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.

Introduction Behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is a neurodegenerative disorder often neuropathologically associated with the accumulation of abnormally hyperphosphorylated tau, for which there is currently no disease-modifying treatment. Previous work by our group has shown sodium selenate upregulates the activity of protein phosphatase 2 in the brain, increasing the rate of tau dephosphorylation. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sodium selenate as a disease-modifying treatment for bvFTD.Methods and analysis This will be a multisite, phase IIb, double-blind placebo-controlled trial of sodium selenate. One hundred and twenty participants will be enrolled across 4 Australian academic hospitals. Following screening eligible participants will be randomised (1:1) to sodium selenate (15 mg three times a day) or placebo for 52 weeks. Participants will have regular safety and efficacy visits throughout the study period. The primary study outcome will be percentage brain volume change (PBVC) as measured on MRI over 52 weeks of treatment. This will be analysed with a general linear model (analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)) with the PBVC as an output, the treatment as an input and the baseline brain volume as covariate for adjustment purposes. Secondary outcomes include safety and tolerability measures, and efficacy measures; change in cerebrospinal fluid total-tau, Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination-III and Cambridge Behavioural Inventory-Revised scores over the 52 weeks of treatment. These will also be analysed with ANCOVA where the corresponding baseline measure will be incorporated in the model. Additional exploratory outcomes will include other imaging, cognitive and biospecimen analyses.Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the Human Research and Ethics Committee of the lead site as part of the Australian Multisite Ethics approval system. The results of the study will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number ACTRN12620000236998 .

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

Background: Cognitive impairment is one of the most common and debilitating symptoms of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Digital cognitive biomarkers require less time and resources and are rapidly gaining popularity in clinical settings. We examined the longitudinal trajectory of the iPad-based Processing Speed Test (PST) and predictors of PST scores., Methods: We prospectively enrolled RRMS patients between 2017 and 2021 across six Australian MS centres. Longitudinal data was analysed with mixed effect modelling and latent class mixed models. We then examined whether latent class group membership predicted confirmed decrease in correct PST responses., Results: We recruited a total of 1093 participants, of which 724 had complete baseline data with a median follow up duration of 2 years. At a population level, PST trajectory was stable. A small practice effect was present up to the 4th visit. Age, baseline disability, T2 lesion volume, male sex and depression were associated with lower correct PST responses, whilst years of education and full/part-time employment were associated with more correct PST responses. We identified four latent class trajectories of PST. The worst latent class was typified by low baseline PST and lack of a practice effect. Being in the worst latent class was associated with a greater hazard of time to sustained 5% decrease in PST (HR 2.84, 95% CI 1.16-6.94, p = 0.02)., Conclusion: Worse baseline cognitive performance and lack of a practice effect predicted future cognitive decline in RRMS., (© 2025 The Author(s). Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Neurological Association.)

Introduction: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory demyelinating and degenerative disease of the central nervous system. There were 33 335 people with MS in Australia in 2021 and 2917 in New Zealand in 2006 and the prevalence and incidence are increasing with time. Although new treatments have substantially improved outcomes in recent decades, the treatment landscape has become increasingly complex due to the expanding number of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) and associated safety considerations., Main Recommendations: A total of 80 consensus recommendations were developed on the current best-practice management of MS in Australia and New Zealand. Part 1 of these guidelines outlines the consensus recommendations covering domains including DMT counselling and selection, pre-DMT assessments, monitoring disease activity on DMT, switching DMT, and discontinuing DMT. The remaining recommendations are outlined in Part 2, encompassing risk mitigation strategies during treatment with DMT, managing DMT in special situations (including pregnancy, postpartum, breastfeeding, active infection including COVID-19, and malignancy), general lifestyle measures, acute MS relapses, and symptomatic treatments for MS., Changes in Management as a Result of the Guidelines: This two-part position statement provides a practical resource for clinicians on current best-practice consensus recommendations for managing adults (≥ 18 years old) with MS in the Australian and New Zealand health care settings. It outlines the 14 DMTs currently available through the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and eight through the New Zealand Pharmaceutical Schedule, including the unique efficacy, safety and monitoring considerations of each. Through these guidelines, we aim to support safe, timely and effective management of patients with MS in Australia and New Zealand., (© 2025 AMPCo Pty Ltd.)

Introduction: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory and neurodegenerative disease of the central nervous system with rapidly evolving treatment options and strategies. An iterative modified Delphi process was used to develop 80 consensus recommendations for the management of MS in Australia and New Zealand. Part 1 of these guidelines includes recommendations related to selection of initial disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for MS, assessments before commencing DMT, monitoring disease activity on DMT, switching DMT, and discontinuing DMT., Main Recommendations: This article, Part 2, covers recommendations related to risk mitigation during treatment with DMT, managing DMT in special situations (including pregnancy, postpartum, breastfeeding, active infection including COVID-19, and malignancy), general lifestyle measures for MS, acute MS relapses, and symptomatic treatments., Changes in Management as a Result of the Guidelines: Together with Part 1, this consensus statement provides practical guidance for clinicians involved in the care of adults (≥ 18 years old) with MS in Australia and New Zealand. A safe, effective and comprehensive approach to managing MS is crucial for improving long term outcomes and quality of life in individuals affected by MS., (© 2025 AMPCo Pty Ltd.)

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

Background and Objectives: Available disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) are rapidly expanding; although escalation approaches aim to balance safety and efficacy, emerging evidence suggests superior outcomes for people with MS who are exposed to early high-efficacy therapies. We aimed to explore practice differences in prevailing management strategies for relapsing-remitting MS., Methods: We used a worldwide electronic survey launched by the Practice Current section of Neurology® Clinical Practice . Questions pertained to a case of a 37-year-old woman presenting with optic neuritis. Respondents were asked to indicate their initial investigations, relapse management strategy, choice of disease-modifying therapy, and plan for follow-up imaging (contrast/noncontrast). Survey responses were stratified by key demographic variables along with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs)., Results: We received 153 responses from 42 countries; 32.3% responders identified as MS specialists. There was a strong preference for intravenous delivery of high-dose corticosteroids (87.7%, 95% CI 80.7-92.5), and most of the responders (61.3%, 95% CI 52.6-69.4) indicated they would treat a nondisabling (mild sensory) MS relapse. When asked to select a single initial DMT, 56.6% (95% CI 47.6-65.1) selected a high-efficacy therapy (67.5% MS specialists vs 53.7% non-MS specialists). The most selected agents overall were fingolimod (14.7%), natalizumab (15.5%), and dimethyl fumarate (20.9%). Two-thirds of respondents indicated they would request contrast-enhanced surveillance MRI., Discussion: Although there is a slight preference for initiating high-efficacy DMT at the time of initial MS diagnosis, opinions regarding the most appropriate treatment paradigm remain divided., Competing Interests: J.I. Roberts has received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from Novartis and EMD Serono; A. Ganesh reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript; L. Bartolini reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript; T. Kalincik served on scientific advisory boards for MS International Federation and World Health Organisation, BMS, Roche, Janssen, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Merck and Biogen, steering committee for Brain Atrophy Initiative by Sanofi Genzyme, received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL and Merck and received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene and Merck. Full disclosure form information provided by the authors is available with the full text of this article at Neurology.org/cp., (© 2024 American Academy of Neurology.)

Background: Upper limb dysfunction is a common debilitating feature of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). We aimed to examine the longitudinal trajectory of the iPad®-based Manual Dexterity Test (MDT) and predictors of change over time., Methods: We prospectively enrolled RRMS patients (limited to Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) < 4). Longitudinal data was analysed using mixed-effect modelling and latent class mixed models. We then examined whether group membership in latent classes predicted confirmed slowing in MDT., Results: Seven hundred and twenty-one participants had complete data for analysis. At a population level, MDT remained stable over time. No practice effect was seen. Baseline disability and T2 lesion volume were the strongest predictors of longitudinal MDT performance. We identified two latent class trajectories of MDT. The slower latent class was typified by greater variability and a weak association with confirmed worsening of MDT and EDSS. When compared to trajectory analysis stratified by baseline MDT, latent class analysis (LCA) was able to identify those at greater risk of confirmed slowing, signifying the importance of latent processes in upper limb function in pwMS., Conclusion: In this cohort of mild to moderate RRMS, MDT scores remained stable over time with no evidence of a practice effect at a population level. Trajectory analysis based on LCA identified a cohort with greater variability and risk of disability progression and domain specific worsening. Our findings demonstrate the importance of latent processes in determining upper limb function in pwMS., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

Objectives: In aquaporin-4 antibody-positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (AQP4-IgG NMOSD), disability accrual is mostly attributed to relapses. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA) and relapse-associated worsening (RAW) in AQP4-IgG NMOSD., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with AQP4-IgG NMOSD enrolled in the MSBase international data registry. Patients required a minimum of 3 recorded Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores: baseline, event, and a 6-month confirmation score. Presence and absence of relapses between the baseline and event EDSS scores determined RAW and PIRA, respectively. Descriptive statistics were used to present the results., Results: A total of 181 patients followed for a median of 4.5 years (Q1 1.7, Q3 7.8) were included. Most patients were female (88.4%), and the median age at disease onset was 38.1 years. Overall, 4 patients (2.2%) developed 5 incidences of PIRA and 13 patients developed RAW (7.2%)., Discussion: This multicenter study highlights that PIRA is very rare in AQP4-IgG NMOSD. Limitations of this study include the sole focus of overall EDSS to measure disability, lack of requirement for a second EDSS score to confirm baseline EDSS, and the absence of magnetic resonance imaging information for all patients.

Background: Few studies on multiple sclerosis (MS) have explored the variability of percentage brain volume change (PBVC) measurements obtained from different clinical MRIs. In a retrospective multicentre cohort study, we quantified the variability of annualised PBVC in clinical MRIs., Methods: Clinical MRIs of relapse-onset MS patients were assessed by icobrain. Volumetric data were analysed on same-scanner and different-scanner MRI pairs if they passed quality control criteria. Alignment similarity between two images had to be comparable to same-scanner scan-rescan images., Results: Of 6826 MRIs, 85 % had appropriate volumetric sequences and 4446 serial MRI pairs were analysed. 3334 (75 %) MRI pairs from 1207 patients met the inclusions. The PBVC of included MRI pairs showed variance of 0.78 % for same-scanner pairs and 0.80 % for different-scanner pairs. Further selection of included MRI pairs with the best variance resulted in 1885 (42 %) MRI pairs with PBVC variance of 0.34 %. Excluded MRI pairs with poor alignment similarity had variances of 2.97 % for same-scanner pairs and 20.79 % for different-scanner pairs., Conclusion: Icobrain should be utilised for PBVC determination only on selected MRIs with the best alignment similarity. Applying strict selection criteria for the included MRI pairs and longitudinal imaging on the same scanner remain mandatory to reduce PBVC variability., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Wim Van Hecke reports a relationship with Icometrix NV that includes: board membership and equity or stocks. Diana M. Sima reports a relationship with Icometrix NV that includes: employment. Guy Nagels reports a relationship with Icometrix NV that includes: consulting or advisory and equity or stocks. Femke Podevyn reports a relationship with Icometrix NV that includes: employment. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

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: Spinal cord lesions in multiple sclerosis (MS) have considerable impact on disability. High-efficacy disease-modifying treatments (hDMTs) are associated with greater reduction of relapses and new brain lesions compared to low-efficacy treatments (lDMTs). Knowledge on the impact of DMTs on cord lesion formation is limited as these outcome measures were not included in MS treatment trials. This study aims to investigate whether hDMTs reduce the formation of cord lesions more effectively than lDMTs., Methods: Patients with relapse-onset MS, a cord magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within 6 months before/after initiation of their first DMT and ≥1 cord MRI at follow-up (interval > 6 months) were extracted from the MSBase registry (ACTRN12605000455662). Patients treated with hDMTs ≥90% or lDMTs ≥90% of follow-up duration were considered the hDMT and lDMT groups, respectively. Matching was performed using propensity scores. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazards of new cord lesions, brain lesions and relapses., Results: Ninety-four and 783 satisfied hDMT and lDMT group criteria, respectively. Seventy-seven hDMT patients were matched to 184 lDMT patients. In the hDMT group there was no evidence of reduction of new cord lesions (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99 [95% CI 0.51, 1.92], p = 0.97), while there were fewer new brain lesions (HR 0.22 [95% CI 0.10, 0.49], p < 0.001) and fewer relapses (HR 0.45 [95% CI 0.28, 0.72], p = 0.004)., Conclusion: A potential discrepancy exists in the effect of hDMTs over lDMTs in preventing spinal cord lesions versus brain lesions and relapses. While hDMTs provided a significant reduction for the latter when compared to lDMTs, there was no significant reduction in new spinal cord lesions., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

B-cell depleting therapies are frequently used as high efficacy treatments for multiple sclerosis (MS). We will elaborate on current data and future perspectives of one of the most studied anti-CD20 therapies concerning personalization. Currently, multiple randomized controlled trails are recruiting patients, with three different treatment strategies concerning the dose or the dosing interval of ocrelizumab. These strategies involve higher dosing, B-cell tailored dosing and discontinuation of ocrelizumab. We propose a roadmap (Figure 1), that will incorporate results of current trials to address the current knowledge gaps in pursuit of a more efficient use of anti-CD20 therapies in MS., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Laura Hogenboom and Zoé L.E. van Kempen declare that there is no conflict of interest. Tomas Kalincik served on scientific advisory boards for MS International Federation and World Health Organisation, BMS, Roche, Janssen, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Merck and Biogen, steering committee for Brain Atrophy Initiative by Sanofi Genzyme, received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL and Merck and received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene and Merck. Amit Bar-Or: received personal fees for advisory board participation and/or consulting from Abata, Accure, Atara Biotherapeutics, Biogen, BMS/Celgene/Receptos, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer, Horizon Therapeutics, Immunic, Janssen/Actelion, Medimmune, Merck/EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Sangamo, Sanofi-Genzyme, Viracta; and grant support to the University of Pennsylvania from Biogen Idec, Roche/Genentech, Merck/EMD Serono and Novartis. J. Killestein: received research grants for multicentre investigator initiated trials DOT-MS trial, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04260711 (ZonMW) and BLOOMS trial (ZonMW and Treatmeds), ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05296161); received consulting fees for F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Biogen, Teva, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi/Genzyme (all payments to institution); reports speaker relationships with F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Biogen, Immunic, Teva, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi/Genzyme (all payments to institution); adjudication committee of MS clinical trials of Immunic (payments to institution only)., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: People with neurodegenerative disorders (ND) frequently face diagnostic delay and misdiagnosis. We investigated blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) neurofilament light chain (NfL) to distinguish ND from primary psychiatric disorders (PPD), a common challenge in clinical settings., Methods: Plasma and CSF NfL levels were measured and compared between groups, adjusting for age, sex, and weight., Results: A total of 337 participants were included: 136 ND, 77 PPD, and 124 Controls. Plasma NfL was 2.5-fold elevated in ND compared to PPD and had strong diagnostic performance (area under the curve, [AUC]: 0.86, 81%/85% specificity/sensitivity) that was comparable to CSF NfL (2-fold elevated, AUC: 0.89, 95%/71% specificity/sensitivity). Diagnostic performance was especially strong in younger people (40- < 60 years). Additional findings were cutoffs optimized for sensitivity and specificity, and issues important for future clinical translation., Conclusions: This study adds important evidence for a simple blood-based biomarker to assist as a screening test for neurodegeneration and distinction from PPD, in clinical settings., Highlights: NfL levels were significantly higher in ND versus PPD. Plasma NfL showed strong diagnostic performance, comparable to CSF NfL, to distinguish ND from PPD. Diagnostic performance was higher in younger people, where diagnostic challenges are greater. Further research is needed on analytical and reference range factors, for clinical translation. These findings support a simple screening blood test for neurodegeneration., (© 2024 The Author(s). Alzheimer's & Dementia published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Alzheimer's Association.)

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: We sought to identify an optimal oral corticosteroid regimen at the onset of myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disease (MOGAD), which would delay time to first relapse while minimising cumulative corticosteroid exposure., Methods: In a retrospective multicentre cohort study, Cox proportional hazards models examined the relationship between corticosteroid course as a time-varying covariate and time to first relapse. Simon-Makuch and Kaplan-Meier plots identified an optimal dosing strategy., Results: We evaluated 109 patients (62 female, 57%; 41 paediatric, 38%; median age at onset 26 years, (IQR 8-38); median follow-up 6.2 years (IQR 2.6-9.6)). 76/109 (70%) experienced a relapse (median time to first relapse 13.7 months; 95% CI 8.2 to 37.9). In a multivariable model, higher doses of oral prednisone delayed time to first relapse with an effect estimate of 3.7% (95% CI 0.8% to 6.6%; p = 0.014) reduced hazard of relapse for every 1 mg/day dose increment. There was evidence of reduced hazard of relapse for patients dosed ≥12.5 mg/day (HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.6; p = 0.0036), corresponding to a 79% reduction in relapse risk. There was evidence of reduced hazard of relapse for those dosed ≥12.5 mg/day for at least 3 months (HR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.44; p = 0.0012), corresponding to an 88% reduction in relapse risk compared with those never treated in this range. No patient with this recommended dosing at onset experienced a Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade >3 adverse effect., Conclusions: The optimal dose of 12.5 mg of prednisone daily in adults (0.16 mg/kg/day for children) for a minimum of 3 months at the onset of MOGAD delays time to first relapse., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BPT receives a University of Sydney postgraduate scholarship and a stipend from CIA Ramanathan’s Royal Australasian College of Physicians Research Establishment Fellowship. RCD has received research funding from the Star Scientific Foundation, The Trish Multiple Sclerosis Research Foundation, Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia, the Petre Foundation and the NHMRC (Australia; Investigator Grant). He has also received honoraria from Biogen Idec as an invited speaker, and is on the IDMC for a Roche RCT in paediatric MS. He is on the medical advisory board (non-remunerated position). TAH has received research funding from MS Australia, the NHMRC Medical Research Future Fund (Australia), the Brain Foundation and has received honoraria for talks, advisory boards or support for scientific meetings from Bayer-Schering, Novartis, Biogen Idec, Merck, Teva, Alexion, Bristol Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Genzyme. AVDW receives funding from MS Australia, the NHMRC and the Trish Foundation. She has received research support from Roche pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Novartis and Merck. She has received honoraria for talks, advisory boards, and travel support from Novartis and Merck. She serves as the COO of the MSBase Foundation. JLS received travel compensation from Biogen, Merck, Novartis; has been involved in clinical trials with Biogen, Novartis, Roche; her institution has received honoraria for talks and advisory board service from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche. She is on the board of directors for MSPlus. HB has received institutional compensation (To Monash University) for advisory board or trial steering committee membership or speaker bureaus from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and UCB Pharma. Institutional Research Support to Monash University or MSBase Foundation from Merck, Biogen, Roche, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Alexion, Teva, NMHRC (Australia), MRFF (Australia), MS Australia, TRISH MS Research Foundation, Pennycook Foundation and Monash University. SAB has received honoraria for attendance at advisory boards and travel sponsorship from Bayer-Schering, Biogen-Idec, Merck-Serono, Novartis, and Sanofi-Genzyme, has received speaker’s honoraria from Biogen-Idec and Genzyme, is an investigator in clinical trials sponsored by Biogen Idec, Novartis and Genzyme, and was the recipient of an unencumbered research grant from Biogen-Idec. MB received research grants from Genzyme-Sanofi, Novartis, Biogen, Merck and BMS; and is a Research Consultant for RxMx and Research Director for the Sydney Neuroimaging Analysis Centre. He is on the board of the Research Management Council of MS Australia, or the Trish Foundation Board. SWR has received travel support, honoraria, trial payments, research and clinical support to the neurology department or academic projects from NHMRC, MRFF, NBA, Myasthenia Alliance Australia, Lambert Initiative, Beeren foundation, anonymous donors; and from pharmaceutical / biological companies: Alexion, Biogen, CSL, Genzyme, Grifols, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB. He is cofounder/shareholder of RxPx health, National IVIG Governance Advisory Council & Specialist Working Group Australia (Neurology) (paid), Australian Medical Services Advisory Committee ad hoc subcommittee on IVIG (paid), Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation Varicella Zoster working party (unpaid), Medical advisor (unpaid) to various patient and advocacy groups. Funds over the last 5 years including but not limited to travel support, honoraria, trial payments, research and clinical support to the neurology department or academic projects from: NHMRC, MRFF, NBA, Myasthenia Alliance Australia, Lambert Initiative, Beeren foundation, anonymous donors; and from pharmaceutical/biological companies: Alexion, Biogen, CSL, Genzyme, Grifols, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB. FB has received research funding from NSW Health, MS Australia, the NHMRC (Australia), the Medical Research Future Fund (Australia), The MOG Project (Apollo Grant) and Novartis. She was on an advisory board for Novartis and Merck, and has been an invited speaker for Biogen, Novartis and Limbic Neurology. She is on the medical advisory board (non-remunerated positions) of The MOG Project and the Sumaira Foundation. TK served on scientific advisory boards for MS International Federation and World Health Organisation, BMS, Roche, Janssen, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Merck and Biogen, steering committee for Brain Atrophy Initiative by Sanofi Genzyme, received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL and Merck and received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene and Merck. SR has received research funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, Australia), the Petre Foundation, the Brain Foundation, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and the University of Sydney. She is supported by an NHMRC Investigator Grant (GNT2008339). She serves as a consultant on an advisory board for UCB and Limbic Neurology and has been an invited speaker for educational/research sessions coordinated by Biogen, Alexion, Novartis, Excemed and Limbic Neurology. She is on the medical advisory board (non-remunerated positions) of The MOG Project and the Sumaira Foundation. All other authors have no relevant disclosures., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Newcastle, Australia, has been serially studied for MS epidemiology since 1961, showing consistently increasing prevalence estimates and incidence rates, including to our 2011 study., Objectives: To assess the 2011-2021 epidemiology of MS in Newcastle and to compare with previous measures., Methods: Demographic and clinical data were extracted from medical records of MS cases residing in Newcastle, as identified by public and private clinicians. Prevalence (2011 and 2021) and incidence rates (2011-2021, from onset and from diagnosis) and mortality rate (2011-2021) were estimated and age-standardised to the 2021 Australian population., Results: The 2021 prevalence was 173.1/100,000 (age-standardised = 178.7/100,000, F/M-sex-ratio = 3.3), a 42.2 % increase from 2011 (F/M-sex-ratio = 3.1), 175.0 % from 1996 (F/M-sex-ratio = 2.6), and 831.0 % from 1961 (F/M-sex-ratio = 1.2). The 2011-21 age-standardised onset incidence rate was 3.5/100,000 person-years (F/M-sex-ratio = 2.8), a 68.7 % increase from 1971 to 81 (F/M-sex-ratio = 1.1) and 44.5 % from 1986 to 96 (F/M-sex-ratio = 2.3). The age-standardised diagnosis incidence rate was 6.1/100,000 (F/M-sex-ratio = 2.2), statistically unchanged from that in 2001-2011 (6.8/100,000, F/M-sex-ratio = 3.2). The 2011-21 mortality rate was 2.1/100,000 person-years (2.2 age-standardised, F/M-sex-ratio = 1.4), with a standardised mortality ratio of 1.6., Conclusion: The Newcastle region continues to be a high frequency zone for MS. The incidence rate from onset is significantly increased from previous estimates, but incidence rate from diagnosis is stable. Prevalence and incidence sex ratios have stabilised at roughly 3.0, similar to other Australian sites., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest No conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

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

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic raised concern amongst clinicians that disease-modifying therapies (DMT), particularly anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (mAb) and fingolimod, could worsen COVID-19 in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). This study aimed to examine DMT prescribing trends pre- and post-pandemic onset., Methods: A multi-centre longitudinal study with 8,771 participants from MSBase was conducted. Two time periods were defined: pre-pandemic (March 11 2018-March 10 2020) and post-pandemic onset (March 11 2020-11 March 2022). The association between time and prescribing trends was analysed using multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression. DMT initiation refers to first initiation of any DMT, whilst DMT switches indicate changing regimen within 6 months of last use., Results: Post-pandemic onset, there was a significant increase in DMT initiation/switching to natalizumab and cladribine [(Natalizumab-initiation: OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.39-2.13; switching: OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.40-1.98), (Cladribine-initiation: OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.09-1.87; switching: OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.41-1.98)]. Anti-CD20mAb initiation/switching decreased in the year of the pandemic, but recovered in the second year, such that overall odds increased slightly post-pandemic (initiation: OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06-1.49; Switching: OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02-1.29. Initiation/switching of fingolimod, interferon-beta, and alemtuzumab significantly decreased [(Fingolimod-initiation: OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.73; switching: OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.41-0.58), (Interferon-gamma-initiation: OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.41-0.57; switching: OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.99), (Alemtuzumab-initiation: OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15-0.48; switching: OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.17-0.44)]., Conclusions: Post-pandemic onset, clinicians preferentially prescribed natalizumab and cladribine over anti-CD20 mAbs and fingolimod, likely to preserve efficacy but reduce perceived immunosuppressive risks. This could have implications for disease progression in pwMS. Our findings highlight the significance of equitable DMT access globally, and the importance of evidence-based decision-making in global health challenges., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) is a common side-effect of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, with symptoms ranging from mild to occasionally life-threatening. The neurological, cognitive, psychiatric and psychosocial sequelae of ICANS are diverse and not well defined, posing a challenge for diagnosis and management. The recovery trajectory of the syndrome is uncertain. Patients are rarely examined in this population pretherapy, adding a layer of complexity to specifying symptoms pertinent solely to CAR-T treatment. We present a protocol of a prospective longitudinal research study of adult patients in a single Australian haematology service undergoing CAR-T therapy. The study will describe neurocognitive features specific to ICANS, characterise the underlying syndrome, capture recovery, identify predictors of differential postinfusion outcomes and determine a set of cognitive instruments necessary to monitor patients acutely., Methods and Analysis: This is a prospective longitudinal study that comprises neuropsychological and neurological examinations occurring prior to CAR-T, during the acute post-treatment period, 28 days, 6 months and 12 months post infusion. Data will be sourced from objective psychometric measures, clinical examinations, self-report questionnaires of psychopathology and accounts of subjective cognitive complaint., Ethics and Dissemination: This study aims to guide diagnosis, management and monitoring of neurocognitive features of CAR-T cell therapy. Results of this study will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at scientific conferences. All procedures involving human subjects/patients were approved by the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Human Research Ethics Committee (21/145)., Competing Interests: MAA reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Abbvie, Beigene, Takeda, CSL, Novartis, Kite, Gilead and Roche. Employee of the Walter and Eliza Hall institute which receives Milestone payments in relation to venetoclax. CS reports no disclosures. SvdL reports honoraria from Kite. IR served on scientific advisory boards, received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Merck and Biogen. IR is supported by MS Australia and the Trish Multiple Sclerosis Research Foundation. SR reports no disclosures. FD reports no disclosures. SL reports honoraria from Otsuka and Lundbeck. She has received research support from the National Health and Medical Research Council and Royal Melbourne Hospital. MDowling reports honoraria and conference support from Kite and Gilead and honoraria from Novartis. MDowling also receives royalties from Abbvie in relation to venetoclax via the Walter and Eliza Hall institute. MDickinson reports advisory boards, research funding from Novartis, Kite, BMS and Gilead. TK served on scientific advisory boards for MS International Federation and World Health Organisation, BMS, Roche, Janssen, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Merck and Biogen, steering committee for Brain Atrophy Initiative by Sanofi Genzyme, received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL and Merck and received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene and Merck. SJH reports the following disclosures: AbbVie: consultancy, advisory board; Amgen: consultancy, honoraria, advisory board, research funding; Celgene: consultancy, honoraria, advisory board, research funding; CSL Bering: honoraria; GSK: consultancy, research funding, advisory board; Janssen Cilag: consultancy, honoraria, advisory board, research funding; Novartis: consultancy, honoraria, advisory board, research funding; Roche/Genetec: consultancy, honoraria, advisory board; Takeda: consultancy, honoraria, advisory board; Haemalogix: scientific advisory board, research funding; Sanofi: consultancy/advisory role; Terumo: consultancy/advisory role/expert testimony. CM has received conference travel support from Merck, Novartis and Biogen. He has received research support from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Australia, The University of Melbourne, The Royal Melbourne Hospital Neuroscience Foundation and Dementia Australia., (Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Cladribine (Mavenclad®) is an oral treatment for relapsing remitting MS (RRMS), but its mechanism of action and its effects on innate immune responses in unknown. This study is a prospective Phase IV study of 41 patients with RRMS, and aims to investigate the mechanism of action of cladribine on peripheral monocytes, and its impact on the P2X7 receptor. There was a significant reduction in monocyte count in vivo at week 1 post cladribine administration, and the subset of cells being most impacted were the CD14lo CD16+ 'non-classical' monocytes. Of the 14 cytokines measured in serum, CCL2 levels increased at week 1. In vitro, cladrabine induced a reduction in P2X7R pore as well as channel activity. This study demonstrates a novel mechanism of action for cladribine. It calls for studying potential benefits of cladribine in progressive forms of MS and other neurodegenerative diseases where innate immune related inflammation is implicated in disease pathogenesis., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest, (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background and Objective: Autoimmune encephalitis (AE) is often associated with clinically significant memory impairment. This study aimed to evaluate memory in a cross-sectional prospective AE cohort using multiple memory paradigms., Methods: 52 patients (50% seropositive) meeting Graus criteria for possible AE were prospectively recruited between October 2019 and August 202. A comprehensive examination of memory was performed, including tests of supraspan verbal memory (list learning), logicosemantic memory (story learning), figural memory (learning of geometric designs), and verbal associative learning (verbal paired associates). Memory scores were compared to demographically adjusted normative data. Pattern analysis was conducted to assist in the identification of patterns in memory performances., Results: Mean memory scores were not significantly below the normative mean. At an individual patient level, over 20% of the cohort exhibited impaired delayed figural memory, supraspan verbal memory learning and recall. Observed performances were significantly below expected performance for story learning (p = 0.017) and recall (p = 0.003), figural recall (p < 0.0001), initial acquisition (p < 0.001) and final acquisition of a list (p < 0.001) and all delayed recall measures of the list (p < 0.00001). 54.76% of patients exhibited intact psychometrics, and 16 distinct patterns of impairment emerged, indicating variability in memory outcomes., Discussion: While statistical evidence for memory impairment did not emerge at an aggregate level, a proportion of patients present with evidence of abnormal memory performance on psychometrics. Variability in impaired memory measures argues for an individualised patient-focused approach to clinical assessment in AE. Future research should validate these findings with a larger sample size and explore the relationships between memory profiles and other cognitive functions., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Disability progression is a key milestone in the disease evolution of people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). Prediction models of the probability of disability progression have not yet reached the level of trust needed to be adopted in the clinic. A common benchmark to assess model development in multiple sclerosis is also currently lacking., Methods: Data of adult PwMS with a follow-up of at least three years from 146 MS centers, spread over 40 countries and collected by the MSBase consortium was used. With basic inclusion criteria for quality requirements, it represents a total of 15, 240 PwMS. External validation was performed and repeated five times to assess the significance of the results. Transparent Reporting for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines were followed. Confirmed disability progression after two years was predicted, with a confirmation window of six months. Only routinely collected variables were used such as the expanded disability status scale, treatment, relapse information, and MS course. To learn the probability of disability progression, state-of-the-art machine learning models were investigated. The discrimination performance of the models is evaluated with the area under the receiver operator curve (ROC-AUC) and under the precision recall curve (AUC-PR), and their calibration via the Brier score and the expected calibration error. All our preprocessing and model code are available at https://gitlab.com/edebrouwer/ms&#95;benchmark, making this task an ideal benchmark for predicting disability progression in MS., Findings: Machine learning models achieved a ROC-AUC of 0⋅71 ± 0⋅01, an AUC-PR of 0⋅26 ± 0⋅02, a Brier score of 0⋅1 ± 0⋅01 and an expected calibration error of 0⋅07 ± 0⋅04. The history of disability progression was identified as being more predictive for future disability progression than the treatment or relapses history., Conclusions: Good discrimination and calibration performance on an external validation set is achieved, using only routinely collected variables. This suggests machine-learning models can reliably inform clinicians about the future occurrence of progression and are mature for a clinical impact study., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing non-financial interests but the following competing financial interests: - Dana Horakova received speaker honoraria and consulting fees from Biogen, Merck, Teva, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Novartis, as well as support for research activities from Biogen and Czech Minsitry of Education [project Progres Q27/LF1]. - Francesco Patti received speaker honoraria and advisory board fees from Almirall, Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and TEVA. He received research funding from Biogen, Merck, FISM (Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla), Reload Onlus Association and University of Catania. - Guillermo Izquierdo received speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Roche, Almirall and Teva. - Sara Eichau received speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche and Teva. - Marc Girard received consulting fees from Teva Canada Innovation, Biogen, Novartis and Genzyme Sanofi; lecture payments from Teva Canada Innovation, Novartis and EMD. He has also received a research grant from Canadian Institutes of Health Research. - Alessandra Lugaresi has served as a Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/ Genzyme and Teva Advisory Board Member. She received congress and travel/accommodation expense compensations or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck, Mylan, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva and Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla (FISM). Her institutions received research grants from Novartis and Sanofi Genzyme. - Pierre Grammond has served in advisory boards for Novartis, EMD Serono, Roche, Biogen idec, Sanofi Genzyme, Pendopharm and has received grant support from Genzyme and Roche, has received research grants for his institution from Biogen idec, Sanofi Genzyme, EMD Serono. - Tomas Kalincik served on scientific advisory boards for BMS, Roche, Janssen, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Merck and Biogen, steering committee for Brain Atrophy Initiative by Sanofi Genzyme, received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL and Merck and received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene and Merck. - Raed Alroughani received honoraria as a speaker and for serving on scientific advisory boards from Bayer, Biogen, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi-Genzyme. - Francois Grand’Maison received honoraria or research funding from Biogen, Genzyme, Novartis, Teva Neurosciences, Mitsubishi and ONO Pharmaceuticals. - Murat Terzi received travel grants from Novartis, Bayer-Schering, Merck and Teva; has participated in clinical trials by Sanofi Aventis, Roche and Novartis. - Jeannette Lechner-Scott travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Roche and Merck. Her institution receives the honoraria for talks and advisory board commitment as well as research grants from Biogen, Merck, Roche, TEVA and Novartis. - Samia J. Khoury received compensation for participation in the Novartis Maestro program. - Vincent van Pesch has received travel grants from Merck, Biogen, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Almirall and Roche; his institution receives honoraria for consultancy and lectures and research grants from Roche, Biogen, Sanofi, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Almirall and Novartis Pharma. - Radek Ampapa received conference travel support from Novartis, Teva, Biogen, Bayer and Merck and has participated in a clinical trials by Biogen, Novartis, Teva and Actelion. - Daniele Spitaleri received honoraria as a consultant on scientific advisory boards by Bayer-Schering, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis and compensation for travel from Novartis, Biogen, Sanofi Aventis, Teva and Merck. - Claudio Solaro served on scientific advisory boards for Merck, Genzyme, Almirall, and Biogen; received honoraria and travel grants from Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Biogen, Merck, Genzyme and Teva. - Davide Maimone served on scientific advisory boards for Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, Roche, and Almirall; received honoraria and travel grants from Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Biogen, Merck, and Roche. - Gerardo Iuliano (retired - no PI successor but has approved ongoing use of data) had travel/accommodations/meeting expenses funded by Bayer Schering, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi Aventis, and Teva. - Bart Van Wijmeersch received research and travel grants, honoraria for MS-Expert advisor and Speaker fees from Bayer-Schering, Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Teva. - Tamara Castillo Triviño received speaking/consulting fees and/or travel funding from Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva. - Jose Luis Sanchez-Menoyo accepted travel compensation from Novartis, Merck and Biogen, speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Almirall, Bayer and Teva and has participated in clinical trials by Biogen, Merck and Roche - Guy Laureys received travel and/or consultancy compensation from Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, Teva, Merck, Novartis, Celgene, Biogen. - Anneke van der Walt served on advisory boards and receives unrestricted research grants from Novartis, Biogen, Merck and Roche She has received speaker’s honoraria and travel support from Novartis, Roche, and Merck. She receives grant support from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and MS Research Australia. - Jiwon Oh has received research funding from the MS Society of Canada, National MS Society, Brain Canada, Biogen, Roche, EMD Serono (an affiliate of Merck KGaA); and personal compensation for consulting or speaking from Alexion, Biogen, Celgene (BMS), EMD Serono (an affiliate of Merck KGaA), Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme. - Ayse Altintas received speaker honoraria from Merck, Alexion,; received travel and registration grants from Merck, Biogen - Gen Pharma, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme. - Yara Fragoso received honoraria as a consultant on scientific advisory boards by Novartis, Teva, Roche and Sanofi-Aventis and compensation for travel from Novartis, Biogen, Sanofi Aventis, Teva, Roche and Merck. - Tunde Csepany received speaker honoraria/ conference travel support from Bayer Schering, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and Teva. - Suzanne Hodgkinson received honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis, Bayer Schering and Sanofi, and travel grants from Novartis, Biogen Idec and Bayer Schering. - Norma Deri received funding from Bayer, Merck, Biogen, Genzyme and Novartis. - Bruce Taylor received funding for travel and speaker honoraria from Bayer Schering Pharma, CSL Australia, Biogen and Novartis, and has served on advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis, Roche and CSL Australia. - Fraser Moore participated in clinical trials sponsored by EMD Serono and Novartis. - Orla Gray received honoraria as consultant on scientific advisory boards for Genzyme, Biogen, Merck, Roche and Novartis; has received travel grants from Biogen, Merck, Roche and Novartis; has participated in clinical trials by Biogen and Merck. - Csilla Rozsa received speaker honoraria from Bayer Schering, Novartis and Biogen, congress and travel expense compensations from Biogen, Teva, Merck and Bayer Schering. - Allan Kermode received speaker honoraria and scientific advisory board fees from Bayer, BioCSL, Biogen, Genzyme, Innate Immunotherapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, Sanofi-Aventis, and Teva. - Magdolna Simo received speaker honoraria from Novartis, Biogen, Bayer Schering; congress/travel compensation from Teva, Biogen, Merck, Bayer Schering. - Todd Hardy has received speaking fees or received honoraria for serving on advisory boards for Biogen, Merck, Teva, Novartis, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Genzyme, is Co-Editor of Advances in Clinical Neurosciences and Rehabilitation, and serves on the editorial board of Journal of Neuroimmunology and Frontiers in Neurology. - Nikolaos Grigoriadis received honoraria, consultancy/lecture fees, travel support and research grants from Biogen Idec, Biologix, Novartis, TEVA, Bayer, Merck Serono, Genesis Pharma, Sanofi – Genzyme, ROCHE, Cellgene, ELPEN and research grants from Hellenic Ministry of Development., (Copyright: © 2024 De Brouwer et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Natalizumab was not shown to modify disability in progressive multiple sclerosis (MS). This matched observational study compared the effectiveness of autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) with natalizumab in progressive MS., Methods: Patients with primary/secondary progressive MS from seven AHSCT MS centres and the MSBase registry, treated with AHSCT or natalizumab, were matched on a propensity score derived from sex, age, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), number of relapses 12/24 months before baseline, time from MS onset, the most effective prior therapy and country. The pairwise-censored groups were compared on hazards of 6-month confirmed EDSS worsening and improvement, relapses and annualised relapse rates (ARRs), using Andersen-Gill proportional hazards models and conditional negative binomial model., Results: 39 patients treated with AHSCT (37 with secondary progressive MS, mean age 37 years, EDSS 5.7, 28% with recent disability progression, ARR 0.54 during the preceding year) were matched with 65 patients treated with natalizumab. The study found no evidence for difference in hazards of confirmed EDSS worsening (HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.14) and improvement (HR 1.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 10.29) between AHSCT and natalizumab over up to 4 years. The relapse activity was also similar while treated with AHSCT and natalizumab (ARR: mean±SD 0.08±0.28 vs 0.08±0.25; HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.82). In the AHSCT group, 3 patients experienced febrile neutropenia during mobilisation, 9 patients experienced serum sickness, 6 patients required intensive care unit admission and 36 patients experienced complications after discharge. No treatment-related deaths were reported., Conclusion: This study does not support the use of AHSCT to control disability in progressive MS with advanced disability and low relapse activity., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TK served on scientific advisory boards for MS International Federation and WHO, BMS, Roche, Janssen, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Merck and Biogen; steering committee for Brain Atrophy Initiative by Sanofi Genzyme; received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL and Merck; and received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene and Merck. SS has nothing to disclose. IR served on scientific advisory boards/steering committees for Novartis and Merck; and received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Biogen, Teva, Sanofi-Genzyme and Merck. JM served on scientific advisory board for Roche; and received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from Novartis, Biogen, Roche and Merck. IS received compensation for an educational activity from Biogen. BW has nothing to disclose. MSF has nothing to disclose. HA has nothing to disclose. EKH received honoraria/research support from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche and Teva; and has been supported by the Czech Ministry of Education–project Cooperatio LF1, research area Neuroscience and the project National Institute for Neurological Research (Programme EXCELES, ID project no LX22NPO5107)–funded by the European Union-Next Generation EU. EK has nothing to disclose. MT received honoraria from Janssen, Gilead Sciences, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Amgen, AbbVie, Roche, MorphoSys and Novartis; served as an advisor to Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, AbbVie, Amgen, Roche, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MorphoSys and Novartis; and received conference travel support from Gilead Sciences, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Janssen and AbbVie. TK has nothing to disclose. JB has nothing to disclose. RM received compensation for travelling, conference fees and consulting fees from Merck, Teva, Sanofi Genzyme, Biogen Idec, Novartis, Roche, BMS and Celgene. OT received speaker honoraria from and served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, Merck and Novartis. LB received speaker honoraria from Novartis, and consultant fees from Viatris. AKL did not declare any disclosures. BS has nothing to disclose. JS declares honoraria for educational events from Jazz, Gilead and Janssen; for advisory board membership from Medac and Vertex; and for trial IDMC membership from Kiadis Pharma., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Ongoing controversy exists regarding optimal management of disease modifying therapy (DMT) in older people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). There is concern that the lower relapse rate, combined with a higher risk of DMT-related infections and side effects, may alter the risk-benefit balance in older pwMS. Given the lack of pwMS above age 60 in randomised controlled trials, the comparative efficacy of high-efficacy DMTs such as ocrelizumab has not been shown in older pwMS. We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of ocrelizumab, a high-efficacy DMT, versus interferon/glatiramer acetate (IFN/GA) in pwMS over the age of 60., Methods: Using data from MSBase registry, this multicentre cohort study included pwMS above 60 who switched to or started on ocrelizumab or IFN/GA. We analysed relapse and disability outcomes after balancing covariates using an inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) method. Propensity scores were obtained based on age, country, disease duration, sex, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale, prior relapses (all-time, 12 months and 24 months) and prior DMT exposure (overall number and high-efficacy DMTs). After weighting, all covariates were balanced. Primary outcomes were time to first relapse and annualised relapse rate (ARR). Secondary outcomes were 6-month confirmed disability progression (CDP) and confirmed disability improvement (CDI)., Results: A total of 248 participants received ocrelizumab, while 427 received IFN/GA. The IPTW-weighted ARR for ocrelizumab was 0.01 and 0.08 for IFN/GA. The IPTW-weighted ARR ratio was 0.15 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.33, p<0.001) for ocrelizumab compared with IFN/GA. On IPTW-weighted Cox regression models, HR for time to first relapse was 0.13 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.26, p<0.001). The hazard of first relapse was significantly reduced in ocrelizumab users after 5 months compared with IFN/GA users. However, the two groups did not differ in CDP or CDI over 3.57 years., Conclusion: In older pwMS, ocrelizumab effectively reduced relapses compared with IFN/GA. Overall relapse activity was low. This study adds valuable real-world data for informed DMT decision making with older pwMS. Our study also confirms that there is a treatment benefit in older people with MS, given the existence of a clear differential treatment effect between ocrelizumab and IFN/GA in the over 60 age group., Competing Interests: Competing interests: YCF received travel compensation from Biogen, National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia and Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists. MG is currently working on observational studies funded by Biogen and Roche. DM has received honoraria from Novartis. CZ has nothing to disclose. KB has received honoraria for presentations and/or educational support from Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Merck, Roche, Alexion and Teva and serves on medical advisory boards for Merck and Biogen. MZ has received conference travel support from Novartis and Roche, and research support from the Australian Government Research Training Program and MS Research Australia. WZY: received honoraria from Merck and Novartis. VJ receives research grant support form F.Hoffmann La-Roche, MS Research Australia and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC 1156519). MM has received research support from National Health and Medical Research Council, Medical Research Future Fund, Brain Foundation, Charles and Sylvia Viertel Foundation, MS Research Australia, Merck and Ku Leuven University, served on advisory board for Merck, has received speaker honoraria from Merck and Biogen. OS received honoraria and consulting fees from Bayer Schering, Novartis, Merck, Biogen and Genzyme. SO has nothing to disclose. FP received personal compensation for serving on advisory board by Almirall, Alexion, Biogen, Bristol, Merck, Novartis and Roche and received research grant by Biogen, Merck and Roche and by FISM, Reload Association (Onlus), Italian Health Minister, University of Catania. 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. MPA received honoraria as consultant on scientific advisory boards by Biogen, Bayer-Schering, Merck, Teva and Sanofi-Aventis and has received research grants by Biogen, Bayer-Schering, Merck, Teva and Novartis. TK served on scientific advisory boards for MS International Federation and WHO, BMS, Roche, Janssen, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Merck and Biogen, steering committee for Brain Atrophy Initiative by Sanofi Genzyme, received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL and Merck and received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene and Merck. DH supported by the Charles University: Cooperatio Programme in Neuroscience, by the project National Institute for Neurological Research (Programme EXCELES, ID Project No. LX22NPO5107)—funded by the European Union – Next Generation EU, General University Hospital in Prague project MH CZ-DRO-VFN64165 and 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 Inc. 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; received honoraria/research support from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novars, Roche, and Teva; has been member of advisory boards for Actelion, Biogen, Celgene, Merck Serono, Novars and Sanofi Genzyme; and has been supported by the Czech Ministry of Education—project Cooperatio LF1, research area Neuroscience, and the project National Institute for Neurological Research (Programme EXCELES, ID project No LX22NPO5107)—funded by the European Union-Next Generation EU. BW-G participated in speaker’s bureaus and/or served as a consultant and received grants from Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, Genentech, Celgene/Bristol Meyers Squibb, Sanofi Genzyme, Bayer, Janssen and Horizon; she also serves in the editorial board for BMJ Neurology, Children, CNS Drugs, MS International and Frontiers Epidemiology. JLS received travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Roche and Merck and her institution receives the honoraria for talks and advisory board commitment as well as research grants from Biogen, Merck, Roche, TEVA and Novartis. CB received conference travel support from Biogen, Novartis, Bayer-Schering, Merck and Teva; has participated in clinical trials by Sanofi Aventis, Roche and Novartis. MJS: 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. AvdW served on advisory boards for Novartis, Biogen, Merck and Roche and NervGen, received research grants from National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, MS Research Australia, Novartis, Biogen, Merck and Roche, received speaker’s honoraria and travel support from Novartis, Roche, Biogen and Merck and is currently a coprincipal investigator on a cosponsored observational study with Roche. HB’s Institution has received compensation for advisory boards or lecture fees from Novartis, Biogen, Merck, UCB Pharma and Roche and receives research funding from Novartis, Biogen, Merck, Roche, The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, The Medical Research Future Fund (Australia), Monash Partners, the Trish MS Foundation, The Pennycook Foundation, and MS Australia; he also receives personal compensation as the Managing Director of the MSBase Foundation and from the Oxford Health Policy Forum Brain Health Initiative., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Objective: Autoimmune encephalitis (AE) is a rare neuroinflammatory disease affecting the central nervous system. To examine language functions in patients with different subsets of AE consisting of seropositive and seronegative groups., Methods: Fifty-two patients were recruited from neurology departments in Melbourne, Australia, who met clinical criteria for possible AE. Language tests include the Naming Test from the Sydney Language Battery (SydBat), the semantic fluency trial from the Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT), and the Vocabulary and Similarities subtests of the Weschler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence-Second Edition. The results were standardised with normative data., Results: The mean age of our cohort was 52.5 years old, with the average time from hospital admission to recruitment being 38.41 months. At an aggregate level, none of the mean language test z-scores were below normative data. At the patient level, impairment rates were 18.37% for COWAT (animals), 28.57% for SydBat (naming), 4.65% for Similarities, and 4.55% for Vocabulary. Chi-squared goodness of fit tests indicated that observed performances were significantly below expected performances for the SydBat (naming) test (p < 0.0001) and COWAT (animals) (p = 0.004)., Discussion: While, on average, language functions were within normal limits in patients with AE, but a subgroup exhibited lower performance in semantic fluency and visual confrontation naming, with impairment rates below expected norms. To advance understanding of language in chronic AE patients, exploring the impact of seizure burden, antiseizure medication use, and the relationship of language functions with other cognitive functions is crucial., (© 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: Balance deficits are a major concern for people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). Measuring complexity of motor behaviour can offer an insight into MS-related changes in adaptability of the balance control system when dealing with increasingly complex tasks., Question: Does postural behaviour complexity differ between pwMS at early stages of the disease and healthy controls (HC)? Does postural behaviour complexity change across increasingly complex tasks?, Methods: Forty-eight pwMS and 24 HC performed four increasingly complex postural tasks with eyes open (EO), eyes closed (EC), on firm (FS) and compliant surface (CS). Lumbar and sternum sensors recorded 3D acceleration, from which complexity index (CI) was calculated using multiscale sample entropy (MSE) in the frontal and sagittal planes., Results: We found that only the complexity index in both planes during the eyes closed on compliant surface (EC-CS) task was significantly lower in pwMS compared to HC. We also found that complexity in pwMS was significantly lower during EC-CS compared to the other three tasks when using both lumbar and sternum sensors., Significance: Increasing the complexity of postural tasks reduces the complexity of postural behaviour in pwMS. This paradox may reflect reduced adaptability of the sensorimotor integration processes at early stages of MS. CI can provide a different perspective on balance deficits and could potentially be a more sensitive biomarker of MS progression and an early indicator of balance deficit., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors of the manuscript “Postural behaviour in people with MS: a complexity paradox” declare that no financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations have inappropriately influenced the content of the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) IgG seropositivity is a prerequisite for MOG antibody-associated disease (MOGAD) diagnosis. While a significant proportion of patients experience a relapsing disease, there is currently no biomarker predictive of disease course. We aim to determine whether MOG-IgG epitopes can predict a relapsing course in MOGAD patients., Methods: MOG-IgG-seropositive confirmed adult MOGAD patients were included (n=202). Serum MOG-IgG and epitope binding were determined by validated flow cytometry live cell-based assays. Associations between epitopes, disease course, clinical phenotype, Expanded Disability Status Scale and Visual Functional System Score at onset and last review were evaluated., Results: Of 202 MOGAD patients, 150 (74%) patients had MOG-IgG that recognised the immunodominant proline42 (P42) epitope and 115 (57%) recognised histidine103/serine104 (H103/S104). Fifty-two (26%) patients had non-P42 MOG-IgG and showed an increased risk of a relapsing course (HR 1.7; 95% CI 1.15 to 2.60, p=0.009). Relapse-freedom was shorter in patients with non-P42 MOG-IgG (p=0.0079). Non-P42 MOG-IgG epitope status remained unchanged from onset throughout the disease course and was a strong predictor of a relapsing course in patients with unilateral optic neuritis (HR 2.7, 95% CI 1.06 to 6.98, p=0.038), with high specificity (95%, 95% CI 77% to 100%) and positive predictive value (85%, 95% CI 45% to 98%)., Conclusions: Non-P42 MOG-IgG predicts a relapsing course in a significant subgroup of MOGAD patients. Patients with unilateral optic neuritis, the most frequent MOGAD phenotype, can reliably be tested at onset, regardless of age and sex. Early detection and specialised management in these patients could minimise disability and improve long-term outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MF-P has received research grant from MS Australia and travel compensation from Merck. MB reports research grants from Genzyme-Sanofi, Novartis, Biogen, Merck and BMS; and is a Research Consultant for RxMx and Research Director for the Sydney Neuroimaging Analysis Centre. SWR has received funds over the last 5 years including but not limited to travel support, honoraria, trial payments, research and clinical support to the neurology department or academic projects of which he is a member has been received from bodies and charities: NHMRC, NBA, MAA, Lambert Initiative, Beeren foundation, anonymous donors; and from pharmaceutical/biological companies: Alexion, Biogen, CSL, Genzyme, Grifols, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi. MM has served on scientific and commercial advisory boards for Merck Serono. AvdW has received travel support from Merck Serono, Novartis, Biogen, Roche and Sanofi. She has served on scientific and commercial advisory boards for Merck, Novartis, Sanofi and Roche, and has received unencumbered research grants from Novartis, Biogen, Merck and Roche. JLS has accepted travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen and Merck Serono. Her institution receives the honoraria for talks and advisory board commitment as well as research grants from Bayer Health Care, Biogen, Genzyme Sanofi, Merck, Novartis and TEVA. AGK has in recent times received speaker honoraria and Scientific Advisory Board fees from Bayer, BioCSL, Biogen-Idec, Lgpharma, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, NeuroScientific Biopharmaceuticals, Innate Immunotherapeutics, and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma. His work has received grant funding from the Eyewall Foundation, Trish MS Foundation, MS Australia, MS Western Australia, the MS Base Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, USA. He is an investigator in clinical trials sponsored by Biogen Idec and Novartis. 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. SAB has received honoraria for attendance at advisory boards and travel sponsorship from Bayer-Schering, Biogen-Idec, Merck-Serono, Novartis and Sanofi-Genzyme, has received speakers honoraria from Biogen-Idec and Genzyme, is an investigator in clinical trials sponsored by Biogen Idec, Novartis and Genzyme, and was the recipient of an unencumbered research grant from Biogen-Idec. RCD received research funding from the Petre Foundation and National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia). He has received honoraria form Biogen Idec and Merck Serono as invited speaker. SR received research funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and the University of Sydney. She serves as a consultant on an advisory board for UCB and Limbic Neurology, The MOG Project and the Sumaira Foundation, and has been an invited speaker for Biogen, Excemed, Alexxion, Limbic Neurology, and Novartis. FB has received research funding from NSW Health, MS Australia, the National Health Medical Research Council (Australia), the Medical Research Future Fund (Australia) and investigator-initiated research grant from Novartis. She was on an advisory boards for Novartis, Merck and The MOG Project and the Sumaira Foundation, and has been an invited speaker for Biogen, Novartis and Limbic Neurology., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: In patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) on low-efficacy disease modifying therapies (DMT), the optimal strategy on how to escalate treatment once needed, remains unknown., Methods: We studied RRMS patients on low-efficacy DMTs listed in the Swiss National Treatment Registry, who underwent escalation to either medium- or high-efficacy DMTs. Propensity score-based matching was applied using 12 clinically relevant variables. Both groups were also separately matched with control subjects who did not escalate therapy. Time to relapse and to disability worsening were evaluated using Cox proportional hazard models., Results: Of 1037 eligible patients, we 1:1 matched 450 MS patients who switched from low-efficacy to medium-efficacy (n = 225; 76.0% females, aged 42.4 ± 9.9 years [mean ± SD], median EDSS 3.0 [IQR 2-4]) or high-efficacy DMTs (n = 225; 72.4% females, aged 42.2 ± 10.6 years, median EDSS 3.0 [IQR 2-4]). Escalation to high-efficacy DMTs was associated with lower hazards of relapses than medium-efficacy DMTs (HR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.47-0.95, p = .027) or control subjects (HR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.84, p = .003). By contrast, escalation from low to medium-efficacy DMTs did not alter the hazard for relapses when compared to controls (i.e. patients on low-efficacy DMT who did not escalate DMT during follow-up) CONCLUSION: Our nationwide registry analysis suggests that, once escalation from a low-efficacy DMT is indicated, switching directly to a high-efficacy treatment is superior to a stepwise escalation starting with a moderate-efficacy treatment., (© 2024 The Authors. Brain and Behavior published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

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

Data from cohorts, registries, randomised trials, electronic medical records and administrative claims databases have increasingly been used to inform the use of therapies for neurological diseases. While novel sophisticated methods are enabling us to use existing data to guide treatment decisions, the complexity of statistical methodology is making appraisal of clinical evidence increasingly demanding. In this narrative review, we provide a brief overview of the most commonly used methods for evaluation of treatment effectiveness in neurology. This primer discusses complementarity of randomised and non-randomised study designs, sources of observational data, different forms of bias and the appropriate mitigation strategies, statistical significance, Bayesian approaches and provides an overview of multivariable regression models, propensity score-based models, causal inference, mediation analysis and Mendelian randomisation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TK served on scientific advisory boards for MS International Federation and WHO, BMS, Roche, 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, Novartis, Biogen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL and Merck and received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene and Merck. IR served on scientific advisory boards, received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Merck and Biogen. CBM has received conference travel support and/or speaker fees from Merck, Novartis and Biogen., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Low serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] and low sunlight exposure are known risk factors for the development of multiple sclerosis. Add-on vitamin D supplementation trials in established multiple sclerosis have been inconclusive. The effects of vitamin D supplementation to prevent multiple sclerosis is unknown. We aimed to test the hypothesis that oral vitamin D3 supplementation in high-risk clinically isolated syndrome (abnormal MRI, at least three T2 brain and/or spinal cord lesions), delays time to conversion to definite multiple sclerosis, that the therapeutic effect is dose-dependent, and that all doses are safe and well tolerated. We conducted a double-blind trial in Australia and New Zealand. Eligible participants were randomized 1:1:1:1 to placebo, 1000, 5000 or 10 000 international units (IU) of oral vitamin D3 daily within each study centre (n = 23) and followed for up to 48 weeks. Between 2013 and 2021, we enrolled 204 participants. Brain MRI scans were performed at baseline, 24 and 48 weeks. The main study outcome was conversion to clinically definite multiple sclerosis based on the 2010 McDonald criteria defined as either a clinical relapse or new brain MRI T2 lesion development. We included 199 cases in the intention-to-treat analysis based on assigned dose. Of these, 116 converted to multiple sclerosis by 48 weeks (58%). Compared to placebo, the hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for conversion were 1000 IU 0.87 (0.50, 1.50); 5000 IU 1.37 (0.82, 2.29); and 10 000 IU 1.28 (0.76, 2.14). In an adjusted model including age, sex, latitude, study centre and baseline symptom number, clinically isolated syndrome onset site, presence of infratentorial lesions and use of steroids, the hazard ratios (versus placebo) were 1000 IU 0.80 (0.45, 1.44); 5000 IU 1.36 (0.78, 2.38); and 10 000 IU 1.07 (0.62, 1.85). Vitamin D3 supplementation was safe and well tolerated. We did not demonstrate reduction in multiple sclerosis disease activity by vitamin D3 supplementation after a high-risk clinically isolated syndrome., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain.)

Background and Purpose: Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) is an important complication of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy. This study aims to identify the patterns of neurotoxicity among patients with ICANS at a tertiary referral centre in Australia., Methodology: This single-centre, prospective cohort study included all consecutively recruited patients who underwent CAR-T therapy for eligible haematological malignancies. All patients underwent a comprehensive neurological assessment and cognitive screening before CAR-T infusion, during the development of ICANS, and 1 month after treatment. Baseline demographic characteristics, incidence, and neurological patterns of neurotoxicity management were evaluated., Results: Over a 19-month period, 23% (12) of the 53 eligible patients developed neurotoxicity (10/12 [83%] being grade 1). All patients showed changes in handwriting and tremor as their initial presentation. Changes in cognition were manifested in most of the patients, with a more substantial drop noted in their Montreal Cognitive Assessment compared to immune effector cell-associated encephalopathy scores. All manifestations of neurotoxicity were short-lived and resolved within a 1-month period, with a mean duration of 8.2 days (range = 1-33)., Conclusions: The patterns of CAR-T-related neurotoxicity often include change in handwriting, tremor, and mild confusional state, especially early in their evolution. These may remain undetected by routine neurological surveillance. These features represent accessible clinical markers of incipient ICANS., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

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

Objective: People with neuropsychiatric symptoms often experience delay in accurate diagnosis. Although cerebrospinal fluid neurofilament light (CSF NfL) shows promise in distinguishing neurodegenerative disorders (ND) from psychiatric disorders (PSY), its accuracy in a diagnostically challenging cohort longitudinally is unknown., Methods: We collected longitudinal diagnostic information (mean = 36 months) from patients assessed at a neuropsychiatry service, categorising diagnoses as ND/mild cognitive impairment/other neurological disorders (ND/MCI/other) and PSY. We pre-specified NfL > 582 pg/mL as indicative of ND/MCI/other., Results: Diagnostic category changed from initial to final diagnosis for 23% (49/212) of patients. NfL predicted the final diagnostic category for 92% (22/24) of these and predicted final diagnostic category overall (ND/MCI/other vs. PSY) in 88% (187/212), compared to 77% (163/212) with clinical assessment alone., Conclusions: CSF NfL improved diagnostic accuracy, with potential to have led to earlier, accurate diagnosis in a real-world setting using a pre-specified cut-off, adding weight to translation of NfL into clinical practice.

Background and Objectives: The impact of immunomodulatory therapies on the risk of cervical pre-cancer and invasive cancer development is important for the health and safety of women with multiple sclerosis (wwMS). We investigate the risk of cervical abnormalities in wwMS treated with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs)., Methods: This is a multicenter cohort study with data collected from 1998 to 2019 in Victoria, Australia. Data linkage was performed using matching records from the MSBase Registry, the National Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination Program Register, and the Victorian Cervical Cytology Register. The primary outcome was the detection of any type of cervical abnormality as determined by cytology or histology. Survival methods were used to assess the time to cervical abnormality detection on cervical screening tests (CSTs). Crude and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine time to and magnitude of association of DMTs with the risk of cervical abnormality. In a sensitivity analysis, we constructed standardized survival curves averaged over the same set of covariates to determine the commensurate population-average (marginal) causal effects., Results: We included 248 wwMS. The incidence of abnormal CSTs was lower ( p < 0.001) for women not exposed to moderate-high-efficacy therapy (10.2 per 1,000 patient-years [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.5-14.9]), compared with those exposed (36.6 per 1,000 patient-years [95% CI 21.7-51.6]). Exposure to higher efficacy treatment was associated with a 3.79-fold increased hazard (95% CI 2.02-7.08, p < 0.001) of developing a cervical abnormality relative to those not exposed. When adjusted for vaccination status, smoking, hormonal contraceptive use, and socioeconomic status, the risk remained elevated at 3.79 (95% CI 1.99-7.21, p < 0.001). Marginal hazard ratios declined over time, ranging from 3.90 (95% CI 2.09-7.27) at 20 years of age to 2.06 (95% CI 1.14-3.73) at 70 years of age., Discussion: A greater than three-and-a-half-fold increased risk of cervical abnormalities was found after exposure to moderate-high-efficacy DMTs. This risk persisted despite adjusting for HPV vaccination status, hormonal contraception use, smoking, and socioeconomic status. If confirmed in future studies, we would advocate for wwMS exposed to moderate-high-efficacy DMTs to be treated in line with immune-deficient paradigm in cervical screening and HPV vaccination programs., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class III evidence that highly active MS therapy compared with less active therapy increases the risk of developing cervical abnormalities among women with MS.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for regulatory approval of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), yet their strict selection criteria often lead to limited generalizability. Observational studies using real-world data (RWD) allow for more inclusive heterogeneous cohorts resulting in higher external validity to inform treatment practices. As reviewed in this article, well-designed comparative effectiveness studies are an important application of RWD. Although, like RCTs, observational studies have their own set of limitations, including various biases that may confound results, advanced statistical methods can mitigate many of these limitations. A focus on personalized treatment will continue to add value to individualize MS care., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Postural impairment in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) is an early indicator of disease progression. Common measures of disease assessment are not sensitive to early-stage MS. Sample entropy (SE) may better identify early impairments. We compared the sensitivity and specificity of SE with linear measurements, differentiating pwMS (EDSS 0-4) from healthy controls (HC). 58 pwMS (EDSS ≤ 4) and 23 HC performed quiet standing tasks, combining a hard or foam surface with eyes open or eyes closed as a condition. Sway was recorded at the sternum and lumbar spine. Linear measures, mediolateral acceleration range with eyes open, mediolateral jerk with eyes closed, and SE in the anteroposterior and mediolateral directions were calculated. A multivariate ANOVA and AUC-ROC were used to determine between-groups differences and discriminative ability, respectively. Mild MS (EDSS ≤ 2.0) discriminability was secondarily assessed. Significantly lower SE was observed under most conditions in pwMS compared to HC, except for lumbar and sternum SE when on a hard surface with eyes closed and in the anteroposterior direction, which also offered the strongest discriminability (AUC = 0.747), even for mild MS. Overall, between-groups differences were task-dependent, and SE (anteroposterior, hard surface, eyes closed) was the best pwMS classifier. SE may prove a useful tool to detect subtle MS progression and intervention effectiveness.

Background and Purpose: The validity, reliability, and longitudinal performance of the Patient-Determined Disease Steps (PDDS) scale is unknown in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) with mild to moderate disability. We aimed to examine the psychometric properties and longitudinal performance of the PDDS., Methods: We included relapsing-remitting MS patients with an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of less than 4. Validity and test-retest reliability was examined. Longitudinal data were analysed with mixed-effect modelling and Cohen's kappa for concordance in confirmed disability progression (CDP)., Results: We recruited a total of 1093 participants, of whom 904 had complete baseline data. The baseline correlation between PDDS and EDSS was weak (ρ = 0.45, p < 0.001). PDDS had stronger correlations with patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Conversely, EDSS had stronger correlations with age, disease duration, Kurtzke's functional systems and processing speed test. PDDS test-retest reliability was good to excellent (concordance correlation coefficient = 0.73-0.89). Longitudinally, PDDS was associated with EDSS, age and depression. A higher EDSS score was associated with greater PDSS progression. The magnitude of these associations was small. There was no concordance in CDP as assessed by PDDS and EDSS., Conclusion: The PDDS has greater correlation with other PROs but less correlation with other MS-related outcome measures compared to the EDSS. There was little correlation between PDDS and EDSS longitudinally. Our findings suggest that the PDDS scale is not interchangeable with the EDSS., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

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.