Apheresis Therapy in Histopathologically Classified Multiple Sclerosis | Demyelinating Disorders | JN Learning | AMA Ed Hub [Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Differences in the Reponses to Apheresis Therapy of Patients With 3 Histopathologically Classified Immunopathological Patterns of Multiple Sclerosis

Educational Objective
To investigate whether there are differences in response to apheresis therapy for steroid refractory relapses among patients with histologically defined immunopathological patterns of multiple sclerosis.
1 Credit CME
Key Points

Question  Are there any differences in the response to apheresis therapy for steroid refractory relapses among patients with histologically defined immunopathological patterns of multiple sclerosis?

Findings  This cohort study of 69 patients defined 3 patterns of multiple sclerosis and observed functional improvement after apheresis therapy in patients with histological pattern 1 (31%) and pattern 2 (55%), but not in patients with pattern 3. Secondary outcome parameters (magnetic resonance imaging and expanded disability status scale improvement) strongly supported the primary outcome.

Meaning  Response to apheresis therapy may be associated with immunopathological patterns and thus with pathological mechanisms of lesion development.


Importance  Plasma exchange and immunoadsorption are second-line apheresis therapies for patients experiencing multiple sclerosis relapses. Early active multiple sclerosis lesions can be classified into different histopathological patterns of demyelination. Pattern 1 and 2 lesions show T-cell– and macrophage–associated demyelination, and pattern 2 is selectively associated with immunoglobulin and complement deposits, suggesting a humoral immune response. Pattern 3 lesions show signs of oligodendrocyte degeneration. Thus it is possible that pathogenic heterogeneity might predict therapy response.

Objective  To evaluate the apheresis response in relation to histopathologically defined immunopathological patterns of multiple sclerosis.

Design, Setting and Participants  This single-center cohort study recruited 69 patients nationwide between 2005 and 2016. All included patients had a diagnosis of early active inflammatory demyelination consistent with multiple sclerosis; were classified into patterns 1, 2, or 3 based on brain biopsy analysis; and underwent apheresis treatments. Patients who had concomitant severe disease, neuromyelitis optica, or acute disseminated encephalomyelitis were excluded.

Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary therapy outcome was a functionally relevant improvement of the relapse-related neurological deficit. Radiological and Expanded Disability Status Scale changes were secondary outcome parameters.

Results  The mean (SD) age of patients was 36.6 (13.3) years; 46 of the 69 participants (67%) were female. Overall, 16 patients (23%) exhibited pattern 1 lesions, 40 (58%) had pattern 2 lesions, and 13 (19%) had pattern 3 lesions. A functional therapy response was observed in 5 of the 16 patients with pattern 1 disease (31%) and 22 of the 40 patients with pattern 2 disease (55%), but none of the 13 patients with pattern 3 disease exhibited improvement (pattern 2 vs 3 P < .001). Radiological improvements were found in 4 (25%), 22 (56%), and 1 (11%) of patients with patterns 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The respective rates of response measured by changes in Expanded Disability Status Scale scores were 25%, 40%, and 0%. Brainstem involvement was a negative predictive factor for the functional therapy response (logarithmic odds ratio [logOR], −1.43; 95% CI, −3.21 to 0.17; P = .03), while immunoadsorption (as compared with plasma exchange) might be a positive predictive factor (logOR, 3.26; 95% CI, 0.75 to 8.13; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance  This cohort study provides evidence that the response to apheresis treatment is associated with immunopathological patterns. Patients with both patterns 1 and 2 improved clinically after apheresis treatment, but pattern 2 patients who showed signs of a humoral immune response benefited most. Apheresis appears unlikely to benefit patients with pattern 3 lesions.

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

Article Information

Corresponding Author: Imke Metz, MD, Institute of Neuropathology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Robert-Koch-Strasse 40, 37075 Göttingen, Germany (imetz@gwdg.de).

Accepted for Publication: September 15, 2017.

Published Online: February 5, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.4842

Author Contributions: Dr Metz and Ms Stork had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Metz, Brück and Lucchinetti.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Stork, Ellenberger, Metz, Brück.

Drafting of the manuscript: Stork, Ellenberger, Metz.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Ellenberger, Beißbarth, Friede.

Obtained funding: Brück, Metz.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Lucchinetti, Brück, Metz.

Study supervision: Metz.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bunderministerium fur Bildung und Forschung) and the German Competence Network Multiple Sclerosis (Kompetenznetz Multiple Sklerose), Pattern Multiple Sclerosis/Neuromyelitis Optica (Drs Metz and Brück).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Contributions: We acknowledge Sven Müller, Institute of Neuropathology, University Medical Center, Goettingen, Germany, for his outstanding administrative support. No compensation from a funding sponsor was involved in his contribution.

Schwartz  J, Winters  JL, Padmanabhan  A,  et al.  Guidelines on the use of therapeutic apheresis in clinical practice-evidence-based approach from the Writing Committee of the American Society for Apheresis: the sixth special issue.  J Clin Apher. 2013;28(3):145-284.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Weinshenker  BG, O’Brien  PC, Petterson  TM,  et al.  A randomized trial of plasma exchange in acute central nervous system inflammatory demyelinating disease.  Ann Neurol. 1999;46(6):878-886.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Magaña  SM, Keegan  BM, Weinshenker  BG,  et al.  Beneficial plasma exchange response in central nervous system inflammatory demyelination.  Arch Neurol. 2011;68(7):870-878.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Ehler  J, Koball  S, Sauer  M,  et al.  Response to therapeutic plasma exchange as a rescue treatment in clinically isolated syndromes and acute worsening of multiple sclerosis: a retrospective analysis of 90 patients.  PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0134583.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Heigl  F, Hettich  R, Arendt  R, Durner  J, Koehler  J, Mauch  E.  Immunoadsorption in steroid-refractory multiple sclerosis: clinical experience in 60 patients.  Atheroscler Suppl. 2013;14(1):167-173.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Koziolek  MJ, Kitze  B, Mühlhausen  J, Müller  GA.  Immunoadsorption in steroid-refractory multiple sclerosis.  Atheroscler Suppl. 2013;14(1):175-178.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Okafor  C, Ward  DM, Mokrzycki  MH, Weinstein  R, Clark  P, Balogun  RA.  Introduction and overview of therapeutic apheresis.  J Clin Apher. 2010;25(5):240-249.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Williams  ME, Balogun  RA.  Principles of separation: indications and therapeutic targets for plasma exchange.  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;9(1):181-190.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
McLeod  BC.  Therapeutic apheresis: history, clinical application, and lingering uncertainties.  Transfusion. 2010;50(7):1413-1426.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Winters  JL.  Plasma exchange: concepts, mechanisms, and an overview of the American Society for Apheresis guidelines.  Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2012;2012:7-12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Lucchinetti  C, Brück  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):707-717.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Keegan  M, König  F, McClelland  R,  et al.  Relation between humoral pathological changes in multiple sclerosis and response to therapeutic plasma exchange.  Lancet. 2005;366(9485):579-582.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Metz  I, Weigand  SD, Popescu  BFG,  et al.  Pathologic heterogeneity persists in early active multiple sclerosis lesions.  Ann Neurol. 2014;75(5):728-738.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Aboul-Enein  F, Rauschka  H, Kornek  B,  et al.  Preferential loss of myelin-associated glycoprotein reflects hypoxia-like white matter damage in stroke and inflammatory brain diseases.  J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2003;62(1):25-33.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Kim  SH, Kim  W, Huh  SY, Lee  KY, Jung  IJ, Kim  HJ.  Clinical efficacy of plasmapheresis in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and effects on circulating anti-aquaporin-4 antibody levels.  J Clin Neurol. 2013;9(1):36-42.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Young  NP, Weinshenker  BG, Parisi  JE,  et al.  Perivenous demyelination: association with clinically defined acute disseminated encephalomyelitis and comparison with pathologically confirmed multiple sclerosis.  Brain. 2010;133(pt 2):333-348.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Brück  W, Popescu  B, Lucchinetti  CF,  et al.  Neuromyelitis optica lesions may inform multiple sclerosis heterogeneity debate.  Ann Neurol. 2012;72(3):385-394.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Brück  W, Porada  P, Poser  S,  et al.  Monocyte/macrophage differentiation in early multiple sclerosis lesions.  Ann Neurol. 1995;38(5):788-796.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Polman  CH, Reingold  SC, Banwell  B,  et al.  Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria.  Ann Neurol. 2011;69(2):292-302.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Lublin  FD.  New multiple sclerosis phenotypic classification.  Eur Neurol. 2014;72(suppl 1):1-5.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Guideline on clinical investigation of medical products for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, 2 edition. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2015/03/WC500185161.pdf. Published March 2015. Accessed December 28, 2017.
Keegan  M, Pineda  AA, McClelland  RL, Darby  CH, Rodriguez  M, Weinshenker  BG.  Plasma exchange for severe attacks of CNS demyelination: predictors of response.  Neurology. 2002;58(1):143-146.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Llufriu  S, Castillo  J, Blanco  Y,  et al.  Plasma exchange for acute attacks of CNS demyelination: Predictors of improvement at 6 months.  Neurology. 2009;73(12):949-953.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Meyer-Moock  S, Feng  YS, Maeurer  M, Dippel  FW, Kohlmann  T.  Systematic literature review and validity evaluation of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) in patients with multiple sclerosis.  BMC Neurol. 2014;14:58.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Barnett  MH, Prineas  JW.  Relapsing and remitting multiple sclerosis: pathology of the newly forming lesion.  Ann Neurol. 2004;55(4):458-468.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Mahad  DJ, Trebst  C, Kivisäkk  P,  et al.  Expression of chemokine receptors CCR1 and CCR5 reflects differential activation of mononuclear phagocytes in pattern II and pattern III multiple sclerosis lesions.  J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2004;63(3):262-273.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Mahad  D, Ziabreva  I, Lassmann  H, Turnbull  D.  Mitochondrial defects in acute multiple sclerosis lesions.  Brain. 2008;131(pt 7):1722-1735.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Quintana  FJ, Farez  MF, Viglietta  V,  et al.  Antigen microarrays identify unique serum autoantibody signatures in clinical and pathologic subtypes of multiple sclerosis.  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(48):18889-18894.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Jarius  S, Metz  I, König  FB,  et al.  Screening for MOG-IgG and 27 other anti-glial and anti-neuronal autoantibodies in ‘pattern II multiple sclerosis’ and brain biopsy findings in a MOG-IgG-positive case.  Mult Scler. 2016;22(12):1541-1549.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
König  FB, Wildemann  B, Nessler  S,  et al.  Persistence of immunopathological and radiological traits in multiple sclerosis.  Arch Neurol. 2008;65(11):1527-1532.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Spadaro  M, Gerdes  LA, Mayer  MC,  et al.  Histopathology and clinical course of MOG-antibody-associated encephalomyelitis.  Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2015;2(3):295-301.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Di Pauli  F, Höftberger  R, Reindl  M,  et al.  Fulminant demyelinating encephalomyelitis: insights from antibody studies and neuropathology.  Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2015;2(6):e175.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Kleiter  I, Gahlen  A, Borisow  N,  et al; Neuromyelitis Optica Study Group.  Neuromyelitis optica: evaluation of 871 attacks and 1,153 treatment courses.  Ann Neurol. 2016;79(2):206-216.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Popescu  BFG, Pirko  I, Lucchinetti  CF.  Pathology of multiple sclerosis: where do we stand?  Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2013;19(4 Multiple Sclerosis):901-921.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Reeves  HM, Winters  JL.  The mechanisms of action of plasma exchange.  Br J Haematol. 2014;164(3):342-351.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Hamishehkar  H, Beigmohammadi  MT, Abdollahi  M,  et al.  Pro-inflammatory cytokine profile of critically ill septic patients following therapeutic plasma exchange.  Transfus Apher Sci. 2013;48(1):75-78.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Shariatmadar  S, Nassiri  M, Vincek  V.  Effect of plasma exchange on cytokines measured by multianalyte bead array in thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.  Am J Hematol. 2005;79(2):83-88.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Weiner  HL, Dau  PC, Khatri  BO,  et al.  Double-blind study of true vs. sham plasma exchange in patients treated with immunosuppression for acute attacks of multiple sclerosis.  Neurology. 1989;39(9):1143-1149.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Yoshii  F, Shinohara  Y.  Lymphocyte subset proportions in Guillain-Barré syndrome patients treated with plasmapheresis.  Eur Neurol. 2000;44(3):162-167.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Ghio  M, Contini  P, Ansaldi  F,  et al.  A possible role of soluble HLA-I molecule in the immunomodulatory effects of therapeutic apheresis.  Blood Transfus. 2014;12(suppl 1):s167-s169.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Mühlhausen  J, Kitze  B, Huppke  P, Müller  GA, Koziolek  MJ.  Apheresis in treatment of acute inflammatory demyelinating disorders.  Atheroscler Suppl. 2015;18:251-256.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Faissner  S, Nikolayczik  J, Chan  A,  et al.  Plasmapheresis and immunoadsorption in patients with steroid refractory multiple sclerosis relapses.  J Neurol. 2016;263(6):1092-1098.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Brück  W, Neubert  K, Berger  T, Weber  JR.  Clinical, radiological, immunological and pathological findings in inflammatory CNS demyelination—possible markers for an antibody-mediated process.  Mult Scler. 2001;7(3):173-177.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Pittock  SJ, McClelland  RL, Achenbach  SJ,  et al.  Clinical course, pathological correlations, and outcome of biopsy proved inflammatory demyelinating disease.  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2005;76(12):1693-1697.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right

Name Your Search

Save Search
With a personal account, you can:
  • Track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience

Lookup An Activity



My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right