The main objective of our work is to describe the long-term results of myeloablative autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) in multiple sclerosis patients. Patients that failed to conventional therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS) underwent an approved protocol for AHSCT, which consisted of peripheral blood stem cell mobilization with cyclophosphamide and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), followed by a conditioning regimen of BCNU, Etoposide, Ara-C, Melphalan IV, plus Rabbit Thymoglobulin. Thirty-eight MS patients have been transplanted since 1999. Thirty-one patients have been followed for more than 2 years (mean 8.4 years). There were 22 relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients and 9 secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) patients. No death related to AHSCT. A total of 10 patients (32.3%) had at least one relapse during post-AHSCT evolution, 6 patients in the RRMS group (27.2%) and 4 in the SPMS group (44.4%). After AHSCT, 7 patients (22.6%) experienced progression of disability, all within SP form. By contrast, no patients with RRMS experienced worsening of disability after a median follow-up of 5.4 years, 60% of them showed a sustained reduction in disability (SRD), defined as the improvement of 1.0 point in the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) sustains for 6 months (0.5 in cases of EDSS ≥ 5.5). The only clinical variable that predicted a poor response to AHSCT was a high EDSS in the year before transplant. AHSCT using the BEAM-ATG scheme is safe and efficacious to control the aggressive forms of RRMS.

The treatment strategy of multiple sclerosis (MS) is a highly controversial debate. Currently, there are up to 19 drugs approved. However, there is no clear evidence to guide fundamental decisions such as what treatment should be chosen in first place, when treatment failure or suboptimal response should be considered, or what treatment should be considered in these cases. The “escalation strategy” consists of starting treatment with drugs of low side-effect profile and low efficacy, and “escalating” to drugs of higher efficacy—with more potential side-effects—if necessary. This strategy has prevailed over the years. However, the evidence supporting this strategy is based on short-term studies, in hope that the benefits will stand in the long term. These studies usually do not consider the heterogeneity of the disease and the limited effect that relapses have on the long-term. On the other hand, “early intense therapy” strategy refers to starting treatment with drugs of higher efficacy from the beginning, despite having a less favorable side-effect profile. This approach takes advantage of the so-called “window of opportunity” in hope to maximize the clinical benefits in the long-term. At present, the debate remains open. In this review, we will critically review both strategies. We provide a summary of the current evidence for each strategy without aiming to reach a definite conclusion.

Significance: Antibodies recognizing the neuronal gamma-aminobutyric acid A receptor (GABA _A -R) cause severe encephalitis by triggering internalization of the antibody–receptor complexes in inhibitory synapses, which leads to hyperexcitability and dysfunction of neuronal networks. From the cerebrospinal fluid of a patient with GABA _A -R encephalitis we cloned a highly expressed antibody and showed that it binds the GABA _A -R and influences signal transduction in neurons, explaining clinical symptoms. Using several experimental techniques, we confirmed that the antibody cross-reacts to an oncoprotein which is known to be involved in several malignancies. We showed that cross-reactivity to this oncoprotein may also be detected in two other GABA _A -R patients, suggesting that such cross-reactivity is presumably a key event in the pathogenesis of GABA _A -R encephalitis.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a complex disease of the central nervous system (CNS) that involves an intricate and aberrant interaction of immune cells leading to inflammation, demyelination, and neurodegeneration. Due to the heterogeneity of clinical subtypes, their diagnosis becomes challenging and the best treatment cannot be easily provided to patients. Biomarkers have been used to simplify the diagnosis and prognosis of MS, as well as to evaluate the results of clinical treatments. In recent years, research on biomarkers has advanced rapidly due to their ability to be easily and promptly measured, their specificity, and their reproducibility. Biomarkers are classified into several categories depending on whether they address personal or predictive susceptibility, diagnosis, prognosis, disease activity, or response to treatment in different clinical courses of MS. The identified members indicate a variety of pathological processes of MS, such as neuroaxonal damage, gliosis, demyelination, progression of disability, and remyelination, among others. The present review analyzes biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood serum, the most promising imaging biomarkers used in clinical practice. Furthermore, it aims to shed light on the criteria and challenges that a biomarker must face to be considered as a standard in daily clinical practice.

Background: Disease-modifying therapies are thought to reduce the conversion rate to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Objective: To explore the rate, chronology, and contributing factors of conversion to the progressive phase in treated relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis patients. Methods: Our study included 204 patients treated for relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis between 1995 and 2002, prospectively followed to date. Kaplan–Meier analysis was applied to estimate the time until secondary progressive multiple sclerosis conversion, and multivariate survival analysis with a Cox regression model was used to analyse prognostic factors. Results: Relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis patients were continuously treated for 13 years (SD 4.5); 36.3% converted to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis at a mean age of 42.6 years (SD 10.6), a mean time of 8.2 years (SD 5.2) and an estimated mean time of 17.2 years (range 17.1–18.1). A multifocal relapse, age older than 34 years at disease onset and treatment failure independently predicted conversion to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis but did not influence the time to reach an Expanded Disability Status Scale of 6.0. Conclusions: The favourable influence of disease-modifying therapies on long-term disability in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis is well established. However, the time to progression onset and the subsequent clinical course in treated patients seem similar to those previously reported in natural history studies. More studies are needed to clarify the effect of disease-modifying therapies once the progressive phase has been reached.