There are many treatment options for people with relapsing MS. Patients should be carefully monitored to assess treatment response, and a change in treatment approach should be considered if safety concerns emerge.

In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Ellen M. Mowry, MD, MCR, and Daniel Ontaneda, MD, PhD, coauthors of the article "Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis" in the Continuum® April 2026 Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders issue.

Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida.

Dr. Mowry is the director of the Multiple Sclerosis Experimental Therapeutics Program and a professor of neurology at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

Dr. Ontaneda is the director of research at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis and a professor of neurology at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis

Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum

Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME

Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud

More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com

Social Media

facebook.com/continuumcme

@ContinuumAAN

Host: @headacheMD

Guest: @EllenMowryMD

Full episode transcript available here

Dr. Monteith: There are so many new treatment strategies for multiple sclerosis, which is a blessing, but it does come with the complexity of really just trying to nail down the approach. I just got finished talking to Drs Ellen Mowry and Daniel Ontaneda about their article on treatment of multiple sclerosis. We discussed relapses, weighing escalation versus early high-effective treatment and progressive disease. This is a must-listen-to podcast. I hope you enjoy it as much as I enjoyed talking to them.

Dr. Jones: This is Dr. Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast.

Dr. Monteith: This is Dr. Teshamae Monteith. Today, I'm interviewing Ds Ellen Mowry and Daniel Ontaneda about their article on treatment of multiple sclerosis, which they wrote with Dr. Darin Okuda. This article appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis. Welcome, both of you. How are you?

Dr. Mowry: Great. And thank you so much for having us.

Dr. Monteith: Absolutely. So, why don't you both introduce yourself?

Dr. Ontaneda: All right. My name is Daniel Ontaneda. I'm a neurologist at the Cleveland Clinic. I spend the majority of my time doing research, but I still dedicate about a day a week to seeing people with MS in clinic.

Dr. Mowry: I'm Ellen Mowry. I'm also a neurologist, but practice at the Johns Hopkins University. And similar to Dan, I mostly work on research, but also have an active clinical care component, taking care of people with MS.

Dr. Monteith: Well, thank both of you for writing this article and being on our podcast. I assume you guys have probably known each other for quite a while now.

Dr. Mowry: Yes.

Dr. Ontaneda: Yes.

Dr. Monteith: What inspired you to get into multiple sclerosis research and then clinical care?

Dr. Ontaneda: I always loved neurology, and I think a lot of us who go into neurology are attracted to the complexity of the human brain and how the nervous system works. But what really hit home to me was a family member of mine who had multiple sclerosis, and he was being treated in a time where we really didn't have super effective disease-modifying medications. And so, as I went through my medical career, I always kind of kept an eye on what was happening with multiple sclerosis, and I started my training at a time where it was really flourishing in terms of the medications available, so that's what inspired me to go into MS. It's a disease that we can definitely treat, and you can change outcomes for people. So, that was it.

Dr. Monteith: Yeah, that personal experience can be very impactful.

Dr. Mowry: My journey started, actually, because I was thinking about whether I wanted to be a physician at all, and I happened to land, just after high school, a position with a neurologist who happened to mostly focus on multiple sclerosis and taking care of folks with multiple sclerosis. And by the end of the summer, I knew I wanted to go to med school and I wanted to be a neurologist and I wanted to work with people with MS. I thought I would be a clinician exclusively, but I think as time went on and I started to hear the consistent questions that people I served were asking in the clinic and realizing that those questions could be turned into research projects that could address their concerns, I moved more and more towards research.

Dr. Monteith: Great. There are a lot of really detailed information in the article, so I think that research mind is very useful, and I see that in the writing. Why don't we talk about the goal of the article?

Dr. Ontaneda: So, I think the goal of the article was to set out kind of what the large view of what treatment for multiple sclerosis looks like. And, you know, many times we divide the treatment of multiple sclerosis into these large pillars, and I think that's what we did in the article. The first was, you know, what do you do with a person who has an MS attack or relapse? The second is, what medications do we use to treat the relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis where there is a lot of acute inflammation, focal inflammatory lesions that are occurring? And then the final one is, what do you do with individuals who have a more progressive form of the disease where they're accruing disability slowly and gradually?

Dr. Monteith: And what were some of the main points?

Dr. Mowry: Dr. Okuda provided a really nice section on the treatment of acute relapses in multiple sclerosis, and it's important to understand what we talk about when we are saying "relapse". For people with MS, many symptoms can fluctuate and occur and then get better over time, and sometimes people with MS use the same term of "relapse" to describe those symptom fluctuations. As neurologists, when we're thinking about relapse, we're really trying to think about symptoms that can be attributed to new focal inflammatory events somewhere in the central nervous system. Typically, these are accompanied---if you were to get an MRI at the same time---by a new lesion or MS spot, as I like to call them, on MRI scan. And so, it's important to distinguish when somebody is talking about symptoms, whether they are true new symptoms that could be mapped to a place in the central nervous system. Because alternatively, a lot of people who've had attacks or relapses in the past can have what we call pseudo-relapses, and these are essentially recrudescence of old symptoms, typically in a similar pattern as what had occurred in the past. And these can be brought out by things like fever or infection, sometimes stress. And pseudo-relapses are not thought to be due to new development of immune system-induced injury and therefore would be less likely to respond to treatment; and in fact, treatment may be contraindicated for those events. We also talked a little bit in that article about how relapses are treated, talking about the use of high-dose steroids for true new relapses, but also kind of cautioning that those are not necessarily free of concerns, especially if you have a pseudo-relapse or there could be an infection going on. And that ultimately, the decision as to whether to treat a relapse really is a shared decision-making because it's thought that although the steroids can speed up recovery from a relapse, they may not have a major impact on ultimate recovery. And so, a lot of the shared decision-making comes in here because for a mild relapse, you might choose to forego a course of high-dose steroids.

Dr. Monteith: Daniel, any other main points?

Dr. Ontaneda: Yeah. On the side of treating relapses, I think one of the other things that probably has changed a lot, at least during the course of my training, is that in the past, whenever we had identified a relapse, as Dr. Mowry has clearly defined, we would typically treat with intravenous high-dose corticosteroids, typically with methylprednisolone. And that was kind of our go-to. We would either do it in an infusion center or we would set it up with home care. And I think one of the things that our field learned over, I would say, the last five or ten years is there's an abundance of studies that show that you can give that same dose of methylprednisolone. Rather than giving it IV, you can give it orally. No pun intended, as I tell my patients, a lot of pills to swallow because we use fifty-milligram prednisone pills, and they have to take 1,250 a day. The pharmacy always pushes back on that many pills, but really the advantage of being able to take steroids orally that way for three to five days is really, I think, one, better for people with MS because they can do it in the comfort of their own home, and two, I think also when you look at the costs associated with that treatment, it is the most cost-effective option.

Dr. Monteith: And what are some of the latest developments that you're really excited about that weren't in the article?

Dr. Mowry: A lot of the article focused on the approach to treatment of people with what we've traditionally called relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis. So, this is the kind of MS that traditionally presents with a relapse or an attack initially, although some of that nomenclature is changing, actually. And the article focused a lot on the strategies surrounding treatment of somebody with newly diagnosed relapsing MS, and thinking about this vast number of disease-modifying therapies that are available to people with MS and their clinicians, and how to think about the strategy with respect to largely centered around the efficacy class of the medication, whether people should take an approach of using a higher-efficacy therapy---meaning a medicine that in clinical trials was more likely on average to suppress relapses as well as new lesions---or whether there's still a good argument for the case of using an escalation approach, using some of the more modest efficacy medications that also probably in general have lower risks, monitoring for response to treatment and changing if the medication isn't working. And so, there's still a lot of debate in the field, I would say, even though many people have moved towards a one-size-fits-all kind of approach. I think there's still a lot of debate in the field about the evidence underlying that. And, you know, full disclosure, Dr. Ontaneda and I are each running parallel and very complementary clinical trial programs to address this very question, the results of which should be available within the next year, year and a half.

Dr. Monteith: Well, we can't wait that long. Give me some clinical pearls to how we initiate these modifying therapies. Like, what are the pearls that we need to have in our mind?

Dr. Ontaneda: Yeah. I think when we think about starting the disease-modifying therapy in an individual who has an active form of multiple sclerosis, I think, you know, one of the cornerstones I would say of making that decision is shared decision-making. I think we tend to sit down with the patient and analyze the data that we have at hand, what we know about their multiple sclerosis, and we use several factors to inform how likely we think their disease is gonna be active or potentially might not respond to the initial treatment you give. And we look heavily at the MRI. The MRI is really a useful marker because it shows us, one, how many lesions a person might have---both, you know, where those lesions are and also kind of the amount of lesions. Lesions, certainly, that are in the spinal cord, a very large burden of diseases. A lot of active lesions, which we determine by the presence of contrast-enhancing lesions, really helps us inform on disease severity. I would say that was our number one tool that we use to decide and help us decide how we think that person's MS is gonna do over time. And then the second thing that we put into the equation also is, you know, how well do we think this person is going to tolerate our medications? All our disease-modifying medications act through suppression of the immune system, and we know that that carries some risks associated with it. Some of those risks are stuff like infections. Some of those can be simple infections that really don't have major consequences, but some of them can be quite serious, including the need for hospitalizations or prolonged antibiotic treatment courses. And so, we also look at what, you know, the underlying risk of a person has for infection. This kind of is determined by, one, A, how many infections they've had up to date, and also how much disability they had. I would say in our average patient who when we see them, they're probably typically pretty young, in their twenties, thirties, forties, they typically don't have a lot of infectious risks. And therefore, I think there's kind of a move to saying, "Well, actually their risk of infections is quite low." And we put that together with, you know, also what the preference of the patient might want. So, do they prefer to take a pill, for example? Do they prefer a medication where they receive that via infusion every six months and they don't really have to think about it? There are some people that don't like going into a hospital, and they might prefer an injection type of those medications. And so, after a complex discussion of all those factors, we take into consideration how much risk the patient wants to take as well, and we come up with a rational choice of a couple of medication options. So, I think it's challenging sometimes because we have over two dozen medications. There's the risk of you saying, "There are these twenty-four medications, you can pick one." And I think our job as neurologists is to kind of pare those down, talk about, in a person like yourself, these are the two or three medications that I would recommend using. Why don't you review them? And then we bring them back, and we kind of make a final decision with, one of the key factors that I think is important to remind people is that you're gonna start this medication, and we are gonna monitor to make sure it's working. We're gonna monitor to make sure you're tolerating it well. And although it's an important, the first decision you make, I think one key theme that we tell people is, we can revise our strategy whenever we like. We just have to think about it and do it in a way that we think is gonna make sure that their MS is under the best control. And then we think about the ultimate goal of treatment, which, in multiple sclerosis, is the absence of any attacks and also the absence of any new lesions on MRI. And that's where whether you are offering more of the high-effective medications or more moderate- or low-efficacy medications, that's where there's a little bit of controversy still in our field, and that's what our trials are trying to answer.

Dr. Monteith: Excellent. So now we've selected a particular option- and I love those points with shared decision-making, using the MRI to guide and then kind of risk tolerance related to infection. But now a patient's still having relapses, and I know the goal is zero, but, you know, there's some margin. What are the pearls to advance to more high-efficacy therapies?

Dr. Mowry: Yeah, that's a great question. Dr. Ontaneda in the article actually talked about the literature surrounding monitoring for breakthrough disease and when to say this much is too much, and there's actually not a definite right answer. It's clear that more active disease early in the course is probably more of concern than, say, developing, you know, a new spot in your fifties or something to that effect. So, different people have different thresholds. I know at our center, we tend to be pretty on top of making changes for breakthrough disease. So, what we typically do is reimage people about six months after they start a medication to establish a new baseline. And sometimes, because of delays in starting or because the medications take a while to kick in, there might be a new spot or two. So, if that's the case, I really only get concerned if the spots are also taking up the dye or enhancing to indicate they're really quite recent, and I think, "Ugh, that's not something I'd like to see six months after starting a medication." And so that otherwise is sort of the reference scan, moving forward, to evaluate the medication, and I have a very low threshold for changing, particularly if somebody is on a moderate-efficacy therapy. To me, I think, well, our goal of trying the moderate efficacy therapy is essentially to see if we could get away with a medicine that is probably, on average, safer and that will still work for your MS. But if the answer is no, I personally don't like to stick around too much on them. One caveat I would say is that if somebody develops what appears to be a new lesion or spot on higher-efficacy therapy, before presuming that that new area of activity is a definite new MS event, I always like to rethink carefully, did I get the diagnosis correct? Or could this be an early infection such as, you know, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in people on natalizumab in particular? Because I see breakthrough activity so rarely in people on higher-efficacy therapies that I just like to rethink my diagnosis and the differential prior to making switches to, typically, another higher-efficacy therapy in that case. But that, again, is a little bit of shared decision-making. It's sometimes contextual. If a person is using a self-administered medication and they have a little breakthrough, sometimes you can solicit some history, saying, "Oh, I actually kind of stopped taking it for a few weeks because something was going on, and I really want to retry." And that's very reasonable as well. Dan, do you have any other thoughts?

Dr. Ontaneda: No, I think I agree. That's really close to how I practice myself as well, and the majority of people at my center. I think that we are learning that when you start a treatment, many times---depending on how deeply you look---you can find evidence of ongoing disease, and that's something that we struggle with. It's almost like we have tools to treat inflammation in terms of new MS lesions and new relapses. And so, when those are present, it's pretty clear that you probably have to switch medication. I think a slightly trickier issue is when, for example, you have a person who might be stable. They don't have an attack. But you notice that they're worsening, and they tell you they're worsening. I think our ability and tools for that is a little bit harder, and we recognize that that can actually happen fairly early in the disease. And that's why we're trying to rethink this mantra that we've had for many years, where we kind of divide MS up into relapsing and progressive, and we see people develop progressive MS 10 to 15 years after they've had a relapsing form of the disease. So, I think that's just a reality of clinical practice. And we don't have as many tools to treat that gradual worsening, which is kind of what the rest of our article spent some time talking about.

Dr. Monteith: You've also written about the clinical trial long-term extension studies. And what are the few points that you take away from the emergence of these types of publications over the past few years?

Dr. Mowry: Yeah, well, long-term extension studies can be really helpful to understand whether the findings that are evidenced during the randomized portion of trials themselves continue into a longer term. And for people with MS, understanding these data can be really helpful because, particularly when we're looking for impact of a given treatment or a strategy on disability worsening, often it takes longer than the short-term portion of the trial to truly understand if the medication or strategy has an impact on insidious worsening that Dan is speaking about. Many trials have demonstrated a short-term benefit, but we think a lot of times that benefit is probably because of the reduction in relapses, which sometimes leave a permanent mark on neurologic function. But the extension studies are trying to understand a little bit more about whether the effect on disability worsening is sustained, and also to look a little bit more deeply at long-term safety, especially when it comes to medications that do increase the risk of infection. The caveats, though, in interpreting those types of studies are that people drop out, and so probably the people who drop out of those studies are really different. They may be either less disabled and they think, "Oh, you know, I'm done. I feel good." Or potentially more disabled and they think, "Ugh, I have more things to do I've got to take care of. What's going on?" And so that kind of dropout can produce some bias in interpreting the results. Dan, any other thoughts?

Dr. Ontaneda: No, I think that's spot on. I mean, I think that when we're trying to decide on what general philosophy to use, right? Like, you're seeing a patient for the first time. They've recently been diagnosed with MS, and you have... you know, I kind of bin them into three options. You can start a low-efficacy, a moderate, or a high-efficacy medication. And the first piece of information you could use is clinical trials, and Dr Mowry very clearly identified why some of that data might be a little bit biased and isn't, you know, completely applicable to the patient who's in front of you. The second thing that we might look at is observational data, and there's a wealth of observational data that shows that, in general, people on higher-efficacy medications tend to do better over time. But one of the challenges we have is that there's always biases related to those observational study designs. And so, I think you have to interpret them with a little bit of caution because there are reasons people start specific medications in people. And when you look at them in a purely observational study, even if you do some fancy way of addressing those biases, such as propensity, there always is the possibility of some residual bias. You know, that's part of the reason why we're doing the trials that Dr Mowry described, because we really need kind of long-term evidence to show that these medications actually can affect disability ten, twelve years after started. And I think pragmatic clinical trials, like the ones we're running, are really gonna be the key to answer those questions. We all have our favorite approaches right now, but I think that the data to actually demonstrate what's best for people with MS is really needed.

Dr. Monteith: Great, and there's so much in this article. I mean, we didn't even touch on radiological isolated syndrome, monitoring MS therapeutically, and treatment of progressive MS. Any final take-home points?

Dr. Ontaneda: Yeah. Maybe I will touch a little bit on the side of progressive MS, because it has been, you know, the MS that we historically have not been able to treat as much. So, we described there's over two dozen therapies approved for relapsing forms of MS. For purely progressive forms of MS that don't have any evidence of activity, we really only have one approved therapy, and it appears that that therapy actually does work through active inflammation anyway. And in the article, we highlighted examples of studies that have been negative, but also some recent examples of studies that have been positive, specifically with a new class of medication called BTKI, or Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We just recently heard of a second molecule that also had positive results in this realm. So, we're excited that, you know, in the next four to five years-

Dr. Monteith: I'm sorry. Can you just go ahead and say what that molecule...You're leaving people hanging.

Dr. Ontaneda: One molecule is tolebrutinib, which already has a positive study in secondary progressive MS in individuals without activity. And then the second compound that has been studied with positive trial results, we only have summary results from that, is a medication called fenobrutinib. And we think these two compounds that are part of a single class, the hope is that maybe they can address some of that gradual worsening that occurs in MS. And then the question comes whether we should use those from the get-go or if we should just use them later. So, a whole sort of variety of different questions. But I think important to call out for clinicians that this area where we had no available treatments for so many years might be changing.

Dr. Monteith: Well, thank you both. I really loved this conversation. I learned a lot listening to both of you, and I look forward to your clinical trial results.

Dr. Mowry: Thank you so much for having us.

Dr. Ontaneda: Thanks so much. It was our pleasure.

Dr. Monteith: Again, today I've been interviewing Doctors Ellen Mowry and Daniel Ontaneda about their article on treatment of multiple sclerosis, which they wrote with Dr. Darin Okuda. This article appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining today.

Dr. Monteith: This is Dr. Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.