throbber
The Importance of Early Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis
`
`JAMES R. MILLER, MD
`
`ABSTRACT
`
`OBJECTNE: To describe the current understanding of the diagnosis and treat-
`ment of multiple sclerosis (MS) and to explore the use of magnetic resonance
`imaging (MRI) assessment as a prognostic tool and an indicator in the diagnosis
`of MS.
`
`SUMMARY: MS is a chronic, progressive, demyelinating disease of the central
`nervous system that is associated with a significant economic burden. At this
`time, immunomodulatory agents (interferon beta-1a (IFNfi-1a) [Avonex], IFNp-1a
`[Rebif], |FN[3-1 b [Betaseron], and glatiramer acetate [Copaxone]) are first-line
`agents, which are reported to reduce relapse rates.
`The diagnostic criteria for MS have evolved over time to include MRI findings
`as an integral part of the diagnosis. However, the most recent criteria (McDonald)
`are focused on the diagnosis of definite MS and do not address the status of
`patients with a first demyelinating event (clinically isolated syndrome [ClS]).
`This is an important issue because a BIS is highly predictive of developing fur-
`ther inflammation and definite MS when the episode occurs in conjunction with
`lesions on the initial MRI. Many times, MRI findings do not correlate with clinical
`symptoms, and clinically silent lesions are identified. Therefore, the use of MRI is
`salient to the early diagnosis of high-risk patients.
`The evolution of thought concerning early treatment in MS is based on an
`increased understanding of the pathology of the disease Axonal loss occurs
`early in the disease process, and both white matter and gray matter are affected.
`Stud ies that have analyzed early treatment in patients highly likely to have MS
`(clinically isolated events with evidence of lesions on MRI) report significant
`benefits in delaying further changes on MRI and further attacks. Patients who
`begin treatment later do not reap the same benefits as those who begin
`treatment earlier during the disease course.
`
`CONCLUSION: Patients with clinically isolated events should be referred promptly
`to a neurologist for asessment, including MRI scans. An early recognition of
`the inflammatory process enables patients to begin treatment with an immuno-
`mod ulatory agent even before the technical diagnosis of definite MS so that the
`degenerative progression of MS can be retarded.
`
`KEYWORDS: Magnetic resonance imaging, Interferon beta, Glatiramer acetate,
`Multiple sclerosis, Diagnosis
`
`J Manag Care Pharm. 2004;10(3)(supp| S-b):S4-S11
`
`JAMES R MILLER, MD, was director (now retired), Multiple Sclerosis
`Center, Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, Columbia University,
`New Yarlr, New York.
`
`AUTHOR CORRESPONDENCE.‘ james R Miller, MD, 88 Fieldpoint Dr,
`Irvingtori, NY10533. Tel.‘ (914) 591 -4712,‘ Fax.‘ (914) 591 -0724;
`E-mail: jrm6@columl7ia.edu
`
`Copyright© 2004, Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy All rights reserved.
`
`ultiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune—mediated demyeli-
`nating disease of the central nervous system (CNS).
`This treatable but uncurable degenerative disease
`affects approximately 400,000 people in the United States.‘
`Common symptoms of MS include spasticity, fatigue, sexual dys-
`function, bladder dysfunction, pain, cognitive dysfunction,
`depression, bowel dysfunction, and weakness. The average age of
`onset of MS is 30 years? Because this is the age when individuals
`may be beginning a family and workers have not
`typically
`reached their full earning potential, it has a particularly devastat-
`ing impact on family, social, and professional relationships.
`MS is associated with a considerable economic burden.
`
`National costs of MS are estimated to range from $6.8 to $11.9
`billion annually (approximately $34,000 per patient).’ The major
`components of these costs include earnings loss (incurred by the
`patient with MS) and costs of informal care (unpaid personal
`assistance)? According to a survey of MS patients, the annual loss
`in earnings was $17,900;
`this amount was even greater
`($41,000) for men younger than 65 years.’ In that same study,
`the annual expenditures for informal care were $6,452, which
`translated to about one fifth of the annual per-patient costs of
`MS.’ Other large expenditures included costs for hospitalization
`and physician visits.’
`In 90% of patients, MS's natural progression traditionally has
`been categorized in sequential stages, which include subclinical
`disease, monosymptomatic disease, relapsing-remitting disease
`(RRMS), and then secondary progressive MS (SPMS). Clinicians
`diagnose definite MS after a second attack occurs or evidence of
`new MS lesions are visualized on magnetic resonance imaging
`(MRI).* The clinical course of RRMS is described as clearly
`defined relapses with at least partial recovery of deficits. Periods
`between relapses are characterized by a lack of disease progres-
`sion.’ In contrast, SPMS occurs when some deficits begin to
`progress even between obvious relapses. Relapses occur less fre-
`quently than during the RRMS phase or do not occur at all.“
`The progression of MS is discernible when the recovery
`between relapses is incomplete, with a sustained worsening on
`the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) or other rating scales‘,
`lesion burden assessed by MRI is increased; cognitive dysfunction
`accumulates; and brain atrophy advances.” In some patients, the
`cognitive effects of MS may be more severe than the physical
`effects during the early stages of the disease.
`If MS is left
`untreated, patients with RRMS develop SPMS (50% by
`10 years; 90% by 30 years .13
`
`1 Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis
`
`Only a small subset of the medical community makes treatment
`decisions in patients with MS. Because MS is a chronic degener-
`ative disease, treatment must be continuous, not intermittent. At
`
`this time, immunomodulatory agents (IMAs) are considered first-
`
`S4 Supplement to Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy
`
`JMCP jun: 2004
`
`mcporg
`
`AMNEAL
`
`EXHIBIT NO. 1013 Page 1
`
` AMNEAL
`
`

`
`The Importance of Early Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis
`
` Summary of Studies Reporting Development
`of Clinically Definite Multiple Sclerosis [CDMS]
`in Patients Who Have Clinically isolated
`Demyelinating Events With Lesions Assessed
`by Magnetic Resonance Imaging at Baseline
`Baseline
`Findings
`Predictive of
`CDMS
`4 lesions,
`or 3 lesions
`with 1
`periventricular
`lesion
`
`Reference
`Paty et al.”
`
`Follow-up
`(Years)
`1
`
`Criteria
`for CDMS
`Schumacher
`criteria”
`
`Patients Who
`Developed CDMS
`95% (18/19)
`
`line treatments for patients with RRMS, including the following:
`intramuscular (IM)
`interferon beta-1a (IM IFNfl—1a)
`[Avonex,
`Biogen Idec Inc., Cambridge, MA]), subcutaneous (SC) IFNB-1a
`(SC IFNfi—1a
`[Rebif, Serono, Rockland, MA]), SC IFNB-1b
`(Betaseron, Berlex Laboratories, Montville, Nj), and SC glatiramer
`acetate (Copaxone, Teva Pharrnaoeutical Industries, Kansas City,
`MO). Another agent, mitoxantrone (Novantrone, Immunex Corp.,
`Seattle, VVA), is indicated for reducing the progression of neuro-
`logic disability and the frequency of clinical relapses in patients
`with secondary (chronic) progressive, progressive relapsing, or sig-
`nificantly worsening RRMS. IMA treatment goals include reducing
`inflammation, reducing the relapse rate, slowing disability, slowing
`the accumulation of cognitive dysfunction, reducing the progres-
`sion of brain atrophy, and improving quality of life.
`Several large randomized trials demonstrate that IMAs reduce
`attack rates.“”’ Direct comparisons among the trials are impossi-
`ble, but these data suggest that all agents reduoe relapse rates sim-
`ilarly For example, the phase III trial of IM IFNB-la reported a
`32% reduction in relapses among patients who were treated for
`2 years.“ Similarly, the mean percentage reduction in relapse rates
`over 2 years was 33% in patients who received SC IFNB-la.”
`Two-year data from the SC IFNB-la trial revealed a 34% reduction
`in patients who received treatment.” Finally, in the glatiramer
`acetate study,
`the 2-year reduction in relapse rate was 29%."
`Although trial outcomes were similar, there may be important dif-
`ferences among these agents with regard to their demonstrated
`ability to slow disability progression. For example, both IM IFN[3-
`la and SC IFNB-la (44 mcg) have been associated with a signifi-
`cant reduction in sustained disability progression.“-1*
`Of note, sustained progression of disability must have occurred
`for 23 months during the SC IFNB-la trial and 26 months during
`the IM IFNB-la trial; the 6-month requirement provided a more
`stringent measurement of efficacy.“ Sustained disability progres-
`sion was not significantly affected during the IFNB-lb study”
`Reduction in sustained disability with glatiramer acetate was not
`statistically significant." Sustained disability progression is the
`most important clinical measure in MS because the major propor-
`tion of clinical deficit is caused by clinically silent events not man-
`ifested by relapses.
`
`1 Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis
`
`Over the last 40 years, an important evolution has occurred in the
`diagnostic rubric of MS: the diagnostic criteria progressed from
`being solely clinical symptom-based (Schumacher" and Poser”)
`to integrating MRI assessments (McDonald*). This salient advance
`in MS management allows for a more timely diagnosis and earlier
`treatment in patients with MS.
`In 1965, Schumacher et al. published the first criteria for diag-
`nosing MS." These early guidelines required the presence of CNS
`lesions disseminated in time and space and the exclusion of alter-
`native diagnoses. The 1983 Poser criteria updated the
`Schumacher criteria.” The latter guidelines reflected detection
`
`Barkhof et a1.”
`Optic Neuritis
`Study Group”
`
`22
`5
`
`9 lesions
`L3 lesions
`13 mm in size
`
`O‘Riordan et a1.“
`
`5-10
`
`Sailer et al.u
`
`Brex et alu
`
`10
`
`1
`
`21 asymptomatic
`lesion compatible
`with demyelination
`21 asymptomatic
`lesion compatible
`with demyelination
`21 gadolinium—
`enhancing lesion
`at baseline and
`at 3 months
`
`14.1
`
`Brex et al."
`
`21 asymptomatic
`lesion compatible
`with demyelination
`‘PPV = positive predictive value.
`
`Poser et all.”
`Second attack
`confirmed by
`examination,
`with new
`neurologic
`disability
`Poser et al.”
`
`80% PPV‘
`51% cumulative
`probability
`
`83% (45/54)
`
`Poser et al.1°
`
`82% (37/45)
`
`Poser et a1.”
`
`70% PPV
`
`Poser et al.1°
`
`88% (44/50)
`
`technique advances, such as MRIs and spinal taps, which identify
`lesions and other paraclinical evidence.
`Most recently, an international panel in association with the
`National Multiple Sclerosis Society of America recommended
`revised criteria, and the McDonald criteria were published.‘ These
`new criteria make use of advances in MRI imaging techniques and
`include criteria for dissemination of MS lesions in time and space.
`Prior to the McDonald criteria, a diagnosis of clinically definite MS
`(CDMS) might have taken several years. Still, these criteria focus
`on the diagnosis of CDMS and analyze inflammatory processes
`conservatively. They do not address the importance of MRI
`changes for the patient with a clinically isolated syndrome (CIS).
`For example, patients with an initial demyelinating event (such as
`optic neuritis, cerebellar syndrome, or spinal cord syndrome)
`must display changes over time in order to be diagnosed with def-
`inite MS. Despite the cautionary approach of the McDonald crite-
`ria, nearly 90% of patients with CISs who have MR1 lesions will
`develop definite MS over time."
`In patients with C1Ss as well as with definite MS, MRI results
`usually reveal subclinical lesions. Data from a number of studies
`demonstrate that the presence of MRI-assessed lesions is strongly
`
`www.amcp.org Vol. 10, No. 3
`
`upplement to Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy
`
`55
`
`AMNEAL
`
`EXHIBIT NO. 1013 Page 2
`
` AMNEAL
`
`

`
`The Importance of Early Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis
`
`our thinking about early treatment of MS to evolve. Current dogma
`states that MS is an episodic autoimmune disease. MS is largely
`T£ell—mediated and involves environmental factors. Immune cells,
`
`activated in the periphery, enter the CNS by migrating across the
`blood—brain barrier, where they attack myelin and oligodendroglia.
`Traditionally, researchers postulated that axonal loss occurs late in
`the disease, secondary to this process, and that MS is a disease of
`the white matter. However, the current dogma is being questioned.
`For example, evidence exists that the pathology of MS may dif-
`fer among patients, suggesting that several different diseases
`culminate in a final pathway: MS?“ Studies of brain biopsy spec-
`imens and autopsies of patients with MS reveal that about 20% of
`patients have a major anti-CNS antibody component during acute
`flare-ups. Other lesions are associated with inflammatory
`macrophages. It is unknown whether various subtypes of MS exist
`or if these processes are part of a disease continuum in which
`different processes are active at various time points.
`Evidence now suggests that axonal loss occurs early during the
`disease course and that it is prominent from the onset of MS?”
`Trapp et al. used autopsy findings from patients with MS to define
`changes in axons.“ Their findings demonstrated that irreversible
`axonal transection occurred in both active and chronic lesions of
`
`patients, some of whom had MS for as few as 2 weeks.“
`Transected axons were commonly found in lesions, and their fre-
`quency was related to the degree of inflammation within the
`lesion.“ These findings are critical; historically, axonal loss was not
`considered important in MS’s pathology.“ Moreover, axonal loss
`appears in normal-appearing white matter.‘”’ A study of a patient
`who had MS for 9 months reported that myelin was relatively
`preserved despite a 22% axonal loss in the ventral column."
`Reliable imaging of normal-appearing white matter and
`normal-appearing gray matter is challenging.” Results from
`magnetic transfer imaging and spectroscopy have demonstrated
`abnormalities in areas that appear normal on conventional scans.“
`Studies in which gadolinium is administered to patients before
`MRI
`to enhance MS lesions suggest
`that
`these gadolinium-
`enhanced (Gd+) lesions are preceded by abnormal findings on
`spectroscopy or magnetic transfer imaging.’“’
`Extensive evidence reveals that lesions occur in MS patients‘
`gray matter.’“° In fact, cortical lesions occur early and frequent-
`ly.”-“ One recent study reported that metabolic changes could be
`detected in the cortical gray matter of patients early in the disease
`course (mean duration of disease, 1.7 years).‘° Furthermore, meta-
`bolic changes in the cortical gray matter were related to disability
`as measured by the EDSS, Multiple Sclerosis Functional
`Composite, 9-1-lole Peg Test, and Paced Auditory Serial Addition
`Task.” Abnormalities in normal-appearing gray matter are report-
`ed to correlate with cognitive deficits.” Detection of gray matter
`lesions by conventional MRI is difficult because the relaxation
`characteristics of these lesions result in a poor contrast between
`them and the surrounding normal gray matter because of partial
`volume effects with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).’°
`
` Final Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis
`as Year 14 Compared With Lesion Load
`at Disease Onset
`
`D Clinically isolated syndrome
`Probable MS
`I Definite MS
`
`89
`
`87
`
`88
`
`13
`
`4-10
`-3
`MR1 Lesions at Onset
`
`>10
`
`6 1
`
`100
`
`90
`
`80
`
`70
`
`60
`
`S0
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`
`
`Patients(%)
`
`19
`
` Expanded Disability Status Scale Score
`at Year l4 Compared with Lesion Load
`at Disease Onset
`
`14
`
`12
`
`EDSS Score
`U >3
`>6
`I 10
`
`12
`
`Patients
`
`(N)
`
`4-10
`1-3
`MRI Lesions at Onset
`
`>10
`
`predictive of developing CDMS in patients who experience a clin-
`ically isolated event (Table 1)."'” The results of a prospective lon-
`gitudinal study of patients with CISs demonstrated that 88% of
`patients with abnormal MRI findings at baseline had developed
`CDMS at 14 years (Figure 1)." Furthermore, at 14 years, the EDSS
`score was correlated with the number of lesions on MRI at base-
`
`line, with higher EDSS scores in patients who had more lesions at
`baseline (Figure 2).”
`Our understanding of the pathophysiology of MS has caused
`
`S6 Supplement to Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy
`
`JMCP June 2004
`
`mcp.org
`
`AMNEAL
`
`EXHIBIT NO. 1013 Page 3
`
` AMNEAL
`
`

`
`The Importance of Early Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis
`
`1 Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
`
`MRI-based assessments briefly discussed in this section are impor-
`tant tools in the diagnosis and management of patients with MS.
`In fact, MR]-based assessments are the most important ancillary
`tests performed in patients with MS. Gd+ T1-weighted scans dis-
`play areas of blood—brain barrier disruption and are indicative of
`active inflammation and, therefore, reflect active disease.” Gd+
`
`lesions display a spectrum of appearances (e.g., ringlike, homoge-
`neous) and may be clinically silent (i.e., without symptoms). The
`sensitivity of these images may be increased with various tech-
`niques that are becoming more readily availabIe.“"°
`The most commonly used measure of disease burden is the
`presence and number (and, for research, volume) of hyperintense
`lesions on T2-weighted images" However, these images are rela-
`tively insensitive to the underlying pathology and show both active
`and inactive lesions.” Modifications of T2-weighted scans can pro-
`vide additional infomiation. Fluid-attenuated inversion recovery
`(FLAIR) sequences, for example, can visualize 2 to 3 times the
`number of lesions seen on conventional T2-weighted imaging."
`I-Iypointense lesions on T1-weighted images are also called
`“black holes." Persistent T1 lesions indicate axonal loss, gliosis, loss
`of intracellular matrix, and demyelination; these lesions are thought
`to be markers for areas of more destructive focal CNS damage in MS
`patients.“"’° T1 hypointense lesions are thought to have a greater
`correlation with the clinical features of MS than T2 lesions“; how-
`
`ever, more studies are needed to explore this relationship.
`Brain atrophy is the best MRI predictor of clinical status. In fact,
`the degree and rate of brain atrophy correlate with physical dis-
`ability, quality of life, depression, and cognitive dysfunction."’“"
`Therefore, the measurement of brain atrophy has become increas-
`ingly important. Several measures can be used to quantify brain
`atrophy, including whole-brain and regional measures.‘"'°3 These
`techniques are still not ready for general clinical use and remain
`research tools. However, visual inspection of MR] images alone
`can provide a reasonable sense of the degree of atrophy and com-
`parisons can be roughly made between scans at different times.
`A correlation has been observed between clinical status of
`
`patients with MS and spinal cord lesions and atrophy‘’”’ These
`findings have increased the role of spinal cord MRI in the man-
`agement of MS.°‘”° Spinal cord MRI scans reveal T2 lesions in
`approximately 50% to 90% of patients with MS." Spinal cord
`scans can provide additional information when brain scans and
`clinical status are equivocal and can correlate spinal symptoms
`(cervical and thoracic). The frequency at which spinal cord MRI
`should be performed has not been fully determined but is advis-
`able for tracking lesion load or atrophy.
`Interestingly, 5 to 10 times more lesions occur on MRI than are
`manifested clinically.’”’ Possible explanations for this discrepancy
`include inattention to cognitive aspects of the disease,
`lesions
`located in noneloquent areas of the brain, lack of histopathologic
`specificity, absence of spinal cord involvement, underestimation of
`the damage to norrnal-appearing white and gray matter, and
`
`masking effects of brain adaptation.“ Recent improvements in
`MRI measures and techniques have increased their predictive
`value and improved their correlation with clinical status"
`MRI findings are needed to support the diagnosis of MS and
`are useful in evaluating patients with MS for other pathology.
`The appearance of Gd+ lesions in the appropriate clinical cir-
`cumstances is particularly helpful in supporting the diagnosis of
`an inflammatory process. Furthermore, baseline MRI findings
`are helpful in detennining patient prognosis. Therefore, Gd+
`scans are recommended at diagnosis because Gd+ lesions are an
`indicator of active disease and have predictive value regarding
`the short-terrn course of MS”"‘-’ In patients with a CIS, MRI will
`support a diagnosis of MS if there are a significant number of
`lesions.‘ In addition,
`the longitudinal management of MS is
`increasingly utilizing MRI-based assessments.
`
`I Effect of Early Treatment on Multiple Sclerosis
`
`The presence of MS lesions in the brain or spinal cord as detected
`by MRI indicates that the disease is active in the nervous system.
`If treatment is delayed until MS manifests clinically, irreversible
`damage may occur. Subclinical disease activity and axonal loss
`occur early in the disease process; hence, MS should be treated as
`early as possible. The earliest stage that patients can be diagnosed
`and treated is after a first clinical demyelinating event. A number
`of trials have studied the effects of early treatment in patients with
`suspected MS.“"“" Data from these trials reveal important clinical
`and MRI benefits in patients with syndromes that are suggestive of
`early disease who are treated promptly
`During the earliest randomized, placebo-controlled trial (the
`Controlled High Risk Subjects Avonex Multiple Sclerosis
`Prevention Study [CHAMPS]), patients with CISs were treated
`with 1M IFNB-la to determine whether the time to the develop-
`ment of CDMS could be prolonged.” ClSs were defined as those
`that involved the optic nerve (unilateral optic neuritis), spinal cord
`(incomplete transverse myelitis), or brainstem or cerebellum
`(brainstem or cerebellar syndrome)."° Patients also must have had
`evidence of demyelination confirmed by MRI.” Results from this
`study showed that early treatment delayed or prevented CDMS
`and reduced the frequency of new lesions that would have allowed
`the diagnosis of definite MS by McDonald criteria.°° The probabil-
`ity of developing CDMS was 44% lower in patients who received
`IM IFNB-Ia than in those who reoeived placebo.” Furthermore,
`changes in lesion volume were significantly different between
`groups, and, at 18 months, there were 58% fewer new or enlarg-
`ing lesions and 71% fewer Gd+ lesions in patients who received
`treatment than in those who received placebo.“
`Results from a subsequent study (Early Treatment of Multiple
`Sclerosis
`[ETOMS]) were consistent with the findings of the
`CHAMPS trial." During ETOMS, the effects of SC IFNfl-la were
`studied in patients who had unifocal or multifocal neurologic syn-
`dromes and 24 T2 lesions (or 3 white-matter lesions if I lesion was
`
`infratentorial or Gd+)" Over 2 years, 24% fewer patients who
`
`www.arncp.org Vol. 10, No. 3
`
`upplement to Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy
`
`57
`
`AMNEAL
`
`EXHIBIT NO. 1013 Page 4
`
` AMNEAL
`
`

`
`The Importance of Early Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis
`
` Current Understanding of
`Multiple Sclerosis Treatment Effects
`mtiirn L‘ r ,.rs;*. cf Rise? =9
`
`LIN! IIKCVUIIIOII
`
`Disability
`
`TI r.-cztr" r."t
`
`Cl‘. Lllag”-Jsls
`
`Disease Onset
`
`received treatment developed CDMS than those who received
`placebo. Annual relapse rates were also lessened in the active treat-
`ment compared with the placebo group .5‘ Moreover, MRI end
`points, including number and volume of T2 lesions, were signifi-
`cantly better in the treatment group than in the plaoebo group.“
`The use of IM IFNfl-la may be even more beneficial in patients
`at highest risk for MS.” A subgroup of patients from the CHAMPS
`trial was analyzed to study the effects of 1M IFNB-1a in patients
`with 29 T2 lesions and 21 Gd+ lesion on baseline MRI scans, find-
`
`ings that are highly predictive of the development of CDMS."°*“ Of
`the total CHAMPS population, nearly one quarter met the criteria
`for the subanalysis (IFNB-lb group, n = 51; placebo group, n =
`40).” CDMS was identified in half of patients in the placebo group
`and in approximately one fifth of patients in the treatment group at
`2 years.” This effect was maintained at 3 years because nearly one
`quarter of patients in the treatment group developed CDMS as
`compared with more than half in the placebo group.“ The risk
`of developing CDMS was reduced by 66% at year 3 and by 63%
`at year 2.” IM IFNB-1a is approved in the United States and
`Europe for use in patients who have a CIS associated with MRI
`scan changes consistent with an inflammatory-demyelinating
`process.
`
`It is essential to initiate treatment as early as possible in patients
`who are eligible to receive IMAs. Study findings reveal that com-
`pared with patients who begin treatment early, patients who begin
`treatment later do not reap the same benefits (i.e., what was lost
`cannot be regained). Comparing parallel groups from the PRISMS-
`4 study demonstrates the benefits of early treatment. Crossover
`groups in PRISMS-4 received plaoebo for 2 years followed by
`treatment with 22-mcg or 44-mcg doses of SC IFNB-la for an
`additional 2 years. Other groups received 22-mcg or 44-mcg
`doses of SC IFNB-la continuously for 4 years. After 4 years, the
`crossover groups had greater increases in EDSS, and disease bur-
`den was progressively higher than that in groups who received
`continuous treatment.“
`
`PRISMS-4's results are further supported by those of the
`CHAMPIONS study, an extension of the CHAMPS trial.” In
`CHAMPS, patients who experienced a first clinical demyelinating
`event immediately began treatment with 1M IFNB-1a or had treat-
`ment delayed for a median of 29.9 months (placebo group). In
`CHAMPIONS, all patients were offered 1M 1FNfl-la and followed
`for up to 5 years. The rate ratio for the development of CDMS over
`5 years was reduced by 35% in the group of patients who received
`immediate treatment. Relapse rates and MR1 results also signifi-
`cantly favored immediate treatment. Based on these findings, it is
`apparent that early treatment initiation can reduoe disease activity
`and can slow the progression of disability (Figure 3).
`
`1 Identifying Patients at High Risk for Multiple Sclerosis
`
`One of the most important questions is how to identify patients at
`risk for MS who should be referred to a neurologist to reap the
`benefits of [MA treatment. A key reason to refer patients to a neu-
`rologist is the sudden appearance of a focal neurologic event such
`as paresthesias, numbness, visual changes, or aphasia. The most
`important determinant of high risk for the development of CDMS is
`the confirmation of a first, well-defined neurologic event that is con-
`sistent with demyelination associated with MRI scan abnormalities.
`These types of events involve the optic nerve (unilateral optic neu-
`ritis), spinal cord (incomplete transverse myelitis), or brainstem or
`cerebellum (brainstem or cerebellum syndrome)?” MRI findings
`should reveal lesions in the brain that are 23 mm in diameter, at
`
`least one of which is ovoid or periventricular.
`Patients with a C15 who have 21 lesion on MRI are at a sig-
`nificantly higher risk for the development of CDMS.“ In the
`Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial, the 10-year risk of developing
`MS after an initial episode of optic neuritis was 38% .°" However,
`in the subgroup of patients with 21 lesion, the risk increased to
`56%, while the risk in those with no lesions at baseline was
`
`22%. Over 2 years, 86% of untreated patients with 21 new or
`enlarging lesion went on to develop MS compared with 38% of
`untreated patients without lesions.“
`MS lesions typically are >5 mm in diameter and ovoid or oval.
`These lesions are usually in the periventricular, perivenular
`(Dawson’s fingers),
`juxtacortical, and infratentorial
`regions.
`MS lesions are visualized in the corpus callosum and spinal cord.
`The morphology of Gd+ lesions may be ringlike or homogeneous.
`The duration of ringlike lesions is longer than that of homoge-
`neously enhancing lesions, and ringlike lesions are thought to be
`related to aggressive disease activity and a higher level of tissue
`damage.“"’° T1 black holes, a marker for considerable matrix
`destruction and axonal loss, are found most often in patients who
`have SPMS and higher EDSS scores.”
`A number of diseases can cause MRI-signal hyperintensities of
`the white matter.” However, the signal abnormality patterns asso-
`ciated with these disorders usually differ from those associated
`with MS such that the potential for misdiagnosis is low. In the
`diagnosis of MS, the physician should evaluate MRI scans to rule
`
`58 Supplement to Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy WC? jun: 2004
`
`mcporg
`
`AMNEAL
`
`EXHIBIT NO. 1013 Page 5
`
` AMNEAL
`
`

`
`The Importance of Early Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis
`
`out other illnesses such as demyelinating or hypoxic-ischemic dis-
`orders, immune-mediated vasculopathies, infectious and inflam-
`matory diseases, and leukodystrophies and toxic metabolic dis-
`eases (very rare).91 For example, normal aging is associated with
`punctuate or patchy white matter signal hyperintensities, and
`hypertension and migraine are associated with a higher frequency
`of lesions randomly distributed throughout the deep and subcor-
`tical white matter; the intratentorial regions are usually not affect-
`ed. Patients with subcortical arteriosclerotic encephalopathy have
`irregular and sometimes extensive periventricular hyperintensities
`on MRI, with confluent signal changes that usually spare subcor-
`tical U-fibers. However, in contrast with lesions, the center of a
`lacune appears isointense to CSF on all sequences because of com-
`plete tissue destruction.91
`Primary care physicians should refer patients to a neurolo-
`gist for further assessment, including an MRI, after the sugges-
`tion of a first clinical demyelinating event. In patients with
`spinal cord symptoms, MRI along the entire spinal cord is sug-
`gested.91 Moreover, it is important to educate patients regarding
`the signs and symptoms of MS and to gain their full coopera-
`tion to optimize disease management. Patients should be able to
`recognize the symptoms of MS so that they are able to better
`inform their physician about their status.
`
`II Conclusions
`
`Early diagnosis and early treatment are critical to prevent irre-
`versible long-term sequelae in patients with MS. Prior to the use
`of MRI, patients with a first clinical demyelinating event may
`have had to wait several years before receiving a diagnosis of
`CDMS. However, the use of MRI is emerging as one of the most
`important tools in the management of MS. The presence of
`≥1 lesion is highly prognostic in the development of CDMS in
`patients who have experienced a clinically isolated neurologic
`event. In fact, the number of baseline lesions predicts the sever-
`ity of future disability in patients who do not receive treat-
`ment.92 MRI data show that there can be significant subclinical
`disease activity, including axonal loss and brain atrophy, prior
`to a diagnosis of CDMS, and, many times, the number of
`lesions visualized on MRI does not correlate well with clinical
`symptoms. Importantly, it has been shown that axonal loss
`occurs very early in the disease process. Hence, MRI assess-
`ments are recommended after a first demyelinating event to
`allow for the identification of patients who are at high risk of
`CDMS (newer diagnostic criteria include MRI).
`Several studies demonstrate that early treatment significant-
`ly reduces the risk of developing CDMS; this benefit is more
`pronounced in patients who have a high burden of disease at
`baseline. Thus, all patients with a clinically isolated demyeli-
`nating event should be referred to a neurologist for a more
`thorough examination and MRI testing. The effects of disease-
`modifying agents are greater in patients who begin treatment
`early.
`
`DISCLOSURES
`
`Funding for this paper was provided by Biogen Idec Inc. Author James R.
`Miller received an honorarium from Biogen and participates in the Biogen
`lecture bureau.
`
`REFERENCES
`
`1. National Multiple Sclerosis Society of America Sourcebook. Epidemiology.
`Available at: http://www.nationalmssociety.org/Sourcebook-Epidemiology asp.
`Accessed March 25, 2004.
`2. Weinshenker BG, Bass B, Rice GPA, et al. The natural history of multiple
`sclerosis: a geographically based study. Brain. 1989;112:133-46.
`3. Whetten-Goldstein K, Sloan FA, Goldstein LB, Kulas ED. A comprehensive
`assessment of the cost of multiple sclerosis in the United States. Mult Scler.
`1998;4:419-25.
`4. McDonald WI, Compston A, Edan G, et al. Recommended diagnostic
`criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from the International Panel on the
`Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 2001;50:121–27.
`5. Lublin FD, Reingold SC, for the National Multiple Sclerosis Society (USA)
`Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials of New Agents in Multiple Sclerosis.
`Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: results of an interna

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket