Skip to main content
Clinical Trials/NCT05941975
NCT05941975RecruitingNot Applicable

Multimodal Exploration of Patients With Multiple Sclerosis for an Early Detection of Subtle Progression

Brugmann University Hospital1 site in 1 country60 target enrollmentStarted: February 14, 2023Last updated:
Conditions
Interventions

Trial Snapshot

Phase
Not Applicable
Status
Recruiting
Enrollment
60
Locations
1
Primary Endpoint
Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) serology (VCA IgG)

Study Overview

Brief Summary

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory and degenerative disease of the central nervous system (CNS), characterized by a complex interplay of inflammatory demyelination and neuronal damage. The core MS phenotypes defined by clinical course are the relapsing and the progressive forms.Relapsing MS (RMS) is characterized by attacks - also called relapses - defined as new or increasing neurologic dysfunction, followed by periods of partial or complete recovery, without apparent progression of the disease during the periods of remission. In contrast, progressive MS (PMS) is characterized by progressive worsening of neurologic function leading to accumulation of disability over time independent of relapses. Additional descriptors ("active/not-active") serve to better characterize the presence of clinical and/or radiological activity both in relapsing and progressive forms.

In recent years, the concept of a silent progression, also known as smouldering MS, is making its way into the common lexicon of MS experts, challenging the current definitions of MS phenotypes. A growing body of literature suggests that the line between RMS and PMS is not as marked as men thought, and that inflammation and neurodegeneration can represent a single disease continuum coexisting early on in the disease course. Whilst it is established that relapse-associated worsening (RAW) can be accounted for by an acute inflammatory focal damage leading to axonal transection and conduction block, the physiopathology underlying the progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA) remains unclear.

It is becoming apparent that there is an increasing need for a personalized therapeutic approach by considering the individual MS phenotype of each patient, thereby enabling the choice of the molecule best suited to counteract the predominant disease pattern of that individual patient.

There is a limited number of studies combining clinical scores, neurophysiological evaluation and neuroimaging in patients with MS experiencing PIRA. Integrating a multimodal exploration of these patients might allow a step forward in the early recognition, management, and treatment of disability accumulation independent from relapses in patients with MS.

Study Design

Study Type
Interventional
Allocation
Non Randomized
Intervention Model
Parallel
Primary Purpose
Diagnostic
Masking
None

Eligibility Criteria

Ages
18 Years to — (Adult, Older Adult)
Sex
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No

Inclusion Criteria

  • •Patients ≥ 18-year-old with diagnosis of RMS according to 2017 McDonald diagnostic criteria
  • •Availability in the functional outcome database of at least 3 time-point complete evaluations with a time frame from the first to the last evaluation of minimum 12 months
  • •Most recent functional outcome evaluation within 12 months of enrollment
  • •Availability of follow-up MRI data during the observational period

Exclusion Criteria

  • •a) Contraindication to one or more of the paraclinical tests of the prospective multimodal evaluation

Arms & Interventions

PIRA

Experimental

From the MS functional outcome database, identification of a cohort of patients with RMS experiencing progression independent of relapse (PIRA)

Intervention: Visual Evoked Potential (VEP) (Device)

PIRA

Experimental

From the MS functional outcome database, identification of a cohort of patients with RMS experiencing progression independent of relapse (PIRA)

Intervention: Somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) (Device)

PIRA

Experimental

From the MS functional outcome database, identification of a cohort of patients with RMS experiencing progression independent of relapse (PIRA)

Intervention: Transcranial magnetic motor evoked potentials (TCmMEP) (Device)

PIRA

Experimental

From the MS functional outcome database, identification of a cohort of patients with RMS experiencing progression independent of relapse (PIRA)

Intervention: Tesla Brain MRI (Device)

PIRA

Experimental

From the MS functional outcome database, identification of a cohort of patients with RMS experiencing progression independent of relapse (PIRA)

Intervention: Blood test - Neurofilament light chain (NfL) (Diagnostic Test)

PIRA

Experimental

From the MS functional outcome database, identification of a cohort of patients with RMS experiencing progression independent of relapse (PIRA)

Intervention: Blood test - EBV serology (Diagnostic Test)

N-PIRA

Active Comparator

From the MS functional outcome database, identification of a cohort of patients with RMS not experiencing progression independent of relapse (N-PIRA)

Intervention: Visual Evoked Potential (VEP) (Device)

N-PIRA

Active Comparator

From the MS functional outcome database, identification of a cohort of patients with RMS not experiencing progression independent of relapse (N-PIRA)

Intervention: Somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) (Device)

N-PIRA

Active Comparator

From the MS functional outcome database, identification of a cohort of patients with RMS not experiencing progression independent of relapse (N-PIRA)

Intervention: Transcranial magnetic motor evoked potentials (TCmMEP) (Device)

N-PIRA

Active Comparator

From the MS functional outcome database, identification of a cohort of patients with RMS not experiencing progression independent of relapse (N-PIRA)

Intervention: Tesla Brain MRI (Device)

N-PIRA

Active Comparator

From the MS functional outcome database, identification of a cohort of patients with RMS not experiencing progression independent of relapse (N-PIRA)

Intervention: Blood test - Neurofilament light chain (NfL) (Diagnostic Test)

N-PIRA

Active Comparator

From the MS functional outcome database, identification of a cohort of patients with RMS not experiencing progression independent of relapse (N-PIRA)

Intervention: Blood test - EBV serology (Diagnostic Test)

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) serology (VCA IgG)

Time Frame: 12 months after baseline

EBV serology will be assessed (VCA IgG) in the serum of patients to evaluate the variation of antibody titers over time (at baseline, at 6- and 12-month follow-up), and compare to titers at the time of diagnosis (when available in their medical record).

Visual Evoked Potential (VEP)

Time Frame: Change from baseline to 12 months

To assess the integrity of visual pathways through the optic nerves to the visual cortex.

Somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP)

Time Frame: Change from baseline to 12 months

To assess the integrity of sensitive pathways through the peripheral nerves and dorsal spinal cord to the somatosensory cortex.

Transcranial magnetic motor evoked potentials (TCmMEP)

Time Frame: Change from baseline to 12 months

To measure the integrity of motor pathways.

Tesla Brain MRI

Time Frame: Baseline

Tesla Brain MRI (descriptive outcome)

Neurofilament light chain (NfL) serum levels

Time Frame: 12 months after baseline

Neurofilament light chain (NfL) serum levels

Neurofilament light chain (NfL) serum levels

Time Frame: Baseline

Neurofilament light chain (NfL) serum levels

Neurofilament light chain (NfL) serum levels

Time Frame: 6 months after baseline

Neurofilament light chain (NfL) serum levels

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) serology (VCA IgG)

Time Frame: Baseline

EBV serology will be assessed (VCA IgG) in the serum of patients to evaluate the variation of antibody titers over time (at baseline, at 6- and 12-month follow-up), and compare to titers at the time of diagnosis (when available in their medical record).

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) serology (VCA IgG)

Time Frame: 6 months after baseline

EBV serology will be assessed (VCA IgG) in the serum of patients to evaluate the variation of antibody titers over time (at baseline, at 6- and 12-month follow-up), and compare to titers at the time of diagnosis (when available in their medical record).

Secondary Outcomes

No secondary outcomes reported

Investigators

Sponsor Class
Other
Responsible Party
Principal Investigator
Principal Investigator

Bernard Dachy

Head of neurology department

Brugmann University Hospital

Study Sites (1)

Loading locations...

Similar Trials