1
|
York EN, Thrippleton MJ, Meijboom R, Hunt DPJ, Waldman AD. Quantitative magnetization transfer imaging in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Commun 2022; 4:fcac088. [PMID: 35652121 PMCID: PMC9149789 DOI: 10.1093/braincomms/fcac088] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2021] [Revised: 12/17/2021] [Accepted: 03/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Myelin-sensitive MRI such as magnetization transfer imaging has been widely used in multiple sclerosis. The influence of methodology and differences in disease subtype on imaging findings is, however, not well established. Here, we systematically review magnetization transfer brain imaging findings in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. We examine how methodological differences, disease effects and their interaction influence magnetization transfer imaging measures. Articles published before 06/01/2021 were retrieved from online databases (PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science) with search terms including 'magnetization transfer' and 'brain' for systematic review, according to a pre-defined protocol. Only studies that used human in vivo quantitative magnetization transfer imaging in adults with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (with or without healthy controls) were included. Additional data from relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis subjects acquired in other studies comprising mixed disease subtypes were included in meta-analyses. Data including sample size, MRI acquisition protocol parameters, treatments and clinical findings were extracted and qualitatively synthesized. Where possible, effect sizes were calculated for meta-analyses to determine magnetization transfer (i) differences between patients and healthy controls; (ii) longitudinal change and (iii) relationships with clinical disability in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Eighty-six studies met inclusion criteria. MRI acquisition parameters varied widely, and were also underreported. The majority of studies examined the magnetization transfer ratio in white matter, but magnetization transfer metrics, brain regions examined and results were heterogeneous. The analysis demonstrated a risk of bias due to selective reporting and small sample sizes. The pooled random-effects meta-analysis across all brain compartments revealed magnetization transfer ratio was 1.17 per cent units (95% CI -1.42 to -0.91) lower in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis than healthy controls (z-value: -8.99, P < 0.001, 46 studies). Linear mixed-model analysis did not show a significant longitudinal change in magnetization transfer ratio across all brain regions [β = 0.12 (-0.56 to 0.80), t-value = 0.35, P = 0.724, 14 studies] or normal-appearing white matter alone [β = 0.037 (-0.14 to 0.22), t-value = 0.41, P = 0.68, eight studies]. There was a significant negative association between the magnetization transfer ratio and clinical disability, as assessed by the Expanded Disability Status Scale [r = -0.32 (95% CI -0.46 to -0.17); z-value = -4.33, P < 0.001, 13 studies]. Evidence suggests that magnetization transfer imaging metrics are sensitive to pathological brain changes in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, although effect sizes were small in comparison to inter-study variability. Recommendations include: better harmonized magnetization transfer acquisition protocols with detailed methodological reporting standards; larger, well-phenotyped cohorts, including healthy controls; and, further exploration of techniques such as magnetization transfer saturation or inhomogeneous magnetization transfer ratio.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth N. York
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of
Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | | | - Rozanna Meijboom
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of
Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - David P. J. Hunt
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of
Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
- UK Dementia Research Institute, University of
Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
- Anne Rowling Regenerative Neurology Clinic,
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Adam D. Waldman
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of
Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
- UK Dementia Research Institute, University of
Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Rocca MA, Preziosa P, Filippi M. Application of advanced MRI techniques to monitor pharmacologic and rehabilitative treatment in multiple sclerosis: current status and future perspectives. Expert Rev Neurother 2018; 19:835-866. [PMID: 30500303 DOI: 10.1080/14737175.2019.1555038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
Introduction: Advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology and analyses are improving our understanding of the pathophysiology of multiple sclerosis (MS). Due to their ability to grade the presence of irreversible tissue loss, microstructural tissue abnormalities, metabolic changes and functional plasticity, the application of these techniques is also expanding our knowledge on the efficacy and mechanisms of action of different pharmacological and rehabilitative treatments. Areas covered: This review discusses recent findings derived from the application of advanced MRI techniques to evaluate the structural and functional substrates underlying the effects of pharmacologic and rehabilitative treatments in patients with MS. Current applications as outcome in clinical trials and observational studies, their interpretation and possible pitfalls in their use are discussed. Finally, how these techniques could evolve in the future to improve monitoring of disease progression and treatment response is examined. Expert commentary: The number of treatments currently available for MS is increasing. The application of advanced MRI techniques is providing reliable and specific measures to better understand the targets of different treatments, including neuroprotection, tissue repair, and brain plasticity. This is a fundamental progress to move toward personalized medicine and individual treatment selection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria A Rocca
- Neuroimaging Research Unit, Institute of Experimental Neurology, Division of Neuroscience, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University , Milan , Italy.,Department of Neurology, Institute of Experimental Neurology, Division of Neuroscience, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University , Milan , Italy
| | - Paolo Preziosa
- Neuroimaging Research Unit, Institute of Experimental Neurology, Division of Neuroscience, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University , Milan , Italy
| | - Massimo Filippi
- Neuroimaging Research Unit, Institute of Experimental Neurology, Division of Neuroscience, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University , Milan , Italy.,Department of Neurology, Institute of Experimental Neurology, Division of Neuroscience, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University , Milan , Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Zivadinov R, Tavazzi E, Hagemeier J, Carl E, Hojnacki D, Kolb C, Weinstock-Guttman B. The Effect of Glatiramer Acetate on Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness in Patients with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Longitudinal Optical Coherence Tomography Study. CNS Drugs 2018; 32:763-770. [PMID: 29767815 DOI: 10.1007/s40263-018-0521-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a technique that allows for the assessment of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (RNFLT) and total macular volume (TMV), which reflect neuroaxonal integrity within the retina. As such it has been used in multiple sclerosis (MS) to study neurodegeneration. Glatiramer acetate (GA) is a widely used treatment for MS, which is suggested to have a possible neuroprotective role. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to assess RFNLT and TMV changes in relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) patients who started treatment with GA and were followed for a 24-month period. METHODS A cohort of 60 RRMS patients and 40 healthy controls (HCs) were imaged with OCT at baseline and follow-up. All subjects also underwent clinical and neurological examination. Measurements were compared between the RRMS patients and HCs as well as between optic neuritis (ON)-affected and ON-unaffected eyes. RESULTS At baseline, MS patients showed lower average RNFLT (p = 0.046) and TMV (p = 0.013) when compared with HCs. No significant differences in the evolution of OCT measures were detected over the follow-up between MS patients and HCs. MS patients with both affected and unaffected eyes showed significantly lower average RNFLT, temporal inferior RNFLT, and TMV at baseline, compared with HCs. No significant differences between ON-affected and ON-unaffected eyes in MS patients were detected over the follow-up, except for the nasal superior RNFLT (p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS This study suggests a beneficial role of GA on retinal axonal degeneration in MS, and further confirms the utility of OCT to monitor the neuroprotective effect of disease-modifying treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert Zivadinov
- Department of Neurology, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, 100 High Street, Buffalo, NY, 14203, USA. .,Center for Biomedical Imaging at Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA.
| | - Eleonora Tavazzi
- Department of Neurology, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, 100 High Street, Buffalo, NY, 14203, USA
| | - Jesper Hagemeier
- Department of Neurology, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, 100 High Street, Buffalo, NY, 14203, USA
| | - Ellen Carl
- Department of Neurology, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, 100 High Street, Buffalo, NY, 14203, USA
| | - David Hojnacki
- Department of Neurology, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Jacobs Multiple Sclerosis Center, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Channa Kolb
- Department of Neurology, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Jacobs Multiple Sclerosis Center, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Bianca Weinstock-Guttman
- Department of Neurology, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Jacobs Multiple Sclerosis Center, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Zivadinov R, Bergsland N, Hagemeier J, Tavazzi E, Ramasamy DP, Durfee J, Cherneva M, Carl E, Carl J, Kolb C, Hojnacki D, Weinstock-Guttman B. Effect of switching from glatiramer acetate 20 mg/daily to glatiramer acetate 40 mg three times a week on gray and white matter pathology in subjects with relapsing multiple sclerosis: A longitudinal DTI study. J Neurol Sci 2018; 387:152-156. [PMID: 29571854 DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2018.02.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/18/2017] [Revised: 02/08/2018] [Accepted: 02/09/2018] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Glatiramer acetate (GA) 40 mg × 3/weekly was approved for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). While the beneficial effect of GA 20 mg/daily in MS patients on non-conventional MRI measures has been demonstrated, the effect of GA 40 mg × 3/weekly at the microstructural tissue level has yet to be explored. OBJECTIVE To investigate the effect of switching from GA 20 mg/daily to GA 40 mg × 3/weekly on the evolution of microstructural changes in the thalamus and normal appearing white matter (NAWM), using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). METHODS In this observational, longitudinal, cross-over, 34-month MRI study, we recruited 150 RRMS patients that underwent MRI 12-18 months before switching (pre-index), during the switch (index) and 12-18 months after switching (post-index) from GA 20 mg/daily to GA 40 mg × 3/weekly. Regional DTI metrics and tract-based spatial statistics (TBSS) analyses were performed. Mean diffusivity (MD), axial diffusivity (AD), radial diffusivity (RD) and fractional anisotropy (FA) were measured in thalamus and NAWM. RESULTS Regional DTI measures, measures of whole brain, white and gray matter, and thalamus volumes, as well as lesion volume, showed no significant changes. However, the voxel-wise TBSS analysis showed increased FA both in the NAWM and thalamus, as well as increased MD and AD in NAWM, and decreased RD in NAWM (p < .05). Areas of increased FA and MD as well as decreased RD in the NAWM, and increased AD both in the NAWM and thalamus were detected between index to post-index (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS This study confirms a comparable effect of GA 40 mg × 3/weekly to GA 20 mg/daily on DTI measures over 34 months.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert Zivadinov
- Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA; Center for Biomedical Imaging at the Clinical Translational Science Institute, University at Buffalo, NY, USA.
| | - Niels Bergsland
- Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Jesper Hagemeier
- Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Eleonora Tavazzi
- Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Deepa P Ramasamy
- Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Jackie Durfee
- Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Mariya Cherneva
- Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Ellen Carl
- Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Jillian Carl
- Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Channa Kolb
- Jacobs Comprehensive MS Treatment and Research Center, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA; Department of Neurology, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - David Hojnacki
- Jacobs Comprehensive MS Treatment and Research Center, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA; Department of Neurology, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Bianca Weinstock-Guttman
- Jacobs Comprehensive MS Treatment and Research Center, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA; Department of Neurology, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Zivadinov R, Hojnacki D, Hussein S, Bergsland N, Carl E, Durfee J, Dwyer MG, Kennedy C, Weinstock-Guttman B. Comparison of standard 1.5 T vs. 3 T optimized protocols in patients treated with glatiramer acetate. A serial MRI pilot study. Int J Mol Sci 2012; 13:5659-5673. [PMID: 22754322 PMCID: PMC3382749 DOI: 10.3390/ijms13055659] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/22/2012] [Revised: 04/23/2012] [Accepted: 05/03/2012] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
This study explored the effect of glatiramer acetate (GA, 20 mg) on lesion activity using the 1.5 T standard MRI protocol (single dose gadolinium [Gd] and 5-min delay) or optimized 3 T protocol (triple dose of Gd, 20-min delay and application of an off-resonance saturated magnetization transfer pulse). A 15-month, phase IV, open-label, single-blinded, prospective, observational study included 12 patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis who underwent serial MRI scans (Days -45, -20, 0; the minus ign indicates the number of days before GA treatment; and on Days 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 270 and 360 during GA treatment) on 1.5 T and 3 T protocols. Cumulative number and volume of Gd enhancing (Gd-E) and T2 lesions were calculated. At Days -45 and 0, there were higher number (p < 0.01) and volume (p < 0.05) of Gd-E lesions on 3 T optimized compared to 1.5 T standard protocol. However, at 180 and 360 days of the study, no significant differences in total and cumulative number of new Gd-E and T 2 lesions were found between the two protocols. Compared to pre-treatment period, at Days 180 and 360 a significantly greater decrease in the cumulative number of Gd-E lesions (p = 0.03 and 0.021, respectively) was found using the 3 T vs. the 1.5 T protocol (p = NS for both time points). This MRI mechanistic study suggests that GA may exert a greater effect on decreasing lesion activity as measured on 3 T optimized compared to 1.5 T standard protocol.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert Zivadinov
- Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA; E-Mails: (S.H.); (N.B.); (E.C.); (J.D.); (M.G.D.); (C.K.)
- The Jacobs Neurological Institute, Department of Neurology, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA; E-Mails: (D.H.); (B.W.-G.)
- Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: ; Tel.: +1-716-859-7040; Fax: +1-716-859-4005
| | - David Hojnacki
- The Jacobs Neurological Institute, Department of Neurology, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA; E-Mails: (D.H.); (B.W.-G.)
| | - Sara Hussein
- Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA; E-Mails: (S.H.); (N.B.); (E.C.); (J.D.); (M.G.D.); (C.K.)
| | - Niels Bergsland
- Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA; E-Mails: (S.H.); (N.B.); (E.C.); (J.D.); (M.G.D.); (C.K.)
| | - Ellen Carl
- Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA; E-Mails: (S.H.); (N.B.); (E.C.); (J.D.); (M.G.D.); (C.K.)
| | - Jacqueline Durfee
- Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA; E-Mails: (S.H.); (N.B.); (E.C.); (J.D.); (M.G.D.); (C.K.)
| | - Michael G. Dwyer
- Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA; E-Mails: (S.H.); (N.B.); (E.C.); (J.D.); (M.G.D.); (C.K.)
| | - Cheryl Kennedy
- Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA; E-Mails: (S.H.); (N.B.); (E.C.); (J.D.); (M.G.D.); (C.K.)
| | - Bianca Weinstock-Guttman
- The Jacobs Neurological Institute, Department of Neurology, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA; E-Mails: (D.H.); (B.W.-G.)
| |
Collapse
|