Search

Background: Whether progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA) heralds earlier onset of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) and more rapid accumulation of disability during SPMS remains to be determined. We investigated the association between early PIRA, relapse-associated worsening (RAW) of disability and time to SPMS, subsequent disability progression and their response to therapy., Methods: This observational cohort study included patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) from the MSBase international registry across 146 centres and 39 countries. Associations between the number of PIRA and RAW during early multiple sclerosis (MS) (the initial 5 years of MS onset) were analysed with respect to: time to SPMS using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for disease characteristics; and disability progression during SPMS, calculated as the change of Multiple Sclerosis Severity Scores over time, using multivariable linear regression., Results: 10 692 patients met the inclusion criteria: 3125 (29%) were men and the mean MS onset age was 32.2 years. A higher number of early PIRA (HR=1.50, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.76, p<0.001) and RAW (HR=2.53, 95% CI 2.25 to 2.85, p<0.001) signalled a higher risk of SPMS. A higher proportion of early disease-modifying therapy exposure (per 10%) reduced the effect of early RAW (HR=0.94, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.00, p=0.041) but not PIRA (HR=0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05, p=0.49) on SPMS risk. No association between early PIRA/RAW and disability progression during SPMS was found., Conclusions: Early disability increase during RRMS is associated with a greater risk of SPMS but not the rate of disability progression during SPMS. The deterioration associated with early relapses represents a potentially treatable risk factor of SPMS., Trial Registration Number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12605000455662)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: WD has nothing to declare. SS has nothing to declare. FP received speaker honoraria and advisory board fees from Almirall, Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and TEVA. He received research funding from Biogen, Merck, FISM (Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla), Reload Onlus Association and University of Catania. GI received speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Roche, Almirall and Teva. SE received speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche and Teva. AP has nothing to declare. MG received consulting fees from Teva Canada Innovation, Biogen, Novartis and Genzyme Sanofi; lecture payments from Teva Canada Innovation, Novartis and EMD. He has also received a research grant from Canadian Institutes of Health Research. PD served on editorial boards and has been supported to attend meetings by EMD, Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, and TEVA Neuroscience. He holds grants from the CIHR and the MS Society of Canada and has received funding for investigator-initiated trials from Biogen, Novartis, and Genzyme. MO has nothing to declare. AL has received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking or other activities from Biogen, Merck Serono, Mylan, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. Her institutions have receved research grants from Novartis [last 4 yrs]. SO has nothing to declare. OG has nothing to declare. CB received conference travel support from Biogen, Novartis, Bayer-Schering, Merck and Teva; has participated in clinical trials by Sanofi Aventis, Roche and Novartis. PG has served in advisory boards for Novartis, EMD Serono, Roche, Biogen idec, Sanofi Genzyme, Pendopharm and has received grant support from Genzyme and Roche, has received research grants for his institution from Biogen idec, Sanofi Genzyme, EMD Serono. MT received travel grants from Novartis, Bayer-Schering, Merck and Teva; has participated in clinical trials by Sanofi Aventis, Roche and Novartis. MPA received honoraria as consultant on scientific advisory boards by Biogen, Bayer-Schering, Merck, Teva and Sanofi-Aventis; has received research grants by Biogen, Bayer-Schering, Merck, Teva and Novartis. DS received honoraria as a consultant on scientific advisory boards by Bayer-Schering, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis and compensation for travel from Novartis, Biogen, Sanofi Aventis, Teva and Merck. CR-T received research funding, compensation for travel or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme and Almirall. DM received speaker honoraria for Advisory Board and travel grants from Almirall, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Teva. EC has nothing to declare. TK served on scientific advisory boards for BMS, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Merck and Biogen, steering committee for Brain Atrophy Initiative by Sanofi Genzyme, received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL and Merck and received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene and Merck. KB received honoraria and consulting fees from Biogen, Teva, Novartis, Genzyme-Sanofi, Roche, Merck, CSL and Grifols. OS has nothing to declare. AvdW has nothing to declare. HB Institution (Monash university) has received compensation for consulting, talks, advisory/steering board activities from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Genzyme, Alfred Health; research support from Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Merck, NHMRC, Pennycook Foundation, MSRA. HB has received compensation for same activities from Oxford Health Policy Forum, Merck, Biogen, Novartis. GI had travel/accommodations/meeting expenses funded by Bayer Schering, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi Aventis, and Teva. AS has nothing to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Geographical variations in the incidence and prevalence of multiple sclerosis have been reported globally. Latitude as a surrogate for exposure to ultraviolet radiation but also other lifestyle and environmental factors are regarded as drivers of this variation. No previous studies evaluated geographical variation in the risk of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, an advanced form of multiple sclerosis that is characterized by steady accrual of irreversible disability. We evaluated differences in the risk of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis in relation to latitude and country of residence, modified by high-to-moderate efficacy immunotherapy in a geographically diverse cohort of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. The study included relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients from the global MSBase registry with at least one recorded assessment of disability. Secondary progressive multiple sclerosis was identified as per clinician diagnosis. Sensitivity analyses used the operationalized definition of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis and the Swedish decision tree algorithm. A proportional hazards model was used to estimate the cumulative risk of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis by country of residence (latitude), adjusted for sex, age at disease onset, time from onset to relapsing-remitting phase, disability (Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score) and relapse activity at study inclusion, national multiple sclerosis prevalence, government health expenditure, and proportion of time treated with high-to-moderate efficacy disease-modifying therapy. Geographical variation in time from relapsing-remitting phase to secondary progressive phase of multiple sclerosis was modelled through a proportional hazards model with spatially correlated frailties. We included 51 126 patients (72% female) from 27 countries. The median survival time from relapsing-remitting phase to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis among all patients was 39 (95% confidence interval: 37 to 43) years. Higher latitude [median hazard ratio = 1.21, 95% credible interval (1.16, 1.26)], higher national multiple sclerosis prevalence [1.07 (1.03, 1.11)], male sex [1.30 (1.22, 1.39)], older age at onset [1.35 (1.30, 1.39)], higher disability [2.40 (2.34, 2.47)] and frequent relapses [1.18 (1.15, 1.21)] at inclusion were associated with increased hazard of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Higher proportion of time on high-to-moderate efficacy therapy substantially reduced the hazard of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis [0.76 (0.73, 0.79)] and reduced the effect of latitude [interaction: 0.95 (0.92, 0.99)]. At the country-level, patients in Oman, Tunisia, Iran and Canada had higher risks of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis relative to the other studied regions. Higher latitude of residence is associated with a higher probability of developing secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. High-to-moderate efficacy immunotherapy can mitigate some of this geographically co-determined risk., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain.)

Background: Some studies comparing primary and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS, SPMS) report similar ages at onset of the progressive phase and similar rates of subsequent disability accrual. Others report later onset and/or faster accrual in SPMS. Comparisons have been complicated by regional cohort effects, phenotypic differences in sex ratio and management and variable diagnostic criteria for SPMS., Methods: We compared disability accrual in PPMS and operationally diagnosed SPMS in the international, clinic-based MSBase cohort. Inclusion required PPMS or SPMS with onset at age ≥18 years since 1995. We estimated Andersen-Gill hazard ratios for disability accrual on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), adjusted for sex, age, baseline disability, EDSS score frequency and drug therapies, with centre and patient as random effects. We also estimated ages at onset of the progressive phase (Kaplan-Meier) and at EDSS milestones (Turnbull). Analyses were replicated with physician-diagnosed SPMS., Results: Included patients comprised 1872 with PPMS (47% men; 50% with activity) and 2575 with SPMS (32% men; 40% with activity). Relative to PPMS, SPMS had older age at onset of the progressive phase (median 46.7 years (95% CI 46.2-47.3) vs 43.9 (43.3-44.4); p<0.001), greater baseline disability, slower disability accrual (HR 0.86 (0.78-0.94); p<0.001) and similar age at wheelchair dependence., Conclusions: We demonstrate later onset of the progressive phase and slower disability accrual in SPMS versus PPMS. This may balance greater baseline disability in SPMS, yielding convergent disability trajectories across phenotypes. The different rates of disability accrual should be considered before amalgamating PPMS and SPMS in clinical trials., Competing Interests: Competing interests: IR served on scientific advisory boards for Novartis and Merck, and received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Biogen, Teva, Sanofi Genzyme, and Merck. A-LN received grants from MS Research Australia; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Biogen; grants and personal fees from Merck Serono; personal fees from Teva and Novartis; and nonfinancial support from Roche and Sanofi Genzyme. GI received speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Roche, Almirall, and Teva. SE received speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, and Teva. FP received speaker honoraria and advisory board fees from Almirall, Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva, and research funding from Biogen, Merck, FISM (Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla), Reload Onlus Association, and the University of Catania. DH received speaker honoraria and consulting fees from Biogen, Merck, Teva, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Novartis, and support for research activities from Biogen and the Czech Ministry of Education (project PROGRES Q27/LF1). EVH received honoraria or research support from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Teva; has been a member of advisory boards for Actelion, Biogen, Celgene, Merck Serono, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme; and received research support from the Czech Ministry of Education (project PROGRES Q27/LF1). MG received consulting fees from Teva Canada Innovation, Biogen, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme; lecture payments from Teva Canada Innovation, Novartis, and EMD; and research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. PD served on editorial boards for, and has been supported to attend meetings by, EMD, Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, and Teva Neuroscience; he holds grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the MS Society of Canada, and received funding for investigator-initiated trials from Biogen, Novartis, and Genzyme. FG’M received honoraria or research funding from Biogen, Genzyme, Novartis, Teva Neurosciences, Mitsubishi, and ONO Pharmaceuticals. AL received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities from Biogen, Merck Serono, Mylan, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva; her institutions have received research grants from Novartis (in the past 4 years). PG served on advisory boards for Novartis, EMD Serono, Roche, Biogen Idec, Sanofi Genzyme, and Pendopharm; received grant support from Genzyme and Roche; and received research grants for his institution from Biogen Idec, Sanofi Genzyme, and EMD Serono. MPA received honoraria as a consultant on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Bayer Schering, Merck, Teva, and Sanofi-Aventis, and received research grants by Biogen, Bayer Schering, Merck, Teva, and Novartis. PS served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen Idec and Teva; received funding for travel and speaker honoraria from Biogen Idec, Merck, Teva, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, and Bayer; and received research grants for her institution from Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. DF received travel grants and/or speaker honoraria from Merck, Teva, Novartis, Biogen, and Sanofi Genzyme. KB received honoraria and consulting fees from Biogen, Teva, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, Merck, CSL, and Grifols. JL-S received travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Roche, and Merck; her institution received honoraria for talks and advisory board commitments, as well as research grants from Biogen, Merck, Roche, Teva, and Novartis. RA received honoraria as a speaker and for serving on scientific advisory boards from Bayer, Biogen, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi Genzyme. CB received conference travel support from Biogen, Novartis, Bayer Schering, Merck, and Teva, and participated in clinical trials by Sanofi-Aventis, Roche, and Novartis. VVP received travel grants from Merck, Biogen, Sanofi, Celgene, Almirall, and Roche; his institution received research grants and consultancy fees from Roche, Biogen, Sanofi, Celgene, Merck, and Novartis Pharma. MT received travel grants from Novartis, Bayer Schering, Merck, and Teva, and participated in clinical trials by Sanofi-Aventis, Roche, and Novartis. DM received speaker honoraria for advisory board service and travel grants from Almirall, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva. CR-T received research funding, compensation for travel, or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, and Almirall. DLS received honoraria as a consultant on scientific advisory boards from Bayer Schering, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis, and compensation for travel from Novartis, Biogen, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and Merck. FG received an institutional research grant from Biogen and Sanofi Genzyme; served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis, Merck, Sanofi Genzyme, and Roche; and received funding for travel and speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck, and Sanofi-Aventis. MS participated in, but did not receive honoraria for, advisory board activity for Biogen, Merck, Bayer Schering, Sanofi-Aventis, and Novartis. RB received speaker honoraria from Bayer Schering, Biogen, Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, and Teva; research grants from Bayer Schering, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, and Teva; and congress, travel, and accommodation expense compensations from Almirall, Bayer Schering, Biogen, Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, and Teva. RA received conference travel support from Novartis, Teva, Biogen, Bayer, and Merck, and participated in clinical trials by Biogen, Novartis, Teva, and Actelion. JLS-M received travel compensation from Novartis and Biogen; received speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Almirall, Bayer, and Teva; and participated in a clinical trial by Biogen. JP received travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Genzyme, and Teva, and speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme and Teva. TC-T received speaking or consulting fees and/or travel funding from Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva. GL received travel and/or consultancy compensation from Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, Teva, Merck, Novartis, Celgene, and Biogen. JO received research funding from the MS Society of Canada, the National MS Society, Brain Canada, Biogen Idec, Roche, and EMD Serono, and personal compensation for consulting or speaking from EMD Serono, Sanofi Genzyme, Biogen Idec, Roche, Celgene, and Novartis. AA received personal fees and speaker honoraria from Teva, Merck, Biogen Gen Pharma, Roche, Novartis, Bayer, and Sanofi Genzyme, and received travel and registration grants from Merck, Biogen Gen Pharma, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Bayer. HB received compensation for consulting, talks, and advisory or steering board activities from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Genzyme, Alfred Health, and Oxford Health Policy Forum, and research support from Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Merck, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Pennycook Foundation, and MS Research Australia MB served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis, and Genzyme, received conference travel support from Biogen and Novartis, and serves on steering committees for trials conducted by Novartis; his institution received research support from Biogen, Merck, and Novartis. EC Cristiano received honoraria as a consultant on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Bayer Schering, Merck, Genzyme, and Novartis, and participated in clinical trials or other research projects by Merck, Roche, and Novartis. SH received honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis, Bayer Schering, and Sanofi, and travel grants from Novartis, Biogen Idec, and Bayer Schering. GI received compensation for travel, accommodations, and meeting expenses from Bayer Schering, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, and Teva. LK received research support from Acorda, Actelion, Allozyne, BaroFold, Bayer HealthCare, Bayer Schering, Bayhill Therapeutics, Biogen, Elan, European Union, Genmab, Gianni Rubatto Foundation, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, MediciNova, Merck, Novartis, Novartis Research Foundation, Roche, Roche Research Foundation, Sanofi-Aventis, Santhera, the Swiss MS Society, the Swiss National Research Foundation, Teva Neuroscience, UCB, and Wyeth. BW-G participated in speakers' bureaus and/or served as a consultant for Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, Genentech, Celgene/Bristol Meyers Squibb, Sanofi Genzyme, Bayer, Janssen, and Horizon; received grant/research support from these same agencies; and serves on editorial boards for BMJ Neurology, Children, CNS Drugs, MS International, and Frontiers Epidemiology. BVW received research and travel grants and honoraria for advisory and speaking fees from Bayer Schering, Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Teva. TK served on scientific advisory boards for BMS, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Merck, and Biogen, and the steering committee for the Brain Atrophy Initiative by Sanofi Genzyme; received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Novartis, Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL, and Merck; and received support for research or educational events from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene, and Merck., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Purpose: This study assessed the effect of patient characteristics on the response to disease-modifying therapy (DMT) in multiple sclerosis (MS)., Methods: We extracted data from 61,810 patients from 135 centers across 35 countries from the MSBase registry. The selection criteria were: clinically isolated syndrome or definite MS, follow-up ≥ 1 year, and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score ≥ 3, with ≥1 score recorded per year. Marginal structural models with interaction terms were used to compare the hazards of 12-month confirmed worsening and improvement of disability, and the incidence of relapses between treated and untreated patients stratified by their characteristics., Results: Among 24,344 patients with relapsing MS, those on DMTs experienced 48% reduction in relapse incidence (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.45-0.60), 46% lower risk of disability worsening (HR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.41-0.71), and 32% greater chance of disability improvement (HR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.09-1.59). The effect of DMTs on EDSS worsening and improvement and the risk of relapses was attenuated with more severe disability. The magnitude of the effect of DMT on suppressing relapses declined with higher prior relapse rate and prior cerebral magnetic resonance imaging activity. We did not find any evidence for the effect of age on the effectiveness of DMT. After inclusion of 1985 participants with progressive MS, the effect of DMT on disability mostly depended on MS phenotype, whereas its effect on relapses was driven mainly by prior relapse activity., Conclusions: DMT is generally most effective among patients with lower disability and in relapsing MS phenotypes. There is no evidence of attenuation of the effect of DMT with age., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

Background: Over the decades, several natural history studies on patients with primary (PPMS) or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) were reported from international registries. In PPMS, a consistent heterogeneity on long-term disability trajectories was demonstrated. The aim of this study was to identify subgroups of patients with SPMS with similar longitudinal trajectories of disability over time., Methods: All patients with MS collected within Big MS registries who received an SPMS diagnosis from physicians (cohort 1) or satisfied the Lorscheider criteria (cohort 2) were considered. Longitudinal Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores were modelled by a latent class growth analysis (LCGA), using a non-linear function of time from the first EDSS visit in the range 3-4., Results: A total of 3613 patients with SPMS were included in the cohort 1. LCGA detected three different subgroups of patients with a mild (n=1297; 35.9%), a moderate (n=1936; 53.6%) and a severe (n=380; 10.5%) disability trajectory. Median time to EDSS 6 was 12.1, 5.0 and 1.7 years, for the three groups, respectively; the probability to reach EDSS 6 at 8 years was 14.4%, 78.4% and 98.3%, respectively. Similar results were found among 7613 patients satisfying the Lorscheider criteria., Conclusions: Contrary to previous interpretations, patients with SPMS progress at greatly different rates. Our identification of distinct trajectories can guide better patient selection in future phase 3 SPMS clinical trials. Additionally, distinct trajectories could reflect heterogeneous pathological mechanisms of progression., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AS received research support from MSBase. JL received research support from Innosuisse—Swiss Innovation Agency, Biogen and Novartis; he served on advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis, Roche and Teva. SV received consulting and lecture fees, travel grants and research support from Biogen, Celgene, Genentech, Genzyme, Medday Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and Teva Pharma. MT has served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis, Roche and Genzyme; has received speaker honoraria and travel support from Biogen Idec, Sanofi-Aventis, Merck Serono, Teva, Genzyme and Novartis; and has received research grants for her institution from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono and Novartis. JH has received honoraria for serving on advisory boards for Biogen, Sanofi-Genzyme and Novartis; and speaker’s fees from Biogen, Novartis, Merck Serono, Bayer-Schering, Teva and Sanofi-Genzyme. He has served as PI for projects or received unrestricted research support from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, TEVA, Sanofi-Genzyme and Bayer-Schering; his MS research is funded by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Brain Foundation. RH is an employee of Biogen and holds a stock. FP is an employee of Biogen. MM has served on scientific advisory board for Biogen Idec and Teva; and has received honoraria for lecturing from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Sanofi-Aventis and Teva. NK-H has received honoraria for lecturing and participating in advisory councils, travel expenses for attending congresses and meetings, and financial support for monitoring the Danish Multiple Sclerosis Treatment Register from Bayer-Schering, Merck Serono, Biogen Idec, Teva, Sanofi-Aventis and Novartis. PSS has served on scientific advisory boards for Merck Serono, Teva, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis and Biogen Idec; has received research support from Biogen Idec, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis; and received speaker honoraria from Merck Serono, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi-Aventis, Biogen Idec and Genzyme. TS received compensation for serving on scientific advisory boards, honoraria for consultancy and funding for travel from Biogen; and speaker honoraria from Novartis. AvdW reported receiving grants from National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Novartis, Roche and MS Research Australia; and personal fees from Biogen, Merck, Novartis and Roche. DH received compensation for travel, speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Biogen, Novartis, Merck Healthcare (Darmstadt, Germany), Bayer, Sanofi, Roche and Teva, as well as support for research activities from Biogen. She was also supported by the Charles University: Cooperation Program in neuroscience. EH received honoraria/research support from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novars, Roche and Teva; has been a member of advisory boards for Actelion, Biogen, Celgene, Merck Serono, Novars and Sanofi Genzyme. MG received consulting fees from Teva Canada Innovation, Biogen, Novartis and Genzyme Sanofi; and lecture payments from Teva Canada Innovation, Novartis and EMD. He has also received a research grant from Canadian Institutes of Health Research. SE received speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche and Teva. FG received honoraria or research funding from Biogen, Genzyme, Novartis, Teva Neurosciences, Mitsubishi and ONO Pharmaceuticals. OG has nothing to disclose. MT received travel grants from Novartis, Bayer-Schering, Merck and Teva; and has participated in clinical trials by Sanofi Aventis, Roche and Novartis. SO has nothing to disclose. OS has received honoraria and consulting fees from Bayer Schering, Novartis, Merck, Biogen and Genzyme companies. VVP received travel grants from Merck Healthcare (Darmstadt, Germany), Biogen, Sanofi, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Almirall and Roche. His institution has received research grants and consultancy fees from Roche, Biogen, Sanofi, Merck Healthcare (Darmstadt, Germany), Bristol Meyer Squibb, Janssen, Almirall and Novartis Pharma. MJS received consulting fees, speaker honoraria, and/or travel expenses for scientific meetings from Alexion, Bayer Healthcare, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi and Teva. JP accepted travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Genzyme and Teva; and speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme and Teva. RA received honoraria as a speaker and for serving on scientific advisory boards from Bayer, Biogen, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi-Genzyme. PAM received speakers fees and travel grants from Novartis, Biogen, T’évalua and Sanofi. RG has nothing to disclose. SM has received a MENACTRIMS clinical fellowship grant (2020). TC-T received speaking/consulting fees and/or travel funding from Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva. CZ has nothing to disclose. KdG has nothing to disclose. JLS-M accepted travel compensation from Novartis, Merck and Biogen; speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Almirall, Bayer and Teva; and has participated in clinical trials by Biogen, Merck and Roche. BY and SK have nothing to disclose. MPS has received consulting fees from Biogen, Merck, Teva, Genzyme, Roche, Novartis, GeNeuro and MedDay. TK reported receiving grants from MS Research Australia and grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Biogen; personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi Genzyme and Merck; personal fees from Roche, Novartis, WebMD Global, Teva and BioCSL; and grants from NHMRC, MS Research Australia, ARSEP-OFSEP, UK MS Society and Medical Research Future Fund. HB’s institution (Monash University) received compensation for consulting, talks, and advisory/steering board activities from Alfred Health, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche and UCB pharma; research support from Biogen, Merck, Roche, MS Australia, National Health and Medical Research (Australia) and the Medical Research Future Fund (Australia), the Pennycook Foundation, Novartis and Roche. He has received personal compensation for steering group activities from Oxford Health Policy Forum., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To compare the clinical effectiveness of high- and low-efficacy treatments in patients with recently active and inactive secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) after accounting for therapeutic lag., Methods: Patients treated with high-efficacy (natalizumab, alemtuzumab, mitoxantrone, ocrelizumab, rituximab, cladribine, fingolimod) or low-efficacy (interferon beta, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide) therapies after SPMS onset were selected from MSBase and Observatoire Français de la Sclérose en Plaques (OFSEP), 2 large observational cohorts. Therapeutic lag was estimated for each patient from their demographic and clinical characteristics. Propensity score was used to match patients treated with high- and low-efficacy therapies. Outcomes after the period of therapeutic lag was disregarded were compared in paired, pairwise-censored analyses., Results: One thousand patients were included in the primary analysis. Patients with active SPMS treated with high-efficacy therapy experienced less frequent relapses than those on low-efficacy therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.7, p = 0.006). In patients with inactive SPMS, there was no evidence for a difference in relapse frequency between groups (HR 0.8, p = 0.39). No evidence for a difference in the risk of disability progression was observed., Conclusion: In treated patients with SPMS, high-efficacy therapy is superior to low-efficacy therapy in reducing relapses in patients with active but not those with inactive SPMS. However, more potent therapies do not offer an advantage in reducing disability progression in this patient group., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class III evidence that high-efficacy therapy is superior to low-efficacy therapy in reducing relapses in patients with active SPMS, although we did not find a difference in disability progression between patients treated with high- and low-efficacy therapy., (© 2021 American Academy of Neurology.)

Background: The risk factors for conversion from relapsing-remitting to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis remain highly contested., Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the demographic, clinical and paraclinical features that influence the risk of conversion to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis., Methods: Patients with adult-onset relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and at least four recorded disability scores were selected from MSBase, a global observational cohort. The risk of conversion to objectively defined secondary progressive multiple sclerosis was evaluated at multiple time points per patient using multivariable marginal Cox regression models. Sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: A total of 15,717 patients were included in the primary analysis. Older age (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.02, p  < 0.001), longer disease duration (HR = 1.01, p  = 0.038), a higher Expanded Disability Status Scale score (HR = 1.30, p  < 0.001), more rapid disability trajectory (HR = 2.82, p  < 0.001) and greater number of relapses in the previous year (HR = 1.07, p  = 0.010) were independently associated with an increased risk of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Improving disability (HR = 0.62, p  = 0.039) and disease-modifying therapy exposure (HR = 0.71, p  = 0.007) were associated with a lower risk. Recent cerebral magnetic resonance imaging activity, evidence of spinal cord lesions and oligoclonal bands in the cerebrospinal fluid were not associated with the risk of conversion., Conclusion: Risk of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis increases with age, duration of illness and worsening disability and decreases with improving disability. Therapy may delay the onset of secondary progression.