(Medical Xpress) -- This week the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study with unfortuate news for the millions of people who suffer from multiple sclerosis. In the large study, a therapy known as interferon beta failed to stave off the progression of the incurable disease. Albert Lo, associate professor of neurology and epidemiology, comments on what the study means for patients, why it was well-designed, and how a new effort to support research on the disease in Rhode Island could help.
The results of this study with nearly 2,700 participants showed that treatment with interferon beta, which is a major class of disease-modifying therapy for multiple sclerosis, did not prevent progression of disability, which is very disappointing from a therapeutic perspective. Currently, there is no cure for MS, and as a lifelong disorder of the nervous system, MS is characterized by episodic relapses of neurological injury such as weakness or blindness. While in most cases, there is a varying degree of recovery after relapses, over time, disability accumulates. The accumulation of deficits and the loss of physical and mental function is a major concern for people with MS and their clinicians.
Currently, there is no medication on the market that is directed explicitly for neuroprotection and the prevention of disability. Many had hoped that the interferons, along with the other disease-modifying agents (which were developed to reduce relapse rates) would also have a significant effect on protecting patients from MS disability.
Although the results from this study were not as we would have hoped, they reflect a marked improvement over prior studies which used known methodologic flaws. The new results from the Tremlett group point to the importance of the research methodology used (prospectively collected longitudinal study data) and a well-controlled design to generate the results approaches that we are using in our own research at Brown University.
A number of the early studies examining the effect of interferons on disability primarily used patient sample groups of convenience for post-marketing studies. They indicated that interferons were in fact preventing disability. However, using samples of convenience inherently includes a number of biases and problems. Dr. Tremletts results were generated from a more systematic longitudinal study in which biases and shortcomings can be better addressed. Therefore, making conclusions and clinical decisions from the results is more reliable. These data both will help in making clinical decisions on treating MS patients during the later course of their disease, when there are virtually no relapses, and will help to point more urgently toward the clinical need of an agent to prevent disability.