Vol:.(1234567890) Journal of Neurology (2021) 268:30–44 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-019-09421-x 1 3 REVIEW Promoting remyelination in multiple sclerosis Nick Cunniffe1  · Alasdair Coles1 Received: 10 April 2019 / Revised: 3 June 2019 / Accepted: 5 June 2019 / Published online: 12 June 2019 © The Author(s) 2019 Abstract The greatest unmet need in multiple sclerosis (MS) are treatments that delay, prevent or reverse progression. One of the most tractable strategies to achieve this is to therapeutically enhance endogenous remyelination; doing so restores nerve conduction and prevents neurodegeneration. The biology of remyelination—centred on the activation, migration, prolifera- tion and differentiation of oligodendrocyte progenitors—has been increasingly clearly defined and druggable targets have now been identified in preclinical work leading to early phase clinical trials. With some phase 2 studies reporting efficacy, the prospect of licensed remyelinating treatments in MS looks increasingly likely. However, there remain many unanswered questions and recent research has revealed a further dimension of complexity to this process that has refined our view of the barriers to remyelination in humans. In this review, we describe the process of remyelination, why this fails in MS, and the latest research that has given new insights into this process. We also discuss the translation of this research into clinical tri- als, highlighting the treatments that have been tested to date, and the different methods of detecting remyelination in people. Keywords Multiple sclerosis · Remyelination · Clinical trials · Visual evoked potentials · Magnetisation transfer ratio Introduction Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, primarily inflamma- tory, disorder of the central nervous system (CNS) char- acterised by focal lymphocytic infiltration causing damage to myelin and axons [1-3]. Typical clinical features include weakness, sensory loss, diplopia, reduced visual acuity, dysarthria, dysphagia, ataxia, and bladder dysfunction; largely a reflection of the distribution of demyelinating foci throughout the CNS. In 85% of patients, there is an initial period of episodic neurological dysfunction followed by par- tial or complete recovery (relapsing–remitting MS, RRMS) [4]. Over time, the clinical picture often develops to one of progressive disability (secondary progressive MS, SPMS) [5], while in 15% the illness is progressive from the outset (primary progressive MS, PPMS) [6, 7]. In both SPMS and PPMS, the strongest predictor of the onset of progression is age, typically being seen from around 40 years [8]. There now exists an extensive therapeutic arma- mentarium against the inflammation of MS [9]. These disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) reduce the incidence and severity of new lesions by limiting the activity and availability of immune cells, manifesting clinically through reductions in relapse rates and disability accrual [10-19]. However, the “therapeutic window” for treatment with these immunotherapies is limited [20]; best long-term results on disability are seen if an anti-inflammatory treatment is started within 5 years of the first clinical episode of demy- elination in relapsing–remitting disease [21]. Furthermore, while the 16 current DMTs are licensed for RRMS, only one—ocrelizumab—is approved for primary progressive disease [22], and even then its effects are so modest that several reimbursement agencies, notably NICE in the UK, declared it only cost-effective in a subset of people with new or contrast-enhancing lesions on MRI and a disease duration of less than 15 years. Instead, the promotion of regeneration of the myelin sheath, through enhancing the process of endogenous remy- elination, has emerged as one of the most amenable pros- pects to delay, prevent or reverse progression [23]. This is grounded in experimental evidence that demonstrates that the myelin sheath (and its associated oligodendrocytes) does not just facilitate nerve conduction, but is also directly protective against degeneration [24-29]. In this review, we describe the biology of remyelination, why this fails in MS, * Nick Cunniffe ngc26@cam.ac.uk 1 Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK 31Journal of Neurology (2021) 268:30–44 1 3 and recent research that has raised questions about current approaches to promoting remyelination. We then consider the therapies that have been, and are being, evaluated and discuss the best approach to measure remyelination in peo- ple, which is proving increasingly essential as we translate promising preclinical research into clinical trials. The role of myelin Myelination offers a far better way of increasing the conduc- tion velocity of nerve fibres than simply increasing axon size. Myelin increases the transverse, insulating, resistance of the axon membrane, while the voltage-gated sodium and potassium channels are virtually confined to short unmy- elinated nodes of Ranvier. The action potential is therefore propagated by the comparatively rapid and energy-efficient process of saltatory conduction [30, 31]. It follows that loss of myelin leads to slower transmission of the action potential, and hence prolonged latency, but can also lead to conduction block [32]. Remyelination is therefore a way to restore saltatory conduction [33], and clinical function [34], after demyelination. Additionally, oligodendrocytes directly support the neu- ron, for example through providing lactate for metabolism and generation of ATP [25-27]. Pathological studies and animal models also suggest that axonal degeneration is reduced in remyelinated areas [24, 28, 29]. Taken together, the rationale for a remyelinating therapy is to restore func- tion and prevent neurodegeneration. Meanwhile, it is increasingly apparent that myelin regu- lation is a dynamic process in which both newly formed oligodendrocytes and pre-existing oligodendrocytes remodel myelin, often in response to activity, to facilitate learning and plasticity [35]. Whether activity-dependent remyelina- tion could be restored by the proposed treatments remains an unanswered question. Biology of remyelination Demyelination (induced experimentally or by disease) can be followed by this regenerative response leading to the formation of new myelin sheaths around denuded axons by newly formed oligodendrocytes [23, 36-39]. Histopathologi- cal assessments have highlighted that this can occur exten- sively in some people with MS [40], but is inadequate in a significant proportion [41, 42]. For example, one study analysed forebrain tissue from 51 MS patients and found widespread remyelination in 20% of individuals, yet 34 cases remyelinated fewer than 25% of their lesions [42]. High inter-subject variability in remyelination capacity is sup- ported by dynamic myelin imaging using positron emission tomography (PET) [43] and, when combined with evidence that those demonstrating more remyelination display lower levels of disability [44], it underscores the therapeutic prom- ise of a remyelinating treatment. Consequently, efforts have been made to understand the mechanisms of remyelination and why this fails in MS, in the hope of defining druggable targets to enhance this process. Mechanisms of remyelination While pre-existing mature oligodendrocytes are able to increase the number of internodes they generate, and there- fore contribute to recovery after demyelination [45], they do not add to the pool of new myelinogenic oligodendrocytes that are required for remyelination in animals [46]. Thus, remyelination is crucially dependent upon adult oligoden- drocyte progenitor cells (aOPCs), derived from neonatal OPCs (nOPCs) [47], which have been shown by genetic fate-mapping to be the cells responsible for generation of the majority of new oligodendrocytes in the adult nervous system [48, 49]. These cells are maintained in sufficient quantities predominantly by their own self-renewal, rather than by replacement from neural stem cell niches in the CNS [50, 51]. Following damage to myelinated areas, aOPCs must follow a choreographed process of activation, migration, proliferation and differentiation before culminating in the formation of new myelin sheaths [48]. The final product is a compacted layer of myelin that is thinner and shorter than those formed during developmental myelination [52], a fact often used to identify remyelination histologically when the process is studied in animal models (Box 1). Mechanisti- cally, remyelination might fail due to a defect anywhere in this sequence; a paucity of pro-regenerative factors, or excess of inhibitory factors, as can be seen in MS lesions, combined with the intrinsic composition of the aOPC, can limit the capacity to remyelinate [23]. Given that large numbers of aOPCs are seen in chroni- cally demyelinated MS lesions [53], it is often stated that remyelination fails as aOPCs become quiescent and unable to differentiate. As a consequence, increasing research has been deployed to elucidate the key regulators of differentia- tion [54-58] and identify agents capable of enhancing this process for clinical use, which is discussed further below. However, it should be acknowledged that differentiation may not universally be the rate-limiting step in humans. It has previously been established that aOPCs do migrate to sites of injury and evenly distribute themselves to facilitate remyelination [59], though they probably do so over short distances [60]. But recently, two papers have also raised questions about the contributions of aOPCs to lesion repair in people. Yeung and colleagues utilised a 14C dating tech- nique to show that oligodendrocytes from shadow plaques 32 Journal of Neurology (2021) 268:30–44 1 3 in MS brains, areas thought to have undergone at least par- tial remyelination, could not have been generated from new OPCs [61]. Further, Jäkle et al. reported that at autopsy, OPCs are reduced in number within shadow plaques [62]. Indeed, this latter study also highlighted changes in oli- godendrocyte gene expression profiles between areas of normal-appearing white matter of MS brains and healthy controls, implying that the pathology seen in lesions may not reflect the global cellular changes occurring in MS. Such results may find explanations in the differences between humans and the rat and mouse models used to study the disease. Taken together with evidence that some MS patients remyelinate better than others [42, 43], it seems clear that a treatment strategy that enhances differentiation alone may not necessarily be sufficient to address remyelina- tion across a population of heterogenous MS patients. Further, interactions between other glial cells and OPCs are also being increasingly clearly defined. Reactive astro- cytes found at the site of demyelination, for example, secrete inhibitors of remyelination such as Endothelin-1 [63] and the recent description of A1 reactive astrocytes, which con- tribute to the death of oligodendrocytes [64], needs to be incorporated into the current model of remyelination and potential therapeutic targets explored. In parallel, the demonstration that protein synthesis in OPCs is modulated by axonal action potentials [65] speaks to an underlying symbiosis between the neuron and the cells responsible for its myelination. In the peripheral nervous system, there is a necessary relationship between axon and Schwann cell, exemplified by dependency on the neuron- derived growth factor Neuregulin 1 to drive peripheral nerve myelination [66]. In the CNS, OPCs are able to differenti- ate even in the absence of axons [67, 68] and, as will be discussed below, in culture are able to myelinate inert axon- like substrates [69, 70]. Yet, while oligodendrocytes have a default ability to differentiate and myelinate axons, this is modulated by axon diameter and activity, implying a require- ment for intact axons in vivo [71]. Therefore, it looks increasingly probable that combina- tions of drugs, acting on different processes, will be required to facilitate remyelination, and that these will be most effec- tive when there is a sufficiently preserved demyelinated axon. This latter point forms the rationale for many phase 2 studies first focussing on people with RRMS, in whom it is anticipated that fewer axons will have degenerated. Reasons for remyelination failure To understand why remyelination fails in MS, one must look at two crucial contributory processes—namely those of age and the immune system. While the immune system is often seen as having a det- rimental role in MS, the innate immune system has been shown to be essential in the biology of remyelination [72]. Myelin debris contains inhibitors of aOPC differentiation and so its clearance, by phagocytosis, is an important step in the regeneration of the myelin sheath [73-76]. Similarly, infiltrating macrophages and activated microglia secrete a myriad of neurotrophic factors, which have direct effects on aOPCs [77]. Indeed, to facilitate robust remyelination in vitro, the polarisation of the macrophage response to an immunoregulatory, “M2”, phenotype is required [78]. It is not clear how these findings relate to the behaviour of monocyte-derived macrophages and microglia, in vivo, yet they emphasise how improving our understanding of sub- populations of macrophages/microglia and lymphocytes in the brain is essential to developing treatments that prevent demyelination while promoting remyelination. The potential for endogenous remyelination is both age and disease duration dependent: remyelination is great- est in people aged less than 55 years and within the first 10 years of disease onset [39, 79, 80]. Disentangling the Box 1 Animal models used to study remyelination Remyelination has been studied in several animal models:  Experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE): this model of autoimmune inflammation, driven by injection of a myelin peptide along- side an adjuvant, sees inflammation and remyelination occurring concurrently. However, when used experimentally to explore potential medicines, it is often hard to distinguish an effect of attenuation of inflammation from promotion of remyelination. Hence non-inflammatory models have been developed, as below  Gliotoxin injections: lysolecithin and ethidium bromide (EB) are toxic to oligodendrocytes, yet spare axons. Experimentally, they can be injected into the CNS of animals to induce demyelination. Their particular benefit has been that the kinetics of demyelination and remyelina- tion can be closely studied [162]. The limitation is that the lesions do not necessarily model the complexity of those in multiple sclerosis, which contain a myriad of remyelination inhibitors and inflammatory cells  Oral cuprizone administration: dietary ingestion of the copper chelator cuprizone results in demyelination of white matter tracts, particularly in the corpus callosum [163]. It models remyelination, ongoing in the face of continued demyelination. However, the normally small diameter axons seen in the corpus callosum makes distinguishing a remyelinated from an unaffected axon challenging, and interpretation correspond- ingly difficult The best model for progressive MS is debated and variations of these employed (reviewed in [164]). Our view is, for reasons that will become apparent, that experiments should be performed in aged animals when studying the underlying mechanisms of remyelination failure in progres- sive MS 33Journal of Neurology (2021) 268:30–44 1 3 relative contribution of age versus duration of lesion demyelination to remyelination failure remains to be done, but clinical evidence would suggest age is especially perti- nent as patients reach disability milestones at similar ages whether they have relapsing or progressive symptoms at onset [8, 80]. Similarly, lesional magnetisation transfer ratio (MTR)—a putative marker of remyelination—also shows age-dependent decline [81]. Remyelination is there- fore akin to other regenerative processes [82] in becom- ing less efficient with time [83-87]; understanding age- associated remyelination failure is essential in treatment development. Mechanistically, in this circumstance, the rate-limiting step is more clearly differentiation of the aOPC, as increas- ing aOPC recruitment does not lead to enhanced remyelina- tion in aged mice [88]. Studies of how extrinsic factors vary with age have implicated a declining efficiency of the inflam- matory response [89]; as noted above, macrophages produce pro-differentiation factors and clear debris by phagocytosis [76, 90, 91], which is essential for remyelination. That this process might be modifiable was demonstrated by the rever- sal of a deficit in remyelination of an aged mouse by twin- ning its circulation with a young animal by heterochronic parabiosis [92]. In a similar way, small molecule treatments can be used to promote endogenous remyelination, even in aged animals. A detailed understanding of the intrinsic age-related changes in aOPCs is a recent development in the field fol- lowing work by Neumann and colleagues [93]. They dem- onstrated that aged aOPCs become less responsive to factors that induce differentiation, contributing to the reduced remy- elination capacity seen in many non-remyelinating chronic MS lesions [94]. Moreover, RNA sequencing from young and aged aOPCs highlighted a significant contribution from the mTOR pathway. This led to the novel observation that manipulating this pathway in aged rats with caloric restric- tion (three non-consecutive days of fasting per week over 6 months), or with the AMPK-agonist metformin (over 3 months), reverses the diminished differentiation capac- ity of aOPCs and restores their ability to remyelinate. As a result, manipulation of intrinsic changes in these stem cells is emerging as a promising treatment strategy. Finally, there are also anatomical variations to the extent of remyelination within different lesions in the same indi- vidual. For example, periventricular lesions are less ame- nable to remyelination than subcortical lesions [42, 80]. This might reflect an underlying heterogeneity in OPCs or in locational differences in permissibility for their differen- tiation [95]: there are fewer inhibitors of remyelination in the cortex [96]. It could also be due to the importance of neuronal activity for remyelination, which is more likely to occur closer to the soma. Regional variations in remyelina- tion within an individual is an opportunity to investigate barriers to enhancing remyelination, but also raise questions about which lesions should be tested in clinical trials. Identification of agents capable of remyelination An enhanced understanding of the intrinsic and extrinsic regulatory pathways implicated in remyelination has identi- fied a multitude of sensible targets for therapeutic manip- ulation. An example of this has been the development of opicinumab to inhibit Lingo-1 (leucine-rich repeat and immunoglobulin-like domain-containing nogo receptor- interacting protein 1), a negative regulator of differentiation [97]. Another fruitful technique has been high-throughput screening of libraries of compounds, looking for an effect on aOPC differentiation [98]. One such study focussed on the ability of candidate compounds to promote differentiation of rat optic nerve-derived progenitor cells as evidenced by their production of oligodendrocyte differentiation markers [99]. This revealed that antagonism of muscarinic recep- tors, with the antihistamine/anticholinergic benzatropine, promotes OPC differentiation in vitro, which translated into a remyelinating effect in both EAE and cuprizone mice mod- els. Similarly, Najm et al. used a flat plate culture system to screen a library of bioactive small molecules, this time on mouse pluripotent epiblast stem cell-derived OPCs. They discovered that the topical corticosteroid, clobetasol, and the anti-fungal, miconazole, as well as benzatropine, lead to a mature oligodendrocyte morphology, and improved remyelination in a lysolecithin-induced mouse model of focal demyelination [100]. A slightly different approach has used concentric wrap- ping of myelin around micropillars as an end point rather than differentiation per se. Mei et al. assessed the ability of 1000 FDA-approved small molecules to promote OPCs and oligodendrocytes to ensheath these cone-like structures with myelin [69]. In this way, they identified a cluster of compounds with an anti-muscarinic effect: atropine, iprat- ropium, oxybutynin, trospium, quetiapine, benztropine and clemastine. This work was quickly translated into the posi- tive phase 2 trial of clemastine as a remyelinating therapy [101], discussed below. Such small molecules may not have their remyelinating effect through an exclusive action at their canonical targets. The closest to a unifying mechanism has been through dem- onstration that a wide range of these, including clemastine, benztropine, miconazole and ketoconazole, might promote remyelination through altering the sterol landscape in the OPC to favour accumulation of 8,9-unsaturated sterols [102]. However, these techniques predominantly rely on the assumption that OPC differentiation is the rate-limiting step 34 Journal of Neurology (2021) 268:30–44 1 3 in remyelination, which might not be as rational as once thought [61, 62, 103]. The micropillar array is also limited in its ability to test the development of functional architecture in the form of nodes and internodes. It follows that combina- tion therapies may be necessary to optimise an effect across the population of MS lesions. Moreover, such efforts will inevitably be hampered by the lack of an animal model that encapsulates the complexity of the MS lesion; there is a risk that agents showing promise in preclinical work do not translate into a beneficial effect in humans or indeed that a potentially useful treatment effect is missed in such models, halting progression towards clinical studies [23]. Remyelination clinical trials The identification of agents that therapeutically enhance endogenous remyelination in preclinical models has led sev- eral to be translated into clinical trials and the possibility of a neuroprotective treatment in MS looks increasingly likely. In Table 1, we summarise the clinical trials that have been performed while considering a few in more detail below. Clemastine This is a first generation anti-histamine that was identified in the micropillar array as being capable of stimulating OPCs to differentiate and carry out the first stages of myelination [69]. This was confirmed in a further screen [99] and shown to occur via an off-target anti-muscarinic action, likely a specific effect on the M1 muscarinic receptor [29]. Ensu- ing work would confirm its remyelinating effect in multiple animal models [29, 69, 104, 105]. As clemastine has been licensed for allergic rhinitis since 1992, it was readily translated into a clinical trial [101]. The ReBUILD study was a single-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2, crossover trial, which specifically investigated the remyelinating poten- tial of clemastine in patients with RRMS and evidence of chronic demyelinating optic neuropathy. Their inclusion cri- teria ensured that there was detectable demyelination in the optic pathway (evidenced by a visual evoked potential (VEP) P100 latency > 118 ms in at least one eye), but also sufficient axons to regenerate [with a retinal nerve fibre layer thick- ness (RNFL) > 70 μm in the qualifying eye when measured with optical coherence tomography (OCT)]. Meanwhile, the remyelination that might be expected in the natural history of optic neuritis was excluded by selecting only those with- out a history of acute optic neuritis in the qualifying eye within the last 5 years, or in either eye in the last 6 months. The study design saw participants divided into two groups, but ensured that all had access to the study drug (which is readily available in the USA without prescription). 25 were given 5.36 mg of clemastine twice daily for 90 days followed by placebo for 60 days (group 1), while a further 25 patients were given placebo for 90 days followed by clemas- tine for 60 days (group 2). The results of this were rather promising. VEP P100 full- field latency was reduced by 1.7 ms/eye (p = 0.0048) in the crossover model. Furthermore, the clinical effect of clem- astine was sustained in group 1 after switching to placebo. Thus, the crossover model underestimates the actual effect, later demonstrated to be a 3.2 ms reduction in P100 latency. Further, there was a significant improvement in a functional outcome, low contrast letter acuity, when the delayed treat- ment analysis was employed. All the while, the drug was well tolerated, though was associated with fatigue. Sec- ondary end points were negative, however, including MRI assessments of myelin water fraction (MWF), whole brain MTR, white matter MTR, and white matter fractional anisot- ropy (FA). There was no effect on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), a timed 25-foot walk and the 6-min walk test. This positive trial has provided some optimism about clemastine, though its selective inclusion criteria raise the possibility that the results are not generalisable; 75 patients were excluded based on VEPs. The ReCOVER trial (NCT02521311) will, no doubt, advance things further as it investigates the effect of clemastine (4 mg three times daily for 1 week, followed by 4 mg twice daily until 3 months treatment) in patients with acute optic neuritis. However, its clinical role needs further definition before widespread use: the ReBUILD result requires progression to phase 3 studies, clemastine should be trialled in progressive cohorts, and the possibility of combining treatments, such as with the poten- tial synergistic effect of metformin, requires investigation. Opicinimab As mentioned above, Lingo-1 is a negative regulator of oli- godendrocyte differentiation and its antagonism has been shown in vitro and in animal models of CNS demyelination to enhance remyelination [106]. The human monoclonal antibody opicinumab (anti-Lingo-1) showed remyelinat- ing activity in preclinical studies [107] and therefore its utility was explored in early clinical trials. After passing safety analyses in a phase 1 trial [108], there was a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (RENEW) in patients with a first episode of acute optic neuritis (but not necessarily multiple sclerosis) [109]. The primary outcome measure was the recovery in VEP P100 latency in the affected eye, referenced to the unaffected eye, over 24 weeks of treatment (at 100 mg/kg) after an episode of optic neuritis. It failed in this regard but, when a per- protocol analysis was employed, an improvement of 7.6 ms in the opicinimab group was seen over that in the placebo 35Journal of Neurology (2021) 268:30–44 1 3 Ta bl e 1 C lin ica l t ria ls of re m ye lin ati on tr ea tm en ts in m ul tip le sc ler os is Tr ea tm en t ( tri al na m e, NC T ID ) In fo rm ati on Pr im ar y o ut co m e St atu s/r es ul t ( re fer en ce s) Li ot hy ro ni ne (M ST 3K , N CT 02 76 00 56 ) A ph as e I , r an do m ise d, do ub le- bl in d, pl ac eb o- co nt ro lle d, do se -fi nd in g t ria l o f l io th yr on in e so di um (L -T 3) gi ve n f or 1  we ek to pe op le wi th an y t yp e o f M S M ax im um to ler ate d d os e o f L -T 3 a s m ea su re d by hy pe rth yr oi d s ym pt om sc ale Co m pl ete d. Re su lts aw ait ed In ter fer on β1 a/r eb if (N CT 01 08 53 18 ) A ph as e I V, op en la be l s tu dy of R eb if 44 m cg th re e t im es w ee kl y i n p eo pl e w ith R RM S co m pa re d t o h ea lth y c on tro ls Ch an ge in vo lu m e o f n or m al- ap pe ar in g b ra in tis su e ( NA BT ) s ho wi ng in cr ea sin g M TR at 24  w ee ks Co m pl ete d. Fa ile d t o m ee t p rim ar y e nd po in t, th ou gh N AB T vo lu m e w ith in cr ea sin g M TR wa s g re ate r i n p ati en ts at 12  w ee ks co m pa re d to he alt hy co nt ro ls [1 65 ] Na tal izu m ab /ty sa br i ( NC T0 09 37 67 7) A ph as e I V, op en la be l, ob se rv ati on al, si ng le- bl in de d s tu dy of pe op le wi th re lap sin g a nd re lap sin g p ro gr es siv e M S. 77 tr ea ted w ith na tal izu m ab , 2 6 t re ate d w ith in tra m us cu lar in ter fer on , 2 2 h ea lth y c on tro ls Ch an ge in vo lu m e o f N AB T wi th in cr ea sin g M TR at 2  ye ar s Vo lu m e o f N AB T un de rg oi ng in cr ea se s i n M TR hi gh er in na tal izu m ab -tr ea ted g ro up co m pa re d t o i nt er fer on an d h ea lth y c on tro ls [1 66 ] CN M -A u8 Na no cr ys tal lin e g ol d (N CT 03 53 65 59 ) A ph as e I I, ra nd om ise d, do ub le- bl in d, pl ac eb o- co nt ro lle d, pa ra lle l g ro up st ud y i n 15 0 p eo pl e w ith M S an d e vi de nc e o f c hr on ic op tic ne ur op ath y M ul tif oc al vi su al ev ok ed po ten tia l l ate nc y a t 24  w ee ks Re cr ui tin g Be xa ro ten e ( CC M R On e) A ph as e I I, ra nd om ise d, do ub le- bl in d, pl ac eb o- co nt ro lle d t ria l o f 5 0 p eo pl e w ith RR M S tre ate d w ith di m eth yl fu m ar ate Ch an ge in m ea n l es io na l M TR in ch ro ni c les io ns w ith an M TR be lo w th e w ith in - pa tie nt m ed ian Co m pl ete d. Re su lts aw ait ed Al em tu zu m ab (N CT 01 39 53 16 ) A ph as e I V co ho rt stu dy , i n g ro up of 8 pa tie nt s w ith M S tre ate d w ith tw o c yc les of ale m tu zu m ab Di ffu sio n a nd M W F ch an ge s o n M RI Co m pl ete d. Re su lts aw ait ed Ad re no co rti co tro ph in , A CT H (N CT 02 44 68 86 ) A ph as e I V, ra nd om ise d, op en -la be l s tu dy of AC TH ge l o n r em ye lin ati on in pa tie nt s w ith RR M S or S PM S an d n ew co nt ra st- en ha nc - in g l es io ns Ch an ge in M W F wi th in ne w Gd -e nh an cin g les io ns ov er th e c ou rse of 12  m on th s Re cr ui tin g GS K2 39 51 2 ( NC T0 17 72 19 9) A ph as e I I, ra nd om ise d, pl ac eb o- co nt ro lle d, sin gl e- bl in d s tu dy in 13 1 p eo pl e w ith R RM S on in ter fer on or gl ati ra m er ac eta te M ea n c ha ng e i n G d- en ha nc in g l es io n M TR fro m be fo re en ha nc em en t t o s tab le re co ve ry Co m pl ete d. Sm all po sit ive eff ec t o bs er ve d i n tre ate d g ro up [1 14 ] Bi ot in /M D1 00 3 ( M S- SP I, NC T0 22 20 93 3) A ph as e I II, ra nd om ise d, pl ac eb o- co nt ro lle d, do ub le- bl in d t ria l o f h ig h- do se bi ot in in 15 4 pe op le wi th S PM S or P PM S Di sa bi lit y r ev er sa l w ith E DS S de cr ea se of > 1 or > 20 % de cr ea se in T 25 FW Co m pl ete d. 12 .6% of tr ea ted pa tie nt s a ch iev ed pr im ar y e nd po in t v er su s n on e o f t he un tre ate d p ati en ts [1 20 ] Bi ot in /M D1 00 3 ( M S- SP II, N CT 02 93 60 37 ) A ph as e I II, ra nd om ise d, pl ac eb o- co nt ro lle d, do ub le- bl in d t ria l o f h ig h- do se bi ot in in 64 2 pe op le wi th S PM S or P PM S As ab ov e On go in g Bi ot in /M D1 00 3 ( M S- ON , N CT 02 22 02 44 ) A ph as e I II, ra nd om ise d, pl ac eb o- co nt ro lle d, do ub le- bl in d t ria l o f h ig h- do se bi ot in in 93 pe op le wi th S PM S or P PM S Ch an ge in vi su al ac ui ty ov er 6  m on th s Co m pl ete d. No si gn ifi ca nt ch an ge s i n v isu al ac ui ty [1 21 ] Ol es ox im e ( M SR EP AI R, N CT 01 80 88 85 ) A ph as e I b, ra nd om ise d, pl ac eb o- co nt ro lle d, do ub le- bl in d t ria l o f o les ox im e c om pa re d t o pl ac eb o i n p eo pl e w ith R RM S Sa fet y c rit er ia, th ou gh M TR in clu de d i n ex pl or ato ry ou tco m e m ea su re s Co m pl ete d 36 Journal of Neurology (2021) 268:30–44 1 3 NA BT n or m al ap pe ar in g br ain ti ss ue , M TR m ag ne tiz ati on tr an sfe r r ati o, G d ga do lin iu m , M W F m ye lin w ate r f ra cti on , D TI d iff us io n ten so r i m ag in g, RR M S re lap sin g re m itt in g m ul tip le sc ler os is, SP M S se co nd ar y pr og re ss ive m ul tip le sc ler os is, P M S pr og re ss ive m ul tip le sc ler os is, IF N in ter fer on , V EP v isu al ev ok ed p ot en tia l, ED SS E xp an de d Di sa bi lit y St atu s S ca le, T 25 FW ti m ed 2 5- fo ot wa lk , 9 H PT 9- ho le pe g t es t, PA SA T pa ce d a ud ito ry se ria l a dd iti on ta sk Ta bl e 1 (c on tin ue d) Tr ea tm en t ( tri al na m e, NC T ID ) In fo rm ati on Pr im ar y o ut co m e St atu s/r es ul t ( re fer en ce s) Cl em as tin e ( Re BU IL D, N CT 02 04 02 98 ) A ph as e I I, ra nd om ise d, pl ac eb o- co nt ro lle d, do ub le- bl in d, cr os so ve r t ria l i n 5 0 p eo pl e wi th R RM S an d c hr on ic sta bl e o pt ic ne u- ro pa th y Ch an ge in P 10 0 l ate nc y o f t he fu ll- fie ld V EP Co m pl ete d. Si gn ifi ca nt la ten cy re du cti on of 1.7  m s i n t he cr os so ve r m od el an d 3 .2  m s i n de lay ed tr ea tm en t a na lys is [1 01 ] Cl em as tin e ( Re CO VE R, N CT 02 52 13 11 ) A ph as e I I, ra nd om ise d, do ub le- bl in d, pl a- ce bo -c on tro lle d t ria l i n 9 0 p eo pl e d iag no se d wi th ac ut e d em ye lin ati ng op tic ne ur iti s Ch an ge in P 10 0 l ate nc y o f t he fu ll- fie ld V EP an d c ha ng e i n l ow co nt ra st vi su al ac ui ty Re cr ui tin g Qu eti ap in e ( NC T0 20 87 63 1) A ph as e I /II op en la be l, do se -ra ng in g s tu dy of qu eti ap in e i n p eo pl e w ith R RM S an d P M S Do se -li m iti ng to xi cit y, no sp ec ifi c r em ye lin a- tio n o ut co m es Re cr ui tin g Op ici nu m ab (R EN EW , N CT 01 72 11 61 ) A ph as e I I, ra nd om ise d, pl ac eb o- co nt ro lle d, do ub le- bl in d, stu dy of op ici nu m ab in su bj ec ts wi th a fir st ep iso de of ac ut e o pt ic ne ur iti s Ch an ge in V EP P 10 0 l ate nc y i n a ffe cte d ey e, re fer en ce d t o t he un aff ec ted ey e, ov er 24  w ee ks of tr ea tm en t Co m pl ete d. Si gn ifi ca nt im pr ov em en t i n l ate nc y, bu t o nl y o n p er pr ot oc ol an aly sis [1 09 ] Op ici nu m ab (S YN ER GY , N CT 01 86 41 48 ) A ph as e I I, ra nd om ise d, pl ac eb o- co nt ro lle d, do ub le- bl in d t ria l o f o pi cin um ab (a t 3 , 1 0, 30 , o r 1 00  m g/ kg ) i n 4 18 su bj ec ts wi th RR M S tre ate d w ith in ter fer on β1 a Ch an ge in pe rfo rm an ce at E DS S, T 25 FW , 9H PT an d 3  s- PA SA T Co m pl ete d. Di d n ot m ee t p rim ar y e nd po in t, bu t i nc re as ed pe rc en tag e o f i m pr ov em en t re sp on de rs at 10 an d 3 0 m g/ kg do se s [ 11 0] Op ici nu m ab (A FF IN IT Y, N CT 03 22 29 73 ) A ph as e I I r an do m ise d, do ub le- bl in d, pl ac eb o- co nt ro lle d s tu dy of op ici nu m ab ve rsu s pl ac eb o i n 2 63 pe op le wi th R RM S Ov er all re sp on se sc or e c om po se d o f E DS S, T2 5F W an d 9 HP T fro m ea ch ha nd On go in g rH Ig M 22 (N CT 02 39 84 61 ) A ph as e I ra nd om ise d, do ub le- bl in d, pl ac eb o- co nt ro lle d s tu dy of rH Ig M 22 co m pa re d t o pl ac eb o i n 2 7 p eo pl e w ith R RM S fo llo wi ng a r ela ps e Sa fet y a nd to ler ab ili ty en d p oi nt s Co m pl ete d [ 16 7] Do m pe rid on e ( NC T0 24 93 04 9) A ph as e I I r an do m ise d, op en -la be l, sin gl e- bl in d s tu dy of do m pe rid on e 1 0 m g t hr ee tim es da ily in pe op le wi th R RM S an d n ew Gd -e nh an cin g l es io ns Te xt ur e a na lys is, D TI an d M TR in en ha nc in g les io ns ov er 32  w ee ks On go in g 37Journal of Neurology (2021) 268:30–44 1 3 group. No change was observed in the secondary end points, though this did not include MRI sequences such as MTR. The SYNERGY trial followed (NCT01864148): a dose- ranging study including 418 people with RRMS and SPMS. The primary outcome measure was a composite of ambula- tion (25-foot walk), upper extremity function (9-Hole Peg Test), cognition (3-Second Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test; PASAT) and the EDSS. It failed to meet this primary end point, but was presented as showing an increased per- centage of responders in those treated with the mid-range doses of 10 and 30 mg/kg [110]. This has led to Biogen proceeding with a refined phase II trial (AFFINITY) in addi- tion to an extension study (RENEWED, NCT02657915) of the RENEW trial. GSK239512 This H3-receptor antagonist was originally developed to treat Alzheimer’s disease [111, 112] and was put forward as a potential remyelinating agent because H3 negatively regulates oligodendrocyte differentiation [113]. A phase 2, randomised, placebo-controlled study in people with RRMS on interferon or glatiramer acetate revealed a small, but sig- nificant, improvement in mean change in post-lesion MTR in gadolinium-enhanced lesions compared to placebo [114]. Bexarotene Robin Franklin’s group demonstrated that, in aged animals, 9-cis-retinoic acid enhances remyelination through agonism of the nuclear retinoid acid receptor RXR-γ [115]. As a simi- lar effect could be achieved by a pan-RXR agonist licensed to treat skin lymphoma, bexarotene [116], this facilitated translation into a phase 2 clinical trial (CCMR One). Indeed, while an RXR-γ specific agonist might be more desirable, an effect of RXR-α activity on remyelination was also later reported [117]. The CCMR One study utilised MTR to quantify remy- elination as a primary measure. However, in contrast to other studies, its focus is on changes in mean lesional MTR between month zero and month six for the lesions selected, for each patient, whose MTR lies below the within-patient median. In this way, it is hoped that the outcome will focus on an effect on lesions that are demyelinated at the baseline visit [118]. Biotin Biotin is postulated to promote remyelination when given in high doses through its role as a cofactor for carboxylases required for fatty acid synthesis in oligodendrocytes [119]. To date, clinical trials have focussed on cohorts of progres- sive patients. The MS-SPI study showed a small statistically significant effect in 12.6% of treated participants when using an improvement of either the EDSS or timed 25-foot walk as its outcome [120]. However, the MS-ON study returned a negative result when change in visual acuity was employed as the primary end point [121]. It therefore remains uncer- tain whether high-dose biotin could be a clinically useful treatment for people with MS—and is under further investi- gation in MS-SPII—yet these trials also highlight the impor- tance of selection of patient group and outcome measures, which will be discussed further below. Cell‑based therapies Enhancing the activity of endogenous oligodendrocyte pro- genitors has proved the most accessible strategy to promote remyelination to date, therefore forming the focus of this review. However, other non-ablative cell-based approaches have been generating substantial interest (reviewed in [122]): transplantation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), derived from bone marrow or other tissues, and transplantation of OPCs, derived from foetal tissue, embryonic stem cells or induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) [123, 124] are viable options, but remain experimental. Challenges exist for each with regard to cell production, mode of delivery, tumour- forming potential, and requirements for immune suppres- sion, although using autologous sources may abrogate the need for the latter. One noteworthy, albeit uncontrolled, trial administered bone marrow-derived MSCs to ten patients with progressive MS, noting an improvement in VEP latency of 1.3 ms, interpreting the mechanism for this as a neuropro- tective effect through the promotion of myelin repair [125]. Larger phase 2 studies are underway [126], though there are many unresolved barriers to widespread application of a transplant-based approach to MS. The target population for remyelination therapies The efficacy of a remyelinating therapy would be greatest early in the course of MS, to stop long-term axonal degen- eration and so prevent, or at least slow the onset of, second- ary progression. More problematic is how effective such a therapy would be later in the disease course, for instance in progressive multiple sclerosis, when presumably many axons have already degenerated and so there is no scaf- fold for remyelination. Ultimately, this question can only be resolved by clinical trials. For the moment, we would advocate testing potential remyelinating agents in trials of patients identified as having demyelinated lesions with axons still present, such as those in the ReBUILD trial. 38 Journal of Neurology (2021) 268:30–44 1 3 Determining remyelination in clinical trials One of the foremost challenges to translating promising preclinical findings into clinical studies is uncertainty in the optimum way to demonstrate a remyelinating effect in living individuals. Given that the anticipated benefit to the patient, the prevention or delay to progression, only manifests over years, reliance on standard objective clini- cal markers of disability, for example the EDSS [127], or indeed on functional measures such as visual acuity, as outcomes may miss a useful therapeutic effect over a comparatively short clinical trial. Moreover, using func- tional scores to study remyelination specifically is further complicated by other adaptations that occur in nerves in response to injury, such as ion channel redistribution and cortical plasticity/adaptation after demyelination [128, 129]. There follows a reliance on paraclinical measures to determine a treatment effect; with no biomarker of myelin regeneration in biological fluids and the lack of acces- sible tissue for histological examination, a combination of neurophysiological and imaging-based assessments are required [130]. Neuroimaging From the imaging perspective, standard MRI meas- ures (such as T2-weighted and gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted sequences) correlate only modestly with dis- ability and lack the ability to differentiate between patho- logical correlates of MS: namely inflammation, oedema, axonal loss, demyelination, remyelination and gliosis [131]. As a result, advanced MRI techniques including myelin water fraction (MWF) [132, 133], diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) [134, 135] and magnetisation transfer ratio (MTR)[136, 137], as well as positron emission tomogra- phy (PET) [43, 138], have been variably used to measure myelin dynamics. Magnetisation transfer techniques investigate the exchange of magnetisation between protons in at least two pools: those that are mobile and those associated with macromolecules such as myelin or axonal membranes. Expressed as a ratio (MTR), it provides a quantitative measure of the proportion of protons bound to macromo- lecular structures relative to those that are free in water and has been demonstrated to correlate with pathologi- cal quantification of myelin: demyelinated lesions have a significantly lower MTR than remyelinated lesions [137]. MTR can be used to quantify myelin in several ways. One can use serial measures of mean MTR in white and grey matter [139], in chronic lesions [118] or in acute (gado- linium-enhancing) lesions [81]. Indeed, as not all lesions remyelinate to the same extent, further refinements have been proposed. For example, in the CCMR One study of bexarotene, the primary outcome measure is based on the change in mean MTR of established lesions with a low MTR at the baseline scan, thereby maximising sensitiv- ity to an effect on lesions that are demyelinated at the outset [118]. These aforementioned techniques have been used to show that mean MTR in white and grey matter remains static over time in people with MS treated with alemtuzumab, but deteriorates if not on disease-modifying treatment [139], and that the anti-histamine GSK239512 has a small positive effect on mean MTR in gadolinium- enhancing lesions [114]. Alternatively, DTI provides information about tissue microstructure by measuring water diffusion in vivo. Param- eters derived from this such as radial diffusivity (a marker of water motion perpendicular to the axon) as well as the overall fractional anisotropy can be used as a surrogate of myelin content [135, 140]. Meanwhile, MWF indicates the proportion water trapped between myelin bilayers relative to water inside and outside of axons (which have different T1 and T2 relaxation times), and can be used as a proxy for myelin content [132, 141]. Finally PET imaging, alongside a myelin-specific ligand such as Pittsburgh compound B (PiB), might be especially sensitive to changes in myelin [142] and could potentially be used to stratify the patients by their remyelination potential for clinical studies [43]. However, the issues of availability and radiation exposure are likely to limit the role this has to play. Neurophysiology Evoked potentials allow for an assessment of nervous con- duction along visual, somatosensory, auditory, and motor tracts in a way that correlates with function [143-145] and disability [146], but their clinical utility, particularly in diagnostics, has largely been replaced by MRI [147]. How- ever, such indices are proving invaluable as biomarkers in assessing remyelination; in the recent positive phase 2 trial of clemastine, it was a reduction in VEP P100 latency, rather than clinical or imaging markers, that confirmed the biologi- cal effect [101, 148]. The pattern reversal VEP represents the average recordable electric potential in the visual cortex in response to the presen- tation of an alternating checkerboard-patterned stimulus. The main focus is on the positive deflection in the VEP waveform approximately 100 ms after the visual stimulus (the P100), which provides measures in the form of latency (a surrogate of demyelination in the optic pathways) and amplitude (pre- dominantly a function of axonal loss). Following an attack of optic neuritis, VEP latencies are prolonged but a period of recovery follows, most significantly within the first 6 months, 39Journal of Neurology (2021) 268:30–44 1 3 but for perhaps as long as 3 years [149, 150]. Meanwhile, in those with chronic stable optic neuropathy, a prolonged P100 latency is seen, which has been shown in longitudinal data to remain stable, or gradually lengthen, with time [151]. As a result, in studies of patients without a recent bout of optic neuritis, improvements in VEP P100 latency can be used as a marker of remyelination; this was the rationale behind the ReBUILD trial [101]. When studies have enrolled patients with acute optic neuritis meanwhile, such as in the RENEW study of opicinumab [109], values for the unaffected contralat- eral eye have been used as a control and the outcome measure given as the change in latency difference between the two eyes. The clinical heterogeneity of MS has already been alluded to, which extends beyond a consideration of optic neuritis. Given the emerging importance of neurophysiologi- cal measures in such studies, a more robust biomarker in future trials might be a combination of VEPs, motor EPs (MEPs), somatosensory EPs (SEPs), and brainstem auditory EPs (BAEPs) [152]. Such “multimodal” evoked potentials can be combined to give a “global” outcome, which has pre- viously been shown to correlate with disability and inform disease progression [153], and have already been employed in the field of bone marrow-derived cell therapy [126, 154]. Indeed other exploratory, neurophysiological techniques have also been emerging, such as the use of saccadometry [155], most recently showing improved conduction along the medial longitudinal fasciculus in the setting of internuclear ophthalmoparesis treated with fampridine [156]. Other techniques Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is another tool being employed to indirectly assess remyelinating therapies. By generating high-resolution images of the retina to gauge axonal loss in the retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) [157], which is decreased following optic neuritis [158], it provides a measure of neurodegeneration rather than specifically remyelination, but can be used to complement the analysis of the VEP [159]. Similarly, serum neurofilament, a marker of axonal damage that correlates with MS disease activity [160], has been postulated to be a valuable outcome measure for remyelination trials. A subset of participants from the SYNERGY trial (discussed above) showed a trend toward neurofilament light decline among treatment responders [161]; however such measures remain an indirect marker of remyelination and, in our view, should remain exploratory. Conclusions People living with multiple sclerosis in resource-rich regions now have access to a range of anti-inflammatory treatments which promise long-term disease modification if given early in the course of the relapsing–remitting phase of the disease. However, even the most effective of these treatments leaves significant numbers of axons demyelinated and vulnerable to degeneration, which is the substrate of progressive disability. Finding remyelinating therapies, with the potential to both restore function and prevent axon degeneration is therefore an urgent clinical need. A host of strategies have been identified from preclinical research, and some have now been translated to early phase clinical trials. Two of these have yielded positive results on surrogate measures, such as VEP latency or lesional MTR, whose clinical validity is yet to be demonstrated. There have also been setbacks, such as the failure of anti-Lingo-1 anti- bodies in phase 2 trials to replicate their in vitro efficacy. In this review, we have highlighted a number of unre- solved questions the scientific community faces. First, to ensure we take the right drugs forward, we must continue to develop an understanding of the barriers to remyelina- tion, specifically in humans, and better appreciate how biol- ogy observed in animal models of remyelination translates into human disease. Second, we need to identify which is the best, most reliable, measure of remyelination to use in clinical trials. Third, we must clarify when is the best time to initiate a remyelinating treatment in the disease course. Finally, we need to consider which is the most appropri- ate test population for our trials. Ultimately, more work is required to reach a reality of neurologists prescribing neuro- protective treatments to people with MS; however, advances in the last decade have made this look increasingly probable. Compliance with ethical standards Conflicts of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Crea- tive Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creat iveco mmons .org/licen ses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribu- tion, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. References 1. Compston A, Coles A (2008) Multiple sclerosis. The Lancet. 372(9648):1502–1517 2. Reich DS, Lucchinetti CF, Calabresi PA (2018) Multiple sclero- sis. N Engl J Med. 378(2):169–180 3. Thompson AJ, Baranzini SE, Geurts J, Hemmer B, Ciccarelli O (2018) Multiple sclerosis. The Lancet. 391(10130):1622–1636 4. O’Connor P (2002) Key issues in the diagnosis and treatment of multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 59(6 suppl 3):S1 5. University of California SFM-ET, Cree BAC, Gourraud P-A, Oksenberg JR, Bevan C, Crabtree-Hartman E et  al. (2016) 40 Journal of Neurology (2021) 268:30–44 1 3 Long-term evolution of multiple sclerosis disability in the treat- ment era. Ann Neurol 80(4):499–510 6. Lublin FD, Reingold SC, Cohen JA, Cutter GR, Sørensen PS, Thompson AJ et al (2014) Defining the clinical course of multi- ple sclerosis: the 2013 revisions. Neurology. 83(3):278–286 7. Miller DH, Leary SM (2007) Primary-progressive multiple scle- rosis. The Lancet Neurol. 6(10):903–912 8. Confavreux C, Vukusic S (2006) Age at disability milestones in multiple sclerosis. Brain 129(3):595–605 9. Scolding N, Barnes D, Cader S, Chataway J, Chaudhuri A, Coles A et al (2015) Association of British Neurologists: revised (2015) guidelines for prescribing disease-modifying treatments in mul- tiple sclerosis. Pract Neurol. 15(4):273 10. Ebers GC (1998) Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study of interferon β-1a in relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis. The Lancet. 352(9139):1498–1504 11. Johnson KP, Brooks BR, Cohen JA, Ford CC, Goldstein J, Lisak RP et al (1995) Copolymer 1 reduces relapse rate and improves disability in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 45(7):1268 12. Confavreux C, O’Connor P, Comi G, Freedman MS, Miller AE, Olsson TP et al (2014) Oral teriflunomide for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (TOWER): a randomised, double- blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. The Lancet Neurol. 13(3):247–256 13. Gold R, Kappos L, Arnold DL, Bar-Or A, Giovannoni G, Selmaj K et al (2012) Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 367(12):1098–1107 14. Calabresi PA, Radue E-W, Goodin D, Jeffery D, Rammohan KW, Reder AT et al (2014) Safety and efficacy of fingolimod in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (FREE- DOMS II): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. The Lancet Neurol. 13(6):545–556 15. Giovannoni G, Comi G, Cook S, Rammohan K, Rieckmann P, Sørensen PS et al (2010) A placebo-controlled trial of oral cladribine for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 362(5):416–426 16. Polman CH, O’Connor PW, Havrdova E, Hutchinson M, Kappos L, Miller DH et al (2006) A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 354(9):899–910 17. Coles AJ, Twyman CL, Arnold DL, Cohen JA, Confavreux C, Fox EJ et al (2012) Alemtuzumab for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis after disease-modifying therapy: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. The Lancet. 380(9856):1829–1839 18. Cohen JA, Coles AJ, Arnold DL, Confavreux C, Fox EJ, Har- tung H-P et al (2012) Alemtuzumab versus interferon beta 1a as first-line treatment for patients with relapsing-remitting multi- ple sclerosis: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. The Lancet. 380(9856):1819–1828 19. Hauser SL, Bar-Or A, Comi G, Giovannoni G, Hartung H-P, Hemmer B et al (2016) Ocrelizumab versus interferon beta-1a in relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 376(3):221–234 20. Coles AJ, Cox A, Le Page E, Jones J, Trip SA, Deans J et al (2006) The window of therapeutic opportunity in multiple scle- rosis. J Neurol 253(1):98–108 21. Brown JWL, Coles A, Horakova D, Havrdova E, Izquierdo G, Prat A et al (2019) Association of initial disease-modifying therapy with later conversion to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. JAMA 321(2):175–187 22. Montalban X, Hauser SL, Kappos L, Arnold DL, Bar-Or A, Comi G et al (2016) Ocrelizumab versus placebo in primary progres- sive multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 376(3):209–220 23. Franklin RJM, French-Constant C (2017) Regenerating CNS myelin—from mechanisms to experimental medicines. Nat Rev Neurosci 18:753 24. Irvine KA, Blakemore WF (2008) Remyelination protects axons from demyelination-associated axon degeneration. Brain 131(6):1464–1477 25. Fünfschilling U, Supplie LM, Mahad D, Boretius S, Saab AS, Edgar J et al (2012) Glycolytic oligodendrocytes maintain myelin and long-term axonal integrity. Nature 485(7399):517–521 26. Morrison BM, Lee Y, Rothstein JD (2013) Oligodendroglia: metabolic supporters of axons. Trends Cell Biol 23(12):644–651 27. Lee Y, Morrison BM, Li Y, Lengacher S, Farah MH, Hoffman PN et al (2012) Oligodendroglia metabolically support axons and contribute to neurodegeneration. Nature 487(7408):443–448 28. Kornek B, Storch MK, Weissert R, Wallstroem E, Stefferl A, Olsson T et al (2000) Multiple sclerosis and chronic autoimmune encephalomyelitis: a comparative quantitative study of axonal injury in active, inactive, and remyelinated lesions. Am J Pathol. 157(1):267–276 29. Mei F, Lehmann-Horn K, Shen Y-AA, Rankin KA, Stebbins KJ, Lorrain DS et al. (2016) Accelerated remyelination during inflammatory demyelination prevents axonal loss and improves functional recovery. eLife 5:e18246 30. Smith K, McDonald W, Blakemore W (1979) Restoration of secure conduction by central demyelination. Trans Am Neurol Assoc. 104:25–29 31. Smith K, Blakemore W, McDonald W (1981) The restoration of conduction by central remyelination. Brain 104(2):383–404 32. Smith Kenneth J, McDonald WI (1999) The pathophysiology of multiple sclerosis⋮ the mechanisms underlying the production of symptoms and the natural history of the disease. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 354(1390):1649–1673 33. Smith KJ, Blakemore WF, McDonald WI (1979) Central remy- elination restores secure conduction. Nature 280(5721):395–396 34. Duncan ID, Brower A, Kondo Y, Curlee JF Jr, Schultz RD (2009) Extensive remyelination of the CNS leads to functional recovery. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(16):6832–6836 35. Sampaio-Baptista C, Johansen-Berg H (2017) White matter plas- ticity in the adult brain. Neuron 96(6):1239–1251 36. Bunge MB, Bunge RP, Ris H (1961) Ultrastructural study of remyelination in an experimental lesion in adult cat spinal cord. J Biophys Biochem Cytol 10(1):67–94 37. Périer O, Grégoire A (1965) Electron microscopic features of multiple sclerosis lesions. Brain 88(5):937–952 38. Franklin RJM (2002) Why does remyelination fail in multiple sclerosis? Nat Rev Neurosci 1(3):705 39. Franklin RJM, French-Constant C, Edgar JM, Smith KJ (2012) Neuroprotection and repair in multiple sclerosis. Nat Rev Neurol 8:624 40. Patani R, Balaratnam M, Vora A, Reynolds R (2007) Remyelina- tion can be extensive in multiple sclerosis despite a long disease course. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol 33(3):277–287 41. Prineas JW, Barnard RO, Kwon EE, Sharer LR, Cho E-S (1993) Multiple sclerosis: remyelination of nascent lesions. Ann Neurol 33(2):137–151 42. Patrikios P, Stadelmann C, Kutzelnigg A, Rauschka H, Schmid- bauer M, Laursen H et al (2006) Remyelination is extensive in a subset of multiple sclerosis patients. Brain 129(12):3165–3172 43. Bodini B, Veronese M, García-Lorenzo D, Battaglini M, Poirion E, Chardain A et al (2016) Dynamic imaging of indi- vidual remyelination profiles in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 79(5):726–738 44. Bramow S, Frischer JM, Lassmann H, Koch-Henriksen N, Lucchinetti CF, Sørensen PS et  al (2010) Demyelination 41Journal of Neurology (2021) 268:30–44 1 3 versus remyelination in progressive multiple sclerosis. Brain 133(10):2983–2998 45. Jeffries MA, Urbanek K, Torres L, Wendell SG, Rubio ME, Fyffe-Maricich SL (2016) ERK1/2 Activation in preexisting oligodendrocytes of adult mice drives new myelin synthesis and enhanced CNS function. J Neurosci. 36(35):9186–9200 46. Crawford AH, Tripathi RB, Foerster S, McKenzie I, Kou- gioumtzidou E, Grist M et al (2016) Pre-Existing mature oligo- dendrocytes do not contribute to remyelination following toxin- induced spinal cord demyelination. Am J Pathol. 186(3):511–516 47. French-Constant C, Raff MC (1986) Proliferating bipotential glial progenitor cells in adult rat optic nerve. Nature. 319:499 48. Zawadzka M, Rivers LE, Fancy SPJ, Zhao C, Tripathi R, Jamen F et al (2010) CNS-resident glial progenitor/stem cells produce Schwann cells as well as oligodendrocytes during repair of CNS demyelination. Cell Stem Cell 6(6):578–590 49. Tripathi RB, Rivers LE, Young KM, Jamen F, Richardson WD (2010) NG2 glia generate new oligodendrocytes but few astrocytes in a murine experimental autoimmune encepha- lomyelitis model of demyelinating disease. J Neurosci. 30(48):16383–16390 50. Psachoulia K, Jamen F, Young KM, Richardson WD (2009) Cell cycle dynamics of NG2 cells in the postnatal and ageing brain. Neuron Glia Biol. 5(3–4):57–67 51. Menn B, Garcia-Verdugo JM, Yaschine C, Gonzalez-Perez O, Rowitch D, Alvarez-Buylla A (2006) Origin of oligodendro- cytes in the subventricular zone of the adult brain. J Neurosci. 26(30):7907 52. Blakemore WF (1974) Pattern of remyelination in the CNS. Nature 249(5457):577–578 53. Wolswijk G (1998) Chronic stage multiple sclerosis lesions contain a relatively quiescent population of oligodendrocyte precursor cells. J Neurosci. 18(2):601 54. Moyon S, Huynh JL, Dutta D, Zhang F, Ma D, Yoo S et al (2016) Functional characterization of DNA methylation in the oligodendrocyte lineage. Cell Rep. 15(4):748–760 55. He D, Wang J, Lu Y, Deng Y, Zhao C, Xu L et  al (2017) lncRNA functional networks in oligodendrocytes reveal stage- specific myelination control by an lncOL1/Suz12 complex in the CNS. Neuron 93(2):362–378 56. Moyon S, Ma D, Huynh JL, Coutts DJC, Zhao C, Casaccia P, et al. (2017) Efficient remyelination requires DNA methylation. eNeuro 4(2): Eneuro.0336-16.2017. 57. Emery B, Agalliu D, Cahoy JD, Watkins TA, Dugas JC, Mulin- yawe SB et al (2009) Myelin gene regulatory factor is a critical transcriptional regulator required for CNS myelination. Cell 138(1):172–185 58. Duncan GJ, Plemel JR, Assinck P, Manesh SB, Muir FGW, Hirata R et al (2017) Myelin regulatory factor drives remyeli- nation in multiple sclerosis. Acta Neuropathol 134(3):403–422 59. Hughes EG, Kang SH, Fukaya M, Bergles DE (2013) Oli- godendrocyte progenitors balance growth with self-repul- sion to achieve homeostasis in the adult brain. Nat Neurosci 16(6):668–676 60. Franklin RJM, Gilson JM, Blakemore WF (1997) Local recruit- ment of remyelinating cells in the repair of demyelination in the central nervous system. J Neurosci Res 50(2):337–344 61. Yeung MSY, Djelloul M, Steiner E, Bernard S, Salehpour M, Possnert G et al (2019) Dynamics of oligodendrocyte generation in multiple sclerosis. Nature 566(7745):538–542 62. Jäkel S, Agirre E, Mendanha Falcão A, van Bruggen D, Lee KW, Knuesel I et al (2019) Altered human oligodendrocyte heteroge- neity in multiple sclerosis. Nature 566(7745):543–547 63. Hammond TR, Gadea A, Dupree J, Kerninon C, Nait-Oumesmar B, Aguirre A et al (2014) Astrocyte-derived endothelin-1 inhibits remyelination through notch activation. Neuron 81(3):588–602 64. Liddelow SA, Guttenplan KA, Clarke LE, Bennett FC, Bohlen CJ, Schirmer L et al (2017) Neurotoxic reactive astrocytes are induced by activated microglia. Nature 18(541):481 65. Wake H, Lee PR, Fields RD (2011) Control of local protein syn- thesis and initial events in myelination by action potentials. Sci- ence 333(6049):1647 66. Birchmeier C, Nave K (2008) Neuregulin-1, a key axonal sig- nal that drives Schwann cell growth and differentiation. Glia. 56(14):1491–1497 67. Ueda H, Levine JM, Miller RH, Trapp BD (1999) Rat optic nerve oligodendrocytes develop in the absence of viable retinal gan- glion cell axons. J Cell Biol. 146(6):1365 68. Almeida R, Lyons D (2016) Oligodendrocyte development in the absence of their target axons in  vivo. PLoS ONE 11(10):e0164432 69. Mei F, Fancy SPJ, Shen Y-AA, Niu J, Zhao C, Presley B et al. (2014) Micropillar arrays as a high-throughput screen- ing platform for therapeutics in multiple sclerosis. Nat Med 20(8):954–960 70. Lee S, Leach MK, Redmond SA, Chong SYC, Mellon SH, Tuck SJ et al (2012) A culture system to study oligodendro- cyte myelination processes using engineered nanofibers. Nat Methods 15(9):917 71. Klingseisen A, Lyons DA (2017) Axonal regulation of central nervous system myelination: structure and function. Neurosci- entist. 24(1):7–21 72. Rawji KS, Yong VW (2013) The benefits and detriments of macrophages/microglia in models of multiple sclerosis. Clin Dev Immunol 2013:948976–948976 73. Döring A, Sloka S, Lau L, Mishra M, van Minnen J, Zhang X et al (2015) Stimulation of monocytes, macrophages, and microglia by amphotericin B and macrophage colony-stimu- lating factor promotes remyelination. J Neurosci. 35(3):1136 74. Robinson S, Miller RH (1999) Contact with central nervous system myelin inhibits oligodendrocyte progenitor maturation. Dev Biol. 216(1):359–368 75. Plemel JR, Manesh SB, Sparling JS, Tetzlaff W (2013) Myelin inhibits oligodendroglial maturation and regulates oligoden- drocytic transcription factor expression. Glia. 61(9):1471–1487 76. Kotter MR, Li W-W, Zhao C, Franklin RJM (2006) Myelin impairs CNS remyelination by inhibiting oligodendrocyte pre- cursor cell differentiation. J Neurosci. 26(1):328 77. Yong VW, Rivest S (2009) Taking advantage of the systemic immune system to cure brain diseases. Neuron 64(1):55–60 78. Miron VE, Boyd A, Zhao J-W, Yuen TJ, Ruckh JM, Shadrach JL et al (2013) M2 microglia and macrophages drive oligoden- drocyte differentiation during CNS remyelination. Nat Neuro- sci 16(9):1211–1218 79. Frischer JM, Weigand SD, Guo Y, Kale N, Parisi JE, Pirko I et al (2015) Clinical and pathological insights into the dynamic nature of the white matter multiple sclerosis plaque. Ann Neu- rol 78(5):710–721 80. Goldschmidt T, Antel J, König FB, Brück W, Kuhlmann T (2009) Remyelination capacity of the MS brain decreases with disease chronicity. Neurology. 72(22):1914 81. Brown RA, Narayanan S, Arnold DL (2013) Segmentation of magnetization transfer ratio lesions for longitudinal analysis of demyelination and remyelination in multiple sclerosis. Neuro- Image. 1(66):103–109 82. Oh J, Lee YD, Wagers AJ (2014) Stem cell aging: mecha- nisms, regulators and therapeutic opportunities. Nat Med 20(8):870–880 83. Shields SA, Gilson JM, Blakemore WF, Franklin RJM (1999) Remyelination occurs as extensively but more slowly in old rats compared to young rats following gliotoxin-induced CNS demy- elination. Glia. 28(1):77–83 42 Journal of Neurology (2021) 268:30–44 1 3 84. Hampton DW, Innes N, Merkler D, Zhao C, Franklin RJM, Chandran S (2012) Focal immune-mediated white matter demy- elination reveals an age-associated increase in axonal vulner- ability and decreased remyelination efficiency. Am J Pathol. 180(5):1897–1905 85. Sim FJ, Zhao C, Penderis J, Franklin RJM (2002) The age-related decrease in CNS remyelination efficiency is attributable to an impairment of both oligodendrocyte progenitor recruitment and differentiation. J Neurosci. 22(7):2451 86. van Wijngaarden P, Franklin RJM (2013) Ageing stem and pro- genitor cells: implications for rejuvenation of the central nervous system. Development. 140(12):2562 87. Rist JM, Franklin RJM (2008) Taking ageing into account in remyelination-based therapies for multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci 274(1):64–67 88. Woodruff RH, Fruttiger M, Richardson WD, Franklin RJM (2004) Platelet-derived growth factor regulates oligodendrocyte progenitor numbers in adult CNS and their response following CNS demyelination. Mol Cell Neurosci 25(2):252–262 89. Zhao C, Li W-W, Franklin RJM (2006) Differences in the early inflammatory responses to toxin-induced demyelination are associated with the age-related decline in CNS remyelination. Neurobiol Aging 27(9):1298–1307 90. Hinks GL, Franklin RJM (1999) Distinctive patterns of PDGF-A, FGF-2, IGF-I, and TGF-β1 gene expression during remyelination of experimentally-induced spinal cord demyelination. Mol Cell Neurosci 14(2):153–168 91. Kotter MR, Setzu A, Sim FJ, Van Rooijen N, Franklin RJM (2001) Macrophage depletion impairs oligodendrocyte remy- elination following lysolecithin-induced demyelination. Glia. 35(3):204–212 92. Ruckh JM, Zhao J-W, Shadrach JL, van Wijngaarden P, Rao TN, Wagers AJ et al (2012) Rejuvenation of regeneration in the aging central nervous system. Cell Stem Cell 10(1):96–103 93. Neumann B, Baror R, van Wijngaarden P, Franklin RJ (2017) Remyelination of regenerating axons. Acta Ophthalmola 95(S259). https ://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-3768.2017.03525 94. Kuhlmann T, Miron V, Cuo Q, Wegner C, Antel J, Brück W (2008) Differentiation block of oligodendroglial progenitor cells as a cause for remyelination failure in chronic multiple sclerosis. Brain 131(7):1749–1758 95. Kitada M, Rowitch DH (2006) Transcription factor co-expression patterns indicate heterogeneity of oligodendroglial subpopula- tions in adult spinal cord. Glia. 54(1):35–46 96. Chang A, Staugaitis SM, Dutta R, Batt CE, Easley KE, Chomyk AM et al (2012) Cortical remyelination: a new target for repair therapies in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 72(6):918–926 97. Mi S, Blake Pepinsky R, Cadavid D (2013) Blocking LINGO-1 as a therapy to promote CNS repair: from concept to the clinic. CNS Drugs 27(7):493–503 98. Bove RM, Green AJ (2017) Remyelinating pharmacotherapies in multiple sclerosis. Neurotherapeutics. 14(4):894–904 99. Deshmukh VA, Tardif V, Lyssiotis CA, Green CC, Kerman B, Kim HJ et al (2013) A regenerative approach to the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Nature 502(7471):327–332 100. Najm FJ, Madhavan M, Zaremba A, Shick E, Karl RT, Fac- tor DC et  al (2015) Drug-based modulation of endogenous stem cells promotes functional remyelination in vivo. Nature 522(7555):216–220 101. Green AJ, Gelfand JM, Cree BA, Bevan C, Boscardin WJ, Mei F et al (2017) Clemastine fumarate as a remyelinating therapy for multiple sclerosis (ReBUILD): a randomised, controlled, double- blind, crossover trial. The Lancet. 390(10111):2481–2489 102. Hubler Z, Allimuthu D, Bederman I, Elitt MS, Madhavan M, Allan KC et al (2018) Accumulation of 8,9-unsaturated sterols drives oligodendrocyte formation and remyelination. Nature 560(7718):372–376 103. Boyd A, Zhang H, Williams A (2013) Insufficient OPC migration into demyelinated lesions is a cause of poor remyelination in MS and mouse models. Acta Neuropathol 125(6):841–859 104. Liu J, Dupree JL, Gacias M, Frawley R, Sikder T, Naik P et al (2016) Clemastine enhances myelination in the prefrontal cortex and rescues behavioral changes in socially isolated mice. J Neu- rosci. 36(3):957–962 105. Li Z, He Y, Fan S, Sun B (2015) Clemastine rescues behavio- ral changes and enhances remyelination in the cuprizone mouse model of demyelination. Neurosci Bull. 31(5):617–625 106. Mi S, Miller RH, Lee X, Scott ML, Shulag-Morskaya S, Shao Z et al (2005) LINGO-1 negatively regulates myelination by oli- godendrocytes. Nat Neurosci 15(8):745 107. Zhang Y, Zhang YP, Pepinsky B, Huang G, Shields LBE, Shields CB et al (2015) Inhibition of LINGO-1 promotes functional recovery after experimental spinal cord demyelination. Exp Neurol 1(266):68–73 108. Tran JQ, Rana J, Barkhof F, Melamed I, Gevorkyan H, Wattjes MP et al. (2014) Randomized phase I trials of the safety/toler- ability of anti-LINGO-1 monoclonal antibody BIIB033. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm 1(2):e18–e18 109. Cadavid D, Balcer L, Galetta S, Aktas O, Ziemssen T, Vanopden- bosch L et al (2017) Safety and efficacy of opicinumab in acute optic neuritis (RENEW): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol. 16(3):189–199 110. Mellion M, Edwards KR, Hupperts R, Drulović J, Montalban X, Hartung H-P et al. (2017) Efficacy Results from the Phase 2b SYNERGY Study: treatment of disabling multiple sclerosis with the Anti-LINGO-1 monoclonal antibody opicinumab (S33.004). Neurology 88(16 Supplement):S33.004 111. Grove Richard A, Harrington Conn M, Mahler Andreas, Beres- ford Isabel, Maruff Paul, Lowy Martin T et al (2014) A rand- omized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 16-week study of the H3 receptor antagonist, GSK239512 as a monotherapy in sub- jects with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Curr Alzheimer Res 11(1):47–58 112. Nathan Pradeep J, Boardley Rebecca, Scott Nicola, Berges Alienor, Maruff Paul, Sivananthan Tharani et al (2013) The safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and cognitive effects of GSK239512, a selective histamine H3 receptor antagonist in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease: a prelimi- nary investigation. Curr Alzheimer Res 10(3):240–251 113. Chen Y, Zhen W, Guo T, Zhao Y, Liu A, Rubio JP et  al (2017) Histamine Receptor 3 negatively regulates oligo- dendrocyte differentiation and remyelination. PLoS ONE 12(12):e0189380–e0189380 114. Schwartzbach CJ, Grove RA, Brown R, Tompson D, Then Bergh F, Arnold DL (2017) Lesion remyelinating activity of GSK239512 versus placebo in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a randomised, single-blind, phase II study. J Neurol 264(2):304–315 115. Huang JK, Jarjour AA, Nait Oumesmar B, Kerninon C, Williams A, Krezel W et al (2011) Retinoid X receptor gamma signaling accelerates CNS remyelination. Nat Neurosci 14(1):45–53 116. Heck MC, Wagner CE, Shahani PH, MacNeill M, Grozic A, Darwaiz T et al (2016) Modeling, synthesis, and biological evaluation of potential retinoid X receptor (RXR)-selective agonists: analogues of 4-[1-(3,5,5,8,8-pentamethyl-5,6,7,8- tetrahydro-2-naphthyl)ethynyl]benzoic acid (bexarotene) and 6-(ethyl(5,5,8,8-tetrahydronaphthalen-2-yl)amino)nicotinic acid (NEt-TMN). J Med Chem. 59(19):8924–8940 117. Natrajan MS, de la Fuente AG, Crawford AH, Linehan E, Nuñez V, Johnson KR et  al (2015) Retinoid X receptor activation 43Journal of Neurology (2021) 268:30–44 1 3 reverses age-related deficiencies in myelin debris phagocytosis and remyelination. Brain 138(Pt 12):3581–3597 118. Altmann DR, Button T, Schmierer K, Hunter K, Tozer DJ, Wheeler-Kingshott CA et al (2014) Sample sizes for lesion magnetisation transfer ratio outcomes in remyelination trials for multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 3(2):237–243 119. Sedel F, Bernard D, Mock DM, Tourbah A (2016) Targeting demyelination and virtual hypoxia with high-dose biotin as a treatment for progressive multiple sclerosis. Neuropharmacology 1(110):644–653 120. Tourbah A, Lebrun-Frenay C, Edan G, Clanet M, Papeix C, Vukusic S et al (2016) MD1003 (high-dose biotin) for the treat- ment of progressive multiple sclerosis: A randomised, double- blind, placebo-controlled study. Mult Scler. 22(13):1719–1731 121. Tourbah A, Gout O, Vighetto A, Deburghgraeve V, Pelletier J, Papeix C et al. (2018) MD1003 (high-dose pharmaceutical- grade biotin) for the treatment of chronic visual loss related to optic neuritis in multiple sclerosis: a randomized, double-blind: Placebo-Controlled Study. CNS Drugs 32(7), 661–6ss72. 122. Scolding NJ, Pasquini M, Reingold SC, Cohen JA (2017) Inter- national conference on cell-based therapies for multiple sclero- sis: cell-based therapeutic strategies for multiple sclerosis. Brain 140(11):2776–2796 123. Goldman SA, Nedergaard M, Windrem MS (2012) Glial progeni- tor cell-based treatment and modeling of neurological disease. Science 338(6106):491 124. Franklin RJM, Goldman SA (2015) Glia disease and repair— remyelination. cold spring harbor perspectives in biology 7(7). https ://cshpe rspec tives .cshlp .org/conte nt/7/7/a0205 94.abstr act. Accessed date 01 Jul 2015 125. Connick P, Kolappan M, Crawley C, Webber DJ, Patani R, Michell AW et al (2012) Autologous mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: an open-label phase 2a proof-of-concept study. Lancet Neurol. 11(2):150–156 126. Rice CM, Marks DI, Ben-Shlomo Y, Evangelou N, Morgan PS, Metcalfe C et al (2015) Assessment of bone marrow-derived cel- lular therapy in progressive multiple sclerosis (ACTiMuS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 16(1):463 127. Kurtzke JF (1983) Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 33(11):1444 128. Waxman SG (2006) Axonal conduction and injury in multi- ple sclerosis: the role of sodium channels. Nat Rev Neurosci 1(7):932 129. Tomassini V, Matthews PM, Thompson AJ, Fuglø D, Geurts JJ, Johansen-Berg H et al (2012) Neuroplasticity and functional recovery in multiple sclerosis. Nat Rev Neurol. 18(8):635 130. Plemel JR, Liu W-Q, Yong VW (2017) Remyelination therapies: a new direction and challenge in multiple sclerosis. Nat Rev Drug Discov 7(16):617 131. Mallik S, Samson RS, Wheeler-Kingshott CAM, Miller DH (2014) Imaging outcomes for trials of remyelination in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 85(12):1396 132. Laule C, Kozlowski P, Leung E, Li DKB, MacKay AL, Moore GRW (2008) Myelin water imaging of multiple sclerosis at 7 T: correlations with histopathology. NeuroImage. 40(4):1575–1580 133. O’Muircheartaigh J, Vavasour I, Ljungberg E, Li DKB, Rauscher A, Levesque V et al. (2019) Quantitative neuroimaging measures of myelin in the healthy brain and in multiple sclerosis. Human Brain Mapp https ://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24510 . Accessed date 15 Jan 2019 134. Klawiter EC, Schmidt RE, Trinkaus K, Liang H-F, Budde MD, Naismith RT et al (2011) Radial diffusivity predicts demyeli- nation in ex vivo multiple sclerosis spinal cords. NeuroImage. 55(4):1454–1460 135. Song S-K, Yoshino J, Le TQ, Lin S-J, Sun S-W, Cross AH et al (2005) Demyelination increases radial diffusivity in corpus cal- losum of mouse brain. NeuroImage. 26(1):132–140 136. Henkelman RM, Stanisz GJ, Graham SJ (2001) Magnetization transfer in MRI: a review. NMR Biomed 14(2):57–64 137. Schmierer K, Scaravilli F, Altmann DR, Barker GJ, Miller DH (2004) Magnetization transfer ratio and myelin in postmortem multiple sclerosis brain. Ann Neurol 56(3):407–415 138. Stankoff B, Poirion E, Tonietto M, Bodini B (2018) Exploring the heterogeneity of MS lesions using positron emission tomogra- phy: a reappraisal of their contribution to disability. Brain Pathol 28(5):723–734 139. Button T, Altmann D, Tozer D, Dalton C, Hunter K, Compston A et al (2012) Magnetization transfer imaging in multiple sclerosis treated with alemtuzumab. Mult Scler. 19(2):241–244 140. Schmierer K, Wheeler-Kingshott CAM, Boulby PA, Scara- villi F, Altmann DR, Barker GJ et al (2007) Diffusion tensor imaging of post mortem multiple sclerosis brain. NeuroImage. 35(2):467–477 141. MacKay AL, Vavasour IM, Rauscher A, Kolind SH, Mädler B, Moore GRW et al (2009) MR relaxation in multiple sclerosis. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 19(1):1–26 142. Stankoff B, Freeman L, Aigrot M-S, Chardain A, Dollé F, Wil- liams A et al (2011) Imaging central nervous system myelin by positron emission tomography in multiple sclerosis using [methyl-11C]-2-(4-methylaminophenyl)-6-hydroxybenzothia- zole. Ann Neurol 69(4):673–680 143. Leocani L, Martinelli V, Natali-Sora MG, Rovaris M, Comi G (2003) Somatosensory evoked potentials and sensory involve- ment in multiple sclerosis: comparison with clinical findings and quantitative sensory tests. Mult Scler. 9(3):275–279 144. Fukutake T, Kuwabara S, Kaneko M, Kojima S, Hattori T (1998) Sensory impairments in spinal multiple sclerosis: a combined clinical, magnetic resonance imaging and somatosensory evoked potential study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 100(3):199–204 145. Weinstock-Guttman B, Baier M, Stockton R, Weinstock A, Justinger T, Munschauer F et al (2003) Pattern reversal visual evoked potentials as a measure of visual pathway pathology in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 9(5):529–534 146. Borggrefe-Chappuis A, Schindler C, Kappos L, Fuhr P (2001) Visual and motor evoked potentials in the course of multiple sclerosis. Brain 124(11):2162–2168 147. Hutchinson M (2013) Evoked potentials are of little use in the diagnosis or monitoring of MS: commentary. Mult Scler. 19(14):1824–1825 148. Silbermann E, Wooliscroft L, Bourdette D (2018) Using the ante- rior visual system to assess neuroprotection and remyelination in multiple sclerosis trials. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 18(8):49 149. Brusa A, Jones SJ, Kapoor R, Miller DH, Plant GT (1999) Long-term recovery and fellow eye deterioration after optic neuritis, determined by serial visual evoked potentials. J Neurol 246(9):776–782 150. Brusa A, Jones SJ, Plant GT (2001) Long-term remyelination after optic neuritisA 2-year visual evoked potential and psycho- physical serial study. Brain 124(3):468–479 151. Niklas A, Sebraoui H, Heß E, Wagner A, Then Bergh F (2009) Outcome measures for trials of remyelinating agents in multiple sclerosis: retrospective longitudinal analysis of visual evoked potential latency. Mult Scler. 15(1):68–74 152. Hardmeier M, Leocani L, Fuhr P (2017) A new role for evoked potentials in MS? Repurposing evoked potentials as biomarkers for clinical trials in MS. Mult Scler. 23(10):1309–1319 153. Leocani L, Rovaris M, Boneschi FM, Medaglini S, Rossi P, Mar- tinelli V et al (2006) Multimodal evoked potentials to assess the 44 Journal of Neurology (2021) 268:30–44 1 3 evolution of multiple sclerosis: a longitudinal study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 77(9):1030–1035 154. Rice CM, Mallam EA, Whone AL, Walsh P, Brooks DJ, Kane N et al (2010) Safety and feasibility of autologous bone marrow cellular therapy in relapsing-progressive multiple sclerosis. Clin Pharmacol Ther 87(6):679–685 155. Fielding J, Clough M, Beh S, Millist L, Sears D, Frohman AN et al (2015) Ocular motor signatures of cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. Nat Rev Neurol. 15(11):637 156. Kanhai KMS, Nij-Bijvank JA, Wagenaar YL, Klaassen ES, Lim K, Bergheanu SC et al. (2019) Treatment of internuclear ophthal- moparesis in multiple sclerosis with fampridine: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over trial. CNS Neurosci Therap https ://doi.org/10.1111/cns.13096 . Accessed date 12 Feb 2019 157. Green AJ, Hauser SL, Allen IV, Lyness R, McQuaid S (2010) Ocular pathology in multiple sclerosis: retinal atro- phy and inflammation irrespective of disease duration. Brain 133(6):1591–1601 158. Talman LS, Bisker ER, Sackel DJ, Long DA Jr, Galetta KM, Ratchford JN et al (2010) Longitudinal study of vision and reti- nal nerve fiber layer thickness in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 67(6):749–760 159. Martínez-Lapiscina EH, Sanchez-Dalmau B, Fraga-Pumar E, Ortiz-Perez S, Tercero-Uribe AI, Torres-Torres R et al (2014) The visual pathway as a model to understand brain damage in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 20(13):1678–1685 160. Kuhle J, Kropshofer H, Haering DA, Kundu U, Meinert R, Barro C et al (2019) Blood neurofilament light chain as a biomarker of MS disease activity and treatment response. Neurology. 92(10):e1007 161. Sharma A et al. (2018) Characterization of serum neurofilament, a biomarker for axonal damage, in the SYNERGY study as a complement to opicinumab zreatment effect in MS. ePosters. Mult Scler 24(2 suppl):738–980 (Abstract EP1571) 162. Blakemore WF, Franklin RJM (2008) Remyelination in experi- mental models of toxin-induced demyelination. In: Rodriguez M (ed) Advances in multiple sclerosis and experimental demyelinat- ing diseases. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 193–212. https :// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73677 -6_8 163. Matsushima GK, Morell P (2001) The neurotoxicant, cuprizone, as a model to study demyelination and remyelination in the cen- tral nervous system. Brain Pathol 11(1):107–116 164. Kipp M, Nyamoya S, Hochstrasser T, Amor S (2017) Multiple sclerosis animal models: a clinical and histopathological perspec- tive. Brain Pathol 27(2):123–137 165. Zivadinov R, Dwyer MG, Markovic-Plese S, Kennedy C, Berg- sland N, Ramasamy DP et al (2014) Effect of treatment with interferon beta-1a on changes in voxel-wise magnetization trans- fer ratio in normal appearing brain tissue and lesions of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a 24-week, controlled pilot study. PLoS ONE 9(3):e91098 166. Zivadinov R, Dwyer M, Hussein S, Carl E, Kennedy C, Andrews M et al (2011) Voxel-wise magnetization transfer imaging study of effects of natalizumab and IFNβ-1a in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 18(8):1125–1134 167. Eisen A, Greenberg BM, Bowen JD, Arnold DL, Cag- giano AO (2017) A double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending-dose study of remyelinating antibody rHIgM22 in people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. 3(4):2055217317743097–2055217317743097