What is it about?
This review, invites to consider the term 'Evidence of Disease Control' as a more realisitic term than the already known 'No Evidence of Disease Activity' (NEDA) for follow up and prognosis of disease in patients with multiple sclerosis. We specially remark the importance of determination of biomarkers of disease for a confirmation of disease control, opposite than just acknowledging the apparent no evidence of activity of disease.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
Our approach to the mofification of the terminology (EDC instead of NEDA) is important since it could assist in better determination of prognosis of disease, earlier initiation of specific treatment according to the type of disease, and prompt consideration of re-evaluation of therapy when assessment with biomarkers suggest the disease has not reached a level of disease control.
Perspectives
Our proposed term (Evidence of Disease Control) goes beyond the scope of the currently used term 'No Evidence of Disease Activity' thus remarking the importance of early intervention, prompt determination of therapy failure and early indication that aggressive therapy, such as autologous hematopoyetic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) should be given at an early stage of disease in individuals with an extremely aggressive presentation of the disease.
Dr. Carlos A Mora
MedStar Georgetown University Hospital
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Evidence of disease control: a realistic concept beyond NEDA in the treatment of multiple sclerosis, F1000Research, April 2017, Faculty of 1000, Ltd.,
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.11349.1.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
