Search

Abstract Background Natalizumab and fingolimod are used as high-efficacy treatments in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. Several observational studies comparing these two drugs have shown variable results, using different methods to control treatment indication bias and manage censoring. The objective of this empirical study was to elucidate the impact of methods of causal inference on the results of comparative effectiveness studies. Methods Data from three observational multiple sclerosis registries (MSBase, the Danish MS Registry and French OFSEP registry) were combined. Four clinical outcomes were studied. Propensity scores were used to match or weigh the compared groups, allowing for estimating average treatment effect for treated or average treatment effect for the entire population. Analyses were conducted both in intention-to-treat and per-protocol frameworks. The impact of the positivity assumption was also assessed. Results Overall, 5,148 relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis patients were included. In this well-powered sample, the 95% confidence intervals of the estimates overlapped widely. Propensity scores weighting and propensity scores matching procedures led to consistent results. Some differences were observed between average treatment effect for the entire population and average treatment effect for treated estimates. Intention-to-treat analyses were more conservative than per-protocol analyses. The most pronounced irregularities in outcomes and propensity scores were introduced by violation of the positivity assumption. Conclusions This applied study elucidates the influence of methodological decisions on the results of comparative effectiveness studies of treatments for multiple sclerosis. According to our results, there are no material differences between conclusions obtained with propensity scores matching or propensity scores weighting given that a study is sufficiently powered, models are correctly specified and positivity assumption is fulfilled.

In this paper we present a kinetic model with evolutive stochastic game-type interactions, analyzing the relationship between the level of political competition in a society and the degree of economic liberalization. The above issue regards the complex interactions between economy and institutional policies intended to introduce technological innovations in a society, where technological innovations are intended in a broad sense comprehending reforms critical to production [3]. A special focus is placed on the political re- placement effect described in a macroscopic model by Acemoglu and Robinson (AR-model [1], henceforth), which can determine the phenomenon of innovation 'blocking', possibly leading to economic backwardness. One of the goals of our modelization is to obtain a mesoscopic dynamical model whose macroscopic outputs are qualitatively comparable with stylized facts of the AR-model and the comparison is settled in a number of case studies. A set of numerical solutions is presented showing the non monotonous relationship between economic liberalization and political competition in particular conditions, which can be considered as an emergent phenomenon of the analyzed complex socioeconomic interaction dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Late onset multiple sclerosis (LOMS) represents between 0.6 and 12% of all MS patients. However, little is known on the incidence of LOMS in the general population. Therefore, we aimed to study the annual incidence of LOMS in a population-based cohort. The study was conducted in the province of Catania, Italy. Case ascertainment was conducted retrospectively including all patients aged ≥ 50 years at onset and with the onset between 2005 and 2020. Incidence rates (IR) have been calculated for all the study period, according to sex, age classes and for subperiods. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) have been computed to compare incidence rates. During the study period, 183 patients with LOMS were identified (113 women; 61.8%). The mean age at onset was 55.8 ± 5.4 years and the main phenotype was Relapsing Remitting MS (n = 123; 67.2%). The average annual crude IR was 2.87/100,000 person-years (95% Confidence Intervals, CI 2.31-3.13). IR increased from 2.54/100,000 in 2005-2010 to 3.32/100,000 in 2016-2020, especially in in the age group 60-69 (IRR 3.48; 95%CI 1.41-9.76; p-value 0.002). In conclusion, an increased IR over the time was observed in the age-group 60-69, possibly reflecting an increased age at onset of MS., Competing Interests: Declarations. Competing interests: CEC reports no conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship and publication of this article.CC has received grants for congress participation from Almirall, Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA.GS reports no conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship and publication of this article.SLF reports no conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship and publication of this article.GD reports no conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship and publication of this article.DM reports no conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship and publication of this article.RM reports no conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship and publication of this article.FP has received honoraria for speaking activities by Almirall, Bayer, Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA; he also served as advisory board member the following companies: Bayer, Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Alexion, and TEVA; he was also funded by Pfizer and FISM for epidemiological studies; he received grants for congress participation from Almirall, Bayer, Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. AN reports no conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship and publication of this article., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Cerebrospinal fluid myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein IgG (CSF MOG-IgG) are found in a proportion of patients with MOG antibody-associated disorder (MOGAD) and have been associated with severe disease presentations. However, most studies did not systematically investigate the role of MOG-IgG intrathecal synthesis (ITS)., Methods: We retrospectively studied 960 consecutive patients with paired serum and CSF samples screened for MOG-IgG using a live cell-based assays. MOG-IgG-specific antibody index (AI MOG ) was systematically calculated using serum and CSF titres to assess MOG-IgG ITS, and clinical features were compared between MOG-IgG CSF+/CSF- and ITS+/ITS- patients., Results: MOG-IgG were found in 55/960 patients (5.7%; serum+/CSF-: 58.2%, serum+/CSF+: 34.5%; serum-/CSF+: 7.3%). Serum/CSF MOG-IgG titres showed a moderate correlation in patients without ITS (ρ=0.47 (CI 0.18 to 0.68), p<0.001), but not in those with ITS (ρ=0.14 (CI -0.46 to -0.65), p=0.65). There were no clinical-paraclinical differences between MOG-IgG CSF+ vs CSF- patients. Conversely, patients with MOG-IgG ITS showed pyramidal symptoms (73% vs 32%, p=0.03), spinal cord involvement (82% vs 39%, p=0.02) and severe outcome at follow-up (36% vs 5%, p=0.02) more frequently than those without MOG-IgG ITS. A multivariate logistic regression model indicated that MOG-IgG ITS was an independent predictor of a poor outcome (OR: 14.93 (CI 1.40 to 19.1); p=0.03). AI MOG correlated with Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores at disease nadir and at last follow-up (p=0.02 and p=0.01)., Conclusions: Consistently with physiopathology, MOG-IgG ITS is a promising prognostic factor in MOGAD, and its calculation could enhance the clinical relevance of CSF MOG-IgG testing, making a case for its introduction in clinical practice., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Objectives: Women with multiple sclerosis (MS) are at risk of disease reactivation in the early postpartum period. Ocrelizumab (OCR) is an anti-CD20 therapy highly effective at reducing MS disease activity. Data remain limited regarding use of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), including OCR, and disease activity during peripregnancy periods., Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from the MSBase Registry including pregnancies conceived after December 31, 2010, from women aged 18 years and older, with relapsing-remitting MS or clinically isolated syndrome. Women were classified by preconception exposure to DMTs, including OCR, rituximab (RTX), natalizumab (NAT), stratified into active (NAT-A; continued ≥28 weeks of gestation, restarted ≤1 month postpartum) or conservative (NAT-C; continued ≤4 weeks of gestation, restarted >1 month postpartum) strategies, dimethyl fumarate (DMF) or low-efficacy DMTs (interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate). Annualized relapse rates (ARRs) were calculated for 12-month prepregnancy, pregnancy, and 6-month postpartum periods., Results: A total of 2,009 live births from 1,744 women were analyzed, including 73 live births from 69 women treated with preconception OCR. For OCR, no within-pregnancy relapse was observed and 3 women (4.1%) experienced 1 relapse in the postpartum period (ARR 0.09 [95% CI 0.02-0.27]). For NAT-A, 3 (3.7%) of 82 women relapsed during pregnancy (0.05 [0.01-0.15]) and 4 (4.9%) relapsed during postpartum (0.10 [0.03-0.26]). However, for NAT-C, 13 (15.9%) of 82 women relapsed within pregnancy (0.32 [0.20-0.51]) and 25 (30.5%) relapsed during postpartum (0.74 [0.50-1.06]). In the low-efficacy DMT group, 101 (7.6%) of 1,329 women experienced within-pregnancy relapse (0.12 [0.10-0.14]), followed by an increase in postpartum relapse activity with 234 women (17.6%) relapsing (0.43 [0.38-0.48]). This was similarly seen in the DMF group with 13 (7.9%) of 164 women experiencing within-pregnancy relapse (0.12 [0.06-0.20]) and 25 (15.2%) of 164 relapsing postpartum (0.39 [0.26-0.57]). Our RTX cohort had 0 of 24 women experiencing within-pregnancy relapse and 3 (12.5%) of 24 experiencing postpartum relapse., Discussion: Women treated with OCR or NAT-A were observed to have low relapse rates during pregnancy and postpartum. NAT-C was associated with increased risk of relapses. There was no within-pregnancy relapse in our RTX cohort, although we caution overinterpretation due to our sample size. An effective DMT strategy with a favorable safety profile for the mother and infant should be discussed and implemented well in advance of planning a family., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class III evidence that for women with relapsing-remitting MS or clinically isolated syndrome who become pregnant, ocrelizumab, rituximab, and natalizumab (continued ≥28 weeks of gestation and restarted ≤1 month postpartum) were associated with reduced risk of relapses, compared with other therapeutic strategies.

Background: Spinal cord lesions in multiple sclerosis (MS) have considerable impact on disability. High-efficacy disease-modifying treatments (hDMTs) are associated with greater reduction of relapses and new brain lesions compared to low-efficacy treatments (lDMTs). Knowledge on the impact of DMTs on cord lesion formation is limited as these outcome measures were not included in MS treatment trials. This study aims to investigate whether hDMTs reduce the formation of cord lesions more effectively than lDMTs., Methods: Patients with relapse-onset MS, a cord magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within 6 months before/after initiation of their first DMT and ≥1 cord MRI at follow-up (interval > 6 months) were extracted from the MSBase registry (ACTRN12605000455662). Patients treated with hDMTs ≥90% or lDMTs ≥90% of follow-up duration were considered the hDMT and lDMT groups, respectively. Matching was performed using propensity scores. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazards of new cord lesions, brain lesions and relapses., Results: Ninety-four and 783 satisfied hDMT and lDMT group criteria, respectively. Seventy-seven hDMT patients were matched to 184 lDMT patients. In the hDMT group there was no evidence of reduction of new cord lesions (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99 [95% CI 0.51, 1.92], p = 0.97), while there were fewer new brain lesions (HR 0.22 [95% CI 0.10, 0.49], p < 0.001) and fewer relapses (HR 0.45 [95% CI 0.28, 0.72], p = 0.004)., Conclusion: A potential discrepancy exists in the effect of hDMTs over lDMTs in preventing spinal cord lesions versus brain lesions and relapses. While hDMTs provided a significant reduction for the latter when compared to lDMTs, there was no significant reduction in new spinal cord lesions., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic neurodegenerative disease that leads to impaired cognitive function and accumulation of disability, with significant socioeconomic burden. Serious unmet need in the context of managing MS has given rise to ongoing research efforts, leading to the launch of new drugs planned for the near future, and subsequent concerns about the sustainability of healthcare systems. This study assessed the changes in the Italian MS market and their impact on the expenditures of the Italian National Healthcare Service between 2023 and 2028., Methods: A horizon-scanning model was developed to estimate annual expenditure from 2023 to 2028. Annual expenditure for MS was calculated by combining the number of patients treated with each product (clinical inputs) and the yearly costs of therapy (economic inputs). Baseline inputs (2020-2022) were collected from IQVIA ® real-world data, while input estimation for the 5-year forecast was integrated with analog analyses and the insights of clinicians and former payers., Results: The number of equivalent patients treated in 2028 in Italy was estimated at around 67,000, with an increase of 10% versus 2022. In terms of treatment pattern evolution, first-line treatments are expected to reduce their shares from 47% in 2022 to 27% in 2028, and Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors are expected to reach 23% of patient shares. Overall, expenditure for MS is estimated to decrease from €721 million in 2022 to €551 million in 2028, mainly due to losses of exclusivity and renegotiation of drug prices., Conclusion: Despite the increase in the number of patients treated for MS and the launch of new molecules that will reach high market penetration, the model confirmed sustainability for the Italian National Healthcare Service., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic raised concern amongst clinicians that disease-modifying therapies (DMT), particularly anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (mAb) and fingolimod, could worsen COVID-19 in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). This study aimed to examine DMT prescribing trends pre- and post-pandemic onset., Methods: A multi-centre longitudinal study with 8,771 participants from MSBase was conducted. Two time periods were defined: pre-pandemic (March 11 2018-March 10 2020) and post-pandemic onset (March 11 2020-11 March 2022). The association between time and prescribing trends was analysed using multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression. DMT initiation refers to first initiation of any DMT, whilst DMT switches indicate changing regimen within 6 months of last use., Results: Post-pandemic onset, there was a significant increase in DMT initiation/switching to natalizumab and cladribine [(Natalizumab-initiation: OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.39-2.13; switching: OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.40-1.98), (Cladribine-initiation: OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.09-1.87; switching: OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.41-1.98)]. Anti-CD20mAb initiation/switching decreased in the year of the pandemic, but recovered in the second year, such that overall odds increased slightly post-pandemic (initiation: OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06-1.49; Switching: OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02-1.29. Initiation/switching of fingolimod, interferon-beta, and alemtuzumab significantly decreased [(Fingolimod-initiation: OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.73; switching: OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.41-0.58), (Interferon-gamma-initiation: OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.41-0.57; switching: OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.99), (Alemtuzumab-initiation: OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15-0.48; switching: OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.17-0.44)]., Conclusions: Post-pandemic onset, clinicians preferentially prescribed natalizumab and cladribine over anti-CD20 mAbs and fingolimod, likely to preserve efficacy but reduce perceived immunosuppressive risks. This could have implications for disease progression in pwMS. Our findings highlight the significance of equitable DMT access globally, and the importance of evidence-based decision-making in global health challenges., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: We investigated the occurrence and relative contribution of relapse-associated worsening (RAW) and progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA) to confirmed disability accrual (CDA) and transition to secondary progression (SP) in relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS)., Methods: Relapsing-onset MS patients with follow-up > / = 5 years (16,130) were extracted from the Italian MS Registry. CDA was a 6-month confirmed increase in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score. Sustained disability accumulation (SDA) was a CDA with no EDSS improvement in all subsequent visits. Predictors of PIRA and RAW and the association between final EDSS score and type of CDA were assessed using logistic multivariable regression and multivariable ordinal regression models, respectively., Results: Over 11.8 ± 5.4 years, 16,731 CDA events occurred in 8998 (55.8%) patients. PIRA (12,175) accounted for 72.3% of CDA. SDA occurred in 8912 (73.2%) PIRA and 2583 (56.7%) RAW (p < 0.001). 4453 (27.6%) patients transitioned to SPMS, 4010 (73.2%) out of 5476 patients with sustained PIRA and 443 (24.8%) out of 1790 patients with non-sustained PIRA. In the multivariable ordinal regression analysis, higher final EDSS score was associated with PIRA (estimated coefficient 0.349, 95% CI 0.120-0.577, p = 0.003)., Discussion: In this real-world relapsing-onset MS cohort, PIRA was the main driver of disability accumulation and was associated with higher disability in the long term. Sustained PIRA was linked to transition to SP and could represent a more accurate PIRA definition and a criterion to mark the putative onset of the progressive phase., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Disability progression is a key milestone in the disease evolution of people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). Prediction models of the probability of disability progression have not yet reached the level of trust needed to be adopted in the clinic. A common benchmark to assess model development in multiple sclerosis is also currently lacking., Methods: Data of adult PwMS with a follow-up of at least three years from 146 MS centers, spread over 40 countries and collected by the MSBase consortium was used. With basic inclusion criteria for quality requirements, it represents a total of 15, 240 PwMS. External validation was performed and repeated five times to assess the significance of the results. Transparent Reporting for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines were followed. Confirmed disability progression after two years was predicted, with a confirmation window of six months. Only routinely collected variables were used such as the expanded disability status scale, treatment, relapse information, and MS course. To learn the probability of disability progression, state-of-the-art machine learning models were investigated. The discrimination performance of the models is evaluated with the area under the receiver operator curve (ROC-AUC) and under the precision recall curve (AUC-PR), and their calibration via the Brier score and the expected calibration error. All our preprocessing and model code are available at https://gitlab.com/edebrouwer/ms&#95;benchmark, making this task an ideal benchmark for predicting disability progression in MS., Findings: Machine learning models achieved a ROC-AUC of 0⋅71 ± 0⋅01, an AUC-PR of 0⋅26 ± 0⋅02, a Brier score of 0⋅1 ± 0⋅01 and an expected calibration error of 0⋅07 ± 0⋅04. The history of disability progression was identified as being more predictive for future disability progression than the treatment or relapses history., Conclusions: Good discrimination and calibration performance on an external validation set is achieved, using only routinely collected variables. This suggests machine-learning models can reliably inform clinicians about the future occurrence of progression and are mature for a clinical impact study., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing non-financial interests but the following competing financial interests: - Dana Horakova received speaker honoraria and consulting fees from Biogen, Merck, Teva, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Novartis, as well as support for research activities from Biogen and Czech Minsitry of Education [project Progres Q27/LF1]. - Francesco Patti 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. - Guillermo Izquierdo received speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Roche, Almirall and Teva. - Sara Eichau received speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche and Teva. - Marc Girard 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. - Alessandra Lugaresi has served as a Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/ Genzyme and Teva Advisory Board Member. She received congress and travel/accommodation expense compensations or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck, Mylan, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva and Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla (FISM). Her institutions received research grants from Novartis and Sanofi Genzyme. - Pierre Grammond 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. - Tomas Kalincik served on scientific advisory boards for BMS, Roche, Janssen, 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. - Raed Alroughani received honoraria as a speaker and for serving on scientific advisory boards from Bayer, Biogen, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi-Genzyme. - Francois Grand’Maison received honoraria or research funding from Biogen, Genzyme, Novartis, Teva Neurosciences, Mitsubishi and ONO Pharmaceuticals. - Murat Terzi received travel grants from Novartis, Bayer-Schering, Merck and Teva; has participated in clinical trials by Sanofi Aventis, Roche and Novartis. - Jeannette Lechner-Scott travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Roche and Merck. Her institution receives the honoraria for talks and advisory board commitment as well as research grants from Biogen, Merck, Roche, TEVA and Novartis. - Samia J. Khoury received compensation for participation in the Novartis Maestro program. - Vincent van Pesch has received travel grants from Merck, Biogen, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Almirall and Roche; his institution receives honoraria for consultancy and lectures and research grants from Roche, Biogen, Sanofi, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Almirall and Novartis Pharma. - Radek Ampapa received conference travel support from Novartis, Teva, Biogen, Bayer and Merck and has participated in a clinical trials by Biogen, Novartis, Teva and Actelion. - Daniele Spitaleri 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. - Claudio Solaro served on scientific advisory boards for Merck, Genzyme, Almirall, and Biogen; received honoraria and travel grants from Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Biogen, Merck, Genzyme and Teva. - Davide Maimone served on scientific advisory boards for Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, Roche, and Almirall; received honoraria and travel grants from Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Biogen, Merck, and Roche. - Gerardo Iuliano (retired - no PI successor but has approved ongoing use of data) had travel/accommodations/meeting expenses funded by Bayer Schering, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi Aventis, and Teva. - Bart Van Wijmeersch received research and travel grants, honoraria for MS-Expert advisor and Speaker fees from Bayer-Schering, Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Teva. - Tamara Castillo Triviño received speaking/consulting fees and/or travel funding from Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva. - Jose Luis Sanchez-Menoyo 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 - Guy Laureys received travel and/or consultancy compensation from Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, Teva, Merck, Novartis, Celgene, Biogen. - Anneke van der Walt served on advisory boards and receives unrestricted research grants from Novartis, Biogen, Merck and Roche She has received speaker’s honoraria and travel support from Novartis, Roche, and Merck. She receives grant support from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and MS Research Australia. - Jiwon Oh has received research funding from the MS Society of Canada, National MS Society, Brain Canada, Biogen, Roche, EMD Serono (an affiliate of Merck KGaA); and personal compensation for consulting or speaking from Alexion, Biogen, Celgene (BMS), EMD Serono (an affiliate of Merck KGaA), Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme. - Ayse Altintas received speaker honoraria from Merck, Alexion,; received travel and registration grants from Merck, Biogen - Gen Pharma, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme. - Yara Fragoso received honoraria as a consultant on scientific advisory boards by Novartis, Teva, Roche and Sanofi-Aventis and compensation for travel from Novartis, Biogen, Sanofi Aventis, Teva, Roche and Merck. - Tunde Csepany received speaker honoraria/ conference travel support from Bayer Schering, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and Teva. - Suzanne Hodgkinson received honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis, Bayer Schering and Sanofi, and travel grants from Novartis, Biogen Idec and Bayer Schering. - Norma Deri received funding from Bayer, Merck, Biogen, Genzyme and Novartis. - Bruce Taylor received funding for travel and speaker honoraria from Bayer Schering Pharma, CSL Australia, Biogen and Novartis, and has served on advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis, Roche and CSL Australia. - Fraser Moore participated in clinical trials sponsored by EMD Serono and Novartis. - Orla Gray received honoraria as consultant on scientific advisory boards for Genzyme, Biogen, Merck, Roche and Novartis; has received travel grants from Biogen, Merck, Roche and Novartis; has participated in clinical trials by Biogen and Merck. - Csilla Rozsa received speaker honoraria from Bayer Schering, Novartis and Biogen, congress and travel expense compensations from Biogen, Teva, Merck and Bayer Schering. - Allan Kermode received speaker honoraria and scientific advisory board fees from Bayer, BioCSL, Biogen, Genzyme, Innate Immunotherapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, Sanofi-Aventis, and Teva. - Magdolna Simo received speaker honoraria from Novartis, Biogen, Bayer Schering; congress/travel compensation from Teva, Biogen, Merck, Bayer Schering. - Todd Hardy has received speaking fees or received honoraria for serving on advisory boards for Biogen, Merck, Teva, Novartis, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Genzyme, is Co-Editor of Advances in Clinical Neurosciences and Rehabilitation, and serves on the editorial board of Journal of Neuroimmunology and Frontiers in Neurology. - Nikolaos Grigoriadis received honoraria, consultancy/lecture fees, travel support and research grants from Biogen Idec, Biologix, Novartis, TEVA, Bayer, Merck Serono, Genesis Pharma, Sanofi – Genzyme, ROCHE, Cellgene, ELPEN and research grants from Hellenic Ministry of Development., (Copyright: © 2024 De Brouwer et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential for understanding the effects of MS and its treatments on patients' lives; they play an important role in multiple sclerosis (MS) research and practice. We present the protocol for an observational study to prospectively assess the effect of cladribine tablets on PROs and their correlation to disability and physical activity in adults with highly active relapsing MS switching from a first disease modifying drug (DMD) to cladribine tablets in routine clinical practice at study sites in Italy. The primary objective will be to evaluate changes from baseline in the impact of highly active MS on self-assessed physical functioning 52 weeks after the switch to cladribine tablets using the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29). Secondary objectives will include self-assessed psychological impact of highly active MS in daily life and general health after the switch to cladribine tablets as well as changes in cognitive function, anxiety, and depression symptoms. Additional PRO measures will include the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Multiple Sclerosis (WPAI:MS), and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Wearable devices will acquire activity data (step counts, walking speed, time asleep, and energy expenditure). Additional clinical, radiological, and laboratory data will be collected when available during routine management. The findings will complement data from controlled trials by providing insight from daily clinical practice into the effect of cladribine tablets on the patient's experience and self-assessed impact of treatment on daily life., Competing Interests: DM received travel grants and honoraria for participating to Advisory Board and invited lectures from Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. MM has received honoraria for speaking, advisory board/consulting from Biogen, Novartis, Merck Serono, Roche, Almirall, Sanofi Genzyme, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Viatris, Alexion. He is principal investigator in clinical trials for Biogen, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, CSL Behring, Ultragenix, Argenx. DP received speaker honoraria from Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Biogen Idech, Merck, Roche, BMS, Almirall. FA and SC are employees of Merck Serono S.p.A., Italy, an affiliate of Merck KGaA. FP received personal fees for advisory and speaking activities by Alexion, Almirall, Biogen, Bristol Meyers & Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi. He also received research grants by Alexion, Almirall, Biogen, Bristol Meyers & Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, FISM, MUR, Italian Health Minister and Reload Onlus Association. The authors declare that this study received funding from Merck Serono S.p.A., Rome, Italy an affiliate of Merck (Cross Ref Funder ID: 10.13039/100009945). The funder had the following involvement in the study: study design, collection, data analysis and interpretation. Medical writing support was provided by EDITAMED S.r.l. and funded by Merck Serono S.p.A., Rome, Italy an affiliate of Merck. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2024 Borriello, Chisari, Maimone, Mirabella, Paolicelli, Assogna, Caradonna and Patti.)

Treatment options for secondary progressive MS (SPMS) are limited, especially considering that the new drugs recently approved are licensed for actively relapsing patients. We aimed to compare the disability progression in a real-world cohort of SPMS patients treated with natalizumab (NTZ) or interferon beta-1b (IFNb-1b). This multicenter retrospective enrolled patients with a diagnosis of SPMS according to 2014 Lublin criteria, who received NTZ or IFNb-1b for at least 48 months between the 1st June 2012 and the 15th May 2018 ​at 33 Italian MS centers contributing to the Italian MS Registry NTZ or IFNb-1b. Confirmed Expanded Disability Status Scale worsening (CEW) and progression independent of relapse (PIRA) were evaluated. In order to correct for non-randomization, a propensity score matching of the groups was performed. Out of 5206 MS patients identified at the time of data extraction, 421 SPMS patients treated with NTZ (224 [53.2%] females, mean age 45.3 ​± ​25.4 years) and 353 with IFNb-1b (133 [37.8%] females, mean age 48.5 ​± ​19.8 years) were enrolled. After applying the matching procedure, 102 patients were retained in the NTZ group and 98 in the IFNb-2b group. The proportion of patients who reached the 48-month 1-point CEW was significantly higher in IFNb-1b compared to NTZ group (58.2% versus 30.4%, p ​= ​0.01). The proportion of patients who developed PIRA at 48 months were significantly higher in IFNb-1b compared to NTZ (72.4% versus 40.2%, p ​= ​0.01). EDSS before treatment initiation and SPMS duration were risk factors for disability progression in terms of PIRA (HR 2.54, 25%CI 1.67-5.7; p ​= ​0.006 and HR 2.04, 25%CI 1.22-3.35; p ​= ​0.01, respectively). Patients treated with IFNb-1b were 1.64 times more to likely to develop PIRA (HR 1.64, 25%CI 1.04-4.87; p ​= ​0.001). Treatment with NTZ in SPMS patients showed more favorable disability outcomes compared to IFNb-1b with beneficial effects over 48 months., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest CGC has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. UA reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. MPA has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. RB reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. AB has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. SB served as speaker and/or advisory board fee, and/or travel grant from Novartis, Teva, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, Biogen-Idec, Merck-Serono. VBM received fees for consultancies or public speaking from Merck, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Genzyme and Biogen. PC has served as an advisory board member for Almirall, Biogen, Merck-Serono, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, Teva; she has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. EC reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. AC reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. SC has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. GDL reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. ADS reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. MF is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Neurology; received compensation for consulting services and/or speaking activities from Biogen Idec, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries; and receives research support from Biogen Idec, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Roche, Italian Ministry of Health, Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla, and ARiSLA(Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per la SLA). AG reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. CG reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. FG received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. GL reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. DM reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. GTM has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. GAM has served as an advisory board member and received speaker honoraria, congress, travel and accommodation expense compensations from Merck, Teva, Mylan, Bayer, Novartis, Roche, Almirall, Biogen and Sanofi Genzyme. LM reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. DP has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. IP reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. PR reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. MR received travel grants and fees for consulting and public speaking from Almirall, Biogen, Genzyme-Sanofi, Merck Serono, Mylan and Novartis. GS has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. CS has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. RT reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. ST reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. MT has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. MV reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. VL reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. MZ has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. FP 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., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Active relapsing-remitting (RR) and secondary progressive (SP) multiple sclerosis (MS) are currently defined as "relapsing MS" (RMS). The aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess drivers of treatment switches due to clinical relapses in a population of RMS patients collected in the Italian MS and Related Disorders Register (I-MS&RD)., Methods: RRMS and SPMS patients with at least one relapse in a time window of 2 years before of data extraction were defined as RMS. Factors associated with disease-modifying therapy (DMT) switching due to clinical activity were assessed through multivariable logistic regression models in which treatment exposure was included as the last recorded DMT and the last DMT's class [moderate-efficacy (ME), high-efficacy (HE) DMTs and anti-CD20 drugs]., Results: A cohort of 4739 RMS patients (4161 RRMS, 578 SPMS) was extracted from the I-MS&RD. A total of 2694 patients switching DMTs due to relapses were identified. Switchers were significantly (p < 0.0001) younger, less disabled, more frequently affected by an RR disease course in comparison to non-switcher patients. The multivariable logistic regression models showed that Alemtuzumab (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02-0.37), Natalizumab (0.48, 0.30-0.76), Ocrelizumab (0.1, 0.02-0.45) and Rituximab (0.23, 0.06-0.82) exposure was a protective factor against treatment switch due to relapses. Moreover, the use of HE DMTs (0.43, 0.31-0.59), especially anti-CD20 drugs (0.14, 0.05-0.37), resulted to be a protective factor against treatment switch due to relapses in comparison with ME DMTs., Conclusions: More than 50% of RMS switched therapy due to disease activity. HE DMTs, especially anti-CD20 drugs, significantly reduce the risk of treatment switch., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany.)

Importance: Although up to 20% of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) experience onset before 18 years of age, it has been suggested that people with pediatric-onset MS (POMS) are protected against disability because of greater capacity for repair., Objective: To assess the incidence of and factors associated with progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA) and relapse-associated worsening (RAW) in POMS compared with typical adult-onset MS (AOMS) and late-onset MS (LOMS)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study on prospectively acquired data from the Italian MS Register was performed from June 1, 2000, to September 30, 2021. At the time of data extraction, longitudinal data from 73 564 patients from 120 MS centers were available in the register., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes included age-related cumulative incidence and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for PIRA and RAW and associated factors., Exposures: Clinical and magnetic resonance imaging features, time receiving disease-modifying therapy (DMT), and time to first DMT., Results: After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the study assessed 16 130 patients with MS (median [IQR] age at onset, 28.7 [22.8-36.2 years]; 68.3% female). Compared with AOMS and LOMS, patients with POMS had less disability, exhibited more active disease, and were exposed to DMT for a longer period. A first 48-week-confirmed PIRA occurred in 7176 patients (44.5%): 558 patients with POMS (40.4%), 6258 patients with AOMS (44.3%), and 360 patients with LOMS (56.8%) (P < .001). Factors associated with PIRA were older age at onset (AOMS vs POMS HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.30-1.55; LOMS vs POMS HR, 2.98; 95% CI, 2.60-3.41; P < .001), longer disease duration (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.04-1.05; P < .001), and shorter DMT exposure (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.64-0.74; P < .001). The incidence of PIRA was 1.3% at 20 years of age, but it rapidly increased approximately 7 times between 21 and 30 years of age (9.0%) and nearly doubled for each age decade from 40 to 70 years (21.6% at 40 years, 39.0% at 50 years, 61.0% at 60 years, and 78.7% at 70 years). The cumulative incidence of RAW events followed a similar trend from 20 to 60 years (0.5% at 20 years, 3.5% at 30 years, 7.8% at 40 years, 14.4% at 50 years, and 24.1% at 60 years); no further increase was found at 70 years (27.7%). Delayed DMT initiation was associated with higher risk of PIRA (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.00-1.34; P = .04) and RAW (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.28-2.39; P = .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: PIRA can occur at any age, and although pediatric onset is not fully protective against progression, this study's findings suggest that patients with pediatric onset are less likely to exhibit PIRA over a decade of follow-up. However, these data also reinforce the benefit for DMT initiation in patients with POMS, as treatment was associated with reduced occurrence of both PIRA and RAW regardless of age at onset.

Background: Cladribine tablets are a highly effective option for the treatment of relapsingremitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS)., Objective: The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of cladribine in a real-world setting., Methods: This prospective real-world study consecutively screened all RRMS patients from seven different MS centers in Sicily (Italy) who completed the 2-year treatment course of cladribine tablets in the period between 11 th March 2019 and 31 st October 2021. Data about Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), relapses, previous treatments, adverse events (AEs) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were collected. Patients who were previously treated with other DMTs were further stratified into moderately active treatment (MAT) and highly active treatment (HAT) patients., Results: A total of 217 patients (70% women, with a mean age of 38.4 ± 11.3 years) were enrolled. Fifty patients (23.0%) were naïve to treatment and 167 (77%) switched from other disease modifying therapies. After the second year of treatment, about 80% were EDSS progression free, 88% remained relapse-free at T24, and 48% of patients were MRI activity-free. Kaplan Meier analyses showed significant differences between MT and HAT in terms of time to first clinical relapse (HR: 2.43, IC 1.02- 5.76; p = 0.04), time to the first new T1-gadolinium enhancing lesion (HR: 3.43, IC 1.35-8.70; p = 0.009) and time to MRI worsening (HR: 2.42, IC 1.15-5.09; p = 0.02)., Conclusion: This study confirmed that cladribine is an effective treatment for MS, particularly in naïve patients and those who have switched from MATs., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

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.)