Exploring the Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options of Multiple Sclerosis

Abstract

The complicated neurological syndrome known as multiple sclerosis (MS) is typified by demyelination, inflammation, and neurodegeneration in the central nervous system (CNS). Managing this crippling illness requires an understanding of the complex interactions between neurophysiological systems, diagnostic techniques, and therapeutic methods. A complex series of processes, including immunological dysregulation, inflammation, and neurodegeneration, are involved in the pathogenesis of MS. Gene predisposition, autoreactive T cells, B cells, and cytokines are essential participants in the development of the disease. Demyelination interferes with the ability of the CNS to transmit signals, which can cause a variety of neurological symptoms, including impaired motor function, sensory deficiencies, and cognitive decline. Developing tailored therapeutics requires understanding the underlying processes guiding the course of the disease. Neuroimaging, laboratory testing, and clinical examination are all necessary for an accurate MS diagnosis. Evoked potentials and cerebrospinal fluid studies assist in verifying the diagnosis, but magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is essential for identifying distinctive lesions in the CNS. Novel biomarkers have the potential to increase diagnostic precision and forecast prognosis. The goals of MS treatment options are to control symptoms, lower disease activity, and enhance quality of life. To stop relapses and reduce the course of the disease, disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) target several components of the immune response. DMTs that are now on the market include interferons, glatiramer acetate, monoclonal antibodies, and oral immunomodulators; each has a unique mode of action and safety profile. Symptomatic treatments improve patients' general well-being by addressing specific symptoms, including pain, sphincter disorders, fatigue, and spasticity. Novel treatment targets, neuroprotective tactics, and personalized medicine techniques will be the main focus of MS research in the future. Improving long-term outcomes for MS patients and optimizing disease treatment may be possible by utilizing immunology, genetics, and neuroimaging developments. This study concludes by highlighting the complexity of multiple MS, including its changing therapeutic landscape, diagnostic problems, and neurophysiological foundations. A thorough grasp of these elements is essential to improving our capacity to identify, manage, and eventually overcome this intricate neurological condition.

Keywords

multiple sclerosis / pathophysiology / clinical phenotypes / neuroimaging / treatment

1. Introduction

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a neuroinflammatory disease of the central nervous system (CNS) that induces demyelination and neurodegeneration. It is one of the significant causes of disability in the young, affecting quality of life (QoL), family, work, and social activities [1].

The highest prevalence of MS is encountered in European Countries and the Americas, with 111–300 cases per 100,000 inhabitants [2]. In Asia, the prevalence decreases at 30 cases/100,000 inhabitants, while African Countries and West Pacific regions show the lowest prevalence (5 cases per 100,000) [2]. Environmental factors, lifestyle, and availability of medical resources may be responsible for the gradient observed in Countries with the highest socio-economic status.

Regarding gender, MS mainly affects females with an overall ratio of 3:1. The mean age at diagnosis is estimated at 32 years. However, recent studies describe a shift towards older age at disease diagnosis [3, 4]. Late-onset MS (LOMS) is defined as a diagnosis of MS at an age older than 50 years, and it now represents about 5% of cases. Several factors are responsible for this epidemiological change: more extended life expectancy of the global population and the people with MS, improved disease diagnosis, treatment and care, and evolving diagnostic criteria [4]. LOMS and aging of people previously diagnosed with MS oblige to take into consideration comorbidities, age-related frailty, drug interactions, safety, and differential diagnosis of cognitive impairment.

Through the years, new insights in pathophysiology, improvements in diagnostic tools, and new therapies have changed the understanding of MS and the clinical management of people affected by this disease. The availability of several new therapeutic tools resulted in better disease control and improved QoL and disability; nevertheless, they also imply new and, sometimes, severe adverse events to be known, prevented, recognized, and treated.

The present review aims to provide an updated synthesis of the latest findings in the pathophysiology and clinical management of MS, emphasizing treatment options, especially disease-modifying therapies (DMTs).

2. Materials and Methods

The authors performed bibliographic research comprising English-language publications available on PubMed. Papers published within the last five years have been chosen preferentially, given the growing research activity in MS studies. However, previous relevant articles have also been selected. The search terms used are the following: “Multiple sclerosis” AND “pathogenesis” or “clinical course”, “diagnostic criteria”, “disease progression”, “therapies”, “disease-modifying therapies”, “Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors”, “hematopoietic stem cell transplantation”. Some articles were also derived from the bibliography of the chosen papers. Articles that were not in English and outside this review’s scope and duplicates were excluded. A minimum of two of the authors reviewed each study for relevance.

3. Pathophysiology: From T Cells to Microglia

MS pathogenesis remains a complex and not yet well-known topic. MS develops in a complex interplay of genetic susceptibility and environmental factors.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are still exploring the high complexity of polymorphisms in the genetic susceptibility of MS, which are commonly involved in intrinsic mechanisms of the immune system and autoreactivity. However, some human leukocyte antigens (HLA), such as HLA-DRB1*1501, are well-known risk factors, conferring a three times higher risk of disease [5].

Some environmental factors are strongly associated with the risk of developing MS. One of the most recently explored, the Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) infection, has been shown to be correlated with a 32-fold risk of MS and to precede neuronal damage and neurofilament growth in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) years before clinical symptoms [6, 7].

Vitamin D levels and latitudinal gradient, cigarette smoking, childhood obesity, and low physical activity are other widely studied and modifiable risk factors for developing MS [8, 9].

All these susceptibility factors lead to a decrease of regulatory and anti-inflammatory activity versus a more pro-inflammatory and auto-reactive immune system setting, with a reduction of T regulatory—Treg lymphocytes and an increased activity of pathogenic T helper (Th) 1 and Th17, which can cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and cross-react with oligodendrocyte antigens in the CNS [10].

Almost all immune cells have been postulated to participate in different moments of the disease duration. The wide range of mechanisms of action behind all the therapies approved for MS underline the disease’s complex immunological pathway.

Historically, the “outside-in” hypothesis, in which a peripheral activation of autoreactive T cells, a decrease in regulatory T-cell activity, and a secondary migration toward the CNS, followed by inflammation and neurodegeneration of oligodendrocytes, had been for a long time considered the initial trigger of MS and, thus, T cells target therapies have been mainly investigated [11, 12].

More recent findings have been supporting the possibility of a CNS trigger (inside-out hypothesis), probably derived from primary oligodendrocyte damage, as MS initial pathogenesis that, in a second time, activates autoreactive T and B cells in the CNS [11, 12].

In this scenario, the contribution of B cell lineage has been primarily explored, and mechanisms underlying the efficacy of B-cell-depleting therapies have allowed a more exhaustive understanding of MS pathogenesis.

B cells in MS are believed to possess an abnormal ability to produce pro-inflammatory cytokines and, on the other hand, display less secretion of anti-inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin 10 (IL-10). Moreover, adhesion molecules expressed on BBB cells facilitate the infiltration of activated B cells in the CNS [13].

B cells are also involved in presenting antigens to T cells and expressing antibodies-producing plasma cells, as noted in the CSF, with the widespread presence of oligoclonal bands in MS [14].

In pathological study of MS lesions, B cells are found to be expanded in MS lesions and participate in meningeal and perivascular inflammation. At the same time, they are almost absent in normal-appearing white matter [15]. The high efficacy of B cell-targeting therapies in MS strongly implies that B cells have a role in the pathogenesis of the disease.

However, some degree of CNS inflammation seems to persist despite the depletion of B cells (defined as “compartmentalized inflammation”). Some MS lesions display a persisting activation and chronic stimulation of T and B cells, even in the absence of clinical relapses, defined by the term “chronic active lesions”, a hallmark of disease progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA). These lesions present a very small percentage of CD20⁺ B cells and a higher proportion of mature B cells producing antibodies and infiltrating T cells [16].

Homeostasis of CNS resident cells and restoration of damaged oligodendrocytes and neurons are newly explored research fields. CNS resident mononuclear phagocytes (called “microglia”) that, in normal conditions, preserve CNS homeostasis are activated toward a pro-inflammatory setting in active phases of MS disease and are the first to be found in MS lesions. Ongoing trials on new therapeutic approaches demonstrated reduced pro-inflammatory activity on activated microglia [17].

4. Clinical Features

MS clinical manifestations are heterogeneous, depending on the regions of the CNS involved. Moreover, signs and symptoms of the disease may present with both mono-focal and multifocal onset.

There are different ways to classify the clinical characteristics of MS according to the site and/or the mode of onset.

The following sub-points summarize the main clinical features, predominant lesional sites, and disease course.

4.1 Prodromes and Clinically Isolated Syndrome

Prodromes and early signs and symptoms of MS are often insidious; studies on clinical databases show that people affected by MS have a greater health-care use years before the official diagnosis for symptoms including pain, insomnia, fatigue, mood disorders, urinary and gastrointestinal non-specific symptoms [2, 18]. Identifying the prodromal stage of MS is one of the future challenges in this field since prospective studies on this topic are still lacking.

Furthermore, some subjects present the characteristics of MS lesions on Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) without any neurological signs or symptoms. This eventuality is defined as “radiologically isolated syndrome” (RIS) [19]. People with RIS show an increased prevalence of headache, cognitive impairment, and slower manual dexterity; furthermore, over five years, up to 50% of these subjects are diagnosed with a clearly defined MS [20]. Fast conversion to MS has been related to young age, spinal cord involvement, and enhancing lesions [21]. It is still unclear if any treatment may prevent the transition to MS; a trial with dimethyl fumarate effectively reduced the risk of a first clinical demyelinating event [22].

Clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) is represented by a single, often monophasic demyelinating event that does not fully satisfy the criteria for MS diagnosis. Up to 85% of people with MS presented a CIS as the clinical onset of MS [23].

The term CIS is applied to acute or subacute-onset episodes lasting at least 24 hours and reaching a peak rapidly within 2–3 weeks, in the absence of fever or infection and with no clinical features of encephalopathy. Signs and symptoms of CIS involve mainly the optic nerve (unilateral optic neuritis, blurred vision), brainstem and cerebellum (ataxia, cranial nerves involvement), and spinal cord (sensory and motor signs, urinary incontinence).

In most subjects, CIS will evolve to MS; however, a small portion will remain clinically stable. The number and localization of the lesions and the presence of oligoclonal bands (OCBs) in CSF are risk factors for evolution into MS [2]. Thanks to the 2017 revised McDonald criteria, earlier diagnosis of MS and, consequentially, a prompt start of disease-modifying therapies are possible [24].

4.2 Relapsing-Remitting MS

The most frequent MS phenotype is relapsing-remitting (RR), characterized by acute neurological impairment (relapses) alternated by periods of relative clinical stability (remissions).

Relapses are defined as the onset of new neurological symptoms and signs lasting at least 24 hours and unrelated to infections or metabolic imbalance.

The most frequent clinical features of MS are optic neuritis, brainstem and cerebellar syndromes, and myelitis, while supratentorial signs or symptoms are rare, especially at disease onset.

The optic nerve is often a site of demyelination; in fact, optic neuritis is frequently the clinical onset of MS. It typically consists of acute unilateral central acuity visual loss, with retro-orbital or peri-orbital pain that worsens with eye movement and impairment in color vision. The optic disc appears healthy or mildly swollen with no hemorrhage or retinal exudates [25].

Other sites usually attacked in MS are the brainstem, fourth ventricles, cerebral peduncles, cerebellar white matter, and cerebellar peduncles. Symptoms and signs range from diplopia to oscillopsia, internuclear ophthalmoparesis, gaze-evoked nystagmus, cranial nerve palsy, trigeminal neuralgia, limb incoordination, and ataxia [26].

MS often involves the medulla, causing acute myelitis, which presents with mild to severe asymmetric and/or symmetric sensory or motor symptoms, pyramidal signs, Lhermitte signs, sensory ataxia, and urinary and sexual dysfunctions [27].

The type and severity of the myelitis (transverse myelitis, caudal syndrome, posterior columns involvement, etc.) depend on the medullar site affected and the number of lesions.

Supratentorial signs and symptoms of MS are not frequent; they are represented by unilateral motor and/or sensory disturbances, homonymous visual field defects, seizures, and cognitive impairment.

Different clinical features have recently been described to distinguish between early-onset MS (EOMS) and LOMS. EOMS is more likely to present visual and sensory impairment, while LOMS has more motor and urinary symptoms at onset, often associated with spasms, fatigue, and tremors [28]. Frequency of relapses, new T2-w lesions, or contrast-enhancing lesions at MRI represent measures of disease activity. The frequency of relapses tends to decrease in an age-dependent fashion, being higher in younger people [2].

Late diagnosis and, consequently, late treatment are associated with increased disability and progression to secondary progressive MS [29]. However, recent studies show that long-term disability is independent of relapse frequency, and it is associated with increased brain atrophy even at the early stages of the disease [30, 31, 32]. The presence of OCBs, high number of T2-w lesions (predominantly located in the spinal cord), older age, and brain atrophy are all related to increased risk of disability progression regardless of the frequency of relapses [30, 31, 32].

Luckily, thanks to DMTs and clinical management, a smaller proportion of people with RR MS evolve into secondary progressive disease [2].

Besides disability worsening, QoL may be compromised by reactive depression and cognitive impairment. The latter occur even in nearly all stages of the disease and are also described in the case of clinically and radiologically isolated syndromes [33]. In RR MS, cognitive impairment occurs in up to 40% of patients, reaching 70% in secondary progressive MS. The cognitive domains most often compromised are information processing speed, sustained attention, verbal fluency, conceptual reasoning, visual-spatial perception, episodic memory, and working memory. In patients with a more extended history of disease and subjects affected by LOMS, cognitive disability is frequent and more severe, also accounting for age-related comorbidities (cerebrovascular disease, for instance) and mood disorders [34]. For these reasons, cognitive assessment should be performed during neurological visits to identify patients who may benefit from specific treatments and cognitive rehabilitation [35].

4.3 Secondary Progressive MS

Secondary progressive MS is characterized by disability worsening without evidence of new acute inflammation both at neurological assessment and at MRI. Due to age-related functional decline and fluctuations of symptoms, secondary progressive MS is assessed retrospectively, some years after the chronic worsening [2]. There is also active secondary progressive MS when clinical relapses and new focal MRI lesions coexist with chronic worsening of disability.

Some studies attempt to detect the transition to secondary progressive MS early, based on clinical scores and the presence of contrast-enhancing lesions, spinal cord lesions, and cortical lesions at diagnosis [31, 32, 36].

Recent hypotheses suggest that RR MS and secondary progressive MS are not separate entities but a single continuum with common and overlapping pathophysiological mechanisms. Subjects’ variability in phenotypical presentations and time to disability worsening may be explained by different neurological reserves and age-related frailty [37, 38].

4.4 Primary Progressive MS

A small percentage of people present with primary progressive MS at diagnosis (10–15%), characterized by slow but constant disability progression despite treatments. It is still unclear whether primary progressive MS represents a particular phenotype distinct from secondary progressive MS or it just presents a long prodromal stage characterized by undiagnosed chronic inflammation and neurodegeneration [2].

5. Diagnostic Tools

The diagnosis of MS involves a comprehensive evaluation that includes clinical history, neurological assessment, imaging studies, cerebrospinal fluid analysis, neurophysiological exams (Evoked Potentials), and blood test.

The diagnostic work-up is guided by the 2017 revised McDonald criteria, which help Clinicians confirm the diagnosis based on objective evidence of demyelination disseminated in time and space [39].

Accurate and early diagnosis is crucial for effective management and improving the quality of life for individuals with MS.

5.1 Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Magnetic Resonance Imaging can support clinical information in diagnosing MS by showing disease dissemination in space (DIS) and time and by helping exclude MS mimics [2].

DIS describes the development of lesions in four distinct anatomical locations within the CNS: the periventricular brain region, cortical or juxtacortical brain regions, infratentorial brain region, or spinal cord. It can be shown by one or more T2-hyperintense lesions characteristic of MS in at least two of the four areas mentioned earlier in the CNS (Table 1).

Dissemination in time (DIT) describes the development or appearance of new CNS lesions over time. It can be shown by the simultaneous presence of gadolinium-enhancing and non-enhancing lesions at any time or by a new T2-hyperintense or gadolinium-enhancing lesion on follow-up MRI compared to a baseline scan, irrespective of the timing of the baseline MRI (Table 1).

Conventional MRI plays an unquestionable role in diagnosing and managing MS [40, 41]. However, it provides limited information regarding the pathophysiology of CNS damage because conventional sequences are not able to detect subtle changes affecting white and grey matter.

Moreover, conventional MRI does not allow a good correlation between the number of lesions and the severity of a disability, configuring the so-called “clinic-radiological paradox”.

Multiparametric quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (qMRI) is an advanced imaging technique extremely promising for understanding the pathophysiology and monitoring the course of MS [42, 43].

It typically includes various techniques to assess and differentiate tissue characteristics: T1 and T2 Relaxation Times, Magnetization Transfer Ratio (MTR), Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI), and Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping (QSM) [44]. Table 2 summarizes the main key aspects of each technique.

Multiparametric qMRI has several clinical applications in MS, such as:

\circ early diagnosis and differentiation between MS subtypes.

\circ monitoring disease progression.

\circ evaluation of therapeutic responses.

\circ biomarkers identification for predicting disease course and potential complications.

Furthermore, considering research fields, multiparametric qMRI allows a deeper understanding of MS pathophysiology and enables more tailored treatment approaches.

5.2 Cerebrospinal Fluid

The analysis of cerebrospinal fluid in suspected MS patients has regained attention in the latest version of the diagnostic criteria due to its diagnostic accuracy and increasing issues with misdiagnosis of MS based on over-interpretation of MRI. The hallmark of MS-specific changes in CSF is the detection of OCBs that occur in most MS patients (Table 3). Lack of OCBs has a very high negative predictive value, representing a red flag during the diagnostic work-up, and alternative diagnosis should be considered [39, 45].

The 2017 criteria have been updated to include both symptomatic and asymptomatic brain and spinal cord MRI lesions to demonstrate DIS and time and cerebrospinal fluid-specific OBCs as a substitute for a second clinical event or MRI activity [39].

5.3 Evoked Potentials

Although MRI scans are more commonly used, evoked potentials still have a role, particularly at the earlier stages of MS. The most widely used test is visual evoked potentials, which measure the speed of electrical conduction from the eyes to the occipital cortex. Delayed responses suggest demyelination.

Somatosensory evoked potentials and brainstem auditory evoked potentials assess the integrity of sensory pathways, detecting subclinical lesions and providing potentially functional measures of therapies’ benefits.

5.4 Blood Samples

Blood tests help rule out other conditions that can mimic MS, such as infections (Lyme disease, syphilis, HIV, etc.), vitamin deficiencies (B12), and autoimmune diseases (lupus, Sjogren’s syndrome, etc.) [45].

5.5 McDonald Criteria

The McDonald criteria are a set of guidelines that incorporate clinical and laboratory evaluations, as well as MRI data, to establish MS diagnosis.

The first version of the criteria was published in 2001 by an international team led by Neurologist Ian McDonald. The criteria have since been extensively updated several times, most recently in 2017 revisions [39].

To fulfill a diagnosis of MS based on the 2017 McDonald criteria, an individual must have evidence of CNS damage that is disseminated in both time and space.

DIS includes MRI evidence of lesions in at least two of the following areas: periventricular, juxtacortical/cortical, infratentorial, and spinal cord.

DIT, instead, includes MRI evidence and CSF-specific OCBs.

MRI Evidence of DIS is the simultaneous presence of both gadolinium-enhancing and non-enhancing lesions at any time or a new T2 or gadolinium-enhancing lesion on follow-up MRI, compared to a baseline scan, irrespective of the timing of the baseline MRI.

The diagnosis of MS can be made if there is fulfillment of any of the five categories of criteria reported in Table 4, depending on how many clinical attacks have occurred (Table 4).

6. Therapeutic Approach

Over the years, MS therapy has undergone several changes, both in terms of therapeutic targets and treatment paradigms [45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87].

6.1 Evolution in Therapeutic Targets

With regard to therapeutic targets, as previously mentioned, T cells and peripheral inflammation were broadly considered significant contributors to disease pathogenesis and demyelination in MS. Thus, first therapeutic approaches were based on the immunomodulatory properties of drugs against T-cells to decrease pro-inflammatory cytokines, increase T-regulatory function, and reduce the activity of matrix metalloproteinase [10] (Table 5, Ref. [60, 61, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87]).

Subsequently, further therapies were found to be effective in MS by reducing the lymphocyte trafficking across the BBB toward the CNS or by sequestrating peripheral lymphocytes to the secondary lymphoid organs, emphasizing the direct role of T-cell lineage in CNS damage (Table 5) [13]. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that a more regulatory setting of immune systems follows depleting therapies, as observed with Alemtuzumab or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation [46, 47]. After T and B cell depletion therapies, immune reconstitution follows a common pathway with CD4⁺ cells raising faster and with a Th2 (anti-inflammatory/regulatory) phenotype, while Th1 and Th17 cells with a more pro-inflammatory setting reach normal values. This leads to a less inflammatory and less autoreactive setting of immune repertory and, accordingly, to a less aggressive MS phenotype [46, 47].

The subsequent increasing role attributed to B cells in pathogenesis led to the development of new drugs directed precisely against certain B cells that have proven highly effective in controlling the disease.

Finally, future therapeutic developments will focus on restoring damaged oligodendrocytes, neurons, and pro-inflammatory-activated macroglia.

6.2 Evolution in Therapeutic Approach

The therapeutic paradigm is constantly evolving. In fact, it has been changed from the traditional “escalation therapy” approach, which involves starting treatment with medium efficacy treatment (MET), followed by a therapeutic shift to high efficacy treatment (HET), in case of uncontrolled disease, to early use of HET, often immediately at the diagnosis of MS [48, 49, 50, 51, 52].

This approach aims to reduce the risk of long-term disability accumulation. Increasing evidence shows that the risk of progression is only partly linked to clinical relapses and the presence of new inflammatory lesions on MRI. It is primarily connected with PIRA, which starts from the biological onset of MS [53, 54, 55].

An early start with HET is especially justified in the presence of one or more of the known risk factors for disease aggressiveness.

Increasing experience in the use of HET and more extensive availability of new drugs contributed to reducing the risk during treatment with HET [56].

In particular, several studies have proved that young patients (40.5 years) seem to be optimal responders to HET and are burdened with fewer risks of severe adverse events [57, 58, 59].

A therapeutic issue that recently emerged is the management of MS onset in older adults, which is defined as LOMS (>50 years). The complexity of such therapeutic management is represented by the close link between age, comorbidity, physiopathological mechanisms, and immunosenescence among this population.

Indeed, all data from the main randomized controlled trials (RCTs) refer to patients 55 years, 50 years, or even 45 years [60, 61, 62, 63], which makes the decisions on the efficacy and the safety of these drugs in LOMS even more difficult. Several studies have tried to analyze the effect of different treatments on disease progression and activity [64, 65, 66, 67, 68]. They showed that efficacy decreases in older patients, with a higher risk of adverse events.

Furthermore, an older age leads to a spontaneous increase in infections, neoplasia, and lymphopenia. These risks seem to increase due to a synergistic effect caused by DMTs use (e.g., higher risk of cryptococcal meningitis in patients receiving SP-1 modulator, higher infective risk in patients receiving anti-CD 20, higher herpetic infection, etc.) [69, 70].

In addition, the risk of higher drug interaction in patients receiving polytherapy must be taken into account, also due to increased predominance of diabetes, stroke, ischemic heart disease, and congestive heart failure in people with MS [71].

Considering older patients with MS, menopause is worthy of consideration: around 30% of the MS population includes women in peri- and menopause. Schweitzer et al. [71] suggested a decrease in relapse rate and an increased disability progression post-menopause, data that further studies have not confirmed. In general, it seems that hormonal fluctuations coupled with immunosenescence contribute to neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration, increasing MS-related disability post-menopause [71].

6.3 Actuality and Future of Therapy in MS

The drugs used to treat the RR phenotype have been divided into medium-efficacy and high-efficacy treatments (Table 5) [56].

Ocrelizumab is the only drug approved for treating the primary progressive form of the disease [72].

Siponimod, instead, has been approved for secondary progressive MS [73], while several other drugs have been considered for the relapsing-remitting form, as listed in Table 5 (Ref. [60, 61, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87]).

The choice of a drug must be based on different elements: clinical and neuroradiological disease activity, patients’ age, preference, comorbidity, and lifestyle.

An additional therapeutic option is autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation [88].

This treatment allows long-term immunomodulation without the need for continuous use of DMTs. This procedure has a high number of risks and is, therefore, currently reserved for patients with a very aggressive form of disease that does not respond to other therapies. It is, however, a procedure in continuous development, with ongoing trials even on primary and secondary progressive forms of the disease.

As already described, research is focused on optimizing therapeutic options for already known pathogenic mechanisms and developing drugs for new targets (e.g., microglia activity, etc.).

A new class of DMT is currently being studied, named Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors (IBtK). Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) is a non-receptor, cytoplasmic tyrosine kinase expressed, very important for the development of B-cells and myeloid cells, located both peripherally and within the CNS [89, 90, 91].

In the pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis, BTKs lead to the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines, including interferon-gamma and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha; such cytochemical release can lead to differentiation of TCD4⁺ cells implicated in demyelination and activation in a pro-inflammatory sense of the macrophage component. BTKs are also present in microglia with activation of microglia themselves. The use of BTKs may mediate all these mechanisms, becoming a possible interesting new therapeutic approach to multiple sclerosis.

Studies are also underway to evaluate new targets for treating MS, hypothesizing possible mechanisms of remyelination or neuroprotection. In particular, trials focus on clemastine, alone or in combination with metformin [92, 93].

Furthermore, interesting data come about exosomes, which can be secreted by neurons and glial cells and appear to be able to play an essential role in the autoimmune processes. Exosomal microRNAs (miRNAs) differ in their expression patterns in MS; these microvesicles are non-immunogenic and non-toxic therapeutic tools for transferring miRNAs across the BBB [94].

Another possible future target, with anti-inflammatory, neuroprotective, and remyelinating activities, could be ApTOLL. It is an aptamer selected to antagonize toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4), an essential actor of innate immunity involved in inflammatory responses in MS and other diseases [95].

Finally, other future therapeutic targets under investigation are related to the likely pathogenetic role of the EBV (allogenic Epstein-Barr virus T cell approach), preventive vaccine strategies, and the possible role of the gut microbiome [96, 97, 98].

6.4 Ancillary Therapies

Apart from DMTs, other treatments represent a standard of care in MS patients. People with MS are affected by several symptoms, such as pain, spasticity, and fatigue, that significantly impair everyday life activity and worsen the QoL.

Symptomatic therapies are, thus, mandatory to improve the overall well-being of patients with MS [99].

A list of these ancillary therapies is reported in Table 6 (Ref. [99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114]).

7. Conclusions

MS is a continuously evolving pathology both per se and according to epidemiological, pathogenetic, and therapeutic points of view. There are still many unmet needs for people affected by MS, and future challenges are represented by the treatment of LOMS, whose prevalence is likely to increase in the following years, the choice among many highly effective therapies since MS onset, the management of side effects, and the evaluation of possible strategies of de-escalation. Finally, new therapeutic targets aimed at controlling not only inflammatory activity but also neurodegeneration are needed to prevent the most insidious and “dark” side of MS.

References

[1] Thompson AJ, Baranzini SE, Geurts J, Hemmer B, Ciccarelli O. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet. 2018; 391: 1622–1636.

[2] Jakimovski D, Bittner S, Zivadinov R, Morrow SA, Benedict RH, Zipp F, et al. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet. 2024; 403: 183–202.

[3] GBD 2016 Multiple Sclerosis Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of multiple sclerosis 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet. Neurology. 2019; 18: 269–285.

[4] Prosperini L, Lucchini M, Ruggieri S, Tortorella C, Haggiag S, Mirabella M, et al. Shift of multiple sclerosis onset towards older age. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry. 2022; 93: 1137–1139.

[5] Shams H, Shao X, Santaniello A, Kirkish G, Harroud A, Ma Q, et al. Polygenic risk score association with multiple sclerosis susceptibility and phenotype in Europeans. Brain. 2023; 146: 645–656.

[6] Bjornevik K, Cortese M, Healy BC, Kuhle J, Mina MJ, Leng Y, et al. Longitudinal analysis reveals high prevalence of Epstein-Barr virus associated with multiple sclerosis. Science. 2022; 375: 296–301.

[7] Aloisi F, Giovannoni G, Salvetti M. Epstein-Barr virus as a cause of multiple sclerosis: opportunities for prevention and therapy. The Lancet. Neurology. 2023; 22: 338–349.

[8] Sangha A, Quon M, Pfeffer G, Orton SM. The Role of Vitamin D in Neuroprotection in Multiple Sclerosis: An Update. Nutrients. 2023; 15: 2978.

[9] Yuan S, Larsson SC. An atlas on risk factors for type 2 diabetes: a wide-angled Mendelian randomisation study. Diabetologia. 2020; 63: 2359–2371.

[10] Liu R, Du S, Zhao L, Jain S, Sahay K, Rizvanov A, et al. Autoreactive lymphocytes in multiple sclerosis: Pathogenesis and treatment target. Frontiers in Immunology. 2022; 13: 996469.

[11] Luchicchi A, Preziosa P, ’t Hart B. Editorial: “Inside-Out” vs “Outside-In” Paradigms in Multiple Sclerosis Etiopathogenesis. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience. 2021; 15: 666529.

[12] Titus HE, Chen Y, Podojil JR, Robinson AP, Balabanov R, Popko B, et al. Pre-clinical and Clinical Implications of “Inside-Out” vs. “Outside-In” Paradigms in Multiple Sclerosis Etiopathogenesis. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience. 2020; 14: 599717.

[13] Comi G, Bar-Or A, Lassmann H, Uccelli A, Hartung HP, Montalban X, et al. Role of B Cells in Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders. Annals of Neurology. 2021; 89: 13–23.

[14] Häusser-Kinzel S, Weber MS. The Role of B Cells and Antibodies in Multiple Sclerosis, Neuromyelitis Optica, and Related Disorders. Frontiers in Immunology. 2019; 10: 201.

[15] Jain RW, Yong VW. B cells in central nervous system disease: diversity, locations and pathophysiology. Nature Reviews. Immunology. 2022; 22: 513–524.

[16] Maggi P, Bulcke CV, Pedrini E, Bugli C, Sellimi A, Wynen M, et al. B cell depletion therapy does not resolve chronic active multiple sclerosis lesions. eBioMedicine. 2023; 94: 104701.

[17] Yong VW. Microglia in multiple sclerosis: Protectors turn destroyers. Neuron. 2022; 110: 3534–3548.

[18] Disanto G, Zecca C, MacLachlan S, Sacco R, Handunnetthi L, Meier UC, et al. Prodromal symptoms of multiple sclerosis in primary care. Annals of Neurology. 2018; 83: 1162–1173.

[19] De Stefano N, Giorgio A, Tintoré M, Pia Amato M, Kappos L, Palace J, et al. Radiologically isolated syndrome or subclinical multiple sclerosis: MAGNIMS consensus recommendations. Multiple Sclerosis. 2018; 24: 214–221.

[20] Lebrun C, Bensa C, Debouverie M, Wiertlevski S, Brassat D, de Seze J, et al. Association between clinical conversion to multiple sclerosis in radiologically isolated syndrome and magnetic resonance imaging, cerebrospinal fluid, and visual evoked potential: follow-up of 70 patients. Archives of Neurology. 2009; 66: 841–846.

[21] Lebrun-Frénay C, Rollot F, Mondot L, Zephir H, Louapre C, Le Page E, et al. Risk Factors and Time to Clinical Symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis Among Patients With Radiologically Isolated Syndrome. JAMA Network Open. 2021; 4: e2128271.

[22] Okuda DT, Kantarci O, Lebrun-Frénay C, Sormani MP, Azevedo CJ, Bovis F, et al. Dimethyl Fumarate Delays Multiple Sclerosis in Radiologically Isolated Syndrome. Annals of Neurology. 2023; 93: 604–614.

[23] Miller DH, Chard DT, Ciccarelli O. Clinically isolated syndromes. The Lancet. Neurology. 2012; 11: 157–169.

[24] van der Vuurst de Vries RM, Mescheriakova JY, Wong YYM, Runia TF, Jafari N, Samijn JP, et al. Application of the 2017 Revised McDonald Criteria for Multiple Sclerosis to Patients With a Typical Clinically Isolated Syndrome. JAMA Neurology. 2018; 75: 1392–1398.

[25] Bennett JL, Costello F, Chen JJ, Petzold A, Biousse V, Newman NJ, et al. Optic neuritis and autoimmune optic neuropathies: advances in diagnosis and treatment. The Lancet. Neurology. 2023; 22: 89–100.

[26] Brownlee WJ, Hardy TA, Fazekas F, Miller DH. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: progress and challenges. Lancet. 2017; 389: 1336–1346.

[27] Lopez Chiriboga S, Flanagan EP. Myelitis and Other Autoimmune Myelopathies. Continuum. 2021; 27: 62–92.

[28] Palathinkara M, Razzak AN, Ababneh OE, Cairns D, Obeidat AZ. Clinical and radiologic differences between early onset, late onset, and very late onset adult multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders. 2023; 80: 105132.

[29] Confavreux C, Vukusic S. Natural history of multiple sclerosis: a unifying concept. Brain. 2006; 129: 606–616.

[30] University of California, San Francisco MS-EPIC Team, Cree BAC, Hollenbach JA, Bove R, Kirkish G, Sacco S, et al. Silent progression in disease activity-free relapsing multiple sclerosis. Annals of Neurology. 2019; 85: 653–666.

[31] Portaccio E, Bellinvia A, Fonderico M, Pastò L, Razzolini L, Totaro R, et al. Progression is independent of relapse activity in early multiple sclerosis: a real-life cohort study. Brain. 2022; 145: 2796–2805.

[32] Rocca MA, Valsasina P, Meani A, Gobbi C, Zecca C, Barkhof F, et al. Spinal cord lesions and brain grey matter atrophy independently predict clinical worsening in definite multiple sclerosis: a 5-year, multicentre study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry. 2023; 94: 10–18.

[33] Glanz BI, Healy BC, Hviid LE, Chitnis T, Weiner HL. Cognitive deterioration in patients with early multiple sclerosis: a 5-year study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry. 2012; 83: 38–43.

[34] DiMauro KA, Swetlik C, Cohen JA. Management of multiple sclerosis in older adults: review of current evidence and future perspectives. Journal of Neurology. 2024; 271: 3794–3805.

[35] Planche V, Gibelin M, Cregut D, Pereira B, Clavelou P. Cognitive impairment in a population-based study of patients with multiple sclerosis: differences between late relapsing-remitting, secondary progressive and primary progressive multiple sclerosis. European Journal of Neurology. 2016; 23: 282–289.

[36] Brownlee WJ, Altmann DR, Prados F, Miszkiel KA, Eshaghi A, Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott CAM, et al. Early imaging predictors of long-term outcomes in relapse-onset multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2019; 142: 2276–2287.

[37] Larochelle C, Uphaus T, Prat A, Zipp F. Secondary Progression in Multiple Sclerosis: Neuronal Exhaustion or Distinct Pathology? Trends in Neurosciences. 2016; 39: 325–339.

[38] Vollmer TL, Nair KV, Williams IM, Alvarez E. Multiple Sclerosis Phenotypes as a Continuum: The Role of Neurologic Reserve. Neurology. Clinical Practice. 2021; 11: 342–351.

[39] Thompson AJ, Banwell BL, Barkhof F, Carroll WM, Coetzee T, Comi G, et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. The Lancet. Neurology. 2018; 17: 162–173.

[40] Rovira À Wattjes MP, Tintoré M, Tur C, Yousry TA, Sormani MP, et al. Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis-clinical implementation in the diagnostic process. Nature Reviews. Neurology. 2015; 11: 471–482.

[41] Wattjes MP, Ciccarelli O, Reich DS, Banwell B, de Stefano N, Enzinger C, et al. 2021 MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS consensus recommendations on the use of MRI in patients with multiple sclerosis. The Lancet. Neurology. 2021; 20: 653–670.

[42] Seiler A, Nöth U, Hok P, Reiländer A, Maiworm M, Baudrexel S, et al. Multiparametric Quantitative MRI in Neurological Diseases. Frontiers in Neurology. 2021; 12: 640239.

[43] Tranfa M, Pontillo G, Petracca M, Brunetti A, Tedeschi E, Palma G, et al. Quantitative MRI in Multiple Sclerosis: From Theory to Application. AJNR. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2022; 43: 1688–1695.

[44] Granziera C, Wuerfel J, Barkhof F, Calabrese M, De Stefano N, Enzinger C, et al. Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging towards clinical application in multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2021; 144: 1296–1311.

[45] Solomon AJ, Arrambide G, Brownlee WJ, Flanagan EP, Amato MP, Amezcua L, et al. Differential diagnosis of suspected multiple sclerosis: an updated consensus approach. The Lancet. Neurology. 2023; 22: 750–768.

[46] Gallo P, Centonze D, Marrosu MG. A lemtuzumab for multiple sclerosis: the new concept of immunomodulation. Multiple Sclerosis and Demyelinating Disorders. 2017; 2: 7.

[47] Ruck T, Barman S, Schulte-Mecklenbeck A, Pfeuffer S, Steffen F, Nelke C, et al. Alemtuzumab-induced immune phenotype and repertoire changes: implications for secondary autoimmunity. Brain. 2022; 145: 1711–1725.

[48] Ontaneda D, Tallantyre E, Kalincik T, Planchon SM, Evangelou N. Early highly effective versus escalation treatment approaches in relapsing multiple sclerosis. The Lancet. Neurology. 2019; 18: 973–980.

[49] Fernández O, Delvecchio M, Edan G, Fredrikson S, Gionvannoni G, Hartung HP, et al. Survey of diagnostic and treatment practices for multiple sclerosis in Europe. European Journal of Neurology. 2017; 24: 516–522.

[50] Merkel B, Butzkueven H, Traboulsee AL, Havrdova E, Kalincik T. Timing of high-efficacy therapy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: A systematic review. Autoimmunity Reviews. 2017; 16: 658–665.

[51] Harding K, Williams O, Willis M, Hrastelj J, Rimmer A, Joseph F, et al. Clinical Outcomes of Escalation vs Early Intensive Disease-Modifying Therapy in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis. JAMA Neurology. 2019; 76: 536–541.

[52] Prosperini L, Mancinelli CR, Solaro CM, Nociti V, Haggiag S, Cordioli C, et al. Induction Versus Escalation in Multiple Sclerosis: A 10-Year Real World Study. Neurotherapeutics: the Journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics. 2020; 17: 994–1004.

[53] Kappos L, Butzkueven H, Wiendl H, Spelman T, Pellegrini F, Chen Y, et al. Greater sensitivity to multiple sclerosis disability worsening and progression events using a roving versus a fixed reference value in a prospective cohort study. Multiple Sclerosis. 2018; 24: 963–973.

[54] Kappos L, Wolinsky JS, Giovannoni G, Arnold DL, Wang Q, Bernasconi C, et al. Contribution of Relapse-Independent Progression vs Relapse-Associated Worsening to Overall Confirmed Disability Accumulation in Typical Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis in a Pooled Analysis of 2 Randomized Clinical Trials. JAMA Neurology. 2020; 77: 1132–1140.

[55] Lublin FD, Häring DA, Ganjgahi H, Ocampo A, Hatami F, Čuklina J, et al. How patients with multiple sclerosis acquire disability. Brain. 2022; 145: 3147–3161.

[56] Filippi M, Amato MP, Centonze D, Gallo P, Gasperini C, Inglese M, et al. Early use of high-efficacy disease modifying therapies makes the difference in people with multiple sclerosis: an expert opinion. Journal of Neurology. 2022; 269: 5382–5394.

[57] Foong YC, Merlo D, Gresle M, Buzzard K, Zhong M, Yeh WZ, et al. Comparing ocrelizumab to interferon/glatiramer acetate in people with multiple sclerosis over age 60. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry. 2024; 95: 767–774.

[58] Piedrabuena MA, Correale J, Fiol M, Marrodan M, Rojas JI, Alonso M, et al. Selection of disease modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis based on patient’s age and disease activity: Data from a nationwide registry. Journal of the Neurological Sciences. 2024; 461: 123052.

[59] Jouvenot G, Courbon G, Lefort M, Rollot F, Casey R, Le Page, et al. High-efficacy Therapy discontinuation vs Continuation in patients 50 years and older with nonactive MS. JAMA Neurology. 2024; 81: 490–498.

[60] Kappos L, Radue EW, O’Connor P, Polman C, Hohlfeld R, Calabresi P, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of oral fingolimod in relapsing multiple sclerosis. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2010; 362: 387–401.

[61] Polman CH, O’Connor PW, Havrdova E, Hutchinson M, Kappos L, Miller DH, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2006; 354: 899–910.

[62] Confavreux C, O’Connor P, Comi G, Freedman MS, Miller AE, Olsson TP, et al. Oral teriflunomide for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (TOWER): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. The Lancet. Neurology. 2014; 13: 247–256.

[63] Bar-Or A, Gold R, Kappos L, Arnold DL, Giovannoni G, Selmaj K, et al. Clinical efficacy of BG-12 (dimethyl fumarate) in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: subgroup analyses of the DEFINE study. Journal of Neurology. 2013; 260: 2297–2305.

[64] Signori A, Schiavetti I, Gallo F, Sormani MP. Subgroups of multiple sclerosis patients with larger treatment benefits: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. European Journal of Neurology. 2015; 22: 960–966.

[65] He A, Merkel B, Brown JWL, Zhovits Ryerson L, Kister I, Malpas CB, et al. Timing of high-efficacy therapy for multiple sclerosis: a retrospective observational cohort study. The Lancet. Neurology. 2020; 19: 307–316.

[66] Hartung HP, Meuth SG, Thompson AJ. Paradigm shifts: Early initiation of high-efficacy disease-modifying treatment in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis. 2021; 27: 1473–1476.

[67] Simpson A, Mowry EM, Newsome SD. Early Aggressive Treatment Approaches for Multiple Sclerosis. Current Treatment Options in Neurology. 2021; 23: 19.

[68] Weideman AM, Tapia-Maltos MA, Johnson K, Greenwood M, Bielekova B. Meta-analysis of the Age-Dependent Efficacy of Multiple Sclerosis Treatments. Frontiers in Neurology. 2017; 8: 577.

[69] Grebenciucova E, Reder AT, Bernard JT. Immunologic mechanisms of fingolimod and the role of immunosenescence in the risk of cryptococcal infection: A case report and review of literature. Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders. 2016; 9: 158–162.

[70] Habek M, Piskač D, Gabelić T, Barun B, Adamec I, Krbot Skorić M. Hypogammaglobulinemia, infections and COVID-19 in people with multiple sclerosis treated with ocrelizumab. Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders. 2022; 62: 103798.

[71] Schweitzer F, Laurent S, Fink GR, Barnett MH, Reddel S, Hartung HP, et al. Age and the risks of high-efficacy disease modifying drugs in multiple sclerosis. Current Opinion in Neurology. 2019; 32: 305–312.

[72] Montalban X, Hauser SL, Kappos L, Arnold DL, Bar-Or A, Comi G, et al. Ocrelizumab versus Placebo in Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2017; 376: 209–220.

[73] Kappos L, Bar-Or A, Cree BAC, Fox RJ, Giovannoni G, Gold R, et al. Siponimod versus placebo in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (EXPAND): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2018; 391: 1263–1273.

[74] Beck RW, Chandler DL, Cole SR, Simon JH, Jacobs LD, Kinkel RP, et al. Interferon beta-1a for early multiple sclerosis: CHAMPS trial subgroup analyses. Annals of Neurology. 2002; 51: 481–490.

[75] Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study of interferon beta-1a in relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis. PRISMS (Prevention of Relapses and Disability by Interferon beta-1a Subcutaneously in Multiple Sclerosis) Study Group. Lancet. 1998; 352: 1498–1504.

[76] Kieseier BC, Arnold DL, Balcer LJ, Boyko AA, Pelletier J, Liu S, et al. Peginterferon beta-1a in multiple sclerosis: 2-year results from ADVANCE. Multiple Sclerosis. 2015; 21: 1025–1035.

[77] Comi G, Martinelli V, Rodegher M, Moiola L, Bajenaru O, Carra A, 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: 1503–1511.

[78] Kappos L, Gold R, Arnold DL, Bar-Or A, Giovannoni G, Selmaj K, et al. Quality of life outcomes with BG-12 (dimethyl fumarate) in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: the DEFINE study. Multiple Sclerosis. 2014; 20: 243–252.

[79] Wray S, Then Bergh F, Wundes A, Arnold DL, Drulovic J, Jasinska E, et al. Efficacy and Safety Outcomes with Diroximel Fumarate After Switching from Prior Therapies or Continuing on DRF: Results from the Phase 3 EVOLVE-MS-1 Study. Advances in Therapy. 2022; 39: 1810–1831.

[80] O’Connor P, Wolinsky JS, Confavreux C, Comi G, Kappos L, Olsson TP, et al. Randomized trial of oral teriflunomide for relapsing multiple sclerosis. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2011; 365: 1293–1303.

[81] Cohen JA, Comi G, Selmaj KW, Bar-Or A, Arnold DL, Steinman L, et al. Safety and efficacy of ozanimod versus interferon beta-1a in relapsing multiple sclerosis (RADIANCE): a multicentre, randomised, 24-month, phase 3 trial. The Lancet. Neurology. 2019; 18: 1021–1033.

[82] Kappos L, Fox RJ, Burcklen M, Freedman MS, Havrdová EK, Hennessy B, et al. Ponesimod Compared With Teriflunomide in Patients With Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis in the Active-Comparator Phase 3 OPTIMUM Study: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Neurology. 2021; 78: 558–567.

[83] Giovannoni G, Comi G, Cook S, Rammohan K, Rieckmann P, Soelberg Sørensen P, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of oral cladribine for relapsing multiple sclerosis. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2010; 362: 416–426.

[84] Hauser SL, Bar-Or A, Comi G, Giovannoni G, Hartung HP, Hemmer B, et al. Ocrelizumab versus Interferon Beta-1a in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2017; 376: 221–234.

[85] Hauser SL, Bar-Or A, Cohen JA, Comi G, Correale J, Coyle PK, et al. Ofatumumab versus Teriflunomide in Multiple Sclerosis. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2020; 383: 546–557.

[86] Steinman L, Fox E, Hartung HP, Alvarez E, Qian P, Wray S, et al. Ublituximab versus Teriflunomide in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2022; 387: 704–714.

[87] Arroyo R, Bury DP, Guo JD, Margolin DH, Melanson M, Daizadeh N, et al. Impact of alemtuzumab on health-related quality of life over 6 years in CARE-MS II trial extension patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis. 2020; 26: 955–963.

[88] Balassa K, Danby R, Rocha V. Haematopoietic stem cell transplants: principles and indications. British Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2019; 80: 33–39.

[89] Krämer J, Bar-Or A, Turner TJ, Wiendl H. Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors for multiple sclerosis. Nature Reviews. Neurology. 2023; 19: 289–304.

[90] Montalban X, Arnold DL, Weber MS, Staikov I, Piasecka-Stryczynska K, Willmer J, et al. Placebo-Controlled Trial of an Oral BTK Inhibitor in Multiple Sclerosis. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2019; 380: 2406–2417.

[91] Reich DS, Arnold DL, Vermersch P, Bar-Or A, Fox RJ, Matta A, et al. Safety and efficacy of tolebrutinib, an oral brain-penetrant BTK inhibitor, in relapsing multiple sclerosis: a phase 2b, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet. Neurology. 2021; 20: 729–738.

[92] Sapko K, Jamroz-Wiśniewska A, Rejdak K. Novel Drugs in a Pipeline for Progressive Multiple Sclerosis. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11: 3342.

[93] Dziedzic A, Saluk-Bijak J, Miller E, Bijak M. Metformin as a Potential Agent in the Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2020; 21: 5957.

[94] Mohammadinasr M, Montazersaheb S, Ayromlou H, Hosseini V, Molavi O, Hejazi MS. Exosome Content-Mediated Signaling Pathways in Multiple Sclerosis. Molecular Neurobiology. 2024; 61: 5404–5417.

[95] Fernández-Gómez B, Marchena MA, Piñeiro D, Gómez-Martín P, Sánchez E, Laó Y, et al. ApTOLL: A new therapeutic aptamer for cytoprotection and (re)myelination after multiple sclerosis. British Journal of Pharmacology. 2024; 181: 3263–3281.

[96] Soldan SS, Lieberman PM. Epstein-Barr virus and multiple sclerosis. Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 2023; 21: 51–64.

[97] Otero-Romero S, Lebrun-Frénay C, Reyes S, Amato MP, Campins M, Farez M, et al. ECTRIMS/EAN consensus on vaccination in people with multiple sclerosis: Improving immunization strategies in the era of highly active immunotherapeutic drugs. Multiple Sclerosis. 2023; 29: 904–925.

[98] Cox LM, Maghzi AH, Liu S, Tankou SK, Dhang FH, Willocq V, et al. Gut Microbiome in Progressive Multiple Sclerosis. Annals of Neurology. 2021; 89: 1195–1211.

[99] Frohman TC, Castro W, Shah A, Courtney A, Ortstadt J, Davis SL, et al. Symptomatic therapy in multiple sclerosis. Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders. 2011; 4: 83–98.

[100] Goessaert ASOM, Everaert KCMM. Onabotulinum toxin A for the treatment of neurogenic detrusor overactivity due to spinal cord injury or multiple sclerosis. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics. 2012; 12: 763–775.

[101] Fjorback MV, Rijkhoff N, Petersen T, Nohr M, Sinkjaer T. Event driven electrical stimulation of the dorsal penile/clitoral nerve for management of neurogenic detrusor overactivity in multiple sclerosis. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2006; 25: 349–355.

[102] Kabay S, Kabay SC, Yucel M, Ozden H, Yilmaz Z, Aras O, et al. The clinical and urodynamic results of a 3-month percutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation treatment in patients with multiple sclerosis-related neurogenic bladder dysfunction. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2009; 28: 964–968.

[103] Nourbakhsh B, Revirajan N, Morris B, Cordano C, Creasman J, Manguinao M, et al. Safety and efficacy of amantadine, modafinil, and methylphenidate for fatigue in multiple sclerosis: a randomised, placebo-controlled, crossover, double-blind trial. The Lancet. Neurology. 2021; 20: 38–48.

[104] Tejani AM, Wasdell M, Spiwak R, Rowell G, Nathwani S. Carnitine for fatigue in multiple sclerosis. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2012; 2012: CD007280.

[105] Perez DQ, Espiritu AI, Jamora RDG. Efficacy and safety of amantadine for the treatment of fatigue in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurodegenerative Disease Management. 2020; 10: 383–395.

[106] Yang TT, Wang L, Deng XY, Yu G. Pharmacological treatments for fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the Neurological Sciences. 2017; 380: 256–261.

[107] Pöllmann W, Feneberg W, Steinbrecher A, Haupts MR, Henze T. Therapy of pain syndromes in multiple sclerosis – an overview with evidence-based recommendations. Fortschritte Der Neurologie-Psychiatrie. 2005; 73: 268–285.

[108] Vollmer TL, Robinson MJ, Risser RC, Malcolm SK. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of duloxetine for the treatment of pain in patients with multiple sclerosis. Pain Practice. 2014; 14: 732–744.

[109] Prnjavorac B, Kunic S, Pejanovic-Skobic N, Gorana NP, Zirojevic D, Vukas SK, et al. Pregabalin in the Treatment of Peripheral and Central Chronic Neuropathic Pain. Materia Socio-medica. 2023; 35: 42–47.

[110] Fu X, Wang Y, Wang C, Wu H, Li J, Li M, et al. A mixed treatment comparison on efficacy and safety of treatments for spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2018; 32: 713–721.

[111] Torres-Moreno MC, Papaseit E, Torrens M, Farré M. Assessment of Efficacy and Tolerability of Medicinal Cannabinoids in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open. 2018; 1: e183485.

[112] da Rovare VP, Magalhães GPA, Jardini GDA, Beraldo ML, Gameiro MO, Agarwal A, et al. Cannabinoids for spasticity due to multiple sclerosis or paraplegia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Complementary Therapies in Medicine. 2017; 34: 170–185.

[113] Motavalli A, Majdi A, Hosseini L, Talebi M, Mahmoudi J, Hosseini SH, et al. Pharmacotherapy in multiple sclerosis-induced cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders. 2020; 46: 102478.

[114] Iodice R, Aceto G, Ruggiero L, Cassano E, Manganelli F, Dubbioso R. A review of current rehabilitation practices and their benefits in patients with multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders. 2023; 69: 104460.