4.6 Review

Efficacy of Disease Modifying Therapies in Progressive MS and How Immune Senescence May Explain Their Failure

Journal

FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.854390

Keywords

adaptive immunity; innate immunity; multiple sclerosis; immunosenescence; progressive multiple sclerosis; disease modifying therapies

Funding

  1. Multiple Sclerosis Innovation (GMSI)
  2. Merck KGaA
  3. Merit Review grant (federal award document number (FAIN) [BX005664-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effectiveness of disease modifying therapies (DMT) differs between different phenotypes of multiple sclerosis (MS), with progressive MS showing resistance. Immune senescence may explain this resistance.
The advent of disease modifying therapies (DMT) in the past two decades has been the cornerstone of successful clinical management of multiple sclerosis (MS). Despite the great strides made in reducing the relapse frequency and occurrence of new signal changes on neuroimaging in patients with relapsing remitting MS (RRMS) by approved DMT, it has been challenging to demonstrate their effectiveness in non-active secondary progressive MS (SPMS) and primary progressive MS (PPMS) disease phenotypes. The dichotomy of DMT effectiveness between RRMS and progressive MS informs on distinct pathogeneses of the different MS phenotypes. Conversely, factors that render patients with progressive MS resistant to therapy are not understood. Thus far, age has emerged as the main correlate of the transition from RRMS to SPMS. Whether it is aging and age-related factors or the underlying immune senescence that qualitatively alter immune responses as the disease transitions to SPMS, that diminish DMT effectiveness, or both, is currently not known. Here, we will discuss the role of immune senescence on different arms of the immune system, and how it may explain relative DMT resistance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available