The corticospinal tract in multiple sclerosis: correlation between cortical excitability and magnetic resonance imaging measures.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a central nervous system disease involving gray and white matters. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could help identify potential markers of disease evolution, disability, and treatment response. This work evaluates the relationship between intracortical inhibition and facilitation, motor cortex lesions, and corticospinal tract (CST) integrity. Consecutive adult patients with progressive MS were included. Sociodemographic and clinical data were collected. MRI was acquired to assess primary motor cortex lesions (double inversion and phase-sensitive inversion recovery) and CST integrity (diffusion tensor imaging). TMS outcomes were obtained: motor evoked potentials (MEP) latency, resting motor threshold, short-interval intracortical facilitation (ICF) and inhibition. Correlation analysis was performed. Twenty-five patients completed the study (13 females, age: 55.60 ± 11.49 years, Expanded Disability Status Score: 6.00 ± 1.25). Inverse correlations were found between ICF mean and each of CST radial diffusivity (RD) (ρ =-0.56; p < 0.01), CST apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) (ρ=-0.44; p = 0.03), and disease duration (ρ=-0.46; p = 0.02). MEP latencies were directly correlated with disability scores (ρ = 0.55; p < 0.01). High ADC/RD and low ICF have been previously reported in patients with MS. While the former could reflect structural damage of the CST, the latter could hint towards an aberrant synaptic transmission as well as a depletion of facilitatory compensatory mechanisms that helps overcoming functional decline. The findings suggest concomitant structural and functional abnormalities at later disease stages that would be accompanied with a heightened disability. The results should be interpreted with caution mainly because of the small sample size that precludes further comparisons (e.g., treated vs. untreated patients, primary vs. secondary progressive MS). The role of these outcomes as potential MS biomarkers merit to be further explored.