Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Print publication year: 2011
  • Online publication date: December 2011

52 - Treatment for patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis

from Section IV - Therapy in clinical practice


Since mechanisms of action of the approved therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS) involve anti-inflammatory effects, and since these treatments result primarily in a reduction in relapse rates, it is logical to hypothesize that mechanisms of action of the protective effect of pregnancy on MS relapses involve anti-inflammatory effects. Two estrogens (estradiol and estriol) and progesterone each increase progressively during pregnancy. Levels of estrogens that are in oral contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy may not be high enough to be protective in MS. Numerous factors other than sex hormones have been identified in sera during pregnancy and have been shown to be immunosuppressive either in cultures of immune cells in vitro or in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) models. The combined anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective state of pregnancy, perhaps aimed at protecting the fetus, may be precisely what is needed to protect the central nervous system (CNS) of a mother with MS.


1. Thompson AJ, Polman CH, Miller DH, et al. Primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Brain 1997; 120(6):1085–96.
2. Miller DH, Leary SM. Primary-progressive multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol 2007; 6(10):903–12.
3. Kremenchutzky M, Rice GP, Baskerville J, Wingerchuk DM, Ebers GC. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study 9: observations on the progressive phase of the disease. Brain 2006; 129(Pt 3):584–94.
4. Confavreux C, Vukusic S. Age at disability milestones in multiple sclerosis. Brain 2006; 129(Pt 3):595–605.
5. Tremlett H, Zhao Y, Devonshire V. Natural history comparisons of primary and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis reveals differences and similarities. J Neurol 2009; 256(3):374–81.
6. Minderhoud JM, Van Der Hoeven JH, Prange AJ. Course and prognosis of chronic progressive multiple sclerosis. Results of an epidemiological study. Acta Neurol Scand 1988; 78(1):10–15.
7. Confavreux C, Vukusic S. Natural history of multiple sclerosis: a unifying concept. Brain 2006; 129(3):606–16.
8. Tremlett H, Paty D, Devonshire V. The natural history of primary progressive MS in British Columbia, Canada. Neurology 2005; 65(12):1919–23.
9. Lublin FD, Reingold SC. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: results of an international survey. National Multiple Sclerosis Society (USA) Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials of New Agents in Multiple Sclerosis. Neurology 1996; 46(4):907–11.
10. Stevenson VL, Miller DH, Rovaris M, et al. Primary and transitional progressive MS: a clinical and MRI cross-sectional study. Neurology 1999; 52(4):839–45.
11. Kremenchutzky M, Cottrell D, Rice G, et al. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study. 7. Progressive–relapsing and relapsing–progressive multiple sclerosis: a re-evaluation. Brain 1999; 122(10):1941–50.
12. Gayou A, Brochet B, Dousset V. Transitional progressive multiple sclerosis: a clinical and imaging study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1997; 63(3):396–8.
13. Andersson PB, Waubant E, Gee L, Goodkin DE. Multiple sclerosis that is progressive from the time of onset: clinical characteristics and progression of disability. Arch Neurol 1999; 56(9):1138–42.
14. Thompson AJ, Kermode AG, MacManus DG, et al. Patterns of disease activity in multiple sclerosis: clinical and magnetic resonance imaging study. BMJ 1990; 300(6725):631–4.
15. Thompson AJ, Kermode AG, Wicks D, et al. Major differences in the dynamics of primary and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1991; 29(1):53–62.
16. Meier DS, Weiner HL, Guttmann CR. MR imaging intensity modeling of damage and repair in multiple sclerosis: relationship of short-term lesion recovery to progression and disability. Am J Neuroradiol 2007; 28(10):1956–63.
17. Nijeholt GJ, van Walderveen MA, Castelijns JA, et al. Brain and spinal cord abnormalities in multiple sclerosis. Correlation between MRI parameters, clinical subtypes and symptoms. Brain 1998; 121(4):687–97.
18. Filippi M, Rovaris M, Rocca MA. Imaging primary progressive multiple sclerosis: the contribution of structural, metabolic, and functional MRI techniques. Mult Scler 2004; 10 (Suppl 1):S36–S44.
19. Agosta F, Absinta M, Sormani MP, et al. In vivo assessment of cervical cord damage in MS patients: a longitudinal diffusion tensor MRI study. Brain 2007; 130(8):2211–19.
20. Kutzelnigg A, Lucchinetti CF, Stadelmann C, et al. Cortical demyelination and diffuse white matter injury in multiple sclerosis. Brain 2005; 128(11):2705–12.
21. Revesz T, Kidd D, Thompson AJ, Barnard RO, McDonald WI. A comparison of the pathology of primary and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Brain 1994; 117(4):759–65.
22. Bitsch A, Schuchardt J, Bunkowski S, Kuhlmann T, Bruck W. Acute axonal injury in multiple sclerosis. Correlation with demyelination and inflammation. Brain 2000; 123(6):1174–83.
23. Lucchinetti C, Bruck W, Parisi J, Scheithauer B, Rodriguez M, Lassmann H. Heterogeneity of multiple sclerosis lesions: implications for the pathogenesis of demyelination. Ann Neurol 2000; 47(6):707–17.
24. Barnett MH, Prineas JW. Relapsing and remitting multiple sclerosis: pathology of the newly forming lesion. Ann Neurol 2004; 55(4):458–68.
25. Breij EC, Brink BP, Veerhuis R, et al. Homogeneity of active demyelinating lesions in established multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2008; 63(1):16–25.
26. Kutzelnigg A, Faber-Rod JC, Bauer J, et al. Widespread demyelination in the cerebellar cortex in multiple sclerosis. Brain Pathol 2007; 17(1):38–44.
27. Patrikios P, Stadelmann C, Kutzelnigg A, Rauschka H, Schmidbauer M, Laursen H, et al. Remyelination is extensive in a subset of multiple sclerosis patients. Brain 2006; 129(12):3165–72.
28. Bramow S, Frischer JM, Lassmann H, et al. Demyelination versus remyelination in progressive multiple sclerosis. Brain 2010; 133(10):2983–98.
29. Neuhaus O, Hartung HP. In search of a disease marker: the cytokine profile of primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2001; 7(3):143–4.
30. Stankovich J, Butzkueven H, Marriott M, et al. HLA-DRB1 associations with disease susceptibility and clinical course in Australians with multiple sclerosis. Tissue Antigens 2009; 74(1):17–21.
31. Thompson A. Overview of primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS): similarities and differences from other forms of MS, diagnostic criteria, pros and cons of progressive diagnosis. Mult Scler 2004; 10 (Suppl 1):S2-S7.
32. Trapp BD, Peterson J, Ransohoff RM, Rudick R, Mork S, Bo L. Axonal transection in the lesions of multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 1998; 338(5):278–85.
33. Ferguson B, Matyszak MK, Esiri MM, Perry VH. Axonal damage in acute multiple sclerosis lesions. Brain 1997; 120(3):393–9.
34. Tallantyre EC, Bo L, Al-Rawashdeh O, et al. Clinico-pathological evidence that axonal loss underlies disability in progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2010; 16(4):406–11.
35. Leary SM, Stevenson VL, Miller DH, Thompson AJ. Problems in designing and recruiting to therapeutic trials in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 1999; 246(7):562–8.
36. McFarland HF, Reingold SC. The future of multiple sclerosis therapies: redesigning multiple sclerosis clinical trials in a new therapeutic era. Mult Scler 2005; 11(6):669–76.
37. McDonnell GV, Hawkins SA. Application of the Poser criteria in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1997; 42(6):982–3.
38. Thompson AJ, Montalban X, Barkhof F, et al. Diagnostic criteria for primary progressive multiple sclerosis: a position paper. Ann Neurol 2000; 47(6):831–5.
39. McDonald WI, Compston A, Edan G, et al. Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from the International Panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2001; 50(1):121–7.
40. Hawker K, O’Connor P, Freedman MS, et al. Rituximab in patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis: results of a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled multicenter trial. Ann Neurol 2009; 66(4):460–71.
41. Polman CH, Reingold SC, Edan G, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald Criteria”. Ann Neurol 2005;58(6):840–6.
42. Montalban X, Sastre-Garriga J, Filippi M, et al. Primary progressive multiple sclerosis diagnostic criteria: a reappraisal. Mult Scler 2009; 15(12): 1459–65.
43. Polman CH, Reingold SC, Banwell B, et al. Diagnostic Criteria for Multiple Sclerosis: 2010 Revisions to the “McDonald Criteria Ann Neurol 2011; 69:292–302.
44. Degenhardt A, Ramagopalan SV, Scalfari A, Ebers GC. Clinical prognostic factors in multiple sclerosis: a natural history review. Nat Rev Neurol 2009; 5(12):672–82.
45. Khaleeli Z, Ciccarelli O, Manfredonia F, et al. Predicting progression in primary progressive multiple sclerosis: a 10-year multicenter study. Ann Neurol 2008;63(6):790–3.
46. Cottrell DA, Kremenchutzky M, Rice GP, Hader W, Baskerville J, Ebers GC. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study. 6. Applications to planning and interpretation of clinical therapeutic trials in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Brain 1999; 122(4):641–7.
47. Wolinsky JS, Narayana PA, O’Connor P, et al. Glatiramer acetate in primary progressive multiple sclerosis: results of a multinational, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Neurol 2007; 61(1):14–24.
48. Stevenson VL, Ingle GT, Miller DH, Thompson AJ. Magnetic resonance imaging predictors of disability in primary progressive multiple sclerosis: a 5-year study. Mult Scler 2004; 10(4):398–401.
49. Sastre-Garriga J, Ingle GT, Rovaris M, et al. Long-term clinical outcome of primary progressive MS: predictive value of clinical and MRI data. Neurology 2005; 65(4):633–5.
50. Khaleeli Z, Altmann DR, Cercignani M, Ciccarelli O, Miller DH, Thompson AJ. Magnetization transfer ratio in gray matter: a potential surrogate marker for progression in early primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 2008; 65(11):1454–9.
51. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983; 33(11):1444–52.
52. Twork S, Wiesmeth S, Spindler M, et al. Disability status and quality of life in multiple sclerosis: non-linearity of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010; 8:55.
53. Hobart J, Freeman J, Thompson A. Kurtzke scales revisited: the application of psychometric methods to clinical intuition. Brain 2000; 123(5):1027–40.
54. Cutter GR, Baier ML, Rudick RA, et al. Development of a multiple sclerosis functional composite as a clinical trial outcome measure. Brain 1999; 122(5):871–82.
55. Cohen JA, Cutter GR, Fischer JS, et al. Use of the multiple sclerosis functional composite as an outcome measure in a phase 3 clinical trial. Arch Neurol 2001; 58(6):961–7.
56. Montalban X. Overview of European pilot study of interferon beta-Ib in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2004; 10 (Suppl 1):S62–4.
57. Kragt JJ, Thompson AJ, Montalban X, et al. Responsiveness and predictive value of EDSS and MSFC in primary progressive MS. Neurology 2008; 70: 1084–91.
58. Bosma LV, Kragt JJ, Brieva L, et al. Progression on the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite in multiple sclerosis: what is the optimal cut-off for the three components? Mult Scler 2010; 16(7):862–7.
59. Polman CH, Rudick RA. The multiple sclerosis functional composite: a clinically meaningful measure of disability. Neurology 2010; 74 (Suppl 3):S8–15.
60. Bosma LV, Kragt JJ, Brieva L, et al. The search for responsive clinical endpoints in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2009; 15(6):715–20.
61. Hobart J, Lamping D, Fitzpatrick R, Riazi A, Thompson A. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain 2001; 124(5):962–73.
62. Hobart JC, Riazi A, Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R, Thompson AJ. Measuring the impact of MS on walking ability: the 12-Item MS Walking Scale (MSWS-12). Neurology 2003; 60(1):31–6.
63. Hobart JC, Riazi A, Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R, Thompson AJ. How responsive is the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29)? A comparison with some other self report scales. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005; 76(11):1539–43.
64. Costelloe L, O’Rourke K, McGuigan C, Walsh C, Tubridy N, Hutchinson M. The longitudinal relationship between the patient-reported Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale and the clinician-assessed Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite. Mult Scler 2008; 14(2):255–8.
65. Gray O, McDonnell G, Hawkins S. Tried and tested: the psychometric properties of the multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29) in a population-based study. Mult Scler 2009; 15(1):75–80.
66. Giordano A, Pucci E, Naldi P, et al. Responsiveness of patient reported outcome measures in multiple sclerosis relapses: the REMS study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2009; 80(9):1023–8.
67. Miller D, Rudick RA, Hutchinson M. Patient-centered outcomes: translating clinical efficacy into benefits on health-related quality of life. Neurology 2010; 74 (Suppl 3):S24-35.
68. Khaleeli Z, Ciccarelli O, Mizskiel K, Altmann D, Miller DH, Thompson AJ. Lesion enhancement diminishes with time in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2010; 16(3):317–24.
69. Stevenson VL, Miller DH, Leary SM, et al. One year follow up study of primary and transitional progressive multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000; 68(6):713–18.
70. Bodini B, Battaglini M, De SN, et al. T2 lesion location really matters: a 10 year follow-up study in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2010;82:72–7.
71. van Walderveen MA, Kamphorst W, Scheltens P, et al. Histopathologic correlate of hypointense lesions on T1-weighted spin-echo MRI in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1998; 50(5):1282–8.
72. van Walderveen MA, Lycklama ANG, Ader HJ, et al. Hypointense lesions on T1-weighted spin-echo magnetic resonance imaging: relation to clinical characteristics in subgroups of patients with multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 2001; 58(1):76–81.
73. Ingle GT, Stevenson VL, Miller DH, Thompson AJ. Primary progressive multiple sclerosis: a 5-year clinical and MR study. Brain 2003; 126(11):2528–36.
74. Losseff NA, Webb SL, O’Riordan JI, et al. Spinal cord atrophy and disability in multiple sclerosis. A new reproducible and sensitive MRI method with potential to monitor disease progression. Brain 1996; 119(3):701–8.
75. Fox NC, Jenkins R, Leary SM, et al. Progressive cerebral atrophy in MS: a serial study using registered, volumetric MRI. Neurology 2000; 54(4):807–12.
76. Sastre-Garriga J, Ingle GT, Chard DT, et al. Grey and white matter volume changes in early primary progressive multiple sclerosis: a longitudinal study. Brain 2005; 128(6):1454–60.
77. Rovaris M, Judica E, Sastre-Garriga J, et al. Large-scale, multicentre, quantitative MRI study of brain and cord damage in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2008; 14:455–64.
78. Khaleeli Z, Sastre-Garriga J, Ciccarelli O, Miller DH, Thompson AJ. Magnetisation transfer ratio in the normal appearing white matter predicts progression of disability over 1 year in early primary progressive multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2007; 78(10):1076–82.
79. Khaleeli Z, Cercignani M, Audoin B, Ciccarelli O, Miller DH, Thompson AJ. Localized grey matter damage in early primary progressive multiple sclerosis contributes to disability. Neuroimage 2007; 37(1):253–61.
80. Suhy J, Rooney WD, Goodkin DE, et al. 1H MRSI comparison of white matter and lesions in primary progressive and relapsing-remitting MS. Mult Scler 2000; 6(3):148–55.
81. Sastre-Garriga J, Ingle GT, Chard DT, et al. Metabolite changes in normal-appearing gray and white matter are linked with disability in early primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 2005; 62(4):569–73.
82. Sajja BR, Narayana PA, Wolinsky JS, Ahn CW. Longitudinal magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging of primary progressive multiple sclerosis patients treated with glatiramer acetate: multicenter study. Mult Scler 2008; 14(1):73–80.
83. Agosta F, Benedetti B, Rocca MA, et al. Quantification of cervical cord pathology in primary progressive MS using diffusion tensor MRI. Neurology 2005; 64(4):631–5.
84. Ciccarelli O, Werring DJ, Wheeler-Kingshott CA, et al. Investigation of MS normal-appearing brain using diffusion tensor MRI with clinical correlations. Neurology 2001; 56(7):926–33.
85. Filippi M, Cercignani M, Inglese M, Horsfield MA, Comi G. Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2001; 56(3):304–11.
86. Rovaris M, Gallo A, Valsasina P, et al. Short-term accrual of gray matter pathology in patients with progressive multiple sclerosis: an in vivo study using diffusion tensor MRI. Neuroimage 2005; 24(4):1139–46.
87. Rovaris M, Judica E, Gallo A, et al. Grey matter damage predicts the evolution of primary progressive multiple sclerosis at 5 years. Brain 2006; 129(10):2628–34.
88. Barker GJ, Schreiber WG, Gass A, et al. A standardised method for measuring magnetisation transfer ratio on MR imagers from different manufacturers–the EuroMT sequence. MAGMA 2005; 18(2):76–80.
89. Bakshi R, Neema M, Healy BC, et al. Predicting clinical progression in multiple sclerosis with the magnetic resonance disease severity scale. Arch Neurol 2008; 65(11):1449–53.
90. Poonawalla AH, Datta S, Juneja V, et al. Composite MRI scores improve correlation with EDSS in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2010; 16(9):1117–25.
91. Bornstein MB, Miller A, Slagle S, et al. A placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized, two-center, pilot trial of Cop 1 in chronic progressive multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1991; 41(4):533–9.
92. Wolinsky JS, Shochat T, Weiss S, Ladkani D. Glatiramer acetate treatment in PPMS: why males appear to respond favorably. J Neurol Sci 2009; 286(1–2):92–8.
93. Wolinsky JS. The PROMiSe trial: baseline data review and progress report. Mult Scler 2004; 10(Suppl 1):S65–71.
94. Miron VE, Jung CG, Kim HJ, Kennedy TE, Soliven B, Antel JP. FTY720 modulates human oligodendrocyte progenitor process extension and survival. Ann Neurol 2008; 63(1):61–71.
95. Rice GP, Filippi M, Comi G. Cladribine and progressive MS: clinical and MRI outcomes of a multicenter controlled trial. Cladribine MRI Study Group. Neurology 2000; 54(5):1145–55.
96. Leary SM, Miller DH, Stevenson VL, Brex PA, Chard DT, Thompson AJ. Interferon beta-1a in primary progressive MS: an exploratory, randomized, controlled trial. Neurology 2003; 60(1):44–51.
97. Montalban X, Sastre-Garriga J, Tintore M, et al. A single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of interferon beta-1b on primary progressive and transitional multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2009; 15(10):1195–205.
98. Stuve O, Kita M, Pelletier D, et al. Mitoxantrone as a potential therapy for primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2004; 10 (Suppl 1):S58–61.
99. Kita M, Cohen JA, Fox RJ. A phase II trial of mitoxantrone in patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2004. 62(Suppl 5):A99.
100. Pelfrey CM, Cotleur AC, Zamor N, Lee JC, Fox RJ. Immunological studies of mitoxantrone in primary progressive MS. J Neuroimmunol 2006; 175(1–2):192–9.
101. Hellwig K, Schimrigk S, Lukas C, et al. Efficacy of mitoxantrone and intrathecal triamcinolone acetonide treatment in chronic progressive multiple sclerosis patients. Clin Neuropharmacol 2006; 29(5):286–91.
102. Debouverie M, Taillandier L, Pittion-Vouyovitch S, Louis S, Vespignani H. Clinical follow-up of 304 patients with multiple sclerosis three years after mitoxantrone treatment. Mult Scler 2007; 13(5):626–31.
103. Pitt D, Werner P, Raine CS. Glutamate excitotoxicity in a model of multiple sclerosis. Nat Med 2000; 6(1):67–70.
104. Kalkers NF, Barkhof F, Bergers E, van SR, Polman CH. The effect of the neuroprotective agent riluzole on MRI parameters in primary progressive multiple sclerosis: a pilot study. Mult Scler 2002; 8(6):532–3.
105. Zephir H, de SJ, Duhamel A, et al. Treatment of progressive forms of multiple sclerosis by cyclophosphamide: a cohort study of 490 patients. J Neurol Sci 2004; 218(1–2):73–7.
106. Weiner HL, Cohen JA. Treatment of multiple sclerosis with cyclophosphamide: critical review of clinical and immunologic effects. Mult Scler 2002; 8(2):142–54.
107. Schwartzman RJ, Simpkins N, Alexander GM, et al. High-dose cyclophosphamide in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. CNS Neurosci Therap 2009; 15(2):118–27.
108. Double-masked trial of azathioprine in multiple sclerosis. British and Dutch Multiple Sclerosis Azathioprine Trial Group. Lancet 1988; 2(8604):179–83.
109. Fassas A, Passweg JR, Anagnostopoulos A, et al. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple sclerosis. A retrospective multicenter study. J Neurol 2002; 249(8):1088–97.
110. Saccardi R, Kozak T, Bocelli-Tyndall C, et al. Autologous stem cell transplantation for progressive multiple sclerosis: update of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation autoimmune diseases working party database. Mult Scler 2006; 12(6):814–23.
111. Pohlau D, Przuntek H, Sailer M, et al. Intravenous immunoglobulin in primary and secondary chronic progressive multiple sclerosis: a randomized placebo controlled multicentre study. Mult Scler 2007; 13(9):1107–17.
112. Goodkin DE, Rudick RA, VanderBrug MS, et al. Low-dose (7.5 mg) oral methotrexate reduces the rate of progression in chronic progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1995; 37(1):30–40.
113. Bowen JD, Maravilla K, Margolin SB. Open-label study of pirfenidone in patients with progressive forms of multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2003; 9(3):280–3.
114. Zajicek JP, Sanders HP, Wright DE, et al. Cannabinoids in multiple sclerosis (CAMS) study: safety and efficacy data for 12 months follow up. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005; 76(12):1664–9.
115. Jones JL, Anderson JM, Phuah CL, et al. Improvement in disability after alemtuzumab treatment of multiple sclerosis is associated with neuroprotective autoimmunity. Brain 2010; 133(8):2232–47.
116. Barkhof F, Hulst HE, Drulovic J, Uitdehaag BM, Matsuda K, Landin R. Ibudilast in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: a neuroprotectant? Neurology 2010; 74(13):1033–40.
117. Coles A, Deans J, Compston A. Campath-1H treatment of multiple sclerosis: lessons from the bedside for the bench. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2004; 106(3):270–4.
118. Matthews PM. Primary progressive multiple sclerosis takes centre stage. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004; 75(9):1232–3.
119. Martino G, Franklin RJ, Van Evercooren AB, Kerr DA. Stem cell transplantation in multiple sclerosis: current status and future prospects. Nat Rev Neurol 2010; 6(5):247–55.
120. Ciccarelli O, Toosy AT, Marsden JF, et al. Functional response to active and passive ankle movements with clinical correlations in patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 2006; 253(7):882–91.
121. Ceccarelli A, Rocca MA, Valsasina P, et al. Structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging correlates of motor network dysfunction in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Eur J Neurosci 2010; 31(7):1273–80.
122. Agosta F, Valsasina P, Absinta M, Sala S, Caputo D, Filippi M. Primary progressive multiple sclerosis: tactile-associated functional MR activity in the cervical spinal cord. Radiology 2009; 253(1):209–15.
123. Bakshi R, Thompson AJ, Rocca MA, et al. MRI in multiple sclerosis: current status and future prospects. Lancet Neurol 2008; 7(7):615–25.
124. Calabrese M, Rocca MA, Atzori M, et al. Cortical lesions in primary progressive multiple sclerosis: a 2-year longitudinal MR study. Neurology 2009; 72(15):1330–6.
125. Gilmore C, Geurts J, Evangelou N, et al. Spinal cord grey matter lesions in multiple sclerosis detected by post-mortem high field MR imaging. Mult Scler 2009; 15(2):180–8.