Search

The Stroke Units (SUs) have been demonstrated to be efficient and cost effective for acute stroke care. Nevertheless, the level of stroke unit implementation in Italy does not correspond to expectations yet. This study is a survey, which aims at assessing the current status of in-hospital stroke care in the Italian regions and at updating SUs. The survey was conducted by means of a semi-structured questionnaire, based on 18 stroke care 'quality indicators', submitted to all the Italian centres that had taken part in the SITS-MOST study, and to other centres advised by the coordinator of SITS studies and by regional opinion leaders of stroke. SUs were defined as acute wards, with stroke-dedicated beds and dedicated teams that had been formally authorised to administer rt-PA. A statistical analysis was performed by a descriptive statistics and logistic regression model. The study was carried out from November 2009 to September 2010. A total of 168 forms were sent out and 153 replies received. Seven centres, which had not performed any thrombolytic treatment, and 16 which did not fulfil the criteria for the definition of SU were excluded from the study. Most of the centres reported more than 100 stroke patient admissions per year, i.e., 122 (84 %) from 100 to 500, 18 (12 %) more than 500. The 19 % of the centres admitted more than 30 % of patients within 3 h from the symptom onset and only 30 % admitted more than 30 % of patients within 4.5 h. The mean number of thrombolyses performed in the last 6 months was 10 for centres with a doctor on duty 24 h a day, 6 for those that have a doctor on duty from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and a doctor on call for night, and 5 for centres with a doctor on call 24 h a day. The territorial distribution of the SUs is remarkably heterogeneous: 87 SUs (67 %) are located in the North of Italy, 28 (22 %) in the central part of Italy and only 15 (11 %) in the South. The last few years have witnessed a rise in both the diffusion of SUs and access to thrombolytic therapy in Italy. Despite this, there are a few large areas, mostly in the south, where the requirements of healthcare legislation are not met, and access to a dedicated SU and thrombolytic treatment is still limited and poor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Although prescription of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for epileptic patients on anti-seizure medications (ASMs) is on the increase, international guidelines pose strict restrictions because this may lead to pharmacologic interactions. However, current evidence on their clinical relevance remains scanty. This retrospective, case-control study assessed the frequency of ischemic/hemorrhagic events and epileptic seizures involving DOAC-ASM cotherapy in the real world, compared with DOAC and ASM monotherapy, in age- and gender-matched controls., Methods: Data on patients who had been prescribed a concomitant DOAC and ASM therapy for at least 6 months were extracted from the database of the Pharmaceutical Service of the Alessandria Province (Italy). After exclusions, the case group included 124 patients, 44 on valproic acid (VPA) and 80 on levetiracetam (LEV) concomitant with a DOAC, and it was compared with the DOAC-control and ASM-control groups. The clinical and laboratory data were extracted from the electronic archives of the hospitals in the same province., Findings: Two (1.6%) ischemic and 2 (1.6%) major hemorrhagic events were observed in the case group. Four (3.2%) ischemic and no hemorrhagic events occurred in the DOAC-control group. There were no statistically significant differences in the ischemic and hemorrhagic events between the case group (patients on concomitant LEV or VPA who were prescribed a DOAC) and the DOAC-control group, and there was no difference in the recurrence rate of epileptic seizures between the case group and the ASM-control group., Implications: Although this study has some limits, mainly the small sample size, our findings indicate that neither LEV nor VPA concomitant treatment significantly affects the effects of DOACs in a real-world setting., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All the authors report that they have no conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Introduction: Disease modifying treatments (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) are effective in preventing both relapses and disability progression. Highly effective treatments (HETs) are more effective than platform therapy in preventing confirmed disability progression (CDP), when used early. Infections may complicate HETs administration, and their prevention through vaccination is crucial in order to assure the safety of people with MS (pwMS). The aim of the present study is to describe the effect of MS DMTs on COVID-19 vaccination and the risk of breakthrough infection in a cohort of pwMS., Materials and Methods: This is a monocentric retrospective observational study conducted at the MS center of the Guglielmo da Saliceto Hospital in Piacenza, Italy. One hundred and fifty-seven (157) pwMS who received two doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (with 80.3 % receiving a booster dose) were included in the study., Results: fifty-six pwMS (35.7 %) were females, the mean age was 48.6 (SD: 12.87) years, and 59 (37.6 %) had at least one comorbidity. Twenty-five (15.9 %) breakthrough infections were observed, with 17 (68.0 %) classified as mild and 8 (32.0 %) as moderate. A multivariable linear regression model confirmed that B-cell suppressor DMTs and EDSS were factors associated with the latest antibody titre. Patients treated with B-cell suppressors exhibited a risk almost four times higher for breakthrough infections compared to other patients, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.72 (95 % CI: 1.50 - 9.27) (p = 0.005)., Conclusions: B-cell suppressor DMTs are associated with the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 in our cohort, but vaccination fully protected pwMS against severe breakthrough disease., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Paolo Immovilli reports a relationship with Roche that includes: speaking and lecture fees. Paolo Immovilli reports a relationship with Merck & Co Inc that includes: speaking and lecture fees. Paolo Immovilli reports a relationship with Sanofi that includes: speaking and lecture fees. Paolo Immovilli reports a relationship with Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc that includes: speaking and lecture fees. Paolo Immovilli reports a relationship with Bristol Myers Squibb Co that includes: speaking and lecture fees. Paolo Immovilli reports a relationship with Novartis that includes: speaking and lecture fees. Paolo Immovilli reports a relationship with Alexion that includes: speaking and lecture fees. Irene Schiavetti reports a relationship with Biogen that includes: consulting or advisory. Irene Schiavetti reports a relationship with Roche that includes: consulting or advisory. Irene Schiavetti reports a relationship with Horizon Therapeutics USA Inc that includes: speaking and lecture fees. Irene Schiavetti reports a relationship with Novartis that includes: consulting or advisory. Irene Schiavetti reports a relationship with Hoya Corporation that includes: consulting or advisory. Irene Schiavetti reports a relationship with Hippocrates Research that includes: consulting or advisory. Irene Schiavetti reports a relationship with DMG Italia SRL that includes: consulting or advisory. Irene Schiavetti reports a relationship with Eyepharma that includes: consulting or advisory. Irene Schiavetti reports a relationship with DreamsLab that includes: consulting or advisory. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clinicians are increasingly recognizing the importance of shared decision-making in complex treatment choices, highlighting the importance of the patient's rationale and motivation for switching therapies. This study aimed to evaluate the association between different modalities of changing multiple sclerosis (MS) treatments, cognitive profile and attitude and preferences of patients concerning treatment choice., Methods: This multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted at 28 Italian MS centers in the period between June 2016 and June 2017. We screened all MS patients treated with any DMT, with a treatment compliance of at least 80% of therapy administered during the 3 last months who needed to modify MS therapy because of efficacy, safety or other reasons during a follow-up visit. At the time of switching the symbol digit modalities test (SDMT) and the Control Preference Scale (CPS) were evaluated. According to the CPS, patients were classified as "active" (i.e. who prefer making the medical decision themselves), "collaborative" (i.e. who prefer decisions be made jointly with the physician), or "passive" (i.e. who prefer the physician make the decision)., Results: Out of 13,657 patients recorded in the log, 409 (3%) changed therapy. Of these, 336 (2.5%) patients, 69.6% were female and with mean age 40.6 ± 10.5 years, were enrolled. According to the CPS score evaluation, a significant high percentage of patients (51.1%) were considered collaborative, 74 patients (22.5%) were passive, and 60 (18.2%) patients were active. Stratifying according to CPS results, we found a higher SDMT score among collaborative patients compared to active and passive ones (45.8 ± 12.3 versus 41.0 ± 13.2 versus 41.7 ± 12.8, p < 0.05)., Conclusion: In this study, the CPS evaluation showed that more than 50% of patients who needed to change therapy chose a "collaborative" role in making treatment decision. Cognitive profile with SDMT seems to correlate with patients' preference on treatment decision, showing better scores in collaborative patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Francesco Patti has received honoraria for speaking activities by Almirall, Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA; he also served as advisory board member the following companies: Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA; he was also funded by Pfizer and FISM for epidemiological studies; he received grants for congress participation from Almirall, Bayer Shering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. Clara G. Chisari has received grants for congress participation from Almirall, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. Simona Toscano declares no conflict of interest. Pietro Annovazzi has received honoraria for lecturing and participation in advisory boards, and/or travel expenses for attending congresses and meetings from Almirall, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Mylan, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. Paola Banfi has received support for attendance to scientific meetings from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme. Roberto Bergamaschi has received honoraria for lectures, travel and registration coverage for attending several national or international congresses or symposia from Almirall, Bayer Shering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. Raffaella Clerici has received speaker's honoraria, consulting fees, honoraria in advisory boards, support for attendance of scientific meetings from Meck Serono, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme. Marta Zaffira Conti declares there is no conflict of interest. Antonio Cortese has received speaker honoraria, travel grants, advisory boards member honoraria from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. Roberta Fantozzi has received consulting fees and honoraria for advisory boards from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, and TEVA Diana Ferraro declares there is no conflict of interest. Mariano Fischetti declares there is no conflict of interest. Maura Frigo declares there is no conflict of interest. Maurizia Gatto declares there is no conflict of interest. Paolo Immovilli has received speaking honoraria, consulting fees, advisory board honoraria from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. Stefania Leoni declares there is no conflict of interest. Simona Malucchi has received speaker's honoraria and consulting fees, honoraria in advisory boards from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA Giorgia Maniscalco has received honoraria for public speaking and advisory boards from Biogen, Novartis, and Merck Serono. Girolama Alessandra Marfia is an Advisory Board member of Biogen Idec, Sanofi Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, and TEVA, and received honoraria for speaking or consultation fees from Almirall, Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, and TEVA. She is the principal investigator in clinical trials for Actelion, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Mitsubishi, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and TEVA Damiano Paolicelli has received honoraria for consultancy and/or speaking from Almirall, Bayer Shering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. Paola Perini has received speaker honoraria and consulting fees from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. Carlo Serrati declares no conflict of interest. Rocco Totaro has received speaker's honoraria, consulting fee, honoraria for advisory boards, support for attendance of scientific meetings from Alfa Wasserman, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi genzyme, and TEVA. Gabriella Turano has received support for attendance to scientific meetings from Almirall, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme. Paola Valentino has received speaker's honoraria and consulting fee, honoraria for advisory boards from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Merck Serono, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. Mauro Zaffaroni has received honoraria for lecturing or participating for advisory boards or travel funding from Almirall, Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. Cristina Zuliani has received speaker's honoraria and consulting fees, honoraria for advisory boards, support for attendance of scientific meetings from Almirall, Bayer Shering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. Diego Centonze is an Advisory Board member of Almirall, Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, GW Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA, and received honoraria for speaking or consultation fees from Almirall, Bayer Schering, Biogen, GW Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and TEVA. He is also the principal investigator in clinical trials for Bayer Schering, Biogen, Merck Serono, Mitsubishi, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. His preclinical and clinical research was supported by grants from Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, Celgene, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme and TEVA., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background and Objectives: It is unclear how multiple sclerosis (MS) affects the severity of COVID-19. The aim of this study is to compare COVID-19-related outcomes collected in an Italian cohort of patients with MS with the outcomes expected in the age- and sex-matched Italian population., Methods: Hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death after COVID-19 diagnosis of 1,362 patients with MS were compared with the age- and sex-matched Italian population in a retrospective observational case-cohort study with population-based control. The observed vs the expected events were compared in the whole MS cohort and in different subgroups (higher risk: Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] score > 3 or at least 1 comorbidity, lower risk: EDSS score ≤ 3 and no comorbidities) by the χ 2 test, and the risk excess was quantified by risk ratios (RRs)., Results: The risk of severe events was about twice the risk in the age- and sex-matched Italian population: RR = 2.12 for hospitalization ( p < 0.001), RR = 2.19 for ICU admission ( p < 0.001), and RR = 2.43 for death ( p < 0.001). The excess of risk was confined to the higher-risk group (n = 553). In lower-risk patients (n = 809), the rate of events was close to that of the Italian age- and sex-matched population (RR = 1.12 for hospitalization, RR = 1.52 for ICU admission, and RR = 1.19 for death). In the lower-risk group, an increased hospitalization risk was detected in patients on anti-CD20 (RR = 3.03, p = 0.005), whereas a decrease was detected in patients on interferon (0 observed vs 4 expected events, p = 0.04)., Discussion: Overall, the MS cohort had a risk of severe events that is twice the risk than the age- and sex-matched Italian population. This excess of risk is mainly explained by the EDSS score and comorbidities, whereas a residual increase of hospitalization risk was observed in patients on anti-CD20 therapies and a decrease in people on interferon., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology.)

We evaluated the effect of DMTs on Covid-19 severity in patients with MS, with a pooled-analysis of two large cohorts from Italy and France. The association of baseline characteristics and DMTs with Covid-19 severity was assessed by multivariate ordinal-logistic models and pooled by a fixed-effect meta-analysis. 1066 patients with MS from Italy and 721 from France were included. In the multivariate model, anti-CD20 therapies were significantly associated (OR = 2.05, 95%CI = 1.39-3.02, p < 0.001) with Covid-19 severity, whereas interferon indicated a decreased risk (OR = 0.42, 95%CI = 0.18-0.99, p = 0.047). This pooled-analysis confirms an increased risk of severe Covid-19 in patients on anti-CD20 therapies and supports the protective role of interferon., (© 2021 The Authors. Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Neurological Association.)

Introduction: Known risk factors for multiple sclerosis (MS) include smoking, a low vitamin D status, obesity, and EBV, while the inflammatory feature of the disease strongly suggests the presence of additional infectious agents. The association between use of antibiotics and MS risk that could shed light on these factors is still undetermined. We aimed to evaluate the association between antibiotics and MS risk, in the Emilia-Romagna region (RER), Italy., Methods: All adult patients with MS seen at any RER MS center (2015-2017) were eligible. For each of the 877 patients included, clinical information was collected and matched to 5 controls (RER residents) (n = 4,205) based on age, sex, place of residence, and index year. Information on antibiotic prescription was obtained through the linkage with the RER drug prescription database., Results: Exposure to any antibiotic 3 years prior to the index year was associated with an increased MS risk (OR = 1.52; 95% CI = 1.29-1.79). Similar results were found for different classes. No dose-response effect was found., Discussion/conclusions: Our results suggest an association between the use of antibiotics and MS risk in RER population. However, further epidemiological studies should be done with information on early life and lifestyle factors., (© 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Objective: The dramatic worldwide CoVID-19 infection requires the identification of a reliable and inexpensive tool to quickly discriminate patients with a more unfavorable outcome., Methods: We performed routine laboratory tests suitable to identify tissue damage and inflammatory status in 123 consecutive CoVID-19 patients admitted to the Emergency Department of the hospital of Piacenza (Emilia-Romagna, Northern Italy). The results were correlated with patients' respiratory function evaluated by the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (PaO2/FiO2)., Results: The most common laboratory abnormalities were lymphocytopenia and elevated values of C-reactive protein (CRP) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and creatine kinase (CK) were also increased. The respiratory performance (PaO2/FiO2) showed a strong inverse correlation with LDH (r = 0.62, r 2 0.38, p value < 0.0001) and CRP (r = 0.55, r 2 0.31, p value < 0.0001). PaO2/FiO2 values also showed a significant inverse correlation with age (r = -0.37, p < 0.0001), AST (r = -0.31, p < 0.01), WBC (r = -0.49, p < 0.0001), neutrophils count (r = -0.5, p < 0.001). ROC curves showed a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 70% for the LDH cut-off value of 450 U/L and a sensitivity of 72% and specificity of 71% for the CRP cut-off value of 11 mg/dl in identifying CoVID-19 with moderate-severe ARDS., Conclusions: LDH and CRP may be related to respiratory function (PaO2/FiO2) and be a predictor of respiratory failure in CoVID-19 patients. LDH and CRP should be considered a useful test for the early identification of patients who require closer respiratory monitoring and more aggressive supportive therapies to avoid poor prognosis., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: clinical factors and frequency of disease-modifying therapy (DMT) changes/interruptions in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients have not been well defined. The aim of this study was to describe reasons of MS treatment modifications in a large cohort of Italian MS patients., Methods: this multicenter, cross-sectional non interventional study (SWITCH) conducted at 28 Italian MS centers, screened, by visit/telephone contact between June 2016 and June 2017, all RRMS patients receiving stable DMT treatment and enrolled patients with change in DMT treatment., Results: out of 13,657 recorded in the log, 409 (3%) changed therapy. Of these, 336 (2.5%), met the study criteria and were considered eligible. Among 303 (90.2% of 336) patients switching, the most common reason was "lack of efficacy" (58.4% of 303). Among 30 (8.9%) patients who interrupted treatment temporarily, the most common reason was pregnancy (40.0% of 30). Out of 3 (0.9%) patients who discontinued treatment permanently, 2 (66.7%) had as first reason as "patient decision". Multivariate analysis showed that EDSS was the only variable with statistically significant effect on changing treatments (r = 8.33; p-value of Type III Sum of Squares = 0.016)., Conclusion: in our study, 303 (90.2% of eligible patients) switched treatment, 30 (8.9%) interrupted treatment temporarily, and 3 (0.9%) discontinued treatment permanently. Efficacy remains the main driving force behind switching behavior, as the primary aim of treatment is to be disease free or reduce disease activity., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: F.P. has received honoraria for speaking activities by Almirall, Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA; he also served as advisory board member the following companies: Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA; he was also funded by Pfizer and FISM for epidemiological studies; he received grants for congress participation from Almirall, Bayer Shering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. C.G.C. has received grants for congress participation from Almirall, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. E.D'A. has received grants for speaking activities from Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, TEVA and grants for congress participation from Almirall, Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. P.A. has received honoraria for lecturing and participation in advisory boards, and/or travel expenses for attending congresses and meetings from Almirall, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Mylan, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. P.B. has received support for attendance to scientific meetings from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme. R.B: has received honoraria for lectures, travel and registration coverage for attending several national or international congresses or symposia from Almirall, Bayer Shering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. R.C. has received speaker's honoraria, consulting fees, honoraria in advisory boards, support for attendance of scientific meetings from Meck Serono, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme. M.C. Author declares there is no conflict of interest. A.C. has received speaker honoraria, travel grants, advisory boards member honoraria from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. R.F. has received consulting fees and honoraria for advisory boards from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, and TEVA. M.Fi. Author declares there is no conflict of interest. M.Fr. has received speaker's honoraria and consulting fees, honoraria for advisory boards, support for attendance of scientific meetings from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, TEVA, and Sanofi Genzyme. M.G. Author declares there is no conflict of interest. P.I. has received speaking honoraria, consulting fees, advisory board honoraria from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA S.L. Author declares there is no conflict of interest. S.M. has received speaker's honoraria and consulting fees, honoraria in advisory boards from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. G.M. has received honoraria for public speaking and advisory boards from Biogen, Novartis, and Merck Serono. G.A.M. is an Advisory Board member of Biogen Idec, Sanofi Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, and TEVA, and received honoraria for speaking or consultation fees from Almirall, Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, and TEVA. She is the principal investigator in clinical trials for Actelion, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Mitsubishi, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and TEVA. D.P. has received honoraria for consultancy and/or speaking from Almirall, Bayer Shering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. C.S. Author declares there is no conflict of interest. P.P. has received speaker honoraria and consulting fees from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. P.S. has received speaker's honoraria and consulting fees, honoraria for advisory boards, and travel grants from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi genzyme, and TEVA. R.T. has received speaker's honoraria, consulting fee, honoraria for advisory boards, support for attendance of scientific meetings from Alfa Wasserman, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi genzyme, and TEVA. G.T. has received support for attendance to scientific meetings from Almirall, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme. P.V. has received speaker's honoraria and consulting fee, honoraria for advisory boards from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Merck Serono, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. M.Z. has received honoraria for lecturing or participating for advisory boards or travel funding from Almirall, Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. C.Z. has received speaker's honoraria and consulting fees, honoraria for advisory boards, support for attendance of scientific meetings from Almirall, Bayer Shering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. D.C. is an Advisory Board member of Almirall, Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, GW Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA, and received honoraria for speaking or consultation fees from Almirall, Bayer Schering, Biogen, GW Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and TEVA. He is also the principal investigator in clinical trials for Bayer Schering, Biogen, Merck Serono, Mitsubishi, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. His preclinical and clinical research was supported by grants from Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, Celgene, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme and TEVA., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The introduction of oral disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) in addition to the available, injectable, ones for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) could be expected to improve medication persistence due to a greater acceptability of the route of administration. The aim of the study was to compare the proportion of patients discontinuing injectable DMDs (interferon beta 1a/1b, pegylated interferon, glatiramer acetate) with those discontinuing oral DMDs (dimethylfumarate and teriflunomide) during an observation period of at least 12 months. Secondary aims were to compare the time to discontinuation and the reasons for discontinuation between the two groups and to explore the demographic and clinical factors associated with DMD discontinuation., Methods: In this prospective, multi-center, real-life observational study, patients commencing any first-line DMD between 1 January 2015 and 31 July 2016 were enrolled and followed up for at least 12 months or until the drug was discontinued., Results: Of the 520 included patients, 262 (49.6%) started an injectable and 258 (50.4%) an oral DMD. There was no difference in the proportion of patients on oral (n = 62, 24%) or on injectable (n = 60, 23%) DMDs discontinuing treatment, the most frequent reason being adverse events/side-effects. Higher baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores and younger age increased the odds of treatment withdrawal. Time to treatment discontinuation was not different between the two groups and was not influenced by the initiated DMD (oral versus injectable), even after adjustment for baseline differences., Conclusion: The route of administration alone (i.e. oral versus injectable) was not a significant predictor of persistence with first-line DMDs in RRMS.

Access to effective acute stroke services is a crucial factor to reduce stroke-related death and disability, but is limited in different parts of Italy. Our study addresses this inequality across the Italian regions by examining the regional legislations issued to adopt and implement the State-Regional Council agreement 03/02/2005 as to the acute stroke management. All decrees and resolutions as to acute stroke were collected from each region and examined by the means of a check list including quantitative and qualitative characteristics, selected in accordance with the recommendations from the State-Regional Council document. Each completed check list was then sent to each regional reference person, who filled in the section on the implementation of the indications and compliance, with the collaboration of stroke specialists if necessary. The study was carried out from November 2009 to September 2010. The documents and information were collected from 19 regions. Our survey revealed disparities both in terms of number of decrees and resolutions and of topics covered by the regional legislations about stroke care. Most legislations lacked practical and economical details. This feedback from national and regional stroke regulations revealed a need of more concrete indications. Involvement of various stakeholders (legislators, consumers, providers) might possibly ensure that policies are actually adopted, implemented and maintained. Although considerable challenges are present to the development of standard and optimal stroke care more widely across Italian regions, the potential gains from such developments are substantial.