Search

Background Relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) is an incurable disease characterised by relapses (periods of function loss) followed by full or partial recovery, and potential permanent disability over time. Many disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) exist that help reduce relapses and slow disease progression. Most are contraindicated during conception/pregnancy and some require a discontinuation period before trying to conceive. Although around three-quarters of people with RRMS are women, there is limited knowledge about how reproductive issues impact DMT preference. Objective The aim of this study was to measure the preferences for DMTs of women with RRMS who are considering pregnancy. Design An online discrete choice experiment (DCE). Methods Participants chose between two hypothetical DMTs characterised by a set of attributes, then indicated if they preferred their choice to no treatment. Attributes were identified from interviews and focus groups with people with RRMS and MS professionals, as well as literature reviews, and included the probability of problems with pregnancy, discontinuation of DMTs, and breastfeeding safety. In each DCE task, participants were asked to imagine making decisions in three scenarios: now; when trying to conceive; and when pregnant. Analysis Two mixed logit models were estimated, one to assess the statistical significance between scenarios and one in maximum acceptable risk space to allow comparison of the magnitudes of parameters between scenarios. Sample Women with RRMS who were considering having a child in the future, recruited from a UK MS patient register. Results Sixty respondents completed the survey. Participants preferred no treatment in 12.6% of choices in the ‘now’ scenario, rising significantly to 37.6% in the ‘trying to conceive’ scenario and 60.3% in the ‘pregnant’ scenario (Kruskal–Wallis p

Altres ajuts: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The workshop on which the manuscript is based was supported in its entirety by the European Committee on Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). The natural history of multiple sclerosis (MS) is highly heterogeneous. A subgroup of patients has what might be termed aggressive MS. These patients may have frequent, severe relapses with incomplete recovery and are at risk of developing greater and permanent disability at the earlier stages of the disease. Their therapeutic window of opportunity may be narrow, and while it is generally considered that they will benefit from starting early with a highly efficacious treatment, a unified definition of aggressive MS does not exist and data on its treatment are largely lacking. Based on discussions at an international focused workshop sponsored by the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS), we review our current knowledge about treatment of individuals with aggressive MS. We analyse the available evidence, identify gaps in knowledge and suggest future research needed to fill those gaps. A companion paper details the difficulties in developing a consensus about what defines aggressive MS.

Altres ajuts: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: The workshop on which the manuscript is based was supported in its entirety by the European Committee on Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). While the major phenotypes of multiple sclerosis (MS) and relapsing-remitting, primary and secondary progressive MS have been well characterized, a subgroup of patients with an active, aggressive disease course and rapid disability accumulation remains difficult to define and there is no consensus about their management and treatment. The current lack of an accepted definition and treatment guidelines for aggressive MS triggered a 2018 focused workshop of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) on aggressive MS. The aim of the workshop was to discuss approaches on how to describe and define the disease phenotype and its treatments. Unfortunately, it was not possible to come to consensus on a definition because of unavailable data correlating severe disease with imaging and molecular biomarkers. However, the workshop highlighted the need for future research needed to define this disease subtype while also focusing on its treatment and management. Here, we review previous attempts to define aggressive MS and present characteristics that might, with additional research, eventually help characterize it. A companion paper summarizes data regarding treatment and management.

BACKGROUND: No treatments have been approved for primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Fingolimod, an oral sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulator, is effective in relapse-onset multiple sclerosis, but has not been assessed in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. We assessed the safety and efficacy of fingolimod in patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis. METHODS: In INFORMS, a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group study, patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis recruited across 148 centres in 18 countries were randomly allocated (1:1) with computer-generated blocks to receive oral fingolimod or placebo for at least 36 months and a maximum of 5 years. Patients were initially assigned to fingolimod 1·25 mg per day or placebo (cohort 1); however, after a protocol amendment on Nov 19, 2009, patients were switched in a masked manner to fingolimod 0·5 mg, whereas those on placebo continued on matching placebo. From then onwards, patients were assigned to receive fingolimod 0·5 mg/day or placebo (cohort 2). Key inclusion criteria were age 25-65 years, clinical diagnosis of primary progressive multiple sclerosis, 1 year or more of disease progression, and two of the following criteria: positive brain MRI; positive spinal cord MRI; or positive cerebrospinal fluid. Additional eligibility criteria included disease duration of 2-10 years and objective evidence of disability progression in the previous 2 years. Patients and study investigators were masked to group assignment. We used a novel primary composite endpoint based on change from baseline in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), 25' Timed-Walk Test, or Nine-Hole Peg Test to assess time to 3-month confirmed disability progression in study participants treated for at least 3 years. All randomised patients took at least one dose of study drug. The primary efficacy analysis included all patients in cohort 2 and those assigned to placebo in cohort 1. The safety analysis included all patients in cohorts 1 and 2. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00731692. The study is now closed. FINDINGS: 970 patients were randomly assigned between Sept 3, 2008, and Aug 30, 2011 (147 to fingolimod 1·25 mg and 133 to placebo in cohort 1; 336 to fingolimod 0·5 mg and 354 to placebo in cohort 2). The efficacy analysis set (n=823) consisted of 336 patients randomly allocated to fingolimod 0·5 mg and 487 to placebo. Baseline characteristics were similar across groups and representative of a primary progressive multiple sclerosis population (48% women, mean age 48·5 years [SD 8·4], mean EDSS 4·67 [SD 1·03], 87% free of gadolinium-enhancing lesions). By end of study, 3-month confirmed disability progression had occurred in 232 and 338 patients in the fingolimod and placebo groups, respectively, resulting in Kaplan-Meier estimates of 77·2% (95% CI 71·87-82·51) of patients in the fingolimod group versus 80·3% (73·31-87·25) of patients in the placebo group (risk reduction 5·05%; hazard ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·80-1·12; p=0·544). Safety results were generally consistent with those of studies of fingolimod in patients with relapse-onset multiple sclerosis. Lymphopenia occurred in 19 (6%) patients in the fingolimod group versus none in the placebo group, bradycardia in five (1%) versus one (

The influence of gonadal hormones on multiple sclerosis (MS) is not well characterized and has thus far been investigated primarily in animal models or as a proposed therapeutic approach. We investigated a potential association between testicular hypofunction, as a proxy for low testosterone levels, and MS risk through analysis of linked English national Hospital Episode Statistics from 1999 to 2011. We report a strong positive association between testicular hypofunction and subsequent MS (rate ratio = 4.62, 95% confidence interval = 2.3-8.24, p < 0.0001). Future work should aim more directly to elucidate the relationship between testosterone levels and MS in both males and females.

In 2006, Zamboni reintroduced the concept that chronic impaired venous outflow of the central nervous system is associated with multiple sclerosis (MS), coining the term of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency ('CCSVI'). The diagnosis of 'CCSVI' is based on sonographic criteria, which he found exclusively fulfilled in MS. The concept proposes that chronic venous outflow failure is associated with venous reflux and congestion and leads to iron deposition, thereby inducing neuroinflammation and degeneration. The revival of this concept has generated major interest in media and patient groups, mainly driven by the hope that endovascular treatment of 'CCSVI' could alleviate MS. Many investigators tried to replicate Zamboni's results with duplex sonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and catheter angiography. The data obtained here do generally not support the 'CCSVI' concept. Moreover, there are no methodologically adequate studies to prove or disprove beneficial effects of endovascular treatment in MS. This review not only gives a comprehensive overview of the methodological flaws and pathophysiologic implausibility of the 'CCSVI' concept, but also summarizes the multimodality diagnostic validation studies and open-label trials of endovascular treatment. In our view, there is currently no basis to diagnose or treat 'CCSVI' in the care of MS patients, outside of the setting of scientific research.