Abstract
The advent of a large number of new therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS) warrants the development of tools that enable selection of the best treatment option for each new patient with MS. Evidence from clinical trials clearly supports the efficacy of IFN-β for the treatment of MS, but few factors that predict a response to this drug in individual patients have emerged. This deficit might be due, at least in part, to the lack of a standardized definition of the clinical outcomes that signify improvement or worsening of the disease. MRI markers and clinical relapses have been the most widely studied short-term factors to predict long-term response to IFN-β, although the results are conflicting. Recently, integrated strategies combining MRI and clinical markers in scoring systems have provided a potentially useful approach for the management of patients with MS. In this Review, we focus on the many definitions of clinical response to IFN-β and explore the markers that can be used to predict this response. We also highlight advantages and limitations of the existing scoring systems in light of future expansion of these models to biological markers and to other classes of emerging therapies for MS.
Key Points
-
The emergence of new therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS) has created a need for the development of tools to select the best treatment for each individual
-
Identification of responders to IFN-β is crucial for personalized use of this disease-modifying therapy, but is challenging in a disease such MS
-
MRI markers and clinical relapses during the first year of IFN-β therapy best discriminate responding patients when used in combination
-
Integrated scoring systems allow incorporation of clinical data and MRI measures of disease activity into the therapeutic management of patients with MS
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Compston, A. & Coles, A. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet 359, 1221–1231 (2002).
Baksi, R. The new era of multiple sclerosis therapeutics. Neurotherapeutics 10, 1 (2013).
Castro-Borrero, W. et al. Current and emerging therapies in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. Ther. Adv. Neurol. Disord. 5, 205–220 (2012).
McGraw, C. A. & Lublin, F. D. Interferon beta and glatiramer acetate therapy. Neurotherapeutics 10, 2–18 (2013).
Paty, D. W. & Li, D. K. Interferon beta-1b is effective in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. II. MRI analysis results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. UBC MS/MRI Study Group and the IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Neurology 43, 662–667 (1993).
[No authors listed] Interferon beta-1b is effective in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. I. Clinical results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Neurology 43, 655–661 (1993).
Jacobs, L. D. et al. Intramuscular interferon beta-1a for disease progression in relapsing multiple sclerosis. The Multiple Sclerosis Collaborative Research Group (MSCRG). Ann. Neurol. 39, 285–294 (1996).
No authors listed] Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study of interferon β-1a in relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis. PRISMS (Prevention of Relapses and Disability by Interferon β-1a Subcutaneously in Multiple Sclerosis) Study Group. Lancet 352, 1498–1504 (1998).
Polman, C. H. et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 354, 899–910 (2006).
Chataway, J. & Miller, D. H. Natalizumab therapy for multiple sclerosis. Neurotherapeutics 10, 19–28 (2013).
Kappos, L. et al. A placebo-controlled trial of oral fingolimod in relapsing multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 362, 387–401 (2010).
Cohen, J. A. et al. Oral fingolimod or intramuscular interferon for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 362, 402–415 (2010).
Visser, F., Wattjes, M. P., Pouwels, P. J., Linssen, W. H. & van Oosten, B. W. Tumefactive multiple sclerosis lesions under fingolimod treatment. Neurology 79, 2000–2003 (2012).
Bourdette, D. & Gilden, D. Fingolimod and multiple sclerosis: four cautionary tales. Neurology 79, 1942–1943 (2012).
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).
O'Connor, P. et al. Randomized trial of oral teriflunomide for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 365, 1293–1303 (2011).
Gold, R. et al. Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 1098–1107 (2012).
Fox, R. J. et al. Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 or glatiramer in multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 1087–1097 (2012).
Gold, R. et al. Daclizumab high-yield process in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (SELECT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 381, 2167–2175 (2013).
Comi, G. et al. Placebo-controlled trial of oral laquinimod for multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 366, 1000–1009 (2012).
Cohen, J. A. 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 380, 1819–1828 (2012).
Coles, A. J. et al. Alemtuzumab for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis after disease-modifying therapy, a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 380, 1829–1839 (2012).
Kurtzke, J. F. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 33, 1444–1452 (1983).
Poser, C. M. et al. New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines for research protocols. Ann. Neurol. 13, 227–231 (1983).
Barkhof, F. et al. Strategies for optimizing MRI techniques aimed at monitoring disease activity in multiple sclerosis treatment trials. J. Neurol. 244, 76–84 (1997).
Durelli, L. et al. MRI activity and neutralizing antibody as predictors of response to interferon β treatment in multiple sclerosis. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 79, 646–651 (2008).
Cadavid, D. et al. Clinical consequences of MRI activity in treated multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 17, 1113–1121 (2011).
Río, J. et al. Relationship between MRI lesion activity and response to IFN-β in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis patients. Mult. Scler. 14, 479–484 (2008).
Prosperini, L. et al. One-year MRI scan predicts clinical response to interferon β in multiple sclerosis. Eur. J. Neurol. 16, 1202–1209 (2009).
Sormani, M. et al. Scoring treatment response in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 19, 605–612 (2013).
Tomassini, V. et al. Predictors of long-term clinical response to interferon beta therapy in relapsing multiple sclerosis. J. Neurol. 253, 287–293 (2006).
Bermel, R. et al. Predictors of long-term outcome in multiple sclerosis patients treated with interferon β. Ann. Neurol. 73, 95–103 (2013).
Goodin, D. et al. Relationship between early clinical characteristics and long term disability outcomes: 16 year cohort study (follow-up) of the pivotal interferon β-1b trial in multiple sclerosis. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 83, 282–287 (2012).
Romeo, M. et al. Clinical and MRI predictors of response to interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis patients. Eur. J. Neurol. 20, 1060–1067 (2013).
Mezei, Z. et al. Can a physician predict the clinical response to first-line immunomodulatory treatment in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis? Neuropsychiatr. Dis. Treat. 8, 465–473 (2012).
Waubant, E. et al. Clinical characteristics of responders to interferon therapy for relapsing MS. Neurology 61, 184–189 (2003).
Portaccio, E., Zipoli, V., Siracusa, G., Sorbi, S. & Amato, M. P. Response to interferon-beta therapy in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis, a comparison of different clinical criteria. Mult. Scler. 12, 281–286 (2006).
Fromont, A. et al. Clinical parameters to predict response to interferon in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Neuroepidemiology 31, 150–156 (2008).
Romeo, M. et al. Rio Score and Modified Rio Score validation in an Italian cohort of relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis patients (abstract P549). Presented at the 28th Congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis, 10–13 October 2012.
Freedman, M. et al. Recognizing and treating suboptimally controlled multiple sclerosis, steps toward regaining command. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 10, 2459–2470 (2009).
Río, J. et al. Assessment of different treatment failure criteria in a cohort of relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis patients treated with interferon β: implications for clinical trials. Ann. Neurol. 52, 400–406 (2002).
Río, J. et al. Defining the response to interferon-β in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis patients. Ann. Neurol. 59, 344–352 (2006).
Río, J., Comabella, M. & Montalban, X. Predicting responders to therapies for multiple sclerosis. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 5, 553–560 (2009).
Polman, C. et al. Subgroups of the BENEFIT study, risk of developing MS and treatment effect of interferon beta-1b. J. Neurol. 255, 480–487 (2008).
O'Connor, P., Kinkel, R. P. & Kremenchutzky, M. Efficacy of intramuscular interferon beta-1a in patients with clinically isolated syndrome, analysis of subgroups based on new risk criteria. Mult. Scler. 15, 728–734 (2009).
Barkhof, F. et al. Validation of diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging criteria for multiple sclerosis and response to interferon β1a. Ann. Neurol. 53, 718–724 (2003).
Comi, G. et al. Comparison of two dosing frequencies of subcutaneous interferon beta-1a in patients with a first clinical demyelinating event suggestive of multiple sclerosis (REFLEX): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 11, 33–41 (2012).
Martínez-Yélamos, S. et al. Regression to the mean in multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 12, 826–829 (2006).
Prentice, R. L. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials, definition and operational criteria. Stat. Med. 8, 431–440 (1989).
Sormani, M. P., Bruzzi, P., Comi, G. & Filippi, M. MRI metrics as surrogate markers for clinical relapse rate in relapsing–remitting MS patients. Neurology 58, 417–421 (2002).
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).
Sormani, M. P. et al. Magnetic resonance active lesions as individual-level surrogate for relapses in multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 17, 541–549 (2011).
Sormani, M. P. et al. Combined MRI lesions and relapses as a perfect surrogate for disability in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 77, 1684–1690 (2011).
Wang, Y. C., Sandrock, A., Richert, J. R., Meyerson, L. & Miao, X. Short-term relapse quantitation as a fully surrogate endpoint for long-term sustained progression of disability in RRMS patients treated with natalizumab. Neurol. Res. Int. 2011, 195831 (2001).
Rudick, R., Lee, J., Simon, J., Ransohoff, R. M. & Fisher, E. Defining interferon β response status in multiple sclerosis patients. Ann. Neurol. 56, 548–555 (2004).
Inusah, S. et al. Assessing changes in relapse rates in multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 16, 1414–1421 (2010).
Miller, D. H. et al. Serial gadolinium enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis. Brain 111, 927–939 (1988).
Freedman, M. S. et al. Treatment optimization in MS: Canadian MS Working Group updated recommendations. Can. J. Neurol. Sci. 40, 307–323 (2013).
Freedman, M. S. & Forrestal, F. G. Canadian treatment optimization recommendations (TOR) as a predictor of disease breakthrough in patients with multiple sclerosis treated with interferon β-1a: analysis of the PRISMS study. Mult. Scler. 14, 1234–1241 (2008).
Sormani, M., Signori, A., Stromillo, M. & De Stefano, N. Refining response to treatment as defined by the Modified Rio Score. Mult. Scler. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1352458513483892.
Kalincik, T. et al. Volumetric MRI markers and predictors of disease activity in early multiple sclerosis: a longitudinal cohort study. PLoS ONE 7, e50101 (2012).
Barkhof, F. et al. MRI monitoring of immunomodulation in relapse-onset multiple sclerosis trials. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 8, 13–21 (2011).
Barkhof, F. et al. Imaging outcomes for neuroprotection and repair in multiple sclerosis trials. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 5, 256–266 (2009).
Comabella, M. & Martin, R. Genomics in multiple sclerosis—current state and future directions. J. Neuroimmunol. 187, 1–8 (2007).
Singh, M. K. et al. Gene expression changes in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from multiple sclerosis patients undergoing β-interferon therapy. J. Neurol. Sci. 258, 52–59 (2007).
van Baarsen, L. G. et al. Pharmacogenomics of interferon β therapy in multiple sclerosis: baseline IFN signature determines pharmacological differences between patients. PLoS ONE 3, e1927 (2008).
Villoslada, P. et al. The HLA locus and multiple sclerosis in Spain. Role in disease susceptibility, clinical course and response to interferon β. J. Neuroimmunol. 130, 194–201 (2002).
Killestein, J. & Polman, C. H. Determinants of interferon β efficacy in patients with multiple sclerosis. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 7, 221–228 (2011).
Axtell, R. C. et al. T helper type 1 and 17 cells determine efficacy of interferon-β in multiple sclerosis and experimental encephalomyelitis. Nat. Med. 16, 406–412 (2010).
Hartung, H. P. et al. Interleukin 17F level and interferon beta response in patients with multiple sclerosis. JAMA Neurol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2013.192.
Bushnell, S. E. et al. Serum IL-17F does not predict poor response to IM IFNβ-1a in relapsing–remitting MS. Neurology. 79, 531–537 (2012).
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Merck Serono S.A., Geneva, Switzerland, who allowed the use of the individual-patient database of the PRISMS study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Both authors researched data for the article, discussed the content, wrote the article, and reviewed and edited the manuscript before submission.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
M. P. Sormani has received personal compensation for consulting services and for speaking activities from Actelion, Merck Serono, Synthon, Allozyne and Biogen Idec. She has also received consultation fees from Novartis. N. De Stefano has received honoraria from Schering, Biogen-Dompè, Teva and Merck Serono S.A. for consulting services, speaking and travel support, and has received consulting fees from Novartis. He serves on advisory boards for Merck Serono S.A.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sormani, M., De Stefano, N. Defining and scoring response to IFN-β in multiple sclerosis. Nat Rev Neurol 9, 504–512 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2013.146
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2013.146
This article is cited by
-
Immunotherapy for people with clinically isolated syndrome or relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: treatment response by demographic, clinical, and biomarker subgroups (PROMISE)—a systematic review protocol
Systematic Reviews (2022)
-
The no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) concept in MS: impact of spinal cord MRI
Journal of Neurology (2022)
-
Treatment response scoring systems to assess long-term prognosis in self-injectable DMTs relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis patients
Journal of Neurology (2022)
-
Association study of promoter polymorphisms of interferon alpha and beta receptor subunit 1 (IFNAR1) gene and therapeutic response to interferon-beta in patients with multiple sclerosis
Molecular Biology Reports (2021)
-
Navigating choice in multiple sclerosis management
Neurological Research and Practice (2019)