Explore the vast range of titles available.

Traumatic spinal cord injury occurs when an external physical impact damages the spinal cord and leads to permanent neurological dysfunction and disability, and it is associated with a high socioeconomic burden. Conventional MRI plays a crucial role in the diagnostic workup as it reveals extrinsic compression of the spinal cord and disruption of the discoligamentous complex. Additionally, it can reveal macrostructural evidence of primary intramedullary damage such as haemorrhage, oedema, post-traumatic cystic cavities, and tissue bridges. Quantitative MRI, such as magnetisation transfer, magnetic resonance relaxation mapping, and diffusion imaging, enables the tracking of secondary changes across the neuraxis at the microstructural level. Both conventional MRI and quantitative MRI metrics, obtained early after spinal cord injury, are predictive of clinical outcome. Thus, neuroimaging biomarkers could serve as surrogate endpoints for more efficient future trials targeting acute and chronic spinal cord injury. The adoption of neuroimaging biomarkers in centres for spinal cord injury might lead to personalised patient care.

Multiple sclerosis is a major cause of neurological disability, which accrues predominantly during progressive forms of the disease. Although development of multifocal inflammatory lesions is the underlying pathological process in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, the gradual accumulation of disability that characterises progressive multiple sclerosis seems to result more from diffuse immune mechanisms and neurodegeneration. As a result, the 14 anti-inflammatory drugs that have regulatory approval for treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis have little or no efficacy in progressive multiple sclerosis without inflammatory lesion activity. Effective therapies for progressive multiple sclerosis that prevent worsening, reverse damage, and restore function are a major unmet need. In this Series paper we summarise the current status of therapy for progressive multiple sclerosis and outline prospects for the future.

The 2010 McDonald criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis are widely used in research and clinical practice. Scientific advances in the past 7 years suggest that they might no longer provide the most up-to-date guidance for clinicians and researchers. The International Panel on Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis reviewed the 2010 McDonald criteria and recommended revisions. The 2017 McDonald criteria continue to apply primarily to patients experiencing a typical clinically isolated syndrome, define what is needed to fulfil dissemination in time and space of lesions in the CNS, and stress the need for no better explanation for the presentation. The following changes were made: in patients with a typical clinically isolated syndrome and clinical or MRI demonstration of dissemination in space, the presence of CSF-specific oligoclonal bands allows a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis; symptomatic lesions can be used to demonstrate dissemination in space or time in patients with supratentorial, infratentorial, or spinal cord syndrome; and cortical lesions can be used to demonstrate dissemination in space. Research to further refine the criteria should focus on optic nerve involvement, validation in diverse populations, and incorporation of advanced imaging, neurophysiological, and body fluid markers.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) can be divided into four phenotypes based on clinical evolution. The pathophysiological boundaries of these phenotypes are unclear, limiting treatment stratification. Machine learning can identify groups with similar features using multidimensional data. Here, to classify MS subtypes based on pathological features, we apply unsupervised machine learning to brain MRI scans acquired in previously published studies. We use a training dataset from 6322 MS patients to define MRI-based subtypes and an independent cohort of 3068 patients for validation. Based on the earliest abnormalities, we define MS subtypes as cortex-led, normal-appearing white matter-led, and lesion-led. People with the lesion-led subtype have the highest risk of confirmed disability progression (CDP) and the highest relapse rate. People with the lesion-led MS subtype show positive treatment response in selected clinical trials. Our findings suggest that MRI-based subtypes predict MS disability progression and response to treatment and may be used to define groups of patients in interventional trials. Multiple sclerosis is a heterogeneous progressive disease. Here, the authors use an unsupervised machine learning algorithm to determine multiple sclerosis subtypes, progression, and response to potential therapeutic treatments based on neuroimaging data.

More than half of patients with multiple sclerosis have progressive disease characterised by accumulating disability. The absence of treatments for progressive multiple sclerosis represents a major unmet clinical need. On the basis of evidence that mesenchymal stem cells have a beneficial effect in acute and chronic animal models of multiple sclerosis, we aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of these cells as a potential neuroprotective treatment for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis involving the visual pathways (expanded disability status score 5·5–6·5) were recruited from the East Anglia and north London regions of the UK. Participants received intravenous infusion of autologous bone-marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells in this open-label study. Our primary objective was to assess feasibility and safety; we compared adverse events from up to 20 months before treatment until up to 10 months after the infusion. As a secondary objective, we chose efficacy outcomes to assess the anterior visual pathway as a model of wider disease. Masked endpoint analyses was used for electrophysiological and selected imaging outcomes. We used piecewise linear mixed models to assess the change in gradients over time at the point of intervention. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00395200. We isolated, expanded, characterised, and administered mesenchymal stem cells in ten patients. The mean dose was 1·6×10 6 cells per kg bodyweight (range 1·1–2·0). One patient developed a transient rash shortly after treatment; two patients had self-limiting bacterial infections 3–4 weeks after treatment. We did not identify any serious adverse events. We noted improvement after treatment in visual acuity (difference in monthly rates of change −0·02 logMAR units, 95% CI −0·03 to −0·01; p=0·003) and visual evoked response latency (−1·33 ms, −2·44 to −0·21; p=0·020), with an increase in optic nerve area (difference in monthly rates of change 0·13 mm 2, 0·04 to 0·22; p=0·006). We did not identify any significant effects on colour vision, visual fields, macular volume, retinal nerve fibre layer thickness, or optic nerve magnetisation transfer ratio. Autologous mesenchymal stem cells were safely given to patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis in our study. The evidence of structural, functional, and physiological improvement after treatment in some visual endpoints is suggestive of neuroprotection. Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Evelyn Trust, NHS National Institute for Health Research, Cambridge and UCLH Biomedical Research Centres, Wellcome Trust, Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation, and Sir David and Isobel Walker Trust.

Have state-of-the-art clinical trials failed to deliver treatments for neurodegenerative diseases because of shortcomings in the rating scales used? This Review assesses two methodological limitations of rating scales that might help to answer this question. First, the numbers generated by most rating scales do not satisfy the criteria for rigorous measurements. Second, we do not really know which variables most rating scales measure. We use clinical examples to highlight concerns about the limitations of rating scales, examine their underlying rationales, clarify their implications, explore potential solutions, and make some recommendations for future research. We show that improvements in the scientific rigour of rating scales can improve the chances of reaching the correct conclusions about the effectiveness of treatments.

Improving the heat tolerance of cotton is a major concern for breeding programs. To address this need, a fast and effect way of quantifying thermotolerant phenotypes is required. Triphenyl tetrazolium chloride (TTC) based enzyme viability testing following high-temperature stress can be used as a vegetative heat tolerance phenotype. This is because when live cells encounter a TTC solution, TTC undergoes a chemical reduction producing a visible, insoluble red product called triphenyl formazan, that can be quantified spectrophotometrically. However, existing TTC based cell viability assays cannot easily be deployed at the scale required in a crop improvement program. In this study, a heat stress assay (HSA) based on the use of TTC enzyme viability testing has been refined and improved for efficiency, reliability, and ease of use through four experiments. Sampling factors that may influence assay results, such as leaf age, plant water status, and short-term cold storage, were also investigated. Experiments conducted in this study have successfully downscaled the assay and identified an optimal sampling regime, enabling measurement of large segregating populations for application in breeding programs. The improved HSA methodology is important as it is proposed that long-term improvements in cotton thermotolerance can be achieved through the concurrent selection of superior phenotypes based on the HSA and yield performance in hot environments. Additionally, a new way of interpreting both heat tolerance and heat resistance was developed, differentiating genotypes that perform well at the time of a heat stress event and those that maintain a similar performance level to a non-stressed control.

Management of symptoms in multiple sclerosis (MS) has received little attention compared with disease-modifying treatments. However, the effect of these symptoms on quality of life can be profound. Clinical trials of pharmacological drugs to treat symptoms of MS have often been underpowered and have used inappropriate measures of outcome. Many currently used symptomatic drugs were introduced decades ago, when study quality was considerably below current standards. Therefore, the evidence base on which to make clinical decisions is less than adequate. Interest in pharmacological treatment of symptoms in MS has increased in recent years, and several large randomised controlled trials have been reported. Pharmacological strategies are a core component of the treatment of these symptoms, but it is imperative to remember that a multidisciplinary rehabilitation approach is needed for effective management.

Cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis (MS) is common, debilitating and burdensome. Key evidence from trials was reviewed to enable recommendations to be made to guide clinical practice and research. Behavioural and pharmacological interventions on cognition reported in published studies were reviewed. Most studies evaluating behavioural treatment for impairment in learning and memory, deficits of attention and executive function have demonstrated some improvement. Controlled studies in relapsing remitting MS indicate interferon (IFN) β-1b and IFN β-1a were associated with modest cognitive improvement. The effects of symptomatic therapies such as modafinil and donepezil are inconsistent. Most studies yielding positive findings have significant methodological difficulties limiting the confidence in making any broad treatment recommendations. There are no published reports of glatiramer acetate, natalizumab and fingolimod being effective in improving cognition in controlled trials. The effects of disease modifying therapies in other forms of MS and clinically isolated syndrome have not yielded positive results. Data linking behavioural therapy, symptomatic treatment or disease modifying treatment, to either reducing cognitive decline or improving impaired cognition are limited and inconsistent. The treatment and prevention of cognitive impairment needs to remain a key research focus, identifying new interventions and improving clinical trial methodology.