Search

Background: In the general population, maternal COVID-19 is associated with worse maternal and fetal outcomes. Two previous studies have assessed COVID-19 clinical outcomes in pregnant women with multiple sclerosis (MS), but there are no data about maternal and fetal outcomes. Objectives: In this multicenter study, we aimed to assess maternal and fetal outcomes in pregnant women with MS and COVID-19 infection. Methods: We recruited pregnant patients with MS who contracted COVID-19 and were followed up in Italian and Turkish Centers, during 2020–2022. A control group was extracted from a previous Italian cohort. Associations between group (COVID-19 or healthy patients) and clinical outcomes (maternal complications, fetal malformations, and spontaneous abortion) were investigated with a weighted logistic regression where propensity score–based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach was applied for adjusting for difference in baseline confounders. Results: In the multivariable analysis, COVID-19 during pregnancy was associated with a higher risk of maternal complications (odd ratio (OR) = 2.12; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.32–3.48; p = 0.002), while it was not associated with higher risk of spontaneous abortion and fetal malformations. Conclusion: Our data indicate that COVID-19 during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal complications, while it seems to have no significant impact on fetal outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Telemedicine has proven successful in relieving the burden of chronic neurological disorders from the national health care systems by ensuring a highly customized and effective management plan. Although many studies focus on assessing telemedicine effectiveness, little is known about the economic implications of telemedicine applications in chronic neurological diseases (CNDs). This issue could account for a lack of widespread implementation. Objective: Our study attempted to fill this gap by systematically reviewing scientific literature on the economic evaluation of telemedicine compared with traditional care in the management of CNDs. Methods: We performed a literature search on PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Embase, and Medline. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies with a full cost-analysis; (2) randomized controlled trials; (3) studies comparing telemedicine interventions with traditional care; (4) articles focusing only on CNDs. Conversely, the exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies focusing on acute neurological conditions or other diseases and (2) study protocols, case report, duplicate articles, abstract only, books, letters to editors, and review articles. Results: Ten articles met the inclusion criteria. Three different approaches of telemedicine intervention could be identified: digital cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), motor telerehabilitation, and home monitoring and assessment devices. Conclusion: Cost-analysis showed an overall benefit in terms of both cost and effectiveness from the application of telemedicine instead of in-presence management in CNDs. Among the identified interventions, digital CBT proved to be the most cost-saving. However, promising results were also found in monitoring and assessment devices and in telerehabilitation. Definitely, however, more thorough, comprehensive, and high-quality economic evaluation studies are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with rare neurological diseases (RNDs) often experience symptoms related to movement disorders, requiring a multidisciplinary approach, including rehabilitation. Telemedicine applied to rehabilitation and symptom monitoring may be suitable to ensure treatment consistency and personalized intervention. The objective of this scoping review aimed to emphasize the potential role of telerehabilitation and teleassessment in managing movement disorders within RNDs. By providing a systematic overview of the available literature, we sought to highlight potential interventions, outcomes, and critical issues. Methods: A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar, IEEE, and Scopus up to March 2024. Two inclusion criteria were followed: (1) papers focusing on telerehabilitation and teleassessment and (2) papers dealing with movement disorders in RNDs. Results: Eighteen papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The main interventions were home-based software and training programs, exergames, wearable sensors, smartphone applications, virtual reality and digital music players for telerehabilitation; wearable sensors, mobile applications, and patient home video for teleassessment. Key findings revealed positive outcomes in gait, balance, limb disability, and in remote monitoring. Limitations include small sample sizes, short intervention durations, and the lack of standardized protocols. Conclusion: This review highlighted the potential of telerehabilitation and teleassessment in addressing movement disorders within RNDs. Data indicate that these modalities may play a major role in supporting conventional programs. Addressing limitations through multicenter studies, longer-term follow-ups, and standardized protocols is essential. These measures are essential for improving remote rehabilitation and assessment, contributing to an improved quality of life for people with RNDs.

Background and Purpose: Cladribine tablets, a purine analogue antimetabolite, offer a unique treatment regimen, involving short courses at the start of the first and second year, with no further treatment needed in years 3 and 4. However, comprehensive evidence regarding patient outcomes beyond the initial 24 months of cladribine treatment is limited., Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study enrolled 204 patients with multiple sclerosis who had completed the 2-year course of cladribine treatment. The primary outcomes were therapeutic choices and clinical disease activity assessed by annualized relapse rate after the 2-year treatment course., Results: A total of 204 patients were enrolled; most patients (75.4%) did not initiate new treatments in the 12 months postcladribine. The study found a significant reduction in annualized relapse rate at the 12-month follow-up after cladribine completion compared to the year prior to starting therapy (0.07 ± 0.25 vs. 0.82 ± 0.80, p < 0.001). Furthermore, patients with relapses during cladribine treatment were more likely to start new therapies, whereas older patients were less likely. The safety profile of cladribine was favorable, with lymphopenia being the primary registered adverse event., Conclusions: This study provides insights into therapeutic choices and disease activity following cladribine treatment. It highlights cladribine's effectiveness in reducing relapse rates and disability progression, reaffirming its favorable safety profile. Real-world data, aligned with previous reports, draw attention to ocrelizumab and natalizumab as common choices after cladribine. However, larger, prospective studies for validation and a more comprehensive understanding of cladribine's long-term impact are necessary., (© 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

Background: In the general population, maternal COVID-19 is associated with worse maternal and fetal outcomes. Two previous studies have assessed COVID-19 clinical outcomes in pregnant women with multiple sclerosis (MS), but there are no data about maternal and fetal outcomes., Objectives: In this multicenter study, we aimed to assess maternal and fetal outcomes in pregnant women with MS and COVID-19 infection., Methods: We recruited pregnant patients with MS who contracted COVID-19 and were followed up in Italian and Turkish Centers, during 2020-2022. A control group was extracted from a previous Italian cohort. Associations between group (COVID-19 or healthy patients) and clinical outcomes (maternal complications, fetal malformations, and spontaneous abortion) were investigated with a weighted logistic regression where propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach was applied for adjusting for difference in baseline confounders., Results: In the multivariable analysis, COVID-19 during pregnancy was associated with a higher risk of maternal complications (odd ratio (OR) = 2.12; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.32-3.48; p = 0.002), while it was not associated with higher risk of spontaneous abortion and fetal malformations., Conclusion: Our data indicate that COVID-19 during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal complications, while it seems to have no significant impact on fetal outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: S.S. has received honoraria or consultancy fees for participating to advisory boards, giving educational lectures and/or travel and registration coverage for attending scientific congresses or symposia from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Teva, and Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma. R.K. has received honoraria for giving educational lectures, consultancy fees for participating advisory boards, and travel grants for attending scientific congresses or symposia from Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Teva, Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma of Turkey, Abdi İbrahim İlac, Deva, and ARIS. A.S. has received honoraria or consultancy fees for participating to advisory boards, giving educational lectures and/or travel and registration coverage for attending scientific congresses or symposia from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Teva, Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma of Turkey, and Abdi İbrahim İlac. E.P. received compensation for travel grants, participation in advisory board and/or speaking activities from Biogen, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Teva, and Novartis and serves on the editorial board of Frontiers in Neurology and Brain Sciences. M.P.A. served on scientific advisory boards for and has received speaker honoraria and research support from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Bayer Schering Pharma, and Sanofi Aventis and serves on the editorial board of Multiple Sclerosis Journal and BMC Neurology. M.P.S. received consulting fees from Roche, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, Celgene, Immunic, Geneuro, GSK, and MedDay; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, Biogen Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, and Celgene; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Roche, Sanofi, Novartis, and Merck. I.S. received consulting fees from Hippocrates Research, NovaNeuro, Sakura Italia, ADL Farmaceutici, and Associazione Commissione Difesa Vista Onlus. C.C. received grants or contracts from Roche, Novartis, Merck Serono, Biogen, and Celgene and received consulting fees from Biogen. L.M. received compensation for consulting services, travel grants, and/or speaking activities from Biogen, Serono, Sanofi, Teva, Roche, and Novartis. E.S. received personal compensation from Almirall, Biogen, Sanofi, Novartis, Roche, Horizon, Alexion, Merck, Mylan, and Teva for traveling and advisory boards. S.D.B. received personal compensation from Alexion, Almirall, Biogen, Merck Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi for traveling and advisory boards. M.B. received honoraria for speaking, advisory board, consulting from Teva, Genzyme, Biogen, Bristol MS, Merck, and Novartis. M.C. received personal compensations from Novartis, Genzyme, and Teva and consulting fees from Zambon. R.F. received honoraria for advisory boards and consulting from Bristol MS, Roche, Merck, and Novartis. P.C. received honoraria as speaker or travel grants to attend national and international conferences or consultation for advisory boards from Alexion, Almirall, Bayer Schering, Biogen, Cellgene-BMS, Janssen, Merck Serono, Teva, Roche, Novartis, Sandoz, and Sanofi-Genzyme. S.T. received travel grants or personal compensations from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, Janssen, Teva, and Almirall. The remaining authors have nothing to report.

Background: Telemedicine has proven successful in relieving the burden of chronic neurological disorders from the national health care systems by ensuring a highly customized and effective management plan. Although many studies focus on assessing telemedicine effectiveness, little is known about the economic implications of telemedicine applications in chronic neurological diseases (CNDs). This issue could account for a lack of widespread implementation. Objective: Our study attempted to fill this gap by systematically reviewing scientific literature on the economic evaluation of telemedicine compared with traditional care in the management of CNDs. Methods: We performed a literature search on PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Embase, and Medline. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies with a full cost-analysis; (2) randomized controlled trials; (3) studies comparing telemedicine interventions with traditional care; (4) articles focusing only on CNDs. Conversely, the exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies focusing on acute neurological conditions or other diseases and (2) study protocols, case report, duplicate articles, abstract only, books, letters to editors, and review articles. Results: Ten articles met the inclusion criteria. Three different approaches of telemedicine intervention could be identified: digital cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), motor telerehabilitation, and home monitoring and assessment devices. Conclusion: Cost-analysis showed an overall benefit in terms of both cost and effectiveness from the application of telemedicine instead of in-presence management in CNDs. Among the identified interventions, digital CBT proved to be the most cost-saving. However, promising results were also found in monitoring and assessment devices and in telerehabilitation. Definitely, however, more thorough, comprehensive, and high-quality economic evaluation studies are needed.

Background: The intervals between two courses of anti CD20 therapies in the COVID19 pandemic era provided the opportunity to individually delay therapy, known as extended interval dosing (EID)., Methods: We collect real-world data on patients with primary progressive MS (PPMS) treated with Ocrelizumab (OCR) during the COVID'19 pandemic. The observation period in which the standard interval dosing (SID) or EID occurred (always a maintenance cycle, 600 mg) was from January 2020 to June 2021. All patients had two infusions during the observation period. Our first aim was to compare confirmed disability progression (CDP) between SID and EID patients., Results: From a total cohort of 410 patients treated with OCR, 96 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All patients received two infusions during the index window, 71 received only SID infusions whilst 25 received at least one EID infusion throughout the entire follow-up. During the entire available follow-up (median 10 months, IQR 7-11), CDP was recorded in 5 patients (3/71, 4.2% SID and 2/25, 8% EID, V-Cramer = 0.141, p-value = 0.167). EID regimen did not influence the risk of CDP during the investigated follow up., Conclusion: In our multicentre real-world cohort, the EID regimen in PPMS patients did not result in increased CDP during the available follow-up., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)