ABSTRACT
Recently a group of community and academ-ic neurologists gathered to discuss current topacadem-ics of interest in multiple sclerosis (MS). The goal of the meeting was to provide an up-to-date review of the literature and to gather consensus opinions regarding key aspects of each of these topics. This article is the product of one of these sessions that focused on the initial clinical event suggestive of demyelinating disease: the so-called clinically isolated syndrome (CIS). One of the key questions addressed in this monograph is how to stratify risk in the patient with CIS. How useful are brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), cere-brospinal fluid analysis, evoked potential tests, and serological assays in determining which patients with CIS will go on to have subsequent attacks and who is at highest risk for neurologic disability? Do recent advances in our under-standing of cognitive changes and ultrastructural changes revealed by non-conventional MRI in patients with CIS indicate that more widespread injury to the central nervous system has already occurred at the time of the initial presenting event? Lastly, how useful are disease-modifying
therapies in preventing further attacks, reducing the accumulation of new lesions apparent on brain MRI, and, most importantly of all, prevent-ing neurologic disability? Does our understand-ing of MS pathophysiology help support early treatment in MS and CIS?
(Adv Stud Med. 2008;8(8):257-265)
M
ultiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory demyelinating dis-ease of the central nervous sys-tem (CNS) and is the most common cause of neurologic dis-ability in young adults.1The initial clinical presenta-tion suggestive of relapsing MS is termed the “clinically isolated syndrome” (CIS). CIS is a neuro-logic episode caused by inflammation in 1 or more sites within the CNS and lasting at least 24 hours.2 Diagnosing MS as early as possible is important because the use of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) early in the course of the disease may sig-nificantly slow disease progression.3-5DIAGNOSTICCRITERIA FORMS
Before the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), diagnostic criteria for MS relied exclusively on clinical features.6 Clinically definite MS was defined by 2 or more relapses, separated by at least 1 month, or a slow, stepwise progressive disease for at least 6 months with documented neurologic signs in more than 1 area of the CNS, thereby defining dissemina-tion of the disease in both space and time.
CLINICALLY ISOLATED SYNDROME: EVALUATION, RISK STRATIFICATION,
AND TREATMENT DECISIONS
*—
Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, MCR,†and Timothy L. Vollmer, MD‡
*Based on proceedings from a Multisite Think Tank held in September 2007.
†Assistant Professor of Neurology, Multiple Sclerosis Center at UCSF, Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
‡Professor of Neurology, Co-Director Rocky Mountain Center for MS Care and Research, Department of Neurology, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Aurora, Colorado.
Address correspondence to: Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, MCR, Multiple Sclerosis Center at UCSF, 400 Parnassus Avenue, Eighth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94143.
Community neurologists recognize the importance of the baseline MRI in CIS. In fact, in an informal sur-vey of community neurologists (N = 43), all agreed that baseline MRIs are necessary during the evaluation of a patient with a CIS. Ninety-eight percent of neu-rologists suggested that baseline MRI data are very important in counseling patients with CIS about the need to start treatment with DMTs early in the course of disease. Only 2% considered baseline MRIs “some-what important.” Also, when it came to counseling patients with CIS on the risk of subsequent attacks, 91% of respondents (N = 44) considered baseline MRI information very important, whereas 9% considered this information somewhat important (Think Tank ARS Data).
Indeed, MRI has revolutionized the diagnosis and management of MS. Although characteristic abnormali-ties are found in 95% of patients with MS, the diagno-sis of MS is complicated by the fact that no single clinical feature or diagnostic test is sufficient for the definitive diagnosis of MS and there are several diseases that can mimic MS.7Two studies performed early in the history of the clinical use of MRI demonstrated the relationship between CNS lesions on MRI and MS. A study of patients with isolated optic neuritis (ON) revealed a pat-tern of clinically silent lesions on MRI that were similar in appearance, extent, and location to lesions seen in patients with MS.8Another study found that brain stem or spinal cord lesions identified by MRI in patients pre-senting with their first clinical relapse heralded further attacks consistent with MS.9
An international panel of MS experts was con-vened in 2001 to apply an evidence-based approach for developing diagnostic criteria for MS that incorpo-rated findings on brain MRI.10To establish a diagnosis of MS, there must be evidence of at least 2 lesions that meet specific diagnostic requirements, disseminated anatomically in space and in time over at least a 30-day period.10Certain MRI findings are highly suggestive of MS (Table 1) even before a patient demonstrates dis-semination in time.10-12
The International Panel on the Diagnosis of MS reconvened several years later to update the criteria in order to incorporate new evidence and revise several concepts. They decided that the evidence for dissemi-nation of lesions in time might be more important than that of space.13 MRI criteria now specified that
days of the initial clinical event may be used to reach the diagnostic criteria of “dissemination in time.” The radio-graphic appearance of an MS spinal cord lesion was spec-ified—a lesion must be at least 3 mm in size but less than 2 vertebral segments in length, while occupying only a part of the spinal cord in cross section.
Recently, the revised criteria were used to evaluate patients with CIS who were classified as “multifocal” on the basis of clinical evaluation and MRI. These patients were more likely to fulfill MRI criteria for dis-semination in space to reach a diagnosis of clinically definitive MS (CDMS) when compared with patients who had a monofocal CIS presentation.14 Another study compared the original International Panel Criteria with the modified version and concluded that for patients with CIS, the revised criteria were more accurate (86% vs 73%) and sensitive (77% vs 46%) in predicting the development of CDMS.15
DIFFERENTIALDIAGNOSIS
The International Panel Criteria emphasize the importance of a differential diagnosis and assert that its use reduces the risk of an incorrect diagnosis because the criteria are based on the specificity of MS-like lesions, which are less MS-likely to occur in conditions that mimic MS. However, several neurologic condi-tions can mimic the initial clinical presentacondi-tions of MS, potentially making diagnosis in this setting more challenging (Table 2).
The possibility of an alternative diagnosis should be considered when patients are younger than 15 years, or alternatively, older than 60 years. Other
fac-Table 1. MRI Criteria for Brain Abnormality A diagnosis of MS is made if 3 of the 4 following criteria are met:
1. One Gd-enhancing lesion or 9 T2-hyperintense lesions if there is no Gd-enhancing lesion
2. At least 1 infratentorial lesion 3. At least 1 juxtacortical lesion 4. At least 3 periventricular lesions
Note: One spinal cord lesion may be substituted for 1 brain lesion. Gd = gadolinium; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; MS = multiple sclerosis. Data from McDonald et al10; Barkhof et al11; and Tintore et al.12
tors that point away from a diagnosis of MS are symp-toms that locate exclusively to the posterior fossa, craniocervical junction, or spinal cord. Also, although approximately 10% of cases of MS are progressive from onset (primary progressive MS), immediate pro-gression is often a sign that points away from a defin-itive diagnosis of MS. Furthermore, if patients have not experienced visual, sensory, or bladder symptoms, an alternative diagnosis should be considered. And, finally, atypical or normal laboratory findings, on MRI, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and evoked potentials (EPs), may suggest that the patient does not have MS.7 When attempting to differentiate between possible MS and other neurologic diseases with similar clinical manifestations, clinicians should look for distinguish-ing clinical, radiologic, prognostic, pathologic, and therapeutic features, in addition to serum biomarkers for other diseases.
WHICHPATIENTS WITHCIS ARE ATGREATESTRISK FOR ASECONDATTACK?
The baseline MRI is the most powerful prognostic tool clinically available. In general, at the time of CIS, patients with brain MRI scans revealing either T2 or
gadolinium diethylenetriamine-pentaacid (Gd-DTPA)-enhancing lesions are at greater risk for having a second clinical attack diagnostic of MS.9,11Patients can be sepa-rated into low-, medium-, and high-risk groups for expe-riencing a second attack depending on the number of brain MRI lesions present at the time of CIS presenta-tion.16 In contrast, a normal baseline MRI scan is a strong prognostic factor against the development of fur-ther attacks, although this is not always the case.17
Several clinical trials provided a framework for identifying prognosticating factors for the conversion from CIS to CDMS. The treatment trials had similar-ities and differences; note that the patients were of approximately the same age range and all presented with a CIS (Table 3).3,4,18
The ONTT (Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial) con-cluded that the 10-year risk of developing MS after an episode of ON was significantly higher if even a single lesion was seen on MRI.18However, increased numbers of MRI lesions were not shown to significantly increase the risk of further attacks. In the ONTT, a lower risk of MS was noted in patients with acute ON associated with male gender, optic disk swelling, no lesions on MRI, as well as features atypical for ON, such as no light perception vision, absence of pain, and ophthal-moscopic findings of severe optic disk edema, retinal exudates, or hemorrhages. These last features likely indi-cate that the ON in said patients was not a result of MS, but of another ophthalmologic condition.
The CHAMPS (Controlled High Risk Subjects Avonex MS Prevention) study group analyzed 190 patients with CIS in the placebo arm with abnormal baseline brain MRIs consistent with demyelination to evaluate the predictive value of existing MS diagnostic criteria.19The primary end point was the occurrence of a second clinical attack by 18 months. Two secondary MRI end points were also used: CDMS/MRI1(either CDMS or >1 new or enlarging T2 lesion over 18 months) and CDMS/MRI2(either CDMS or ≥1 new or enlarging T2 lesions over 18 months).
At 18 months, 27% of all subjects had developed CDMS, and 52% of patients who had 2 or more Gd-enhancing lesions at baseline had developed CDMS, compared with only 24% of patients with fewer than 2 Gd-enhancing lesions. The presence of enhancing lesions on the baseline scan was the single best predic-tor of which patients ended up developing CDMS during the study period. With respect to secondary end points, results were again most pronounced in Table 2. Conditions That May Be Confused with MS
• Vascular: vasculitis causing multifocal areas of cerebral ischemia or infarction, spinal dural arteriovenous malforma-tions causing progressive paraparesis
• Infectious: Lyme disease, syphilis and HTLV-1, and Bartonella henselae
• Tumors: paraneoplastic disorders causing cerebellar ataxia and limbic encephalitis
• Autoimmune: collagen vascular diseases, such as systemic lupus erythematosus, antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, and Sjögren’s syndrome
• Metabolic: adult-onset leukodystrophies, such as adreno-myeloneuropathy
• Idiopathic: demyelinating diseases that can be monophasic, including acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, neuromyelitis optica, and acute transverse myelitis
• Nutritional: vitamin B12deficiency
• Sarcoidosis
baseline. By 18 months, 92% of these patients had reached the CDMS/MRI1 end point, and 96% had reached the CDMS/MRI2end point.
Among patients with 4 or more large T2 lesions, 87% developed the CDMS/MRI1outcome and 97% developed the CDMS/MRI2 outcome. Likewise, among patients with 2 or more juxtacortical lesions,
reached the CDMS/MRI2outcome. PRESENTATIONEFFECTSPROGNOSIS
A cohort study of over 2000 patients in France classified patients with MS based on initial symp-toms.20 Isolated ON was the initial presentation in
Table 3. Comparison of Patient Cohorts Across 3 Trials on Patients with Early MS/CIS
ONTT CHAMPS Study ETOMS
Inclusion Criteria
Age range, yr 18–46 18–50 18–40
Diagnosis Acute unilateral optic neuritis with First isolated, well-defined neurologic event, Clinical syndrome indicating unifocal or visual symptoms of ≤8 days such as unilateral optic neuritis, incomplete multifocal involvement of the CNS
transverse myelitis, or brain stem or with neurologic episode suggesting MS cerebellar syndrome, confirmed by in the previous 3 months
examination
Imaging – Presence of ≥2 clinically silent lesions of “Positive” MRI: presence of at least the brain of at least 3-mm diameter on 4 white-matter lesions on T2-weighted MRI (with at least 1 lesion periventricular scan or 3 lesions if at least 1 was or ovoid) infratentorial or enhancing after
Gd-DTPA injection
Steroids – Onset no more than 14 days prior to IV Steroid treatment for “moderate” steroid therapy started or “severe” exacerbations—EDSS of ≥3 in
1 functional system or score of 2 in 3 functional systems
Exclusion criteria – Prior neurologic or visual event lasting Prior immunosuppressive or immuno->48 hours modulatory treatment, participation in
any experimental procedure during the year prior to the study, other serious intercurrent systemic or psychiatric illness, pregnancy, or unwillingness to use reliable methods of contraception during the study
Treatment Randomized to receive either: All patients received 1 g of methyl- Randomized to receive either: protocol a) a single course of IV methyl- prednisolone/day IV x 3 days, a) 22 µg IFNβ-1a
prednisolone followed by oral followed by 1 mg/kg of prednisone or prednisone by body weight/day orally x 11 days b) placebo
or and 4-day period of tapering from injection once weekly for 2 years b) oral prednisone alone 20 mg, 10 mg, 0 mg, and 10 mg.
or Then randomized to:
c) oral placebo a) 30 µg IFNβ-1a weekly IM injection or
b) placebo weekly IM injection
CHAMPS = Controlled High Risk Avonex MS Prevention; CIS = clinically isolated syndrome; CNS = central nervous system; EDSS = Expanded Disability Status Scale; ETOMS = Early Treatment of MS Study; Gd-DTPA = gadolinium diethylenetriamine-pentaacid; IFN = interferon; IM = intramuscular; IV = intravenous; MRI = magnet-ic resonance imaging; MS = multiple sclerosis; ONTT = Optmagnet-ic Neuritis Treatment Trial.
18% of patients, whereas 9% presented with brain stem dysfunction; 52% presented with isolated corti-cospinal tract dysfunction, and 21% presented with a combination of symptoms. Disability progression as measured by the Disability Status Scale (DSS)21 was correlated with the initial presenting symptoms. The DSS score ranges from 0, indicating no neurologic abnormality, to 10, meaning death from MS. Three benchmark scores used were: 4, limited walking but without an aid; 6, walking with a cane; and 7, essen-tially wheelchair bound. Patients who iniessen-tially present-ed with isolatpresent-ed ON had the longest time from onset of symptoms to reach a DSS of 4, at 14.1 years, where-as patients with initial brain stem dysfunction reached the same status at a median of 10.5 years, and those with corticospinal tract dysfunction showed the most rapid deterioration with a DSS of 4 reached at a medi-an 6 years.
Another study conducted on patients with CIS (presenting with ON, brain stem/cerebellar syndrome, spinal cord syndrome, hemimotor or hemisensory syn-drome, or who were multisymptomatic) assessed the relationship between MRI lesions and transition to CDMS.22This study found that 2 or more infratento-rial lesions were the best predictors of long-term dis-ability in this cohort. Gd-enhancing and hypointense T1-weighted lesions did not have a prognostic value in these patients.
A study from Queens Square in the United Kingdom concluded that patients who presented with CIS, who then subsequently had increased lesion vol-ume on MRI, had corresponding increased degrees of long-term disability from MS.17 A 14-year controlled, longitudinal study of 57 subjects (28 with CDMS and 29 controls) study found that early, rather than later, focal lesion accumulation predicts development of brain atrophy and correlates with long-term disability.23 PARACLINICALMEASURES INCIS ANDMS
In addition to MRI data, CSF analysis and EP test-ing are paraclinical indicators used to confirm the diagnosis of MS.24These studies are particularly help-ful in clarifying the diagnosis when MRI findings are nonspecific or unusual.10
In direct contrast to the certainty about the role of MRI data, surveyed neurologists (N = 46) were less cer-tain about whether abnormal EP test results are helpful in predicting a second demyelinating event. Data
showed that 43.5% of respondents found abnormal EPs predictive, 20% did not, and 37% said that they were unsure about the predictive potential of abnormal EP results. CSF analysis was favored by the majority of sur-veyed neurologists (N = 46) when they were asked if they consider the presence of oligoclonal bands in the CNS of patients with ON predictive of MS. Although 15% were unsure about the predictive value of oligo-clonal bands in patients with ON, 78% responded that their presence does have predictive value, and only 6.5% suggested that there was absolutely no predictive value (Think Tank ARS Data).
Evoked potential testing evaluates the function of afferent or efferent CNS pathways using computer averaging to measure CNS electrical potentials evoked by repetitive stimulation of selected peripheral or optic nerves. Fifty percent to 70% of patients with MS have abnormal results when evaluated.25 It is important to note, however, that with regards to patients with CIS, one study showed no statistically significant differ-ences on visual EP, brain stem auditory EP, and somatosensory EP testing between patients who did or did not convert to CDMS.26
Cerebrospinal fluid analysis can enhance the diag-nostic process by providing additional insight into the inflammatory and immunologic disturbances that may represent MS. The most common CSF abnor-malities found in patients with MS include mononu-clear cell leukocytosis and an increased level of intrathecally synthesized immunoglobulin (Ig) G in the form of oligoclonal bands.7The utility of checking for CSF abnormalities in helping to establish a clinical diagnosis of MS was supported by a study following 86 patients with ON for a median of nearly 13 years.27 At onset of ON, CSF pleocytosis and oligoclonal IgG were measured. Abnormal CSF, along with a younger age at onset and early recurrence of ON, correlated with the development of CDMS. Another study found an even stronger correlation between abnormal IgG levels in the CSF relative to abnormal MRI in pre-dicting the conversion of patients from CIS to CDMS.28 Indeed, intrathecal synthesis of oligoclonal bands correlates closely with MS. Although the intrathecal synthesis of oligoclonal bands was detectable in only 68% of patients with possible onset symptoms of MS, it was detected in 96% of patients with CDMS.29The predictive value of abnormal CSF was also observed in an observational cohort that fol-lowed patients for up to 30 years after an initial attack
of MS increased significantly when oligoclonal IgG bands or a mononuclear pleocytosis were present in the CSF at onset of ON.30
A new version of CSF analysis—intrathecal syn-thesis of oligoclonal IgG band (OCGB)—was shown to have greater sensitivity and specificity compared with older CSF analytical methodologies. The sensi-tivity for OCGBs in the diagnosis of MS was 96.2% and the specificity was 92.5%.31OCGB increases the positive predictive power of MRI. In one study, a group of 52 patients underwent OCGB assessment and was followed for up to 6 years. Ninety-seven per-cent of OCGB-positive patients with CIS and 15.8% of OCGB-negative patients experienced a second clin-ical attack.32Detection of OCGB in the CSF yielded a sensitivity of 91.4% and specificity of 94.1% for a sec-ond clinical attack. Combining OCGB testing and MRI during CIS was very sensitive and moderately specific with regard to predicting a second attack with-in 6 years. These sensitivity and specificities clearly rival results seen with MRI and prove that CSF stud-ies continue to be an important instrument for diag-nosing MS.
BIOMARKERS INCIS
The utility of biomarkers for predicting disease progression following CIS is intriguing. One study found that the presence of IgM antibodies directed at myelin basic protein and myelin oligodendroglial pro-tein at the time of CIS were predictive of a second clin-ical attack diagnostic of MS.33 Unfortunately, the utility of this technique is uncertain. A subsequent study from a large clinical trial was unable to replicate this observation,34 whereas a smaller study also found predictive value of these antimyelin autoantibodies.35 These studies used different techniques and to some extent different patient populations. Thus serologic study of antimyelin antibodies may one day become clinically useful.
In the case of neuromyelitis optica (NMO), a CNS demyelinating disease characterized by severe attacks of ON and longitudinally extensive transverse myelitis, a recently developed biomarker can be very useful clinically in distinguishing NMO from typical MS.36,37 This biomarker is an autoantibody directed against aquaporin 4,38 a water channel ubiquitously expressed throughout the CNS that regulates flow of
in capillaries and the podocytes of astroglial cells. The presence of this NMO-IgG antibody in patients who suffer from the first attack of longitudinally extensive myelitis is highly predictive of further attacks.39 ISTHEREMORE TOCIS THAN THEISOLATED LESION? COGNITIVE ANDULTRASTRUCTURAL CHANGES INCIS ANDEARLYMS
A group of patients with “clinically isolated lesions” (ie, a single neurologic deficit) was given a series of neuropsychiatric tests that identified cognitive impair-ments in the absence of other manifestations of brain pathology, such as physical impairments. The main neurocognitive deficit was that of attention deficit, which was related to the duration of neurologic symp-toms and the overall extent of brain pathology as seen on MRI.40
A more recent study revealed a close relationship between cortical atrophy and cognitive impairment in patients with relapsing-remitting MS.41 Similar find-ings were found in a study of patients in the early phase of relapsing-remitting MS, which determined that cog-nitive impairments noted on neuropsychologic testing were related to loss of brain parenchymal volume more than the extent of brain lesions.42This atrophy of brain tissue may be related to early axonal loss, supporting the arguments for early use of DMTs in MS.
The limitations of conventional MRI were identified in a study by Filippi et al, which revealed that normal-appearing brain tissue (NABT) in fact has changes asso-ciated with cognitive deficits in patients with MS. The ultrastructural and functional changes in NABT can be revealed by magnetization transfer histogram analysis.43 TREATMENT OFCIS ANDEARLYMS
Axonal transection occurs extensively in actively demyelinating lesions, and therefore irreversible neuro-logic injury is presumed to begin to occur early in the MS disease process. In an autopsy series of 11 patients with MS, axonal transection was much more abundant in active than in chronic lesions.44 Some have argued that early intervention with anti-inflammatory MS treatments is justified because axonal transection is irre-versible and most abundant in areas of active inflamma-tion. Most treating clinicians agree with this approach. Of surveyed community neurologists (N = 40), 72.5%
cite axonal injury as the cause of disability, compared with 22.5% who feel that demyelination is the patho-logic culprit, and 5% who blame oligodendroglial apop-tosis (Think Tank ARS Data). It is proposed that by reducing the inflammatory response in the brains of patients with CIS and MS, the long-term consequences of this disease may be prevented.
The interferon (IFN) drugs exert an anti-inflam-matory effect, which can have a positive impact on patients with MS during the early stages of the disease. Several randomized controlled clinical trials demon-strated improved outcomes for patients with CIS who start therapy with DMTs early in the course of disease.
The ETOMS (Early Treatment of MS) study was designed to study the effect of 22 µg subcutaneous IFNβ-1a on the occurrence of relapses in patients who have presented with CIS and are at high risk for sec-ond attacks based on the presence of brain MRI lesions.3 In this 2-year, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, 154 of 309 patients were ran-domized to treatment with once-weekly subcutaneous IFNβ-1a 22 µg. Two hundred and seventy-eight of the patients completed the study. The primary outcome measure was conversion to CDMS, as defined by a sec-ond neurologic exacerbation. Brain MRI was performed at 12 and 24 months. The ETOMS study found several benefits of early treatment with IFNβ-1a including: (1) a reduction in conversion to CDMS from CIS; (2) the time to conversion to CDMS by 30% of the cohort was delayed by a factor of more than 2 when compared to the placebo group; (3) a lower annual relapse rate in patients with MS; and (4) fewer new T2-weighted MRI lesions and overall lesion burden on MRI. It should be noted that despite these differences, the vast majority of patients in both groups had evidence of MRI conversion based on the appearance of at least 1 new lesion that was at least 10 mm in diameter or 3 new lesions that were less than 10 mm in diameter, indicating that the underlying pathologic process continued.
The CHAMPS study group also validated the bene-fits of initiating treatment with IFNβ-1a at the time of a first demyelinating event in patients with brain lesions on MRI suspicious for CDMS.4In addition to the resultant lower rate in the development of CDMS, patients on IFN had fewer new or enlarging lesions, fewer Gd-DTPA–enhancing lesions, and a relative reduction in the volume of brain lesions on MRI compared to the patients in the control group. Over a 3-year period, the rate of development of CDMS from CIS was reduced by 42%.
A follow-up study, coined CHAMPIONS (Controlled High Risk Avonex MS Prevention Study in Ongoing Neurologic Surveillance), noted that the development of CDMS continued to remain reduced in patients with CIS 5 years after first event.45A statis-tically significant benefit was seen among patients who started early IFN treatment (within 1 month of the first clinical demyelinating event) compared to those who started treatment at a median of 2.5 years after the first neurologic event.
The BENEFIT (Betaferon in Newly Emerging MS for Initial Treatment) trial was designed to study the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of IFNβ-1b (250 µg subcutaneous) administered every other day in high-risk patients who had presented with CIS suggestive of MS and had at least 2 clinically silent T2 lesions.5 A total of 437 patients between the ages of 18 and 45 were enrolled in this 2-year double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel-group trial.
In the IFNβ-1b-treated group, the risk for a second clinical attack was reduced by 50% (hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5; 0.36–0.7,
P <.0001) and for developing MS based on the
International Panel Criteria by 46% (hazard ratio with 95% CI, 0.54; 0.43–0.67, P <.00001). The probabili-ty of reaching MS, according to the International Panel Criteria, was 51% for placebo-treated patients and 28% for IFNβ-1b–treated patients. Within 2 years, these probabilities adjusted upward to 85% and 69%, respectively (P <.00001). IFNβ-1b also prevent-ed the development of new inflammatory T2 lesions and decreased the volume of existing hyperintense T2 lesions, suggesting regression of inflammation.
Even more importantly, a 40% reduction in dis-ability was demonstrated in those subjects who were treated with IFNβ-1b from disease onset compared to those who either did not receive treatment with IFNβ-1b or who had a second clinical or radiographic event and received subsequent treatment for conversion to MS. This important observation showed for the first time that early treatment in CIS with IFN was associ-ated with a reduction in neurologic disability and clearly justifies treatment from disease onset.46
Similar results have recently been reported in a study of treatment with glatiramer acetate (GA) in patients with CIS. In the PRECISE Study, 481 patients with CIS were randomized to treatment with GA or placebo. After 3 years of treatment, the GA-treated patients showed significant decreases in T2,
compared to placebo. Also, treatment with GA sub-stantially reduced the risk of conversion to CDMS with an odds ratio of 0.41 (P <.0001).47
When community neurologists (N = 42) were asked what they thought about treatment with IFNβ after the first demyelinating event, 86% responded that treatment prolongs the time to a second attack, slows progression to confirmed disability, and reduces the burden of disease in T2 MRI. The remaining 14% of respondents felt that it accomplished some, but not all, of these things. Not one respondent suggested that early IFNβ treatment was not helpful in modifying disease progression or manifestation of early disease (Think Tank ARS Data).
CONCLUSIONS
Available clinical evidence showed that the risk of further attacks in patients with CIS and a positive baseline MRI increases over time to as high as 89%, compared with only an 11% risk in patients with a normal baseline MRI.17Many indicators suggest that what happens early in the course of the disease influ-ences outcomes over the long term. Arguments for not initiating early therapy are based on the idea that not all patients progress to CDMS; however, baseline MRI criteria can provide prognostic insight to sup-port treatment decisions.3The vast majority of com-munity neurologists believe that baseline MRI data in patients with CIS are critical for counseling patients about short- and longer-term outcomes, as well as the decision to initiate therapy with DMTs (Think Tank ARS Data). This widespread consensus is underscored by strong evidence that shows that treatment with IFNβ or GA reduces the risk of fur-ther attacks, lowers MRI disease burden, and slows progression of neurologic disability.
REFERENCES
1. Sadovnick AD, Ebers GC. Epidemiology of multiple sclerosis: a critical overview. Can J Neurol Sci. 1993;20:17-29. 2. Clinically Isolated Syndrome (CIS). The National MS Society
Web Site. Available at: http://main.nationalmssociety.org/ site/PageServer?pagename=HOM_LIB_sourcebook_cis. Accessed March 2, 2008.
3. Comi G, Filippi M, Barkhof F, et al. Effect of early interferon treatment on conversion to definite multiple sclerosis: a ran-domized study. Lancet. 2001;357:1576-1582.
on beta-1a therapy initiated during a first demyelinating even in multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:898-904. 5. Kappos L, Polman CH, Freedman MS, et al. Treatment with
interferon beta-1b delays conversion to clinically definite and McDonald MS in patients with clinically isolated syndromes.
Neurology. 2006;67:1242-1249.
6. Poser CM, Paty DW, Scheinberg L, et al. New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines for research proto-cols. Ann Neurol. 1983;13:227-231.
7. Hauser SL, Goodin DS. Multiple sclerosis and other demyeli-nating disorders. In: Kasper DL, Braunwald E, Hauser SL, et al, eds. Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine. 16th ed. Vol 2. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Medical Publishing; 2005:2461-2471.
8. Jacobs L, Kinkel PR, Kinkel WR. Silent brain lesions in patients with isolated idiopathic optic neuritis. A clinical and nuclear magnetic resonance imaging study. Arch Neurol. 1986;43:452-455.
9. Miller DH, Ormerod IE, Rudge P, et al. The early risk of mul-tiple sclerosis following isolated acute syndromes of the brain-stem and spinal cord. Ann Neurol. 1989;26:635-639. 10. McDonald WI, Compston A, Edan G, et al. Recommended
diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from the International Panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Ann
Neurol. 2001;50:121-127.
11. Barkhof F, Filippi M, Miller DH, et al. Comparison of MR imag-ing criteria at first presentation to predict conversion to clinically definite multiple sclerosis. Brain. 1997;120:2059-2069. 12. Tintore M, Rovira A, Martinez M, et al. Isolated
demyelinat-ing syndromes: comparison of different MR imagdemyelinat-ing criteria to predict conversion to clinically definite multiple sclerosis.
Am J Neuroradiol. 2000;21:702-706.
13. Polman CH, Reingold SC, Edan G, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald Criteria.” Ann Neurol. 2005;58:840-846.
14. Nielsen JM, Moraal B, Polman CH, et al. Classification of patients with a clinically isolated syndrome based on signs and symptoms is supported by magnetic resonance imaging results. Mult Scler. 2007;13:717-721.
15. Swanton JK, Fernando K, Dalton CM, et al. Modification of MRI criteria for multiple sclerosis in patients with clinically iso-lated syndromes. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. 2006;77:830-833.
16. Tintore M, Rovira A, Rio J, et al. Baseline MRI predicts future attacks and disability in clinically isolated syndromes.
Neurology. 2006;67:968-972.
17. Brex PA, Ciccarelli O, O’Riordan JI, et al. A longitudinal study of abnormalities on MRI and disability from multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:158-164.
18. Beck RW, Trobe JD, Moke PS, et al. High- and low-risk pro-files for the development of multiple sclerosis within 10 years after optic neuritis: experience of the optic neuritis treatment trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:944-949.
19. CHAMPS Study Group. MRI predictors of early conversion to clinically definite MS in the CHAMPS placebo group.
Neurology. 2002;59:998-1005.
20. Confavreux C, Vukusic S, Adeleine P. Early clinical predictors and progression of irreversible disability in multiple sclerosis: an amnesic process. Brain. 2003;126:770-782.
21. Kurtzke JF. Neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis and the disability status scale. Acta Neurol Scand. 1970; 46:493-512.
22. Minneboo A, Barkhof F, Polman CH, et al. Infratentorial lesions predict long-term disability in patients with initial find-ings suggestive of multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol. 2004; 61:217-221.
23. Chard DT, Brex PA, Ciccarelli O, et al. The longitudinal rela-tion between brain lesion load and atrophy in multiple scle-rosis: a 14 year follow-up study. J Neurol Neurosurg
Psychiatr. 2003;74:1551-1554.
24. Ghezzi A, Martinell V, Torni V, et al. Long-term follow-up of isolated optic neuritis: the risk of developing multiple sclero-sis, its outcome, and the prognostic role of paraclinical tests.
J Neurol. 1999;246:770-775.
25. Fuhr P, Kappos L. Evoked potentials for evaluation of multiple sclerosis. Clin Neurophysiol. 2001;112:2185-2189. 26. Sastre-Garriga J, Tintore M, Rovira A, et al. Conversion to
multiple sclerosis after a clinically isolated syndrome of the brainstem: cranial magnetic resonance imaging, cere-brospinal fluid and neurophysiological findings. Mult Scler. 2003;9:39-43.
27. Sandberg-Wollheim M, Bynke H, Cronqvist S, et al. A long-term prospective study of optic neuritis: evaluation of risk fac-tors. Ann Neurol. 1990;27:386-393.
28. Jacobs LD, Kaba SE, Miller CM, et al. Correlation of clinical, magnetic resonance imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid find-ings in optic neuritis. Ann Neurol. 1997;41:392-398. 29. Sellebjeerg F, Jensen CV, Christansen M. Intrathecal IgG
syn-thesis and autoantibody-secreting cells in multiple sclerosis.
J Neuroimmunol. 2000;108:207-215.
30. Nilsson P, Larsson EM, Maly-Sundgren P, et al. Predicting the outcome of optic neuritis: evaluation of risk factors after 30 years of follow-up. J Neurol. 2005;252:396-401. 31. Villar LM, Masjuan J, Sadaba MC, et al. Early differential
diagnosis of multiple sclerosis using a new oligoclonal band test. Arch Neurol. 2005;62:574-577.
32. Masjuan J, Alvarez-Cermeno JC, Garcia-Barragan N, et al. A new oligoclonal band test accurately predicts conversion to MS. Neurology. 2006;66:576-578.
33. Berger T, Rubner P, Schautzer F, et al. Antimyelin antibodies as a predictor of clinically definite multiple sclerosis after a first demyelinating event. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:139-145. 34. Kuhle J, Pohl C, Mehling M, et al. Lack of association
between antimyelin antibodies and progression to multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:371-378.
35. Tomassini V, De Giglio L, Reindl M, et al. Anti-myelin anti-bodies predict the clinical outcome after a first episode of
suggestive MS. Mult Scler. 2007;13:1086-1094. 36. Lennon VA, Wingerchuk DM, Kryzer TJ, et al. A serum
anti-body marker of neuromyelitis optica: distinction from multiple sclerosis. Lancet. 2004;364:2106-2112.
37. Wingerchuk D, Lennon VA, Pittock SJ, et al. Revised diag-nostic criteria for neuromyelitis optica. Neurology. 2006;66:1485-1489.
38. Lennon VA, Kryzer TJ, Pittock SJ, et al. IgG marker of optic-spinal multiple sclerosis binds to the aquaporin-4 water chan-nel. J Exp Med. 2005;202:473-477.
39. Weinshenker BG, Wingerchuk DM, Vukusic S, et al. Neuromyelitis optica IgG predicts relapse after longitudinally extensive transverse myelitis. Ann Neurol. 2006;59:566-569. 40. Callanan MM, Logsdail SJ, Ron MA, et al. Cognitive impair-ment in patients with clinically isolated lesions of the type seen in multiple sclerosis, a psychometric and MRI study.
Brain. 1989;112:361-374.
41. Morgen K, Sammer G, Courtney SM, et al. Evidence for a direct association between cortical atrophy and cognitive impairment in relapsing-remitting MS. NeuroImage. 2006;30:891-898.
42. Zivadinov R, Sepcic J, Nasuelli D, et al. A longitudinal study of brain atrophy and cognitive disturbances in the early phase of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Neurol
Neurosurg Psychiatr. 2001;70:773-780.
43. Filippi M, Tortorella C, Rovaris M, et al. Changes in the nor-mal appearing brain tissue and cognitive impairment in mul-tiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. 2000;68:157-161.
44. Trapp BD, Peterson J, Ransohoff RM, et al. Axonal transection in the lesions of multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 1998; 338:278-285.
45. Kinkel RP, Kollman C, O’Connor P, et al. IM interferon beta-1a delays definite multiple sclerosis 5 years after a first demyelinating event. Neurology. 2006;66:678-684. 46. Kappos L, Freedman MS, Polman CH, et al. Effect of early
versus delayed interferon beta-1b treatment on disability after a first clinical event suggestive of multiple sclerosis: a 3-year follow-up analysis of the BENEFIT study. Lancet. 2007;370:389-397.
47. Comi G, Filippi M. Treatment with glatiramer acetate delays conversion to clinically definite multiple sclerosis (CDMS) in patients with clinically isolated syndromes (CIS). Presented at: Annual Scientific Meeting, American Academy of Neurology; April 12-19, 2008; Chicago, IL. Abstract LBS.003.
