It is well documented that disability accumulation in multiple sclerosis is correlated with axonal injury and that the extent of axonal injury is correlated with the degree of inflammation. However, the interdependence between focal inflammation, diffuse inflammation and neurodegeneration, and their relative contribution to clinical deficits, remains ambiguous. A hypothesis might be that early focal inflammation could be the pivotal event from which all else follows, suggesting the consideration of multiple sclerosis as a two-stage disease. This prompted us to define two phases in the disease course of multiple sclerosis by using two scores on the Kurtzke Disability Status Scale as benchmarks of disability accumulation: an early phase, ‘Phase 1’, from multiple sclerosis clinical onset to irreversible Disability Status Scale 3 and a late phase, ‘Phase 2’, from irreversible Disability Status Scale 3 to irreversible Disability Status Scale 6. Outcome was assessed through five parameters: Phase 1 duration, age at Disability Status Scale 3, time to Disability Status Scale 6 from multiple sclerosis onset, Phase 2 duration and age at Disability Status Scale 6. The first three were calculated among all patients, while the last two were computed only among patients who had reached Disability Status Scale 3. The possible influence of early clinical markers on these outcomes was studied using Kaplan–Meier estimates and Cox models. The analysis was performed in the Rennes multiple sclerosis database (2054 patients, accounting for 26 273 patient-years) as a whole, and according to phenotype at onset (1609 relapsing/445 progressive onset). Our results indicated that the disability progression during Phase 2 was independent of that during Phase 1. Indeed, the median Phase 2 duration was nearly identical (from 6 to 9 years) irrespective of Phase 1 duration (<3, 3 to <6, 6 to <10, 10 to <15, ≥15 years) in the whole population, and in both phenotypes. In relapsing onset multiple sclerosis, gender, age at onset, residual deficit after the first relapse and relapses during the first 2 years of multiple sclerosis were found to be independent predictive factors of disability progression, but only during Phase 1. Our findings demonstrate that multiple sclerosis disability progression follows a two-stage process, with a first stage probably dependant on focal inflammation and a second stage probably independent of current focal inflammation. This concept has obvious implications for the future therapeutic strategy in multiple sclerosis.

In this 'double-blind', randomized, placebo-controlled phase II trial, we compared an altered peptide ligand of myelin basic protein with placebo, evaluating their safety and influence on magnetic resonance imaging in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. A safety board suspended the trial because of hypersensitivity reactions in 9% of the patients. There were no increases in either clinical relapses or in new enhancing lesions in any patient, even those with hypersensitivity reactions. Secondary analysis of those patients completing the study showed that the volume and number of enhancing lesions were reduced at a dose of 5 mg. There was also a regulatory type 2 T helper-cell response to altered peptide ligand that cross-reacted with the native peptide.

NAWM in MS has a higher water content and lower myelin water fraction than control white matter. The cause of the myelin water fraction decrease in NAWM could potentially be due to either diffuse edema, inflammation, demyelination or any combination of these features. We present a simple model which suggests that myelin loss is the dominant feature of NAWM pathology.

We compared the diagnostic capabilities of MRI to CT, evoked potentials (EP), and CSF oligoclonal banding analysis in a prospective evaluation of 200 patients with suspected multiple sclerosis (MS). MRI was the best method for demonstrating dissemination in space. An abnormal appropriate EP in monosymptomatic disease was usually supported by MRI and CSF analysis as being predictive of MS as a clinical diagnosis. A normal appropriate EP study was not satisfactory because MRI and CSF analysis often did not support a diagnosis of non-MS. When there is agreement between three of these paraclinical studies, the diagnosis of MS is probably unequivocal. For use in research studies, laboratory-supported definite MS (LSDMS) could be diagnosed in 85 patients of the total 200 (42.5%), in 19/38 (50%) of optic neuritis (ON) patients, and in 24/52 (46%) of chronic progressive myelopathy (CPM) patients. MRI was 100% successful in identifying patients who qualified for LSDMS in the ON and CPM groups. In a short follow-up (less than 1 year), 19/200 (10%) went on to develop clinically definite MS (CDMS), and MRI predicted that diagnosis in 18/19 (95%). Only long-term follow-up will show how well these studies and the category of LSDMS predict the development of CDMS. The clinical diagnosis of MS (CDMS), even though only 95% accurate, must remain the gold standard.