Smarter Choices in MS Care: A New Score to Personalize Glatiramer Acetate vs. Interferon Therapy

One of the biggest challenges in treating multiple sclerosis (MS) is that no two patients are exactly alike. While clinical trials give us averages—on how well a drug works across a large group—real-world patients often experience very different responses. This leaves neurologists and patients in a frustrating guessing game when choosing between treatments, especially among the older but still widely used first-line therapies: glatiramer acetate (GA) and interferon beta-1a (IFNβ-1a).

A study led by Francesca Bovis, Maria Pia Sormani, and an international team of collaborators, published in Neurology, offers a new way forward. The researchers developed and validated a Treatment Response Score—a statistical tool that predicts which patients are more likely to benefit from GA versus IFNβ-1a, based on their baseline characteristics.

Why this matters
Even though newer, highly effective MS drugs exist, GA and IFNβ-1a remain important. They are often the first treatments offered because of their long-standing safety record, or used as maintenance therapy after induction with more aggressive drugs. Until now, there has been very little data to guide clinicians in deciding between them.

How the study worked
The researchers built their score in three phases:

Training the model:

Using data from the CombiRx clinical trial, which directly compared GA and IFNβ-1a, they identified which patient features were associated with better outcomes on each drug. Key predictors included:

Age

Sex

Number of relapses in the prior year

Disease duration

Disability score (EDSS)

These variables were combined into a single Treatment Response Score.

Validation in real-world data:

The score was then tested in the MSBase registry, a large international observational database. This step was crucial to confirm the score’s usefulness outside the controlled conditions of a trial.

Generalization:

Finally, they broadened the analysis to include a wider MS population, more representative of everyday clinical practice.

What they found
Overall effect: Across the trial, GA reduced relapse rates compared to IFNβ-1a, but the difference was modest (about 28%).

Personalized insights: When patients were grouped by their Treatment Response Score, big differences emerged:

Patients in the lowest score group (younger, male, more active disease) benefited much more from GA—relapse rates were reduced by about 60% compared to IFNβ-1a.

Patients in the highest score group (older, female, less active disease) tended to do better on IFNβ-1a.

The middle group saw little difference between the two drugs.

Replication: These patterns were confirmed both in the MSBase dataset and in a broader patient population.

The team even created an online calculator where clinicians can plug in patient characteristics to estimate likely treatment benefit.

Why this is exciting
This study demonstrates that personalized medicine in MS is possible even with long-established drugs. Instead of treating all patients as if they will respond the same way, neurologists can use data-driven tools to tailor therapy choices.

For patients, this could mean:

Starting with the drug most likely to help reduce relapses.

Avoiding unnecessary side effects or wasted time on less effective options.

Feeling more confident that treatment decisions are based on personal disease characteristics—not just trial averages.

Limitations to keep in mind
The score was specifically developed for intramuscular IFNβ-1a (the once-weekly formulation), so it cannot yet be applied to all interferon formulations.

MRI measures, like gadolinium-enhancing lesions, improved the model but were only available for a subset of patients. Future versions may integrate imaging and even genetic or biomarker data.

The tool needs further testing in routine clinical settings before widespread adoption.

The bigger picture
As MS care moves toward precision medicine, tools like the Treatment Response Score can help bridge the gap between clinical trial averages and individual patient realities. While more powerful drugs are available, GA and IFNβ-1a remain in use—and making smarter choices between them is a valuable step toward more personalized care.

Disclaimer: This blog post is based on the provided research article and is intended for informational purposes only. It is not intended to provide medical advice. Please consult with a healthcare professional for any health concerns.

References:
Bovis, F., Kalincik, T., Lublin, F., Cutter, G., Malpas, C., Horakova, D., Havrdova, E. K., Trojano, M., Prat, A., Girard, M., Duquette, P., Onofrj, M., Lugaresi, A., Izquierdo, G., Eichau, S., Patti, F., Terzi, M., Grammond, P., Bergamaschi, R., Sola, P., … Sormani, M. P. (2021). Treatment Response Score to Glatiramer Acetate or Interferon Beta-1a. Neurology, 96(2), e214–e227. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000010991