Search

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

Background: Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorders (NMOSD) and Multiple Sclerosis (MS) are primary demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system (CNS) with similar clinical features, complicating early differential diagnosis and treatment decisions. While both humoral and cellular immunity contribute to their immunopathogenesis, the complement system's role remains unclear. We considered complement-dependent cytotoxicity might have different roles in the pathophysiology of these diseases. Predictive value of C3 and C4 complement levels at the first attack for the definitive diagnosis aimed to be investigated., Methods: Treatment-naive, 14 seronegative (SN) NMO, 28 aquaporin-4-positive [AQP4(+)] NMO, 23 myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disease (MOGAD), and 15 MS adult patients were included. Serum C3 and C4 levels were evaluated retrospectively. Complement levels were statistically adjusted according to the age of the patients and C3/C4 ratio was used to increase statistical power., Results: We found that C4 levels were lower and C3/C4 ratio was higher in SNNMO and AQP4(+)-NMO groups compared to the MS group. It has been determined that 5.32 and 4.85 cut-off values of the C3/C4 ratio can discriminate SNNMO and AQP4(+)-NMO groups from MS., Conclusion: The classical complement pathway in SNNMO and AQP4(+)-NMO was thought to be more affected compared to MS, as activation of the classical pathway predominantly decreases the level of C4. Since the involvement of the complement system pathways at different levels may be presented with the C3/C4 ratio, it seems likely that this ratio may have value as a candidate biomarker in the differential diagnosis of primary CNS demyelinating diseases., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2025. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background and Objectives: Early treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) reduces disease activity and the risk of long-term disease progression. Effectiveness of ocrelizumab is established in relapsing MS (RMS); however, data in early RMS are lacking. We evaluated the 4-year effectiveness and safety of ocrelizumab as a first-line therapy in treatment-naive patients with recently diagnosed relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS)., Methods: ENSEMBLE was a prospective, 4-year, international, multicenter, single-arm, open-label, phase IIIb study. Patients were treatment naive, aged 18-55 years, had early-stage RRMS with a disease duration ≤3 years, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score ≤3.5, and ≥1 clinically reported relapse(s) or ≥1 signs of brain inflammatory activity on MRI in the prior 12 months. Patients received IV ocrelizumab 600 mg every 24 weeks. Effectiveness endpoints over 192 weeks were proportion of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3; defined as absence of relapses, 24-week confirmed disability progression [CDP], and MRI measures, with prespecified MRI rebaselining at week 8), 24-week/48-week CDP and 24-week confirmed disability improvement, annualized relapse rate (ARR), mean change in EDSS score from baseline, and safety. Cognitive status, patient-reported outcomes, and serum neurofilament light chain (NfL) were assessed. Descriptive analysis was performed on the intention-to-treat population., Results: Baseline characteristics (N = 678) were consistent with early-stage RRMS (n = 539 patients, 64.6% female, age 40 years and younger; median age: 31.0 years; duration since: MS symptom onset 0.78 years, RRMS diagnosis 0.24 years; mean baseline EDSS score [SD] 1.71 [0.95]). At week 192, most of the patients had NEDA-3 (n = 394/593, 66.4%), 85.0% had no MRI activity, 90.9% had no relapses, and 81.8% had no 24-week CDP over the study duration. Adjusted ARR at week 192 was low (0.020, 95% CI 0.015-0.027). NfL levels were reduced to and remained within the healthy donor range, by week 48 and week 192, respectively. No new or unexpected safety signals were observed., Discussion: Disease activity based on clinical and MRI measures was absent in most of the patients treated with ocrelizumab over 4 years in the ENSEMBLE study. Safety was consistent with the known profile of ocrelizumab. Although this single-arm study was limited by lack of a parallel group for comparison of outcome measures, the positive benefit-risk profile observed may provide confidence to adopt ocrelizumab as a first-line treatment in newly diagnosed patients with early RMS., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class IV evidence that adult patients with early-stage MS who were treatment naive maintained low disease activity (NEDA-3) over 4 years with ocrelizumab treatment; no new safety signals were detected., Trial Registration Information: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03085810; first submitted March 16, 2017; first patient enrolled: March 27, 2017; available at clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03085810.

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

Background: 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).)

Introduction: Ocrelizumab is an approved intravenously administered anti-CD20 antibody for multiple sclerosis (MS). The safety profile and patient preference for conventional versus shorter ocrelizumab infusions were investigated in the ENSEMBLE PLUS study., Methods: ENSEMBLE PLUS was a randomized, double-blind substudy to the single-arm ENSEMBLE study (NCT03085810), comparing outcomes in patients with early-stage relapsing-remitting MS receiving ocrelizumab 600 mg over the approved 3.5-h (conventional) versus 2-h (shorter) infusion. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with infusion-related reactions (IRRs) following the first randomized dose (RD); the secondary endpoint included IRR frequency at subsequent RDs., Results: At first RD, the number of patients with an IRR in the conventional (101/373; 27.1%) versus shorter (107/372; 28.8%) infusion group was similar (difference, stratified estimates [95% CI]: 1.9% [- 4.4, 8.2]). Most IRRs (conventional: 99.4%; shorter: 97.7%) were mild/moderate. IRR frequency decreased over the course of RDs; three patients discontinued from the shorter infusion arm but continued with conventional infusion. Overall, > 98% of IRRs resolved without sequelae in both groups. Pre-randomization throat irritation was predictive of future throat irritation as an IRR symptom. Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were consistent with the known ocrelizumab safety profile. On completion of ENSEMBLE PLUS, most patients chose to remain on (95%) or switch to (80%) shorter infusion., Conclusion: ENSEMBLE PLUS demonstrates the safety and tolerability of shorter ocrelizumab infusions. Most patients remained on/switched to shorter infusion after unblinding; IRRs did not strongly influence patient decisions., Clinical Trials Registration: Substudy of ENSEMBLE (NCT03085810)., Registration: March 21, 2017., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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.)

Background: Many studies on multiple sclerosis (MS) reveal different prevalence and epidemiologic results., Objectives: In this study, we aimed to determine the epidemiologic profile of MS using official health records in Turkey., Methods: Patients diagnosed with MS from the official health data of the Ministry of Health, representing the entire population of Turkey, were included in the study. Prevalence and incidence calculations were performed using the data on gender, age, year of birth, city of residence, and year of diagnosis., Results: As a result of the study, the number of patients with the ICD code G35 was determined as 201,061 and the number of patients with this code entered at least three times was determined as 82,225. The prevalence of MS in Turkey was calculated as 96.4 per 100,000 and the female/male ratio as 2.1/1. The incidence of MS in 2022 was 6.2 per 100,000 and the mean patient age was 43.1 ± 13.3 years (female: 43.0 ± 13.1 vs male: 43.2 ± 13.7) while the mean age at first diagnosis was 34.0 ± 13.0 (female: 33.6 ± 12.6 vs male: 34.9 ± 13.7)., Conclusion: The research was conducted via Official Database of Turkey, which includes population of 85 million and provides valuable insights into the prevalence and incidence rates of this chronic disease., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: In the general population, maternal COVID-19 is associated with worse maternal and fetal outcomes. Two previous studies have assessed COVID-19 clinical outcomes in pregnant women with multiple sclerosis (MS), but there are no data about maternal and fetal outcomes., Objectives: In this multicenter study, we aimed to assess maternal and fetal outcomes in pregnant women with MS and COVID-19 infection., Methods: We recruited pregnant patients with MS who contracted COVID-19 and were followed up in Italian and Turkish Centers, during 2020-2022. A control group was extracted from a previous Italian cohort. Associations between group (COVID-19 or healthy patients) and clinical outcomes (maternal complications, fetal malformations, and spontaneous abortion) were investigated with a weighted logistic regression where propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach was applied for adjusting for difference in baseline confounders., Results: In the multivariable analysis, COVID-19 during pregnancy was associated with a higher risk of maternal complications (odd ratio (OR) = 2.12; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.32-3.48; p = 0.002), while it was not associated with higher risk of spontaneous abortion and fetal malformations., Conclusion: Our data indicate that COVID-19 during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal complications, while it seems to have no significant impact on fetal outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: S.S. has received honoraria or consultancy fees for participating to advisory boards, giving educational lectures and/or travel and registration coverage for attending scientific congresses or symposia from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Teva, and Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma. R.K. has received honoraria for giving educational lectures, consultancy fees for participating advisory boards, and travel grants for attending scientific congresses or symposia from Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Teva, Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma of Turkey, Abdi İbrahim İlac, Deva, and ARIS. A.S. has received honoraria or consultancy fees for participating to advisory boards, giving educational lectures and/or travel and registration coverage for attending scientific congresses or symposia from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Teva, Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma of Turkey, and Abdi İbrahim İlac. E.P. received compensation for travel grants, participation in advisory board and/or speaking activities from Biogen, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Teva, and Novartis and serves on the editorial board of Frontiers in Neurology and Brain Sciences. M.P.A. served on scientific advisory boards for and has received speaker honoraria and research support from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Bayer Schering Pharma, and Sanofi Aventis and serves on the editorial board of Multiple Sclerosis Journal and BMC Neurology. M.P.S. received consulting fees from Roche, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, Celgene, Immunic, Geneuro, GSK, and MedDay; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, Biogen Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, and Celgene; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Roche, Sanofi, Novartis, and Merck. I.S. received consulting fees from Hippocrates Research, NovaNeuro, Sakura Italia, ADL Farmaceutici, and Associazione Commissione Difesa Vista Onlus. C.C. received grants or contracts from Roche, Novartis, Merck Serono, Biogen, and Celgene and received consulting fees from Biogen. L.M. received compensation for consulting services, travel grants, and/or speaking activities from Biogen, Serono, Sanofi, Teva, Roche, and Novartis. E.S. received personal compensation from Almirall, Biogen, Sanofi, Novartis, Roche, Horizon, Alexion, Merck, Mylan, and Teva for traveling and advisory boards. S.D.B. received personal compensation from Alexion, Almirall, Biogen, Merck Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi for traveling and advisory boards. M.B. received honoraria for speaking, advisory board, consulting from Teva, Genzyme, Biogen, Bristol MS, Merck, and Novartis. M.C. received personal compensations from Novartis, Genzyme, and Teva and consulting fees from Zambon. R.F. received honoraria for advisory boards and consulting from Bristol MS, Roche, Merck, and Novartis. P.C. received honoraria as speaker or travel grants to attend national and international conferences or consultation for advisory boards from Alexion, Almirall, Bayer Schering, Biogen, Cellgene-BMS, Janssen, Merck Serono, Teva, Roche, Novartis, Sandoz, and Sanofi-Genzyme. S.T. received travel grants or personal compensations from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, Janssen, Teva, and Almirall. The remaining authors have nothing to report.

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.

Background: This retrospective study, conducted between 2005 and 2016, investigated the outcomes of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who discontinued injectable first-line disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). The study aimed to identify factors influencing treatment discontinuation and assess the impact of discontinuation on disease progression., Methods: Data was collected from 2,270 patients who received injectable DMTs for at least two years and subsequently discontinued treatment due to clinical and MRI remission, side effects, or noncompliance. Patients were categorized into two groups: those stable after discontinuation (SAD) and those with relapse after discontinuation (RAD). Survival analysis and logistic regression were employed to assess factors influencing treatment discontinuation., Results: Of the 60 patients who discontinued DMTs, one-third (n = 20) remained stable, while 40 patients experienced clinical and/or MRI activity during follow-up. The SAD group had a significantly later age at treatment discontinuation compared to RAD patients (35.9 ± 11.1 vs. 30.7 ± 6.1, p = 0.025). Patients below 40 years old had a higher likelihood of experiencing worsening (75 %), while those over 50 years old demonstrated an 80 % stability rate. SAD patients used DMTs for a more extended period than RAD patients (69.1 ± 47.3 vs. 46.6 ± 20.3 months, p = 0.012). A notable proportion (42.9 %) of worsened patients discontinued DMTs without consulting a physician, emphasizing potential challenges in treatment adherence. After treatment discontinuation, RAD patients experienced relapses after a median of 21.0 months. Survival analysis suggested a more favorable disease course for patients who discontinued treatment after achieving a stable period (p = 0.237), with evidence of differentiation between groups after four years. Regression analysis indicated that older age at discontinuation had a favorable impact on relapse probability (HR: 0.904; p = 0.031; 95 % CI: 0.825, 0.991). Reasons for discontinuation unrelated to disease stability showed a positive but imprecise effect on relapse probability., Conclusion: This study provides insights into the outcomes of MS patients discontinuing injectable DMTs, emphasizing the importance of age at discontinuation and reasons for treatment cessation in predicting disease progression. The findings suggest that discontinuation after achieving stability may lead to more favorable outcomes, highlighting the need for personalized treatment decisions in MS management. Further research is warranted to validate these findings and inform clinical practices., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None of the authors have a decleration of interest., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

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.

The cervical region plays an important role in providing proprioceptive and vestibular input to the postural control system., Objective: To investigate the effect of cervical mobilization on balance in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients., Methods: The study was undertaken at the neurological rehabilitation unit with 36 MS participants who were assigned randomly to the study (n = 18) and control group (n = 18). While the study group received a single session of 15 minutes of cervical and soft tissue mobilization, no intervention was applied to the control group to investigate the learning effect of the assessment. Patients were evaluated using Computerized Dynamic Posturography (CDP) (Sensory Organization Test (SOT), Limits of Stability (LoS), and Adaptation Test (ADT)), which reflects postural stability., Results: In the study group, a treatment effect was found on the vestibular ratio (VEST) score (p < 0.001) and the composite score of SOT (p = 0.002). Improvements were achieved in all parameters of the LoS and ADT in the study group. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of CDP results in the control group., Conclusion: Cervical mobilization has beneficial effects on balance in MS patients. Our findings support that cervical mobilization can be included in MS balance rehabilitation programs.

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.)

Introduction: Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) is an autoimmune, inflammatory disease of the central nervous system affecting the optic nerves and spinal cord. Most NMOSD patients have autoantibodies against the astrocyte water channel protein aquaporin-4 (AQP4). Eculizumab treatment is used effectively and safely in AQP4-IgG+ NMOSD. Our study evaluated the prognosis and outcomes of all clinical trial (PREVENT) patients from Turkey who received eculizumab treatment for AQP4-IgG+ NMOSD., Method: Clinical and demographic data of all patients enrolled in the PREVENT and OLE clinical trial in Turkey were analyzed during the study period and after the study ended. Clinical follow-up results were recorded in detail in patients who had to discontinue eculizumab treatment., Results: The study included 10 patients who participated in PREVENT and OLE. Seven patients completed the studies, three patients did not continue the study and were switched to other treatments. Only one of the seven patients was able to continue treatment after eculizumab was approved in AQP4-IgG+NMOSD. The other six patients could not continue treatment due to reimbursement conditions. Four of the six patients who could not continue eculizumab treatment experienced early relapse (within the first three months after stopping the drug). All of these patients had high disease activity before eculizumab and had never relapsed under eculizumab treatment over the long term., Conclusion: Eculizumab was used effectively and safely in Turkish AQP4-IgG+NMOSD patients with high disease activity. Disease reactivation and relapse may occur after discontinuation of eculizumab treatment in patients with a long-term stable course. In these cases, close monitoring for disease reactivation is recommended., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest S. Sen and A. Tuncer has received honoraria or consultancy fees for participating to advisory boards, giving educational lectures and/or travel and registration coverage for attending scientific congresses or symposia from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva, Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma. R. Karabudak has received honoraria for giving educational lectures, consultancy fees for participating advisory boards, and travel grants for attending scientific congresses or symposia from Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva, Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma of Turkey, Abdi İbrahim İlac, Deva and ARIS. H. Efendi has received honoraria or consultancy fees for participating to advisory boards, giving educational lectures and/or travel and registration coverage for attending scientific congresses or symposia from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva, Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma of Turkey and Abdi İbrahim İlac. A Siva has received honoraria or consultancy fees for participating to advisory boards, giving educational lectures and/or travel and registration coverage for attending scientific congresses or symposia from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva, Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma of Turkey and Abdi İbrahim İlac. The rest of authors declares no conflict of interest with the study project., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS) represents the earliest detectable preclinical phase of multiple sclerosis (MS) punctuated by incidental magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) white matter anomalies within the central nervous system., Objective: To determine the time to onset of symptoms consistent with MS., Design, Setting, and Participants: From September 2017 to October 2022, this multicenter, double-blind, phase 3, randomized clinical trial investigated the efficacy of teriflunomide in delaying MS in individuals with RIS, with a 3-year follow-up. The setting included referral centers in France, Switzerland, and Turkey. Participants older than 18 years meeting 2009 RIS criteria were randomly assigned (1:1) to oral teriflunomide, 14 mg daily, or placebo up to week 96 or, optionally, to week 144., Interventions: Clinical, MRI, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected at baseline and yearly until week 96, with an optional third year in the allocated arm if no symptoms have occurred., Main Outcomes: Primary analysis was performed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed accordingly. Secondary end points included MRI outcomes and PROs., Results: Among 124 individuals assessed for eligibility, 35 were excluded for declining to participate, not meeting inclusion criteria, or loss of follow-up. Eighty-nine participants (mean [SD] age, 37.8 [12.1] years; 63 female [70.8%]) were enrolled (placebo, 45 [50.6%]; teriflunomide, 44 [49.4%]). Eighteen participants (placebo, 9 [50.0%]; teriflunomide, 9 [50.0%]) discontinued the study, resulting in a dropout rate of 20% for adverse events (3 [16.7%]), consent withdrawal (4 [22.2%]), loss to follow-up (5 [27.8%]), voluntary withdrawal (4 [22.2%]), pregnancy (1 [5.6%]), and study termination (1 [5.6%]). The time to the first clinical event was significantly extended in the teriflunomide arm compared with placebo, in both the unadjusted (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; 95% CI, 0.16-0.84; P = .02) and adjusted (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11-0.71; P = .007) analysis. Secondary imaging end point outcomes including the comparison of the cumulative number of new or newly enlarging T2 lesions (rate ratio [RR], 0.57; 95% CI, 0.27-1.20; P = .14), new gadolinium-enhancing lesions (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.09-1.17; P = .09), and the proportion of participants with new lesions (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.25-2.06; P = .54) were not significant., Conclusion and Relevance: Treatment with teriflunomide resulted in an unadjusted risk reduction of 63% and an adjusted risk reduction of 72%, relative to placebo, in preventing a first clinical demyelinating event. These data suggest a benefit to early treatment in the MS disease spectrum., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03122652.

Background: Evaluation of activities of daily living (ADL) and functional exercise capacity in patients with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) is crucial in demonstrating the effectiveness of interventions., Aims: To investigate the reliability and validity of the Glittre ADL Test in pwMS., Methods: Twenty-five pwMS and 26 healthy adults were included in this methodological study. The Glittre ADL Test was applied. Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) and Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Index (NEADL) were applied for concurrent validity. Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Mini Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini BESTest), Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Scale-54 (MSQoL-54), and Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test (5 STST) were applied for construct validity. The Glittre ADL Test was repeated after 3-6 days for test-retest reliability., Results: The test-retest reliability of the Glittre ADL Test was excellent (ICC = 0.941). There was strong correlation of the Glittre ADL Test with 6MWT (rho = - 0.710, p < 0.001), NEADL (rho = - 0.841, p < 0.001), EDSS, (rho = 0.836, p = < 0.001), Mini BESTest (rho = 0.792, p < 0.001), and 5 STST scores (rho = 0.720, p < 0.001). There was a moderate correlation between the Glittre ADL Test and the physical health sub-item score of the MSQoL-54 (rho = - 0.591, p = 0.002). No correlation was found between the Glittre ADL Test and FSS (rho = 0.348, p = 0.096). There was a difference in the Glittre ADL Test results between the pwMS and the healthy adults (p = 0.001)., Conclusions: The Glittre ADL Test has excellent reliability and strong construct and criterion validity for assessing functional exercise capacity and ADL in fully ambulatory pwMS., Trial Registration: TRN: NCT04182269., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland.)

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.)

Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is the biggest health challenge of recent times. Studies so far reveal that vaccination is the only way to prevent this pandemic. There may be factors that decrease or increase vaccine effectiveness. In multiple sclerosis (MS), some of these factors may cause changes in the effectiveness of the vaccine, depending on the nature of the disease and disease-modifying treatments (DMT). In this study, we aimed to investigate the relationship between antibody titer and smoking in non-treated and DMT-treated MS patients who received inactivated vaccine (Sinovac) and messenger RNA BNT162b2 (BioNTech) mRNA vaccines., Method: Vaccine antibody responses were measured between 4-12 weeks after two doses of inactivated vaccine and mRNA vaccines. Patients were separated into 6 groups as: patients with MS without treatment PwMS w/o T, ocrelizumab, fingolimod, interferons (interferon beta-1a and interferon beta-1b), dimethyl fumarate, and teriflunomide. Antibody titers of smokers and non-smokers were compared for both vaccines and for each group., Results: The study included 798 patients. In the mRNA vaccine group, smokers (n=148; 2982±326 AU/mL) had lower antibody titers compared to the non-smokers (n=244; 5903±545 AU/mL) in total (p=0.020). In the inactivated vaccine group, no significant difference was detected between smokers (n=136; 383±51 AU/mL) and non-smokers (n=270; 388±49 AU/mL) in total (p=0.149). In both vaccine groups, patients receiving ocrelizumab and fingolimod had lower antibody titers than those receiving other DMTs or PwMS w/o T. In untreated MS patients, antibody levels in smokers were lower than in non-smokers in the mRNA vaccine group. No difference was found between antibody levels of smokers and non-smokers in any of the inactivated vaccine groups., Conclusion: Ocrelizumab and fingolimod have lower antibody levels than PwMS w/o T or other DMTs in both mRNA and inactivated vaccine groups. Smoking decreases antibody levels in the mRNA vaccine group, while it has no effect in the inactivated vaccine group., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: S. Şen, M. Tütüncü, S. Demir, T. Gündüz, C. Uzunköprü, H. Gümüş have received honoraria or consultancy fees for participating to advisory boards, giving educational lectures and/or travel and registration coverage for attending scientific congresses or symposia from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva, Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma. Aslı Tuncer has received honoraria or consultancy fees for partici- pating to advisory boards, giving educational lectures and/or travel and registration coverage for attending scientific congresses or symposia from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva, Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma. Serkan Özakbaş has received honoraria or consultancy fees for participating to advisory boards, giving educational lectures and/or travel and registration coverage for attending scientific congresses or symposia from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck- Serono, Novartis, Teva, Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma. H. Efendi has received honoraria or consultancy fees for partici- pating to advisory boards, giving educational lectures and/or travel and registration coverage for attending scientific congresses or symposia from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva, Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma of Turkey and Abdi Ibrahim Rana Karabudak has received honoraria for giving educational lec- tures, consultancy fees for participating advisory boards, and travel grants for attending scientific congresses or symposia from Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva, Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma of Turkey, Abdi Ibrahim Ilac, Deva and ARIS. Aksel Siva has received honoraria or consultancy fees for partici- pating to advisory boards, giving educational lectures and/or travel and registration coverage for attending scientific congresses or symposia from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva, Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma of Turkey and Abdi Ibrahim Ilac. The rest of authors declare no conflict of interest with the study project., (Copyright: © 2023 Turkish Neuropsychiatric Society.)

Background: Vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with immunosuppressive drugs is highly recommended. Regarding COVID-19 vaccination, no specific concern has been raised., Objectives: We aimed to evaluate if COVID-19 vaccination or infection increased the risk of disease activity, either radiological or clinical, with conversion to MS in a cohort of people with a radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS)., Methods: This multicentric observational study analyzed patients in the RIS Consortium cohort during the pandemic between January 2020 and December 2022. We compared the occurrence of disease activity in patients according to their vaccination status. The same analysis was conducted by comparing patients' history of COVID-19 infection., Results: No difference was found concerning clinical conversion to MS in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated group (6.7% vs 8.5%, p > 0.9). The rate of disease activity was not statistically different (13.6% and 7.4%, respectively, p = 0.54). The clinical conversion rate to MS was not significantly different in patients with a documented COVID-19 infection versus non-infected patients., Conclusion: Our study suggests that COVID-19 infection or immunization in RIS individuals does not increase the risk of disease activity. Our results support that COVID-19 vaccination can be safely proposed and repeated for these subjects.

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients may be protected against cancer because of increased immune surveillance. However, aberrant T/B cell functioning in MS may increase the risk of cancer. We aimed to compare the frequency of cancer among patients with MS with an appropriate control group matched by the variables such as age, gender, tobacco smoking history, body mass index (BMI), and family history of cancer., Methods: The MS patients who were registered and followed up at the MS Center in Hacettepe University Hospitals and appropriately matched with controls were included. A self-administered questionnaire with links to the online survey was delivered., Results: Overall, 1037 responses out of 2074 in MS patients and 506 responses out of 1500 control group were included. Fourteen (1.35%) of MS patients and 18 (3.6%) of the controls were diagnosed with cancer. The odds ratio of having cancer in patients with MS compared to the control group was 0.389 (95% CI = 0.161-0.940, p < 0.05)., Discussion: There was no statistically significant difference in age, gender, tobacco smoking, and BMI between the groups after propensity score matching. The odds of having cancer were lower in our MS patients compared to the controls. The autoimmune changes responsible for the pathogenesis of MS may be responsible for the decrease in cancer risk.

Background: In the general population, maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is associated with worse maternal outcomes; however, only one study so far has evaluated COVID-19 clinical outcomes in pregnant and postpartum women with multiple sclerosis, showing no higher risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes in these patients., Objective: In this multicenter study, we aimed to evaluate COVID-19 clinical outcomes in pregnant patients with multiple sclerosis., Methods: We recruited 85 pregnant patients with multiple sclerosis who contracted COVID-19 after conception and were prospectively followed-up in Italian and Turkish Centers, in the period 2020-2022. A control group of 1354 women was extracted from the database of the Multiple Sclerosis and COVID-19 (MuSC-19). Univariate and subsequent logistic regression models were fitted to search for risk factors associated with severe COVID-19 course (at least one outcome among hospitalization, intensive care unit [ICU] admission and death)., Results: In the multivariable analysis, independent predictors of severe COVID-19 were age, body mass index ⩾ 30, treatment with anti-CD20 and recent use of methylprednisolone. Vaccination before infection was a protective factor. Vaccination before infection was a protective factor. Pregnancy was not a risk nor a protective factor for severe COVID-19 course., Conclusion: Our data show no significant increase of severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients with multiple sclerosis who contracted the infection during pregnancy.

Importance: Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) is available for treatment of highly active multiple sclerosis (MS)., Objective: To compare the effectiveness of AHSCT vs fingolimod, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab in relapsing-remitting MS by emulating pairwise trials., Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative treatment effectiveness study included 6 specialist MS centers with AHSCT programs and international MSBase registry between 2006 and 2021. The study included patients with relapsing-remitting MS treated with AHSCT, fingolimod, natalizumab, or ocrelizumab with 2 or more years study follow-up including 2 or more disability assessments. Patients were matched on a propensity score derived from clinical and demographic characteristics., Exposure: AHSCT vs fingolimod, natalizumab, or ocrelizumab., Main Outcomes: Pairwise-censored groups were compared on annualized relapse rates (ARR) and freedom from relapses and 6-month confirmed Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score worsening and improvement., Results: Of 4915 individuals, 167 were treated with AHSCT; 2558, fingolimod; 1490, natalizumab; and 700, ocrelizumab. The prematch AHSCT cohort was younger and with greater disability than the fingolimod, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab cohorts; the matched groups were closely aligned. The proportion of women ranged from 65% to 70%, and the mean (SD) age ranged from 35.3 (9.4) to 37.1 (10.6) years. The mean (SD) disease duration ranged from 7.9 (5.6) to 8.7 (5.4) years, EDSS score ranged from 3.5 (1.6) to 3.9 (1.9), and frequency of relapses ranged from 0.77 (0.94) to 0.86 (0.89) in the preceding year. Compared with the fingolimod group (769 [30.0%]), AHSCT (144 [86.2%]) was associated with fewer relapses (ARR: mean [SD], 0.09 [0.30] vs 0.20 [0.44]), similar risk of disability worsening (hazard ratio [HR], 1.70; 95% CI, 0.91-3.17), and higher chance of disability improvement (HR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.71-4.26) over 5 years. Compared with natalizumab (730 [49.0%]), AHSCT (146 [87.4%]) was associated with marginally lower ARR (mean [SD], 0.08 [0.31] vs 0.10 [0.34]), similar risk of disability worsening (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.54-2.09), and higher chance of disability improvement (HR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.72-4.18) over 5 years. AHSCT (110 [65.9%]) and ocrelizumab (343 [49.0%]) were associated with similar ARR (mean [SD], 0.09 [0.34] vs 0.06 [0.32]), disability worsening (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.61-5.08), and disability improvement (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.66-2.82) over 3 years. AHSCT-related mortality occurred in 1 of 159 patients (0.6%)., Conclusion: In this study, the association of AHSCT with preventing relapses and facilitating recovery from disability was considerably superior to fingolimod and marginally superior to natalizumab. This study did not find evidence for difference in the effectiveness of AHSCT and ocrelizumab over a shorter available follow-up time.

Background: COVID-19 vaccines are recommended for people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). Adequate humoral responses are obtained in pwMS receiving disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) after vaccination, with the exception of those receiving B-cell-depleting therapies and non-selective S1P modulators. However, most of the reported studies on the immunity of COVID-19 vaccinations have included mRNA vaccines, and information on inactivated virus vaccine responses, long-term protectivity, and comparative studies with mRNA vaccines are very limited. Here, we aimed to investigate the association between humoral vaccine responses and COVID-19 infection outcomes following mRNA and inactivated virus vaccines in a large national cohort of pwMS receiving DMTs., Methods: This is a cross-sectional and prospective multicenter study on COVID-19-vaccinated pwMS. Blood samples of pwMS with or without DMTs and healthy controls were collected after two doses of inactivated virus (Sinovac) or mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccines. PwMS were sub-grouped according to the mode of action of the DMTs that they were receiving. SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers were evaluated by chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay. A representative sample of this study cohort was followed up for a year. COVID-19 infection status and clinical outcomes were compared between the mRNA and inactivated virus groups as well as among pwMS subgroups., Results: A total of 1484 pwMS (1387 treated, 97 untreated) and 185 healthy controls were included in the analyses (male/female: 544/1125). Of those, 852 (51.05%) received BioNTech, and 817 (48.95%) received Sinovac. mRNA and inactivated virus vaccines result in similar seropositivity; however, the BioNTech vaccination group had significantly higher antibody titers (7.175±10.074) compared with the Sinovac vaccination group (823±1.774) (p<0.001). PwMS under ocrelizumab, fingolimod, and cladribine treatments had lower humoral responses compared with the healthy controls in both vaccine types. After a mean of 327±16 days, 246/704 (34.9%) of pwMS who were contacted had COVID-19 infection, among whom 83% had asymptomatic or mild disease. There was no significant difference in infection rates of COVID-19 between participants vaccinated with BioNTech or Sinovac vaccines. Furthermore, regression analyses show that no association was found regarding age, sex, Expanded Disability Status Scale score (EDSS), the number of vaccination, DMT type, or humoral antibody responses with COVID-19 infection rate and disease severity, except BMI Body mass index (BMI)., Conclusion: mRNA and inactivated virus vaccines had similar seropositivity; however, mRNA vaccines appeared to be more effective in producing SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. B-cell-depleting therapies fingolimod and cladribine were associated with attenuated antibody titer. mRNA and inactive virus vaccines had equal long-term protectivity against COVID-19 infection regardless of the antibody status., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest M.Tutuncu, S. Demir, S. Sen, T. Gunduz, C Uzunköprü, H Gumus have received honoraria or consultancy fees for participating to advisory boards, giving educational lectures and/or travel and regis- tration coverage for attending scientific congresses or symposia from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva, Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma. Asli Tuncer has received honoraria or consultancy fees for participating to advisory boards, giving educational lectures and/or travel and registration coverage for attending scientific congresses or symposia from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva, Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma. Serkan Ozakbas has received honoraria or consultancy fees for participating to advisory boards, giving educational lectures and/or travel and registration coverage for attending scientific congresses or symposia from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva, Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma. H. Efendi has received honoraria or consultancy fees for participating to advisory boards, giving educational lectures and/or travel and registration coverage for attending scientific congresses or symposia from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva, Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma of Turkey and Abdi Ibrahim Rana Karabudak has received honoraria for giving educational lectures, consultancy fees for participating advisory boards, and travel grants for attending scientific congresses or symposia from Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva, Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma of Turkey, Abdi Ibrahim Ilac, Deva and ARIS. Aksel Siva has received honoraria or consultancy fees for participating to advisory boards, giving educational lectures and/or travel and registration coverage for attending scientific congresses or symposia from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva, Biogen Idec/Gen Pharma of Turkey and Abdi Ibrahim Ilac. The rest of authors declare no conflict of interest with the study project., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: The prognostic significance of non-disabling relapses in people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) is unclear., Objective: To determine whether early non-disabling relapses predict disability accumulation in RRMS., Methods: We redefined mild relapses in MSBase as 'non-disabling', and moderate or severe relapses as 'disabling'. We used mixed-effects Cox models to compare 90-day confirmed disability accumulation events in people with exclusively non-disabling relapses within 2 years of RRMS diagnosis to those with no early relapses; and any early disabling relapses. Analyses were stratified by disease-modifying therapy (DMT) efficacy during follow-up., Results: People who experienced non-disabling relapses within 2 years of RRMS diagnosis accumulated more disability than those with no early relapses if they were untreated ( n  = 285 vs 4717; hazard ratio (HR) = 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.00-1.68) or given platform DMTs ( n  = 1074 vs 7262; HR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.15-1.54), but not if given high-efficacy DMTs ( n  = 572 vs 3534; HR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.71-1.13) during follow-up. Differences in disability accumulation between those with early non-disabling relapses and those with early disabling relapses were not confirmed statistically., Conclusion: This study suggests that early non-disabling relapses are associated with a higher risk of disability accumulation than no early relapses in RRMS. This risk may be mitigated by high-efficacy DMTs. Therefore, non-disabling relapses should be considered when making treatment decisions.

Background: Fingolimod, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab are commonly used in the second-line treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). However, these have only been compared in observational studies, not in controlled trials, with limited and inconclusive results being reported. A comparison of their effect on relapse and disability in a real-world setting is therefore needed., Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of fingolimod, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab in reducing disease activity in RRMS., Methods: This multicenter, retrospective observational study was carried out with prospectively collected data from 16 centers. All consecutive RRMS patients treated with fingolimod, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab were included. Data for relapses, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were collected. Patients were matched using propensity scores. Annualized relapse rates (ARR), time to first relapse, and disability accumulation were compared., Results: Propensity score matching retained 736 patients in the fingolimod versus 370 in the natalizumab groups, 762 in the fingolimod versus 434 in the ocrelizumab groups, and 310 in the natalizumab versus 310 in the ocrelizumab groups for final analyses. Mean ARR decreased markedly from baseline after treatment in all three treatment groups. Mean on-treatment ARR was lower in natalizumab-treated patients (0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.07-0.12) than in those treated with fingolimod (0.17, 0.15-0.19, p<0.001), ocrelizumab (0.08, 0.06-0.11), and fingolimod (0.14, 0.12-0.16, p=0.001). No significant difference was observed in mean on-treatment ARR between patients treated with natalizumab (0.08, 0.06-0.11) and ocrelizumab (0.09, 0.07-0.12, p=0.54). Compared to fingolimod, the natalizumab and ocrelizumab groups exhibited a higher percentage of relapse-free patients and a lower percentage of MRI-active patients at year 1. No significance differences in disability accumulation were determined between the therapies., Conclusion: Natalizumab and ocrelizumab exhibited similar effects on relapse control, and both were associated with better relapse control than fingolimod. The effects of the three therapies on disability outcomes were similar., (© 2023. Fondazione Società Italiana di Neurologia.)

Background and Purpose: This study assessed the effect of patient characteristics on the response to disease-modifying therapy (DMT) in multiple sclerosis (MS)., Methods: We extracted data from 61,810 patients from 135 centers across 35 countries from the MSBase registry. The selection criteria were: clinically isolated syndrome or definite MS, follow-up ≥ 1 year, and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score ≥ 3, with ≥1 score recorded per year. Marginal structural models with interaction terms were used to compare the hazards of 12-month confirmed worsening and improvement of disability, and the incidence of relapses between treated and untreated patients stratified by their characteristics., Results: Among 24,344 patients with relapsing MS, those on DMTs experienced 48% reduction in relapse incidence (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.45-0.60), 46% lower risk of disability worsening (HR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.41-0.71), and 32% greater chance of disability improvement (HR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.09-1.59). The effect of DMTs on EDSS worsening and improvement and the risk of relapses was attenuated with more severe disability. The magnitude of the effect of DMT on suppressing relapses declined with higher prior relapse rate and prior cerebral magnetic resonance imaging activity. We did not find any evidence for the effect of age on the effectiveness of DMT. After inclusion of 1985 participants with progressive MS, the effect of DMT on disability mostly depended on MS phenotype, whereas its effect on relapses was driven mainly by prior relapse activity., Conclusions: DMT is generally most effective among patients with lower disability and in relapsing MS phenotypes. There is no evidence of attenuation of the effect of DMT with age., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

Background: In the absence of evidence from randomised controlled trials, observational data can be used to emulate clinical trials and guide clinical decisions. Observational studies are, however, susceptible to confounding and bias. Among the used techniques to reduce indication bias are propensity score matching and marginal structural models., Objective: To use the comparative effectiveness of fingolimod vs natalizumab to compare the results obtained with propensity score matching and marginal structural models., Methods: Patients with clinically isolated syndrome or relapsing remitting MS who were treated with either fingolimod or natalizumab were identified in the MSBase registry. Patients were propensity score matched, and inverse probability of treatment weighted at six monthly intervals, using the following variables: age, sex, disability, MS duration, MS course, prior relapses, and prior therapies. Studied outcomes were cumulative hazard of relapse, disability accumulation, and disability improvement., Results: 4608 patients (1659 natalizumab, 2949 fingolimod) fulfilled inclusion criteria, and were propensity score matched or repeatedly reweighed with marginal structural models. Natalizumab treatment was associated with a lower probability of relapse (PS matching: HR 0.67 [95% CI 0.62-0.80]; marginal structural model: 0.71 [0.62-0.80]), and higher probability of disability improvement (PS matching: 1.21 [1.02 -1.43]; marginal structural model 1.43 1.19 -1.72]). There was no evidence of a difference in the magnitude of effect between the two methods., Conclusions: The relative effectiveness of two therapies can be efficiently compared by either marginal structural models or propensity score matching when applied in clearly defined clinical contexts and in sufficiently powered cohorts.

Background: Timely initiation of disease modifying therapy is crucial for managing multiple sclerosis (MS)., Objective: We aimed to validate a previously published predictive model of individual treatment response using a non-overlapping cohort from the Middle East., Methods: We interrogated the MSBase registry for patients who were not included in the initial model development. These patients had relapsing MS or clinically isolated syndrome, a recorded date of disease onset, disability and dates of disease modifying therapy, with sufficient follow-up pre- and post-baseline. Baseline was the visit at which a new disease modifying therapy was initiated, and which served as the start of the predicted period. The original models were used to translate clinical information into three principal components and to predict probability of relapses, disability worsening or improvement, conversion to secondary progressive MS and treatment discontinuation as well as changes in the area under disability-time curve (ΔAUC). Prediction accuracy was assessed using the criteria published previously., Results: The models performed well for predicting the risk of disability worsening and improvement (accuracy: 81%-96%) and performed moderately well for predicting the risk of relapses (accuracy: 73%-91%). The predictions for ΔAUC and risk of treatment discontinuation were suboptimal (accuracy < 44%). Accuracy for predicting the risk of conversion to secondary progressive MS ranged from 50% to 98%., Conclusion: The previously published models are generalisable to patients with a broad range of baseline characteristics in different geographic regions.

Background: During multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment different modes of action such as lateral (interferon beta to glatiramer acetate or glatiramer acetate to interferon beta) or vertical (interferon beta/glatiramer acetate to fingolimod) drug switch can be performed. This study aims to investigate the clinical effectiveness of switching from the first-line injectable disease modifying treatments (iDMTs) to fingolimod (FNG) compared to switching between first-line iDMTs., Methods: This is a multicenter, observational and retrospective study of patients with relapsing-remitting MS who had lateral and vertical switch. The observation period included three key assessment time points (before the switch, at switch, and after the switch). Data were collected from the MS patients' database by neurologists between January 2018 and June 2019. The longest follow-up period of the patients was determined as 24 months after the switch., Results: In 462 MS patients that were included in the study, both treatments significantly decreased the number of relapses during the postswitch 12 months versus preswitch one year while patients in the FNG group experienced significantly fewer relapses compared to iDMT cohort in the postswitch 12 months period. FNG cohort experienced fewer relapses than in the iDMT cohort within the postswitch 2 year. The mean time to first relapse after the switch was significantly longer in the FNG group., Discussion: The present study revealed superior effectiveness of vertical switch over lateral switch regarding the improvement in relapse outcomes. Patients in the FNG cohort experienced sustainably fewer relapses during the follow-up period after the switch compared the iDMT cohort. Importantly, switching to FNG was more effective in delaying time to first relapse when compared with iDMTs.

Background: Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the central nervous system (CNS) that may lead to progressive disability. Here, we explored the behavioral pattern and the role of vasculature especially PDGFRB+ pericytes/ perivascular cells, in MS pathogenesis., Methods: We have evaluated vascular changes in two different experimental allergic encephalomyelitis (EAE) mice models (MOG and PLP-induced). PDGFRB+ cells demonstrated distinct and different behavioral patterns. In both models, fibrosis formation was detected via collagen, fibronectin, and extracellular matrix accumulation., Results: The PLP-induced animal model revealed that fibrosis predominantly occurs in perivascular locations and that PDGFRB+ cells are accumulated around vessels. Also, the expression of fibrotic genes and genes coding extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins are upregulated. Moreover, the perivascular thick wall structures in affected vessels of this model presented primarily increased PDGFRB+ cells but not NG2+ cells in the transgenic NG2-DsRed transgenic animal model. On the other hand, in MOG induced model, PDGFRB+ perivascular cells were accumulated at the lesion sites. PDGFRB+ cells colocalized with ECM proteins (collagen, fibronectin, and lysyl oxidase L3). Nevertheless, both MOG and PLP-immunized mice showed increasing EAE severity, and disability parallel with enhanced perivascular cell accumulation as the disease progressed from earlier (day 15) to later (day 40)., Conclusion: As a result, we have concluded that PDGFRB+ perivascular cells may be participating in lesion progression and as well as demonstrating different responses in different EAE models., Competing Interests: Declartion of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the experiences of patients aged 18-24 years who were diagnosed with multiple sclerosis before the age of eighteen, during the transition from pediatric care to adult care., Methods: This research was in the type of phenomenological qualitative research. Focus group interviews were conducted between December 2020 and October 2021 with seventeen participants who had been diagnosed with multiple before the age of eighteen, aged 18-24, voluntarily having agreed to participate in the study. The views of the participants were analyzed with Maxqda Plus v10 data analysis software, and thematic coding was created by the researchers., Results: Of the participants, 58.9% were female, 76.5% had their first attack after the age of 13, and it was determined that 64.7% of them took oral tablets for therapeutic purposes. As a result of the content analysis; four thematic codes emerged: (a) Perceptions of the Illness and Pediatric Clinic Before Transition, (b) Perceptions of the Disease and Adult Clinic After Transition to the Adult Clinic, (c) Expectations from the Clinic They Received Service from During Their Childhood, (d) Expectations from the Clinic They Used in Adulthood., Conclusion: This study revealed that individuals with multiple sclerosis did not receive any medical care regarding the transition from pediatric clinics to adult clinics. Describing the experiences of young adult patients with multiple sclerosis in pediatric clinics and their experiences in the transition to adult clinics allows for the definition of comprehensive, individualized and transitional nursing interventions., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: To compare the effectiveness and treatment persistence of ocrelizumab, cladribine and natalizumab in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis switching from fingolimod., Methods: Using data from MSBase registry, this multicentre cohort study included subjects who had used fingolimod for ≥6 months and then switched to ocrelizumab, cladribine or natalizumab within 3 months after fingolimod discontinuation. We analysed relapse and disability outcomes after balancing covariates using an inverse-probability-treatment-weighting method. Propensity scores for the three treatments were obtained using multinomial-logistic regression. Due to the smaller number of cladribine users, comparisons of disability outcomes were limited to natalizumab and ocrelizumab., Results: Overall, 1045 patients switched to ocrelizumab (n=445), cladribine (n=76) or natalizumab (n=524) after fingolimod. The annualised relapse rate (ARR) for ocrelizumab was 0.07, natalizumab 0.11 and cladribine 0.25. Compared with natalizumab, the ARR ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 0.67 (0.47 to 0.96) for ocrelizumab and 2.31 (1.30 to 4.10) for cladribine; the hazard ratio (95% CI) for time to first relapse was 0.57 (0.40 to 0.83) for ocrelizumab and 1.18 (0.47 to 2.93) for cladribine. Ocrelizumab users had an 89% lower discontinuation rate (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.20) than natalizumab, but also a 51% lower probability of confirmed disability improvement (95% CI, 0.32 to 0.73). There was no difference in disability accumulation., Conclusion: After fingolimod cessation, ocrelizumab and natalizumab were more effective in reducing relapses than cladribine. Due to the low ARRs in all three treatment groups, additional observation time is required to determine if statistical difference in ARRs results in long-term disability differences., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CZ, OS, RM, AP, JK, MO, RK, SO, DM, IR and ZZ report no disclosures. VJ received conference travel support from Merck and Roche and speaker’s honoraria from Biogen and Roche outside of the submitted work. She receives research support from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Grant and MS Research Australia. MB received conference travel support from Biogen and Novartis. His institution has received research support from Biogen, Merck and Novartis. TK 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. JL-S received travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Roche and Merck. Her institution receives the honoraria for talks and advisory board commitment and research grants from Biogen, Merck, Roche, TEVA and Novartis. SJK received compensation for scientific advisory board activity from Merck and Roche. SH received honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis, Bayer Schering and Sanofi, and travel grants from Novartis, Biogen Idec and Bayer Schering. MS participated in, but not received honoraria for, advisory board activity for Biogen, Merck, Bayer Schering, Sanofi Aventis and Novartis. AvdW 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 also received grant support from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and MS Research Australia. VVP has 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 and Novartis Pharma. JP received travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Genzyme and Teva, and speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme and Teva. 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 Ministry of Education. EKH received honoraria/research support from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche and Teva. GI received speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Roche, Almirall and Teva. FP received speaker honoraria and advisory board fees from Almirall, Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and TEVA. He received research funding from Biogen, Merck, FISM (Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla), Reload Onlus Association and University of Catania. 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; he participated in Sanofi Aventis, Roche and Novartis clinical trials. MM has served on advisory board for Merck, has received speaker honoraria from Merck and Biogen. Her institution receives funding from Merck, Australian National Health Medical Research Council, Brain Foundation, Charles and Sylvia Viertel Foundation, Bethlehem Griffith Foundation and MS Research Australia. 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., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Combined central and peripheral demyelination (CCPD) is a rare entity in which central and peripheral nervous system demyelination coexist. Herein, we present a patient with coexistence of Sjögren syndrome (SS) and CCPD., Case Report: A 58-year-old female patient was admitted to our neurology clinic with paraparesis, difficulty walking, imbalance, and paresthesia. Neurological examination showed paraparesis, absence of lower extremity deep tendon reflex, sensory deficit at the T8 level, loss of deep sensory position, and vibration. Spinal magnetic resonance imaging revealed multiple focal T2-hyperintense and contrast-enhancing cord lesions. Fat-suppressed imaging disclosed T2 hyperintensity in lumbar nerve roots, diffuse linear enhancement of the cauda equina, and diffuse increased enhancement in lumbar nerve roots. Electrodiagnostic findings fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Extensive laboratory workup excluded all possible pathologies. The Schirmer test detected positive in both eyes and minor salivary gland biopsy resulted in grade 3. These results were consistent with SS. The patient received intravenous methylprednisolone, azathioprine hydroxychloroquine. Approximately 2 years later, her complaints had completely disappeared, except for mild sensory complaints., Conclusion: It is unclear whether the association of central nervous system and peripheral nervous system demyelination and SS is a coincidence or a consequence. Our patient shows that patients with SS can have CCPD, and a significant clinical response can be obtained with early treatment. We hope that this unique case sheds light on the pathophysiology of CCPD., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)