Debate on changing MS clinical course descriptors

I was able to get access to this article but am not sure that the link will work here. I'm going to give it a try. If anyone has a problem with the link, please let me know, and I will try another method.


This article is long and fairly technical but the authors include some of the names most often seen in MS research, and what they are proposing here is abandoning the classification of MS into relapsing-remitting, secondary progressive and primary progressive forms.  However, they acknowledge that this classification might not be abandoned very soon.


From Lancet Neurology (November 18, 2022), an article on behalf of the International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials in MS--"Multiple sclerosis progression: time for a new mechanism-driven framework":


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1474442222002897

This article is getting attention.  This is from "MS Connections," the newsletter of the MS International Federation (December 15, 2022)--"Pioneering proposal for a new framework to describe types of MS":

Press release from ECTRIMS (November 19, 2022)--"International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials in MS Proposes New 'Mechanism-Driven' Framework to Describe Types of MS":

There's to be a Webinar on this:

The matter is still being debated but it looks as if we're in for a reclassification of MS, possibly replacing the SPMS and PPMS categories with just one category--progressive MS.


From Multiple Sclerosis Journal (September 11, 2023)--"Do the current clinical course descriptors need to change, and if so, how?  A survey of the MS community":


https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13524585231196786


Excerpt:

A total of 53% found the current course descriptors useful, while the remainder were neutral or disagreed with this statement. A majority (62%) favoured elimination of the terms Secondary Progressive MS and Primary Progressive MS in favour of a single term – progressive MS. The highest rate of agreement (agree and strongly agree) was with the following statements: imaging is a useful predictor of disease worsening (75.6%) and clinical disease activity is a useful predictor of disease worsening (75.5%)

From Medpage Today (April 30, 2024)--"A biological framework for multiple sclerosis":