Multiple sclerosis (MS) affects approximately 1 million persons in the United States, and is the leading cause of neurological disability in young adults. The concept of precision medicine is now being applied to MS and has the promise of improved care. MS patients experience a variety of neurological symptoms, and disease severity ranges from mild to severe, and the biological underpinnings of these phenotypes are now starting to be elucidated. Precision medicine involves the classification of disease subtypes based on the underlying biology, rather than clinical phenotypes alone, and may govern disease course and treatment response. Over 18 disease-modifying drugs have been approved for the treatment of MS, and several biomarkers of treatment response are emerging. This article provides an overview of the concepts of precision medicine and emerging biological markers and their evolving role in decision-making in MS management.
Toward precision medicine: Building a knowledge network for biomedical research and a new taxonomy of disease (The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health). Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health, 2011.
2.
NaylorS.What’s in a name? The evolution of P-Medicine. J Precis Med2015: 14–28.
3.
PolmanCHReingoldSCBanwellB, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol2011; 69(2): 292–302.
4.
WeinerHL.The challenge of multiple sclerosis: How do we cure a chronic heterogeneous disease. Ann Neurol2009; 65(3): 239–248.
5.
AdelmanGRaneSGVillaKF.The cost burden of multiple sclerosis in the United States: A systematic review of the literature. J Med Econ2013; 16(5): 639–647.
6.
HartungDMBourdetteDNAhmedSM, et al. The cost of multiple sclerosis drugs in the US and the pharmaceutical industry: Too big to fail?Neurology2015; 84(21): 2185–2192.
7.
LucchinettiCBruckWParisiJ, et al. Heterogeneity of multiple sclerosis lesions: Implications for the pathogenesis of demyelination. Ann Neurol2000; 47(6): 707–717.
8.
KutzelniggALucchinettiCFStadelmannC, et al. Cortical demyelination and diffuse white matter injury in multiple sclerosis. Brain2005; 128(Pt 11): 2705–2712.
9.
MagliozziRHowellOVoraA, et al. Meningeal B-cell follicles in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis associate with early onset of disease and severe cortical pathology. Brain2007; 130(Pt 4): 1089–1104.
10.
TauhidSNeemaMHealyBC, et al. MRI phenotypes based on cerebral lesions and atrophy in patients with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci2014; 346(1–2): 250–254.
11.
GormanMPHealyBCPolgar-TurcsanyiM, et al. Increased relapse rate in pediatric-onset compared with adult-onset multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol2009; 66(1): 54–59.
12.
BoveRMHealyBAugustineA, et al. Effect of gender on late-onset multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler2012; 18(10): 1472–1479.
13.
RenouxCVukusicSMikaeloffY, et al. Natural history of multiple sclerosis with childhood onset. N Engl J Med2007; 356(25): 2603–2613.
14.
BaruchNFO’DonnellEHGlanzBI, et al. Cognitive and patient-reported outcomes in adults with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler2016; 22(3): 354–361.
15.
GholipourTHealyBBaruchNF, et al. Demographic and clinical characteristics of malignant multiple sclerosis. Neurology2011; 76(23): 1996–2001.
16.
SayaoALBuenoAMDevonshireV, et al. The psychosocial and cognitive impact of longstanding “benign” multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler2011; 17(11): 1375–1383.
17.
SayaoALDevonshireVTremlettH.Longitudinal follow-up of “benign” multiple sclerosis at 20 years. Neurology2007; 68(7): 496–500.
RoxburghRHSeamanSRMastermanT, et al. Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score: Using disability and disease duration to rate disease severity. Neurology2005; 64(7): 1144–1151.
20.
ConfavreuxCVukusicSAdeleineP.Early clinical predictors and progression of irreversible disability in multiple sclerosis: An amnesic process. Brain2003; 126(Pt 4): 770–782.
21.
ConfavreuxCVukusicSMoreauT, et al. Relapses and progression of disability in multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med2000; 343(20): 1430–1438.
22.
DebouverieMPittion-VouyovitchSLouisS, et al. Natural history of multiple sclerosis in a population-based cohort. Eur J Neurol2008; 15(9): 916–921.
23.
TremlettHPatyDDevonshireV.The natural history of primary progressive MS in British Columbia, Canada. Neurology2005; 65(12): 1919–1923.
24.
WeinshenkerBGBassBRiceGP, et al. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: A geographically based study. I. Clinical course and disability. Brain1989; 112(Pt 1): 133–146.
25.
TremlettHPatyDDevonshireV.Disability progression in multiple sclerosis is slower than previously reported. Neurology2006; 66(2): 172–177.
26.
WeinshenkerBGBassBRiceGP, et al. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: A geographically based study. 2. Predictive value of the early clinical course. Brain1989; 112(Pt 6): 1419–1428.
27.
MalikMTHealyBCBensonLA, et al. Factors associated with recovery from acute optic neuritis in patients with multiple sclerosis. Neurology2014; 82(24): 2173–2179.
28.
HealyBCGlanzBIStankiewiczJ, et al. A method for evaluating treatment switching criteria in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler2010; 16(12): 1483–1489.
29.
MiSPepinskyRBCadavidD.Blocking LINGO-1 as a therapy to promote CNS repair: From concept to the clinic. CNS Drugs2013; 27(7): 493–503.
30.
KurtzkeJF.Neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis and the Disability Status Scale. Acta Neurol Scand1970; 46(4): 493–512.
31.
D’SouzaMYaldizliOJohnR, et al. Neurostatus e-Scoring improves consistency of Expanded Disability Status Scale assessments: A proof of concept study. Mult Scler2016; 23: 597–603.
32.
FischerJSRudickRACutterGR, et al. The Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite Measure (MSFC): An integrated approach to MS clinical outcome assessment. Mult Scler1999; 5(4): 244–250.
33.
OntanedaDLaRoccaNCoetzeeT, et al. Revisiting the multiple sclerosis functional composite: Proceedings from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society (NMSS) task force on clinical disability measures. Mult Scler2012; 18(8): 1074–1080.
34.
BaierMLCutterGRRudickRA, et al. Low-contrast letter acuity testing captures visual dysfunction in patients with multiple sclerosis. Neurology2005; 64(6): 992–995.
35.
SonderJMBurggraaffJKnolDL, et al. Comparing long-term results of PASAT and SDMT scores in relation to neuropsychological testing in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler2014; 20(4): 481–488.
36.
BrochetBDeloireMSBonnetM, et al. Should SDMT substitute for PASAT in MSFC? A 5-year longitudinal study. Mult Scler2008; 14(9): 1242–1249.
37.
HughesAJBeierMHartoonianN, et al. Self-efficacy as a longitudinal predictor of perceived cognitive impairment in individuals with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2015; 96(5): 913–919.
38.
SimioniSSchluepMBaultN, et al. Multiple sclerosis decreases explicit counterfactual processing and risk taking in decision making. PLoS ONE2012; 7(12): e50718.
39.
TauhidSChuRSasaneR, et al. Brain MRI lesions and atrophy are associated with employment status in patients with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol2015; 262(11): 2425–2432.
40.
GlanzBIMusallamARintellDJ, et al. Treatment satisfaction in multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care2014; 16(2): 68–75.
41.
BoveRWhiteCCGiovannoniG, et al. Evaluating more naturalistic outcome measures: A 1-year smartphone study in multiple sclerosis. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm2015; 2(6): e162.
42.
TacchinoAPedullaLBonzanoL, et al. A new app for at-home cognitive training: Description and pilot testing on patients with multiple sclerosis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth2015; 3(3): e85.
43.
BlockVAPitschETahirP, et al. Remote physical activity monitoring in neurological disease: A systematic review. PLoS ONE2016; 11(4): e0154335.
44.
FisherERudickRACutterG, et al. Relationship between brain atrophy and disability: An 8-year follow-up study of multiple sclerosis patients. Mult Scler2000; 6(6): 373–377.
45.
SormaniMPStubinskiBCornelisseP, et al. Magnetic resonance active lesions as individual-level surrogate for relapses in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler2011; 17(5): 541–549.
46.
SampatMPBergerAMHealyBC, et al. Regional white matter atrophy–based classification of multiple sclerosis in cross-sectional and longitudinal data. AJNR2009; 30(9): 1731–1739.
47.
HoutchensMKBenedictRHKillianyR, et al. Thalamic atrophy and cognition in multiple sclerosis. Neurology2007; 69(12): 1213–1223.
48.
LymanGHMosesHL.Biomarker tests for molecularly targeted therapies—The key to unlocking precision medicine. N Engl J Med2016; 375(1): 4–6.
49.
JangiSGandhiRCoxLM, et al. Alterations of the human gut microbiome in multiple sclerosis. Nat Commun2016; 7: 12015.
50.
TintoreMOtero-RomeroSRioJ, et al. Contribution of the symptomatic lesion in establishing MS diagnosis and prognosis. Neurology2016; 87(13): 1368–1374.
51.
ComabellaMSastre-GarrigaJMontalbanX.Precision medicine in multiple sclerosis: Biomarkers for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment response. Curr Opin Neurol2016; 29(3): 254–262.
52.
PolmanCHReingoldSCEdanG, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald Criteria.”Ann Neurol2005; 58(6): 840–846.
53.
KuhleJDisantoGDobsonR, et al. Conversion from clinically isolated syndrome to multiple sclerosis: A large multicentre study. Mult Scler2015; 21(8): 1013–1024.
54.
TintoreMRoviraARioJ, et al. Do oligoclonal bands add information to MRI in first attacks of multiple sclerosis. Neurology2008; 70(13 Pt2): 1079–1083.
55.
DisantoGAdiutoriRDobsonR, et al. Serum neurofilament light chain levels are increased in patients with a clinically isolated syndrome. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry2016; 87(2): 126–129.
56.
BorrasECantoEChoiM, et al. Protein-based classifier to predict conversion from clinically isolated syndrome to multiple sclerosis. Mol Cell Proteomics2016; 15(1): 318–328.
57.
OkudaDTMowryEMCreeBA, et al. Asymptomatic spinal cord lesions predict disease progression in radiologically isolated syndrome. Neurology2011; 76(8): 686–692.
58.
OkudaDTSivaAKantarciO, et al. Radiologically isolated syndrome: 5-year risk for an initial clinical event. PLoS ONE2014; 9(3): e90509.
59.
GeorgeMFBriggsFBShaoX, et al. Multiple sclerosis risk loci and disease severity in 7,125 individuals from 10 studies. Neurol Genet2016; 2(4): e87.
60.
ModvigSDegnMRoedH, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid levels of chitinase 3-like 1 and neurofilament light chain predict multiple sclerosis development and disability after optic neuritis. Mult Scler2015; 21(14): 1761–1770.
61.
TeunissenCEIacobaeusEKhademiM, et al. Combination of CSF N-acetylaspartate and neurofilaments in multiple sclerosis. Neurology2009; 72(15): 1322–1329.
62.
VillarLMPiconCCosta-FrossardL, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid immunological biomarkers associated with axonal damage in multiple sclerosis. Eur J Neurol2015; 22(8): 1169–1175.
63.
PetzoldA.The prognostic value of CSF neurofilaments in multiple sclerosis at 15-year follow-up. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry2015; 86(12): 1388–1390.
64.
KuhleJDisantoGLorscheiderJ, et al. Fingolimod and CSF neurofilament light chain levels in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Neurology2015; 84(16): 1639–1643.
65.
AmorSvan der StarBJBoscaI, et al. Neurofilament light antibodies in serum reflect response to natalizumab treatment in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler2014; 20(10): 1355–1362.
66.
KuhleJBarroCDisantoG, et al. Serum neurofilament light chain in early relapsing remitting MS is increased and correlates with CSF levels and with MRI measures of disease severity. Mult Scler2016; 22: 1550–1559.
67.
NovakovaLZetterbergHSundstromP, et al. Monitoring disease activity in multiple sclerosis using serum neurofilament light protein. Neurology2017; 89(22): 2230–2237.
68.
BarroCBenkertPDisantoG, et al. Serum neurofilament as a predictor of disease worsening and brain and spinal cord atrophy in multiple sclerosis. Brain2018; 141(8): 2382–2391.
69.
CantoEBarroCZhaoC, et al. Association between serum neurofilament light chain levels and long-term disease course among patients with multiple sclerosis followed up for 12 years. JAMA Neurol. Epub ahead of print 12 August 2019. DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.2137.
70.
ChitnisTGonzalezCHealyBC, et al. Neurofilament light chain serum levels correlate with 10-year MRI outcomes in multiple sclerosis. Ann Clin Transl Neurol2018; 5(12): 1478–1491.
71.
AxelssonMMalmestromCNilssonS, et al. Glial fibrillary acidic protein: A potential biomarker for progression in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol2011; 258(5): 882–888.
72.
RosengrenLELyckeJAndersenO.Glial fibrillary acidic protein in CSF of multiple sclerosis patients: Relation to neurological deficit. J Neurol Sci1995; 133(1–2): 61–65.
73.
ComabellaMFernandezMMartinR, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid chitinase 3-like 1 levels are associated with conversion to multiple sclerosis. Brain2010; 133(Pt 4): 1082–1093.
74.
CantoEReverterFMorcillo-SuarezC, et al. Chitinase 3-like 1 plasma levels are increased in patients with progressive forms of multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler2012; 18(7): 983–990.
75.
SturzebecherSWandingerKPRosenwaldA, et al. Expression profiling identifies responder and non-responder phenotypes to interferon-beta in multiple sclerosis. Brain2003; 126(Pt 6): 1419–1429.
76.
Weinstock-GuttmanBBadgettDPatrickK, et al. Genomic effects of IFN-beta in multiple sclerosis patients. J Immunol2003; 171(5): 2694–2702.
77.
MatasEBauLMartinez-IniestaM, et al. Absence of MxA induction is related to a poor clinical response to interferon beta treatment in multiple sclerosis patients. J Neurol2016; 263(4): 722–729.
78.
PachnerANarayanKPriceN, et al. MxA gene expression analysis as an interferon-beta bioactivity measurement in patients with multiple sclerosis and the identification of antibody-mediated decreased bioactivity. Mol Diagn2003; 7(1): 17–25.
79.
EspositoFSorosinaMOttoboniL, et al. A pharmacogenetic study implicates SLC9a9 in multiple sclerosis disease activity. Ann Neurol2015; 78(1): 115–127.
80.
GrossRHealyBCCepokS, et al. Population structure and HLA DRB1 1501 in the response of subjects with multiple sclerosis to first-line treatments. J Neuroimmunol2011; 233(1–2): 168–174.
81.
GandhiRHealyBGholipourT, et al. Circulating microRNAs as biomarkers for disease staging in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol2013; 73(6): 729–740.
82.
GorelikLLernerMBixlerS, et al. Anti-JC virus antibodies: Implications for PML risk stratification. Ann Neurol2010; 68(3): 295–303.
83.
CarruthersRLChitnisTHealyBC.Modeling probability of additional cases of natalizumab-associated JCV sero-negative progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Mult Scler2014; 20(6): 757–760.
84.
PlavinaTSubramanyamMBloomgrenG, et al. Anti-JC virus antibody levels in serum or plasma further define risk of natalizumab-associated progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Ann Neurol2014; 76(6): 802–812.
85.
LiebermanLAZengWSinghC, et al. CD62L is not a reliable biomarker for predicting PML risk in natalizumab-treated R-MS patients. Neurology2016; 86(4): 375–381.
86.
SchwabNSchneider-HohendorfTPignoletB, et al. PML risk stratification using anti-JCV antibody index and L-selectin. Mult Scler2015; 22: 1048–1060.
87.
SrinivasanRSailasutaNHurdR, et al. Evidence of elevated glutamate in multiple sclerosis using magnetic resonance spectroscopy at 3 T. Brain2005; 128(Pt 5): 1016–1025.
88.
Relevance of health literacy to precision medicine: Workshop in brief (The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health). Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health, 2016.
89.
PalmerCSSchmierJKSnyderE, et al. Patient preferences and utilities for “off-time” outcomes in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Qual Life Res2000; 9(7): 819–827.
90.
LiuJBrodleyCEHealyBC, et al. Removing confounding factors via constraint-based clustering: An application to finding homogeneous groups of multiple sclerosis patients. Artif Intell Med2015; 65(2): 79–88.
91.
BejaranoBBiancoMGonzalez-MoronD, et al. Computational classifiers for predicting the short-term course of multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurol2011; 11: 67.
92.
GauthierSAGlanzBIMandelM, et al. A model for the comprehensive investigation of a chronic autoimmune disease: The multiple sclerosis CLIMB study. Autoimmun Rev2006; 5(8): 532–536.
93.
CreeBAGourraudPAOksenbergJR, et al. Long-term evolution of multiple sclerosis disability in the treatment era. Ann Neurol2016; 80(4): 499–510.
