Advertisement

Defining Disease Activity and Response to Therapy in MS

  • Ulrike W. Kaunzner
  • Mais Al-Kawaz
  • Susan A. Gauthier
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders (P Villoslada, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders

Opinion statement

Disease activity in multiple sclerosis (MS) has classically been defined by the occurrence of new neurological symptoms and the rate of relapses. Definition of disease activity has become more refined with the use of clinical markers, evaluating ambulation, dexterity, and cognition. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become an important tool in the investigation of disease activity. Number of lesions as well as brain atrophy have been used as surrogate outcome markers in several clinical trials, for which a reduction in these measures is appreciated in most treatment studies. With the increasing availability of new medications, the overall goal is to minimize inflammation to decrease relapse rate and ultimately prevent long-term disability. The aim of this review is to give an overview on commonly used clinical and imaging markers to monitor disease activity in MS, with emphasis on their use in clinical studies, and to give a recommendation on how to utilize these measures in clinical practice for the appropriate assessment of therapeutic response.

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis NEDA MRI Lesion 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Mais Al-Kawaz declares no conflict of interest.

Ulrike W. Kaunzner received grant support from Biogen.

Susan A. Gauthier has current grant support from Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Mallinckrodt, and Genzyme.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Garg N, Smith TW. An update on immunopathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of multiple sclerosis. Brain Behav. 2015;5(9):e00362.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yadav SK, et al. Advances in the immunopathogenesis of multiple sclerosis. Curr Opin Neurol. 2015;28(3):206–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Confavreux C, Vukusic S. Natural history of multiple sclerosis: a unifying concept. Brain. 2006;129(Pt 3):606–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hutchinson M. Truly benign multiple sclerosis is rare: let's stop fooling ourselves—commentary. Mult Scler. 2012;18(1):15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hirst C, et al. Change in disability in patients with multiple sclerosis: a 20-year prospective population-based analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008;79(10):1137–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amato MP, Ponziani G. A prospective study on the prognosis of multiple sclerosis. Neurol Sci. 2000;21(4 Suppl 2):S831–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weinshenker BG. The natural history of multiple sclerosis. Neurol Clin. 1995;13(1):119–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983;33(11):1444–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rudick RA, et al. Significance of T2 lesions in multiple sclerosis: a 13-year longitudinal study. Ann Neurol. 2006;60(2):236–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meyer-Moock S, et al. Systematic literature review and validity evaluation of the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) and the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) in patients with multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurol. 2014;14:58.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rudick RA, et al. Disability progression in a clinical trial of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: eight-year follow-up. Arch Neurol. 2010;67(11):1329–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Naismith RT, et al. Rituximab add-on therapy for breakthrough relapsing multiple sclerosis: a 52-week phase II trial. Neurology. 2010;74(23):1860–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rudick RA, et al. Gray matter atrophy correlates with MS disability progression measured with MSFC but not EDSS. J Neurol Sci. 2009;282(1–2):106–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rudick RA, et al. Assessing disability progression with the multiple sclerosis functional composite. Mult Scler. 2009;15(8):984–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Larson RD, et al. Repeatability of the timed 25-foot walk test for individuals with multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil. 2013;27(8):719–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldman MD, et al. Clinically meaningful performance benchmarks in MS: timed 25-foot walk and the real world. Neurology. 2013;81(21):1856–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goldman MD, Marrie RA, Cohen JA. Evaluation of the six-minute walk in multiple sclerosis subjects and healthy controls. Mult Scler. 2008;14(3):383–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gijbels D, Eijnde BO, Feys P. Comparison of the 2- and 6-minute walk test in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2011;17(10):1269–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    •• Sormani MP, et al. Assessing response to interferon-beta in a multicenter dataset of patients with MS. Neurology. 2016;87(2):134–40. A pooled data set of 1280 RRMS patients on interferon therapy was analyzed. MRI activity, particularly in combination with clinical relapses within the first year, indicated significant risk of treatment failure and EDSS worsening.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cotton F, et al. MRI contrast uptake in new lesions in relapsing-remitting MS followed at weekly intervals. Neurology. 2003;60(4):640–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barkhof F. The clinico-radiological paradox in multiple sclerosis revisited. Curr Opin Neurol. 2002;15(3):239–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fisniku LK, et al. Gray matter atrophy is related to long-term disability in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 2008;64(3):247–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gauthier SA, et al. Predicting short-term disability in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2007;68(24):2059–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    O'Connor P, et al. Relapse rates and enhancing lesions in a phase II trial of natalizumab in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2005;11(5):568–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    O'Connor PW, et al. A phase II study of the safety and efficacy of teriflunomide in multiple sclerosis with relapses. Neurology. 2006;66(6):894–900.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kappos L, et al. Ocrelizumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a phase 2, randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011;378(9805):1779–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hauser SL, et al. B-cell depletion with rituximab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(7):676–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kappos L, et al. Oral fingolimod (FTY720) for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(11):1124–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    • Sormani MP, Bruzzi P. MRI lesions as a surrogate for relapses in multiple sclerosis: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet Neurol. 2013;12(7):669–76. Meta-analysis evaluating 31 randomized trials using MRI measures and suggesting the use of MRI markers as primary endpoints in future clinical trials.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sormani MP, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging as a potential surrogate for relapses in multiple sclerosis: a meta-analytic approach. Ann Neurol. 2009;65(3):268–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Simon JH, et al. A longitudinal study of T1 hypointense lesions in relapsing MS: MSCRG trial of interferon beta-1a. Multiple sclerosis collaborative research group. Neurology. 2000;55(2):185–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Prosperini L, et al. One-year MRI scan predicts clinical response to interferon beta in multiple sclerosis. Eur J Neurol. 2009;16(11):1202–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kinkel RP, et al. Early MRI activity predicts treatment nonresponse with intramuscular interferon beta-1a in clinically isolated syndrome. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2014;3(6):712–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pozzilli C, et al. Post-marketing survey on clinical response to interferon beta in relapsing multiple sclerosis: the Roman experience. Neurol Sci. 2005;26(Suppl 4):S174–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tomassini V, et al. Predictors of long-term clinical response to interferon beta therapy in relapsing multiple sclerosis. J Neurol. 2006;253(3):287–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rio J, et al. Measures in the first year of therapy predict the response to interferon beta in MS. Mult Scler. 2009;15(7):848–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Durelli L, et al. MRI activity and neutralising antibody as predictors of response to interferon beta treatment in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008;79(6):646–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dobson R, et al. Assessing treatment response to interferon-beta: is there a role for MRI? Neurology. 2014;82(3):248–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bermel RA, et al. Predictors of long-term outcome in multiple sclerosis patients treated with interferon beta. Ann Neurol. 2013;73(1):95–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rudick RA, et al. Defining interferon beta response status in multiple sclerosis patients. Ann Neurol. 2004;56(4):548–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zivadinov R, et al. Effect of glatiramer acetate three-times weekly on the evolution of new, active multiple sclerosis lesions into T1-hypointense "black holes": a post hoc magnetic resonance imaging analysis. J Neurol. 2015;262(3):648–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kutzelnigg A, Lassmann H. Pathology of multiple sclerosis and related inflammatory demyelinating diseases. Handb Clin Neurol. 2014;122:15–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tam RC, et al. The impact of intensity variations in T1-hypointense lesions on clinical correlations in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2011;17(8):949–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jacobsen C, et al. Brain atrophy and disability progression in multiple sclerosis patients: a 10-year follow-up study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2014;85(10):1109–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Filippi M, et al. Interferon beta-1b and glatiramer acetate effects on permanent black hole evolution. Neurology. 2011;76(14):1222–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dalton CM, et al. Effect of natalizumab on conversion of gadolinium enhancing lesions to T1 hypointense lesions in relapsing multiple sclerosis. J Neurol. 2004;251(4):407–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Filippi M, et al. Placebo-controlled trial of oral laquinimod in multiple sclerosis: MRI evidence of an effect on brain tissue damage. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2014;85(8):851–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vollmer T, et al. The natural history of brain volume loss among patients with multiple sclerosis: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. J Neurol Sci. 2015;357(1–2):8–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Vagberg M, et al. Automated determination of brain parenchymal fraction in multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34(3):498–504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    De Stefano N, et al. Establishing pathological cut-offs of brain atrophy rates in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2016;87(1):93–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Azevedo CJ, Pelletier D. Whole-brain atrophy: ready for implementation into clinical decision-making in multiple sclerosis? Curr Opin Neurol. 2016;29(3):237–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Chard DT, et al. Progressive grey matter atrophy in clinically early relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2004;10(4):387–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Chard D, Miller D. Grey matter pathology in clinically early multiple sclerosis: evidence from magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurol Sci. 2009;282(1–2):5–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Nourbakhsh B, et al. Longitudinal associations between brain structural changes and fatigue in early MS. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2016;5:29–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    • Zivadinov, R., et al., A serial 10-year follow-up study of brain atrophy and disability progression in RRMS patients. Mult Scler. 2016. Study investigating whole brain, white matter and gray matter atrophy, and their effect on clinical disability longitudinally.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Debernard L, et al. Deep grey matter MRI abnormalities and cognitive function in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Psychiatry Res. 2015;234(3):352–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wilting J, et al. Structural correlates for fatigue in early relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(2):515–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Marrie RA, et al. Association of fatigue and brain atrophy in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. 2005;228(2):161–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Calabrese M, et al. Exploring the origins of grey matter damage in multiple sclerosis. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2015;16(3):147–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rudick RA, et al. Use of the brain parenchymal fraction to measure whole brain atrophy in relapsing-remitting MS. Multiple Sclerosis Collaborative Research Group. Neurology. 1999;53(8):1698–704.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Chard DT, et al. Brain atrophy in clinically early relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2002;125(Pt 2):327–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Miller DH, et al. MRI outcomes in a placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab in relapsing MS. Neurology. 2007;68(17):1390–401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Arnold DL, et al. Magnetization transfer ratio in the delayed-release dimethyl fumarate DEFINE study. J Neurol. 2014;261(12):2429–37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Barkhof F, et al. The influence of patient demographics, disease characteristics and treatment on brain volume loss in trial assessing injectable interferon vs FTY720 oral in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (TRANSFORMS), a phase 3 study of fingolimod in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2014;20(13):1704–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Comi G, et al. Effect of glatiramer acetate on conversion to clinically definite multiple sclerosis in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (PreCISe study): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374(9700):1503–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Fisher E, et al. Eight-year follow-up study of brain atrophy in patients with MS. Neurology. 2002;59(9):1412–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Montalban X, et al. Ocrelizumab versus placebo in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(3):209–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Cohen JA, et al. Alemtuzumab versus interferon beta 1a as first-line treatment for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2012;380(9856):1819–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Zivadinov R, et al. Interferon beta-1a slows progression of brain atrophy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis predominantly by reducing gray matter atrophy. Mult Scler. 2007;13(4):490–501.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Arnold DL, et al. Effects of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate on MRI measures in the phase 3 DEFINE study. J Neurol. 2014;261(9):1794–802.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Sormani MP, De Stefano N. MRI measures should be a primary outcome endpoint in phase III randomized, controlled trials in multiple sclerosis: yes. Mult Scler. 2014;20(3):280–1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Radue EW, et al. Correlation between brain volume loss and clinical and MRI outcomes in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2015;84(8):784–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Rocca MA, et al. A three-year study of brain atrophy after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in rapidly evolving secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007;28(9):1659–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Atkins HL, et al. Immunoablation and autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation for aggressive multiple sclerosis: a multicentre single-group phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2016;388(10044):576–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Simon JH, et al. Standardized MR imaging protocol for multiple sclerosis: consortium of MS centers consensus guidelines. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27(2):455–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Rovira A, Auger C. Spinal cord in multiple sclerosis: magnetic resonance imaging features and differential diagnosis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2016;37(5):396–410.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    •• Rovira A, et al. Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis-clinical implementation in the diagnostic process. Nat Rev Neurol. 2015;11(8):471–82. MAGNIMS (Magnetic Resonance Imaging in MS) network's guidelines on the use of MRI, especially in regards to implementation of brain/spine MRI in the diagnosis of MS.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Okuda DT, et al. Asymptomatic spinal cord lesions predict disease progression in radiologically isolated syndrome. Neurology. 2011;76(8):686–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Trip SA, et al. Retinal nerve fiber layer axonal loss and visual dysfunction in optic neuritis. Ann Neurol. 2005;58(3):383–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Fisher JB, et al. Relation of visual function to retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in multiple sclerosis. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(2):324–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Talman LS, et al. Longitudinal study of vision and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 2010;67(6):749–60.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Suhs KW, et al. Retinal nerve fibre layer thinning in patients with clinically isolated optic neuritis and early treatment with interferon-beta. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51645.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Pul R, et al. Longitudinal time-domain optic coherence study of retinal nerve fiber layer in IFNbeta-treated and untreated multiple sclerosis patients. Exp Ther Med. 2016;12(1):190–200.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    •• Martinez-Lapiscina EH, et al. Retinal thickness measured with optical coherence tomography and risk of disability worsening in multiple sclerosis: a cohort study. Lancet Neurol. 2016;15(6):574–84. A recent meta-analysis assessing peripapillary RNFL in MS patient demonstrating that this measure is predictive of worsening disability.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Nolan R, Gelfand JM, Green AJ. Fingolimod treatment in multiple sclerosis leads to increased macular volume. Neurology. 2013;80(2):139–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    • Knier, B., et al., Retinal inner nuclear layer volume reflects response to immunotherapy in multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2016. This study investigated the retinal inner nuclear layer, and suggests that this layer could serve as biomarker to monitor central nervous system inflammation and response to therapy.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Saidha S, et al. Optical coherence tomography reflects brain atrophy in multiple sclerosis: a four-year study. Ann Neurol. 2015;78(5):801–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    • Giovannoni G, et al. Is it time to target no evident disease activity (NEDA) in multiple sclerosis? Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2015;4(4):329–33. This publication suggests the treatment goal of 'no evident disease activity' (NEDA), using clinical parameters and MRI measures.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Kappos L, et al. Inclusion of brain volume loss in a revised measure of 'no evidence of disease activity' (NEDA-4) in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2016;22(10):1297–305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Freedman MS. Are we in need of NEDA? Mult Scler. 2016;22(1):5–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Rotstein DL, et al. Evaluation of no evidence of disease activity in a 7-year longitudinal multiple sclerosis cohort. JAMA Neurol. 2015;72(2):152–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Cree BA, et al. Long-term evolution of multiple sclerosis disability in the treatment era. Ann Neurol. 2016;80(4):499–510.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    De Stefano N, et al. Long-term assessment of no evidence of disease activity in relapsing-remitting MS. Neurology. 2015;85(19):1722–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    •• Trojano M, et al. Treatment decisions in multiple sclerosis—insights from real-world observational studies. Nat Rev Neurol. 2017;13(2):105–18. This review focuses on observational studies as 'real world studies', designed to identify predictors of poor outcome and treatment response, and to evaluate the relative and long-term effectiveness of currently available MS medications.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Stangel M, et al. Towards the implementation of 'no evidence of disease activity' in multiple sclerosis treatment: the multiple sclerosis decision model. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2015;8(1):3–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Wattjes MP, Steenwijk MD, Stangel M. MRI in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple sclerosis: an update. Clin Neuroradiol. 2015;25(Suppl 2):157–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    •• Wattjes MP, et al. Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis—establishing disease prognosis and monitoring patients. Nat Rev Neurol. 2015;11(10):597–606. MAGNIMS (Magnetic Resonance Imaging in MS) network's guidelines on the use of MRI, especially in regards to predicting treatment response, and in monitoring efficacy and safety of new therapies.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulrike W. Kaunzner
    • 1
  • Mais Al-Kawaz
    • 2
  • Susan A. Gauthier
    • 1
  1. 1.Judith Jaffe Multiple Sclerosis CenterWeill Cornell MedicineNew York CityUSA
  2. 2.NewYork PresbyterianWeill Cornell MedicineNew York CityUSA

Personalised recommendations