Key result
The authors propose that monitoring validated biomarkers for evidence of disease control is a more realistic and proactive approach than relying solely on the NEDA composite in multiple sclerosis.
Why the study?
Does a biomarker-based evaluation protocol improve early detection and prevent progression in patients with multiple sclerosis?
Does a biomarker-based evaluation protocol improve early detection and prevent progression in patients with multiple sclerosis?
Proposes a biomarker-based evaluation protocol for early-stage multiple sclerosis to detect surreptitious disease activity and prevent irreversible progression beyond the NEDA concept.
Although no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) permits evaluation of response to treatment in the systematic follow-up of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), its ability to accomplish detection of surreptitious activity of disease is limited, thus being unable to prevent patients from falling into a non-reversible progressive phase of disease. A protocol of evaluation based on the use of validated biomarkers that is conducted at an early stage of disease would permit the capture of abnormal neuroimmunological phenomena and lead towards intervention with modifying therapy before tissue damage has been reached.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Londoño et al. (2017) conducted an editorial in Multiple Sclerosis. Biomarker-based evidence of disease control (EDC) vs. No Evidence of Disease Activity (NEDA) was evaluated. The authors propose that monitoring validated biomarkers for evidence of disease control is a more realistic and proactive approach than relying solely on the NEDA composite in multiple sclerosis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: