Search

Objective: To investigate the impact of transition interval length when switching from natalizumab (NTZ) to anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (antiCD20) on recurrent disease activity and safety in relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS)., Methods: Aggregating data from 8 MS centres in Austria, Switzerland, and Germany, we included RMS patients who (i) continuously received NTZ for ≥3 months, (ii) were switched to antiCD20, and (iii) had ≥12 months follow-up after switch. The primary endpoint was occurrence of relapse after switch, secondary endpoints included severe infections (CTCAE grade ≥3)., Results: Overall, 139 RMS patients were included (70.5% females, mean age at switch 38.8 years [SD 9.7], mean disease duration at switch 11.3 years [SD 6.2], median duration on NTZ 4.4 years [range: 0.3-16.4], median transition interval 58 days [0-180]). Relapse occurred in 18 patients (12.9%) after NTZ discontinuation. Of those, 11 (61.1%) patients relapsed during the transition interval. No patient with a transition interval below 30 days experienced a relapse, compared to 11.1% and 16.1% with transition intervals of 30-44 days and ≥ 45 days, respectively. In multivariable Cox regression, a transition interval ≥ 45 days predicted a 4.73-fold increased risk of relapse. Over approximately 4 years of follow-up, six severe infections were reported without any noticeable effect of transition interval length. No PML occurred., Conclusions: Switching from NTZ to antiCD20 is generally both effective and safe. Keeping the transition interval below 30 days provides the optimal balance between preventing recurrent disease activity and ensuring safety., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

Background and Objectives: Isolated value of MRI metrics in relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) as a surrogate marker of response to disease-modifying treatment (DMT) and, thus, as decision criteria for DMT escalation in the absence of clinical signs of disease activity is still a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to investigate whether DMT escalation based on isolated MRI activity affects clinical outcome., Methods: Combining data from 5 MS centers in Austria and Switzerland, we included patients with RMS aged at least 18 years who (1) had initiated first-line, low-to-moderate-efficacy DMT (interferon β, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, or dimethyl fumarate) continued for ≥12 months, (2) were clinically stable (no relapses or disability progression) on DMT for 12 months, (3) had MRI at baseline and after 12 months on DMT, and (4) had available clinical follow-up for ≥2 years after the second MRI. The primary endpoint was occurrence of relapse during follow-up. The number of new T2 lesions (T2L) and DMT strategy (continuing low-/moderate-efficacy DMT vs escalating DMT) were used as covariates in regression analyses., Results: A total of 131 patients with RMS, median age of 36 (25th-75th percentiles: 29-43) years, 73% women, were included and observed over a median period of 6 (5-9) years after second MRI. Sixty-two (47%) patients had relapse. Patients who continued first-line DMT had a 3-fold increased risk of relapse given 2 new T2L (hazard ratio [HR] 3.2, lower limit [LL] of 95% CI: 1.5) and a 4-fold increased risk given ≥3 new T2L (HR 4.0, LL-CI: 2.1). Escalation of DMT lowered the risk of relapse in patients with 2 new T2L by approximately 80% (HR 0.2, upper limit [UL] of 95% CI: 1.3) and with ≥3 new T2L by 70% (HR 0.3, UL-CI: 0.8). In case of only 1 new T2L, the increased risk of relapse and the treatment effect did not reach statistical significance of 5%., Discussion: In our real-world cohort of patients clinically stable under low-to-moderate-efficacy DMT, escalation of DMT based on isolated MRI activity decreased risk of further relapse when at least 2 new T2L had occurred., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class III evidence that clinically stable patients with MS on low-/moderate-efficacy DMT with ≥3 new T2L on MRI who escalate DMT have a reduced risk of relapse and Expanded Disability Status Scale progression.

Background: COVID-19 continues to challenge neurologists in counselling persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) regarding disease-modifying treatment (DMT) and vaccination. The objective here was to characterize predictors of COVID-19 outcome in pwMS., Methods: We included pwMS with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis from a nationwide population-based registry. COVID-19 outcome was classified as either mild or severe. Impact of DMT, specifically anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, and vaccination on COVID-19 outcome was determined by multivariable models adjusted for a-priori-risk (determined by a cumulative risk score comprising age, disability and comorbidities)., Results: Of 317 pwMS with COVID-19 (mean age 41.8 years [SD 12.4], 72.9% female, median EDSS 1.5 [range 0-8.5], 77% on DMT [16% on antiCD20]), 92.7% had a mild course and 7.3% a severe course with 2.2% dying from COVID-19. Ninety-seven pwMS (30.6%) were fully vaccinated. After a median 5 months from vaccination to SARS-CoV-2 infection (range 1-9), severe COVID-19 occurred in 2.1% of fully vaccinated pwMS compared to 9.5% in unvaccinated pwMS (p=0.018). A-priori-risk robustly predicted COVID-19 severity (R 2 0.605; p<0.001). Adjusting for a-priori-risk, anti-CD20 treatment was associated with increased COVID-19 severity (odds ratio [OR] 3.3; R 2 0.113; p=0.003), but exposure to any other DMT was not. Fully vaccinated pwMS showed a significantly decreased risk for severe COVID-19 (OR 0.21, R 2 0.144, p<0.001)., Conclusions: In a population-based MS cohort, COVID-19 course is primarily predicted by a-priori-risk (depending on age, disability and comorbidities) explaining about 60% of variance. Anti-CD20 treatment is associated with a moderately increased risk, while reassuringly vaccination provides protection from severe COVID-19., (This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.)

Background: Long-term outcome after COVID-19 in patients with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) is scarcely studied and controlled data are lacking., Objective: To compare long-term outcome after COVID-19 in pwMS to a matched control group of pwMS without COVID-19., Methods: We included pwMS with PCR-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and ≥6 months of follow-up available and, as a control group, pwMS matched 1:1 for age, sex, disability level and disease-modifying treatment type., Results: Of 211 pwMS with COVID-19 (mean age 42.6 years [SD 12.2], 69% female, median EDSS 1.5 [range: 0-7.5], 16% antiCD20), 90.5% initially had a mild COVID-19 course. At follow-up, 70% had recovered completely 3 months (M3) after COVID-19, 83% after 6 months (M6) and 94% after 12 months (M12). Mild initial COVID-19 course was the only significant predictor of complete recovery (odds ratio [OR]: 10.5; p<0.001). Most frequent residual symptoms were fatigue (M3: 18.5%, M6: 13.7%, M12: 7.3%), hyposmia (M3: 13.7%, M6: 5.2%, M12: 1.7%) and dyspnea (M3: 7.1%, M6: 6.6%, M12: 2.8%). Compared to matched controls, fatigue, hyposmia and dyspnea were significantly more frequent at M3 and still slightly at M6, while there was no difference at M12. PwMS with COVID-19 had neither a significantly increased risk for relapses (OR 1.1; p=0.70) nor disability worsening (OR 0.96; p=0.60)., Discussion: Long-term outcome of COVID-19 is favourable in a large majority of pwMS with only a small proportion of patients suffering from persistent symptoms usually resolving after 3-6 months. COVID-19 is not associated with increased risk of relapse or disability., (This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.)

Background: Knowledge on immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) and the impact of disease-modifying treatment (DMT) is limited., Objective: To evaluate degree, duration and potential predictors of specific humoral immune response in pwMS with prior COVID-19., Methods: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing was performed in pwMS with PCR-confirmed diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 from a nation-wide registry. Predictors of seropositivity were identified by multivariate regression models., Results: In 125 pwMS (mean age = 42.4 years (SD = 12.3 years), 70% female), anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were detected in 76.0% after a median of 5.2 months from positive PCR. Seropositivity rate was significantly lower in patients on IS-DMT (61.4%, p  = 0.001) than without DMT or immunomodulatory DMT (80.6%; 86.0%, respectively). In multivariate analysis, IS-DMT was associated with reduced probability of seropositivity (odds ratio (OR): 0.51; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.17-0.82; p  < 0.001). Predefined subgroup analyses showed marked reduction of seropositivity in pwMS on rituximab/ocrelizumab (OR 0.15; 95% CI: 0.05-0.56; p  < 0.001). Rate of seropositivity did not change significantly over 6 months., Conclusions: Humoral immunity is stable after SARS-CoV-2 infection in MS, but is reduced by immunosuppressive DMT, particularly anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. This provides important evidence for advising pwMS as well as for planning and prioritizing vaccination.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic challenges neurologists in counselling patients with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) regarding their risk by SARS-CoV-2 and in guiding disease-modifying treatment (DMT)., Objective: To characterize the prevalence and outcome of COVID-19 in pwMS specifically associated with different DMT in a nationwide population-based study., Methods: We included patients aged ≥18 years with a confirmed diagnosis of MS and a diagnosis of COVID-19 established between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020. We classified COVID-19 course as either mild, severe or fatal. Impact of DMT and specifically immunosuppressants (alemtuzumab, cladribine, fingolimod, ocrelizumab or rituximab) on COVID-19 outcome was determined by multivariable models, adjusted for a-priori-risk., Results: Of 126 MS patients with COVID-19 (mean age 43.2 years [SD 13.4], 71% female), 86.5% had a mild course, 9.5% a severe course and 3.2% died from COVID-19. A-priori-risk significantly predicted COVID-19 severity (R2 0.814; p<0.001) and mortality (R2 0.664; p<0.001). Adjusting for this a-priori-risk, neither exposure to any DMT nor exposure to specific immunosuppressive DMT were significantly associated with COVID-19 severity (odds ratio [OR] 1.6; p = 0.667 and OR 1.9; p = 0.426) or mortality (OR 0.5; p = 0.711 and 2.1; 0.233) when compared to no DMT., Conclusions: In a population-based MS cohort, COVID-19 outcome was not associated with exposure to DMT and immunosuppressive DMT when accounting for other already known risk factors. This provides reassuring evidence that COVID-19 risk can be individually anticipated in MS and-except for a very small proportion of high-risk patients-treatment decisions should be primarily focused on treating MS rather than the pandemic., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Gabriel Bsteh: has participated in meetings sponsored by, received speaker honoraria or travel funding from Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva, and received honoraria for consulting Biogen, Roche and Teva. Hamid Assar: has participated in meetings sponsored by, received honoraria (advisory boards, consultations) or travel funding from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Teva. Harald Hegen: has participated in meetings sponsored by, received speaker honoraria or travel funding from Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Siemens and Teva, and received honoraria for consulting Biogen, Novartis and Teva. Bettina Heschl: has nothing to disclose. Fritz Leutmezer: has participated in meetings sponsored by or received honoraria for acting as an advisor/speaker for Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, MedDay, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva. Franziska Di Pauli: has participated in meetings sponsored by, received honoraria (lectures, advisory boards, consultations) or travel funding from Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche and Teva. Christiane Gradl: has participated in meetings sponsored by, received honoraria (lectures, consultations) and/or travel funding from Biogen, D-Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Teva. Gerhard Traxler: has participated in meetings sponsored by, received honoraria (lectures, advisory boards, consultations) or travel funding from Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva. Gudrun Zulehner: has participated in meetings sponsored by or received travel funding from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva. Paulus Rommer: has received honoraria for consultancy/speaking from AbbVie, Allmiral, Alexion, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, has received research grants from Amicus, Biogen, Merck, Roche. Peter Wipfler: has received funding for travel and honoraria (lectures, advisory boards) from Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva. Michael Guger: has received support and honoraria for research, consultation, lectures and education from Almirall, Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, Genzyme, MedDay, Merck, Novartis, Octapharma, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Shire and Teva. Christian Enzinger: has received funding for travel and speaker honoraria from Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Shire and Teva. has received research support from Biogen, Celgene, Merck, and Teva; is serving on scientific advisory boards for Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Teva. Thomas Berger: has participated in meetings sponsored by and received honoraria (lectures, advisory boards, consultations) from pharmaceutical companies marketing treatments for MS: Allergan, Bayer, Biogen, Bionorica, Celgene, MedDay, Merck, Novartis, Octapharma, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva. His institution has received financial support in the past 12 months by unrestricted research grants (Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi Aventis, Teva) and for participation in clinical trials in multiple sclerosis sponsored by Alexion, Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Octapharma, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.