Neuroinflammation (Elsevier Insights)

Neuroinflammation

Neuroinflammation

Edited by

Alireza Minagar

AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON • NEW YORK • OXFORD PARIS • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO

Elsevier 32 Jamestown Road London NW1 7BY 30 Corporate Drive, Suite 400, Burlington, MA 01803, USA First edition 2011 Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangement with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress ISBN: 978-0-12-384913-7 For information on all Elsevier publications visit our website at elsevierdirect.com This book has been manufactured using Print On Demand technology. Each copy is produced to order and is limited to black ink. The online version of this book will show color figures where appropriate.

Preface

During the past two decades the scientific community has witnessed many major achievements and technical advances in our knowledge and understanding of the fundamental molecular mechanisms underlying various neuroinflammatory disorders affecting the human nervous system. The major players in the pathogenesis of these complex and intriguing neuroinflammatory and neurodegenerative disorders include activated immune cells, endothelial cells, immune cells resident within the central nervous system (CNS), and effects of several recently identified immunomodulators, cytokines and chemokines, which initiate and sustain the underlying pathologic processes of these often enigmatic disorders. Scientists around the world, through innumerable collaborative studies, have partially determined the diverse roles of these players in the course of neuroinflammation and are now applying this wealth of information toward the development of more potent and specific and less dangerous therapies for these difficult-to-treat diseases. The main objective of this book, entitled Neuroinflammation, is to provide interested readers with the most up-to-date and detailed reviews of current scientific concepts of neuroinflammation, with extensive updates on the most recent concepts on the pathogenesis of these CNS diseases. The core emphasis of this series of reviews on basic and clinical features of neuroinflammation will be of interest to a broad continuum of both basic scientific researchers and clinical scientists. Neuroinflammation is a rapidly expanding field, and our collection on this topic represents an educational tool that can assist students, scientists, and clinicians around the planet to better understand, diagnose, and treat these complex diseases. I very much appreciate the scholastic efforts of several wonderful contributors to this book, who made Neuroinflammation a reality and provided us with their excellent chapters on various topics. I also appreciate the efforts of Mr. Paul Prasad Chandramohan and the hardworking staff at Elsevier’s publishing production team, who provided us with their support and expertise during the production of this book. I hope that my colleagues will find this book to be a useful resource in their continuous research into the fundamental concepts of neuroinflammation. Alireza Minagar, MD, FAAN

Contributors

J. Steven Alexander  Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA Peter O. Behan  Division of Clinical Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK; School of Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK Aimee Borazanci  Department of Neurology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA Isabel Bosca  Neuroimmunology Unit, Centre for Neuroscience and Trauma, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK; Neurology Department, La Fe University Hospital, Valencia, Spain Hermine Brunner  Division of Rheumatology, Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio (HB) Abhijit Chaudhuri  Department of Neurology, Queen’s Hospital, Romford, Essex, England, UK Tiffany Chang  Department of Neurology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA Andrew L. Chesson Jr.  Sleep Medicine Program, Department of Neurology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA Xi Chen  Department of Physiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA Paweł Cies´ lik  Department of Internal, Autoimmune and Metabolic Diseases, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland Randall J. Cohrs  Department of Neurology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA Natalie Cornay  Louisiana State University School of Medicine, Shreveport, LA, USA Robin Davis  Louisiana State University School of Medicine, Shreveport, LA, USA Francesco Deleo  Division of Epilepsy, Clinic and Experimental Neurophysiology, IRCCS Foundation Neurological Institute C. Besta, Milano, Italy

xvi

Contributors

Gabriele Di Comite  Department of Immunology, National Institute of Neuroscience, Tokyo, Japan Ludovico D’Incerti  Department of Neuroradiology, Neurological Institute C. Besta, Milano, Italy

IRCCS

Foundation

Donard S. Dwyer  Department of Psychiatry, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA; Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Neuroscience, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA Masoud Etemadifar  Isfahan Research Committee of Multiple Sclerosis (IRCOMS), Isfahan, Iran; Department of Neurology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran Clare Fraser  The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK; Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK; St Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK Don Gilden  Department of Neurology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA; Department of Microbiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA Gavin Giovannoni  Neuroimmunology Unit, Centre for Neuroscience and Trauma, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK Eduardo Gonzalez-Toledo  Department of Radiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA; Department of Neurology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA D. Neil Granger  Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA Viktoria Gudi  Department of Neurology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany Meghan Harris  Department of Neurology, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, Shreveport, LA, USA Antoni Hrycek  Department of Internal, Autoimmune and Metabolic Diseases, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland Stephen Jaffe  Department of Neurology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA Edward Johnson  Louisiana State University School of Medicine, Shreveport, LA, USA Roger E. Kelley  Department of Neurology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA

Contributors

xvii

Marisa Klein-Gitelman  Division of Rheumatology, Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL (MKG) Cesar Liendo  Department of Physiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA Alexandra Lopez-Soriano  Department of Neurology, Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA Amy E. Lovett-Racke  Department of Neurology, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA; Department of Molecular Virology, Immunology and Medical Genetics, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA Amir-Hadi Maghzi  Neuroimmunology Unit, Centre for Neuroscience and Trauma, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK; Isfahan Research Committee of Multiple Sclerosis (IRCOMS), Isfahan, Iran; Isfahan Neuroscience Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran Monica Marta  Neuroimmunology Unit, Centre for Neuroscience and Trauma, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK Ravi Mahalingam  Department of Neurology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA Nicholas E. Martinez  Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, School of Medicine in Shreveport, Shreveport, LA 71130, USA Rae Ann Maxwell  Medical Science Liaison, Biogen Idec Neurology, US Medical Affairs Jeanie McGee  Department of Neurology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA David E. McCarty  Sleep Medicine Program, Department of Neurology, Louisiana State University Helath Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA Ute-Christiane Meier  Neuroimmunology Unit, Centre for Neuroscience and Trauma, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK Mandana Mohyeddin Bonab  Department of Immunology and the Molecular Immunology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Alireza Minagar  Department of Neurology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA

xviii

Contributors

Mutsumi Nagai  Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA Maria A. Nagel  Department of Neurology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA Behrouz Nikbin  Department of Immunology and the Molecular Immunology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Eileen M. O’Connor  Medical Science Liaison, Biogen Idec Neurology, US Medical Affairs Seiichi Omura  Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, School of Medicine in Shreveport, Shreveport, LA 71130, USA Magdalena Olszanecka-Glinianowicz  Department of Pathophysiology, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland Parrin Patterson  Department of Psychiatry, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA Gordon T. Plant  The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK; Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK; St Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK Refik Pul  Department of Neurology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany Brain Rubin  Department of Neurology, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, Shreveport, LA, USA Amy C. Rauchway  Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA Michael K. Racke  Department of Neurology, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA; Department of Molecular Virology, Immunology and Medical Genetics, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA; Department of Neuroscience, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA Mohammad-Reza Savoj  Isfahan Research Committee of Multiple Sclerosis (IRCOMS), Isfahan, Iran Fumitaka Sato  Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, School of Medicine in Shreveport, Shreveport, LA 71130, USA Robert N. Schwendimann  Department of Neurology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA

Contributors

xix

Yadollah Shakiba  Department of Immunology and the Molecular Immunology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Thomas Skripuletz  Department of Neurology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany Karen Small  Louisiana State University School of Medicine, Shreveport, LA, USA Martin Stangel  Department of Neurology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany Malú G. Tansey  Department of Physiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA Corinna Trebst  Department of Neurology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany Ikuo Tsunoda  Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, School of Medicine in Shreveport, Shreveport, LA 71130, USA Elke Voss  Department of Neurology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany Yuhong Yang  Department of Neurology, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA; Department of Molecular Virology, Immunology and Medical Genetics, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA Robert Zivadinov  Department of Neurology, Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA; Department of Neurology, The Jacobs Neurological Institute, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA

1 Multiple Sclerosis: Pathophysiology, Clinical Features, Diagnosis, and Management

Amir-Hadi Maghzi1,2,3, Aimee Borazanci4, Jeanie McGee4, J. Steven Alexander5, Eduardo Gonzalez-Toledo4,6, Alireza Minagar 4 1 

Isfahan Research Committee of Multiple Sclerosis (IRCOMS), Isfahan, Iran Isfahan Neuroscience Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran 3  Neuroimmunology Unit, Centre for Neuroscience and Trauma, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK 4  Department of Neurology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA 5  Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA 6  Department of Radiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA 2 

Introduction Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune-mediated neurodegenerative disease of the central nervous system (CNS), which largely affects young adults with certain genetic backgrounds, often following exposure to several as yet unidentified environmental antigen(s) [1,2]. It is believed that the interactions between environmental and genetic influences are required to trigger the massive immune response against putative CNS antigens (e.g., myelin proteins that surround axons). This progressive inflammatory process affects both gray and white matters of the brain and spinal cord and ultimately causes neurodegeneration and axonal loss, with resultant permanent disability. Inflammatory demyelination in MS slows impulse conduction or leads to complete cessation of nerve impulse transmission. Axonal loss and neurodegeneration are the fundamental mechanisms underlying brain atrophy and permanent loss of motor function. The lesions of MS can affect any region of the neuroaxis; therefore, the anatomic location of MS lesions plays a significant role in determining clinical symptoms. Based on the clinical disease pattern, four types of MS are recognized: relapsing– remitting MS (RRMS), secondary progressive MS (SPMS), primary progressive Neuroinflammation. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-384913-7.00001-0 © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

2

Neuroinflammation

MS (PPMS), and progressive relapsing MS (PRMS) [3]. Interestingly, it appears that these four different forms of MS have dissimilar underlying neuropathologies, which in turn indicates that MS may represent a heterogeneous group of related diseases. The clinical course of RRMS is characterized by clear disease relapses with development of new neurologic deficits or worsening of older symptoms that last more than 24 h; each relapse is typically separated from the last attack by at least 1 month of stability. Patients with relapse of MS, either with treatment with corticosteroids or spontaneously, may return to their baseline neurologic status or may recover partially, with residual neurologic deficits. Usually, during the interval between relapses there is no clinical disease progression. Clinically, RRMS is the most common form of MS; more than 85% of patients initially present with this form. SPMS is recognized by an initial RRMS that progresses to SPMS within 10–15 years. During this phase of MS, the underlying inflammatory cascade and clinical relapses decrease in severity, while the neurodegenerative process builds to become the dominant pathology. In certain ways, SPMS may be regarded as a long-term product of RRMS. Up to 15% of MS patients initially present with PPMS, which is characterized by a relentless progression with no obvious relapses; patients occasionally exhibit transient minor improvement. PRMS is characterized by progressive and devastating attacks of the disease from the beginning with acute relapses, with or without recovery. Importantly, the intervals between relapses are marked by continuous disease progression. This form of MS is the least common clinical form. The most common form of MS, RRMS, begins with a single unifocal or multifocal demyelinating attack (known as clinically isolated syndrome [CIS]), with a complete or partial resolution of the attack. This form of MS with its dominant neuroinflammatory sequelae is clinically recognized by relapses and development of new lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studied by CNS neuroimaging. Of course, during this process, the neurodegenerative arm of MS continuously proceeds with progressive axonal and neuronal loss to the point that the patient’s capacity to sustain any new attacks without suffering additional disability decreases. Within a few years of the onset of RRMS, the underlying neuropathology of MS involves more neurodegeneration with fewer clinical relapses, more clinical deterioration, and accumulating disability. Patients with PPMS have a progressive course from the beginning without significant evidence of inflammatory lesions on CNS neuroimaging and with no proven therapeutic response to immunomodulatory medications as compared to RRMS.

Epidemiology The diverse worldwide epidemiology of MS provides clues to the genetic and environmental risk factors for MS. The observations from migrant studies showing that migration from high- to low-risk areas before puberty provides some protection against developing MS, and vice versa, highlight the importance of environmental factors in MS [4]. The highest incidence and prevalence of MS are more likely to be observed at the highest latitudes in both the northern and southern hemispheres.

Multiple Sclerosis: Pathophysiology, Clinical Features, Diagnosis, and Management

3

In addition, the prevalence and incidence of MS are shown to be associated with the distance from the equator [5]. This has been mostly linked to the effects of sunlight exposure and vitamin D, leading to the formulation of a hypothesis that vitamin D deficiency may enhance the risk of MS; this hypothesis was later strengthened by further immunologic studies [6]. In addition, similarities between the epidemiology of MS and primary Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) infection (infectious mononucleosis [IM]) have been well documented, and several studies have shown that the risk of MS is elevated after IM, which has led to a growing body of evidence linking EBV to MS [7]. MS is also observed more commonly among smokers, those of higher socioeconomic class, and those with low dietary vitamin D intake [8–10]. The epidemiology of MS has been changing during recent decades. Generally, there has been an increase in the prevalence and incidence of MS worldwide, especially in previously low-risk regions such as the Middle East [5,11]. This has been partly attributed to the better diagnosis of MS secondary to enhanced diagnostic criteria, an increase in the number of neurologists, more availability of disease-modifying drugs, enhanced awareness, and more widespread use of MRI. However, these factors cannot fully explain the increase in the prevalence of MS. It is plausible that changes in lifestyle and environmental exposures have also contributed to the increase in the prevalence and incidence of MS. More evidence comes from studies that have documented an increase in the sex ratio of MS during recent decades in different parts of the world [5,12,13]. Since all these changes have occurred during a short period, they are more likely due to environmental changes rather than genetic ones. For instance, in Western countries, where smoking has been recognized as a risk factor for MS, the increase in the sex ratio of MS has been attributed to the growing number of female smokers, while in an Iranian study this was linked to an increase in the vitamin D deficiency among the young female population [12,14]. Epidemiologic investigations have shown that individuals of Western European ancestry have a higher susceptibility to MS. On the contrary, there are ethnic populations such as Hutterites and the Natives of western Canada who appear to be resistant to the disease despite living in relatively high-risk regions for MS. First-degree relatives of MS patients have a 20 times higher incidence of MS than the general population. Studies on monozygotic twins show that the concordance rate is 30% compared with rates of less than 5% in dizygotic twins [15]. Genetically unrelated family members living in the same environment have a risk of MS that is no higher than the background population. All these observations point toward a genetic component for MS. To date the most significant genetic component discovered remains the HLA-DRB1*15 [15].

Pathophysiology The exact cause of MS remains unknown, but evidence indicates that its pathophysiology includes two key and interconnected components: neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration [1,16]. The inflammatory component of the pathophysiology of MS includes abnormally excessive activation of the immune system against

Neuroinflammation

Th2 cytokines (IL-4, 5, –6, –13) FOXP3 CD4+/ CD25+ T-regs Tr1/IL-10 TGF-β/Th3

EBV

APC (DC) Putative Ag

HSV-6

Inflammation

Antiinflammatory

4

Environment trauma

T-cells

Adherens tight junctions

Th1 cytokines (TNF-a, IFN-g, IL–12, –15, –17) HLA-DR CD71 CD80/B7-1 CCR-5/CXCR3

BBB disturbances

T-cells (CD4+, CD8+) B-cells, monocytes

VE-cadherin Occludin claudins

Adhesion

ICAM-1, VCAM-1/α4β1 MAdCAM-1/α4β7

Transmigration MS injury

Demyelination

(loss of oligodendrocytes)

(B-cells)

IgG/Oligoclonal bands

Myelin Ags MBP MOG

Neurodegeneration

Figure 1.1  Proposed MS pathogenesis. After exposure to environmental antigen(s) (e.g., EBV or HSV-6), myelin-sensitized autoreactive leukocytes are activated via binding of the T-cell receptor to the putative antigen(s), which is conveyed to them by antigen-presenting cells (such as dendritic cells) (trimolecular complexes). The activated leukocytes (T cells, B cells, and macrophages) cross the BBB (transmigration) through the disrupted cerebral endothelial tight and adherens junctions (by disintegrating junctional complexes containing VE-cadherin, occludin, claudin, and junctional adhesion molecules). The activated leukocytes also secrete a number of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines that play regulatory roles in polarization of the peripheral environment toward inflammatory or anti-inflammatory mechanisms. Once these cells gain access to the CNS environment, they identify more autoantigens and generate and release more cytokines and autoantibodies, causing loss of myelin/oligodendrocyte complex as well as neurodegeneration.

CNS antigen(s), which leads to interactions between autoreactive leukocytes and the inflamed cerebral endothelium, disintegration of the blood–brain barrier (BBB), and penetration of these activated leukocytes into the CNS parenchyma [1,17–19] (Figure 1.1). The early events that trigger these exuberant immune responses and activation of leukocytes against self-antigens remain hard to pin down, but viral and bacterial antigens are relevant and probable stimuli triggering the original MS pathophysiology [7,20]. Exposure to or infection with a number of viruses, such as hepatitis B and EBV, has been proposed as the activating factor for the T lymphocytes that are sensitized against viral proteins that share similar structural motifs with CNS proteins such as myelin basic protein (MBP); this is the so-called “molecular mimicry hypothesis.”

Multiple Sclerosis: Pathophysiology, Clinical Features, Diagnosis, and Management

5

Pathophysiology of MS involves both the innate and acquired immune systems. One hypothesis about the pathophysiology of MS is that the initial event begins in the peripheral circulation with activation of immune cells outside the CNS such as dendritic cells [18,19]. Numerous scientific studies on experimental MS in mice (experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis [EAE], the closest animal model of MS) have revealed that autoreactive CNS-antigen(s)-directed T lymphocytes (CD4, CD8) play significant roles in the development of CNS demyelinating lesions. At some point in the early stages of the MS development, T lymphocytes become sensitized against several suspected CNS antigens, including MBP, proteolipid protein, and myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein [21], and activate a massive immune response that leads to their migration across the BBB, leading to its dysregulation. Autoreactive T lymphocytes and monocytes interact with inflamed cerebral endothelial cells through rolling and firm binding in the cerebrovascular space. This binding process is the most significant component of the leukocyte–endothelial interaction and commits the leukocytes to migrate across postcapillary venules into the CNS environment [17]. Loss of the BBB endothelial integrity layer is associated with disassembly and destruction of endothelial tight junctions and junctional proteins such as occludin and VE-cadherin [22] as well as claudins, which facilitate movement of the leukocytes. Once autoreactive T lymphocytes and monocytes breach the CNS at the perivenular areas, the immune cascade escalates and more varied CNS antigens become identified as potential immune targets for T cells, a diversification of antigenic specificity over the course of the disease (the episode spreading concept) [23]. The pro-inflammatory Th1 lymphocytes express high levels of activation markers (HLA-DR and CD71), co-stimulatory molecules (CD80/ B7-1), and Th1-cell chemokine receptors (CCR5 and CXCR3). These cells produce high levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-α, IFN-γ, IL-12, IL-15, and IL-17. The Th2 lymphocytes, which switch the environment toward anti-inflammatory or protective mode, secrete cytokines such as IL-4, IL5, IL-6, and IL-13 [24]. Other cells involved in reducing the inflammatory response include various kinds of CD4 regulatory cells such as FOXP3 CD4CD25 Tregs, the IL-10–generating Tr1 cells, and the transforming growth factor β–generating Th3 cells. However, regardless of their Th polarization, the movement of immune cells into the CNS parenchyma can disturb BBB integrity. During the past decade, neuroimmunologists have focused on the role of emerging cytokines such as IL-12, IL-27, and IL-23 in the pathogenesis of MS. Members of the IL-12 family proteins are involved in regulation of T-lymphocyte responses and may be important in the pathophysiology of MS [25]. IL-17, a potent inflammatory cytokine, promotes CNS inflammation by disrupting the BBB, allowing greater permeation of autoreactive peripheral CD4 T cells into the CNS [26]. Recently, Alexander et al. [27] published the results of a 1-year prospective study of serum levels of IL-12p40, IL-17, and IL-23 prior to and at 3-month intervals after treatment with IFN-β1b. The investigators reported that continuous treatment with IFN-β1b reduced serum levels of IL-12p40 and IL-23 and showed a trend for decreasing IL-17. The investigators concluded that early treatment of MS with IFN-β1b may stabilize the clinical course of MS by decreasing levels of these inflammatory cytokines.

6

Neuroinflammation

The humoral arm of the immune system also is significantly involved in the pathophysiology of MS. Under normal circumstances, B lymphocytes do not cross the BBB. However, during the course of MS and along the massive immune cascade, B lymphocytes become activated, produce antibodies, and cross the BBB. In 1942, Kabat et al. [28] reported the presence of the oligoclonal bands (evidence of intrathecal antibody production) that were not present in the concurrent serum. While it is known that oligoclonal bands are present in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with other inflammatory and infectious etiologies, their presence in the appropriate setting strongly supports a diagnosis of MS. Increased intrathecal synthesis of immunoglobulins is reflected by evidence of several factors and events in the CSF of MS patients, including the presence of oligoclonal bands, an elevated IgG index, B-cell clonal expansion somatic hypermutation [29,30], and B-cell receptor revision (editing) in clonally expanded B cells [31]. These all provide strong support for roles of activated B cells in the massive immune response that occurs during the pathogenesis of MS. Neuropathologic studies of CNS tissues from MS patients show an underlying “pathologic heterogeneity.” A milestone Mayo Clinic neuropathologic study of a large group of active MS white matter lesions suggested four patterns of MS neuropathologies based on the location of the plaques, the extent and pattern of damage and loss of oligodendrocytes, the pattern of myelin protein loss, and evidence of complement activation along with deposition of immunoglobulins [32]. Pattern I lesions reveal strong involvement of T lymphocytes and macrophages with sharp lesion edges and survival of oligodendrocytes and remyelination. In these lesions the expression of all myelin proteins, such as MBP, PLP, myelin-associated glycoprotein (MAG), and myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG), is decreased. Pattern II lesions demonstrate antibody complement–associated demyelination with plaques showing sharply defined borders. These lesions also show the presence of macrophages and T lymphocytes as well as surviving oligodendrocytes and remyelination. Pattern III plaques demonstrate hypoxiainduced distal oligodendrogliopathy with fuzzy borders and apoptosis of oligodendrocytes. There is no evidence of activity of humoral immune response in these lesions. Pattern IV lesions reveal sharply bordered plaques that also contain macrophages and T lymphocytes with no evidence of immunoglobulin or activated complement deposits within them. The proposed mechanism for the formation of these lesions is a primary oligodendrogliopathy (primary oligodendrocyte degeneration). This form of neuropathology is uncommon among MS patients and is limited to patients with PPMS.

Clinical Manifestations Lesions of MS affect many areas of the brain and spinal cord and may damage many aspects of the CNS functions. Clinically, MS may vary from benign MS to more aggressive and progressive forms of MS such as SPMS and PRMS. Fatigue is the most common complaint among MS patients. Fatigue, either mental or physical, affects all aspects of the MS patient’s life profoundly and results in reduced mental or physical activities. In many cases the fatigue compounds the coexisting depression and intensifies the symptoms.

Multiple Sclerosis: Pathophysiology, Clinical Features, Diagnosis, and Management

7

Clinical manifestations of MS stem from disturbances of the sensorimotor, bowel and bladder, sexual, brain stem and optic nerve, and neuropsychiatric functions. MS lesions demonstrate a predilection for certain areas of the neuroaxis, such as brain stem, periventricular area, cerebellum, optic nerve, and spinal cord, which in turn leads to the development of neuroanatomic-based symptoms. For example, involvement of the medial longitudinal fasciculus at the peri-aqueductal location causes internuclear ophthalmoplegia, which manifests with impairment of the conjugate lateral gaze with limitation of the adduction of the affected eye, along with compensatory nystagmus of the abducted eye. Patients with internuclear ophthalmoplegia complain of double vision, while convergence remains intact. Other abnormalities of the brain stem in the context of MS include impairments of extraocular motility, which manifest with horizontal or vertical gaze paresis, one-and-a-half syndrome, weakness of the extraocular muscles (cranial nerves 3, 4, or 6), or skew deviation. Facial paresis of the central or peripheral type manifests in MS and originates from demyelination of the facial nerve within the brain stem. Facial myokymia is an undulating, wavelike twitching that starts in the orbicularis oculi and occasionally presents in MS. Patients with MS frequently manifest dysarthria and dysphagia [33]. One particular form of speech impairment, scanning speech, is typical for MS patients. Hearing loss is uncommon in MS, but many MS patients frequently complain of vertigo. Many MS patients develop optic neuritis, either as the initial manifestation or as a part of their disease process. Optic neuritis usually begins with subacute visual loss in one or both eyes. As the disease progresses the scotoma becomes larger and the patient develops disturbances of color perception and contrast sensitivity. Patients with optic neuritis often complain of retro-orbital pain that is deteriorated with eye movement. Neuro-ophthalmologic evaluation may reveal a normal optic disc (if the neuritis is retrobulbar) or papillitis as well as the presence of relative afferent pupillary defect. Visual acuity is decreased and the patient suffers from visuospatial deficits. Motor symptoms in MS mainly originate from involvement of the corticospinal tract, which clinically translates into heaviness, stiffness, weakness, pain, or paralysis that can cause hemiparesis or paraparesis or paraplegia. In the course of MS, the lower extremities are more commonly affected than the upper extremities. Other manifestations of corticospinal tract involvement include the presence of hyperactive deep tendon reflexes, spasticity of the affected extremities, and the presence of the Babinski response. Corticospinal tract demyelination and neurodegeneration result from lesions within deep hemispheric white matter, basis pontis, cerebral peduncles, medullary pyramids, internal capsule, or spinal cord. Sensory symptoms of MS include tingling, burning, a pins-and-needles sensation, or complete loss of sensation. Frequently, MS patients complain of abnormal feeling occurring in a band-like distribution around the chest or abdomen. The sensory complaints in MS may stem from demyelination of the posterior columns (gracilis and cuneatus fascicule) or spinothalamic tracts. Lhermitte’s sign consists of a sudden electric-like sensation traveling down the spine or the extremities for a brief period. Apart from these sensory complaints, MS is potentially a painful disease and patients may develop trigeminal or glossopharyngeal neuralgia. Patients who suffer from

8

Neuroinflammation

these neuralgias report frequent, severe, short-lasting lancinating pain that affects their face or head and neck area. In addition, patients with MS have more generalized headaches and migraines than healthy individuals. Cerebellar involvement in MS stems from both vermian and hemispheric lesions and clinically manifests with gait ataxia, dysmetria upon performance of the finger-to-nose and heel-to-shin test, and inability to do tandem gait. Limb ataxia and intention tremor may be present in up to 50% of MS patients. Up to 65% of MS patients suffer from neuropsychiatric abnormalities. A decline in language skills, memory, and intellectual function is commonly observed in MS patients. Neuropsychological assessment of MS patients reveals mild to moderate slowing of thinking process, poor recent memory, word-finding difficulties, slow information processing, and difficulty with concentration [34–37]. The pattern of cognitive impairment in MS is similar to the pattern of other neurologic disorders that involve subcortical structures, such as HIV-related encephalopathy and Parkinson’s disease. Therefore, the presence of aphasia and neglect in MS patients is unusual. Mood disorders, particularly depression and bipolar mood disorder, are common among MS patients. These patients also frequently demonstrate euphoria, which indicates their inability to inhibit emotional expression. A number of abnormal involuntary movements may present in the context of MS. Some patients may develop rubral tremor, chorea, segmental myoclonus, and dystonia. Autonomic disturbances, including impairment of bowel and bladder dysfunction, and abnormal sweating, with unusual coldness or discoloration of the legs or feet, may be present in MS. Any cognitive or physical deficits in MS can be stereotypically and reversibly enhanced with exposure to heat, prolonged exercise, or infection (Uthoff’s phenomenon).

Neuroimaging: A Concise Review The use of various neuroimaging procedures, particularly different MR techniques, for the diagnosis, management, and follow-up of MS patients has fundamentally changed our view and understanding about the nature and pathophysiology of MS. The role of MRI in the world of MS is so significant that without an abnormal brain MRI, a diagnosis of MS must be reconsidered. MRI of the brain and spinal cord is the only objective tool that provides clinicians with a solid view about the natural history, disease activity, disease burden, severity of brain and spinal cord atrophy, and any therapeutic response to the administration of disease-modifying agents and immunosuppressants. Application of MRI has even changed the diagnostic criteria for MS and allows for the development of new T2-weighted lesions 1 month or more after the last MRI to fulfill the criteria for dissemination in time (Table 1.1) as well as development of one or more than one lesions in each of more than two characteristic sites for MS lesions to meet the criteria for dissemination in space [38]. As we learn more about MS, we also learn more about other diseases that imitate MS clinically. Therefore, MRI serves as an accurate diagnostic procedure to exclude MS imitators.

Multiple Sclerosis: Pathophysiology, Clinical Features, Diagnosis, and Management

9

Table 1.1  MRI Criteria for Dissemination in Space and Dissemination in Time for Patients with MS

Dissemination in Space McDonald [46]

Three or more of the following: Nine T2-weighted or one Gd-enhancing lesions; three or more periventricular lesions; one juxtacortical lesion; one or more posterior fossa lesions (*One spinal cord lesion can replace brain lesion.)

McDonald [47]

Three or more of the following: Nine T2-weighted lesions or one Gd-enhancing lesions; three or more periventricular lesions; one or more juxtacortical lesions; one or more posterior fossa lesions or spinal cord lesions (*A spinal cord lesion can replace an infratentorial lesion. **Any number of spinal cord lesions can be included in the total lesion count.)

New criteria

>1 lesion in each of >2 characteristic locations; periventricular, juxtacortical, posterior fossa, and spinal cord

Dissemination in Time McDonald [46]

Detection of Gd enhancement 3 or more months after CIS; a new T2-weighted lesion with reference to a previous scan 3 or more months after onset of CIS

McDonald [47]

A Gd-enhancing lesion 3 or more months after CIS; a new T2-weighted lesion with reference to a baseline scan obtained 30 days or more after onset of CIS

New criteria

A new T2-weighted lesion on follow-up MRI irrespective of timing of baseline scan

Gd, gadolinium; CIS, clinically isolated syndrome. Source: Adapted with permission from Lancet Neurology.

The other role of MRI is in follow-up and assessing a patient’s response to therapy. Currently, the treatments for MS approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are expensive, and it is necessary to objectively document a patient’s favorable response or lack of response to treatment. Serial MRI of the patient’s brain and spinal cord, before and after treatment with disease-modifying agents, enables clinicians to assess and measure the quantity and the volume of MS lesions on various MR sequences; this in turn translates into a deeper understanding of the extent and severity of the underlying disease process. In addition, since MS is a “whole brain disease,” MRI shows us the extent of involvement of both white and gray matters and particularly demonstrates the severity of brain atrophy, which is a long-term indicator of disability in MS. At present, performing sophisticated MR techniques is the principal component of clinical trials for MS. The standard protocol for neuroimaging of MS patients proposed by the Consortium of MS Centers is presented in Table 1.2 [39]. The most informative MR sequences for neuroimaging of MS on routine MR

10

Neuroinflammation

Table 1.2  The Consortium of MS Centers Standardized Brain and Spinal Cord MRI Protocol Brain MRI Sequence

Diagnostic Scan for CIS

New Baseline or Comment Follow-Up Scan in Definite MS

Three-plane scout

Recommended Recommended

Axial sections through the subcallosal line (joins the undersurface of the rostrum and splenium of the corpus callosum)

Sagittal FLAIR

Recommended Recommended

Useful for corpus callosum lesions

Axial fast spin– or turbo spin–echo PD/T2

Recommended Recommended

TE1 < 30 ms TE2 < 80 ms Useful for infratentorial lesions missed by FLAIR

Axial FLAIR

Recommended Recommended

Useful for most white matter lesions, including juxtacortical

Axial pre-contrast T1

Optional

Optional

Useful for T1 black hole assessment

Three-dimensional T1

Optional

Optional

Useful for brain volume measures

Axial post-contrast T1

Recommended Optional

Minimum of 5 min delay using a standard dose

Spinal cord MRI sequence

Spinal cord imaging following contrast-enhanced brain MRI (no further contrast is needed) sequence

Three-plane localizer pre-contrast sagittal T1

Three-plane localizer postcontrast sagittal T1

Sagittal fast spin–echo PD/T2

Sagittal fast spin–echo PD/T2

Axial fast spin–echo PD/ T2 through lesions

Post-contrast axial T1-weighted through lesions

Three-dimensional T1 (optional)

Axial fast spin–echo PD/T2 through lesions

Post-contrast sagittal T1

Three-dimensional T1 (optional)

Post-contrast axial T1 through lesions Slice thickness should be 1.0  T closed MRI scanner. FLAIR, fluidattenuated inversion recovery; MS, multiple sclerosis; PD, proton density. Source: Adapted with permission from Am J Neuroradiol [39].

Multiple Sclerosis: Pathophysiology, Clinical Features, Diagnosis, and Management

11

Figure 1.2  (A) MRI. Axial view, FLAIR sequence. Plaque in infratentorial location, right cerebellar. (B) MRI. Axial view, FLAIR sequence. Multiple demyelinating plaques in characteristic periventricular location following the periependymal veins (Dawson’s fingers). (C) MRI. Transverse slice, FLAIR sequence. (D) MRI. MT sequence, same level as (C). Compare the lesser number of plaques on the MT sequence. The lower magnetization value indicates lipoprotein loss. In this patient the volume for plaques was 23.5 cc on FLAIR and 4.2 cc on MT, indicating 18% of plaques have lipoprotein breakdown.

machines include sagittal fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), axial fast spin– or turbo spin–echo proton density (PD/T2-weighted), axial FLAIR, and axial pre- and post-contrast (gadolinium[Gd]) T1-weighted images. The FLAIR technique is a unique procedure currently used for the detection of white matter lesions, which appear as hyperintense signals on this sequence (Figure 1.2A–D). Typical MS lesions on FLAIR sequence are hyperintense periventricular lesions as well as corpus callosum lesions (Dawson’s fingers). Application of T2-weighted sequence is a classic approach to visualize MS disease burden and lesion formation over time [40]. However, the specificity of this MR technique is low since different pathophysiologic events such as edema, demyelination, remyelination, inflammation, Wallerian degeneration, and axonal loss all present as hyperintense lesions on this sequence. T2-weighted images can be obtained by applying a number of spin echo– or fast spin echo–based methods. T2-weighted

12

Neuroinflammation

Figure 1.3  (A) MRI. T2-weighted axial view of brain showing MS plaques. T2 values were calculated: for a normal value of 95 ms in brain parenchyma, the plaques measure from 124 to 211 ms. (B) Post-contrast axial T1-weighted view showing enhancing plaque corresponding to one of the plaques appearing on the T2-weighted image.

lesions of MS are observed in the periventricular white matter, corpus callosum, and juxtacortical and infratentorial areas, including brain stem, cerebellum, and spinal cord (Figure 1.3A). The T2-weighted lesions may be multifocal or as the underlying disease process advances they may become confluent. With time, the number and volume of T2-weighted lesions increase. However, with further disease progression with progression of central atrophy, the total brain volume as well as white matter volume is decreased, which translates into an overall decrease in the volume of T2-weighted lesions. Therefore, the T2-weighted lesion load may not demonstrate an accurate correlation with overall disability. Another MR technique to study MS is T1-weighted images obtained pre- and post-contrast infusion. Gd, the contrast material, is infused intravenously. The development of Gd-enhancing lesions on post-contrast T1-weighted images usually occurs at the early stages of lesion formation and may indicate BBB leakage (Figure 1.3B). The duration of the GD-enhancing T1-weighted lesions is short; they usually disappear within 2–6 weeks [41]. In addition, most of these lesions are clinically silent; therefore, MRI is 5–10 times more sensitive to MS disease activity than clinical observation alone [42]. Contrast-enhancing lesions may enhance homogeneously or present as ring-enhancing lesions. However, some of the contrast-enhancing T1-weighted lesions do not show a complete ring and manifest as “open ring”– enhancing lesions, in which case the opening of the ring points toward the cortex. The presence of open ring–enhancing lesions strongly supports a diagnosis of MS. In general, the ring-enhancing lesions are typically larger than nonring-enhancing lesions, show a shorter period of enhancement, and show a lower diffusion and magnetization transfer (MT) ratio. Therefore, these lesions may indicate the evolution of these lesions into T1-weighted black holes and may be associated with a

Multiple Sclerosis: Pathophysiology, Clinical Features, Diagnosis, and Management

13

Figure 1.4  (A) MR spectroscopy of the MS plaque. Echo time [TE]30 ms. Note the presence of lactate, indicating anaerobic metabolism, decrease in NAA (low neurons/axons), slight increase in choline (increased membrane metabolism, increased metabolic turnover), increased myoinositol (glial marker). (B) MR axial post-contrast T1-weighted enhancing hyperacute plaque over the left central region. (C) Axial apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map. (D) Axial diffusion-weighted image (DWI). Note hyperintensity on DWI and hypointensity on ADC, indicating restricted diffusion, seen in hyperacute plaques. With time the values increase and there will be no restriction.

stronger chance for brain atrophy. While the presence of contrast enhancement to a certain degree reflects inflammatory disease activity and disruption of the BBB, these lesions do not correlate potently with disability on longitudinal studies. The contrast-enhancing lesions are better indicators of active inflammatory stage, they point toward upcoming clinical relapses, and they are sensitive to treatment with corticosteroids and other immunomodulatory medications. A subgroup of T2-weighted lesions, which is also observable on T1-weighted images represents areas of hypointensity. Some of these areas may represent a temporary stage in the development of new MS lesions and may be associated with the inflammatory infiltrate in the newly developing lesions. However, a certain number of these lesions turn into persistent T1-weighted hypointensities also known as T1 black holes. T1 black holes are believed to show severe tissue loss with axonal loss, and the load of persistent T1-weighted black holes demonstrates a strong correlation with chronic disability [43]. T1-weighted black holes have been reported in both cerebral white matter and the spinal cord [44]. Another novel MRI technique is proton magnetic spectroscopy (1H-MRS), which allows determination of the chemical components and metabolite alterations within MS lesions as well as normal-appearing white matter (Figure 1.4). Assessment of MS

14

Neuroinflammation

lesions using 1H-MRS allows insight into the biomolecules such as N-acetylaspartate (NAA), choline, creatine, myoinositol, glutamate, glutamine, lipids, and lactate. Each one of these metabolites appears at a unique site in the 1H-MRS spectrum (expressed at parts per million [ppm]). NAA is a specific marker of neuronal and axonal integrity and presents at 2.02 ppm. In active inflammatory lesions of MS there is a reduction of NAA peak along with increases in the choline, lactate, and lipid peaks. An increase in choline peak indicates increased cell membrane turnover marker, and its increase may be associated with infiltration of immune cells, demyelination, remyelination, and gliosis. Myoinositol is proposed to be a marker of glial proliferation.

Figure 1.5  (A) MRI. Axial diffusion-weighted image showing multiple hyperintense lesions, corresponding to MS plaques. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values (as n  10-3 mm2/s) were elevated compared to normal values (0.70  10-3 mm2/s). (B) MRI. Sagittal T1-weighted image with Gd contrast. MS plaques are perpendicular to ependyma (Dawson’s fingers).

Figure 1.6  (A) MRI. MT. MT ratio of a plaque is 33%, or 77% of normal. (B) Same patient 7 months after; plaque MT ratio is now 20%, or 44% of normal.

Multiple Sclerosis: Pathophysiology, Clinical Features, Diagnosis, and Management

15

Spinal cord lesions, which may be detected in up to 90% of patients with clinically definite MS, account for significant disability in these patients. The cervical cord is more frequently affected than the thoracic cord, and involvement of the spinal cord without cerebral involvement occurs in only 2% of MS patients. MS lesions affecting the spinal cord generally do not extend beyond two vertebral segments, and extensive longitudinal lesions, particularly when present acutely, should raise the diagnosis of neuromyelitis optica [45]. Many of the spinal cord lesions are clinically silent. Spinal cord lesions are better imaged on short tau inversion recovery (STIR) sequences. Other advanced MR procedures currently employed to better understand the pathogenesis of MS consist of diffusion-weighted MR (Figure 1.5), MT ratio (Figure 1.6), functional, perfusion MR imaging, and tractography.

Diagnosis The original diagnostic criteria proposed by Poser et al. (1983) [64] required clinical documentation of dissemination in time and space based on the physical examination. These criteria were modified to include MRI abnormalities [46,47]. The latest diagnostic criteria for MS are presented in Table 1.3.

Variants of MS Variants of MS include neuromyelitis optica (also known as Devic’s disease, which is discussed in a separate chapter), Marburg’s variant, Balo’s concentric sclerosis, and Schilder’s disease. Marburg’s variant of MS is a fulminant disorder with a rapidly progressive course, which is associated with severe axonal loss and causes the patient’s death. Balo’s concentric sclerosis is an uncommon form of MS that neuropathologically manifests with concentric rings of alternating demyelinated and undemyelinated areas. This form of MS, which is more common among Asians, presents as an acute condition and may result in severe disability or death. Unlike typical cases of MS, patients with Balo’s concentric sclerosis present with more cortical impairments such as seizures, aphasia, and cognitive decline. Schilder’s disease is a rare and progressive demyelinating disorder that affects children. Demyelinating lesions of Schilder’s disease are usually large, confluent, and extensive. Patients present with seizures, aphasia, weakness, speech impairment, personality changes, and poor concentration.

Differential Diagnosis A number of neurologic and nonneurologic diseases imitate MS and may present with nonspecific white matter lesions on brain or spinal cord MRI. In these cases, attention

16

Neuroinflammation

Table 1.3  Revised McDonald MS Diagnostic Criteria Clinical Presentation

Additional Requirements to Diagnose MS

2 or more attacksa

Noneb

2 or more objective clinical lesions 2 or more attacksa objective clinical evidence of 1 lesion

Dissemination in space, demonstrated by: MRIc or a positive CSFd and 2 or more MRI lesions consistent with MS or a further clinical attacka indicating a different location

1 attacka 2 or more objective clinical lesions

Dissemination in time, demonstrated by: MRIe or second clinical attacka

1 attacka objective clinical evidence of 1 lesion (monosymptomatic presentation; CIS)

Dissemination in space, demonstrated by: MRIc or positive CSFd and 2 or more MRI lesions consistent with MS and Dissemination in time, demonstrated by: MRIe or second clinical attacka

If criteria indicated are fulfilled, the diagnosis is multiple sclerosis (MS); if the criteria are not completely met, the diagnosis is “possible MS”; if the criteria are fully explored and not met, the diagnosis is “not MS.” a No additional tests are required; however, if tests (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], cerebrospinal fluid [CSF]) are undertaken and are negative, extreme caution should be taken before making a diagnosis of MS. Alternative diagnoses must be considered. There must be no better explanation for the clinical picture. b MRI demonstration of space dissemination. c Positive CSF determined by oligoclonal bands detected by established methods (preferably isoelectric focusing) different from any such bands in serum or by a raised IgG index. d MRI demonstration of time dissemination. e Abnormal visual evoked potential of the type seen in MS (delay with a well-preserved waveform). Source: From [47], Ann Neurology 2005. With permission from John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

to the details of the clinical history and neurologic examination as well as other laboratory tests usually assists the clinician to differentiate these diseases from MS. These imitators of MS include neurosarcoidosis, neurosyphilis, leukodystrophies, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, ischemic demyelination, migraine, systemic lupus erythematosus, B12 deficiency, HIV encephalitis, HTLV-1–associated myelopathy, mitochondrial encephalopathy, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, ischemic stroke, fat embolism, and Behçet’s disease.

Management Currently, MS remains an incurable disease. Treatments for MS can be classified into three major categories: treatment for acute attacks, use of disease-modifying agents, and immunosuppressive agents.

Treatment of Acute Relapses Patients with MS frequently experience relapses; they may resolve completely or leave the patient with clinically detectable residual neurologic deficits. In addition,

Multiple Sclerosis: Pathophysiology, Clinical Features, Diagnosis, and Management

17

once the patient experiences a number of relapses, he or she accumulates significant functional disability. Multiple clinical observations have demonstrated that MS patients who are treated with corticosteroids or adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTh) recover faster than untreated patients. Due to the powerful anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive properties of corticosteroids and ACTh, neurologists commonly use these agents to treat acute relapses of MS. These medications decrease edema and inflammation as well as the number of contrast-enhancing lesions on T1-weighted brain MR images. Clinically, patients improve and usually recover more rapidly. One of these corticosteroid medications is methylprednisolone (Solu-Medrol), which is infused intravenously 1 g/day for 5 days, followed by abrupt withdrawal or a tapering regimen. ACTh is not commonly used for treatment of acute relapses of MS.

Disease-Modifying Agents Currently, there are six FDA-approved disease-modifying agents for treatment of MS: (1) low-dose, low-frequency interferon-β1a (Avonex); (2) high-dose, highfrequency interferon-β1a (Rebif); (3) high-frequency interferon-β1b; (4) glatiramer acetate (GA), also known as copolymer 1, Cop-1, or Copaxone; (5) natalizumab (Tysabri), a monoclonal antibody against the cellular adhesion molecule a4-integrin; and (6) mitoxantrone (Table 1.4).

Beta-Interferons Beta-interferons decrease the number of contrast (Gd)-enhancing lesions on brain MRI, reduce severe relapses by 50%, and delay disease progression. The mechanisms of the beneficial effects of beta-interferons in the management of MS patients are only partially known. Proposed mechanisms of action for these agents include reduction of antigen presentation [48], decreasing the expression of co-stimulatory molecules on the dendritic and other cells [49,50], suppressing the proliferation of pro-inflammatory Th1 lymphocytes and upregulation of production of IL-10 [51], shifting of the cytokine environment from pro-inflammatory to anti-inflammatory [52,53], preventing transendothelial migration of autoreactive T lymphocytes by decreasing the production of matrix metalloproteinases [54,55], and restoring BBB integrity by upregulating the expression of occludin and VE-cadherin [22]. IFN-β1b also decreases serum levels of IL-12 and IL-23 [27]. Adverse effects of IFN-β1b include injection site reactions. The flu-like syndrome that occurs within hours of the injection usually resolves within 24 h. However, the severity of the flu-like syndrome may decrease with more injections over several weeks. Various techniques can be used to reduce the severity and duration of the flu-like symptoms. One recommendation is to inject IFN-β1b at bedtime and to use a titration schedule to increase the dose slowly, starting at 25% of the recommended dose and progressing to the full dose within 4–6 weeks. Patients should be instructed to take noncorticosteroid anti-inflammatory agents such as ibuprofen or acetaminophen prior to and after the injection. In severe cases, use of low-dose corticosteroids (prednisone 10 mg prior

18

Neuroinflammation

Table 1.4  Therapeutic Drugs Approved by the FDA for Treatment of MS Drug

Dosage

Route of Side Effects Administration

Safety Blood Work

Avonex (INF-β1a)

30 μg weekly Intramuscular

Flu-like syndrome

LFT/CBC Redness, necrosis

Rebif (INF-β1a)

8.0 million Subcutaneous units 3 times weekly

Flu-like syndrome

LFT/CBC Redness, necrosis

Betaseron (INF-β1b)

44 μg

Subcutaneous

Flu-like syndrome

LFT/CBC Redness, necrosis

Glatiramer acetate (Copaxone)

20 mg

Subcutaneous

None

None

Tysabri 300 mg once Intravenous (natalizumab) every 28 days

None A number of cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy have been reported in association with it

Mitoxantrone 12 mg/m2 Intravenous body surface once every 3 months, not to exceed 140 mg in lifetime

Cardiomyopathy, opportunistic infections, acute myeloid leukemia

Skin Reaction

Redness, lipodystrophy None

LFT/CBC Skin necrosis upon accidental skin exposure

LFT, liver function tests; CBC, complete blood count.

to injection) is recommended. Uncommonly, depression and suicidal ideation occur in patients being treated with IFN-β1b. The most common laboratory abnormalities associated with IFN-β1b are lymphopenia and elevated liver enzymes. Injection site reactions are common and typically occur when patients inject themselves at the same place frequently. This reaction ranges from redness of the skin to skin necrosis. Skin necrosis usually requires discontinuation of the IFN-β1b.

Glatiramer Acetate GA, which is administered 20 mg/day subcutaneously, reduces relapses by one third. GA is a synthetic random polymer of four amino acids (with a molecular weight of 6.4 kDa) that exist in the MBP. It is currently used for treatment of patients with RRMS. The four amino acids are tyrosine, glutamate, alanine, and lysine. Previous experiments demonstrated that GA was an effective therapy for preventing and

Multiple Sclerosis: Pathophysiology, Clinical Features, Diagnosis, and Management

19

ameliorating experimental allergic encephalomyelitis [56]. GA was approved in 1997 by the FDA for treatment of patients with RRMS. The mechanisms of the beneficial effects of GA on MS patients are not completely understood. Based on the proposed mechanism of action of GA, this medication induces a Th2/anti-inflammatory response in up to 50% of treated patients. The Th2 T cells in turn induce immunosuppressive type 2 monocytes and microglia, which also promote a switch to a Th2 environment. Currently, GA is not indicated for treatment of patients with SPMS and PPMS. Two recent head-to-head clinical trials comparing the clinical efficacy of IFN-β1a and IFN-β1b did not establish any difference between the efficacy of the beta-interferons and GA [57,58].

Natalizumab Natalizumab (Tysabri) is a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets the α4 chain of α4β1and α4β7 integrins. The α4β1 integrin very late antigen-4 (VLA-4) is expressed on all leukocytes except neutrophils and binds to the vascular cell adhesion molecule-4 (VCAM-4), which is expressed by the cerebral inflamed endothelium [59]. Natalizumab blocks the binding of the VLA-4 and VCAM-1, which in turn either blocks or significantly reduces transendothelial migration of the activated leukocytes into the CNS. The results of clinical trials of natalizumab in MS patients indicate that administration of this monoclonal antibody reduced the annual relapse rate by 68% and decreased the rate of disability progression by 42%, the number of brain contrastenhancing T1-weighted lesions by 92%, and the number of T2-weighted lesions by 83% [60,61]. Natalizumab is infused intravenously 300 mg once every 28 days. Its major adverse event is development of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Other monoclonal antibodies under clinical investigation for treatment of MS include daclizumab, rituximab, and alemtuzumab.

Mitoxantrone Mitoxantrone (Novantrone), an antineoplastic agent with profound immunosuppressive effects, is chemically related to the anthracyclines such as doxorubicin and acts as a potent immunosuppressive agent for treatment of MS. Mechanisms of action of mitoxantrone include intercalation with the DNA molecule, which in turn causes single- and double-stranded disruptions and suppresses DNA repair via inhibition of topoisomerase II. Mitoxantrone potently inhibits proliferation of B and T lymphocytes as well as macrophages. Other cells, such as antigen-presenting cells, are also killed and migration of the activated leukocytes is suppressed. Other modes of action for mitoxantrone include lowering the secretion of IFN-γ, TNF-α, and IL-2 [62]. Administration of mitoxantrone causes apoptosis of B and T lymphocytes [63]. Mitoxantrone is administered 12 mg/m2 every 3 months. It significantly reduces clinical relapses, disease progression, and MRI lesions in MS patients. Mitoxantrone has three significant side effects: severe leukopenia, acute myelogenous leukemia, and cardiac toxicity. In addition, patients treated with mitoxantrone are always at high risk for opportunistic infections.

20

Neuroinflammation

Prognosis MS is an unpredictable disease and in many cases, even with standard treatment, patients progress toward irreversible disability. Prognostic factors that indicate a better outcome include female gender, younger age at disease onset, initial disease presentation with optic neuritis or sensory symptoms, the presence of little residual disability after each relapse, a prolonged interval between the demyelinating attacks, a lower lesion load on the baseline brain scan at the onset, a progressive course from the beginning of the disease, poor recovery from relapses, and cerebellar or motor deficits.

Conclusion MS remains a very complicated and incurable disease with many as yet unrecognized features. Ongoing basic science and clinical research into the pathophysiology of MS has altered our view of the fundamental mechanisms of disease process and had led to the discovery of disease-modifying agents. With introduction of these agents, the natural course of MS has changed forever and our clinical practice has moved toward more rapid diagnosis and earlier treatment of these patients. It is hoped that more effective therapies with fewer side effects will translate into a better quality of life for MS patients. The authors hope this chapter will encourage readers to continue research into the nature of this enigmatic disease.

References [1] Frohman EM, Racke MK, Raine CS. Multiple sclerosis—the plaque and its pathogenesis. N Engl J Med 2006;354:942–55. [2] Noseworthy JH, Lucchinetti C, Rodriguez M, Weinshenker BG. Multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2000;343:938–52. [3] Lublin FD, Reingold SC. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: results of an international survey. National Multiple Sclerosis Society (USA) Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials of New Agents in Multiple Sclerosis. Neurology 1996;46:907–11. [4] Kurtzke JF. Epidemiologic evidence for multiple sclerosis as an infection. Clin Microbiol Rev 1993;6:382–427. [5] Koch-Henriksen N, Sørensen PS. The changing demographic pattern of multiple sclerosis epidemiology. Lancet Neurol 2010 May;9(5):520–32. [6] Correale J, Ysrraelit MC, Gaitán MI. Immunomodulatory effects of vitamin D in multiple sclerosis. Brain 2009;132:1146–60. [7] Maghzi AH, Marta M, Bosca I, Etemadifar M, Dobson R, Maggiore C, et  al. Viral pathophysiology of multiple sclerosis: a role for Epstein–Barr virus infection? Pathophysiology 2010 inpress. [8] Hawkes CH. Smoking is a risk factor for multiple sclerosis: a metanalysis. Mult Scler 2007 Jun;13(5):610–5. [9] Munger KL, Zhang SM, O'Reilly E, Hernán MA, Olek MJ, Willett WC, et al. Vitamin D intake and incidence of multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2004;62(1):60–5.

Multiple Sclerosis: Pathophysiology, Clinical Features, Diagnosis, and Management

21

[10] Zivadinov R, Weinstock-Guttman B, Hashmi K, Abdelrahman N, Stosic M, Dwyer M, et al. Smoking is associated with increased lesion volumes and brain atrophy in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2009;73:504–10. [11] Saadatnia M, Etemadifar M, Maghzi AH. Multiple sclerosis in Isfahan, Iran. Int Rev Neurobiol 2007;79:357–75. [12] Maghzi AH, Ghazavi H, Ahsan M, Etemadifar M, Mousavi S, Khorvash F, et  al. Increasing female preponderance of multiple sclerosis in Isfahan, Iran: a populationbased study. Mult Scler 2010;16(3):359–61. [13] Orton SM, Herrera BM, Yee IM, Valdar W, Ramagopalan SV, Sadovnick AD, et al. Sex ratio of multiple sclerosis in Canada: a longitudinal study. Lancet Neurol 2006;5:932–6. [14] Alonso A, Hernán MA. Temporal trends in the incidence of multiple sclerosis: a syste­ matic review. Neurology 2008;71(2):129–35. [15] Dyment DA, Ebers GC, Sadovnick AD. Genetics of multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol 2004;3:104–10. [16] Trapp BD, Peterson J, Ransohoff RM, Rudick R, Mörk S, Bö L. Axonal transection in the lesions of multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 1998;338:278–85. [17] Minagar A, Alexander JS. Blood–brain barrier disruption in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2003;9(6):540–9. [18] Bar-Or A. The immunology of multiple sclerosis. Semin Neurol 2008;28:29–45. [19] Bar-Or A. Immunology of multiple sclerosis. Neurol Clin 2005;23:149–75. [20] Lovett-Racke AE, Racke MK. Epstein–Barr virus and multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 2006;63:810–1. [21] Bernard CC, Johns TG, Slavin A, Ichikawa M, Ewing C, Liu J, et al. Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein: a novel candidate autoantigen in multiple sclerosis. J Mol Med 1997;75:77–88. [22] Minagar A, Ostanin D, Long AC, Jennings M, Kelley RE, Sasaki M, et al. Serum from patients with multiple sclerosis downregulates occludin and VE-cadherin expression in cultured endothelial cells. Mult Scler 2003;9:235–8. [23] Davies S, Nicholson T, Laura M, Giovannoni G, Altmann DM. Spread of T lymphocyte immune responses to myelin epitopes with duration of multiple sclerosis. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 2005;64:371–7. [24] Seder RA, Paul WE. Acquisition of lymphokine-producing phenotype by CD4 T cells. Annu Rev Immunol 1994;12:635–73. [25] Trinchieri G, Pflanz S, Kastelein RA. The IL-12 family of heterodimeric cytokines: new players in the regulation of T cell responses. Immunity 2003;19:641–4. [26] Kebir H, Kreymborg K, Ifergan I, Dodelet-Devillers A, Cayrol R, Bernard M, et  al. Human Th17 lymphocytes promote blood–brain barrier disruption and central nervous system inflammation. Nat Med 2007;13:1173–5. [27] Alexander JS, Harris MK, Wells SR, Mills G, Chalamidas K, Ganta VC, et  al. Alterations in serum MMP-8, MMP-9, IL-12p40 and IL-23 in multiple sclerosis patients treated with interferon-beta1b. Mult Scler 2010;16:801–9. [28] Kabat EA, Moore DH, Landow H. An electrophoretic study of the protein components in cerebrospinal fluid and their relationship to the serum proteins. J Clin Invest 1942;21:571–7. [29] Owens GP, Ritchie AM, Burgoon MP, Williamson RA, Corboy JR, Gilden DH. Singlecell repertoire analysis demonstrates that clonal expansion is a prominent feature of the B cell response in multiple sclerosis cerebrospinal fluid. J Immunol 2003;171:2725–33. [30] Qin Y, Duquette P, Zhang Y, Talbot P, Poole R, Antel J. Clonal expansion and somatic hypermutation of V(H) genes of B cells from cerebrospinal fluid in multiple sclerosis. J Clin Invest 1998;102(5):1045–50. [31] Monson NL, Brezinschek HP, Brezinschek RI, Mobley A, Vaughan GK, Frohman EM, et  al. Receptor revision and atypical mutational characteristics in clonally expanded

22

[32]

[33] [34] [35]

[36] [37] [38]

[39]

[40] [41] [42]

[43] [44] [45] [46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

Neuroinflammation

B cells from the cerebrospinal fluid of recently diagnosed multiple sclerosis patients. J Neuroimmunol 2005;158:170–81. Lucchinetti C, Brück W, Parisi J, Scheithauer B, Rodriguez M, Lassmann H. Heterogeneity of multiple sclerosis lesions: implications for the pathogenesis of demyelination. Ann Neurol 2000;47:707–17. Poorjavad M, Derakhshandeh F, Etemadifar M, Soleymani B, Minagar A, Maghzi AH. Oropharyngeal dysphagia in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2010;16:362–5. Rao SM, Leo GJ, Bernardin L, Unverzagt F. Cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. I. Frequency, patterns, and prediction. Neurology 1991;41:685–91. Rao SM, Leo GJ, Ellington L, Nauertz T, Bernardin L, Unverzagt F. Cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. II. Impact on employment and social functioning. Neurology 1991;41:692–6. Beatty WW. Assessment of cognitive and psychological functions in patients with multiple sclerosis: considerations for databasing. Mult Scler 1999;5:239–43. Pinkston JB, Kablinger A, Alekseeva N. Multiple sclerosis and behavior. Int Rev Neurobiol 2007;79:323–39. Swanton JK, Rovira A, Tintore M, Altmann DR, Barkhof F, Filippi M, et al. MRI criteria for multiple sclerosis in patients presenting with clinically isolated syndromes: a multicenter retrospective study. Lancet Neurol 2007;6:677–86. Simon JH, Li D, Traboulsee A, Coyle PK, Arnold DL, Barkhof F, et  al. Standardized MR imaging protocol for multiple sclerosis: consortium of MS Centers consensus guidelines. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27(2):455–6. Paty DW. Magnetic resonance in multiple sclerosis. Curr Opin Neurol Neurosurg 1993;6:202–8. Cotton F, Weiner HL, Jolesz FA, Guttmann CR. MRI contrast uptake in new lesions in relapsing–remitting MS followed at weekly intervals. Neurology 2003;60(4):640–6. Thompson AJ, Miller D, Youl B, MacManus D, Moore S, Kingsley D, et  al. Serial gadolinium-enhanced MRI in relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis of varying disease duration. Neurology 1992;42:60–3. Zivadinov R, Leist TP. Clinical-magnetic resonance imaging correlations in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimaging 2005;15(Suppl. 4):10S–21S. Losseff NA, Wang L, Miller DH, Thompson AJ. T1 hypointensity of the spinal cord in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 2001;248:517–21. Scott TF, Kassab SL, Pittock SJ. Neuromyelitis optica IgG status in acute partial transverse myelitis. Arch Neurol 2006;63:1398–400. McDonald WI, Compston A, Edan G, Goodkin D, Hartung HP, Lublin FD, et  al. Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from the International Panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2001;50:121–7. Polman CH, Reingold SC, Edan G, Filippi M, Hartung HP, Kappos L, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald Criteria”. Ann Neurol 2005;58(6):840–6. Arnason BG, Dayal A, Qu ZX, Jensen MA, Genç K, Reder AT. Mechanisms of action of interferon-beta in multiple sclerosis. Springer Semin Immunopathol 1996;18(1):125–48. Huang YM, Kouwenhoven M, Jin YP, Press R, Huang WX, Link H. Dendritic cells derived from patients with multiple sclerosis show high CD1a and low CD86 expression. Mult Scler 2001;7:95–9. Shapiro S, Galboiz Y, Lahat N, Kinarty A, Miller A. The “immunological-synapse” at its APC side in relapsing and secondary-progressive multiple sclerosis: modulation by interferon-beta. J Neuroimmunol 2003;144:116–24.

Multiple Sclerosis: Pathophysiology, Clinical Features, Diagnosis, and Management

23

[51] Zang Y, Hong J, Robinson R, Li S, Rivera VM, Zhang JZ. Immune regulatory properties and interactions of copolymer-I and beta-interferon 1a in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimmunol 2003;137:144–53. [52] Ozenci V, Kouwenhoven M, Huang YM, Kivisäkk P, Link H. Multiple sclerosis is associated with an imbalance between tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha)- and IL-10-secreting blood cells that is corrected by interferon-beta (IFN-beta) treatment. Clin Exp Immunol 2000;120:147–53. [53] Ozenci V, Kouwenhoven M, Teleshova N, Pashenkov M, Fredrikson S, Link H. Multiple sclerosis: pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines and metalloproteinases are affected differentially by treatment with IFN-beta. J Neuroimmunol 2000;108(1–2):236–43. [54] Prat A, Al-Asmi A, Duquette P, Antel JP. Lymphocyte migration and multiple sclerosis: relation with disease course and therapy. Ann Neurol 1999;46(2):253–6. [55] Yushchenko M, Mäder M, Elitok E, Bitsch A, Dressel A, Tumani H, et al. Interferonbeta-1 b decreased matrix metalloproteinase-9 serum levels in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 2003;250:1224–8. [56] Teitelbaum D, Fridkis-Hareli M, Arnon R, Sela M. Copolymer 1 inhibits chronic relapsing experimental allergic encephalomyelitis induced by proteolipid protein (PLP) peptides in mice and interferes with PLP-specific T cell responses. J Neuroimmunol 1996;64:209–17. [57] Mikol DD, Barkhof F, Chang P, REGARD study group, et al. Comparison of subcutaneous interferon beta-1a with glatiramer acetate in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (the REbif vs Glatiramer Acetate in Relapsing MS Disease [REGARD] study): a multicentre, randomised, parallel, open-label trial. Lancet Neurol 2008;7:903–914. [58] Connor P, Filippi M, Arnason B, BEYOND Study Group, et al. 250 microg or 500 microg interferon beta-1b versus 20 mg glatiramer acetate in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Lancet Neurol 2009;8:889–897. [59] Sheremata WA, Minagar A, Alexander JS, Vollmer T. The role of alpha-4 integrin in the aetiology of multiple sclerosis: current knowledge and therapeutic implications. CNS Drugs 2005;19:909–22. [60] 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. N Engl J Med 2006;354:899–910. [61] Polman CH, O’Connor PW, Havrdova E, AFFIRM Investigators, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2006;354:899–910. [62] Fidler JM, DeJoy SQ, Gibbons Jr JJ. Selective immunomodulation by the antineoplastic agent mitoxantrone. I. Suppression of B lymphocyte function. J Immunol 1986;137:727–32. [63] Bellosillo B, Piqué M, Barragán M, Castaño E, Villamor N, Colomer D. Aspirin and salicylate induce apoptosis and activation of caspases in B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells. Blood 1998;92:1406–14. [64] Poser CM, Paty DW, Scheinberg L, McDonald WI, Davis FA, Ebers GC, et  al. New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines for research protocols. Ann Neurol. 1983;13:227–31.

2 Epstein–Barr Virus and

Multiple Sclerosis: Wrong Place, Wrong Time?

Amir-Hadi Maghzi1,2,3, Monica Marta1, Isabel Bosca1,4, Mohammad-Reza Savoj2, Masoud Etemadifar2, Gavin Giovannoni1, Ute-Christiane Meier1 1 

Neuroimmunology Unit, Centre for Neuroscience and Trauma, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK 2  Isfahan Research Committee of Multiple Sclerosis (IRCOMS), Isfahan, Iran 3  Isfahan Neuroscience Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran 4  Neurology Department, La Fe University Hospital, Valencia, Spain

Epstein–Barr Virus Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) was first isolated from Burkitt’s lymphoma in 1964 by Epstein and Barr. EBV as the causative agent for infectious mononucleosis (IM) was discovered in 1968, when a laboratory technician working on lymphoma samples was accidentally infected with EBV and developed IM. In 1970, the virus was found to infect and immortalize B cells. EBV is a gamma-herpes-4-virus and was the first herpes virus to be completely sequenced. Several diseases are associated with EBV, including Hodgkin’s and post-transplant lymphomas, oral hairy leukoplakia, and nasopharyngeal carcinomas [1–3]. However, although EBV has a population prevalence of more than 90% worldwide, only a few EBV-positive individuals suffer from diseases that are linked to EBV [1,2,4,5]. EBV has a double-stranded 172-kb DNA genome. Upon infection the genome circularizes and persists as an episome in infected cells. More than 70 open reading frames exist, which encode proteins expressed during lytic and latent EBV infection [1,3,5–7]. Lytic proteins encode viral proteins, which are necessary for the production of infectious virions, whereas latent proteins are needed to set up persistent infection by transforming and immortalizing host cells [1,3]. EBV also encodes non-translated RNAs (e.g., EBER1 and EBER2), which are almost ubiquitously Neuroinflammation. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-384913-7.00002-2 © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

26

Neuroinflammation

expressed and highly abundant in EBV-infected cells (106–107 copies per infected cell nucleus). Four EBV latency programs have been described with distinct sets of expressed proteins and viral RNAs: (1) Latency 0: EBER1 and EBER2 but no expression of proteins; (2) Latency 1 (true latency program): EBER1 and EBER2, EBNA1; (3) Latency 2 (default program): EBER1 and EBER2 and expression of EBNA1, latent membrane protein (LMP)-1, LMP2A, LMP2B; and (4) Latency 3 (growth program): EBER1 and EBER2 and expression of EBNA-leader protein (LP), EBNA 2–6, LMP1, LMP2A, LMP2B [8]. Viral latency can be disrupted by a variety of cellular activators, inducing the switch from latent to lytic replication, mediated by the Zebra protein [9]. The major components of the lytic phase are the EBV DNA polymerase, BALF5, and early and late lytic proteins. Self-assembly of the EBV capsids requires viral capsid antigen (VCA), major capsid protein (BcLF1), and major surface membrane antigens (MA) gp350/220 [10]. Viral entry into B cells is mediated by gp350, which binds to CD21 (complement receptor) and possibly other receptors and triggers endocytosis. Entry seems to additionally require binding of MHC class II by gp42 to initiate fusion of viral and endosomal membranes to release viral genetic material into the cell. The role of most EBV proteins has been characterized mainly in vitro using lymphoblastoid cell lines (LCL). In brief, EBNA1 is critical for maintenance of the EBV genome during cell division. LMP1 is important for growth transformation. EBNA3 modulates the EBNA2 activity and may have some role in regulation of transcription. LMPs are transmembrane proteins and mimic an active receptor necessary for transformation of resting B cells [1,11].

EBV and Diseases More than 90% of people are infected with EBV and the prevalence is higher in less-developed countries. Infection in childhood is asymptomatic or presents with subtle signs and symptoms; however, about half of the individuals infected during/ after their late teens have the typical presentations of IM. EBV is usually transmitted via the oral route and replicates intensely in oropharyngeal epithelial cells. The virus enters its lytic program and infects local B cells. These B cells migrate to peripheral lymphoid tissue, but rare EBV B cells are also present in the bloodstream [1]. The virus has evolved strategies that render the host’s immune response unable to eliminate all infected cells, enabling the virus to set up persistent infection. The virus keeps immunologically silent in persistently infected B cells by turning off most genes, and only rarely undergoes reactivation. As the infection enters the latent phase, a few malignant diseases may emanate from chronic infection. Some of the neoplasms known to be caused by EBV are Burkitt’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s disease, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) [1,6,7,11–13].

Epstein–Barr Virus and Multiple Sclerosis: Wrong Place, Wrong Time?

27

Different types of malignancies are related to different virus programs [1,6]. For instance, Burkitt’s lymphoma is known to be associated with the Latency 1 programme, nasopharyngeal carcinoma and Hodgkin’s lymphoma with Latency 2 programme, and lymphoproliferative diseases in immunocompromised patients with Latency 3 programme, whereas hairy oral leukoplakia is related to the lytic program [1]. Over the years several autoimmune diseases, such as multiple sclerosis (MS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and rheumatoid arthritis (RA), have been linked to EBV infection [5,14].

Multiple Sclerosis MS is an inflammatory autoimmune disease of the human central nervous system. Infectious agents are plausible candidates in triggering and perpetuating the disease. Several viruses are suggested as a trigger for MS, but consistency and strength of association render EBV the outstanding candidate [15].

Epidemiologic Evidence Linking EBV to MS There are similarities between the epidemiology of MS and IM [16]. Several studies have shown that individuals with a previous history of IM are at higher risk for acquiring MS. A meta-analysis calculated the combined relative risk of MS after IM to be 2.3 (95% CI 1.7–3.0; P 1 medically documented relapse within the 12 months prior to study entry

Treatment with any other interferon product besides IFN-β1a IM in the prior 12 monthsa

Relapse while on interferon IFN-β1a IM for at least 12 monthsa a

SENTINEL only [10,11].

These additional measures include sustained improvement, defined as a reduction in EDSS score by one point sustained for 12 or 24 weeks, and a composite of several traditional measures (relapses, disease progression, MRI indices) to frame the concept of freedom of disease activity. In addition, several phase IV trials have been

172

Neuroinflammation

conducted to evaluate changes in cognition and fatigue, stemming from anecdotal reports of improvement in these areas by patients and their physicians. Various evaluations of subsets of patients were analyzed (e.g., disease activity at baseline [highly active], ethnicity, and other predefined demographic baseline parameters) to obtain a better understanding of what type of MS patient could most benefit from natalizumab therapy. All of these studies and analyses were done to gain better insight into how future therapies could work in MS patients, as well as to treat the entire patient and those various signs and symptoms she or he suffers from, which to date have been virtually left untreated or routinely monitored for improvement in the clinical setting. Natalizumab had a robust effect on all standard measures of MS treatment efficacy in both pivotal trials. In AFFIRM (monotherapy study), the primary endpoint at year 1 was ARR. The natalizumab patients experienced a relative reduction of 68% that was maintained over 2 years of the trial (Table 8.2) [10]—a first for any MS therapy. At 2 years, there was a 42% reduction in the risk of sustained progression of disability (P , 0.001) in the natalizumab group compared to placebo (Figure 8.4) [10]. Additional sensitivity analysis for risk of sustained progression at 6 months resulted in a 54% reduction compared to placebo (P , 0.001). In SENTINEL (addon study), the relative reduction in relapse rate was 54% (P , 0.001) at year 1, and it was maintained at year 2 in the add-on treatment group. In addition, the risk of sustained progression of disability was reduced by 24% (P    0.02) in the add-on treatment group [11]. Measurements of new or enlarging MRI lesions, Gd or T2 weighted, were reduced by 92% and 83%, respectively, compared to placebo. Interestingly, 97% and 57% of natalizumab-treated patients experienced no new or enlarging Gd or T2 lesions, respectively, at the end of the 2-year trial (see Table 8.2) [10]. Also, there was a 76% relative reduction in the mean number of T1-hypointense lesions over the 2 years with Tysabri (Tysabri 1.1 lesions versus placebo 4.6 lesions; P , 0.001) [13]. In SENTINEL, the add-on treatment group experienced an 83% reduction in T2 lesions (P , 0.001) and an 89% reduction in Gd lesions (P , 0.001) at 2 years compared to placebo [11].

Subgroup Analysis Data It is well accepted that MS is a heterogeneous disease and that patients may respond differently to various DMTs. Differences in response may be a factor of gender, ethnicity, or level of disease activity. To explore the effect of natalizumab in these populations, several prespecified analyses were conducted.

Highly Active Patients Patients with highly active relapsing MS experience more relapses and are more likely to become disabled sooner due to the accumulation of disease burden being

Table 8.2  Endpoints as Determined by Clinical Results and MRI Evaluationa 1 Year Natalizumab (n  627)

Placebo (n  315)

2 Years P-value

Natalizumab (n  627)

Placebo (n  315)

P-value

17

29

3

3 (3

2 (3), EDSS score (9), presence of Gd lesions (0 or >1), age (40 or >40), and gender, in addition to patients with highly active disease (>2 relapses in the year prior to study entry and >1Gdlesion at study entry). The ARR was reduced in all subgroups in both AFFIRM and SENTINEL, with the exception of the patients who had less than nine T2 lesions at baseline, likely due to the small number of patients in this subgroup. The risk of sustained disability progression was significantly reduced in most prespecified subgroups in AFFIRM and in SENTINEL in patients with nine or more T2 lesions at baseline, at least one Gd lesions at baseline, females, and patients under 40 years of age [15]. These data confirmed the original findings: natalizumab demonstrated consistent efficacy across all subgroups, including patients who had active disease at time of treatment initiation. Considering natalizumab’s mechanism of action, these results may indicate that natalizumab may be useful early in the disease, when inflammation is the critical component to disability progression.

African Americans There are data to suggest that patients of African descent with relapsing MS may not respond to interferon therapy with the same magnitude as Caucasian patients, in addition to sustaining more disease activity and more rapid disease progression [16]. A post hoc analysis was conducted on data from AFFIRM (monotherapy) and SENTINEL (add-on), including the placebo arms of both trials (combined groups) of patients who indicated “Black” on their screening form [55]. There were a total of 49 patients who met these criteria for further analysis, 10 from AFFIRM (4 in the natalizumab group, 6 in the placebo group) and 39 from SENTINEL (17 in the group taking INF-β1a plus natalizumab, 22 taking INF-β1a alone). Despite the small number of patients, there was a trend toward a lower number of relapses in the natalizumab group compared to placebo (1.38  0.67 versus 1.82  0.82). Also, over the 2 years of the trials, the ARR was reduced by 60% in the natalizumab group versus placebo. The mean number of new or enlarging T2 lesions and Gd lesions was significantly reduced by 90% and 79%, respectively, in the natalizumab group over the 2 years of the trial.

Novel Measures of Efficacy Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite The MSFC was examined as a secondary endpoint to evaluate a new method of measuring disability. Most clinicians agree that the EDSS is limited because it relies predominantly on assessing lower limb ambulation disability. The MSFC incorporates quantitative measures of three components expressed as a composite Z-score.

Clinical Development and Benefit–Risk Profile of Natalizumab

177

Ambulation was measured using the timed 25-foot walk (T25-FW); the nine-hole peg test (9-HPT) was used to measure upper extremity function; and the 3-second paced auditory serial addition test (PASAT-3) was used to measure cognition. Natalizumab-treated patients demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in MSFC scores at each time point over 2 years (P  ,  0.001). Each component of the MSFC was also statistically significantly different from placebo (T25-FW, P , 0.001; 9-HPT, P , 0.001; PASAT-3, P , 0.005) [17]. Rudick et al. [18] separately examined MSFC progression as defined by worsening from baseline on scores of at least one MSFC component by 20% (MSFC Progression-20) or 15% (MSFC Progression-15) for at least 3 months [18]. In these analyses, a greater proportion of placebo patients exhibited progression as measured by the MSFC Progression-15 and MSFC Progression-20 sustained for at least 3 months over 2 years of the trial than did natalizumab-treated patients. MSFC progression was most commonly driven by T25-FW in both the placebo and natalizumab groups.

Health-Related QoL A variety of health-related QoL measures were included in both AFFIRM and SENTINEL as tertiary endpoints to further elucidate other signs and symptoms that may affect patients with MS, beyond ambulation. These included the Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Index (MSQLI), developed by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers’ Health Service Research Subcommittee, and VAS [19]. One component of the MSQLI includes the SF-36, one of the most widely used generic health status measures; it is used in a variety of chronic disease states [20]. The SF-36 contains 36 items that assess patients’ health status, and its impact on their daily lives and consists of two components: physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) [21]. The VAS was used to confirm the SF-36 results. The VAS consists of a single-item subjective global assessment of wellbeing that has a scale labeled “poor” (0) on one end and “excellent” (100) at the other; the patient draws a vertical line on the scale to indicate how he or she feels at that time [19]. Additional factors that may affect QoL were also evaluated, including changes in vision, pain, and cognition as measured by the PASAT portion of the MSFC. The primary objective of this analysis was to determine the effect from natalizumab monotherapy (AFFIRM) or add-on therapy with IFN-β1a (SENTINEL) on health-related QoL over 2 years [19]. Assessments were completed at baseline and at 24, 52, and 104 weeks. All health-related QoL outcomes were reported as mean scores and mean change from baseline for both SF-36 scales and VAS. Results were calculated for all time points. At baseline, the combined mean PCS and MCS scores were 43.20.4 and 47.00.5 across both studies. PCS and MCS scores for MS patients were significantly lower than the general US population: 50 is considered normal for both domains [21]. This illustrates that MS is associated with a significant QoL burden due to the disease. Higher EDSS scores were associated with lower PCS scores at baseline. PCS scores for all EDSS scores of 2.0 or more were significantly less in comparison with PCS scores at an EDSS of 0.0 (P , 0.005). By week 104, patients treated with natalizumab had significantly more improvement from

178

Neuroinflammation

baseline in both PCS and MCS than the placebo group. The PCS was significantly higher at 24 weeks and remained so through 2 years (P , 0.05) in the natalizumab group, while scores worsened over time for placebo. A clinically important change on the PCS and MCS was defined as at least a 0.5-SD change from baseline to week 104. A higher percentage of natalizumab-treated patients achieved a clinically important change than placebo patients for both PCS (24.9% versus 16.8%) and MCS (28.5% versus 21.6%). It is not surprising that the PCS showed a more robust effect with treatment than the MCS, since substantial physical impairment is the hallmark of MS. The VAS showed similar results: placebo-treated patients showed a worsening (6.2% change from baseline) and natalizumab appeared to keep patients feeling well (0.2% change from baseline) at 104 weeks. Further analyses of these data were conducted by Kieseier et al. [22] to evaluate the effect of natalizumab on health-related QoL of the highly active (HA) patients (n    209; 148 in the natalizumab group and 61 in the placebo group) previously identified in the AFFIRM trial versus the non-HA patients (n    733; 479 in the natalizumab group and 254 in the placebo group). No significant differences were found at baseline between the two subgroups regarding PCS, MCS, or VAS scores. In the HA subgroup, natalizumab significantly improved mean PCS, MCS, and VAS change from baseline to 2 years compared to placebo, and a greater percentage of patients experienced a clinical meaningful improvement with natalizumab over placebo (approximately 30% versus 20%, respectively).

Vision Another facet that may affect an MS patient’s QoL is change in vision over the course of disease. Visual data were collected in both AFFIRM and SENTINEL as assessed by the low-contrast Sloan letter chart (Precision Vision, LaSalle, IL). This testing captures the minimum size at which individuals can perceive letters of a particular contrast level (shade of gray on a white background). Sloan chart testing is the clinical measure that best identifies visual dysfunction in heterogeneous MS cohorts [23], with scores reflecting both vision-specific and overall health-related QoL in MS [24]. The primary evaluation was the change in visual function from baseline to 2 years. Clinically significant visual loss was defined as a two-line worsening of acuity sustained over 12 weeks. In AFFIRM, natalizumab reduced visual loss from baseline to 2 years by 47% (P , 0.001) at the 2.5% contrast level and by 35% (P  0.008) at the lowest contrast level, 1.25%. High contrast acuity (100%) was used to measure visual acuity as a descriptor of study cohorts [25] and was not a sensitive measure of change of visual loss. There were no differences among the treatment groups using 100% contrast letter charts (P  0.29). In SENTINEL, the add-on treatment group experienced a 28% reduction in visual loss as measured by the 1.25% contrast level.

Pain Another aspect of health-related QoL in MS patients is pain that can often interfere with daily routine tasks. One of the tertiary endpoints of AFFIRM and SENTINEL

Clinical Development and Benefit–Risk Profile of Natalizumab

179

trials was measuring and evaluating pain using the Medical Outcomes Study Pain Effects Scale (PES), which is part of the MSQLI. The main objective was to assess the effects of natalizumab on patients’ assessment of pain and to determine if there was a relationship between disease activity and pain in patients with RRMS [26]. Pain was evaluated at four time points during the trials: baseline, 6 months, and 1 and 2 years. Only a subset of patients were available due to limi­tations of valid translations of the assessment tools. A total of 358 patients from AFFIRM and 721 from SENTINEL completed the PES. Higher baseline scores on the PES, indicating worse pain, were associated with higher baseline EDSS scores (more disability). Mean baseline PES scores were significantly higher in patients with an EDSS score of at least 2.0 (AFFIRM) or at least 2.5 (SENTINEL) compared to patients with an EDSS score of 0 (P