Search

Background and Objectives: Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) typically experience higher levels of inflammation with more frequent relapses, and though patients with POMS usually recover from relapses better than adults, patients with POMS reach irreversible disability at a younger age than adult-onset patients. There have been few randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of multiple sclerosis (MS) disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in patients with POMS, and most available data are based on observational studies of off-label use of DMTs approved for adults. We assessed the effectiveness of natalizumab compared with fingolimod using injectable platform therapies as a reference in pediatric patients in the global MSBase registry., Methods: This retrospective study included patients with POMS who initiated treatment with an injectable DMT, natalizumab, or fingolimod between January 1, 2006, and May 3, 2021. Patients were matched using inverse probability treatment weighting. The primary outcome was time to first relapse from index therapy initiation. Secondary study outcomes included annualized relapse rate; proportions of relapse-free patients at 1, 2, and 5 years; time to treatment discontinuation; and times to 24-week confirmed disability worsening and confirmed disability improvement., Results: A total of 1,218 patients with POMS were included in this analysis. Patients treated with fingolimod had a significantly lower risk of relapse than patients treated with injectable DMTs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.83; p = 0.008). After adjustment for prior DMT experience in the unmatched sample, patients treated with natalizumab had a significantly lower risk of relapse than patients treated either with injectable DMTs (HR, 0.15; 95% CI 0.07-0.31; p < 0.001) or fingolimod (HR, 0.37; 95% CI 0.14-1.00; p = 0.049). The adjusted secondary study outcomes were generally consistent with the primary outcome or with previous observations. The findings in the inverse probability treatment weighting-adjusted patient populations were confirmed in multiple sensitivity analyses., Discussion: Our analyses of relapse risk suggest that natalizumab is more effective than fingolimod in the control of relapses in this population with high rates of new inflammatory activity, consistent with previous studies of natalizumab and fingolimod in adult-onset patients and POMS. In addition, both fingolimod and natalizumab were more effective than first-line injectable therapies., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class II evidence that patients with POMS treated with natalizumab had a lower risk of relapse than those with fingolimod.

Background and Purpose: The validity, reliability, and longitudinal performance of the Patient-Determined Disease Steps (PDDS) scale is unknown in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) with mild to moderate disability. We aimed to examine the psychometric properties and longitudinal performance of the PDDS., Methods: We included relapsing-remitting MS patients with an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of less than 4. Validity and test-retest reliability was examined. Longitudinal data were analysed with mixed-effect modelling and Cohen's kappa for concordance in confirmed disability progression (CDP)., Results: We recruited a total of 1093 participants, of whom 904 had complete baseline data. The baseline correlation between PDDS and EDSS was weak (ρ = 0.45, p < 0.001). PDDS had stronger correlations with patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Conversely, EDSS had stronger correlations with age, disease duration, Kurtzke's functional systems and processing speed test. PDDS test-retest reliability was good to excellent (concordance correlation coefficient = 0.73-0.89). Longitudinally, PDDS was associated with EDSS, age and depression. A higher EDSS score was associated with greater PDSS progression. The magnitude of these associations was small. There was no concordance in CDP as assessed by PDDS and EDSS., Conclusion: The PDDS has greater correlation with other PROs but less correlation with other MS-related outcome measures compared to the EDSS. There was little correlation between PDDS and EDSS longitudinally. Our findings suggest that the PDDS scale is not interchangeable with the EDSS., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

Aim: To evaluate the real-world comparative effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness, from a UK National Health Service perspective, of natalizumab versus fingolimod in patients with rapidly evolving severe relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RES-RRMS)., Methods: Real-world data from the MSBase Registry were obtained for patients with RES-RRMS who were previously either naive to disease-modifying therapies or had been treated with interferon-based therapies, glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, or teriflunomide (collectively known as BRACETD). Matched cohorts were selected by 3-way multinomial propensity score matching, and the annualized relapse rate (ARR) and 6-month-confirmed disability worsening (CDW6M) and improvement (CDI6M) were compared between treatment groups. Comparative effectiveness results were used in a cost-effectiveness model comparing natalizumab and fingolimod, using an established Markov structure over a lifetime horizon with health states based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale. Additional model data sources included the UK MS Survey 2015, published literature, and publicly available sources., Results: In the comparative effectiveness analysis, we found a significantly lower ARR for patients starting natalizumab compared with fingolimod (rate ratio [RR] = 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.73) or BRACETD (RR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.42-0.53). Similarly, CDI6M was higher for patients starting natalizumab compared with fingolimod (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55) and BRACETD (HR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.16-1.85). In patients starting fingolimod, we found a lower ARR (RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.80) compared with starting BRACETD, but no difference in CDI6M (HR = 1.17; 95% CI, 0.91-1.50). Differences in CDW6M were not found between the treatment groups. In the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis, natalizumab dominated fingolimod (0.302 higher quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and £17,141 lower predicted lifetime costs). Similar cost-effectiveness results were observed across sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: This MSBase Registry analysis suggests that natalizumab improves clinical outcomes when compared with fingolimod, which translates to higher QALYs and lower costs in UK patients with RES-RRMS.

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.)

On 12 September 2019, the global Patient Reported Outcome for Multiple Sclerosis (PROMS) Initiative was launched at the 35th Congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). The multi-stakeholder PROMS Initiative is jointly led by the European Charcot Foundation (ECF) and the Multiple Sclerosis International Federation (MSIF), with the Italian Multiple Sclerosis Society (AISM) acting as the lead agency for and on behalf of the global MSIF movement. The initiative has the ambitious mission to (i) maximize the impact of science with and of patient input on the life of people affected by MS, and (ii) to represent a unified view on Patient-Reported Outcomes for MS to people affected by MS, healthcare providers, regulatory agencies and Health Technologies Assessments agencies. Equipped with an innovative participatory governance of an international and interdisciplinary network of different stakeholders, PROMS has the potential to guide future breakthroughs in MS patient-focused research and care. In this paper we present the progresses of the global PROMS Initiative and discuss the open questions that we aim to address., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis inadequately responding to first-line therapies (interferon-based therapies, glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, and teriflunomide, known collectively as "BRACETD") often switch to natalizumab or fingolimod., Objective: The aim was to estimate the comparative effectiveness of switching to natalizumab or fingolimod or within BRACETD using real-world data and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of switching to natalizumab versus fingolimod using a United Kingdom (UK) third-party payer perspective., Methods: Real-world data were obtained from MSBase for patients relapsing on BRACETD in the year before switching to natalizumab or fingolimod or within BRACETD. Three-way-multinomial-propensity-score-matched cohorts were identified, and comparisons between treatment groups were conducted for annualised relapse rate (ARR) and 6-month-confirmed disability worsening (CDW6M) and improvement (CDI6M). Results were applied in a cost-effectiveness model over a lifetime horizon using a published Markov structure with health states based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale. Other model parameters were obtained from the UK MS Survey 2015, published literature, and publicly available UK sources., Results: The MSBase analysis found a significant reduction in ARR (rate ratio [RR] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.72; p < 0.001) and an increase in CDI6M (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.67; 95% CI 1.30-2.15; p < 0.001) for switching to natalizumab compared with BRACETD. For switching to fingolimod, the reduction in ARR (RR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.81-1.03; p = 0.133) and increase in CDI6M (HR = 1.30; 95% CI 0.99-1.72; p = 0.058) compared with BRACETD were not significant. Switching to natalizumab was associated with a significant reduction in ARR (RR = 0.70; 95% CI 0.62-0.79; p < 0.001) and an increase in CDI6M (HR = 1.28; 95% CI 1.01-1.62; p = 0.040) compared to switching to fingolimod. No evidence of difference in CDW6M was found between treatment groups. Natalizumab dominated (higher quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and lower costs) fingolimod in the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis (0.453 higher QALYs and £20,843 lower costs per patient). Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: This novel real-world analysis suggests a clinical benefit for therapy escalation to natalizumab versus fingolimod based on comparative effectiveness results, translating to higher QALYs and lower costs for UK patients inadequately responding to BRACETD., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Progressive forms of multiple sclerosis (MS) affect more than 1 million individuals globally. Recent approvals of ocrelizumab for primary progressive MS and siponimod for active secondary progressive MS have opened the therapeutic door, though results from early trials of neuroprotective agents have been mixed. The recent introduction of the term 'active' secondary progressive MS into the therapeutic lexicon has introduced potential confusion to disease description and thereby clinical management., Objective: This paper reviews recent progress, highlights continued knowledge and proposes, on behalf of the International Progressive MS Alliance, a global research strategy for progressive MS., Methods: Literature searches of PubMed between 2015 and May, 2021 were conducted using the search terms "progressive multiple sclerosis", "primary progressive multiple sclerosis", "secondary progressive MS". Proposed strategies were developed through a series of in-person and virtual meetings of the International Progressive MS Alliance Scientific Steering Committee., Results: Sustaining and accelerating progress will require greater understanding of underlying mechanisms, identification of potential therapeutic targets, biomarker discovery and validation, and conduct of clinical trials with improved trial design. Encouraging developments in symptomatic and rehabilitative interventions are starting to address ongoing challenges experienced by people with progressive MS., Conclusion: We need to manage these challenges and realise the opportunities in the context of a global research strategy, which will improve quality of life for people with progressive MS.

Background: The optimal timing of treatment starts for achieving the best control on the long-term disability accumulation in multiple sclerosis (MS) is still to be defined., Objective: The aim of this study was to estimate the optimal time to start disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) to prevent the long-term disability accumulation in MS, using a pooled dataset from the Big Multiple Sclerosis Data (BMSD) network., Methods: Multivariable Cox regression models adjusted for the time to first treatment start from disease onset (in quintiles) were used. To mitigate the impact of potential biases, a set of pairwise propensity score (PS)-matched analyses were performed. The first quintile, including patients treated within 1.2 years from onset, was used as reference., Results: A cohort of 11,871 patients (median follow-up after treatment start: 13.2 years) was analyzed. A 3- and 12-month confirmed disability worsening event and irreversible Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) 4.0 and 6.0 scores were reached by 7062 (59.5%), 4138 (34.9%), 3209 (31.1%), and 1909 (16.5%) patients, respectively. The risk of reaching all the disability outcomes was significantly lower ( p < 0.0004) for the first quintile patients' group., Conclusion: Real-world data from the BMSD demonstrate that DMTs should be commenced within 1.2 years from the disease onset to reduce the risk of disability accumulation over the long term.

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data from multiple sclerosis (MS) patients treated in real-world settings are important for understanding disease-modifying therapy effects, including no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) assessment. This longitudinal, retrospective, single-cohort analysis assessed MRI and clinical disease outcomes in patients with relapsing-remitting MS treated with natalizumab for up to 5 years in Prague, the Czech Republic., Methods: The primary study endpoint was the proportion of patients free of new or enlarging fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) lesions after at least 2 years of natalizumab treatment. Secondary endpoints included percentage brain volume change over time, the number of new T1-hypointense lesions that persisted for ≥6 months, FLAIR and T1-hypointense lesion volume change over time, and the proportion of patients with NEDA-3 (defined as no relapses, no confirmed disability worsening, and no new or enlarging FLAIR lesions)., Results: A total of 193 patients were included in the study. During year 1 of natalizumab treatment, 78.9% of patients had no new or enlarging FLAIR lesions and 79.5% had no new T1 lesions. These proportions increased in years 2-5, with ≥98.0% of patients free of new or enlarging FLAIR lesions and ≥98.8% free of new T1 lesions. During year 1 on natalizumab, 52.2% of patients achieved NEDA-3; this proportion increased to ≥69.2% in years 2-5., Conclusion: This study provides additional evidence that long-term MS disease activity, as measured by both MRI activity and NEDA-3, is well-controlled in patients treated with natalizumab in real-world settings., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Stratified medicine methodologies based on subgroup analyses are often insufficiently powered. More powerful personalized medicine approaches are based on continuous scores., Objective: We deployed a patient-specific continuous score predicting treatment response in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS)., Methods: Data from two independent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were used to build and validate an individual treatment response (ITR) score, regressing annualized relapse rates (ARRs) on a set of baseline predictors., Results: The ITR score for the combined treatment groups versus placebo detected differential clinical response in both RCTs. High responders in one RCT had a cross-validated ARR ratio of 0.29 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.13-0.55) versus 0.62 (95% CI = 0.47-0.83) for all other responders (heterogeneity p  = 0.038) and were validated in the other RCT, with the corresponding ARR ratios of 0.31 (95% CI = 0.18-0.56) and 0.61 (95% CI = 0.47-0.79; heterogeneity p  = 0.036). The strongest treatment effect modifiers were the Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary, age, Visual Function Test 2.5%, prior MS treatment and Expanded Disability Status Scale., Conclusion: Our modelling strategy detects and validates an ITR score and opens up avenues for building treatment response calculators that are also applicable in routine clinical practice.

Background: Patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) and characteristic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions are at high risk for multiple sclerosis (MS). However, patients with a minimal MRI lesion burden (a low T2-hyperintense [low T2] lesion count) may have borderline formal diagnostic criteria, presenting a clinical management challenge., Objective: Compare the 10-year disease progression of patients with low and higher T2 lesion counts treated over most intervals., Methods: CIS patients from the original CHAMPS MS trial were retrospectively assigned to low-T2 (first quartile; 2-8 lesions) or higher-T2 (second through fourth quartiles; ≥ 9 lesions) groups using baseline T2 lesion counts. The 5- and 10-year open-label extension of CHAMPS (CHAMPIONS) evaluated conversion to clinically definite MS (CDMS), MRI activity, relapses, and disability., Results: The vast majority of patients showed new disease activity by MRI and/or clinical criteria at 10 years (low-T2 86%; higher-T2 98%). Fewer low-T2 than higher-T2 patients developed CDMS (40% vs. 63%; p = 0.013); low-T2 patients also had fewer new brain lesions, less brain volume loss, and less disability progression., Conclusion: CIS patients with low T2 lesion counts show continued disease activity. However, all assessments of disease progression over 10 years indicated a significantly less severe disease course for low-T2 patients., (© The Author(s), 2014.)

Background: Ambulation impairment is a major component of physical disability in multiple sclerosis (MS) and a major target of rehabilitation programs. Outcome measures commonly used to evaluate walking capacities suffer from several limitations., Objectives: To define and validate a new test that would overcome the limitations of current gait evaluations in MS and ultimately better correlate with the maximum walking distance (MWD)., Methods: The authors developed the Timed 100-Meter Walk Test (T100MW), which was compared with the Timed 25-Foot Walk Test (T25FW). For the T100MW, the subject is invited to walk 100 m as fast as he/she can. In MS patients and healthy control volunteers, the authors measured the test-retest and interrater intraclass correlation coefficient. Spearman rank correlations were obtained between the T25FW, the T100MW, the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), and the MWD. The coefficient of variation, Bland-Altman plots, the coefficient of determination, and the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve were measured. The mean walking speed (MWS) was compared between the 2 tests., Results: A total of 141 MS patients and 104 healthy control volunteers were assessed. Minor differences favoring the T100MW over the T25FW were observed. Interestingly, the authors demonstrated a paradoxically higher MWS on a long (T100MW) rather than on a short distance walk test (T25FW)., Conclusion: The T25FW and T100MW displayed subtle differences of reproducibility, variability, and correlation with MWD favoring the T100MW. The maximum walking speed of MS patients may be poorly estimated by the T25FW since MS patients were shown to walk faster over a longer distance.

Background: Findings from a small clinical study suggested that statins may counteract the therapeutic effects of interferon beta (IFNbeta) in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS)., Methods: We conducted a post hoc analysis of data from the Safety and Efficacy of Natalizumab in Combination With IFNbeta-1a in Patients With Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (SENTINEL) study to determine the effects of statins on efficacy of IFNbeta. SENTINEL was a prospective trial of patients with RRMS treated with natalizumab (Tysabri, Biogen Idec, Inc., Cambridge, MA) plus IM IFNbeta-1a (Avonex, Biogen Idec, Inc.) 30 microg compared with placebo plus IM IFNbeta-1a 30 microg. Clinical and MRI outcomes in patients treated with IM IFNbeta-1a only (no-statins group, n = 542) were compared with those of patients taking IM IFNbeta-1a and statins at doses used to treat hyperlipidemia (statins group, n = 40)., Results: No significant differences were observed between treatment groups in adjusted annualized relapse rate (p = 0.937), disability progression (p = 0.438), number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions (p = 0.604), or number of new or enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions (p = 0.802) at 2 years. More patients in the statins group reported fatigue, extremity pain, muscle aches, and increases in hepatic transaminases compared with patients in the no-statins group. Statin treatment had no ex vivo or in vitro effect on induction of IFN-stimulated genes., Conclusions: Statin therapy does not appear to affect clinical effects of IM interferon beta-1a in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis or the primary molecular response to interferon beta treatment.

The article presents a study which aims to compare the 10-year disease progression of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with low and higher T2 lesion counts treated over most intervals. It notes the evaluation of a 5- and 10-year open-label extension of a clinical trial to clinically definite MS (CDMS), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity, relapses, and disability. It reveals that clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) patients with low T2 lesion counts show continued disease activity.

Objective Determine whether MRI activity 6 months after treatment initiation in the Controlled High-Risk Subjects Avonex ® Multiple Sclerosis Prevention Study (CHAMPS) predicted progression to clinically definite multiple sclerosis (CDMS) over the subsequent 30 months in intramuscular interferon beta-1a (IM IFNβ-1a)-treated patients vs placebo-treated patients. Methods CHAMPS patients were randomized to once-weekly IM IFNβ-1a 30 μg or placebo for up to 36 months. MRI was performed every 6 months until CDMS confirmation. Patient groups were defined based on new T2 and/or Gd+ lesions at 6 months. Results Thirteen IM IFNβ-1a patients (6.7%) and 24 placebo patients (12.6%) developed CDMS prior to month 6 and did not undergo the 6-month MRI. At 6 months, 29.7% of IM IFNβ-1a-treated patients vs 40.9% of placebo-treated patients were defined as having high MRI activity levels (≥2 new T2 and/or ≥2 Gd+ lesions). In this subgroup, estimated cumulative probabilities of CDMS were similar between groups (HR=0.88 [0.44–1.77], p =0.7227). A significant treatment response was seen for patients with <2 new T2 and <2 Gd+ lesions at 6 months (HR=0.39 [0.19–0.82], p =0.0120). Conclusion MRI scans 6 months after IM IFNβ-1a initiation in CIS patients predict early treatment non-response. Standardized scanning and monitoring may facilitate early disease management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) are self-injectable medications that must be taken on an ongoing basis to reduce disease activity. Thus, adherence to therapy becomes an important challenge that must be addressed to maximize benefits of therapy. This study evaluated rates of adherence to prescribed treatment and explored factors affecting adherence amongst patients with relapsing-remitting MS. This was an observational, multicenter, multinational, phase 4 study. Patients and physicians received paper questionnaires regarding adherence to DMTs approved at the time of the study, including intramuscular interferon beta-1a (IFNβ-1a), subcutaneous IFNβ-1a, IFNβ-1b, and glatiramer acetate. Quality of life and cognition data also were collected. Multivariate analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with adherence to long-term DMTs. Two thousand six hundred and forty-eight patients were studied, revealing an average treatment duration of 31 months. Seventy-five percent of patients ( n = 1923) were adherent to therapy. The most common reasons for non-adherence were forgetting to administer the injection (50.2%) and other injection-related reasons (32.0%). Adherent patients reported better quality of life ( P < 0.05) and fewer neuropsychological issues ( P < 0.001) than non-adherent patients. Adherent patients had significantly shorter duration of disease ( P < 0.001) and shorter duration of therapy ( P = 0.005) than non-adherent patients. Women were more likely than men to adhere to treatment. Identifying factors that affect adherence to prescribed treatments is the first step in improving adherence of patients with MS to therapy, thereby helping maximize the benefits of long-term DMTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]