Multiple sclerosis disease activity, a multi-biomarker score of disease activity and response to treatment in multiple sclerosis

Regular assessment of disease activity in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) is required to optimize clinical outcomes. Biomarkers can be a valuable tool for measuring disease activity in multiple sclerosis (MS) if they reflect the pathological processes underlying MS pathogenicity. In this pilot study, we combined multiple biomarkers previously analyzed in RRMS patients into an MS disease activity (MSDA) score to evaluate their ability to predict relapses and treatment response to glatiramer acetate (GA). Response Gene to Complement 32 (RGC-32), FasL, IL-21, SIRT1, phosphorylated SIRT1 (p-SIRT1), and JNK1 p54 levels were used to generate cut-off values for each biomarker. Any value below the cutoff for RGC-32, FasL SIRT1, or p-SIRT1 or above the cutoff for IL-21 or JNK1 p54 was given a +1 value, indicating relapse or lack of response to GA. Any value above the cutoff value for RGC-32, FasL, SIRT1, p-SIRT1 or below that for IL-21 or JNK1 p54 was given a -1 value, indicating clinical stability or response to GA. An MSDA score above +1 indicated a relapse or lack of response to treatment. An MSDA score below -1 indicated clinical stability or response to treatment. Our results showed that the MSDA scores generated using either four or six biomarkers had a higher sensitivity and specificity and significantly correlated with the expanded disability status scale. Although these results suggest that the MSDA test can be useful for monitoring therapeutic response to biologic agents and assessing clinically challenging situations, the present findings need to be confirmed in larger studies

Early Versus Delayed Treatment With Glatiramer Acetate: Analysis of up to 27 Years of Continuous Follow-up in a US Open-Label Extension Study

BACKGROUND: Glatiramer acetate (GA) is US-approved for relapsing multiple sclerosis. OBJECTIVES: To describe GA long-term clinical profile. To compare effectiveness of early start (ES) versus delayed start (DS; up to 3 years) with GA. METHODS: Phase 3 trial participants entered a randomized placebo-controlled period then an open-label extension (OLE) with GA. RESULTS: Overall, 208 out of 251 (82.9%) randomized participants entered the OLE; 24 out of 101 (23.8%, ES) and 28 out of 107 (26.2%, DS) participants completed the OLE. Median GA treatment was 9.8 (0.1-26.3) years. Annualized change in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was lower with ES versus DS ( CONCLUSION: GA long-term treatment maintained clinical benefit with a similar safety profile to phase 3 results; a key limitation was that only 25% of participants completed the OLE. Early initiation of GA had sustained benefits versus delayed treatment