Mult Scler. 2017 Sep 1:1352458517729462. doi: 10.1177/1352458517729462. [Epub ahead of print]
Radiologically isolated syndrome should be treated with disease-modifying therapy-Yes.
Radiologically isolated syndrome should be treated with disease-modifying therapy – No
Andrés Labiano-Fontcuberta, Julián Benito-León First Published September 14, 2017
MS treatments are a caveat emptor. Global consumerism has hit the MS market succeeding in banishing moderation, thereby legitimising price hikes in the name of competition. It, therefore, falls to the responsible clinician to take the moral and ethical high ground. So, if science gives us the opportunity to treat early, regardless of cost, wouldn't it be wrong not to follow its instruction? Is, there an alternative viable option - realistically speaking? A transformative approach to early treatment in MS should therefore not be swept under the table. A pragmatic approach that demands an unequivocal demonstration of efficacy is not an approach to take in the path to a cure.
Okuda, above argues that MRI lesions in radiologically isolated syndromes (RISs) are very typical to those seen in MS in terms of appearance, frequency and distribution in the brain. Of those scanned 24% demonstrate contrast enhancing lesions on their baseline scan - it is well know that this cohort has further increased risk for future contrast enhancing lesions on subsequent head scans (Hazard ratio=3.4). Early DMT use, therefore, is a sound strategy for preventing further disease evolution.
"An estimated 11,000 axons are transected per cubic centimeter of contrast enhanced tissue".
Okuda, however, concludes with the realities of DMT use in MS: "Relating radiological features specific to in situ demyelination may be challenging at times. However, how truly accurate are clinical descriptions of experiences by patients that we routinely use to fulfill the clinical component of the diagnostic criteria in those with established MS? Would our concerns for treatment in RIS subjects be different if the costs of DMT were not so exorbitant or if the treatments provided were substantially safer than our current offerings?"
The counter argument for not treating RIS is provided by Labino-Fontcuberta and Benito-Leon. They argue on the point that the current risk-benefit ratio of DMTs is unfavorable for treating early. The current evidence is that ~ 7/10 RIS cases may not go onto develop MS in the next 5 years. In this case, a greater number would need to be treated to avoid developing MS, than is necessary. The authors appeal to a greater understanding of the nature of the disease at the RIS stage before we as a community offer treatments for it.
"Emerging data suggest that in RIS, the clinical and pathological damage of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions might be compensated by more efficient reparative mechanisms".
I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions - are you for or against early treatment in RIS?
Labels: DMT, MRI, RIS