The art of selecting an MS therapy

Response to immunomodulators

“The inability to control the disease with an immunomodulator is a bad sign,” Dr. Freedman said. He pointed to data from a trial of teriflunomide that included patients who had had suboptimal responses to first-line therapy as well as patients who were treatment naive (Mult Scler. 2018 Apr;24[4]:535-9.). Some of the patients who had received prior MS therapy were randomized to placebo, which “is not something that would happen today,” he said.

“If you just focus on the [patients who received placebo] and look at the rate of attack in patients who had no prior DMT, at least one prior DMT, or two or more prior DMTs, the attack rates are much higher in those individuals who tried and failed first-line therapies,” Dr. Freedman said. These patients also had more EDSS progression. “The majority of people do respond [to first-line treatment], but those who do not you need to worry about a little bit more than those who do respond.”

MRI lesions and brain reserve

MRI activity over time tends to predict disease progression, and lesion location is important. One cohort study found that the likelihood of developing secondary progressive MS was lower among patients who did not develop new spinal cord or brainstem lesions in the first three years of the disease, compared with those who did.

In addition, patients who presented with more lesions were more likely to reach an EDSS score 3 or 6 over 10 years (Brain. 2008 Mar;131[Pt 3]:808-17.).

Brain reserve also may be important. Among 52 treatment-naive Serbian adults with MS, Sumowski et al. found that maximal lifetime brain growth as estimated with intracranial volume was associated with risk of disability progression over 5 years (Neurology. 2016 May 24;86[21]:2006-9.). “Those who had a greater reserve had a much lower risk of disease progression,” Dr. Freedman said. The results suggest that patients with more brain reserve may be better able to sustain damage as the disease progresses and they age, he said.

Comorbidities

In the past, neurologists may have left it up to general practitioners “to sort out the rest of the patient’s health,” Dr. Freedman said. “But we now recognize that having certain comorbidities already puts a higher burden onto the disease. And those patients who have more comorbidities ... are going to do worse. But not only are they going to do worse ... it turns out that patients who have more comorbidities are going to have less of a response to your various therapies.” Vascular comorbidities, in particular, may affect treatment response (Neurology. 2017 Nov 28;89[22]:2222-9.).

If hypertension or diabetes clinics can help control those conditions in patients with MS, “it will help us a lot in getting what we are expecting from the [MS] medications,” Dr. Freedman said.

Adherence, expectations, and symptomatic treatment

Ultimately, selecting an MS therapy is a decision that doctors share with their patients. “You’re going to have a discussion with them,” he said. “You can see what fits their lifestyle.” For example, a world traveler might not be a good candidate for a drug that requires regular monitoring. A patient’s risk averseness also may influence treatment choice.