoglobulins of restricted specificity (oligoclonal bands may be present, or the synthesis
of IgG may be increased), with moderate lymphocytic pleocytosis (almost invariably there are fewer
than 50 mononuclear cells). Physiologic evidence of
subclinical dysfunction of the optic nerves and spinal
cord (changes in visual evoked responses and somatosensory evoked potentials) may provide support
for the conclusion that there is “dissemination in
space.”7 Therefore, spinal MRI and evoked-potential
testing may provide evidence of a second lesion that
can confirm the diagnosis. Abnormalities detected
by testing of somatosensory evoked potentials and
spinal MRI may clarify the diagnosis in patients with
optic neuritis alone or isolated brain-stem abnormalities and in those suspected of having unifocal cerebral multiple sclerosis on the basis of MRI. If positive, abnormalities detected by tests of visual evoked
responses may support the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis in patients with isolated brain-stem or spinal
cord lesions.
The course of multiple sclerosis in an individual
patient is largely unpredictable. Patients who have a
so-called clinically isolated syndrome (e.g., optic neuritis, brain-stem dysfunction, or incomplete transverse
myelitis) as their first event have a greater risk of both
recurrent events (thereby confirming the diagnosis
of clinically definite multiple sclerosis) and disability
within a decade if changes are seen in clinically asymptomatic regions on MRI of the brain.8 The presence
of oligoclonal bands in cerebrospinal fluid slightly increases the risk of recurrent disease.9
Studies of the natural history of the disease have
provided important prognostic information that is
useful for counseling patients and planning clinical
trials.4,10,11 Ten percent of patients do well for more
than 20 years and are thus considered to have benign
multiple sclerosis. Approximately 70 percent will have
secondary progression.4 Frequent relapses in the first
two years, a progressive course from the onset, male
sex, and early, permanent motor or cerebellar findings are independently, but imperfectly, predictive of
a more severe clinical course. Women and patients
with predominantly sensory symptoms and optic neu940 ·
TABLE 1. DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS
OF
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS.
Metabolic disorders
Disorders of B12 metabolism*
Leukodystrophies
Autoimmune diseases
Sjögren’s syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus, Behçet’s disease, sarcoidosis, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculopathy associated with central nervous system demyelination, antiphospholipid-antibody syndrome
Infections†
HIV-associated myelopathy* and HTLV-1–associated myelopathy,* Lyme
disease, meningovascular syphilis, Eales’ disease
Vascular disorders
Spinal dural arteriovenous fistula*
Cavernous hemangiomata
Central nervous system vasculitis, including retinocochlear cerebral
vasculitis
Cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and
leukoencephalopathy
Genetic syndromes
Hereditary ataxias and hereditary paraplegias*
Leber’s optic atrophy and other mitochondrial cytopathies
Lesions of the posterior fossa and spinal cord
Arnold–Chiari malformation, nonhereditary ataxias
Spondylotic and other myelopathies*
Psychiatric disorders
Conversion reaction, malingering
Neoplastic diseases
Spinal cord tumors,* central nervous system lymphoma
Paraneoplastic disorders
Variants of multiple sclerosis‡
Optic neuritis; isolated brain-stem syndromes; transverse myelitis; acute
disseminated encephalomyelitis, Marburg disease; neuromyelitis optica
*This disorder or group of disorders is of particular relevance in the differential diagnosis of progressive myelopathy and primary progressive multiple sclerosis.
†HIV denotes human immunodeficiency virus, and HTLV-1 human
T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1.
‡In many patients with these variants, clinically definite multiple sclerosis
develops or the course is indistinguishable from that of multiple sclerosis.
ritis have a more favorable prognosis. Life expectancy may be shortened slightly; in rare cases, patients
with fulminant disease die within months after the onset of multiple sclerosis. Suicide remains a risk, even
for young patients with mild symptoms.12
EPIDEMIOLOGIC FEATURES
The prevalence of multiple sclerosis varies considerably around the world.13 Kurtzke classified regions
of the world according to prevalence: a low prevalence was considered less than 5 cases per 100,000
persons, an intermediate prevalence was 5 to 30 per
100,000 persons, and a high prevalence was more
than 30 per 100,000 persons.14 The prevalence is
highest in northern Europe, southern Australia, and
the middle part of North America. There has been
S ep tem b er 2 8 , 2 0 0 0
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org by Maryam Adeelah on April 2, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2000 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
MED IC A L PROGR ES S
a trend toward an increasing prevalence and incidence,
particularly in southern Europe.15,16 Even in areas with
uniform methods of ascertainment and high prevalence, such as Olmsted County, Minnesota, the incidence has increased from 2 to 6 per 100,000 during the past century.17 However, the incidence has
actually declined in some,18,19 but not all,20 areas of
northern Europe. Stable or declining rates have been
reported most often in regions with high prevalence
and incidence. The extent to which the observed increases in incidence are explained by an enhanced
awareness of the disease and improved diagnostic
techniques is uncertain. There is a large reservoir of
mild cases, the recognition of which may depend
heavily on the zeal and resources of the investigator.
The reasons for the variation in the prevalence and
incidence of multiple sclerosis worldwide are not understood. Environmental and genetic explanations
have been offered, and both factors probably have a
role. The occurrence of rapid shifts in the incidence
of multiple sclerosis, if not artifactual, is an argument for an environmental influence, as is the equivocal, but suggestive, evidence of the clustering of cases
in terms of both geography and time and of epidemics, especially on the Faroe Islands.21 The apparent
change in the frequency of multiple sclerosis among
people 22,23 and their offspring 24 who migrate to and
from high-prevalence areas is another factor that has
been presented to support the existence of an environmental factor. However, each of these relations
has potential confounders that preclude the drawing
of a definite conclusion regarding the importance of
environmental factors.25 The nature of putative environmental factors remains unclear in numerous case–
control studies. Studies that show that the incidence
of multiple sclerosis among the adopted children of
patients with multiple sclerosis is not higher than expected seem to argue against the possibility that a
transmissible factor is primarily responsible for the
increased risk of the disease among relatives and instead suggest that genetic factors may be responsible.26
GENETIC FACTORS
Evidence that genetic factors have a substantial effect on susceptibility to multiple sclerosis is unequivocal. The concordance rate of 31 percent among
monozygotic twins is approximately six times the rate
among dizygotic twins (5 percent).27 The absolute risk
of the disease in a first-degree relative of a patient with
multiple sclerosis is less than 5 percent; however, the
risk in such relatives is 20 to 40 times the risk in the
general population.28 Since 1973, it has been recognized that the presence of the HLA-DR2 allele substantially increases the risk of multiple sclerosis.29
This effect has been found in all populations, with the
exception of that in Sardinia.30 The magnitude of the
relative risk depends on the frequency of the HLADR2 allele in the general population. Given the high
frequency of this allele in the population, the risk attributable to the HLA-DR2 allele is considerable. Populations with a high frequency of the allele (e.g., those
in Scotland) have the highest risk of multiple sclerosis.
The mode of transmission of genetic susceptibility
to multiple sclerosis is complex. Most cases are sporadic, despite the clear excess risk among the relatives of
patients. Investigators have used the usual genetic
approaches to identify genes associated with an increased risk of multiple sclerosis.
Studies of candidate genes have targeted individual genes with microsatellite markers with use of association and linkage strategies. For some genetic regions, such as the HLA region on chromosome 6, it
has been difficult to identify the specific polymorphism that predisposes persons to the disease, given
the high degree of linkage disequilibrium at that locus.
Candidate-gene studies were followed by four studies in which the entire genome was scanned.31-34 Regions of interest have been identified, although none
have been linked to the disease with certainty. Considering the rather large number of patients evaluated
in such studies, one might conclude tentatively that no
single gene, except possibly those for HLA antigens,35
exerts a strong effect.
Further refinement of the linkage map is in progress.36 Whether this approach will prove powerful
enough to identify genes with a relatively weak effect
is difficult to predict. To enhance the detection of
genes with a weak effect, investigators have begun to
use strategies involving linkage-disequilibrium mapping and transmission-disequilibrium testing. In these
approaches, putative causative alleles or marker alleles and haplotypes are assessed to determine whether they are associated with the disease at a population level or whether they are associated with a
higher-than-expected rate of transmission of disease
from heterozygous parents to their children. This effort will involve a major expenditure of resources to
achieve genome-wide coverage. The development of
novel analytic techniques for these types of genetic
data sets makes such an undertaking feasible.37
The severity and course of multiple sclerosis may
also be influenced by genetic factors. Epidemiologic
evidence to support this premise comes from studies
examining the rate of concordance for measures that
describe and quantitate variations in the course of
disease, including the age at onset, the proportion
of patients in whom the disease progresses, and the
extent of disability over time.38 HLA-DR and DQ
polymorphisms are not associated with the course and
severity of multiple sclerosis, despite their substantial
contribution to disease susceptibility.39 Recently, variants of the interleukin-1b–receptor and interleukin-1–
receptor antagonist genes,40 immunoglobulin Fc receptor genes,41 and apolipoprotein E gene42 have been
associated with the course of the disease, but these
findings await confirmation.
Vol ume 343
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org by Maryam Adeelah on April 2, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2000 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Numb e r 13
·
941
The Ne w E n g l a nd Jo u r n a l o f Me d ic i ne
PATHOLOGICAL FEATURES
AND PATHOGENESIS
Multiple sclerosis is generally believed to be an immune-mediated disorder that occurs in genetically susceptible people (Fig. 2).43 However, the sequence of
events that initiates the disease remains largely unknown. Given the considerable clinical, genetic, MRI,
and pathological heterogeneity of multiple sclerosis,
perhaps more than one pathogenetic mechanism contributes to tissue injury. This possibility has therapeutic
implications, because more than one approach to treatment may be required to treat this disease effectively.
The pathological hallmark of chronic multiple sclerosis is the demyelinated plaque, which consists of a
well-demarcated hypocellular area characterized by
the loss of myelin, relative preservation of axons, and
the formation of astrocytic scars (Fig. 3). Lesions have
a predilection for the optic nerves, periventricular
white matter, brain stem, cerebellum, and spinal cord
white matter, and they often surround one or several
medium-sized vessels. Although the lesions are usually round or oval, they often have finger-like extensions along the path of small or medium-sized blood
vessels (Dawson’s fingers). Inflammatory cells are typically perivascular in location, but they may diffusely
infiltrate the parenchyma. The composition of the
inflammatory infiltrate varies depending on the stage
of demyelinating activity. In general, it is composed
of lymphocytes and macrophages; the latter predominate in active lesions.
For meaningful conclusions to be drawn regarding
the earliest immunologic and molecular events contributing to the formation of lesions, only actively demyelinating plaques should be considered. Identifying
myelin-degradation products in macrophages is the
most reliable method of identifying active lesions (Fig.
4).44 When stringent criteria are used to define lesional activity, the frequency of active plaques in patients
with chronic multiple sclerosis is extremely low. Although remyelination is minimal in lesions associated
with chronic multiple sclerosis, plaques in acute and
early multiple sclerosis may have extensive remyelination (referred to as shadow plaques) (Fig. 5). Furthermore, the lesions of chronic multiple sclerosis
reportedly contain substantial numbers of oligodendrocyte precursor cells.45 Thus, central nervous system myelin can be repaired, and mechanisms that
promote endogenous remyelination may represent a
feasible therapeutic strategy.
Early symptoms of multiple sclerosis are widely
believed to result from axonal demyelination, which
leads to the slowing or blockade of conduction. The
regression of symptoms has been attributed to the
resolution of inflammatory edema and to partial remyelination. However, inflammatory cytokines may
inhibit axonal function, and the recovery of function
Figure 2 (facing page). Possible Mechanisms of Injury and Repair in Multiple Sclerosis.
Genetic and environmental factors (including viral infection, bacterial lipopolysaccharides, superantigens, reactive metabolites, and
metabolic stress) may facilitate the movement of autoreactive T cells and demyelinating antibodies from the systemic circulation
into the central nervous system through disruption of the blood–brain barrier. In the central nervous system, local factors (including
viral infection and metabolic stress) may up-regulate the expression of endothelial adhesion molecules, such as intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), vascular-cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1), and E-selectin, further facilitating the entry of T cells into
the central nervous system. Proteases, including matrix metalloproteinases, may further enhance the migration of autoreactive immune cells by degrading extracellular-matrix macromolecules. Proinflammatory cytokines released by activated T cells, such as
interferon-g and tumor necrosis factor b (TNF-b), may up-regulate the expression of cell-surface molecules on neighboring lymphocytes and antigen-presenting cells. Binding of putative multiple sclerosis (MS) antigens, such as myelin basic protein, myelin-associated glycoprotein, myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG), proteolipid protein, aB-crystallin, phosphodiesterases, and S-100
protein, by the trimolecular complex — the T-cell receptor (TCR) and class II major-histocompatibility-complex (MHC) molecules on
antigen-presenting cells — may trigger either an enhanced immune response against the bound antigen or anergy, depending on
the type of signaling that results from interactions with surface costimulatory molecules (e.g., CD28 and CTLA-4) and their ligands
(e.g., B7-1 and B7-2). Down-regulation of the immune response (anergy) may result in the release of antiinflammatory cytokines
(interleukin-1, interleukin-4, and interleukin-10) from CD4+ T cells, leading to the proliferation of antiinflammatory CD4+ type 2 helper T (Th2) cells. Th2 cells may send antiinflammatory signals to the activated antigen-presenting cells and stimulate pathologic or
repair-enhancing antibody-producing B cells. Alternatively, if antigen processing results in an enhanced immune response, proinflammatory cytokines (e.g., interleukin-12 and interferon-g) may trigger a cascade of events, resulting in the proliferation of proinflammatory CD4+ type 1 helper T (Th1) cells and ultimately in immune-mediated injury to myelin and oligodendrocytes. Multiple
mechanisms of immune-mediated injury of myelin have been postulated: cytokine-mediated injury of oligodendrocytes and myelin;
digestion of surface myelin antigens by macrophages, including binding of antibodies against myelin and oligodendrocytes (i.e.,
antibody-dependent cytotoxicity); complement-mediated injury; and direct injury of oligodendrocytes by CD4+ and CD8+ T cells.
This injury to the myelin membrane results in denuded axons that are no longer able to transmit action potentials efficiently within
the central nervous system (loss of saltatory conduction). This slowing or blocking of the action potential results in the production
of neurologic symptoms. The exposed axon segments may be susceptible to further injury from soluble mediators of injury (including cytokines, chemokines, complement, and proteases), resulting in irreversible axonal injury (such as axonal transection and
terminal axon ovoids). There are several possible mechanisms of repair of the myelin membrane, including resolution of the inflammatory response followed by spontaneous remyelination, spread of sodium channels from the nodes of Ranvier to cover denuded axon segments and restore conduction, antibody-mediated remyelination, and remyelination resulting from the proliferation,
migration, and differentiation of resident oligodendrocyte precursor cells. Adapted from a drawing by the Mayo Foundation.
942 ·
S ep tem b er 2 8 , 2 0 0 0
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org by Maryam Adeelah on April 2, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2000 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
MED IC A L PROGR ES S
Demyelinating antibodiesG
Anti-MOG?
ICAM-1, VCAM-1,G
E-selectins up-regulated
Autoreactive T cell
Adhesion
Endothelial cells
(astrocytes, microglia,G
macrophages)
TCR
G B7-2
B7-1,
CD28 Immune response
CTLA-4 Anergy
Antiinflammatory signalingG
Interleukin-4, 10, 13
CD4+ T cell
Interleukin-1, 4, 10G
G
Interleukin-12G
Interferon-g
G
OligodendrocyteG
precursor cell
ActivatedG
B cell
G
Interleukin-G
4, 5, 6, 10, 13
CD4+G
Th2 cell
CD4+G
Th1 cell
Central.
nervous system
G
Interferon-g
TNF-b
Class II MHCG
molecule
PutativeG
MS antigen
Blood–brain barrier
BasementG
membrane
PenetrationG
(matrix metalloproteinases)
Activated antigen-G
presenting cellG
Systemic circulation
Glial growthG
factors?
Surface Ig
G
TNF-a,
Interferon-g
ProliferationG
MigrationG
DifferentiationG
Remyelination
Antibodies
Cytokine-mediatedG
injury
NormalG
myelin sheath
Macrophage
Complement
Immune-G
mediated injury
NeuronalG
cell body
RemyelinatedG
areas
Antibody-mediated injuryG
G
G G
Class I MHCG
molecule
TerminalG
axon ovoid
Antibody-mediatedG
remyelination?
PrimaryG
oligodendrogliopathy
IncreasedG
sodium-channelG
density
Oligodendrocyte
Class I–restrictedG
CD8+ T cellG
up-regulated byG
interferon-g
DegenerationG
of inner glial loop
Postsynaptic neuron
Vol ume 343
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org by Maryam Adeelah on April 2, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2000 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Numb e r 13
·
943
The Ne w E n g l a nd Jo u r n a l o f Me d ic i ne
A
A
B
Figure 3. Photomicrographs of a Chronic Multiple Sclerosis
Plaque.
In Panel A, a well-demarcated hypocellular region of myelin
loss is evident in the periventricular white matter (luxol fast
blue and periodic acid–Schiff myelin stain, ¬15). In Panel B,
neurofilament staining for axons in the same lesion demonstrates a reduction in axonal density (¬15).
B
may result from the redistribution of sodium channels across segments of demyelinated axons.46,47 Irreversible axonal injury, gliotic scarring, and exhaustion
of the oligodendrocyte progenitor pool may result
from repeated episodes of disease activity and lead to
progressive loss of neurologic function. Axonal injury may occur not only in the late phases of multiple
sclerosis but also after early episodes of inflammatory
demyelination.48-50 The pathogenesis of this early axonal injury is still unclear.
Experimental in vitro and in vivo models of inflammatory demyelination suggest that diverse disease
processes, including autoimmunity and viral infection,
944 ·
Figure 4. Photomicrographs of an Actively Demyelinating Multiple Sclerosis Lesion (Immunocytochemical Staining of Myelin
Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein [Brown] with Hematoxylin Counterstaining of Nuclei [Blue]).
In Panel A, at the active edge of a multiple sclerosis lesion (indicated by the asterisk), the products of myelin degradation are
present in numerous macrophages (arrowheads) (¬100). In Panel B (¬100), macrophages containing myelin debris (arrowheads)
are interdigitated with degenerating myelin sheaths.
S ep tem b er 2 8 , 2 0 0 0
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org by Maryam Adeelah on April 2, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2000 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
MED IC A L PROGR ES S
Figure 5. Remyelination in a Lesion Associated with Chronic
Multiple Sclerosis.
The area stained pale blue (indicated by the asterisk) represents a region of partial remyelination (a shadow plaque) along
the periventricular edge of a lesion in a patient with chronic
multiple sclerosis (luxol fast blue and periodic acid–Schiff myelin stain, ¬15). NAWM denotes normal-appearing white matter.
may induce multiple sclerosis–like inflammatory demyelinated plaques. Activated CD4+ T cells specific
for one or more self antigens are believed to adhere
to the luminal surface of endothelial cells in central
nervous system venules and migrate into the central
nervous system at the time of disruption of the
blood–brain barrier. This process is followed by an
amplification of the immune response after the recognition of target antigens on antigen-presenting cells.
The existence of T cells that are reactive to several
putative self myelin and non-myelin “multiple sclerosis
antigens,” including myelin basic protein, myelin-associated glycoprotein, myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein, proteolipid protein, aB-crystallin, phosphodiesterases, and S-100 protein, has been proposed.51-53
Additional amplification factors including autoantibodies or cytokines may also be necessary to produce
the demyelinated plaque 2,54 (Fig. 2).
Antibodies against antigens located on the surface
of the myelin sheath or oligodendrocyte can cause demyelination directly, possibly through the activation
of complement, leading to complement-mediated cytolysis.55 These antibodies may gain access to the central nervous system through the disruption of the
blood–brain barrier as a consequence of a T-cell–
initiated inflammatory response. The existence of antibody-mediated demyelination is supported in part
by the observation that demyelination was augmented
by the administration of antibody specific for myelin
oligodendrocyte glycoprotein to rats with experimentally induced allergic encephalomyelitis56 (the glyco-
protein is present on the outer lamellae of the myelin
sheath). Antibodies against both myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein and myelin basic protein can be
found in the brains of patients with multiple sclerosis.57 Deposits of immunoglobulin and activated complement may be present in multiple sclerosis lesions
in which myelin is being degraded.58 Taken together,
these observations suggest that an antibody-mediated
process may have an important role in the pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis.
Other factors may also help degrade myelin and
damage oligodendrocytes. Activated macrophages and
microglial cells may mediate such activity by producing proinflammatory cytokines (such as tumor necrosis factor a and interferon-g), generating reactive oxygen or nitrogen species, producing excitatory amino
acids, activating complement components, or releasing proteolytic and lipolytic enzymes. Other factors
potentially toxic to oligodendroglial cells include soluble T-cell products (such as perforin), the interaction
of Fas antigen with Fas ligand, cytotoxicity mediated
by the interaction of CD8+ T cells with class I major-histocompatibility-complex (MHC) antigens on
antigen-presenting cells, and persistent viral infection.54 Human herpesvirus type 6 can cause a condition that mimics multiple sclerosis59 and appears in
oligodendrocytes within multiple sclerosis tissue in
some patients, but not in control tissue.60 A direct
causal link, however, remains to be confirmed. In
one study, Chlamydia pneumoniae was isolated from
64 percent of patients with multiple sclerosis, as
compared with 11 percent of control patients with
other neurologic diseases, and it was detected in cerebrospinal fluid by a polymerase-chain-reaction assay
in 97 percent of patients with multiple sclerosis, as
compared with 18 percent of control patients.61
These results have yet to be confirmed in other laboratories.62
Various pathogenic mechanisms may be involved
in multiple sclerosis. There is an important degree of
variability among patients in the structural and immunologic features of the lesions of multiple sclerosis.63 The extent of survival of oligodendrocytes varies
from patient to patient but is uniform within a given
patient, suggesting that the focus of injury (myelin,
mature oligodendrocyte, or progenitor cell) varies
among patients.49 Although most lesions are characterized by an inflammatory reaction, composed mainly of T lymphocytes and macrophages, diverse patterns of myelin destruction have been described.64
In some lesions, the presence of immunoglobulins
and activated terminal complement components suggests that demyelinating antibodies have a pathogenic
role. In others, a primary oligodendrocyte dystrophy
manifested by the selective loss of myelin-associated
glycoprotein and apoptosis of oligodendrocytes has
been seen. Finally, in other cases, a small rim of necrotic oligodendrocytes has been found in the norVol ume 343
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org by Maryam Adeelah on April 2, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2000 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Numb e r 13
·
945
The Ne w E n g l a nd Jo u r n a l o f Me d ic i ne
mal-appearing white matter adjacent to the active
plaque edge. The patterns of demyelination were heterogeneous among patients, but homogeneous within active plaques from the same patient. Multiple sclerosis may therefore be a series of syndromes with
different causes and pathogenic mechanisms (e.g.,
cellular-mediated immune injury, complement- and
antibody-mediated injury, or primary oligodendroglial dystrophy). If confirmed, this possibility could
lead to the identification of markers of the underlying
pathologic processes that could be used to individualize treatment.
MRI and spectroscopy may be helpful in characterizing the underlying pathologic processes in multiple sclerosis.6 There is consensus that T2-weighted
MRI reflects a broad spectrum of pathological changes, including inflammation, edema, demyelination, gliosis, and axonal loss. Changes in the number and volume of lesions on T2-weighted MRI (referred to as
the T2-weighted lesion load) are sensitive but nonspecific indicators of disease activity and the response to
treatment. New lesions and areas of gadolinium enhancement on T1-weighted MRI suggest recent inflammatory demyelination with disruption of the
blood–brain barrier (Fig. 1). Monitoring by means
of serial MRI studies with gadolinium enhancement
helps to identify agents that may be active against this
early inflammatory stage of multiple sclerosis (e.g.,
corticosteroids, interferons, glatiramer acetate, and
certain immunosuppressive agents).65-69
There is MRI and pathological evidence that the
normal-appearing white matter is not normal in patients with multiple sclerosis.70,71 Serial MRI studies
of normal-appearing white matter may be useful to
determine where abnormalities are likely to develop.72
Findings of “black holes” on T1-weighted images,
changes in magnetization-transfer ratios (a measure
of free and bound water, which is an indication of
the degree of structural disruption) (Fig. 1), and serial decreases in the volume of the brain and spinal
cord (indicating atrophy) on imaging studies most
likely correlate with both the loss of axons and the
occurrence of extensive demyelination; these may ultimately be useful markers of the late, secondary degenerative phase of the illness. These measures, along
with MRI spectroscopic markers of the number and
function of neurons (e.g., the levels of N-acetyl aspartate), may eventually prove to be valid, objective
surrogate measures of axonal abnormalities.
TREATMENT
Principles of Therapy
Patients with multiple sclerosis face enormous
prognostic uncertainty, and they must become well
informed about their illness. This is perhaps best accomplished with a multidisciplinary approach involving a neurologist, an allied health worker (e.g., nurse
or a social worker) with expertise in multiple sclero946 ·
sis, and information from national and local multiple
sclerosis organizations. Treating physicians must continually assess the need for psychological support for
patients and their families, since depression is common and the rate of suicide is relatively high in this
population of patients.12
Physicians and patients need to distinguish clinical
relapses from the transient worsening of symptoms
that may accompany an increase in body temperature
or fatigue. Patients should be reassured that findings
of recent disease activity do not invariably indicate an
unfavorable long-term prognosis and that pregnancy
does not worsen the long-term outcome.73 Patients
should limit their exposure to viral illnesses because
infections may trigger relapses.74 Vaccinations may be
safely administered to patients who may be at risk for
influenza.75 Because of reports that the hepatitis B
virus vaccine may trigger multiple sclerosis, this vaccine should be administered only to persons at substantial risk of exposure to the virus — until the relative risks associated with vaccination are clarified by
definitive, prospective studies that include MRI.
Relapses
Corticosteroids are often used to treat clinically
significant relapses in an attempt to hasten recovery;
for example, intravenous methylprednisolone may be
given for five days, followed by an optional brief
course of prednisone. There is no consensus about
the optimal form, dose, route, or duration of corticosteroid therapy (Table 2). Other experimental
strategies78 have not proved to be better than corticosteroids. A post hoc analysis of the Optic Neuritis
Treatment Trial suggested that prednisone might increase the risk of recurrent episodes of disease activity79
and that early intervention with intravenous methylprednisolone and prednisone delayed the recurrence
of neurologic events for two years.80 These findings
changed clinical practice: oral prednisone is now rarely used to treat acute optic neuritis.
A recent, double-blind, crossover trial demonstrated that a regimen of seven alternate-day plasma exchanges was followed by substantial clinical improvement in approximately 40 percent of patients who
had catastrophic episodes of inflammatory demyelination that were unresponsive to corticosteroids.81 These
results require confirmation.
The optimal treatment of patients after a first clinical episode of possible multiple sclerosis remains uncertain. As discussed earlier, the risk of recurrence and
the extent of disability can to some extent be predicted by the findings on MRI of the brain at the time
of the first clinical episode.8 Two recently completed
phase 3 trials82,83 suggest that treatment with interferon beta-1a may delay the development of a second,
diagnosis-defining bout (clinically definite multiple
sclerosis). In this issue of the Journal, Jacobs et al.83
report that early treatment with interferon beta-1a
S ep tem b er 2 8 , 2 0 0 0
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org by Maryam Adeelah on April 2, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2000 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
MED IC A L PROGR ES S
TABLE 2. CURRENT TREATMENTS
TYPE OF MULTIPLE
SCLEROSIS OR
RELAPSE
Relapsing–
remitting
Secondary
progressive
Primary
progressive
Acute relapses
KNOWN
AGENT
DOSE
OR
OF
FOR
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS.
POSSIBLE BENEFITS
TREATMENT
Interferon beta-1b
(Betaseron)
8 million IU subcutaneously every other
day
Interferon beta-1a
(Avonex)
30 µg intramuscularly
once weekly
Corticosteroids
Various doses (see text) Hastens clinical recovery
Transiently restores blood–brain
barrier on MRI
Plasma exchange
Seven exchanges of
one plasma volume
on alternate days
Reduces rate of clinical relapse
Reduces the development of new
lesions on MRI
Delays the increase in the volume
of lesions on MRI
UNKNOWN EFFECTS
OR
ASPECTS
OF
TREATMENT
Ability to delay progression of disability
Duration and clinical significance of benefit
Mechanism of action
Most effective dose and route of
administration
Frequency and clinical significance of the formation of neutralizing antibodies
Whether the effect on disability is clinically meaningful and sustained
Duration and clinical significance of benefit
Mechanisms of action
Most effective dose and route of administration
Frequency and clinical significance of the formation of neutralizing antibodies
Reduces rate of clinical relapse
May delay progression of disability
Reduces the development of new
lesions on MRI
Delays the increase in the volume
of lesions on MRI
High-dose interfer22 or 44 µg subcutane- Possible dose-related benefit in paon beta-1a (Rebif)*
ously every other
tients with more severe disabilities
day
Glatiramer acetate
20 µg subcutaneously Reduces rate of clinical relapse
Effect on the progression of disability
(Copaxone)
daily
Moderately reduces the developDuration and clinical significance of benefit
ment of new lesions on MRI
Mechanism of action
Most effective dose and route of administration
Immune globulin
0.15–0.2 g/kg of
Reduces rate of clinical relapse
Whether progression of disability is actually debody weight intraMay delay progression of disability
layed, as measured by a second evaluation in
venously monthly
3 mo
for 2 yr
Effect on the number and volume of lesions, as
assessed by MRI
Duration and clinical significance of benefit
Mechanism of action
Most effective dose and route of administration
Whether progression of disability is actually deInterferon beta-1b
8 million IU subcuta- Reduces rate of clinical relapse
layed, and if so, for how long and to what effect
(Betaferon)
neously every other May reduce progression of disability regardless of relapse
Mechanism of action
day
status (recent or current)†
Most effective dose and route of administration
Delays the increase in the volume
Frequency and clinical significance of the formaof lesions on MRI
tion of neutralizing antibodies
2
Reduces rate of clinical relapse
Duration of benefit
Mitoxantrone
5 or 12 mg/m of
body-surface area
Delays progression of disability
Most effective dose
hydrochloride
intravenously every Reduces activity evident on MRI
Dose-dependent risk of cardiac toxicity
3 mo for 2 yr
None
Enhances recovery of relapse-related neurologic deficits in patients
with no response to high-dose
corticosteroids
Duration and clinical significance of benefit
Effect on progression of disability
Mechanism of action
Most effective agent, dose, and route of administration
Why responsiveness to corticosteroids declines
over time
Effect on recurrent disease
Duration of effect
Mechanism of action
*This formulation is only available in Canada and Europe.
†This benefit has been observed in one of two studies.76,77
delayed the development of clinical and MRI evidence of recurrent disease in patients with a first demyelinating central nervous system event. This is an
expected finding, given the published evidence that
interferon beta reduces clinical relapses and changes
on MRI scans. This report may influence patients’
and physicians’ decisions regarding the timing of interferon therapy, although the inconvenience, treat-
ment-related side effects, cost, and lack of evidence
of an important long-term benefit of interferon beta
will deter others from starting treatment early in the
disease course. The relations among inflammatorymediated demyelination, axonal injury, and clinical
disability remain to be clarified. There is a pressing
need to determine whether the currently approved,
partially effective immunomodulatory therapies reVol ume 343
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org by Maryam Adeelah on April 2, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2000 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Numb e r 13
·
947
The Ne w E n g l a nd Jo u r n a l o f Me d ic i ne
duce the degree or delay the development of disability in patients with clinically isolated demyelinating
syndromes and definite multiple sclerosis.
Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis
The first of several convincing trials demonstrated
that interferon beta-1b (Betaseron, Berlex Laboratories) reduced the frequency of relapse by approximately 30 percent.65,66,84 There was also a trend toward a delay in the progression of disability, but this
finding did not reach statistical significance. Interferon beta-1a (Avonex, Biogen) and glatiramer acetate
(Copaxone, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries)85,86 were
subsequently found to reduce the frequency of relapse.
Interferon beta-1a may delay the progression of disability in patients with minor disability who have a
relapsing form of multiple sclerosis.67,87,88
Each of these agents has a number of immunemediating activities; the specific mechanisms of action
of these agents in multiple sclerosis are incompletely
understood. The interferons reduce the proliferation
of T cells and the production of tumor necrosis factor a, decrease antigen presentation, alter cytokine
production to favor ones governed by type 2 helper
T (Th2) cells, increase the secretion of interleukin-10,
and reduce the passage of immune cells across the
blood–brain barrier by means of their effects on adhesion molecules, chemokines, and proteases. Glatiramer acetate, formerly known as copolymer-1, is a mixture of synthetic polypeptides containing the L-amino
acids glutamic acid, alanine, lysine, and tyrosine.
Glatiramer acetate may promote the proliferation of
Th2 cytokines; compete with myelin basic protein
for presentation on MHC class II molecules, thereby
inhibiting antigen-specific T-cell activation (Fig. 2);
alter the function of macrophages; and induce antigen-specific suppressor T cells.
All these drugs reduce the development of new,
gadolinium-enhancing lesions on MRI with variable
effectiveness. All three agents are approved by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and are used
widely. A higher-dose formulation of interferon beta1a (Rebif, Ares Serono International) has yet to be
approved for use in the United States but is licensed
for use in Canada and Europe.68 These agents must
be administered parenterally, are expensive (each costs
approximately $10,000 per year in the United States),
and have variable adverse effects. Their long-term effectiveness has not been established, and studies are
now addressing the cost effectiveness of these agents.89
Interferon beta-1a and interferon beta-1b may induce the formation of neutralizing antibodies, especially during the first 18 months of treatment. The
relevance of neutralizing antibodies, particularly with
regard to the level that is clinically significant, is uncertain. There is concern that high titers of neutralizing antibodies may decrease or abrogate the biologic activity of interferon beta. It may be advisable to
948 ·
test patients for neutralizing antibodies if they have
no response to interferon beta, although practice
guidelines with respect to the interpretation of these
tests are not yet available.
Opinions vary on when to initiate treatment with
interferon beta and glatiramer acetate. The practice
directive of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society
states that these agents should be considered in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis who
have had recent relapses.90 Neurologists who initiate
treatment when the diagnosis of relapsing–remitting
multiple sclerosis is established, or shortly thereafter,
believe that these drugs are maximally effective against
the early inflammatory phase of the disease. They reason that treatment may limit irreversible axonal injury and delay late deterioration; this hypothesis is based
in part on evidence from biopsy studies showing that
axonal injury can occur in acute or severe multiple
sclerosis.48 Other neurologists delay treatment until
there is a history of recurrent relapses over a more prolonged period, for a number of reasons. Patients may
have a benign early course.91
Data on the long-term efficacy and safety of these
agents are not available. Although axonal injury may
occur early, the frequency of early axonal injury is
unknown. The formation of neutralizing antibodies
may render interferon beta inactive, leaving the patient without this treatment option later in the clinical course. There is no evidence that these agents reduce such injury. The enthusiasm for these treatments,
whether started immediately after the diagnosis is
made or sometime later, must be tempered by the disappointing reality that most patients continue to have
relapses during treatment and ultimately become increasingly disabled.
Patients frequently have firm opinions about the
timing and choice of treatment. Given that there are
no long-term studies (e.g., ones lasting longer than
five years) confirming that any of the agents delay the
progression of disability and that there have been no
phase 3 comparative studies clarifying which agent is
most effective, the treating physician must consider
the patient’s individual risk of clinically significant
early disability and the patient’s desire to start or
delay treatment. Many North American neurologists
initiate treatment after repeated relapses, particularly
if the patient’s clinical recovery is incomplete. The
choice of the specific agent remains highly dependent on the specialist’s opinion of its relative potency
and the patient’s anticipated tolerance of treatmentrelated side effects. Glatiramer acetate is generally well
tolerated and may be most effective for mildly disabled
patients with a recent diagnosis of multiple sclerosis
who wish to start treatment early in the course of the
illness.
Some multiple sclerosis specialists believe that the
published evidence favors interferon beta, although
the side effects are generally more troublesome than
S ep tem b er 2 8 , 2 0 0 0
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org by Maryam Adeelah on April 2, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2000 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
MED IC A L PROGR ES S
those of glatiramer acetate. The evidence of a dose–
response for interferon beta66,68,92,93 may influence the
treating physician in the United States to choose interferon beta-1b, which delivers a higher cumulative
weekly dose of interferon, rather than interferon beta1a. (A high-dose formulation of interferon beta-1a
[Rebif ] is available in Canada and Europe.) Higher
doses, however, may be accompanied by more frequent side effects and an increased risk of the formation of neutralizing antibodies. If these factors are considered paramount, the treating physician may choose
a lower dose of weekly interferon beta-1a.
One placebo-controlled trial reported that intravenous immune globulin reduced the frequency of
relapse.94 These results have yet to be confirmed, and
immune globulin is not widely used for this indication in North America.
Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis
The indications for the treatment of secondary
progressive multiple sclerosis are unclear. Many trials
have reported a marginal benefit with various immunosuppressive therapies. A recent phase 3 European
trial reported that interferon beta-1b reduced clinical and MRI evidence of disease activity.69,76 Treatment delayed the progression of disability regardless
of whether relapses occurred before or after randomization, although the magnitude of the effect was
moderate. It is not known whether this benefit in patients who were not having ongoing relapses results
from an ability of interferon to interfere with the degenerative changes that presumably contribute to the
clinical worsening that occurs in most patients after
the first decade of the illness. Alternatively, this apparent benefit may reflect an ability of interferon to
reduce inflammatory activity, whether manifested clinically or not (e.g., subclinical relapses).
Interferon beta-1b has been approved for use in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis in Europe and
Canada. The results of two recently completed phase
3 trials77,95,96 indicate that interferon beta-1b and interferon beta-1a may reduce the frequency of relapses and
the evidence of disease activity on MRI only in patients who have continual clinical relapses. However,
neither of these studies found that treatment slowed
the progression of disability. Consequently, the status
of interferon beta with respect to the treatment of
secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, with or without recent relapses, remains controversial. In a phase 3
European trial, mitoxantrone hydrochloride, an anthracenedione derivative and a cytotoxic agent with
associated antiinflammatory activities, reduced both
clinical and MRI evidence of disease activity in patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis.97
Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis
and the Management of Symptoms
There are no proven therapies for primary progressive multiple sclerosis, although phase 3 trials of
interferons and glatiramer acetate are under way. None
of the treatments reverse the neurologic disabilities.
Treatment of Complications
There are moderately effective treatments for several
of the complications of multiple sclerosis. Fatigue may
respond to amantadine and to energy-conservation
strategies. Depression and sleep disorders may contribute to fatigue and must be recognized and treated
appropriately. Paroxysmal events typically respond well
to carbamazepine and phenytoin (alone or in combination), acetazolamide, gabapentin, and pergolide.
Spasticity, pain, problems with gait, decubitus ulcers, speech and swallowing disorders, and cognitive
and mood disorders are best treated by a multidisciplinary approach that may involve specialists in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Stretching, a program of aerobic exercise, and centrally acting muscle
relaxants may help patients with mild, symptomatic
spasticity. Patients with clinically significant weakness
of the legs may require a moderate degree of extensor
tone in order to walk and therefore may not be able
to tolerate antispasticity medications. The implantation of a pump for the intrathecal administration of
baclofen may assist in the management of intractable, painful spasticity in patients who cannot walk
and who have lost bowel and bladder function. Neurogenic bladder and bowel disturbances are amenable to treatment after appropriate investigations have
clarified the underlying physiologic mechanisms. Sexual dysfunction and chronic, central pain are common and may respond to appropriate symptom-based
treatment strategies. Disabling, high-amplitude, cerebellar-outflow tremors rarely respond well to medication but may decrease after continued contralateral thalamic stimulation or ablative thalamotomy.
CHALLENGES IN CONDUCTING CLINICAL
TRIALS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Multiple sclerosis remains a challenging disease to
study because the cause is unknown, the pathophysiologic mechanisms are diverse, and the chronic, unpredictable course of the disease makes it difficult to
determine whether the favorable effects of short-term
treatment will be sustained. Most published trials are
small (usually including fewer than 150 patients per
study group) and brief (less than three years of follow-up98). Clinical measures (the degree of disability,
the relapse rate, and the time to clinical progression)
remain the primary outcomes assessed in phase 3 trials. These measures are relatively insensitive to change
and only weakly predictive of the long-term clinical
outcome. No laboratory studies, including MRI, meet
the requirements of the FDA for a surrogate marker
of prognosis.
The important limitations of clinical trials involving patients with chronic illnesses, such as imperfect
blinding, a high rate of withdrawal, and an incomVol ume 343
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org by Maryam Adeelah on April 2, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2000 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Numb e r 13
·
949
The Ne w E n g l a nd Jo u r n a l o f Me d ic i ne
pletely matched or inappropriate control group, are
particularly prominent in studies of multiple sclerosis. In the past several years, trials have used increasingly sophisticated methods to identify promising
agents as well as those that are toxic or ineffective.99-101
Careful attention must be paid to the demographic
characteristics of the control group before enrollment and to their clinical behavior after enrollment
to avoid false positive results. For example, if the results in the control group are worse than those expected on the basis of the predicted natural history of the
disease, the putative benefit of treatment in the other
group may be exaggerated.
There is interest in designing trials to assess ways
of delaying irreversible axonal injury and promoting
remyelination. One strategy would be to evaluate
whether combinations of drugs with different mechanisms of action are more effective than single-agent
therapy. Other immunomodulating approaches include anticytokine and “immune-deviation” strategies,
which are designed to favor the proliferation of antiinflammatory Th2 cells and Th2 cytokines (Fig. 2).
Inhibitors of matrix metalloproteinases and other proteases, inhibitors of cathepsin B, inhibitors and scavengers of oxygen radicals, and efforts to reverse or
reduce the activation of the trimolecular complex (including peptide immunotherapy and T-cell vaccination) may be worth additional study. Investigators who
favor an infectious cause of multiple sclerosis, such
as human herpesvirus type 660 or C. pneumoniae,61
may initiate trials of antiviral and antibacterial agents.
Other approaches focusing on reparative and remyelinative strategies include efforts to block antibodymediated demyelination. It may be possible to enhance
remyelination by transplanting oligodendroglial precursor cells into discrete, clinically important lesions
(e.g., those affecting the optic nerves, the middle cerebellar peduncle, or the spinal cord)102,103 while administering growth factors and neuroprotective agents.
Gene-therapy strategies may also ultimately be worthy of study.
The widespread use of the partially effective immunomodulatory agents has left few patients who
have not received such agents and who would therefore make good candidates for enrollment in trials.
It may no longer be ethical to evaluate new treatments for relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in a
placebo-controlled study except in unusual circumstances, such as those involving patients who have
declined standard therapies or who have had no response to them and those involving brief trials in patients with recently diagnosed multiple sclerosis. The
costs of definitive trials have also escalated markedly.
Phase 3 studies should include at least three years of
follow-up to identify biologically meaningful effects
of treatment.98,104
During the past decade, there has been moderate
progress in reducing the inflammatory component
950 ·
of multiple sclerosis. Unfortunately, most patients
continue to have relapses and progression of their
symptoms. This finding has forced a reexamination of
the hypothesis that the elimination of acute relapses
and, by inference, inflammation would be curative. An
alternative hypothesis is that clinical progression is
independent of inflammation but depends on factors
intrinsic to the pathologic substrate influencing demyelination and, in particular, injury to axons. If this
hypothesis is confirmed, newer approaches directed
toward interfering with demyelination and axonal
injury will be necessary to prevent progression and
restore function. Many degenerative neurologic diseases share mechanisms of injury (e.g., apoptosis,
oxidative stress, loss of trophic support, and proteolysis). As the margins between the neurodegenerative
diseases begin to blur, unifying concepts of nervous
system injury will emerge, providing opportunities
for the design of rational treatments.
Supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NS 31506,
U10 EY1093-01, NS 32129, NS 24180, NS 32774, RR00585), the National Multiple Sclerosis Society (RG2529, RG2870, RG3185, RG3051),
and the Mayo Foundation (RR00585).
We are indebted to Joseph E. Parisi, M.D., and Stephen P. Graepel, M.A., for assisting with the figures and to Laura J. Irlbeck for
typing the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Compston A, Ebers G, Lassmann H, McDonald I, Matthews B, Wekerle H. McAlpine’s multiple sclerosis. 3rd ed. London: Churchill Livingstone, 1998.
2. Noseworthy J. Progress in determining the causes and treatment of
multiple sclerosis. Nature 1999;399:Suppl:A40-A47.
3. Anderson DW, Ellenberg JH, Leventhal CM, Reingold SC, Rodriguez
M, Silberberg DH. Revised estimate of the prevalence of multiple sclerosis
in the United States. Ann Neurol 1992;31:333-6.
4. 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.
5. Poser CM, Paty DW, Scheinberg L, et al. New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines for research protocols. Ann Neurol 1983;13:227-31.
6. 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.
7. Gronseth GS, Ashman EJ. Practice parameter: the usefulness of evoked
potentials in identifying clinically silent lesions in patients with suspected
multiple sclerosis (an evidence-based review): report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology
2000;54:1720-5.
8. O’Riordan JI, Thompson AJ, Kingsley DP, et al. The prognostic value
of brain MRI in clinically isolated syndromes of the CNS: a 10-year followup. Brain 1998;121:495-503.
9. Cole SR, Beck RW, Moke PS, Kaufman DI, Tourtellotte WW. The predictive value of CSF oligoclonal banding for MS 5 years after optic neuritis.
Neurology 1998;51:885-7.
10. Weinshenker BG, Rice GPA, Noseworthy JH, Carriere W, Baskerville
J, Ebers GC. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically
based study. 4. Applications to planning and interpretation of clinical therapeutic trials. Brain 1991;114:1057-67.
11. Cottrell DA, Kremenchutzky M, Rice GPA, Hader W, Baskerville J,
Ebers GC. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based
study. 6. Applications to planning and interpretation of clinical therapeutic
trials in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Brain 1999;122:641-7.
12. Sadovnick AD, Eisen K, Ebers GC, Paty DW. Cause of death in patients attending multiple sclerosis clinics. Neurology 1991;41:1193-6.
13. Weinshenker BG, Rodriguez M. Epidemiology of multiple sclerosis. In:
Gorelick PB, Alter M, eds. Handbook of neuroepidemiology. Vol. 29 of
Neurological disease and therapy. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1994:533-67.
S ep tem b er 2 8 , 2 0 0 0
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org by Maryam Adeelah on April 2, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2000 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
MED IC A L PROGR ES S
14. Kurtzke JF. Multiple sclerosis: changing times. Neuroepidemiology
1991;10:1-8.
15. Rosati G, Aiello I, Pirastru MI, et al. Epidemiology of multiple sclerosis in northwestern Sardinia: further evidence for higher frequency in Sardinians compared to other Italians. Neuroepidemiology 1996;15:10-9.
16. Bufill E, Blesa R, Galan I, Dean G. Prevalence of multiple sclerosis in
the region of Osona, Catalonia, northern Spain. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1995;58:577-81.
17. Wynn DR, Rodriguez M, O’Fallon WM, Kurland LT. A reappraisal of
the epidemiology of multiple sclerosis in Olmsted County, Minnesota.
Neurology 1990;40:780-6.
18. Svenningsson A, Runmarker B, Lycke J, Andersen O. Incidence of MS
during two fifteen-year periods in the Gothenburg region of Sweden. Acta
Neurol Scand 1990;82:161-8.
19. Cook SD, Cromarty JI, Tapp W, Poskanzer D, Walker JD, Dowling
PC. Declining incidence of multiple sclerosis in the Orkney Islands. Neurology 1985;35:545-51.
20. Midgard R, Riise T, Nyland H. Epidemiologic trends in multiple sclerosis in More and Romsdal, Norway: a prevalence/incidence study in a stable population. Neurology 1991;41:887-92.
21. Kurtzke JF, Hyllested K. Multiple sclerosis in the Faroe Islands. III.
An alternative assessment of the three epidemics. Acta Neurol Scand 1987;
76:317-39.
22. Alter M, Leibowitz U, Speer J. Risk of multiple sclerosis related to age
at immigration to Israel. Arch Neurol 1966;15:234-7.
23. Dean G. Annual incidence, prevalence, and mortality of multiple sclerosis in white South-African-born and in white immigrants to South Africa.
BMJ 1967;2:724-30.
24. Elian M, Nightingale S, Dean G. Multiple sclerosis among United
Kingdom-born children of immigrants from the Indian subcontinent, Africa and the West Indies. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1990;53:906-11.
25. Compston A. Risk factors for multiple sclerosis: race or place? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1990;53:821-3.
26. Ebers GC, Sadovnick AD, Risch NJ, Canadian Collaborative Study
Group. A genetic basis for familial aggregation in multiple sclerosis. Nature
1995;377:150-1.
27. Sadovnick AD, Armstrong H, Rice GP, et al. A population-based study
of multiple sclerosis in twins: update. Ann Neurol 1993;33:281-5.
28. Sadovnick AD, Baird PA, Ward RH. Multiple sclerosis: updated risks
for relatives. Am J Med Genet 1988;29:533-41.
29. Jersild C, Fog T, Hansen GS, Thomsen M, Svejgaard A, Dupont B.
Histocompatibility determinants in multiple sclerosis, with special reference to clinical course. Lancet 1973;2:1221-5.
30. Marrosu MG, Murru MR, Costa G, Murru R, Muntoni F, Cucca F.
DRB1-DQA1-DQB1 loci and multiple sclerosis predisposition in the Sardinian population. Hum Mol Genet 1998;7:1235-7.
31. Sawcer S, Jones HB, Feakes R, et al. A genome screen in multiple sclerosis reveals susceptibility loci on chromosome 6p21 and 17q22. Nat Genet 1996;13:464-8.
32. Ebers GC, Kukay K, Bulman DE, et al. A full genome search in multiple sclerosis. Nat Genet 1996;13:472-6.
33. Haines JL, Ter-Minassian M, Bazyk A, et al. A complete genomic
screen for multiple sclerosis underscores a role for the major histocompatability complex. Nat Genet 1996;13:469-71.
34. Kuokkanen S, Gschwend M, Rioux JD, et al. Genomewide scan of
multiple sclerosis in Finnish multiplex families. Am J Hum Genet 1997;61:
1379-87.
35. Haines JL, Terwedow HA, Burgess K, et al. Linkage of the MHC to
familial multiple sclerosis suggests genetic heterogeneity. Hum Mol Genet
1998;7:1229-34.
36. Chataway J, Feakes R, Coraddu F, et al. The genetics of multiple sclerosis: principles, background and updated results of the United Kingdom
systematic genome screen. Brain 1998;121:1869-87.
37. te Meerman GJ, Van der Meulen MA. Genomic sharing surrounding
alleles identical by descent: effects of genetic drift and population growth.
Genet Epidemiol 1997;14:1125-30.
38. Robertson NP, Compston DAS. Prognosis in multiple sclerosis: genetic factors. In: Siva A, Kesselring J, Thompson AJ, eds. Frontiers in multiple
sclerosis. Vol. 2. London: Martin Dunitz, 1999:51-61.
39. Weinshenker BG, Santrach P, Bissonet AS, et al. Major histocompatibility complex class II alleles and the course and outcome of MS: a population-based study. Neurology 1998;51:742-7.
40. Schrijver HM, Crusius JB, Uitdehaag BM, et al. Association of interleukin-1beta and interleukin-1 receptor antagonist genes with disease severity in MS. Neurology 1999;52:595-9.
41. Myhr KM, Raknes G, Nyland H, Vedeler C. Immunoglobulin G Fcreceptor (Fc g R) IIA and IIIB polymorphisms related to disability in MS.
Neurology 1999;52:1771-6.
42. Evangelou N, Jackson M, Beeson D, Palace J. Association of the
APOE epsilon4 allele with disease activity in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol
Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999;67:203-5.
43. Hohlfeld R. Biotechnological agents for the immunotherapy of multiple sclerosis: principles, problems and perspectives. Brain 1997;120:865916.
44. Lassmann H, Raine CS, Antel J, Prineas JW. Immunopathology of
multiple sclerosis: report on an international meeting held at the Institute
of Neurology of the University of Vienna. J Neuroimmunol 1998;86:2137.
45. Wolswijk G. Chronic stage multiple sclerosis lesions contain a relatively
quiescent population of oligodendrocyte precursor cells. J Neurosci 1998;
18:601-9.
46. Waxman SG. Demyelinating diseases — new pathological insights, new
therapeutic targets. N Engl J Med 1998;338:323-5.
47. Rivera-Quinones C, McGavern D, Schmelzer JD, Hunter SF, Low PA,
Rodriguez M. Absence of neurological deficits following extensive demyelination in a class I-deficient murine model of multiple sclerosis. Nat Med
1998;4:187-93.
48. Trapp BD, Peterson J, Ransohoff RM, Rudick R, Mörk S, Bö L. Axonal transection in the lesions of multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 1998;
338:278-85.
49. Lucchinetti C, Bruck W, Parisi J, Scheithauer B, Rodriguez M, Lassmann H. A quantitative analysis of oligodendrocytes in multiple sclerosis
lesions: a study of 113 cases. Brain 1999;122:2279-95.
50. Bitsch A, Schuchardt J, Bunkowski S, Kuhlmann T, Brück W. Acute
axonal injury in multiple sclerosis: correlation with demyelination and inflammation. Brain 2000;123:1174-83.
51. Schmidt S, Linington C, Zipp F, et al. Multiple sclerosis: comparison
of the human T-cell response to S100b and myelin basic protein reveals
parallels to rat experimental autoimmune panencephalitis. Brain 1997;120:
1437-45.
52. van Noort JM, van Sechel AC, Bajramovic JJ, et al. The small heatshock protein aB-crystallin as candidate autoantigen in multiple sclerosis.
Nature 1996;375:798-801.
53. Steinman L. Multiple sclerosis: a coordinated immunological attack
against myelin in the central nervous system. Cell 1996;85:299-302.
54. Lucchinetti CF, Bruck W, Rodriguez M, Lassmann H. Multiple sclerosis: lessons from neuropathology. Semin Neurol 1998;18:337-49.
55. Piddlesden SJ, Lassmann H, Zimprich F, Morgan BP, Linington C.
The demyelinating potential of antibodies to myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein is related to their ability to fix complement. Am J Pathol 1993;
143:555-64.
56. Linington C, Bradl M, Lassmann H, Brunner C, Vass K. Augmentation of demyelination in rat acute allergic encephalomyelitis by circulating
mouse monoclonal antibodies directed against a myelin/oligodendrocyte
glycoprotein. Am J Pathol 1988;130:443-54.
57. Raine CS, Cannella B, Hauser SL, Genain CP. Demyelination in primate autoimmune encephalomyelitis and acute multiple sclerosis lesions: a
case for antigen-specific antibody mediation. Ann Neurol 1999;46:144-60.
58. Storch MK, Piddlesden S, Haltia M, Iivanainen M, Morgan P, Lassmann H. Multiple sclerosis: in situ evidence for antibody- and complement-mediated demyelination. Ann Neurol 1998;43:465-71.
59. Carrigan DR, Harrington D, Knox KK. Subacute leukoencephalitis
caused by CNS infection with human herpesvirus-6 manifesting as acute
multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1996;47:145-8.
60. Challoner PB, Smith KT, Parker JD, et al. Plaque-associated expression
of human herpesvirus 6 in multiple sclerosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
1995;92:7440-4.
61. Sriram S, Stratton CW, Yao S, et al. Chlamydia pneumoniae infection
of the central nervous system in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1999;46:
6-14.
62. Boman J, Roblin PM, Sundstrom P, Sandstrom M, Hammerschlag
MR. Failure to detect Chlamydia pneumoniae in the central nervous system of patients with MS. Neurology 2000;54:265.
63. Lucchinetti CF, Bruck W, Rodriguez M, Lassmann H. Distinct patterns of multiple sclerosis pathology indicates heterogeneity on pathogenesis. Brain Pathol 1996;6:259-74.
64. Lucchinetti C, Bruck W, Parisi J, Scheithauer B, Rodriguez M, Lassmann H. Heterogeneity of multiple sclerosis lesions: implications for the
pathogenesis of demyelination. Ann Neurol 2000;47:707-17.
65. Paty DW, Li DK, UBC MS/MRI Study Group, IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Interferon beta-1b is effective in relapsing-remitting
multiple sclerosis. II. MRI analysis results of a multicenter, randomized,
double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology 1993;43:662-7.
66. The IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group, University of British Columbia MS/MRI Analysis Group. Interferon b-1b in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: final outcome of the randomized controlled trial. Neurology
1995;45:1277-85.
67. Simon JH, Jacobs LD, Campion M, et al. Magnetic resonance studies
Vol ume 343
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org by Maryam Adeelah on April 2, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2000 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Numb e r 13
·
951
The Ne w E n g l a nd Jo u r n a l o f Me d ic i ne
of intramuscular interferon b-1a for relapsing multiple sclerosis. Neurology
1998;43:79-87.
68. PRISMS (Prevention of Relapses and Disability by Interferon b-1a
Subcutaneously in Multiple Sclerosis) Study Group. Randomised doubleblind placebo-controlled study of interferon b-1a in relapsing/remitting
multiple sclerosis. Lancet 1998;352:1498-504. [Erratum, Lancet 1999;
353:678.]
69. Miller DH, Molyneux PD, Barker GJ, MacManus DG, Moseley IF,
Wagner K. Effect of interferon b-1b on magnetic resonance imaging outcomes in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: results of a European
multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Neurol 1999;46:850-9.
70. 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;43:809-14.
71. Allen IV, McKeown SR. A histological, histochemical and biochemical
study of the macroscopically normal white matter in multiple sclerosis.
J Neurol Sci 1979;41:81-91.
72. Goodkin DE, Rooney WD, Sloan R, et al. A serial study of new MS
lesions and the white matter from which they arise. Neurology 1998;51:
1689-97.
73. Confavreux C, Hutchinson M, Hours MM, Cortinovis-Tourniaire P,
Moreau T, Pregnancy in Multiple Sclerosis Group. Rate of pregnancyrelated relapse in multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 1998;339:285-91.
74. Sibley WA, Bamford CR, Clark K. Clinical viral infections and multiple sclerosis. Lancet 1985;1:1313-5.
75. Miller AE, Morgante LA, Buchwald LY, et al. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of influenza immunization in
multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1997;48:312-4.
76. European Study Group on Interferon b-1b in Secondary Progressive
MS. Placebo-controlled multicentre randomised trial of interferon b-1b in
treatment of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Lancet 1998;352:
1491-7.
77. Goodkin DE, North American Study Group on Interferon beta-1b in
Secondary Prevention MS. Interferon beta-1b in secondary progressive
MS: clinical and MRI results of a 3-year randomized controlled trial. Neurology 2000;54:Suppl:2352. abstract.
78. Tubridy N, Behan PO, Capildeo R, et al. The effect of anti-alpha4 integrin antibody on brain lesion activity in multiple sclerosis. Neurology
1999;53:466-72.
79. Beck RW, Cleary PA, Anderson MM Jr, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of corticosteroids in the treatment of acute optic neuritis.
N Engl J Med 1992;326:581-8.
80. Beck RW. The Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial: three-year follow-up results. Arch Ophthalmol 1995;113:136-7.
81. Weinshenker BG, O’Brien PC, Petterson TM, et al. A randomized trial
of plasma exchange in acute central nervous system inflammatory demyelinating disease. Ann Neurol 1999;46:878-86.
82. Comi G, Filippi M, Barkhof F, et al. Interferon beta 1a (Rebif ) in patients with acute neurological syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis: a
multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Neurology 2000;54:Suppl 3:A85-A86. abstract.
83. Jacobs LD, Beck RW, Simon JH, et al. Intramuscular interferon beta1a therapy initiated during a first demyelinating event in multiple sclerosis.
N Engl J Med 2000;343:898-904.
84. The IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Interferon beta-1b is effective in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. I. Clinical results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology
1993;43:655-61.
85. Johnson KP, Brooks BR, Cohen JA, et al. Copolymer 1 reduces relapse rate and improves disability in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis:
952 ·
results of a phase III multicenter, double-blind placebo-controlled trial.
Neurology 1995;45:1268-76.
86. Johnson KP, Brooks BR, Cohen JA, et al. Extended use of glatiramer
acetate (Copaxone) is well tolerated and maintains its clinical effect on multiple sclerosis relapse rate and degree of disability. Neurology 1998;50:701-8.
87. Jacobs LD, Cookfair DL, Rudick RA, et al. Intramuscular interferon
beta-1a for disease progression in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol
1996;39:285-94. [Erratum, Ann Neurol 1996;40:480.]
88. Rudick RA, Goodkin DE, Jacobs LD, et al. Impact of interferon beta1a on neurologic disability in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1997;
49:358-63.
89. Forbes RB, Lees A, Waugh N, Swingler RJ. Population based cost utility study of interferon beta-1b in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis.
BMJ 1999;319:1529-33.
90. van den Noort S, Eidelman B, Rammohan K, et al. National Multiple
Sclerosis Society (NMSS): disease management consensus statement. New
York: National MS Society, 1998.
91. Rodriguez M, Siva A, Ward J, Stolp-Smith K, O’Brien P, Kurland L.
Impairment, disability, and handicap in multiple sclerosis: a populationbased study in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Neurology 1994;44:28-33.
92. The Once Weekly Interferon for MS Study Group. Evidence of interferon beta-1a dose response in relapsing-remitting MS. Neurology 1999;
53:679-86.
93. Freedman MS, PRISMS Study Group. PRISMS 4-year results: evidence of clinical dose effect of interferon beta-1a in relapsing MS. Neurology 2000;54:Suppl:2351. abstract.
94. Fazekas F, Deisenhammer F, Strasser-Fuchs S, Nahler G, Mamoli B.
Randomised placebo-controlled trial of monthly intravenous immunoglobulin therapy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Lancet 1997;349:
589-93.
95. Paty D. Results of the 3-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled study
of interferon beta-1a (Rebif ) in secondary-progressive MS. Presented at the
Ninth Annual Meeting of the European Neurological Society, Milan, Italy,
June 5–9, 1999.
96. Hughes R, SPECTRIMS Group. “Relapsing” versus “nonrelapsing”
SPMS: different prognosis and response to interferon therapy in the
SPECTRIMS study. Neurology 2000;54:Suppl 3:A233. abstract.
97. Krapf H, Morrissey SP, Zenker O, et al. Mitoxantrone in progressive
multiple sclerosis: MRI results of the European phase III trial. Neurology
1999;52:Suppl 2:A495. abstract.
98. Rudge P. Are clinical trials of therapeutic agents for MS long enough?
Lancet 1999;353:1033-4.
99. Noseworthy JH, Gold R, Hartung H-P. Treatment of multiple sclerosis: recent trials and future perspectives. Curr Opin Neurol 1999;12:27993.
100. van Oosten BW, Barkhof F, Truyen L, et al. Increased MRI activity
and immune activation in two multiple sclerosis patients treated with the
monoclonal anti-tumor necrosis factor antibody cA2. Neurology 1996;47:
1531-4.
101. The Lenercept Multiple Sclerosis Study Group, University of British
Columbia MS/MRI Analysis Group. TNF neutralization in MS: results of
a randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter study. Neurology 1999;53:
457-65.
102. Compston A. Remyelination in multiple sclerosis: a challenge for
therapy: the 1996 European Charcot Foundation Lecture. Mult Scler
1997;3:51-70.
103. Archer DR, Cuddon PA, Lipsitz D, Duncan LD. Myelination of the
canine central nervous system by glial cell transplantation: a model for repair of human myelin disease. Nat Med 1997;3:54-9.
104. Noseworthy JH, O’Brien P, Erickson BJ, et al. The Mayo ClinicCanadian Cooperative Trial of sulfasalazine in active multiple sclerosis.
Neurology 1998;51:1342-52.
S ep tem b er 2 8 , 2 0 0 0
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org by Maryam Adeelah on April 2, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2000 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order