Search

The objective of this study was to describe and compare the burden of treatment (BOT) and the quality of life (QoL) in early high efficacy therapy (HET) vs. escalation therapy in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients included in RelevarEM, the Argentinean registry of MS (RelevarEM, NCT 03,375,177)., Methods: cross sectional study conducted between September and December 2022. Participating patients were adults, RRMS patients who initiated (during the last three years) their treatment with a HET (natalizumab, ocrelizumab, alemtuzumab, cladribine) or with escalation treatment (beta interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate or fingolimod). Clinical and demographic aspect were collected. QoL and BOT was measured with the validated to Spanish MusiQol and BOT questionnaire. Propensity score (PS)-based nearest-neighbor matching was applied to homogenize groups. Comparisons were be done using a linear regression analysis model stratified by matched pairs, with BOT and QoL assessments as main outcomes., Results: 269 patients were included in the analysis, mean age 33.7 ± 5.7 years, 193 (71.7 %) were female. A total of 136 patients were on early HET while 133 were on escalation therapy. In the entire group the mean total BOT score (±SD) was 48.5 ± 15.3 while in the group of patients receiving early HET we observed that the mean BOT score (±SD) was 43.5 ± 12.2 vs. 54.3 ± 13.3 in escalation treatment (p < 0.0001). Regarding the score QoL (±SD), in the entire sample we observed a global score of 77.4 ± 11.2. When we stratified groups, in HET (±SD) it was 81.3 ± 14 vs. 74.1 ± 18.3 in escalation therapy (p = 0.0003)., Conclusion: in this multicenter study that included 269 patients from Argentina we observed in early HET a significantly lower BOT and higher QoL than patients receiving escalation therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: In multiple sclerosis demographics there is a well-known female prevalence and male patients have been less specifically evaluated in clinical studies, though some clinical differences have been reported between sexes., Objective: The objective of this study was to assess clinical and demographic differences between male and female patients included in the national Argentine MS Registry-RelevarEM., Material and Methods: This study was observational, retrospective, and was based on the data of 3099 MS patients included as of 04 April 2021. The statistical analysis plan included bivariate analyses with the crude data and also after adjustment for the MS phenotype, further categorized as progressive-onset MS or relapsing-onset MS. In the adjusted analysis, the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio was compared to the crude odds ratio, to account for the phenotype as a confounder., Results: The data from 1,074 (34.7%) men and 2,025 (65.3%) women with MS diagnosis were analysed. Males presented primary progressive disease two times more often than women (11% and 5%, respectively). In the crude analyses by sex, the presence of exclusively infratentorial lesions in the magnetic resonance imaging studies was more frequent in males than in females, but after adjustment by MS onset phenotype, such difference was only present in males with relapsing-onset MS (p = 0.00006). Similarly, worse Expanded Disability Status Scale scores were confirmed only in men with relapsing-onset disease after phenotype adjustment (p = 0.02)., Conclusion: We did not find any statistically significant clinical or demographic difference between sexes when the progressive MS phenotype was specifically considered. However, the differences we found between the clinical phenotypes are in line with the literature and highlight the importance of stratifying the analyses by sex and phenotype when designing MS studies., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)