High-Efficacy Therapy in Multiple Sclerosis: A Comprehensive Clinical Guide

Paradigm Shift: Early Aggressive Treatment as Standard of Care

For patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), particularly those with highly active or aggressive disease, initiate high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) immediately as first-line treatment rather than using traditional escalation approaches. 1, 2, 3

The landscape of multiple sclerosis treatment has undergone a fundamental transformation. The European Academy of Neurology and ECTRIMS guidelines explicitly recommend abandoning the historical stepped-care approach in favor of early escalation and induction strategies. 1 This shift reflects compelling evidence that targeting inflammation early in the disease course prevents irreversible neurological damage and yields superior long-term outcomes. 2, 3, 4

The rationale is straightforward: high-efficacy DMTs demonstrate significantly greater effectiveness when initiated early in the disease course, before substantial axonal loss and disability accumulation occur. 1, 5 Delaying aggressive treatment while monitoring for breakthrough activity on moderate-efficacy therapies allows ongoing subclinical disease activity that translates into irreversible disability over time. 5, 6

Initial Assessment and Risk Stratification

Essential Baseline Evaluation

Before initiating therapy, perform comprehensive disease characterization to guide treatment selection and establish monitoring parameters:

Clinical Classification:

Determine disease subtype (relapsing-remitting, secondary progressive, or primary progressive) using clinical history, examination findings, and disease course pattern. 2, 7 This classification fundamentally dictates all subsequent treatment decisions, as therapeutic options and expected responses differ dramatically between subtypes.

Neuroimaging Assessment:

Obtain brain MRI with gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted sequences and T2/FLAIR sequences to establish baseline lesion burden and identify active inflammation. 1, 2, 7 The presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions indicates active blood-brain barrier breakdown and ongoing inflammatory activity, which strongly predicts future disease activity and supports aggressive treatment. 1
Use moderately T2-weighted sequences (where CSF signal is slightly less intense than normal white matter) for optimal demonstration of periventricular lesions, and heavily T2-weighted sequences (where CSF intensity exceeds grey matter) for cortical lesions. 1
Perform scanning at least 5 minutes after gadolinium injection, as most lesions display maximum enhancement between 5-30 minutes post-injection. 1

Disability Documentation:

Document baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, as this metric determines eligibility for specific therapies and serves as the primary measure for monitoring disease progression. 1, 2, 7

Aggressive Disease Markers:

Identify markers of aggressive disease including: frequent relapses (≥2 per year), incomplete recovery from relapses, high frequency of new MRI lesions, and rapid onset of disability. 1, 2, 3 These features identify patients requiring the most aggressive initial treatment approaches and potentially earlier consideration of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT).

High-Efficacy DMT Options for Initial Therapy

First-Line High-Efficacy Agents

The available high-efficacy DMTs for first-line use in treatment-naïve RRMS include ocrelizumab, ofatumumab, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, and cladribine. 2, 3, 4

These agents fall into two strategic categories with distinct mechanisms and risk-benefit profiles:

Sustained Immunosuppression Strategy

Anti-CD20 Monoclonal Antibodies (Ocrelizumab, Ofatumumab):

These B-cell depleting therapies have demonstrated superiority in randomized clinical trials compared to their comparator groups and show consistent efficacy in observational studies. 4
Ocrelizumab is the only FDA-approved DMT specifically indicated for primary progressive MS, though efficacy is limited to slowing disability progression rather than halting it. 2, 7
These agents require ongoing administration to maintain therapeutic effect, exposing patients to cumulative infection and malignancy risks proportionate to duration of exposure. 6

Natalizumab:

Natalizumab has shown promising efficacy data in both randomized trials and observational studies when compared with placebo, injectable DMTs, and fingolimod. 4
Critical safety consideration: Patients treated with natalizumab require brain MRI every 3-4 months due to progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) risk, particularly in JC virus-positive patients. 2, 7
Long-term monitoring of John Cunningham virus status is essential for risk stratification. 6

Induction/Immune Reconstitution Strategy

Alemtuzumab:

Alemtuzumab has shown good efficacy in randomized controlled trials and observational studies, but several potentially severe side effects limit its use. 4
This agent provides immune reconstitution after initial treatment courses, with safety and clinical impacts documented for more than 6 years after the last infusion. 6
Requires intensive monitoring for secondary autoimmunity, particularly thyroid disease and immune thrombocytopenia.

Cladribine:

Cladribine is an oral DMT often grouped with other high-efficacy therapies but may be slightly less effective than the other agents. 4
Requires only 2-weekly treatment courses in years 1 and 2, with no systematic treatment for the following 2 years. 6
This limited exposure profile may offer advantages in patients concerned about long-term immunosuppression risks.

Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: The Most Effective Escalation Therapy

AHSCT as Standard of Care for Treatment-Refractory Disease

AHSCT represents the most effective escalation therapy for highly active RRMS that has failed high-efficacy DMTs, with 87-90% progression-free survival at 5-10 years in optimal candidates. 2, 3, 7 This dramatically exceeds outcomes with continued DMT therapy, where progression-free survival approximates 25% at 5 years. 3

AHSCT has been endorsed as standard of care for treatment-refractory relapsing-remitting MS by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT), the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, the US National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the Brazilian Society of Bone Marrow Transplantation. 1

The mechanism differs fundamentally from DMTs: AHSCT provides complete immune system ablation followed by reconstitution from autologous stem cells, effectively "rebooting" the immune system and eliminating the pathogenic immune cells driving MS inflammation. 1

Optimal Candidate Selection Criteria

Favorable characteristics for AHSCT include:

Age <45 years 1, 2, 3, 7
Disease duration <10 years 1, 2, 3, 7
EDSS score <4.0 1, 2, 3, 7
High focal inflammation on MRI with gadolinium-enhancing lesions 1, 2, 3
Failed ≥1 high-efficacy DMT after a meaningful treatment period 1, 2, 3
Absence of major cognitive impairment 1
No significant medical comorbidities 1
Excellent performance status 1

These criteria identify patients most likely to benefit while minimizing procedural risks. The age threshold reflects both biological fitness for the intensive procedure and the reality that younger patients have greater potential for neurological recovery and longer time horizons to benefit from disease control. 1

Timing of AHSCT Referral

Refer patients with highly active, treatment-refractory MS immediately after failure of first high-efficacy DMT if aggressive disease features are present. 1, 2, 3, 7 This recommendation represents a significant departure from historical practice, where AHSCT was reserved as a last resort after multiple treatment failures.

For patients with markers of aggressive disease (frequent relapses, incomplete recovery from relapses, high frequency of new MRI lesions, and rapid onset of disability), AHSCT can be considered within a specialized multidisciplinary assessment pathway after failure of a single high-efficacy DMT after a meaningful period of treatment. 1

The rationale for early referral is compelling: treatment at a younger age and after a lower number of previous DMTs is associated with lower rates of long-term progression. 1 Waiting for multiple treatment failures allows accumulation of irreversible disability that cannot be recovered even with successful AHSCT.

AHSCT as First-Line Therapy

AHSCT as first-line therapy should only be considered for individuals with rapidly evolving, severe MS with a poor prognosis; in this scenario, AHSCT should be offered as part of a clinical trial or an observational, longitudinal research study without delay whenever possible. 1, 3

This represents the most aggressive treatment approach and should be reserved for the subset of patients with fulminant disease courses where even high-efficacy DMTs are unlikely to provide adequate disease control. Such patients typically present with multiple severe relapses in rapid succession, extensive MRI lesion burden, and rapid disability accumulation within the first year of disease. 1

Contraindications to AHSCT

AHSCT is not recommended for:

Age >55 years (though biologically fit older individuals may be considered on a case-by-case basis) 1
Disease duration >20 years 1
EDSS score >6.0 1
Absence of focal inflammation on MRI 1
Major cognitive impairment 1
Multiple medical comorbidities 1
Active infections 1
Poor performance status 1
Unsatisfied family planning 1

These contraindications reflect either unacceptable procedural risk or low likelihood of meaningful benefit. Patients with long-standing disease, high disability, and absent inflammatory activity have predominantly neurodegenerative rather than inflammatory pathology, which AHSCT cannot reverse. 1

AHSCT in Progressive Multiple Sclerosis

Secondary Progressive MS

AHSCT can be considered for young (<45 years) individuals with early secondary progressive MS of short duration who have well-documented clinical and radiological evidence of active inflammatory disease. 1, 2, 7

The key distinction is "early" secondary progressive disease with ongoing inflammation. These patients have recently transitioned from relapsing-remitting to progressive courses but retain significant inflammatory activity that AHSCT can target. 1

Offering AHSCT for progressive MS without detectable inflammatory lesion activity is not supported owing to lack of evidence. 1 Once the disease becomes predominantly neurodegenerative without active inflammation, immune ablation provides no benefit and exposes patients to unnecessary risks.

Primary Progressive MS

AHSCT is only indicated for people with primary progressive MS with early and inflammatory active disease. 1 This represents a small subset of primary progressive patients who demonstrate gadolinium-enhancing lesions and clinical evidence of inflammatory activity. 1

No randomized controlled trials have been published, are ongoing, or are even planned to specifically evaluate AHSCT as a treatment for progressive MS. 1 This reflects the reality that most progressive MS patients lack sufficient inflammatory activity to benefit from immune ablation strategies.

MRI Monitoring Protocols

Standard Monitoring for Stable Patients

Perform brain MRI at least annually for stable patients on high-efficacy DMTs. 2, 7 This frequency allows detection of subclinical disease activity that may warrant treatment modification before clinical relapses occur.

Include T2-weighted and T2-FLAIR sequences for detecting new or enlarging lesions, and gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted sequences to identify active inflammatory lesions. 2, 7 The combination of these sequences provides complementary information: T2/FLAIR sequences show cumulative lesion burden and new lesions regardless of age, while gadolinium enhancement specifically identifies acute inflammatory activity. 1

Intensive Monitoring for High-Risk Patients

Increase MRI frequency to every 3-4 months for high-risk patients, including those with highly active disease, recent treatment changes, or those receiving natalizumab. 2, 3, 7

The rationale differs by scenario:

Highly active disease: Frequent imaging allows rapid detection of breakthrough activity and prompt treatment modification. 2, 7
Recent treatment changes: Monitoring for both treatment failure and potential rebound inflammatory activity during transitions between DMTs. 3
Natalizumab therapy: Surveillance for progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, particularly in JC virus-positive patients. 2, 7

Technical Specifications for Monitoring MRI

Use 5mm slice thickness with minimal interslice gap (<25% of slice thickness), 256×256 matrix providing 1mm² pixels, 2 excitations, and quadrature head receiver coil if available. 1

Begin scanning at least 5 minutes after gadolinium injection, as most lesions display maximum enhancement between 5-30 minutes post-injection, and obtain images at the same time post-injection on all follow-up scans. 1 This standardization is critical for comparing enhancement patterns across serial scans.

Treatment Algorithms by Clinical Scenario

Algorithm for Treatment-Naïve RRMS with Standard Activity

Step 1: Initial Assessment

Document disease subtype, EDSS score, relapse frequency, and MRI lesion burden 2, 7
Identify presence or absence of aggressive disease markers 1, 2

Step 2: Initiate High-Efficacy DMT

Select from ocrelizumab, ofatumumab, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, or cladribine 2, 3
Consider patient-specific factors including JC virus status (for natalizumab), family planning, and preference for continuous versus induction therapy 3, 6

Step 3: Establish Monitoring Schedule

Brain MRI at 6 months to assess early treatment response 2, 7
Clinical assessment every 3-6 months 2, 7
Annual brain MRI if stable 2, 7

Step 4: Response Assessment

Define treatment success as absence of relapses, no new or enlarging T2 lesions, no gadolinium-enhancing lesions, and stable or improved EDSS 2, 7
If breakthrough activity occurs, proceed to escalation algorithm 1

Algorithm for Treatment-Naïve RRMS with Aggressive Disease Features

Step 1: Comprehensive Baseline Assessment

Document all aggressive disease markers: relapse frequency, recovery completeness, MRI lesion burden and enhancement pattern, rate of disability accumulation 1, 2
Assess AHSCT candidacy criteria even before initiating DMT 1

Step 2: Initiate High-Efficacy DMT Immediately

Do not use moderate-efficacy agents even briefly 1, 2, 3
Select most potent available agent based on individual risk-benefit assessment 2, 3

Step 3: Intensive Monitoring

Brain MRI every 3-4 months 2, 3, 7
Clinical assessment every 3 months 2, 7

Step 4: Early Escalation Threshold

If any breakthrough activity occurs (clinical relapse, new T2 lesions, gadolinium-enhancing lesions, or confirmed EDSS progression), immediately refer for AHSCT evaluation. 1, 2, 3
Do not wait for multiple treatment failures in this population 1

Step 5: Consider First-Line AHSCT

For rapidly evolving, severe MS with poor prognosis, consider AHSCT as first-line therapy within clinical trial or observational study 1, 3
This applies to fulminant presentations with multiple severe relapses in rapid succession and extensive MRI burden 1

Algorithm for RRMS with Breakthrough Activity on High-Efficacy DMT

Step 1: Confirm True Breakthrough Activity

Distinguish true treatment failure from pseudoatrophy effect (transient brain volume loss during first year of potent anti-inflammatory therapy) 3
Verify new clinical relapses are not pseudorelapses from other causes (infection, heat sensitivity) 2
Confirm new MRI lesions represent true new activity rather than technical artifacts or pre-existing lesions becoming more apparent 1

Step 2: Assess AHSCT Candidacy

Age <45 years, disease duration <10 years, EDSS <4.0, ongoing inflammatory activity 1, 2, 3
Absence of contraindications 1

Step 3: Immediate AHSCT Referral if Eligible

Refer to specialized AHSCT center for multidisciplinary evaluation without delay 1, 2, 3
Do not trial additional DMTs in patients meeting optimal candidacy criteria 1

Step 4: Alternative DMT if AHSCT Ineligible or Declined

Switch to alternative high-efficacy DMT with different mechanism of action 2, 3
Maintain intensive monitoring schedule 2, 7

Algorithm for Early Secondary Progressive MS

Step 1: Confirm Secondary Progressive Transition

Document sustained disability progression independent of relapses for ≥6 months 1, 7
Distinguish from relapsing-remitting disease with incomplete recovery 1

Step 2: Assess Inflammatory Activity

Obtain brain MRI with gadolinium to identify enhancing lesions 1, 2
Document clinical evidence of ongoing relapses or new symptoms 1

Step 3: Treatment Selection Based on Inflammatory Activity

If Active Inflammation Present (Gadolinium-Enhancing Lesions or Recent Relapses):

For patients <45 years with short disease duration and documented inflammatory activity, consider AHSCT 1, 2, 7
Alternative: Continue or initiate high-efficacy DMT targeting inflammatory component 1, 2

If No Active Inflammation:

AHSCT is not recommended 1
Consider ocrelizumab (only DMT with evidence in progressive MS) 2, 7
Set realistic expectations: treatment may slow progression but cannot reverse accumulated disability 2, 7

Algorithm for Primary Progressive MS

Step 1: Confirm Primary Progressive Diagnosis

Progressive disability from onset without relapses 1, 7
Exclude secondary causes of progressive neurological decline 7

Step 2: Assess for Inflammatory Activity

Brain and spinal cord MRI with gadolinium 1
Most primary progressive patients lack significant inflammatory activity 1

Step 3: Treatment Selection

If Early Disease with Active Inflammation:

Consider AHSCT only in young patients (<45 years) with well-documented clinical and radiological inflammatory activity 1
This represents a small minority of primary progressive patients 1

If Standard Primary Progressive Presentation:

Initiate ocrelizumab (only FDA-approved therapy) 2, 7
Counsel regarding limited efficacy (slows but does not halt progression) 2, 7
AHSCT is not recommended without inflammatory activity 1

Age-Based Treatment Modifications

Younger Patients (<45 Years)

Continue aggressive DMT even if clinically stable, particularly if disease duration <10 years or history of highly active disease before stabilization. 2, 3, 7

The rationale reflects several considerations:

Younger patients have longer time horizons over which subclinical disease activity can accumulate into disability 2, 7
Prior highly active disease indicates aggressive underlying pathology that may recrudesce if immunosuppression is withdrawn 2, 7
Younger patients tolerate high-efficacy therapies better with lower comorbidity burden 1

Maintain optimal candidacy for AHSCT by preventing disability accumulation. 1 Even if AHSCT is not currently indicated, preserving eligibility provides a critical escalation option if breakthrough activity occurs.

Older Patients (>55 Years)

Consider discontinuing DMT in patients >55 years with stable disease (no relapses, stable MRI, stable EDSS for ≥2 years), as infection risks and other adverse effects may outweigh benefits of continued immunosuppression. 2, 3, 7

This recommendation reflects the natural history of MS, where inflammatory activity typically decreases with age while neurodegenerative processes predominate. 2, 7 Continuing potent immunosuppression in older patients with quiescent disease exposes them to cumulative infection and malignancy risks without corresponding benefit. 2, 3, 7

However, continue DMT in older patients with ongoing inflammatory activity (relapses, new MRI lesions, gadolinium enhancement) regardless of age. 2, 7 Active inflammation warrants treatment at any age.

Critical Safety Considerations and Common Pitfalls

Pseudoatrophy Effect

Common pitfall: Misinterpreting pseudoatrophy as treatment failure during the first year of potent anti-inflammatory therapy. 3

When highly effective DMTs rapidly suppress inflammation, resolution of edema and inflammatory infiltrates can cause transient brain volume loss that mimics disease progression. 3 This typically occurs during the first 6-12 months of treatment and stabilizes thereafter. Distinguishing pseudoatrophy from true progressive brain volume loss requires:

Temporal relationship to treatment initiation 3
Absence of new clinical symptoms or disability progression 3
Absence of new T2 lesions or gadolinium enhancement 3
Stabilization of brain volume on subsequent scans 3

Prematurely switching therapy based on pseudoatrophy deprives patients of effective treatment and exposes them to risks of new agents unnecessarily. 3

Washout Periods and Rebound Activity

Appropriate washout periods between different DMTs are essential to avoid complications from carryover effects or rebound inflammatory activity. 3

The specific washout duration depends on the pharmacokinetics and mechanism of the prior agent:

Natalizumab: Risk of rebound inflammatory activity if not bridged to another effective therapy within 8-12 weeks 3
Fingolimod: Requires 6-8 weeks for lymphocyte counts to normalize before starting other agents 3
Alemtuzumab: Prolonged lymphocyte depletion may persist for months, affecting timing of subsequent therapies 3

Maintain clinical and MRI monitoring during washout periods to detect rebound activity early. 3 Some patients require bridging therapy or abbreviated washout periods if inflammatory activity emerges.

Infection Risk Management

All high-efficacy DMTs increase infection risk through various mechanisms of immunosuppression. 3, 4, 6

Administer vaccines at least 4-6 weeks before starting immunosuppressive therapies or at least 4-6 months after the last treatment course. 3 Live vaccines are contraindicated during active immunosuppression and for specified periods after immune-depleting therapies. 3

Screen for latent infections before initiating therapy:

Tuberculosis (interferon-gamma release assay or tuberculin skin test) 3
Hepatitis B and C serology 3
HIV testing 3
Varicella zoster immunity 3
JC virus status (particularly for natalizumab) 2, 3, 7

Maintain heightened vigilance for opportunistic infections during treatment, particularly:

Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy with natalizumab 2, 7
Herpes zoster reactivation with alemtuzumab and cladribine 3, 6
Listeria and other opportunistic infections with alemtuzumab 4

Secondary Autoimmunity with Alemtuzumab

Alemtuzumab carries significant risk of secondary autoimmune conditions, particularly thyroid disease (30-40% of patients) and immune thrombocytopenia (1-2% of patients). 4, 6

Mandatory monitoring includes:

Monthly complete blood counts for 48 months after last infusion 6
Quarterly thyroid function tests for 48 months after last infusion 6
Urinalysis for nephropathy 6

This intensive monitoring burden and autoimmunity risk has limited alemtuzumab use despite its efficacy. 4

AHSCT-Specific Risks

Transplantation-related mortality with AHSCT has dramatically decreased with modern conditioning regimens and patient selection, but remains non-zero (approximately 0.3-1% in contemporary series). 6

Early post-transplant period risks include:

Severe infections during neutropenic period 1
Mucositis and gastrointestinal toxicity 1
Engraftment syndrome 1

Long-term risks include:

Persistent immunosuppression requiring prophylactic antimicrobials 1
Potential fertility effects (though fertility preservation strategies are available) 1
Uncertain very long-term malignancy risk 1

These risks must be weighed against the substantial benefits in appropriately selected patients, where AHSCT provides disease control unattainable with DMTs. 1, 2, 3

Post-AHSCT Rehabilitation Strategy

Begin intensive rehabilitation immediately after AHSCT to exploit neuroplasticity during complete inflammatory suppression. 2, 3

The rationale is compelling: AHSCT provides a unique window where inflammation is completely suppressed, allowing maximal potential for neurological recovery and functional improvement through intensive rehabilitation. 2, 3

Implement a phased rehabilitation approach:

Phase 1: Pre-habilitation (Before AHSCT)

Optimize baseline function and conditioning 2
Establish rehabilitation goals and expectations 2
Address modifiable factors affecting recovery potential 2

Phase 2: Early Mobilization (Immediate Post-Transplant)

Begin gentle mobilization as soon as medically stable 2
Prevent deconditioning during hospitalization 2
Address acute complications affecting function 2

Phase 3: Intensive Outpatient Rehabilitation (Months 1-6 Post-AHSCT)

Aggressive physical therapy targeting strength, balance, and mobility 2
Occupational therapy for activities of daily living and upper extremity function 2
Speech therapy if bulbar symptoms present 2
Cognitive rehabilitation if cognitive deficits present 2

Phase 4: Maintenance Rehabilitation (Beyond 6 Months)

Transition to maintenance exercise programs 2
Ongoing monitoring for late functional changes 2
Address new rehabilitation needs as they emerge 2

This structured approach maximizes functional recovery potential during the critical post-AHSCT period when neuroplasticity is optimized. 2, 3

Comparative Effectiveness: AHSCT versus High-Efficacy DMTs

AHSCT demonstrates superior efficacy compared to high-efficacy DMTs in head-to-head comparisons, with 78% achieving no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) at 5 years versus 3% with DMTs. 3

However, several ongoing randomized controlled trials will provide definitive comparative effectiveness data:

BEAT-MS Trial:

Comparing AHSCT versus best available DMT in highly active RRMS 1
Does not exclude participants with secondary progressive MS who meet disease activity criteria 1
Results expected within 3-5 years 1

DELIVER-MS Trial:

Comparing early highly effective treatment approach (monoclonal antibodies as initial therapy) versus escalation approach 8
Primary endpoint: normalized brain volume loss from baseline to 36 months 8
400 participants randomized 1:1, with 400 additional participants in parallel observational cohort 8
Results will inform fundamental treatment philosophy and initial therapy selection 8

TREAT-MS Trial:

Directly comparing traditional escalation versus early aggressive therapy approaches 4, 9
Will provide prospective, randomized data on contemporary treatment strategies 9

Until these trials report, treatment decisions must rely on observational data, which consistently favor early aggressive approaches but lack the definitive evidence of randomized trials. 4, 9, 5

Special Populations

Pediatric MS

High-efficacy DMTs are increasingly used in pediatric MS, though most agents lack formal pediatric indications and data are limited. 4

Treatment principles parallel adult MS:

Early aggressive treatment to prevent disability accumulation during critical developmental periods 4
Careful consideration of long-term safety given decades of potential exposure 4
Attention to adherence challenges in adolescent populations 4

Pregnancy and Family Planning

Family planning must be addressed before initiating high-efficacy therapies, as most agents are contraindicated during pregnancy. 1

Key considerations:

Alemtuzumab and cladribine offer advantages for women planning pregnancy, as their induction approach allows treatment-free intervals for conception 6
Natalizumab and anti-CD20 agents require discontinuation before conception, with risk of disease reactivation 6
AHSCT may affect fertility, though fertility preservation strategies are available 1

Unsatisfied family planning is a contraindication to AHSCT. 1 Patients must complete family planning or accept potential fertility effects before proceeding.

Future Directions and Emerging Therapies

Many emerging targets for therapeutic intervention are currently under investigation that may prove beneficial in early aggressive MS. 4

The field continues to evolve rapidly, with several promising developments:

Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) Inhibitors:

Oral agents targeting B-cell function with potential advantages over infused anti-CD20 therapies 4
Multiple agents in late-stage clinical trials 4

Remyelination Therapies:

First agents specifically targeting myelin repair rather than inflammation 4
Could complement anti-inflammatory strategies to promote recovery 4

Neuroprotection Strategies:

Targeting neurodegenerative processes independent of inflammation 4
Particularly relevant for progressive MS where inflammation is less prominent 4

Biomarkers for Treatment Selection:

Development of risk scores and biomarkers to assist with prompt and robust selection of patients eligible for specific therapies 1
Neurofilament light chain as marker of neuroaxonal damage 4
Advanced MRI techniques for detecting subtle disease activity 4

Evidence Quality and Remaining Uncertainties

The recommendations in this chapter are based primarily on high-quality guidelines from ECTRIMS, EBMT, and major MS societies, published in 2025 in Nature Reviews Neurology. 1 These represent the most current expert consensus on MS treatment approaches.

Key areas of ongoing uncertainty:

Escalation versus Early Aggressive Treatment:

While observational data favor early aggressive approaches, definitive randomized trial data are pending from DELIVER-MS and TREAT-MS 9, 8
Current recommendations are based on observational studies using historic data that may not reflect contemporary treatment options 9
Safety outcomes are often incompletely captured in observational studies 9

AHSCT Comparative Effectiveness:

No completed randomized trials directly compare AHSCT to high-efficacy DMTs 1
BEAT-MS trial results expected in 3-5 years will provide definitive evidence 1
Current recommendations are based on observational data and expert consensus 1

Optimal AHSCT Timing:

Uncertainty remains regarding optimal timing: after one versus multiple high-efficacy DMT failures 1
First-line AHSCT for aggressive disease is recommended only within clinical trials or observational studies 1
Risk-benefit balance may differ for individual patients based on disease characteristics and personal values 1

Progressive MS Treatment:

Limited evidence for any intervention in progressive MS without inflammatory activity 1
No trials specifically evaluating AHSCT in progressive MS are planned 1
Ocrelizumab shows modest benefit but cannot reverse accumulated disability 2, 7

Despite these uncertainties, the available evidence strongly supports early aggressive treatment approaches for RRMS, with AHSCT as the most effective escalation option for treatment-refractory disease in appropriately selected patients. 1, 2, 3

What is the recommended initial treatment approach for a patient with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), particularly those with highly active or aggressive disease?

Help us tailor your experience