MRI versus relapse: optimal activity monitoring for management of progressive multiple sclerosis

3Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Secondary progressive multiple sclerosis is often categorized as ‘active’/‘non-active’ based on inflammatory activity on MRI, or relapse; however, the value of MRI/relapse as indicators of disease activity in real-world and clinical trial settings merits further investigation. We separately analysed retrospective data from patients with clinically diagnosed secondary progressive multiple sclerosis in the Adelphi Real-World Disease Specific Programme (a cross-sectional survey) in multiple sclerosis (Adelphi: n = 2554) and the placebo group of the Phase III EXploring the efficacy and safety of siponimod in PAtients with secoNDary progressive multiple sclerosis (EXPAND) trial, [EXPAND-PBO (placebo group of the EXPAND): n = 546] to assess: differences between active/non-active disease in the real-world (characteristics; monitoring); the value of MRI and relapse to indicate disease activity; and the number and characteristics of non-active patients with disease activity in the clinical study. In Adelphi, 1889 patients had ‘active’ disease (≥1 relapse in the year before index date and/or ≥1 new lesion on most recent MRI) versus 665 with ‘non-active’ disease (no relapses in the previous year and no new lesions on MRI); median age was 48 versus 53 years; 73.5 versus 87.8% had moderate-to-severe disease; 75.7 versus 54.3% were taking disease-modifying treatment; 87.7 versus 58.7% had received an MRI in the past year. Most active cases (n = 1116; 59.1%) were identified by MRI versus 239 (12.7%) by relapse and 534 (28.3%) by MRI plus relapse. In EXPAND-PBO, 263 patients were classified ‘active’ (≥1 relapse in 2 years before screening and/or ≥1 gadolinium-enhancing lesion) and 270 ‘nonactive’ (no relapse in the 2 years before screening and no gadolinium-enhancing lesion[s]) at baseline; similar proportions of these groups had received disease-modifying treatment prior to placebo: 77.2 and 80.7%. Of non-active patients, 53.0% had disease activity on study; in these patients, 74.1% had disease activity identified by MRI, 8.4% by relapse, and 17.5% by MRI plus relapse. In patients classified non-active at baseline: age and percentage with Expanded Disability Status Scale score 6.0–6.5 were similar between patients with disease activity on study versus patients who remained non-active: 48 versus 52 years; 49.7 versus 56.7%, respectively. In real-world and clinical trial settings, MRI could be a better option than relapse for the identification of disease activity. However, in the real-world, fewer non-active patients had received an MRI in the last year than active patients, which is concerning given that most disease activity in EXPAND-PBO was identified via MRI. We highlight difficulties in consistently identifying disease activity and the negative implications of infrequent monitoring of non-active disease.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Giovannoni, G., Hetherington, S., Jones, E., Castro, P. D., Karu, H., Ansari, S., … Lines, C. (2025). MRI versus relapse: optimal activity monitoring for management of progressive multiple sclerosis. Brain Communications, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcaf010

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free