4.2 Article

The Effect of Fingolimod on Conversion of Acute Gadolinium-Enhancing Lesions to Chronic T1 Hypointensities in Multiple Sclerosis

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROIMAGING
Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 184-187

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jon.12307

Keywords

Black holes; fingolimod; gadolinium-enhancing lesions; MRI; Multiple sclerosis

Funding

  1. Novartis Pharmaceuticals
  2. Merck-Serono
  3. Genzyme
  4. Novartis
  5. Biogen
  6. Alexion
  7. AbbVie
  8. Alkermes
  9. Questcor
  10. Teva

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUNDBrain lesions converting to chronic T1 hypointensities (chronic black holes [CBH]), indicate severe tissue destruction (axonal loss and irreversible demyelination) in multiple sclerosis (MS). Two mechanisms by which fingolimod could limit MS lesion evolution include sequestration of lymphocytes in the periphery or direct neuroprotective effects. We investigated the effect of fingolimod on the evolution of acute gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) brain lesions to CBH in patients with MS. METHODSThis was a retrospective nonrandomized comparison of patients with Gd+ brain lesions at the time of starting oral fingolimod [.5 mg/day, n = 26, age (mean SD) 39.2 10.6 years, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score - median (range): 1.75 (0, 6.5)] to those on no therapy [n = 30, age 41.7 +/- 9.3 years; EDSS 1.0 (0, 6)]. Each lesion was classified by whether it converted to a CBH in the year following treatment. RESULTSIn the fingolimod group, 99 Gd+ baseline lesions (mean +/- SD, range: 3.8 +/- 5.1; 1, 21 per patient) were identified of which 25 (25%) evolved to CBH (1.0 +/- 2.0; 0, 10 per patient). The untreated group had 62 baseline Gd+ lesions (2.1 +/- 2.3; 1, 13), 26 (42%) of which evolved to CBH (.9 +/- 1.4; 0, 7) (P = .063). Thirteen patients (50%) receiving fingolimod and 17 untreated patients (57%) developed CBH (P = .79). CONCLUSIONThis pilot study shows a trend of fingolimod on reducing the conversion rate from acute to chronic destructive MS lesions. Such an effect awaits verification in larger randomized prospective studies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available