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.

Abstract Background Primary headache disorders have being increasingly reported in younger populations. They can have significant effects on their quality of life and academic achievement and may cause significant distress to their families. Aims and objectives To assess the burden of primary headache disorder and its impact on the quality of life on school student in Kuwait. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted among Kuwaiti primary and middle school students of both genders in randomly selected schools located in two governorates in 2018/2019 academic year. Headache-Attributed Restriction, Disability, Social Handicap and Impaired Participation (HARDSHIP) questionnaire for children and adolescents was used to assess the impact of primary headaches on the quality of life. Results One thousand and ninety-one questionnaires were completed by primary and middle school students of both genders; of whom 466 students (girls 321 (68.88%) were diagnosed with primary headache disorders with mean age 11.98 ± 2.03 years. In the month prior to the survey, the effect of the headache was variable. The students lost a mean of 1.99 ± 2.015 days of school while they could not perform their usual activities for a mean of 2.84 ± 4.28 days. Their parents lost a mean of 2 ± 2.03 days of work because of headaches of their children and parents prohibited 5.7% of the students to engage in any activity due to their headaches. Difficulties in concentrations were reported as never sometimes (39.1%), often (24.8%), and always (26%). Majority of the students (51.5%) experienced a feeling of sadness ranging from sometimes to always. Most of the students (67.3%) struggled to cope with the headache and 22.4% were never able to cope. Additionally, 19.4% of students reported they did not want others noticing their headache. Conclusion Primary headache disorder can have a significant impact on the quality of life in children. It can affect their engagement in activities and academic achievement. Implementing strategies to properly manage schoolchildren with primary headaches can have profound effects on their quality of life.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Optic neuritis is a common presentation of demyelinating disorders such as multiple sclerosis. It typically presents with acute painful monocular vision loss, whereas chronic optic neuropathy can be caused by compressive lesions along the anterior visual pathway, genetic, toxic, or nutritional causes. We report an unusual presentation mimicking optic neuritis, which was subsequently diagnosed as optic nerve sheath meningioma (ONSM). Misinterpretation of white matter lesions on MRI of brain and the failure to image the optic nerves at the time of acute loss of vision led to the misdiagnosis of optic neuritis in this case. A comprehensive accurate history and ordering the appropriate imaging modality remain paramount in diagnosing progressive visual deterioration.

Background. Wernicke’s Encephalopathy (WE) is a clinical diagnosis with serious neurological consequences. Its occurrence is underestimated in nonalcoholics and is uncommon in adolescents. We aim to draw the attention to a rare case, which had additional clinical and radiological features. Case. A 16-year-old girl presented with three-week history of vomiting secondary to intestinal obstruction. She developed diplopia soon after hospitalization. Neurological evaluation revealed restriction of bilateral lateral recti with horizontal nystagmus, and bilateral limb dysmetria. Brain MRI was normal. She had prompt improvement to thiamine. Four months later, she presented with headache, bilateral severe deafness, and tinnitus. Clinically, she had severe sensorineural hearing loss, bilateral lateral recti paresis, and gait ataxia. CT head showed bilateral caudate nucleus hypodensities. MRI brain revealed gadolinium enhancement of mamillary bodies and vermis. She had significant improvement after IV thiamine. Headache completely resolved while the ocular movements, hearing, and tinnitus improved partially in 72 hours. Conclusions. Recurrent WE in adolescence is uncommon. Headache, tinnitus, and deafness are rare clinical features. Although MRI study shows typical features of WE, the presence of bilateral caudate nuclei hypodensities on CT scan is uncommon. Prompt treatment with thiamine is warranted in suspected cases to prevent permanent neurological sequelae.

Predicting long-term prognosis and choosing the appropriate therapeutic approach in patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) at the time of diagnosis is crucial in view of a personalized medicine. We investigated the impact of early therapeutic response on the 5-year prognosis of patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). We recruited patients from MSBase Registry covering the period between 1996 and 2022. All patients were diagnosed with RRMS and actively followed-up for at least 5 years to explore the following outcomes: clinical relapses, confirmed disability worsening (CDW) and improvement (CDI), EDSS 3.0, EDSS 6.0, conversion to secondary progressive MS (SPMS), new MRI lesions, Progression Independent of Relapse Activity (PIRA). Predictors included demographic, clinical and radiological data, and sub-optimal response (SR) within the first year of treatment. Female sex (HR 1.27; 95 ​% CI 1.16-1.40) and EDSS at baseline (HR 1.19; 95 ​% CI 1.15-1.24) were independent risk factors for the occurrence of relapses during the first 5 years after diagnosis, while high-efficacy treatment (HR 0.78; 95 ​% CI 0.67-0.91) and age at diagnosis (HR 0.83; 95 ​% CI 0.79-0.86) significantly reduced the risk. SR predicted clinical relapses (HR ​= ​3.84; 95 ​% CI 3.51-4.19), CDW (HR ​= ​1.74; 95 ​% CI 1.56-1.93), EDSS 3.0 (HR ​= ​3.01; 95 ​% CI 2.58-3.51), EDSS 6.0 (HR ​= ​1.77; 95 ​% CI 1.43-2.20) and new brain (HR ​= ​2.33; 95 ​% CI 2.04-2.66) and spinal (HR 1.65; 95 ​% CI 1.29-2.09) MRI lesions. This study highlights the importance of selecting the appropriate DMT for each patient soon after MS diagnosis, also providing clinicians with a practical tool able to calculate personalized risk estimates for different outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr Spelman, Dr Ozakbas, Dr Prat, Dr Girard, Dr Gerlach, Dr Surcinelli, Dr Onofrj, Dr Cartechini, Dr Slee, Dr Soysal, Dr Etemadifar, Dr Turkoglu and Dr Besora have nothing to declare. Dr Toscano has received congress and travel/accommodation from Biogen, Novartis, Roche, Janssen and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr Alroughani received honoraria as a speaker and for serving on scientific advisory boards from Bayer, Biogen, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr Chisari has received congress and travel/accommodation from Alexion, Almirall, Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr Lo Fermo has received congress and travel/accommodation from Alexion, Almirall, Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr Duquette 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. Dr Izquierdo received speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Roche, Almirall and Teva. Dr Eichau received speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche and Teva. Dr 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. Dr Boz received conference travel support from Biogen, Novartis, Bayer-Schering, Merck and Teva; has participated in clinical trials by Sanofi Aventis, Roche and Novartis. Dr Kalincik served on scientific advisory boards for MS International Federation and World Health Organisation, 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, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL and Merck and received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene and Merck. Dr Blanco received speaker honoraria/consulting fees from Merck, Biogen, Roche, Brystol, Novartis, Sanofi and Sandoz. Dr Buzzard received speaker honoraria and/or education support from Biogen, Teva, Novartis, Genzyme-Sanofi, Roche, Merck and Alexion; has been a member of advisory boards for Merck and Biogen. Dr Skibina received honoraria and consulting fees from Bayer Schering, Novartis, Merck, Biogen and Genzyme. Dr Sa received consulting fees, speaker honoraria, and/or travel expenses for scientific meetings from Alexion, Bayer Healthcare, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi and Teva. Dr 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. Dr Butzkueven received institutional (Monash University) funding from Biogen, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Merck, Alexion, CSL, and Novartis; has carried out contracted research for Novartis, Merck, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Biogen; has taken part in speakers' bureaus for Biogen, Genzyme, UCB, Novartis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Merck; has received personal compensation from Oxford Health Policy Forum for the Brain Health Steering Committee. Dr Terzi received travel grants from Novartis, Bayer-Schering, Merck and Teva; has participated in clinical trials by Sanofi Aventis, Roche and Novartis. Dr Grand’Maison received honoraria or research funding from Biogen, Genzyme, Novartis, Teva Neurosciences, and ATARA Pharmaceuticals. Dr Foschi received travel and meeting attendance support from Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Merck. Dr Barnett served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis and Genzyme and has received conference travel support from Biogen and Novartis; he serves on steering committees for trials conducted by Novartis. His institution has received research support from Biogen, Merck and Novartis. Dr Lugaresi has received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking or other activities from Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck Serono, Novartis, and Sanofi/Genzyme, and Her institutions have received research grants from Novartis and Sanofi/Genzyme. Dr Yamout received honoraria as a speaker and member of scientific advisory boards from Sanofi, Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Janssen, Novartis, Roche and Aspen. Dr Khoury received compensation for scientific advisory board activity from Merck and Roche, and received compensation for serving on the IDMC for Biogen. Dr Prevost accepted travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Genzyme, Teva, and speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme and Teva. Dr Lechner-Scott received 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. Dr Maimone received speaker honoraria for Advisory Board and travel grants from Almirall, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Teva. Dr Amato 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. Dr 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. Dr van Pesch received travel grants from Merck Healthcare KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany), Biogen, Sanofi, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Almirall and Roche. His institution has received research grants and consultancy fees from Roche, Biogen, Sanofi, Merck Healthcare KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany), Bristol Meyer Squibb, Janssen, Almirall, Novartis Pharma, and Alexion. Dr Macdonell or his institution have received remuneration for his speaking engagements, advisory board memberships, research and travel from Biogen, Merck, Genzyme, Bayer, Roche, Teva, Novartis, CSL, BMS, MedDay and NHMRC. Dr de Gans served on scientific advisory boards for Roche, Janssen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis and Merck, received conference fee and travel support from Novartis, Biogen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, Abbvie and Merck and received educational event support from Novartis. Dr Castillo-Triviño received speaking/consulting fees and/or travel funding from Almirall, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva. Dr 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. Dr laureys received travel and/or consultancy compensation from Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, Teva, Merck, Novartis, Celgene, Biogen. Dr Van Hijfte received travel compensation from Merck. Dr McCombe received speaker fees and travel grants from Novartis, Biogen, T’évalua, Sanofi. Dr Altintas received speaker honoraria from Novartis and Alexion. Dr Weinstock-Guttman has participated in speaker's bureaus and/or served as a consultant for Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, Genentech, Celgene/Bristol Meyers Squibb, Sanofi Genzyme, Bayer, Janssen and Horizon; he has received grant/research support from the agencies listed in the previous sentence. She serves in the editorial board for BMJ Neurology, Children, CNS Drugs, MS International and Frontiers Epidemiology. Dr Aguera-Morales has received honoraria as a speaker and for serving on scientific advisory boards from Biogen, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr Ramo-Tello has received research funding, or compensation for consulting services and speaker honoraria, or meetings travels from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Bristol, Roche, Almirall and Merck. Dr John received funding from Novartis, Biogen, Amicus and Sanofi. Dr Hodgkinson has received consulting fees and speaker honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Roche, Merck, and has received grants for her Institution from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, and Roche. Dr Van Wijmeersch received research and travel grants, honoraria for MS-Expert advisor and Speaker fees from Almirall, Biogen, BMS, Imcyse, Janssen, Sanofi, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Teva. Dr Fernandez-Bolaños received speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Merck and Teva. Prof. Patti has received honoraria for speaking activities by Alexion, Almirall, Bayer Schering, Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA; he also served as advisory board member for the following companies: Bayer Schering, Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA; he was funded by Pfizer and FISM for epidemiological studies; he received grants for congress participation from Alexion, Almirall, Bayer Shering, Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prognostic machine learning research in multiple sclerosis has been mainly focusing on black-box models predicting whether a patients' disability will progress in a fixed number of years. However, as this is a binary yes/no question, it cannot take individual disease severity into account. Therefore, in this work we propose to model the time to disease progression instead. Additionally, we use explainable machine learning techniques to make the model outputs more interpretable., Methods: A preprocessed subset of 29,201 patients of the international data registry MSBase was used. Disability was assessed in terms of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). We predict the time to significant and confirmed disability progression using random survival forests, a machine learning model for survival analysis. Performance is evaluated on a time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic and the precision-recall curves. Importantly, predictions are then explained using SHAP and Bellatrex, two explainability toolboxes, and lead to both global (population-wide) as well as local (patient visit-specific) insights., Results: On the task of predicting progression in 2 years, the random survival forest achieves state-of-the-art performance, comparable to previous work employing a random forest. However, here the random survival forest has the added advantage of being able to predict progression over a longer time horizon, with AUROC >60% for the first 10 years after baseline. Explainability techniques further validated the model by extracting clinically valid insights from the predictions made by the model. For example, a clear decline in the per-visit probability of progression is observed in more recent years since 2012, likely reflecting globally increasing use of more effective MS therapies., Conclusion: The binary classification models found in the literature can be extended to a time-to-event setting without loss of performance, thus allowing a more comprehensive prediction of patient prognosis. Furthermore, explainability techniques proved to be key to reach a better understanding of the model and increase validation of its behaviour., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Tomas Kalincik served on scientific advisory boards for MS International Federation and World Health Organisation, 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, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL and Merck and received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene and Merck. Eva Kubala Havrdova received honoraria/research support from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novars, Roche, and Teva; has been member of advisory boards for Actelion, Biogen, Celgene, Merck Serono, Novars, and Sanofi Genzyme;received honoraria/research support from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novars, Roche, and Teva; has been member of advisory boards for Actelion, Biogen, Celgene, Merck Serono, Novars, and Sanofi Genzyme; and has been supported by the Czech Ministry of Education – project Cooperatio LF1, research area Neuroscience, and the project National Institute for Neurological Research (Programme EXCELES, ID project No LX22NPO5107) – funded by the European Union-Next Generation EU. Alessandra Lugaresi has received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking or other activities from Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Horizon, Janssen, Merck Serono, Novartis, and Sanofi/Genzyme, and Her institutions have received research grants from Novartis and Sanofi/Genzyme. Bianca Weinstock-Guttman served as a consultant for Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, Genentech, Celgene/Bristol Meyers Squibb, Sanofi Genzyme, Bayer, Janssen, Labcorp, Horizon and SANA. Dr. Weinstock-Guttman also has received grant/research support from Novartis, Biogen, Horizon/Amgen. She serves in the editorial board for Children, CNS Drugs, MS International, Journal of Neurology Frontiers Epidemiology. Saloua Mrabet has received a MENACTRIMS clinical fellowship grant (2020). Patrice Lalive received honoraria for speaking and or travel expense from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche; consulting fees from Biogen, GeNeuro, Merck, Novartis, Roche; research support from Biogen, Merck, Novartis. None were related to this work. Allan G Kermode received speaker honoraria and scientific advisory board fees from Bayer, BioCSL, Biogen, Genzyme, Innate Immunotherapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, Sanofi-Aventis, and Teva. Stephen Reddel has received funds over the last 5 years including but not limited to travel support, honoraria, trial payments, research and clinical support to the institution from Alexion, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi. Additional interests and potential conflicts of interest include: Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation Varicella Zoster working party (unpaid). Francesco Patti received personal compensation for serving on advisory board by Almirall, Alexion, Biogen, Bristol, Janssen, Merck, Novartis and Roche. He further received research grant by Alexion, Almirall, Biogen, Bristol, Merck, Novartis and Roche and by FISM, Reload Association (Onlus), Italian Health Minister, and University of Catania. Valentina Tomassini has received consultation and speaker fees, travel grants and research support from: Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Alexion, Viatris, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Almirall. Izanne Roos has served on scientific advisory boards, received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Merck and Biogen. Izanne Roos is supported by a MS Australia and the Trish Multiple Sclerosis Research Foundation. Raed Alroughani received honoraria as a speaker and for serving on scientific advisory boards from Bayer, Biogen, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi-Genzyme. Samia J. Khoury received compensation for scientific advisory board activity from Merck and Roche, and received compensation for serving on the IDMC for Biogen. Vincent van Pesch received travel grants from Merck Healthcare KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany), Biogen, Sanofi, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Almirall and Roche. His institution has received research grants and consultancy fees from Roche, Biogen, Sanofi, Merck Healthcare KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany), Bristol Meyer Squibb, Janssen, Almirall, Novartis Pharma, and Alexion. Maria José Sá received consulting fees, speaker honoraria, and/or travel expenses for scientific meetings from Alexion, Bayer Healthcare, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi and Teva. Julie Prevost accepted travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Genzyme, Teva, and speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme and Teva. 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. Pamela McCombe received speakers fees and travel grants from Novartis, Biogen, T’évalua, Sanofi. 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. 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. Helmut Butzkueven received institutional (Monash University) funding from Biogen, Roche, Merck, Alexion and Novartis; has carried out contracted research for Novartis, Merck, Roche and Biogen; has taken part in speakers’ bureaus for Biogen, Novartis, Roche and Merck; has received personal compensation from Oxford Health Policy Forum for the Brain Health Steering Committee. Guy Laureys received travel and/or consultancy compensation from Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, Teva, Merck, Novartis, Celgene, Biogen. José Luis Sánchez-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. Koen de Gans served on scientific advisory boards for Roche, Janssen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis and Merck, received conference fee and travel support from Novartis, Biogen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, Abbvie and Merck and received educational event support from Novartis. Abdullah Al-Asmi received personal compensation for serving as a Scientific Advisory or speaker/moderator for Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Merck. Norma Deri received funding from Bayer, Merck, Biogen, Genzyme and Novartis. Tunde Csepany received speaker honoraria/ conference travel support from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and Teva. William M Carroll received travel assistance and honoraria for participation in industry sponsored meetings from and provided advice to Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen-Idec, Novartis, Roche, Genzyme, Sanofi-Aventis, CSL, Teva, Merck and Cellgene. Csilla Rozsa received speaker honoraria from Bayer Schering, Novartis and Biogen, congress and travel expense compensations from Biogen, Teva, Merck and Bayer Schering. Bhim Singhal received consultancy honoraria and compensation for travel from Biogen and Merck. Todd A. Hardy received speaker honoraria/ conference travel support or served on advisory boards for Bayer Schering, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Bristol Myers Squibb and Teva. Sudarshini Ramanathan has received research funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, Australia), the Petre Foundation, the Brain Foundation, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and the University of Sydney. She is supported by an NHMRC Investigator Grant (GNT2008339). She serves as a consultant on the International Steering Committee for a clinical trial led by UCB (NCT05063162). She is on the advisory board for educational activities led by Limbic Neurology. She has been an invited speaker for educational/research sessions coordinated by Biogen, Alexion, Novartis, Excemed and Limbic Neurology. She is on the medical advisory board (non-remunerated positions) of The MOG Project and the Sumaira Foundation. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2025 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) impacts quality of life. Every-4-week (Q4W) regimen of natalizumab (NTZ) is approved for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) but increases progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) risk. This study aimed to assess the impact of switching to an every-6-week (Q6W) dosing of NTZ in RRMS patients previously treated with Q4W dosing for ≥12 months., Methods: This observational, registry-based, two-armed, retrospective comparative study included 243 patients (69 males and 174 females; mean age=35.7 ± 8.8 years) from the Kuwait National Registry between January 2018 and June 2023. All patients initially received NTZ Q4W. After one-year, 202 patients were switched to Q6W, while 41 remained on Q4W. Outcome parameters included patients free from clinical relapse, annualized relapse rate (ARR), expanded disability status scale (EDSS), confirmed disability worsening (CDW), no evidence of disease activity (NEDA), magnetic resonance imaging findings, and adverse events (AE). Kaplan-Meier survival curves depicted clinical endpoints for both groups., Results: Relapse proportion, ARR, EDSS, and new/enlarged T2 and gadolinium lesions significantly reduced after initiating NTZ (p < 0.05). CDW occurred in 7.4 % of patients and NEDA in 86.2 %. No significant difference (p > 0.05) was observed between the Q4W and Q6W groups for any parameters. AEs were reported in 13 patients (p = 0.88). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the mean survival times without relapse, AEs, new T2 lesions, and without disability progression between groups., Conclusion: Both Q4W and Q6W NTZ regimens provided comparable safety and effectiveness in RRMS patients, effectively preventing relapses, AEs, disability progression, and occurrence of enlarged/new T2 lesions. In addition, no patient developed PML., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Author RA received honorarium as a speaker from BioGen, Novartis, Merck, Roche, AstraZeneca and Sanofi; serves as a scientific advisory board of BioGen, Novartis, Merck, Roche, AstraZeneca and Sanofi. Author JAH declares no conflict of interest. Author SFA received honorarium as a speaker from BioGen, Novartis, Merck, Roche, AstraZeneca and Sanofi; serves as a scientific advisory board of BioGen, Novartis, Merck, Roche, AstraZeneca and Sanofi., (Copyright © 2025. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A) is approved as a prophylactic treatment of chronic migraine (CM) only. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of BoNT-A in the treatment of episodic migraine (EM)., Methods: This is a prospective study included migraine patients, aged 18-65 years, and completed 1 year treatment with BoNT-A. Patients received 4 courses of BoNT-A treatment. Patient's headache was assessed by headache diary at baseline, and before every injection. Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) and work productivity were collected at baseline and in their last visit. Adverse events (AEs) were reported., Results: The study recruited 210 patients. Between baseline and the final visit, there were a significant reduction in migraine days, analgesic consumption days, and headache severity (9.54 ± 1.70 versus 4.58 ± 2.77, p  < 0.001), (8.47 ± 1.49 versus 2.98 ± 0.21, p  < 0.001), (8.37 ± 0.72 versus 2.54 ± 0.18, p  < 0.001), respectively. BoNT-A treatment reduced the mean number of missed hours from work and daily activities over a 7-day period (4.63 ± 2.39 versus 6.26 ± 2.04, p  < 0.001); (2.24 ± 3.30 versus 3.94 ± 3. 45; p  < 0.001). Treatment with BoNT-A significantly improved the MSQ scores at last visit versus baseline visit, MSQ Role Function-Restrictive (51.55 ± 29.12 vs. 26.89 ± 17.42; p  < 0.001), MSQ Role Function-Preventive (56.07 ± 24.73 vs. 30.64 ± 15.25; p  < 0.001), and for MSQ Emotional Function (76.47 ± 115.29 vs. 35.12 ± 20.83; p  < 0.001). Fifty-four patients (14.4%) experienced mild and short-lasting AEs., Conclusion: BoNT-A is an effective and well tolerated therapy in the prophylaxis of EM. It improved MSQ and WPAI., 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 © 2025 Al-Hashel, Alroughani, Almojel and Ahmed.)

Background: Epidemiological data of pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) in the Middle East is limited., Objective: To determine the demographic and clinical characteristics of POMS in Kuwait., Methods: A retrospective study was conducted to assess the clinical characteristics of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients who disease onset started at age < 18 years and fulfilled the International Pediatric MS Study Group (IPMSSG) criteria for MS., Results: Of 249 POMS who were assessed, 70.3 % were female. The mean age at onset was 15.06 +11.78 years. Brainstem / cerebellar manifestation (34.9 %) were the most frequent presentation at onset of disease, followed by spinal (29.3 %) and visual pathway (27.3 %) symptoms. At the last follow-up visits, most of the patients (83.5 %) remained in a relapsing-remitting phenotype. The annual relapse rate (ARR) was 0.18 throughout the first 2 years while on treatment. At the baseline visit, the 51.4 % of the cohort-initiated platform therapies. Breakthrough disease (36.1 %) and adverse events (9.6 %) were the most common indications to escalate or switch to other disease-modifying drugs (DMTs)., Conclusion: Most POMS patients continued to be in a relapsing phenotype in our longitudinal study. Disease breakthrough is common in POMS especially when using platform therapies., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest Dr. Raed Alroughani, Dr. Malak AlMojel, Dr. Dalal Qasem, Dr. Jasem Al-Hashel and Dr. Samar Ahmed have no conflict of interests with respect to this research., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The relationship between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and multiple sclerosis (MS) relapse and disease progression remains unclear. Previous studies are limited by small sample sizes and most lack a propensity-matched control cohort., Objective: To evaluate the effect of COVID-19 infection on MS disease course with a large propensity-matched cohort., Design: This multi-centre cohort study analysed relapse and disability outcomes post-COVID-19 infection after balancing covariates using a propensity score matching method. The study period was from the 11th of September 2019 to the 16th of February 2023. The mean follow-up period was 1.7 years., Methods: Data were retrieved from the MSBase Registry. Propensity scores were obtained based on age, sex, disease duration, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), MS course, relapses pre-baseline, disease-modifying therapy (DMT) class and country. Primary outcomes were time to first relapse, annualised relapse rate (ARR) and time to confirm EDSS progression. Secondary outcomes were time to EDSS of 3, 4 or 6. Sensitivity analyses with baseline DMT classes were performed., Results: The study included 2253 cases and 6441 controls. After matching, there were 2161 cases and an equal number of matched controls. Cases had a significantly higher ARR (ARR = 0.10 [95% CI 0.09-0.11]) compared to controls (ARR = 0.07 [95% CI 0.06-0.08]). Cases had a significantly greater hazard of time to first relapse compared to controls (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.54 [95% CI 1.29-1.84]). There was no association between COVID-19 infection and 24-week EDSS progression (HR = 1.18 [95% CI 0.92-1.52]), or time to EDSS of 3, 4 or 6. For patients on interferons and glatiramer acetate (BRACE), COVID-19 infection was associated with a greater hazard of time to first relapse (HR = 1.83 [95% CI 1.25-2.68]) and greater hazard of time to EDSS of 3 (HR = 2.04 [95% CI 1.06-3.90]) compared to patients on BRACE therapy without COVID-19 infection., Conclusion: COVID-19 infection was associated with a significantly increased MS relapse rate and a shorter time to first relapse. There was no effect on confirmed EDSS progression over the short term. These results support ongoing COVID-19 risk minimisation strategies to protect patients with MS., (© The Author(s), 2024.)

Background: To investigate the pregnancy-related issues in females with multiple sclerosis (MS) from Turkiye, Egypt, Kuwait, and Iran., Methods: 1692 pregnancies of 701 females with MS were evaluated in this retrospective multicenter, international project. Demographics, clinical features, pregnancy outcomes, relapses, effects of exposure to disease-modifying drugs on pregnancy and fetus, and worries about pregnancy decisions were investigated., Results: 85.9 % of females were diagnosed with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. The mean age was 39.0 ± 9.0 years (min 20, max 68). The mean EDSS score was 2.26 ± 1.8. The number of conceptions was inversely correlated with the level of education with significance (p<0.05). Among the concerns related to pregnancy, 31.7 % pertain to disability progression, 14.4 % are associated with relapses, and 7.3 % involve the cessation of treatment. Additionally, 82.3 % of females with MS experienced no relapses during both pregnancy and the postpartum period. Most of the relapses (22.9 %) occurred in the postpartum period. Higher EDSS scores were detected in patients who have higher numbers of pre-MS period pregnancies (p= 0.042; r:0.2591). A similar correlation was found between the total number of pregnancies and higher EDSS levels (p=0.003, r:0.2614). Considering the relationship between EDSS score and the number of pregnancies after MS diagnosis, no significance was found (p = 0.595). The age at first pregnancy did not affect the onset age of MS. Significant positive correlation was found between the age of onset and the total number of pregnancies and pre-MS pregnancies. As the number of pregnancies increased, the disease onset was at a later age (correlation = 0.4258)., Conclusion: Presence of pre-MS pregnancies increased the age of onset of MS and caused more disability. The reduction in the number of pregnancies following the diagnosis of MS was related with a consistent hesitancy among patients in this regard., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest There is no conflicts of interest for the article titled “A Multicenter Multinational Study to Evaluate Different Aspects of the Relationship Between MS and Pregnancy”., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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.

Cladribine tablets (CladT), like alemtuzumab, acts as an immune reconstitution therapy. However, CladT is administered orally (alemtuzumab is given by infusion) and without the potential for serious side effects that limit the therapeutic use of alemtuzumab in multiple sclerosis (MS). Treatment with CladT, given initially as short courses of treatment 1 year apart, provides years of freedom from MS disease activity in responders to treatment. The appearance of mild or moderate MS disease activity after the initial 2 years of treatment may prompt careful follow-up or a further course of CladT, depending on the nature of the activity and individual circumstances. The appearance of severe MS disease activity requires a switch to an alternative high-efficacy disease-modifying treatment (DMT). The accumulating data from CladT-treated people with MS in real-world studies, including those with follow-up durations extending for years beyond the initial treatment, have demonstrated long-term freedom from MS disease activity in a good proportion of patients. This clinical experience has also confirmed that treatment with CladT is generally safe and well tolerated. The best time to prescribe a high-efficacy DMT is the subject of debate, with evidence that earlier versus later use of such agents may provide more effective long-term protection from disability progression. High-efficacy DMTs have traditionally been reserved for use in people with MS and high disease activity on presentation or breakthrough disease on one or more DMTs, as per the current product labels. The latest evidence from real-world studies suggests that CladT is effective and safe in DMT-naïve patients, including those with shorter disease duration., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) can be categorised into aquaporin-4 antibody (AQP4-IgG) NMOSD or seronegative NMOSD. While our knowledge of AQP4-IgG NMOSD has evolved significantly in the past decade, seronegative NMOSD remains less understood. This study aimed to evaluate the predictors of relapses and treatment responses in AQP4-IgG NMOSD and seronegative NMOSD., Methods: This was a multicentre, international, retrospective cohort study using the MSBase registry. Recurrent relapse risk was assessed using an Andersen-Gill model and risk of first relapse was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Covariates that putatively influence relapse risk included demographic factors, clinical characteristics and immunosuppressive therapies; the latter was assessed as a time-varying covariate., Results: A total of 398 patients (246 AQP4-IgG NMOSD and 152 seronegative NMOSD) were included. The AQP4-IgG NMOSD and seronegative NMOSD patients did not significantly differ by age at disease onset, ethnicity or annualised relapse rate. Both low-efficacy and high-efficacy immunosuppressive therapies were associated with significant reductions in recurrent relapse risk, with notably greater protection conferred by high-efficacy therapies in both AQP4-IgG NMOSD (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.49, p<0.001) and seronegative NMOSD (HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.51, p<0.001). Longer disease duration (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.99, p<0.001) and male sex (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.84, p=0.007) were additional protective variables in reducing the recurrent relapse risk for the AQP4-IgG NMOSD group., Conclusion: Although further studies are needed to improve our understanding of seronegative NMOSD, our findings underscore the importance of aggressive treatment with high-efficacy immunotherapies in both NMOSD subtypes, regardless of serostatus., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The author(s) would like to disclose the following. PSiriratnam has received travel support from Novartis and Biogen; AvdW has received travel support and served on advisory boards for Novartis, Biogen, Merck Serono, Roche and Teva, she receives grant support from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; HB served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis and received conference travel support from Novartis, Biogen and Sanofi Aventis, he serves on steering committees for trials conducted by Biogen and Novartis and received research support from Merck, Novartis and Biogen, Medical Research Council and MS Research Australia; YCF has received travel support from Roche and Biogen, he receives grant support from Australian National Health Medical Research Council, Australia and New Zealand Association of Neurologists, AVANT foundation and MS Research Australia; WZY has received speaker honoraria from Merck and Novartis; CZ receives fellowship from the Trish Multiple Sclerosis Research Foundation; VJ receives fellowship and research support from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, she also receives research grant support form F.Hoffmann La-Roche and the International Progressive MS Alliance; SH receives research support from academic entity - National Institute for Health Research (NIHR304529): Research funding; MM has served on advisory board for Merck, and Novartis and has received speaker honoraria from Merck, Biogen and Novartis, her institution receives funding from Merck, Australian National Health; TK served on scientific advisory boards for MS International Federation and WHO, 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, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL and Merck and received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene and Merck; SJK received compensation for scientific advisory board activity from Merck and Roche, and received compensation for serving on the IDMC for Biogen; TC received speaker honoraria/conference travel support from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and Teva; BW received honoraria for acting as a member of Scientific Advisory Boards/Consultancy for Alexion, Almirall, Biogen, Celgene/BMS, Merck, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme and speaker honoraria and travel support from Biogen, Celgene/BMS, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, research and/or patient support grants from Biogen, Janssen, Merck, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, Honoraria and grants were paid to UZA/UZA Foundation, further, B.W. received research funding from FWO-TBM, Belgian Charcot Foundation, Start2Cure Foundation, Queen Elisabeth Medical Foundation for Neurosciences and the National MS Society USA; PN received speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Merck, Roche, Jannsen, Astra Zeneca and financial support for research activities from Roche and Merck, the work of PN was supported by Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic, grant nr. NU23-05-00462; AA received speaker honoraria from Novartis and Alexion; AA-A received personal compensation for serving as a Scientific Advisory or speaker/moderator for Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Merck; BY received honoraria as a speaker and member of scientific advisory boards from Sanofi, Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Janssen, Novartis, Roche and Aspen; GL received travel and/or consultancy compensation from Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, Teva, Merck, Novartis, Celgene, Biogen; FP received personal compensation for serving on advisory board by Almirall, Alexion, Biogen, Bristol, Janssen, Merck, Novartis and Roche, he further received research grant by Alexion, Almirall, Biogen, Bristol, Merck, Novartis and Roche and by FISM, Reload Association (Onlus), Italian Health Minister and University of Catania. Magdolna Simo received speaker honoraria from Novartis, Biogen, Bayer Schering, Sanofi, Merck, Roche, congress/travel compensation from Teva, Biogen, Merck, Bayer Schering Novartis, Roche; MF received travel and meeting attendance support from Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Merck; ASoysal received travel and meeting attendance support from Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Merck, Bristol, Sanofi-Genzyme, Almirall, Piam; PAM received honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis, Bayer Schering and Sanofi and travel grants from Novartis, Biogen and Bayer Schering; RA received honoraria as a speaker and for serving on scientific advisory boards from Bayer, Biogen, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi-Genzyme; JLS-M, accepted travel compensation from Novartis, Merck and Biogen, speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Almirall, Bayer and Teva and has participated in clinical trials by Biogen, Merck and Roche; JLS received 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., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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).)

Background: Migraine is a prevalent headache disorder with a significant impact on the quality of life. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness and safety of erenumab, mAb targeting the CGRP receptor, in treating chronic (CM) and episodic (EM) migraine in clinical practice Kuwait, providing region-specific insights to treatment options., Method: This was a prospective observational cohort study of patients diagnosed with EM or CM treated with erenumab. The primary outcome of the study was to assess the proportion of patients achieving ≥ 50% reduction in monthly mean migraine days, and several changes including the mean number of monthly migraine days, the frequency of analgesic use, attack severity, AEs, and QoL., Results: The study included 151 patients with a mean age of 44.0±11.4 years, and 81.9% female. The primary outcome was achieved in 74.2% of patients, with a significant ( p  < 0.001) reduction in headache frequency, pain severity, analgesic use, and improvement in QoL. Age and duration of migraine were significant predictors of achieving a ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency after therapy (OR = 0.955; p  = 0.009) and (OR = 0.965; p  = 0.025), respectively. Treatment compliance was observed in 76.2% of patients, and 24.5% discontinued treatment. Constipation was the most commonly reported AEs (6.0%), and conservative management was the most common approach to managing AEs., Conclusion: Erenumab was effective in reducing the frequency and severity of migraine attacks and improving QoL, and safe with manageable AEs in a real-world setting in Kuwait. Further research is needed to better understand erenumab's effectiveness and safety in different populations and settings, as well as to compare it with other migraine prophylactic treatments.

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.)

Background: Optic neuritis is an inflammatory disorder of the optic nerve and is often the initial manifestation of systemic demyelinating diseases such as multiple sclerosis (MS), neuromyelitis optic spectrum disorder (NMOSD), and myelin-oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) antibody-mediated disease. There are ethnic variations in the etiology of optic neuritis across the world. While multiple sclerosis is common in the West, NMOSD and MOG are more common causes in Asian patients. There is a paucity of reports on the clinical profile of optic neuritis in the Middle East., Objectives: To study the demographic and clinical features of patients with new onset optic neuritis in a main tertiary care center., Methods: A retrospective study of cases with new-onset optic neuritis at a tertiary care center between 2012 and 2022. The clinical and demographic characteristics were obtained from medical records and were summarized using descriptive statistics. Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis to assess the short-term visual outcome., Results: Seventy-one patients with new-onset optic neuritis (70 unilateral and one bilateral) were included in the study. The mean age was 33.3 years, they were predominantly females (73 %), and most of the cases were MS (53 %) followed by idiopathic optic neuritis (42.3 %). Final visual acuity of at least 20/40 was seen in at least 91.5 %., Conclusion: While the clinical profile of patients in this study closely resembles the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial with a high incidence of MS and a good visual outcome in most patients and a good response to intravenous steroids, there is a significant proportion of idiopathic optic neuritis cases that may need to be better characterized with longer follow up and repeated serum biomarker testing., Competing Interests: I have no conflict or interest to disclose in relation to the submitted manuscript., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: To mimic as closely as possible a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and calibrate the real-world evidence (RWE) studies against a known treatment effect would be helpful to understand if RWE can support causal conclusions in selected circumstances. The aim was to emulate the TRANSFORMS trial comparing Fingolimod (FTY) versus intramuscular interferon β-1a (IFN) using observational data., Methods: We extracted from the MSBase registry all the patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) collected in the period 2011-2021 who received IFN or FTY (0.5 mg) and with the same inclusion and exclusion criteria of the TRANSFORMS RCT. The primary endpoint was the annualised relapse rate (ARR) over 12 months. Patients were 1:1 propensity-score (PS) matched. Relapse-rate ratio (RR) was calculated by mean of a negative binomial regression., Results: A total of 4376 patients with RRMS (1140 in IFN and 3236 in FTY) were selected. After PS, 856 patients in each group were matched. The ARR was 0.45 in IFN and 0.25 in FTY with a significant difference between the two groups (RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.68; p<0.001). The result of the emulation was very similar and fell within the 95% CI of that observed in the RCT (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.64; p<0.001) with a standardised difference of 0.66 (p=0.51)., Conclusions: By applying the same inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the RCT and employing appropriate methodology, we successfully replicated the RCT results with only minor discrepancies. Also, even if the confounding bias cannot be fully eliminated, conducting a rigorous target trial emulation could still yield valuable insights for comparative effectiveness research., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MP, SO, BY, RK, AYS have nothing to disclose; AS received speaker’s honoraria from Chiesi and grant from MSBase outside from this work. TK 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. DH 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]. EKH received honoraria/research support from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novars, Roche, and Teva; has been member of advisory boards for Actelion, Biogen, Celgene, Merck Serono, Novars, and Sanofi Genzyme; has been supported by the Czech Ministry of Educaon research project PROGRES Q27/LF1. RA received honoraria as a speaker and for serving on scientific advisory boards from Bayer, Biogen, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi-Genzyme. JK received speaker fees, research support, travel support, and/or advisory boards Swiss Multiple Sclerosis Society, SNSF, University of Basel, Progressive Multiple Sclerosis Alliance, Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Octave Bioscience, Roche, Sanofi. FP served an advisory board Alexion, Almirall, Bayer, Biogen, Bristol Meyers&Squibb, Merck, Novartis and Roche; he also received personal fee for speaking activities; he also received research grants by Biogen, Merck, Roche, FISM, Reload Onlus and MIUR Ministero Italiano della Ricerca e della Università. GI received speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Roche, Almirall and Teva. SJK received compensation for scientific advisory board activity from Merck and Roche and for serving on IDMC for Biogen. SE received speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche and Teva. 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. 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. HB has received institutional (Monash University) funding from Biogen, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Merck, Alexion, CSL, and Novartis; has carried out contracted research for Novartis, Merck, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Biogen; has taken part in speakers’ bureaus for Biogen, Genzyme, UCB, Novartis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Merck; has received personal compensation from Oxford Health Policy Forum for the Brain Health Steering Committee. AV served on advisory boards for Novartis, Biogen, Merck and Roche and NervGen. She received unrestricted research grants from Novartis, Biogen, Merck and Roche. She is currently a co-Principal investigator on a co-sponsored observational study with Roche, evaluating a Roche-developed smartphone app, Floodlight-MS. She has received speaker’s honoraria and travel support from Novartis, Roche, Biogen and Merck. She serves as the Chief operating Officer of the MSBase Foundation (not for profit). Her primary research support is from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and MS Research Australia. MPS received consulting fees from Roche, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, Celgene, Immunic, Geneuro, GSK, Medday; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Roche, Biogen Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, Celgene; participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Roche, Sanofi, Novartis, Merck., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a complex, neurodegenerative chronic disorder. Circulating diagnostic biomarkers for MS have remained elusive, and those proposed so far have limited sensitivity and specificity to MS. Plasma-circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) have advantageous biochemical and physiological attributes that can be utilized in clinical testing and disease monitoring. MS miRNA expression microarray datasets analysis resulted in four candidate miRNAs that were assessed for their expression in a separate MS case-control study. Only miR-24-3p was downregulated in all MS patients compared to healthy controls. MiR-484 was significantly upregulated in relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) patients compared to healthy controls. Mir-146-5p and miR-484 were significantly downregulated in secondary-progressive MS (SPMS) compared to RRMS. MiR-484 downregulation was associated with worsening disability and increased lipocalin-2 levels. Mir-342-3p and miR-24-3p downregulation were associated with increased semaphorin-3A levels in MS and RRMS patients. In conclusion, mir-24-3p downregulation is diagnostic of MS, and mir-484 upregulation and downregulation are potential biomarkers for RRMS and SPMS conversion, respectively. The differential expression of miR-146a-3p in MS subtypes suggests its potential as an SPMS transition biomarker. The association of downregulated mir-24-3p and mir-484 with increased neurodegeneration biomarkers suggests they play a role in MS pathogenesis and neurodegeneration., Competing Interests: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic demyelinating autoimmune neurodegenerative disorder for which no specific blood biomarker is available. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) have been investigated for their diagnostic potential in MS. However, MS-associated miRNAs are rarely replicated in different MS populations, thus impeding their use in clinical testing. Here, we evaluated the fold expression of seven reported MS miRNAs associated with MS incidence and clinical characteristics in 76 MS patients and 75 healthy control plasma samples. We found miR-23a-3p to be upregulated in relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), while miR-326 was downregulated. MiR-150-5p and -320a-3p were significantly downregulated in secondary progressive MS (SPMS) patients compared to RRMS. High disability was associated with low miR-320a-3p, whereas low BDNF levels were associated with upregulation of miR-150-5p and downregulation of miR-326 expression in the total cohort. MiR-23a-3p and miR-326 showed significant diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for RRMS diagnosis. In addition, miR-150-5p and miR-320a-3p had comparable significant diagnostic test performance metrics distinguishing SPMS from RRMS. Therefore, there is potential for including miR-23a-3p and miR-326 in an RRMS diagnostic miRNA panel. Moreover, we have shown that miR-150-5p and miR-320a-3p could be novel RRMS conversion to SPMS biomarkers. The use of these miRNAs in MS diagnosis and prognosis warrants further investigation., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: High-efficacy disease-modifying therapies have been proven to slow disability accrual in adults with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. However, their impact on disability worsening in paediatric-onset multiple sclerosis, particularly during the early phases, is not well understood. We evaluated how high-efficacy therapies influence transitions across five disability states, ranging from minimal disability to gait impairment and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, in people with paediatric-onset multiple sclerosis., Methods: Longitudinal data were obtained from the international MSBase registry, containing data from people with multiple sclerosis from 151 centres across 41 countries, and the Italian Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Register, containing data from people with multiple sclerosis from 178 Italian multiple sclerosis centres. People younger than 18 years at the onset of multiple sclerosis symptoms were included, provided they had a confirmed diagnosis of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and at least four Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores recorded within 12-month intervals. The primary outcome was the time to change in disability state: minimal disability (EDSS scores 0, 1·0, and 1·5), mild disability (EDSS scores 2·0 and 2·5), moderate disability (EDSS scores 3·0 and 3·5), gait impairment (EDSS scores ≥4·0), and clinician diagnosed secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. A multi-state model was constructed to simulate the natural course of multiple sclerosis, modelling the probabilities of both disability worsening and improvement simultaneously. The impact of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (alemtuzumab, cladribine, daclizumab, fingolimod, mitoxantrone, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, or autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation) and low-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (dimethyl fumarate, glatiramer acetate, interferon beta, or teriflunomide), compared with no treatment, on the course of disability was assessed. Apart from recruitment, individuals with lived experience of multiple sclerosis were not involved in the design and conduct of this study., Findings: A total of 5224 people (3686 [70·6%] female and 1538 [29·4%] male) with mean age at onset of multiple sclerosis 15·24 years (SD 2·52) were included. High-efficacy therapies reduced the hazard of disability worsening across the disability states. The largest reduction (hazard ratio 0·41 [95% CI 0·31-0·53]) was observed in participants who were treated with high-efficacy therapies while in the minimal disability state, compared with those remained untreated. The benefit of high-efficacy therapies declined with increasing disability. Young people with minimal disability who received low-efficacy therapy also experienced a reduced hazard (hazard ratio 0·65 [95% CI 0·54-0·77]) of transitioning to mild disability, in contrast to those who remained untreated., Interpretation: Treatment of paediatric-onset relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with high-efficacy therapy substantially reduces the risk of reaching key disability milestones. This reduction in risk is most pronounced among young people with minimal or mild disability when treatment began. Children with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis should be treated early with high-efficacy therapy, before developing significant neurological impairments, to better preserve their neurological capacity., Funding: National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia; MSBase Foundation Fellowship; MS Australia Postdoctoral Fellowship., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SS has received research support from the MSBase Foundation and MS Australia. IR served on scientific advisory boards and received conference travel support or speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Merck, and Biogen. CBM has received conference travel support from Merck, Novartis, and Biogen, and research support from the National Health and Medical Research Council Australia, MS Australia, The University of Melbourne, The Royal Melbourne Hospital Neuroscience Foundation, and Dementia Australia. PI has served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen Idec, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Teva, Roche, Merck Serono, Novartis, and Genzyme, and has received funding for travel or speaker honoraria from Sanofi Aventis, Genzyme, Roche, Biogen Idec, Teva, Merck Serono, Alexion, BMS, and Novartis. MF received compensation for consulting services or speaking activities from Almiral, Alexion, Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and receives research support from Biogen Idec, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Italian Ministry of Health, Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla, and ARiSLA (Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per la SLA). EKH received honoraria or research support from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Teva; has been member of advisory boards for Actelion, Biogen, Celgene, Merck Serono, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme; and has been supported by the Czech Ministry of Education (project Cooperatio LF1) and the National Institute for Neurological Research of the Czech Republic (programme EXCELES, project number LX22NPO5107) funded by the Next Generation EU. VBM received compensation for public speaking or consultancy from Merck, Novartis, Biogen, Genzyme, Teva, and Alrmirall. RA received honoraria as a speaker and for serving on scientific advisory boards from Bayer, Biogen, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme. MZ received travel support and fees for lecturing or participating in advisory boards from Almirall, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi-Genzyme. FP received personal compensation for serving on advisory boards by Almirall, Alexion, Biogen, BMS, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and Roche, and research grants from Alexion, Almirall, Biogen, BMS, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla, Reload Association (Onlus), Italian Health Minister, and University of Catania. SE received speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, and Teva. GS received grants and honoraria from Roche, Sanofi, Merck, Biogen, and Novartis. ADS received speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Biogen, Novartis, Merck, Roche, Alexion, and Sanofi. EP received compensation for travel grants, participation in advisory boards, or speaking activities from Biogen, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Teva, and Novartis, and serves on the editorial boards of Frontiers in Neurology and Brain Sciences. MT has served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis, Roche, Merck, and Genzyme; received speaker honoraria from Biogen, Roche, Sanofi, Merck, Genzyme, and Novartis; and received research grants for her institution from Biogen, Merck, and Novartis. MPA served on scientific advisory boards for and has received speaker honoraria and research support from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Bayer Schering Pharma, Novartis, Roche, BMS Celgene, and Sanofi Aventis, and is Editor of Multiple Sclerosis Journal. TK served on scientific advisory boards for MS International Federation and WHO, BMS, Roche, Janssen, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Merck, and Biogen, and the steering committee for Brain Atrophy Initiative by Sanofi Genzyme; received conference travel support or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL, and Merck; and received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene, and Merck. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: We describe the efficacy and safety of recent high efficacy disease DMTs in DMT-naive patients with highly active RMS., Methods: This was a retrospective, cross sectional study from the Kuwait national MS registry. Patients with RMS who received alemtuzumab, cladribine tablets or ocrelizumab as their first DMT for RMS, with ≥2 year of follow up were included. The primary endpoint was the change in relapse rate from treatment initiation to 1 year; changes in disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS]), radiologic activity, the proportion with no evidence of disease activity-3 (NEDA-3), and the frequency of adverse events were secondary endpoints., Results: Among 123 RRMS patients, 59 received ocrelizumab, 32 received cladribine tablets and 32 received alemtuzumab. About two-thirds (65%) were women. Substantial and similar (p>0.05) reductions occurred at the end of follow-up in annual relapse rate (by 93.2% for ocrelizumab, 87.5% for cladribine tablets, and 90.6% for alemtuzumab). The proportion with new T2 of gadolinium-enhancing MRI lesions across the three groups was reduced from 85-100% to 7-13%. Rates of confirmed disability progression were low (ocrelizumab 6.9%, cladribine tablets 3.1%, alemtuzumab 0%; p=0.280); disability was reduced in 15%, 22% and 38%, respectively. NEDA-3 was observed in 89.8%, 87.5%, and 84.4, respectively (p=0.784). No new or unexpected safety issues occurred., Conclusion: Ocrelizumab, cladribine tablets and alemtuzumab reduced relapse rates and MRI activity, and prevented disease progression, when are initiated early in DMT-naive RMS patients. These data support the early use of high-efficacy DMTs for people with highly active RMS., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Raed Alroughani received honoraria as a speaker and for serving in scientific advisory boards from Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. Samar Farouk Ahmed received honoraria as a speaker and for serving in scientific advisory boards from Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. Jasem Al-Hashel disclosed no duality of interest., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

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

With evolving diagnostic criteria and the advent of new oral and parenteral therapies for Multiple Sclerosis (MS), most current diagnostic and treatment algorithms need revision and updating. The diagnosis of MS relies on incorporating clinical and paraclinical findings to prove dissemination in space and time and exclude alternative diseases that can explain the findings at hand. The differential diagnostic workup should be guided by clinical and laboratory red flags to avoid unnecessary tests. Appropriate selection of MS therapies is critical to maximize patient benefit. The current guidelines review the current diagnostic criteria for MS and the scientific evidence supporting treatment of acute relapses, radiologically isolated syndrome, clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing remitting MS, progressive MS, pediatric cases and pregnant women. The purpose of these guidelines is to provide practical recommendations and algorithms for the diagnosis and treatment of MS based on current scientific evidence and clinical experience., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors received honoraria from Biologix (the distributor for Biogen Idec across the Middle East and North Africa region) for serving on their advisory board and from other pharmaceutical companies including Novartis, GSK, Bayer, Merck, Sanofi and Roche. The manuscript represents the views and opinions of the members involved in the development of the guidelines. There is no industrial or pharmaceutical support or bias in the selection of the members or the recommendations reached. This effort was sponsored and carried out under the supervision of MENACTRIMS (The Middle East and North Africa Committee for Treatment and Research In Multiple Sclerosis)., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Aggressive disease control soon after multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis may prevent irreversible neurological damage, and therefore early initiation of a high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy (DMT) is of clinical relevance., Objectives: Evaluate long-term clinical outcomes in patients with MS who initiated treatment with either natalizumab or a BRACETD therapy (interferon beta, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, or dimethyl fumarate)., Design: This retrospective analysis utilized data from MSBase to create a matched population allowing comparison of first-line natalizumab to first-line BRACETD., Methods: This study included patients who initiated treatment either with natalizumab or a BRACETD DMT within 1 year of MS diagnosis and continued treatment for ⩾6 months, after which patients could switch DMTs or discontinue treatment. Patients had a minimum follow-up time of ⩾60 months from initiation. A subgroup analysis compared the natalizumab group to patients in the BRACETD group who escalated therapy after 6 months. Outcomes included unadjusted annualized relapse rates (ARRs), time-to-first relapse, time-to-first confirmed disability improvement (CDI), and time-to-first confirmed disability worsening (CDW)., Results: After 1:1 propensity score matching, 355 BRACETD patients were matched to 355 natalizumab patients. Patients initiating natalizumab were less likely to experience a relapse over the duration of follow-up, with ARRs [95% confidence interval (CI)] of 0.080 (0.070-0.092) for natalizumab patients and 0.191 (0.178-0.205) for BRACETD patients ( p  < 0.0001). A Cox regression model of time-to-first relapse showed a reduced risk of relapse for natalizumab patients [hazard ratio (95% CI) of 0.52 (0.42-0.65); p  < 0.001] and a more favorable time-to-first CDI. The risk of CDW was similar between groups. The subgroup analysis showed an increased relapse risk as well as a significantly higher risk of CDW for BRACETD patients., Conclusion: Early initiation of natalizumab produced long-term benefits in relapse outcomes in comparison with BRACETD, regardless of a subsequent escalation in therapy., (© The Author(s), 2024.)

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

It is unknown whether the currently known risk factors of multiple sclerosis reflect the etiology of progressive-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) as observational studies rarely included analysis by type of onset. We designed a case-control study to examine associations between environmental factors and POMS and compared effect sizes to relapse-onset MS (ROMS), which will offer insights into the etiology of POMS and potentially contribute to prevention and intervention practice. This study utilizes data from the Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (PPMS) Study and the Australian Multi-center Study of Environment and Immune Function (the AusImmune Study). This report outlines the conduct of the PPMS Study, whether the POMS sample is representative, and the planned analysis methods. The study includes 155 POMS, 204 ROMS, and 558 controls. The distributions of the POMS were largely similar to Australian POMS patients in the MSBase Study, with 54.8% female, 85.8% POMS born before 1970, mean age of onset of 41.44 ± 8.38 years old, and 67.1% living between 28.9 and 39.4° S. The POMS were representative of the Australian POMS population. There are some differences between POMS and ROMS/controls (mean age at interview: POMS 55 years vs. controls 40 years; sex: POMS 53% female vs. controls 78% female; location of residence: 14.3% of POMS at a latitude ≤ 28.9°S vs. 32.8% in controls), which will be taken into account in the analysis. We discuss the methodological issues considered in the study design, including prevalence-incidence bias, cohort effects, interview bias and recall bias, and present strategies to account for it. Associations between exposures of interest and POMS/ROMS will be presented in subsequent publications., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Treatment switching is a common challenge and opportunity in real-world clinical practice. Increasing diversity in disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) has generated interest in the identification of reliable and robust predictors of treatment switching across different countries, DMTs, and time periods., Objective: The objective of this retrospective, observational study was to identify independent predictors of treatment switching in a population of relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) patients in the Big Multiple Sclerosis Data Network of national clinical registries, including the Italian MS registry, the OFSEP of France, the Danish MS registry, the Swedish national MS registry, and the international MSBase Registry., Methods: In this cohort study, we merged information on 269,822 treatment episodes in 110,326 patients from 1997 to 2018 from five clinical registries. Patients were included in the final pooled analysis set if they had initiated at least one DMT during the relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) stage. Patients not diagnosed with RRMS or RRMS patients not initiating DMT therapy during the RRMS phase were excluded from the analysis. The primary study outcome was treatment switching. A multilevel mixed-effects shared frailty time-to-event model was used to identify independent predictors of treatment switching. The contributing MS registry was included in the pooled analysis as a random effect., Results: Every one-point increase in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score at treatment start was associated with 1.08 times the rate of subsequent switching, adjusting for age, sex, and calendar year (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.08; 95% CI 1.07-1.08). Women were associated with 1.11 times the rate of switching relative to men (95% CI 1.08-1.14), whilst older age was also associated with an increased rate of treatment switching. DMTs started between 2007 and 2012 were associated with 2.48 times the rate of switching relative to DMTs that began between 1996 and 2006 (aHR 2.48; 95% CI 2.48-2.56). DMTs started from 2013 onwards were more likely to switch relative to the earlier treatment epoch (aHR 8.09; 95% CI 7.79-8.41; reference = 1996-2006)., Conclusion: Switching between DMTs is associated with female sex, age, and disability at baseline and has increased in frequency considerably in recent years as more treatment options have become available. Consideration of a patient's individual risk and tolerance profile needs to be taken into account when selecting the most appropriate switch therapy from an expanding array of treatment choices., Competing Interests: TSp received compensation for serving on scientific advisory boards, honoraria for consultancy and funding for travel from Biogen; and speaker honoraria from Novartis. MM has served on the scientific advisory board for Sanofi, Novartis, and Merck and has received honoraria for lecturing from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Genzyme, and Bristol Myers Squibb. HB is an employee of Monash University and has accepted travel compensation from Merck; his institution receives honoraria for talks, steering committee activities, and research grants from Roche, Merck, Biogen, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Medical Research Future Fund Australia, NHMRC Australia, Trish MS Foundation, MS Australia, and the Pennycook Foundation. He receives personal compensation for steering group activities for the Brain Health Initiative from the Oxford Health Policy Forum and is funded by an NHMRC Australia Investigator Grant. SV received consulting and lecturing fees, travel grants, and research support from Biogen, Celgene, Genentech, Genzyme, Medday Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and Teva Pharma. MT has served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis, Roche, and Genzyme; has received speaker honoraria and travel support from Biogen Idec, Sanofi Aventis, Merck Serono, Teva, Genzyme, and Novartis; and has received research grants for her institution from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, and Novartis. PI has served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen Idec, Bayer, Teva, Roche, Merck Serono, Novartis, and Genzyme and has received funding for travel and/or speaker honoraria from Sanofi Aventis, Genzyme, Biogen Idec, Teva, Merck Serono, and Novartis. DH was supported by the Charles University Cooperation Program in Neuroscience, the project National Institute for Neurological Research (Programme EXCELES, ID Project No. LX22NPO5107) funded by the European Union (Next Generation EU), and by the General University Hospital in Prague project MH CZ-DRO-VFN64165. She also received compensation for travel, speaker honoraria, and consultant fees from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, and Teva, as well as support for research activities from Biogen Idec. FP is an employee of Biogen. RH is an employee of Biogen and holds stock. 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. JL-S received travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Roche, and Merck. Her institution receives honoraria for talks and advisory board commitments, as well as research grants from Biogen, Merck, Roche, TEVA, and Novartis. SS declared no competing interests. PL received honoraria for speaking and/or travel expenses from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche; consulting fees from Biogen, GeNeuro, Merck, Novartis, Roche; and research support from Biogen, Merck, Novartis. None were related to this work. SE received speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, and Teva. RAI received honoraria as a speaker and for serving on scientific advisory boards from Bayer, Biogen, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme. MT received travel grants from Novartis, Bayer-Schering, Merck, and Teva; and has participated in clinical trials by Sanofi Aventis, Roche, and Novartis. MG received consulting fees from Teva Canada Innovation, Biogen, Novartis, and Genzyme Sanofi; and lecture payments from Teva Canada Innovation, Novartis, and EMD. He has also received a research grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. TK served on scientific advisory boards for MS International Federation and World Health Organization, BMS, Roche, Janssen, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Merck, and Biogen; on the steering committee for Brain Atrophy Initiative by Sanofi Genzyme, received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL, and Merck and received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene, and Merck. FG received honoraria or research funding from Biogen, Genzyme, Novartis, Teva Neurosciences, and ATARA Pharmaceuticals. OS received honoraria and consulting fees from Bayer-Schering, Novartis, Merck, Biogen, and Genzyme. SK received compensation for scientific advisory board activity from Merck and Roche. BY received honoraria as a speaker and member of scientific advisory boards from Sanofi, Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, and Aspen. MJ received consulting fees, speaker honoraria, and/or travel expenses for scientific meetings from Alexion, Bayer Healthcare, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Teva. YB received speaker honoraria/consulting fees from Merck, Biogen, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi, and Sandoz. CO-G received honoraria as a consultant on scientific advisory boards from Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and TEVA. AA received speaker honoraria from Novartis and Alexion. SH has received unrestricted educational grants or speaking honoraria from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi Genzyme. PM received speaker fees and travel grants from Novartis, Biogen, T'évalua, and Sanofi. RAm received conference travel support from Novartis, Teva, Biogen, Bayer, and Merck and has participated in clinical trials by Biogen, Novartis, Teva, and Actelion. KdG served on scientific advisory boards for Roche, Janssen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, and Merck, received conference fees and travel support from Novartis, Biogen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, AbbVie, and Merck, and received educational event support from Novartis. CM received honoraria as a consultant on scientific advisory boards for Genzyme, BMS, Janssen, Biogen, Merck, Roche, and Novartis; has received travel grants from Roche and Novartis. JP accepted travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Genzyme, Teva, and speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, and Teva. NJ is a local principal investigator on commercial studies funded by Novartis, Biogen, Amicus, and Sanofi. JI declared no competing interests. FS has served on scientific advisory boards for, served as a consultant for, received support for congress participation, or received speaker honoraria from Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi Genzyme. His laboratory has received research support from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi Genzyme. HJ declared no competing interests. PR has served on scientific advisory boards for, served as consultant for, received support for congress participation, or received speaker honoraria from Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi Genzyme. TSe received and has served on scientific advisory boards for, served as a consultant for, received support for congress participation, or received speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. T. Sejbaeks received unrestricted research grants to his research institution from Biogen, Merck, and Roche and is currently engaged in sponsor-initiated research projects by Eisai, Lundbeck, Roche, and Sanofi. MP declared no competing interests. JC has received speaker honoraria from Biogen. MS has served on scientific advisory boards for, served as a consultant for, received support for congress participation, participated in industrial trials with, or received speaker honoraria from Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi Genzyme. JH has received honoraria for serving on advisory boards for Biogen, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Novartis and speaker's fees from Biogen, Novartis, Merck Serono, Bayer-Schering, Teva, and Sanofi-Genzyme. He has served as P.I. for projects or received unrestricted research support from BiogenIdec, Merck Serono, TEVA, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Bayer-Schering. His MS research is funded by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Brain Foundation. The authors declare that this study received funding from Biogen. The funder had the following involvement with the study: study design and manuscript review. The funder was not involved in the collection of data, analysis, writing of the article, or the decision to submit it for publication. 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 © 2023 Spelman, Magyari, Butzkueven, Van Der Walt, Vukusic, Trojano, Iaffaldano, Horáková, Drahota, Pellegrini, Hyde, Duquette, Lechner-Scott, Sajedi, Lalive, Shaygannejad, Ozakbas, Eichau, Alroughani, Terzi, Girard, Kalincik, Grand'Maison, Skibina, Khoury, Yamout, Sa, Gerlach, Blanco, Karabudak, Oreja-Guevara, Altintas, Hughes, McCombe, Ampapa, de Gans, McGuigan, Soysal, Prevost, John, Inshasi, Stawiarz, Manouchehrinia, Forsberg, Sellebjerg, Glaser, Pontieri, Joensen, Rasmussen, Sejbaek, Poulsen, Christensen, Kant, Stilund, Mathiesen, Hillert and the Big MS Data Network: a collaboration of the Czech MS Registry, the Danish MS Registry, Italian MS Registry, Swedish MS Registry, MSBase Study Group, and OFSEP.)

Background: Simultaneous comparisons of multiple disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) over an extended follow-up are lacking. Here we emulate a randomised trial simultaneously comparing the effectiveness of six commonly used therapies over 5 years., Methods: Data from 74 centres in 35 countries were sourced from MSBase. For each patient, the first eligible intervention was analysed, censoring at change/discontinuation of treatment. The compared interventions included natalizumab, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide, interferon beta, glatiramer acetate and no treatment. Marginal structural Cox models (MSMs) were used to estimate the average treatment effects (ATEs) and the average treatment effects among the treated (ATT), rebalancing the compared groups at 6-monthly intervals on age, sex, birth-year, pregnancy status, treatment, relapses, disease duration, disability and disease course. The outcomes analysed were incidence of relapses, 12-month confirmed disability worsening and improvement., Results: 23 236 eligible patients were diagnosed with RRMS or clinically isolated syndrome. Compared with glatiramer acetate (reference), several therapies showed a superior ATE in reducing relapses: natalizumab (HR=0.44, 95% CI=0.40 to 0.50), fingolimod (HR=0.60, 95% CI=0.54 to 0.66) and dimethyl fumarate (HR=0.78, 95% CI=0.66 to 0.92). Further, natalizumab (HR=0.43, 95% CI=0.32 to 0.56) showed a superior ATE in reducing disability worsening and in disability improvement (HR=1.32, 95% CI=1.08 to 1.60). The pairwise ATT comparisons also showed superior effects of natalizumab followed by fingolimod on relapses and disability., Conclusions: The effectiveness of natalizumab and fingolimod in active RRMS is superior to dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide, glatiramer acetate and interferon beta. This study demonstrates the utility of MSM in emulating trials to compare clinical effectiveness among multiple interventions simultaneously., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors report the following relationships: speaker honoraria, advisory board or steering committee fees, research support and/or conference travel support from Acthelion (EKH, RA), Almirall (MT, FG, RB, CRT, JLS-M), Bayer (MT, AL, PS, RA, MT, CB, JL-S, EP, VVP, RB, DS, RA, JO, JLSM, SH, CR, AGK, TC, NS, BT, MS, CAS), BioCSL (TK, AGK, BT), Biogen (TK, TS, DH, EKH, MT, GI, AL, MG, PD, PG, VJ, AVW, FG, PS, DF, RA, RH, CB, JLS, EP, VVP, FG, RB, RA, CRT, JP, JO, MB, JLSM, SH, CR, CSh, OGerlach, AGK, TC, BS, NS, BT, MS, HB), Biologix (RA), BMS/Celgene (EKH, AL), Genpharm (RA), Genzyme-Sanofi (TK, EKH, MT, GI, AL, MG, PD, PG, AVW, FG, PS, DF, RA, RH, MT, CB, JLS, EP, EP, VVP, FG, RB, RB, DS, CRT, JP, JO, MB, JLSM, SH, O Gerlach, AGK, HB), GSK (RA), Innate Immunotherapeutics (AGK), Lundbeck (EP), Merck / EMD (TK, DH, EKH, MT, GI, AL(Merck Serono), MG, PD, PG, VJ, AVW, PS, DF, RA, RH, MT, CB, JLS, EP, VVP, FG, RB, DS, RA, JO, MB, JLSM, CR, FM, O Gerlach, AGK, TC, BS, MS, HB), Mitsubishi (FG),Novartis (TK, TS, DH, EKH, MT, GI, AL, MG, PD, PG, VJ, AVW, FG, PS, DF, RA, RH, MT, CB, JLS, EP, VVP, FG, RB, DS, RA, CRT, JP, JO, MB, JLSM, SH, CR, FM, CSh, OG, AGK, TC, NS, BT, MS, HB), ONO Pharmaceuticals (FG), Roche (TK, EKH, AL, MT, CB, VVP, BT), Teva (TK, DH, EKH, MT, GI, AL, MG, PD, PG, VJ, FG, PS, DF, RH, MT, CB, JLS, VVP, RB, DS, RA, JP, JO, JLSM, CR, AGK, TC, MS, CAS), WebMD (TK), UCB (EP)., (© 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: Ocrelizumab is a humanized anti-CD20 antibody that has been approved for the treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Real-world data in the Middle East is very limited., Objectives: To describe the effectiveness and safety of ocrelizumab treatment in MS patients in a real clinical setting., Methods: This is an observational, registry-based study. MS patients who were treated with ocrelizumab and completed at least one-year follow-up post-treatment were included. Baseline clinical and radiological characteristics were collected before ocrelizumab initiation. The relapse rate, disability measures, magnetic resonance image (MRI) activity (new T2 lesions and/or GD+ enhancing T1 lesions), and adverse events (AE) at the last follow-up visits were assessed., Results: Data from 447 patients were analyzed, of which 260 (58.2%) were females. The mean age and mean disease duration were 37.39 ± 11.61 and 9.38 ± 7.57 years respectively. Most of the cohort was of a relapsing form (74.3%; n = 332), whereas active secondary and primary progressive forms represented 15.4% (n = 69) and 10.3% (n = 46) respectively. In the relapsing cohort, Ocrelizumab was prescribed in 162 (48.8%) patients due to highly active disease, and in 99 (29.8%) patients due to disease breakthrough while on prior therapies. In the last follow-up visits, most of the relapsing cohort was relapse-free (95.8% vs. 27.4%; p <0.001), had no evidence of MRI activity (3.6% vs. 67.5%; p <0.001) while EDSS score was stable (1.80+1.22 vs. 1.87+1.16; p < 0.104) when compared to baseline. NEDA-3 was achieved in 302 (91%) of RRMS patients. Confirmed disability progression was 27.5% and 23.9% in SPMS and PPMS respectively. Adverse events were observed in 139 (31.1%); infusion reactions and infections represented the most., Conclusion: This study showed that ocrelizumab is an effective and safe treatment for MS patients in a real clinical setting similar to what was observed in clinical trials., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest No competing interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Background: Cladribine was approved for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). Real-world data is very limited., Objectives: To study the effectiveness and the safety of Cladribine treatment in only one group of MS patients after treatment with Cladribine for two years., Methods: This observational, longitudinal prospective study. Eligible subjects were relapsing remitting MS patients who had at least two-year follow-up after Cladribine treatment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of relapse free patients. Secondary endpoints were ARR, change in EDSS scores, the proportion of patients with CDP, MRI activity, and NEDA-3 status, also the rate of occurrence of AEs. Patients were assessed for primary and secondary endpoints at the end of two years of follow-up., Results: Of a total of seventy-two patients, 59 (81.9 %) were females, mean age of 36.32 + 10.06 years old, mean disease duration 7.21 + 6.19. Most patients (n = 32; 44.4 %) were naïve to any treatment. Forty patients (55.6 %) completed two courses of treatment. The primary endpoint showed that most of our cohort was relapse free (85 % versus 25 %; P < 0.001), Secondary endpoints showed that ARR was significantly reduced 0.15 + 0.36 versus 0.85 + 0.53; P < 0.01). Most of the cohort 90 % have no progression of disability. Few subjects had new T2 lesions (7.5 % versus 70.8 %; P < 0.001 and gadolinium enhancement 5 % versus 66.7 %; P < 0.001) in MRI compared to baseline. No evidence of disease activity 3 (NEDA-3) was achieved in 30 (75 %) patients. It was achieved in 87.5 % of naive patients versus 66.7 % in patients who received prior disease modification drugs before Cladribine initiation. Infections 6 (n = 6; 8.4 %) lymphocytopenia (n = 3; 4.2 %), and elevated liver enzymes (n = 1; 1.4 %) were reported., Conclusion: Cladribine treatment reduced significantly relapse rate and MRI activity. It was safe and tolerable. Early initiation of cladribine is associated with favorable outcomes., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest All authors declare that this study has no commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Inconvenient administration and side effects of some disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) can deter adherence. We evaluated treatment satisfaction with cladribine tablets (CladT) for RMS in the Arabian Gulf., Methods: This was a non-interventional, multicentre, prospective observational study in non-pregnant/lactating adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with RMS eligible for 1st treatment with CladT (EU labelling). The primary outcome was overall treatment satisfaction at 6 months (Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication [TSQM]-14, v. 1.4), Global Satisfaction subscale. Secondary endpoints were TSQM-14 scores for convenience, satisfaction with side effects and satisfaction with effectiveness. Patients provided written informed consent., Results: Of 63 patients screened, 58 received CladT and 55 completed the study. Mean age was 33 ± 9 years; mean weight 73 ± 17 kg; 31% male/69% female; mostly from the United Arab Emirates (52%) or Kuwait (30%). All had RMS (mean 0.9 ± 1.1 relapses in the past year), mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) 1.4 ± 1.2; 36% were DMT-naïve. Mean [95% CI] score was high for overall treatment satisfaction (77.8 [73.0-82.6]), ease of use (87.4 [83.7-91.0]), tolerability (94.2 [91.0-97.3]) and effectiveness (76.2 [71.6-80.7]). Scores were similar irrespective of DMT history, age, gender, relapse history or EDSS. No relapses or serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) occurred. Two severe TEAE occurred (fatigue, headache) and 16% reported lymphopenia (two cases of grade 3 lymphopenia). Absolute lymphocyte counts at baseline and 6 months were 2.2 ± 0.8 × 10 9 /L and 1.3 ± 0.3 × 10 9 /L, respectively., Conclusions: Treatment satisfaction, ease of use, tolerability and patient-perceived effectiveness for CladT were high, irrespective of baseline demographics, disease characteristics and prior treatment., (© 2023. The Author(s).)