Search

Background: Natalizumab and fingolimod are used as high-efficacy treatments in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. Several observational studies comparing these two drugs have shown variable results, using different methods to control treatment indication bias and manage censoring. The objective of this empirical study was to elucidate the impact of methods of causal inference on the results of comparative effectiveness studies. Methods: Data from three observational multiple sclerosis registries (MSBase, the Danish MS Registry and French OFSEP registry) were combined. Four clinical outcomes were studied. Propensity scores were used to match or weigh the compared groups, allowing for estimating average treatment effect for treated or average treatment effect for the entire population. Analyses were conducted both in intention-to-treat and per-protocol frameworks. The impact of the positivity assumption was also assessed. Results: Overall, 5,148 relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis patients were included. In this well-powered sample, the 95% confidence intervals of the estimates overlapped widely. Propensity scores weighting and propensity scores matching procedures led to consistent results. Some differences were observed between average treatment effect for the entire population and average treatment effect for treated estimates. Intention-to-treat analyses were more conservative than per-protocol analyses. The most pronounced irregularities in outcomes and propensity scores were introduced by violation of the positivity assumption. Conclusions: This applied study elucidates the influence of methodological decisions on the results of comparative effectiveness studies of treatments for multiple sclerosis. According to our results, there are no material differences between conclusions obtained with propensity scores matching or propensity scores weighting given that a study is sufficiently powered, models are correctly specified and positivity assumption is

Background: Natalizumab and fingolimod are used as high-efficacy treatments in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. Several observational studies comparing these two drugs have shown variable results, using different methods to control treatment indication bias and manage censoring. The objective of this empirical study was to elucidate the impact of methods of causal inference on the results of comparative effectiveness studies. Methods: Data from three observational multiple sclerosis registries (MSBase, the Danish MS Registry and French OFSEP registry) were combined. Four clinical outcomes were studied. Propensity scores were used to match or weigh the compared groups, allowing for estimating average treatment effect for treated or average treatment effect for the entire population. Analyses were conducted both in intention-to-treat and per-protocol frameworks. The impact of the positivity assumption was also assessed. Results: Overall, 5,148 relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis patients were included. In this well-powered sample, the 95% confidence intervals of the estimates overlapped widely. Propensity scores weighting and propensity scores matching procedures led to consistent results. Some differences were observed between average treatment effect for the entire population and average treatment effect for treated estimates. Intention-to-treat analyses were more conservative than per-protocol analyses. The most pronounced irregularities in outcomes and propensity scores were introduced by violation of the positivity assumption. Conclusions: This applied study elucidates the influence of methodological decisions on the results of comparative effectiveness studies of treatments for multiple sclerosis. According to our results, there are no material differences between conclusions obtained with propensity scores matching or propensity scores weighting given that a study is sufficiently powered, models are correctly specified and positivity assumption is

Background and purpose: The European Charcot Foundation supported the development of a set of surveys to understand current practice patterns for the diagnosis and management of multiple sclerosis (MS) in Europe. Part 2 of the report summarizes survey results related to secondary progressive MS (SPMS), primary progressive MS (PPMS), pregnancy, paediatric MS and overall patient management. Methods: A steering committee of MS neurologists developed case- and practice-based questions for two sequential surveys distributed to MS neurologists throughout Europe. Results: Respondents generally favoured changing rather than stopping disease-modifying treatment (DMT) in patients transitioning from relapsing−remitting MS to SPMS, particularly with active disease. Respondents would not initiate DMT in patients with typical PPMS symptoms, although the presence of ≥1 spinal cord or brain gadolinium-enhancing lesion might affect that decision. For patients considering pregnancy, respondents were equally divided on whether to stop treatment before or after conception. Respondents strongly favoured starting DMT in paediatric MS with active disease; recommended treatments included interferon, glatiramer acetate and, in John Cunningham virus negative patients, natalizumab. Additional results regarding practice-based questions and management are summarized. Conclusions: Results of part 2 of the survey of diagnostic and treatment practices for MS in Europe largely mirror results for part 1, with neurologists in general agreement about the treatment and management of SPMS, PPMS, pregnancy and paediatric MS as well as the general management of MS. However, there are also many areas of disagreement, indicating the need for evidence-based recommendations and/or guidelines.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Up-to-date information is needed on the extent to which neurologists treating multiple sclerosis (MS) in Europe are integrating rapidly evolving diagnostic criteria, disease-modifying therapies and recommendations for monitoring disease activity into their clinical practice.METHODS: A steering committee of MS neurologists used a modified Delphi process to develop case- and practice-based questions for two sequential surveys distributed to MS neurologists throughout Europe. Case-based questions were developed for radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS), clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) and RRMS with breakthrough disease.RESULTS: Multiple sclerosis neurologists from 11 European countries responded to survey 1 (n = 233) and survey 2 (n = 171). Respondents agreed that they would not treat the patients in the RIS or CIS cases but would treat a patient with a relatively mild form of RRMS. Choice of treatment was evenly distributed among first-line injectables and oral treatments for mild RRMS, and moved to second-line treatment as the RRMS case increased in severity. Additional results on RRMS with breakthrough disease are presented.CONCLUSIONS: Although there was general agreement on some aspects of treatment, responses to other management and clinical practice questions varied considerably. These results, which reflect current clinical practice patterns, highlight the need for additional MS treatment education and awareness and may help inform the development of MS practice guidelines in Europe.