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.

Background and Objectives: Older studies reported an increased risk of relapse after in vitro fertilization (IVF) in women with multiple sclerosis (MS), which has not been confirmed by more recent works. All these studies had several limitations, such as small sample sizes, absence of a control population, or lack of neurologic validation of the relapses. The aim of this study was to determine the risk of relapse after IVF in women with MS., Methods: This retrospective cohort study included all women with MS who underwent IVF between 2009 and 2019 and a control group of women with MS who did not undergo IVF matched on age, MS duration, number of relapses, and MS-specific treatments in the previous year. Data on MS (disease duration, treatments, and relapses) were from the French MS Registry (OFSEP), whereas data on IVF (number of procedures, stimulation protocol type, and outcomes) were from the French national health insurance database. For this, the 2 databases were linked by indirect matching., Results: In total, 115 women with MS underwent 199 IVF procedures (mean age at first IVF: 33.9 ± 4.0 years; 45.2% had ≥2 IVF procedures), and 175 IVFs (88.0%) could be matched to specific patients. The risk of relapse in the 3 months after index date was the same in both IVF group and control group (0.06 relapse per patient-year), as confirmed also by the before-after analysis in the IVF group (0.06 vs 0.08)., Discussion: This study, using a 10-year clinical and administrative dataset, did not find any increased risk of relapse after IVF. The maintenance of disease-modifying therapies until IVF was a determining factor in reducing the risk of relapse.

Background: Previous studies have shown that people with multiple sclerosis (MS) had frequent healthcare visits up to 10 years before being diagnosed but with no information from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the connection with the radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS)., Objective: To analyze healthcare use 3 years before the RIS diagnosis., Methods: We examined healthcare usage before the first scan in RIS cases from 2010 to 2019. RIS subjects were identified from the French National MS observatory and compared to the general population (matched 10:1) and MS patients (matched 4:1)., Results: Among 482 RIS individuals, 223 (46.3%) were not linked to the healthcare resources database. The remaining RIS individuals (53.7%) had higher healthcare usage before their RIS diagnosis for issues related to neurology visits, headaches (odds ratio (OR): 3.34, confidence interval (CI): [2.00-5.57], p < 0.0001), and the use of anti-migraine drugs (OR: 2.61, CI: [1.37-4.99], p = 0.004) compared to MS., Conclusion: Only about half of RIS patients had MS-selected healthcare resources, which allowed for data linkage. Those who did seek care before their RIS diagnosis were most commonly known for other neurological comorbidities. These findings do not support the idea of a systemic prodrome before RIS diagnosis., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: C.L.-F. reports research funding from the ARSEP Foundation for this project. D.T.O. received personal compensation for consulting and advisory services from Biogen, Eisai, EMD Serono, Genentech, Genzyme/Sanofi, Moderna, RVL Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Zenas BioPharma, and research support from EMD Serono/Merck and Novartis. D.T.O. has issued national and international patents and pending patents related to other developed technologies. D.T.O. received royalties for intellectual property licensed by The Board of Regents of The University of Texas System and is also the Founder of Revert Health Inc. M.C. has received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities with Biogen, Merck, Sanofi, Roche, Celgene-BMS, Janssen, Alexion, Horizon Therapeutics, and Ad Scientiam. A.S. received research grants from The Turkish Multiple Sclerosis Society, The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkiye & Istanbul University-Cerraphasa Research Support Funds, received honoraria or consultancy fees for participating in advisory boards, giving educational lectures, and travel and registration coverage for attending scientific congresses or symposia from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi-Genzyme, Alexion, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma of Turkey and Abdi Ibrahim Ilaç, Turkiye. C.J.A. receives research funding from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and the National Institutes of Health. She has received personal compensation for advisory boards and consulting activities from Horizon Therapeutics, Genentech, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and EMD Serono. E.L. reports consulting and lecture fees or travel grants from Biogen, Genzyme, MedDay Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono, Novartis, and Roche—nothing related to the contents of the present work. S.K., C.L.-C., E.D., C.P., E.N., and O.H.K declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Background: We hypothesized that differences in access to disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) could explain the association between socioeconomic status and disability progression in multiple sclerosis (MS)., Objective: This study aimed to analyze the association between education level and DMT use in France., Methods: All patients from OFSEP network with MS onset over 1996-2014 and aged ⩾ 25 years at onset were included. Three time-to-event outcomes were investigated using flexible parametric survival regression models: time from MS onset to first DMT (any) and to platform therapy, and time from platform therapy to switch to high-efficacy therapy., Results: Overall, 7563 patients were included (mean follow-up 12.6 ± 5.9 years). The percentages of patients aged less than 40 years at MS onset and who initiated treatment before the age of 40 years were significantly higher in the groups with a higher education level. The time-to-event outcomes showed no major difference in DMT practices according to education level, except for women who had a significantly shorter time to DMT initiation in medium to very high education level groups versus low, at 5 years from MS clinical onset., Conclusion: Our results suggest that the association between education level and MS disability progression does not solely reflect different therapeutic practices, particularly in men., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: M.L., O.D., M.D., C.L.F., and J.P. have nothing to disclose. E.B. disclosed honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis, Sanofi Aventis, Biogen, Genzyme, Roche, and Teva Pharma. J.P.C. disclosed consulting and lecturing fees from Akcea, Alexion, Alnylam, Argenx, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), CSL Behring, Genzyme, Grifols, Laboratoire Français des Biotechnologies, Merck Serono, Natus, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmalliance, UCB Pharma, Teva, SNF Floerger; travel grants from Akcea, Alexion, Alnylam, Argenx, Biogen, CSL Behring, Genzyme, Grifols, Laboratoire Français des Biotechnologies, Merck Serono, Natus, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva, SNF Floerger. J.C. disclosed consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities with Biogen, Novartis, Merck, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, Celgene BMS, Alexion. P.C. disclosed consulting and lecturing fees, travel grants, and unconditional research support from Biogen, Janssen, MedDay, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva Pharma. J.D.S. disclosed consulting and lecturing fees, travel grants, and unconditional research support from Biogen, Genzyme, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and Teva Pharma. O.H. disclosed consulting and lecturing fees from Bayer Schering, Merck, Teva, Genzyme, Novartis, Almirall, and Biogen Idec, travel grants from Novartis, Teva, Genzyme, Merck Serono, and Biogen Idec, and research support from Roche, Merck, and Novartis. P.L. disclosed consulting and lecturing fees, travel grants and unconditional research support from Biogen, Genzyme, Novartis, Merck Serono, Roche, and Teva Pharma. D.A.L. served on scientific advisory boards for Alexion, BMS, Roche, Sanofi, Novartis, Merck, Janssen and Biogen, received conference travel support and speaker honoraria from Alexion, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi, BMS, Teva Pharma and Merck, and received research support from Fondation ARSEP, Fondation EDMUS and Agence Nationale de la Recherche. L.M. disclosed honoraria as speaker from Biogen, Merck Serono, BMS Celgene, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, and Novartis. T.M. disclosed fees as scientific adviser from Biogen, MedDay, Novartis, Genzyme, Sanofi. A.R. disclosed consultancy fees, speaker fees, research grants (non-personal), and honoraria approved by the institutions from Novartis, Biogen Idec, Genzyme, Roche, and Merck. E.T. disclosed consulting and lecturing fees, travel grants, or unconditional research support from Actelion, Biogen, Celgene, Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Teva Pharma; has a patent pending for biomarkers of neurodegeneration and neuroregeneration and a patent pending for a diagnosis method of MS (EP18305630.8); and received academic research support from PHRC and ARSEP Foundation. S.V. disclosed lecturing fees, travel grants, and research support from Biogen, BMS Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva. H.Z. disclosed consulting or lectures, and invitations for national and international congresses from Biogen, Merck, Teva, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis and Bayer, and research support from Teva and Roche, and academic research grants from Académie de Médecine, LFSEP, FHU Imminent, and ARSEP Foundation. G.D. disclosed Consulting and lecturing fees for Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Merck Serono, Roche, and Teva and funding for travel from Merck Serono, Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, and Teva. Institution granted for research support from Merck Serono, Biogen, Genzyme, and Novartis. E.L. disclosed consulting and lecture fees or travel grants from Biogen, Genzyme, MedDay Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi Aventis, and Roche.

Background: Studies have reported an association between socioeconomic status and disability progression in multiple sclerosis (MS), but findings using the pre-MS individual socioeconomic status are missing., Objective: The objective was to investigate the association between education level and disability progression., Methods: All Observatoire Français de la Sclérose en Plaques (OFSEP) patients with MS clinical onset over 1960-2014, and aged ⩾25 years at MS onset were included. Education level was classified into four categories from low (primary/secondary school) to very high (master/doctoral degree). Time from MS onset to EDSS 4.0 was studied using flexible parametric survival models adjusted for age, period, and center, and stratified by phenotype (relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) and primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS)) and sex., Results: A total of 11,586 patients were included (women/men ratio = 2.5; age = 36.7 ± 8.6 years; follow-up duration 16.7 ± 9.3 years; 86.4% RMS). For women with RMS, the risk of reaching the outcome at 5 years was inversely associated with the education level (Hazard Ratio medium: 0.74 (0.63-0.87), high: 0.51 (0.43-0.62), very high: 0.39 (0.30-0.50) vs low). Results were similar for men. In PPMS, the risk was significantly different between the extreme groups (very high vs low) for women (0.45 (0.28-0.75)) and men (0.54 (0.32-0.91)), but no gradient was evident., Conclusion: Our study showed a strong association between education level and disability progression, regardless of sex and phenotype., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: M.L., O.D., M.D., C.L.-F., and J.P. had nothing to disclose. E.B. disclosed honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis, Sanofi Aventis, Biogen, Genzyme, Roche, and Teva Pharma. J.-P.C. disclosed consulting and lecturing fees from Akcea, Alexion, Alnylam, Argenx, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL-Behring, Genzyme, Grifols, Laboratoire Français des Biotechnologies, Merck Serono, Natus, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmalliance, UCB Pharma, Teva, and SNF-Floerger; travel grants from Akcea, Alexion, Alnylam, Argenx, Biogen, CSL-Behring, Genzyme, Grifols, Laboratoire Français des Biotechnologies, Merck Serono, Natus, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva, and SNF-Floerger. J.C. disclosed consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities with Biogen, Novartis, Merck, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, Celgene-BMS, and Alexion. P.C. disclosed consulting and lecturing fees, travel grants, and unconditional research support from Biogen, Janssen, MedDay, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Teva Pharma. J.D.S. disclosed consulting and lecturing fees, travel grants, and unconditional research support from Biogen, Genzyme, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and Teva Pharma. O.H. disclosed consulting and lecturing fees from Bayer Schering, Merck, Teva, Genzyme, Novartis, Almirall, and BiogenIdec; travel grants from Novartis, Teva, Genzyme, Merck Serono, and Biogen Idec; and research support from Roche, Merck and Novartis. P.L. disclosed consulting and lecturing fees, travel grants, and unconditional research support from Biogen, Genzyme, Novartis, Merck Serono, Roche, and Teva Pharma. D.A.L. disclosed served on scientific advisory boards for Alexion, BMS, Roche, Sanofi, Novartis, Merck, Janssen, and Biogen; received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from Alexion, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi, BMS, Teva Pharma, and Merck; and received research support from Fondation ARSEP, Fondation EDMUS, and Agence Nationale de la Recherche. E.L.P. disclosed consulting or lectures, and invitations for national and international congresses from Biogen, Merck, Teva, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Novartis Alexion; research support from Teva and Biogen academic research grants from PHRC and LFSEP; and travel grant from ARSEP Foundation. T.M. disclosed fees as scientific adviser from Biogen, MedDay, Novartis, Genzyme, and Sanofi. A.R. disclosed consultancy fees, speaker fees, research grants (non-personal), and/or honoraria approved by the institutions from Novartis, Biogen Idec, Genzyme, Roche, and Merck. E.T. disclosed consulting and lecturing fees, travel grants, or unconditional research support from the following pharmaceutical companies: Actelion, Biogen, Celgene, Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Teva Pharma; has a patent pending for biomarkers of neurodegeneration and neuroregeneration and a patent pending for a diagnosis method of multiple sclerosis (EP18305630.8); and received academic research support from PHRC and ARSEP Foundation. S.V. disclosed lecturing fees, travel grants, and research support from Biogen, BMS-Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Teva. H.Z. disclosed consulting or lectures and invitations for national and international congresses from Biogen, Merck, Teva, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, and Bayer, as well as research support from Teva and Roche, and academic research grants from Académie de Médecine, LFSEP, FHU Imminent, and ARSEP Foundation. G.D. disclosed Consulting and lecturing fees for Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Merck Serono, Roche, and Teva and funding for travel from Merck Serono, Biogen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, and Teva. Institution granted for research supporting from Merck Serono, Biogen, Genzyme, and Novartis. E.L. disclosed consulting and lecture fees or travel grants from Biogen, Genzyme, MedDay Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi Aventis, and Roche.

Background and Objectives: Previous literature has been diverging on cancer risk in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). Therefore, this study compared the risk of cancer in PwMS and a matched sample from the French general population., Methods: This 10-year nationwide retrospective matched cohort study (2012-2021) used data from the national French administrative health care database (99% coverage of the French population) to determine the time to the first incident cancer. PwMS were identified using their long-term disease (LTD) status, hospitalizations, and multiple sclerosis (MS)-specific drug reimbursements. The control population was matched 4:1 on age, sex, residence, insurance scheme, and cohort entry date. Participants were included if they had no history of cancer in the 3 years before inclusion. Patients with cancer were identified through LTD status, hospitalizations, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or prostate cancer-specific drug reimbursements. Overall and cancer location-specific hazard ratios (HRs) for the first incident cancer were obtained from Fine and Gray models, and age- and sex-stratified estimates were reported. Participation in cancer screening through the 3 national programs (breast, colorectal, and cervical) were compared between groups., Results: Cancer incidence was 799 per 100,000 person-years (PYs) (n = 8,368) among the 140,649 PwMS and 736 per 100,000 PYs (n = 31,796) among the 562,596 matched controls (70.8% of women; follow-up: 7.6 ± 3.2 years). A small overall risk increase was observed for PwMS (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.08), mostly in women (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.05-1.11). Risk varied by cancer types and was lower for prostate (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.88), breast (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.95), and colorectal (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84-0.97) cancer and higher for bladder (HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.54-1.89), brain (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.42-1.98), and cervical (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.12-1.38) cancer in PwMS. Cancer risk was higher in PwMS younger than 55 years (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.15-1.24) but decreased in PwMS aged 65 years and older (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.85-0.94). This trend was found in all cancer locations. There were fewer PwMS getting screened than controls (all programs), with a particularly pronounced difference among those aged 65 years and older., Discussion: Cancer risk was slightly increased in PwMS, particularly for urogenital cancers, possibly due to surveillance bias. Risk fluctuated depending on age, perhaps due to varying generational screening practices (i.e., diagnosis neglect in the older PwMS) and risk factors.

In France, few data sources are available to estimate the impact of multiple sclerosis (MS) on job retention and its consequences on the level of resources, especially in large representative samples. The aim of the present study was to measure impact of MS on employment rates, wages and income (including unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and disability pension) by comparing work trajectories of people living with MS with those of a matched control group. We used the HYGIE database, which is the result of the linkage of two administrative databases in the private sector for a random sample of over 900,000 people. In order to identify the causal effect of MS on employment after 1 to 20 years, the difference-in-differences method with matching (age, sex, career and health history) was used, overall and in subgroups. The year of entry in long-term disease status for MS was used to approximate the onset of MS. Overall, 946 people with MS were included. Their situation was fairly favorable before MS (88.1% in employment, resources higher than the median for the general population), but MS had strong and continuous negative effects. Indeed, at 10 years, the employment rate fell by 28.6 percentage points (pp) and the disability pension allowance increased by 50.5 pp; the wage percentile fell by 19.2 pp and the replacement income accounted for a growing share of total income (+ 39.7 pp). Although administrative data had several strengths, clinical information on the severity of the disease or on its therapeutic management was not available. In conclusion, this study shows that the effects of MS on the employed population in the private sector occur early in the disease course and are cumulative, and that replacement income helps to reduce the loss of resources thanks to the French health and social system., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: People with multiple sclerosis (MS) have an increased risk of severe coronavirus infection due to their level of motor disability or exposure to certain immunosuppressive treatments. Thus, patients with MS have had priority access to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. However, relapses after vaccination have been reported, leading some patients to not seek the recommended booster doses. The main objective was to estimate the risk of severe relapse after 1, 2, and 3 (booster) doses of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with MS. The secondary objectives were to assess the risk of relapse in clinically meaningful subgroups according to the type of vaccine, the characteristics of the patients, and the use of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs)., Methods: We conducted a nationwide study using data from the French National Health Data System. Patients with MS were identified according to ICD codes, specific treatments, and reimbursement data up to March 31, 2022. Relapses requiring treatment with high-dose corticosteroids were identified. A self-controlled case series method was used to evaluate the risk of relapse associated with COVID-19 vaccines in the 45 days after vaccination. The associated risk was evaluated after 1, 2, or 3 (booster) doses and is expressed as overall incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and in subgroups of interest., Results: Overall, 124,545 patients with MS were identified on January 1, 2021, and 82% received at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (n = 102,524) until December 31, 2021, for a total of 259,880 doses. The combined IRR for MS relapse was 0.97 (0.91-1.03, p = 0.30). The same absence of risk was confirmed in various subgroups (age younger than 50 years, duration of MS < 10 years, use of DMT). A small increase in the relapse risk cannot be excluded after a booster dose (IRR 1.39 [1.08-1.80]) for patients with high MS activity, especially when not treated., Discussion: There is no increased risk of relapse requiring corticosteroid therapy after COVID-19 vaccination for almost all patients. We cannot exclude an increased risk after the booster dose for patients who have had at least 2 relapses in the previous 2 years., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class III evidence that COVID-19 vaccination does not increase the risk of severe relapse in patients with MS.

Background: Epidemiological data reveal that 45% of persons with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) in France are more than 50 years. This population more than 50 is more susceptible to cancer, and this risk may be increased by frequent use of immunosuppressive drugs. Consequently, concerns have arisen about the potential increased risk of cancer in PwMS and how patients should be screened and managed in terms of cancer risk., Objective: To develop evidence-based recommendations to manage the coexistence of cancer and multiple sclerosis (MS)., Methods: The French Group for Recommendations in MS collected articles from PubMed and university databases covering the period January 1975 through June 2022. The RAND/UCLA method was employed to achieve formal consensus. MS experts comprehensively reviewed the full-text articles and developed the initial recommendations. A group of multidisciplinary health care specialists then validated the final proposal., Results: Five key questions were addressed, encompassing various topics such as cancer screening before or after initiating a disease-modifying therapy (DMT), appropriate management of MS in the context of cancer, recommended follow-up for cancer in patients receiving a DMT, and the potential reintroduction of a DMT after initial cancer treatment. A strong consensus was reached for all 31 recommendations., Conclusion: These recommendations propose a strategic approach to managing cancer risk in PwMS., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: N. Collongues has received honoraria for consulting or presentation from Alexion, Biogen Idec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Horizon Therapeutics, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme and is a member of the Editorial Board of the Journal de la Ligue Française contre la Sclérose en plaques and the Neurology and Therapy Journal. Françoise Durand-Dubief has received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities from Biogen, BMS-Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Teva. Christine Lebrun Frenay has nothing to disclose. Géraldine Androdias has received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Bertrand Audoin has nothing to disclose. Xavier Ayrignac has received consulting fees and lecturing fess, travel grants, and unconditional research support from Alexion, Biogen, Genzyme, Janssen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and Teva Pharma. Caroline Bensa has received consulting honoraria from Alexion, Sanofi, Merck, Biogen, BMS, and Novartis. Kevin Bigaut has received lecturing fees and travel grants from Biogen, Celgene-BMS, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Julie Boucher has nothing to disclose. Bertrand Bourre serves on the scientific advisory board and has received funding for travel and honoraria from Alexion, Biogen, BMS, Horizon, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, and Roche. Clemence Boutiere has nothing to disclose. Pierre Branger has received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities from Alexion, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi-Genzyme. C. Carra-Dalliere has received travel grants and/or consulting fees from Alexion, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Jonathan Ciron has received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities from Biogen, Novartis, Merck, Sanofi, Roche, Celgene-BMS, Alexion, and Horizon Therapeutics. Angelique Da Silva has received personal fees from Daichi and Leopharma. Gilles Defer has received personal fees from Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Teva Pharmaceuticals. Sarah Demortière has nothing to disclose. Maxime Guillaume has received honoraria from Novartis, Merck, and Sanofi. Benjamin Hebant has nothing to disclose. Edouard Januel has nothing to disclose. Anne Kerbrat has nothing to disclose. Arnaud Kwiatkowski has received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, and Teva. Emmanuelle Leray has received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities with Alexion, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Elisabeth Maillart has received research support from Biogen and personal fees for lectures and serving on advisory boards from Biogen, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Teva. Guillaume Mathey has nothing to disclose. Xavier Moisset has received financial support from Allergan-Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Grünenthal, Lilly, Lundbeck, Teva, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme and non-financial support from SOS Oxygène not related to the submitted work. Alexis Montcuquet has received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities from Alexison, Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, and Teva. Nathalie Morel has nothing to disclose. Romain Marignier has received personal fees from Horizon Therapeutics, Alexion, Roche, and UCB; and nonfinancial support from Horizon Therapeutics, Merck, Biogen, and Roche. Chloe Pierret has nothing to disclose. Julie Pique has received travel grants and personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities from Teva, Biogen, Novartis, Merck, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, Celgene-BMS, and Alexion. Julien Poupart has nothing to disclose. Chloe Prunis has nothing to disclose. Eric Thouvenot has received personal fees from Actelion and Teva and grants from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, and Roche. Thomas Roux has received personal compensation for consulting, speaking, or serving on a scientific advisory board from Alexion, Biogen, BMS-Celgene, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Perrine Schmitt has nothing to disclose. Helene Zephir has nothing to disclose. Mikael Cohen has received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities from Ad Scientiam, Biogen, Merck, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, Celgene-BMS, Alexion, and Horizon Therapeutics.

Background: France is among the countries with high prevalence of multiple sclerosis (MS). The most recent estimates are from 2012 and need to be updated because MS prevalence has increased worldwide., Objective: To estimate MS prevalence in France on December 31, 2021 and to describe the characteristics of the French MS population using data from the French national health insurance database (SNDS)., Material and Methods: Persons with MS (PwMS) were identified in the SNDS database (99% of national coverage) using an algorithm with three criteria: long-term disease status, hospitalizations, and MS-specific drug reimbursements. Crude and sex- and age-stratified prevalence rates were calculated with their 95% confidence intervals as well as the standardized prevalence stratified on the region of residence., Results: In total, 134,062 PwMS were identified (71.8% of women, median age 53.0±14.8years) yielding a prevalence of 197.6 per 100,000 (95% CI [196.5-198.7]). Prevalence rates in women and men were respectively 274.9 (95% CI [273.2-276.6]) and 115.2 (95% CI [114.0-116.4]). In metropolitan France, the highest prevalence rates were observed in the northeastern regions (e.g.>230 PwMS per 100,000 in Grand Est and Hauts-de-France), and the lowest rates in the southwestern regions (∼180 PwMS per 100,000 in Nouvelle-Aquitaine and Occitanie). Overall, 32.1% of PwMS had another long-term disease and 51.8% received at least one MS-specific drug in 2021., Conclusion: MS prevalence in France has increased by ∼30% in the last 10years. This increase is probably linked to population ageing, longer survival of PwMS, and the long observation period. The part attributable to a possible increase in MS risk remains to be determined with incidence studies., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Counseling on pregnancy is still challenging, particularly regarding the use of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs). We are lacking long-term outcomes in children exposed to DMTs., Objectives: This study aimed to set up a French pregnancy registry for women with multiple sclerosis (MS) and related disorders nested within the Observatoire Français de la Sclérose en Plaques (OFSEP) cohort., Methods: Prospective, observational, multicentric, epidemiological study in France. Neurological visits are organized according to routine practice. Data are collected on the OFSEP minimal datasheet. Auto-questionnaires on pregnancy are completed by patients at Months 5-6 and 8 during pregnancy, and Months 3, 6, and 12 postpartum. A specific survey on analgesia is completed by anesthesiologists. Pediatric data are collected from the child's health book, where visits on Day 8, Month 9, and 24 are mandatory. Parents complete neurodevelopmental questionnaires at Year 1, Years 2 and 6., Results: The RESPONSE study started in August 2019. On 7 April 2023, 515 women were included. Baseline demographics are presented., Conclusions: RESPONSE will provide rich information on the global management of pregnancy in France and prospective data on children until the age of 6 years, exposed or not to a DMT, including data on neurodevelopment that can be compared to the general population., Study Funding: EDMUS and ARSEP Foundation, Biogen, Roche., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: S.V. has received consulting and lecturing fees, travel grants, and unconditional research support from Biogen, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, and Sanofi. B.B. has received consulting and lecturing fees, travel grants, and unconditional research support from Alexion, Biogen, Horizon, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, and Sanofi. R.C. has no financial disclosure to declare. K.D. has received consulting and lecturing fees, travel grants, and consulting fees for advisory boards from Alexion, Biogen, Horizon, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. A.M.G. has received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities with Biogen, Novartis, Merck, Sanofi, and Roche. F.R. and C.L.F. have no financial disclosure to declare. E.L. has received consulting and lecturing fees, and travel grants from Alexion, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. L.B. and C.G. have no financial disclosure to declare. R.M. has received personal fees from Horizon Therapeutics, Alexion, Roche, and UCB and non-financial support from Horizon Therapeutics, Merck, Biogen, and Roche, outside the submitted work. E.M. reports research support from Biogen and ARSEP foundation and personal fees for lectures and advisory boards from Biogen, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Teva.

Background: Eculizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the C5 complement protein, has been approved for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) in adult patients who are anti-aquaporin-4 (AQP4) antibody positive (Ab+). The aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and safety of eculizumab in French adults with NMOSD and to describe patients' characteristics, disability, and quality of life using data collected in a real-world setting., Methods: This is the protocol for ECUP4, an ongoing prospective, observational, non-comparative, multicenter study conducted in 32 reference centers in France. Eligible patients must also be enrolled in NOMADMUS, a nested cohort of the French national multiple sclerosis registry (OFSEP). The primary endpoint is the annualized relapse rate. Secondary endpoints include the long-term safety of eculizumab, as well as patients' characteristics, treatment outcomes, disability, pain, visual acuity, and quality of life. Visits and treatments follow routine clinical practice. The case report forms (CRF) comprise data recorded in the context of the NOMADMUS cohort, collected during routine visits. The inclusion period is planned for 3 years, with no limitation on the number of patients enrolled. The maximum follow-up duration will be 5.5 years., Conclusion: The efficacy and safety of eculizumab in patients with AQP4+ NMOSD have been demonstrated in randomized clinical trials that showed a significant reduction in the risk of relapse, with a safety profile consistent with other indications. This study will provide clinical and patient-reported evidence of the benefits of eculizumab, using data from a real-world setting in France., Trial Registration Number: This study is registered at the French public repertory Health data Hub, N° F20211228123801. All information can be accessed at: https://www.health-data-hub.fr/., Competing Interests: The 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., (Copyright © 2024 Marignier, Laplaud, Zéphir, Papeix, Leray, Amri, Piotaix and de Sèze.)

Background and Objectives: Determining whether multiple sclerosis (MS) causes death is challenging. Our objective was to contrast 2 frameworks to estimate probabilities of death attributed to MS (P MS ) and other causes (P other ): the cause-specific framework (CSF), which requires the causes of death, and the excess mortality framework (EMF), which does not., Methods: We used data from the Observatoire Français de la Sclérose en Plaques (OFSEP, n = 37,524) and from a comparative subset where causes of death were available (4,004 women with relapsing-onset MS [R-MS]). In CSF, the probabilities were estimated using the Aalen-Johansen method. In EMF, they were estimated from the excess mortality hazard, which is the additional mortality among patients with MS as compared with the expected mortality in the matched general population. P MS values were estimated at 30 years of follow-up, (1) with both frameworks in the comparative subset, by age group at onset, and (2) with EMF only in the OFSEP population, by initial phenotype, sex, and age at onset., Results: In the comparative subset, the estimated 30-year P MS values were greater using EMF than CSF: 10.9% (95% CI 8.3-13.6) vs 8.7% (6.4-11.8) among the youngest and 20.4% (11.3-29.5) vs 16.2% (8.7-30.2) for the oldest groups, respectively. In the CSF, probabilities of death from unknown causes ranged from 1.5% (0.7-3.0) to 6.4% (2.5-16.4), and even after their reallocation, P MS values remained lower with CSF than with EMF. The estimated probabilities of being alive were close using the 2 frameworks, and the estimated P Other (EMF vs CSF) was 2.6% (2.5-2.6) vs 2.1% (1.2-3.9) and 18.1% (16.9-19.3) vs 26.4% (16.5-42.2), respectively, for the youngest and oldest groups. In the OFSEP population, the estimated 30-year P MS values ranged from 7.5% (6.4-8.7) to 24.0% (19.1-28.9) in patients with R-MS and from 25.4% (21.1-29.7) to 36.8% (28.3-45.3) in primary progressive patients, depending on sex and age., Discussion: EMF has the great advantage of not requiring death certificates, their quality being less than optimal. Conceptually, it also seems more relevant because it avoids having to state, for each individual, whether death was directly or indirectly caused by MS or whether it would have occurred anyway, which is especially difficult in such chronic diseases.

Background: The relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and mortality among persons with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) is poorly understood., Objective: To investigate the association between SES and mortality risk in PwMS., Methods: From health-administrative data, we identified 12,126 incident MS cases with a first demyelinating event (MS 'onset') occurring between 1994 and 2017. Cox proportional hazard model assessed the association between socioeconomic status quintiles (SES-Qs) at MS onset and all-cause mortality., Results: Lower SES-Qs were associated with higher mortality risk; adjusted hazard ratios: SES-Q1 (most deprived) =1.61 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.36-1.91); SES-Q2 = 1.26 (95% CI = 1.05-1.50); SES-Q3 = 1.22 (95% CI = 1.02-1.46); SES-Q4 = 1.13 (95% CI = 0.94-1.35) versus SES-Q5 (least deprived)., Conclusion: A lower SES was associated with higher mortality risk in PwMS.

Introduction: Many studies have investigated pregnancy in women with multiple sclerosis (MS). However, no study has measured prenatal healthcare utilization in women with MS or adherence to follow-up recommendations to improve antenatal care quality. A better knowledge of the quality of antenatal care in women with MS would help identify and better support women with insufficient follow-up. Our objective was to measure the level of compliance to prenatal care recommendations in women with MS using data from the French National Health Insurance Database., Methods: This retrospective cohort study included all pregnant women with MS who gave live birth in France between 2010 and 2015. Using the French National Health Insurance Database, follow-up visits with gynecologists, midwives, and general practitioners (GPs) were identified, as well as ultrasound exams and laboratory tests. Based on the Adequacy of Prenatal Care Use and Content and Timing of care in Pregnancy indices, a new tool adapted to the French recommendations was developed to measure and classify the antenatal care trajectory (adequate or inadequate). Explicative factors were identified using multivariate logistic regression models. A random effect was included because women may have had more than one pregnancy during the study period., Results: In total, 4,804 women with MS ( N = 5,448 pregnancies ending in live births) were included. When considering only visits with gynecologists/midwives, 2,277 pregnancies (41.8%) were considered adequate. When adding visits with GP, their number increased to 3,646 (66.9%). Multivariate models showed that multiple pregnancy and higher medical density were associated with better adherence to follow-up recommendations. Conversely, adherence was lower in 25-29-year-old and >40-year-old women, in women with very low income, and agricultural and self-employed workers. No visits, ultrasound exams, and laboratory tests were recorded in 87 pregnancies (1.6%). In 50% of pregnancies, women had at least one visit with a neurologist during the pregnancy, and women restarted disease-modifying therapy (DMT) within 6 months after delivery in 45.9% of pregnancies., Discussion: Many women consulted their GP during pregnancy. This could be linked to a low density of gynecologists but may also reflect the preferences of women. Our findings can help adapt recommendations and healthcare providers' practices according to the women's profiles., Competing Interests: MM declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. ELP received honoraria for lectures or consulting from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, SanofiAventis, TEVA, Roche, Alexion. LM has received personal compensation for consulting, speaking or other activities with Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva and BMS. EL has received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities with Alexion, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme., (Copyright © 2023 Mainguy, Le Page, Michel and Leray.)

Background: In relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), early identification of suboptimal responders can prevent disability progression., Objective: We aimed to develop and validate a dynamic score to guide the early decision to switch from first- to second-line therapy., Methods: Using time-dependent propensity scores (PS) from a French cohort of 12,823 patients with RRMS, we constructed one training and two validation PS-matched cohorts to compare the switched patients to second-line treatment and the maintained patients. We used a frailty Cox model for predicting individual hazard ratios (iHRs)., Results: From the validation PS-matched cohort of 348 independent patients with iHR ⩽ 0.69, we reported the 5-year relapse-free survival at 0.14 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.22) for the waiting group and 0.40 (95% CI 0.32-0.51) for the switched group. From the validation PS-matched cohort of 518 independent patients with iHR > 0.69, these values were 0.37 (95% CI 0.30-0.46) and 0.44 (95% CI 0.37-0.52), respectively., Conclusions: By using the proposed dynamic score, we estimated that at least one-third of patients could benefit from an earlier switch to prevent relapse.

Objective: The objective of this study was to develop evidence-based recommendations on pregnancy management for persons with multiple sclerosis (MS)., Background: MS typically affects young women in their childbearing years. Increasing evidence is available to inform questions raised by MS patients and health professionals about pregnancy issues., Methods: The French Group for Recommendations in Multiple Sclerosis (France4MS) reviewed PubMed and university databases (January 1975 through June 2021). The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was developed to synthesise the scientific literature and expert opinions on healthcare topics; it was used to reach a formal agreement. Fifty-six MS experts worked on the full-text review and initial wording of recommendations. A group of 62 multidisciplinary healthcare specialists validated the final proposal of summarised evidence., Results: A strong agreement was reached for all 104 proposed recommendations. They cover diverse topics, such as pregnancy planning, follow-up during pregnancy and postpartum, delivery routes, locoregional analgesia or anaesthesia, prevention of postpartum relapses, breastfeeding, vaccinations, reproductive assistance, management of relapses and disease-modifying treatments., Conclusion: The 2022 recommendations of the French MS society should be helpful to harmonise counselling and treatment practice for pregnancy in persons with MS, allowing for better and individualised choices.

Background: Complementary therapy in oncology aims to help patients better cope with the illness and side effects (SEs) of cancer treatments that affect their quality of life (QOL). This study aimed to assess the benefits of homeopathic treatment on the health-related QOL (HRQOL) of patients with non-metastatic breast cancer (BC) prescribed in postsurgical complementary therapy., Patients and Methods: An extraction from the French nationwide healthcare database targeted all patients who underwent mastectomy for newly diagnosed BC between 2012 and 2013. HRQOL was proxied by the quantity of medication used to palliate the SEs of cancer treatments., Results: A total of 98,009 patients were included (mean age: 61 ± 13 years). Homeopathy was used in 11%, 26%, and 22% of patients respectively during the 7 to 12 months before surgery, the 6 months before, and 6 months after. Thereafter, the use remained stable at 15% for 4 years. Six months after surgery, there was a significant overall decrease (RR = 0.88, confidence interval (CI) 95  = 0.87-0.89) in the dispensing of medication associated with SEs in patients treated with ≥ 3 dispensing of homeopathy compared to none. The decrease appeared to be greater for immunostimulants (RR = 0.79, (CI) 95  = 0.74-0.84), corticosteroids (RR = 0.82, (CI) 95  = 0.79-0.85), and antidiarrheals (RR = 0.83, (CI) 95  = 0.77-0.88)., Conclusion: The study showed an increasing use of homeopathy in patients with BC following diagnosis. This use was maintained after surgery and seemed to play a role in helping patients to better tolerate the SEs of cancer treatments., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In 2020, the French Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Society (SFSEP) decided to develop a national evidence-based consensus on pregnancy in MS. As neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) shares a series of commonalities with MS, but also some significant differences, specific recommendations had to be developed., Objectives: To establish recommendations on pregnancy in women with NMOSD., Methods: The French Group for Recommendations in Multiple Sclerosis (France4MS) reviewed PubMed and universities databases (January 1975 through June 2021). The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, which was developed to synthesise the scientific literature and expert opinions on health care topics, was used to reach a formal agreement. Fifty-six MS experts worked on the full-text review and initial wording of recommendations. A sub-group of nine NMOSD experts was dedicated to analysing available data on NMOSD. A group of 62 multidisciplinary healthcare specialists validated the final proposal of summarised evidence., Results: A strong agreement was reached for all 66 proposed recommendations. They cover diverse topics, such as pregnancy planning, follow-up during pregnancy and postpartum, delivery routes, loco-regional analgesia or anaesthesia, prevention of postpartum relapses, breastfeeding, vaccinations, reproductive assistance, management of relapses, and disease-modifying treatments., Conclusion: Physicians and patients should be aware of the new and specific evidence-based recommendations of the French MS Society for pregnancy in women with NMOSD. They should help harmonise counselling and treatment practise, allowing for better individualised choices.

Background: In Multiple Sclerosis (MS) women, therapeutic management for pregnancy planning and during pregnancy still represents a challenge regarding timing of disease-modifying therapies (DMT) stop, risk of disease reactivation and potential fetal toxicity. The objective of this study was to describe disease activity during pregnancy and postpartum depending on treatment status before conception in women with MS., Methods: 339 MS patients who have achieved a pregnancy between 2007 and 2017 were included. Women were classified according to their exposure to DMT in the 18 months period prior to pregnancy (untreated / first- / second/third-line treatment)., Results: 122 women were not exposed to DMT prior to conception, whereas 147 were exposed to first-line DMT and 70 to second/third line DMT (73% to natalizumab and 23% to fingolimod) before conception. In the first-line group, the ARR decreased from 0.39 during the year before conception to 0.21 during pregnancy, whereas it increased in the second/third-line group from 0.59 to 0.78. 47.1% of the second/third-line group faced at least one relapse during pregnancy and the time from conception to first relapse was significantly shorter in this group (p < 10 -4 ). The risk of relapse during pregnancy and postpartum was associated with occurrence of pre-conception relapses and second/third line DMT exposure before pregnancy., Conclusion: Careful consideration should be given to natalizumab and fingolimod exposed patients before conception as they are at higher risk of reactivation of MS during pregnancy., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: The effects of socio-economic status on mortality in patients with multiple sclerosis is not well known. The objective was to examine mortality due to multiple sclerosis according to socio-economic status., Methods: A retrospective observational cohort design was used with recruitment from 18 French multiple sclerosis expert centers participating in the Observatoire Français de la Sclérose en Plaques. All patients lived in metropolitan France and had a definite or probable diagnosis of multiple sclerosis according to either Poser or McDonald criteria with an onset of disease between 1960 and 2015. Initial phenotype was either relapsing-onset or primary progressive onset. Vital status was updated on January 1st 2016. Socio-economic status was measured by an ecological index, the European Deprivation Index and was attributed to each patient according to their home address. Excess death rates were studied according to socio-economic status using additive excess hazard models with multidimensional penalised splines. The initial hypothesis was a potential socio-economic gradient in excess mortality., Findings: A total of 34,169 multiple sclerosis patients were included (88% relapsing onset (n = 30,083), 12% progressive onset (n = 4086)), female/male sex ratio 2.7 for relapsing-onset and 1.3 for progressive-onset). Mean age at disease onset was 31.6 (SD = 9.8) for relapsing-onset and 42.7 (SD = 10.8) for progressive-onset. At the end of follow-up, 1849 patients had died (4.4% for relapsing-onset (n = 1311) and 13.2% for progressive-onset (n = 538)). A socio-economic gradient was found for relapsing-onset patients; more deprived patients had a greater excess death rate. At thirty years of disease duration and a year of onset of symptoms of 1980, survival probability difference (or deprivation gap) between less deprived relapsing-onset patients (EDI = -6) and more deprived relapsing-onset patients (EDI = 12) was 16.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) [10.3%-22.9%]) for men and 12.3% (95%CI [7.6%-17.0%]) for women. No clear socio-economic mortality gradient was found in progressive-onset patients., Interpretation: Socio-economic status was associated with mortality due to multiple sclerosis in relapsing-onset patients. Improvements in overall care of more socio-economically deprived patients with multiple sclerosis could help reduce these socio-economic inequalities in multiple sclerosis-related mortality., Funding: This study was funded by the ARSEP foundation "Fondation pour l'aide à la recherche sur la Sclérose en Plaques" (Grant Reference Number 1122). Data collection has been supported by a grant provided by the French State and handled by the "Agence Nationale de la Recherche," within the framework of the "Investments for the Future" programme, under the reference ANR-10-COHO-002, Observatoire Français de la Sclérose en Plaques (OFSEP)., Competing Interests: Sarah Wilson, Fabien Rollot, Mathieu Fauvernier, Laurent Remontet, Laure Tron, Marc Debouverie, Jérôme de Sèze, Thibault Moreau, Christine Lebrun Frenay, Pierre Labauge, Jean Pelletier and Olivier Dejardin report no disclosures. Floriane Calocer: received funding for the present research from the ARSEP foundation for a Postdoctoral Fellowship (payment to the institution), from the “Réseau Bas-Normand pour la SEP” for a Postdoctoral Fellowship (payment to the institution), from the Regional Council of Normandy (payment to the institution), from the Ecole Doctorale of Caen University for a training in LSHTD to conduct this research (payment to the institution). She received support for attending meetings and/or travel from the ARSEP Foundation (paid directly to herself, unrelated to this work). Sandra Vukusic: received grants or contracts (paid to her university hospital) from Biogen, BMS-Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva; received consulting fees from Biogen, BMS-Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva (paid to her university hospital); received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva (paid to her university hospital); received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva, participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Biogen (contracts with her university hospital), all of the above unrelated to this work. Emmanuelle Le Page: received payment or honoraria for consulting or lectures from Biogen, Merck, Teva, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis Alexion; received research support from Teva and Biogen, and received academic research grants from PHRC and LFSEP, and a travel grant from the ARSEP Foundation; received payment for consulting from Biogen, Merck, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Novartis; received invitations for national and international congresses from Biogen, Merck, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis Alexion, all of the above unrelated to this work. Jonathan Ciron: participated on a Data Safety Monitory Board of Advisory Board with Biogen, Novartis, Merck, Sanofi, Roche, Alexion and BMS-Celgene (all unrelated to this work). Aurélie Ruet: Consultancy fees from Roche and Biogen, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Merck, Roche, Biogen, research grants (paid to the institution) from Roche, Biogen and Sanofi-Genzyme, and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Biogen, Novartis and Alexion, all of the above unrelated to this work. Hélène Zephir: received research support for one PhD student from Roche, and research support for one MD student from FHU Imminent, consulting fees from Biogen IDEC (Symposium Biogen Idec in ISNI congress); received payment or honoraria for lectures from Merck, received payment or honoraria for lectures and boards from Novartis, all of the above unrelated to this work. David-Axel Laplaud: received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Biogen, Merck, Alexion, BMS, Roche and Novartis, all of the above unrelated to this work. Pierre Clavelou: received consulting fees from Biogen, Janssen, Medday, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva Pharma; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Sanofi-Genzyme, and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Medday, Merck and Novartis. All of the above unrelated to this work. Eric Berger: received consulting fees from Novartis, Sanofi Aventis, Biogen, Genzyme, Roche and Teva Pharma; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Novartis, Sanofi Aventis, Biogen, Genyme, Roche and Teva Pharma (all of the above unrelated to this work). Olivier Heinzlef: consulting fees from Bayer Schering, Merck, Teva, Genzyme, Novartis, Almirall and BiogenIdec, support for attending meetings and/or travel grants from Novartis, Teva, Genzyme, Merck Serono and Biogen Idec and other financial or non-financial interests from Novartis, Teva, Genzyme, Merck Serono and BiogenIdec (all of the above unrelated to this work). Eric Thouvenot: received grants or contracts from Novartis and Biogen (paid to the institution), consulting fees from Merck, Novartis, Biogen and Celgene (paid directly to himself); received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Merck, Novartis, Biogen, Celgene (paid directly to himself). All of the above unrelated to this work. Jean Philippe Camdessanché: received grants or contracts from CSL-Behring, Grifols, Laboratoire Français des Biotechnologies, consulting fees from Akcea, Alexion, Alnylam, Argenx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Laboratoire Français des Biotechnologies, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, SNF-Floeger, received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Akcea, Alexion, Alnylam, Argenx, Biogen, CSL-Behring, Genzyme, Grifols, Laboratoire Français des Biotechnologies, Merck-Serono, Natus, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma and Teva. Received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Akcea, Alexion, Alnylam, Argenx, Biogen, CSL-Behring, Genzyme, Grifols, Laboratoire Français des Biotechnologies, Merck-Serono, Natus, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva, SNF-Floeger, all of the above unrelated to this work. Emmanuelle Leray: received consulting fees from Alexion, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Biogen, received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Sanofi Genzyme, and received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Sanofi Genzyme, all of the above unrelated to this work. Gilles Defer Received research grants (paid to institution) from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme; payment for speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, BMS; funding for travel from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals; and personal compensation for scientific advisory boards from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and BMS. All of the above unrelated to this work., (© 2022 The Author(s).)