Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

MRI monitoring of immunomodulation in relapse-onset multiple sclerosis trials

Nature Reviews Neurology volume 8, pages 13–21 (2012)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Over the past 15 years, MRI lesion activity has become the accepted surrogate primary outcome measure in proof-of-concept placebo-controlled clinical trials of new immunomodulating therapies in relapse-onset multiple sclerosis (MS). In parallel, the number of patients that are available for the placebo arm of trials has declined, and more-aggressive drugs are being developed. A critical review is warranted to ensure efficient MRI—and patient—resource utilization. Recently, an international panel reviewed the methodology for efficient use of MRI-monitored trials in relapse-onset MS. In this article, we provide up-to-date recommendations for scan acquisition, image analysis, outcome-measure definition and standards of reporting. Factors to consider for optimizing trial design, such as outcome measure selection and the unique requirements of phase II and phase III trials, including active-comparator studies, are outlined. Finally, we address safety considerations in the use of MRI in MS trials, and the safety-related responsibilities of the various parties involved in conducting such trials.

Key Points

  • Active lesions on MRI scans are accepted as a surrogate for disease activity in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis and as the primary outcome in proof-of-concept phase II studies of immunomodulation

  • New post-processing techniques will increase the sensitivity and accuracy of MRI to detect active lesions, and will reduce the amount of contrast material needed

  • In definitive phase III trials, clinical end points remain primary, but MRI scans provide important information about subgroup performance

  • In clinical trials evaluating new therapies with unknown or more-aggressive mechanisms of action, MRI conveys important safety information

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Miller, D. H. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in monitoring the treatment of multiple sclerosis: concerted action guidelines. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 54, 683–688 (1991).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Miller, D. H. et al. Guidelines for the use of magnetic resonance techniques in monitoring the treatment of multiple sclerosis. US National MS Society Task Force. Ann. Neurol. 39, 6–16 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Miller, D. H. et al. A controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 348, 15–23 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. O'Connor, P. W. et al. A Phase II study of the safety and efficacy of teriflunomide in multiple sclerosis with relapses. Neurology 66, 894–900 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kappos, L. et al. Oral fingolimod (FTY720) for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 355, 1124–1140 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kappos, L. et al. Efficacy and safety of oral fumarate in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IIb study. Lancet 372, 1463–1472 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wynn, D. et al. Daclizumab in active relapsing multiple sclerosis (CHOICE study): a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on trial with interferon beta. Lancet Neurol. 9, 381–390 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Polman, C. H. et al. Treatment with laquinimod reduces development of active MRI lesions in relapsing MS. Neurology 64, 987–991 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hauser, S. L. et al. B-cell depletion with rituximab in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 358, 676–688 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. van Oosten, B. W. et al. Increased MRI activity and immune activation in two multiple sclerosis patients treated with the monoclonal anti-tumor necrosis factor antibody cA2. Neurology 47, 1531–1534 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. [No authors listed] TNF neutralization in MS: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter study. The Lenercept Multiple Sclerosis Study Group and The University of British Columbia MS/MRI Analysis Group. Neurology 53, 457–465 (1999).

  12. Barkhof, F., van Waesberghe, J. H., Uitdehaag, B. M. & Polman, C. H. Ibuprofen does not suppress active multiple sclerosis lesions on gadolinium-enhanced MR images. Ann. Neurol. 42, 982 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Polman, C. H. et al. Oral interferon beta-1a in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: a double-blind randomized study. Mult. Scler. 9, 342–348 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kappos, L., Barkhof, F. & Desmet, A. The effect of oral temsirolimus on new magnetic resonance imaging scan lesions, brain atrophy, and the number of relapses in multiple sclerosis: results from a randomised, controlled trial. J. Neurol. 252 (Suppl. 2), 46 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Segal, B. M. et al. Ustekinumab MS Investigators. Repeated subcutaneous injections of IL12/23 p40 neutralising antibody, ustekinumab, in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: a phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, dose-ranging study. Lancet Neurol. 7, 796–804 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Filippi, M., Wolinsky, J. S., Comi, G. & CORAL Study Group. Effects of oral glatiramer acetate on clinical and MRI-monitored disease activity in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study. Lancet Neurol. 5, 213–220 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Fazekas, F. et al. MRI results from the European Study on Intravenous Immunoglobulin in Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (ESIMS). Mult. Scler. 11, 433–440 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Barkhof, F. et al. Ibudilast in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: a neuroprotectant? Neurology 74, 1033–1040 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Killestein, J. et al. Antibody-mediated suppression of Vβ5.2/5.3+ T cells in multiple sclerosis: results from an MRI-monitored phase II clinical trial. Ann. Neurol. 51, 467–474 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Polman, C. H. et al. Ethics of placebo-controlled clinical trials in multiple sclerosis: a reassessment. Neurology 70, 1134–1140 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. O'Connor, P. et al. 250 μg or 500 μg interferon beta-1b versus 20 mg glatiramer acetate in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Lancet Neurol. 8, 889–897 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Mikol, D. D. et al. Comparison of subcutaneous interferon beta-1a with glatiramer acetate in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (the REbif vs Glatiramer Acetate in Relapsing MS Disease [REGARD] study): a multicentre, randomised, parallel, open-label trial. Lancet Neurol. 7, 903–914 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Inusah, S. et al. Assessing changes in relapse rates in multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 16, 1414–1421 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Barkhof, F. & Filippi, M. MRI—the perfect surrogate marker for multiple sclerosis? Nat. Rev. Neurol. 5, 182–183 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Prentice, R. L. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat. Med. 8, 431–440 (1989).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Sormani, M. P. et al. MRI metrics as surrogate markers for clinical relapse rate in relapsing–remitting MS patients. Neurology 58, 417–421 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sormani, M. P. et al. MRI metrics as surrogate endpoints for EDSS progression in SPMS patients treated with IFN β-1b. Neurology 60, 1462–1466 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Sormani, M. P. et al. Magnetic resonance active lesions as individual-level surrogate for relapses in multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 17, 541–549 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Petkau, J. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging as a surrogate outcome for multiple sclerosis relapses. Mult. Scler. 14, 770–778 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Daniels, M. & Hughes, M. D. Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. Stat. Med. 16, 1965–1982 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Korn, E. L., Albert, P. S. & McShane, L. M. Assessing surrogates as trial endpoints using mixed models. Stat. Med. 24, 163–182 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sormani, M. P. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging as a potential surrogate for relapses in MS: a meta-analytic approach. Ann. Neurol. 65, 268–275 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sormani, M., Bonzano, L., Roccatagliata, L. & de Stefano, N. Magnetic resonance imaging as surrogate for clinical endpoints in multiple sclerosis: data on novel oral drugs. Mult. Scler. 17, 630–633 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Sormani, M. P. et al. Surrogate endpoints for EDSS worsening in multiple sclerosis. A meta-analytic approach. Neurology 75, 302–309 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Wattjes, M. P. & Barkhof, F. High field MRI in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: high field—high yield? Neuroradiology 51, 279–292 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Geurts, J. J. et al. Intracortical lesions in multiple sclerosis: improved detection with 3D double inversion-recovery MR imaging. Radiology 236, 254–260 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Calabrese, M. et al. Detection of cortical inflammatory lesions by double inversion recovery magnetic resonance imaging in patients with multiple sclerosis. Arch. Neurol. 64, 416–422 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Nelson, F. et al. Improved identification of intracortical lesions in multiple sclerosis with phase-sensitive inversion recovery in combination with fast double inversion recovery MR imaging. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 28, 1645–1649 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Moraal, B. et al. Multi-contrast, isotropic, single-slab 3D MR imaging in multiple sclerosis. Eur. Radiol. 18, 2311–2320 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Barkhof, F., Pouwels, P. J. & Wattjes, M. P. The Holy Grail in diagnostic neuroradiology: 3T or 3D? Eur. Radiol. 21, 449–456 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Bot, J. C. & Barkhof, F. Spinal-cord MRI in multiple sclerosis: conventional and nonconventional MR techniques. Neuroimaging Clin. N. Am. 19, 81–99 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Polman, C. H. et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann. Neurol. 69, 292–302 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Thorpe, J. W. et al. Serial gadolinium-enhanced MRI of the brain and spinal cord in early relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. Neurology 46, 373–378 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Silver, N. C. et al. A modified protocol to improve the detection of enhancing brain and spinal cord lesions in multiple sclerosis. J. Neurol. 248, 215–224 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Losseff, N. A. et al. Spinal cord atrophy and disability in multiple sclerosis. A new reproducible and sensitive MRI method with potential to monitor disease progression. Brain 119, 701–708 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kalkers, N. F., Barkhof, F., Bergers, E., van Schijndel, R. & Polman, C. H. The effect of the neuroprotective agent riluzole on MRI parameters in primary progressive multiple sclerosis: a pilot study. Mult. Scler. 8, 532–533 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Silver, N. C. et al. Sensitivity of contrast enhanced MRI in multiple sclerosis. Effects of gadolinium dose, magnetization transfer contrast and delayed imaging. Brain 120, 1149–1161 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Comi, G. et al. Effect of laquinimod on MRI-monitored disease activity in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IIb study. Lancet 371, 2085–2092 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Dousset, V. et al. MR imaging of relapsing multiple sclerosis patients using ultra-small-particle iron oxide and compared with gadolinium. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 27, 1000–1005 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Vellinga, M. M. et al. Pluriformity of inflammation in multiple sclerosis shown by ultra-small iron oxide particle enhancement. Brain 131, 800–807 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Barkhof, F. et al. Improving interobserver variation in reporting gadolinium-enhanced MRI lesions in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 49, 1682–1688 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Molyneux, P. D. et al. Visual analysis of serial T2-weighted MRI in multiple sclerosis: intra- and interobserver reproducibility. Neuroradiology 41, 882–888 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Rovaris, M. et al. Multiple sclerosis: interobserver agreement in reporting active lesions on serial brain MRI using conventional spin echo, fast spin echo, fast fluid-attenuated inversion recovery and post-contrast T1-weighted images. J. Neurol. 246, 920–925 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Filippi, M. et al. Effect of training and different measurement strategies on the reproducibility of brain MRI lesion load measurements in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 50, 238–244 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Sled, J. G., Zijdenbos, A. P. & Evans, A. C. A nonparametric method for automatic correction of intensity nonuniformity in MRI data. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 17, 87–97 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Cocosco, C. A., Zijdenbos, A. P. & Evans, A. C. A fully automatic and robust brain MRI tissue classification method. Med. Image Anal. 7, 513–527 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Smith, S. M. et al. Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL. Neuroimage 23 (Suppl. 1), S208–S219 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Horsfield, M. A. et al. Incorporating domain knowledge into the fuzzy connectedness framework: application to brain lesion volume estimation in multiple sclerosis. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 26, 1670–17680 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Klein, A. et al. Evaluation of 14 nonlinear deformation algorithms applied to human brain MRI registration. Neuroimage 46, 786–802 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Moraal, B. et al. Improved detection of active multiple sclerosis lesions: 3D subtraction imaging. Radiology 255, 154–163 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Moraal, B. et al. Long-interval T2-weighted subtraction magnetic resonance imaging: a powerful new outcome measure in multiple sclerosis trials. Ann. Neurol. 67, 667–675 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Barkhof, F., Calabresi, P. A., Miller, D. H. & Reingold, S. C. Imaging outcomes for neuroprotection and repair in multiple sclerosis trials. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 5, 256–266 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Zivadinov, R. et al. Mechanisms of action of disease-modifying agents and brain volume changes in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 71, 136–144 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Kapoor, R. et al. Lamotrigine for neuroprotection in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Lancet Neurol. 9, 681–688 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Miller, D. H. et al. MRI outcomes in a placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab in relapsing MS. Neurology 68, 1390–1401 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Zhao, Y., Traboulsee, A., Petkau, A. J. & Li, D. Regression of new gadolinium enhancing lesion activity in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. Neurology 70, 1092–1097 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Sormani, M. P. et al. Modelling MRI enhancing lesion counts in multiple sclerosis using a negative binomial model: implications for clinical trials. J. Neurol. Sci. 163, 74–80 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Cohen, J. A. et al. Oral fingolimod or intramuscular interferon for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 362, 402–415 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Kappos, L. et al. A placebo-controlled trial of oral fingolimod in relapsing multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 362, 387–401 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Barkhof, F. et al. Predicting gadolinium enhancement status in MS patients eligible for randomized clinical trials. Neurology 65, 1447–1454 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Jacobs, L. D. et al. Intramuscular interferon beta-1a therapy initiated during a first demyelinating event in multiple sclerosis. CHAMPS Study Group. N. Engl. J. Med. 343, 898–904 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Barkhof, F. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging effects of interferon beta-1b in the BENEFIT study: integrated 2-year results. Arch. Neurol. 64, 1292–1298 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Shellock, F. G. & Spinazzi, A. MRI safety update 2008: part 1, MRI contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 191, 1129–1139 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Leiner, T. & Kucharczyk, W. NSF prevention in clinical practice: summary of recommendations and guidelines in the United States, Canada, and Europe. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 30, 1357–1363 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Yousry, T. A. et al. Evaluation of patients treated with natalizumab for progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. N. Engl. J. Med. 354, 924–933 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Riddell, C. A. et al. Evaluation of safety monitoring guidelines based on MRI lesion activity in multiple sclerosis. Neurology (in press).

  77. Hawker, K. et al. Rituximab in patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis: results of a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled multicenter trial. Ann. Neurol. 66, 460–471 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Miller, D. H. et al. Effect of interferon-β1b on magnetic resonance imaging outcomes in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: results of a European multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. European Study Group on Interferon-β1b in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann. Neurol. 46, 850–859 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Barkhof, F. et al. T1-hypointense lesions in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: effect of interferon beta-1b treatment. Brain 124, 1396–1402 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Hartung, H. P. & Aktas, O. Evolution of multiple sclerosis treatment: next generation therapies meet next generation efficacy criteria. Lancet Neurol. 10, 293–295 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is based on a workshop of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Network in Multiple Sclerosis (MAGNIMS) working group, co-sponsored by MAGNIMS, the US National Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, and supported by an unrestricted educational grant by Bayer-Schering Pharma. We thank A. Thompson and J. Palace for their helpful input.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, VU University Medical Centre, De Boelelaan 1118, Amsterdam, 1081HV, the Netherlands

    Frederik Barkhof

  2. Imaging, Portland VA Medical Center, 3710 SW US Veterans Hospital Road, Portland, 97239, OR, USA

    Jack H. Simon

  3. Department of Neurology, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 22, Graz, 8036, Austria

    Franz Fazekas

  4. Multiple Sclerosis Unit, Scientific Institute Fondazione Don Gnocchi, via Capecelatro 66, Milan, 20148, Italy

    Marco Rovaris

  5. Department of Neurology, University Hospital Basel, Schanzenstrasse 55, Basel, CH 4031, Switzerland

    Ludwig Kappos

  6. Department of Neurological and Behavioural Sciences, University of Siena, Viale Bracci 2, Siena, 53100, Italy

    Nicola de Stefano

  7. Department of Neurology, VU University Medical Centre, De Boelelaan 1118, Amsterdam, 1081HV, the Netherlands

    Chris H. Polman

  8. Department of Statistics, University of British Columbia, 2329 West Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, BC, Canada

    John Petkau

  9. Department of Neurology and Radiology, University Hospital Basel, Schanzenstrasse 55, Basel, CH 4031, Switzerland

    Ernst W. Radue

  10. Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), Biostatistics Unit, University of Genoa, Via Pastore 1, Genova, 16132, Italy

    Maria P. Sormani

  11. Department of Radiology and Medicine (Neurology), University of British Columbia, 2329 West Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, BC, Canada

    David K. Li

  12. St Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street Toronto, ON M5B 1W8, Canada

    Paul O'Connor

  13. Unitat de Neuroimmunologia Clínica, MS Centre of Catalonia, Hospital Vall d' Hebron, Passeo de la val d'Hebron 119-129, Barcelona, 08035, Spain

    Xavier Montalban

  14. Department of Neuroinflammation, Institute of Neurology, University College London, Queen Square, London, WC1N 34BG, UK

    David H. Miller

  15. Division of Neuroscience, Neuroimaging Research Unit, Institute of Experimental Neurology (INSPE), Scientific Institute and University Hospital San Raffaele, via Olgettina 60, Milan, 20132, Italy

    Massimo Filippi

Authors
  1. Frederik Barkhof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jack H. Simon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Franz Fazekas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marco Rovaris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ludwig Kappos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nicola de Stefano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chris H. Polman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. John Petkau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ernst W. Radue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Maria P. Sormani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. David K. Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Paul O'Connor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Xavier Montalban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. David H. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Massimo Filippi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to researching data for the article. F. Barkhof, J. H. Simon, F. Fazekas, M. Rovaris, L. Kappos, N. de Stefano, C. H. Polman, M. P. Sormani, D. K. Li, D. H. Miller and M. Filippi made substantial contributions to discussion of the article content. F. Barkhof, J. H. Simon, F. Fazekas, M. Rovaris, N. de Stefano, J. Petkau, M. P. Sormani, D. H. Miller and M. Filippi wrote the article. F. Barkhof, J. H. Simon, F. Fazekas, M. Rovaris, N. de Stefano, J. Petkau, M. P. Sormani, D. K. Li, P. O'Connor, D. H. Miller and M. Filippi contributed to review and/or editing of the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frederik Barkhof.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

F. Barkhof serves on scientific advisory boards for Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen Idec, GE Healthcare, Lundbeck, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis and Synthon . He has received speaker honoraria from Novartis, Serono Symposia, and BioClinica. He serves as a consultant for Sanofi-Aventis, Roche, Novartis, Biogen Idec, Jansen Alzheimer Immunotherapy, and GE Healthcare.

J. H. Simon declares no competing interests.

F. Fazekas has served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Sanofi-Aventis. He has received travel support from Bayer Schering Pharma and Merck Serono, and research support from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Sanofi-Aventis and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries.

M. Rovaris has received funding for travel from Biogen-Dompé and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. He has received speaker honoraria from Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen-Dompé, Sanofi-Aventis and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries.

L. Kappos has received research support through the University Hospital Basel from Acorda Therapeutics, Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Advancell, Allozyne, Barofold, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Schering Pharma, Bayhill, Biogen Idec, BioMarin, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Geneuro, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, Merck Serono, MediciNova, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Santhera Pharmaceuticals, Shire, Roche, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, UCB and Wyeth, and also from the Swiss MS Society, the Swiss National Research Foundation, European Union,as well as Gianni Rubato, and Roche and Novartis Foundations.

N. De Stefano serves on a scientific advisory board for Merck Serono. He has received funding for travel from Merck Serono and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. He has received speaker honoraria from Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen-Dompé, BioMS Medical, Merck Serono and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries.

C. H. Polman serves on scientific advisory boards for and has received funding for travel and speaker honoraria from Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen Idec, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and UCB. He receives research support from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis and UCB.

J. Petkau has served on scientific advisory boards for Bayer Schering Pharma, Bayhill Therapeutics, Eisai, Merck Serono, Opexa Therapeutics, Schering-Plough and Solstice Neurosciences. He has received funding for travel and speaker honoraria from Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono/Pfizer and Solstice Neurosciences. He serves as a consultant for Bayer Schering Pharma, Bayhill Therapeutics, BTG International, Opexa Therapeutics, PRA International and Solstice Neurosciences. He receives research support from Bayer Schering Pharma and Opexa Therapeutics.

E. W. Radue has received payments through his institution for membership of advisory boards of Biogen Idec and Novartis, honoraria for consultancy from Biogen Idec, Bayer Schering Pharma, Merck, and Novartis, and for lecturing from Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen Idec, and Novartis.

M. P. Sormani has received speaker honoraria from Biogen-Dompé, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. She serves as a consultant for Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Biogen Idec, Eidetica and Merck Serono.

D. K. Li has served on scientific advisory boards for Nuron Biotech and Roche. He serves on the speakers' bureaus for the Consortium of MS Centers, Merck Serono and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. He serves as a consultant for Genzyme Corporation; performs MRI (50% clinical effort). He is the Director of the University of British Columbia MS/MRI Research Group, which has been contracted to perform central analysis of MRI scans for therapeutic trials with Angiotech, Bayer Schering Pharma, Berlex-Schering, BioMS Medical, Centocor (Janssen), Daiichi Sankyo, Genzyme Corporation, Roche, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Schering-Plough, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Transition Therapeutics, and receives research support from the MS Society of Canada and the Canadian Institute of Health Research.

P. O'Connor has received consulting fees and/or research support for MS trials from Actelion, Bayer, Biogen Idec, BioMS, Cognosci, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serono, Genentech and Genmab.

X. Montalban serves on scientific advisory boards for Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. He has received funding for travel and speaker honoraria from Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. He serves as a consultant to Almirall, Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen Idec, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. He has received research support for clinical trials from Genentech, Genzyme and Wyeth.

D. H. Miller serves on scientific advisory boards for Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen Idec, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. He has received funding for travel or speaker honoraria from Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen Idec, the Cleveland Clinic, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, the National MS Society. He receives publishing royalties for McAlpine's Multiple Sclerosis, fourth edition (Churchill Livingstone, 2005). He serves as a consultant for Biogen Idec and GlaxoSmithKline, and receives research support through his institution from Biogen Idec, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Schering-Plough.

M. Filippi serves on scientific advisory boards for Genmab and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and has received funding for travel from Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen-Dompé, Genmab, Merck Serono, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. He serves as a consultant to Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen-Dompé, Genmab, Merck Serono, Pepgen Corporation and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. He serves on speakers' bureaus for Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen-Dompé, Genmab, Merck Serono and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. He receives research support from Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen-Dompé, Genmab, Merck Serono and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barkhof, F., Simon, J., Fazekas, F. et al. MRI monitoring of immunomodulation in relapse-onset multiple sclerosis trials. Nat Rev Neurol 8, 13–21 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2011.190

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2011.190

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing