Search

The current study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the Multiple Sclerosis Work Difficulties Questionnaire-23 (MSWDQ-23). Two hundred and thirty-nine employed persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) and 59 healthy controls completed the MSWDQ-23. To verify the factor structure, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. To assess construct validity, the MSWDQ-23 scores were correlated to measures of physical disability, fatigue, cognitive and neuropsychiatric problems, depression, health-related quality of life, and work-related variables. MSWDQ-23 scores were compared within different age groups, gender, education levels, and job types. Predictive validity was assessed using a logistic regression analysis to predict a deterioration in employment status after one year based on MSWDQ-23 scores. The internal consistency of the MSWDQ-23 was acceptable (α = 0.913, 95% CI = 0.897–0.928) and the results indicated a fair fit. The MSWDQ-23 showed acceptable construct validity, confirming 94% of the hypotheses. The total scale and the psychological/cognitive subscale were able to predict a deterioration in employment status after one year (χ2(1)=18.164, p < 0.001). The Dutch version of the MSWDQ-23 is a valid and internally consistent instrument to measure self-reported work difficulties in persons with MS. The Dutch version of the 23-item Multiple Sclerosis Work Difficulties Questionnaire (MSWDQ-23) is a reliable and valid tool to measure self-reported work difficulties in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). More psychological and cognitive work difficulties are predictive of a deteriorated employment status after one year. The MSWDQ-23 is a helpful tool for researchers and (occupational) health professionals to identify current work difficulties in persons with MS and identify persons at risk for a deterioration in employment one year later. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Patients suffering from intracerebral haemorrhage have a poor prognosis, especially if they are using antiplatelet therapy. Currently, no effective acute treatment option for intracerebral haemorrhage exists. Limiting the early growth of intracerebral haemorrhage volume which continues the first hours after admission seems a promising strategy. Because intracerebral haemorrhage patients who are on antiplatelet therapy have been shown to be particularly at risk of early haematoma growth, platelet transfusion may have a beneficial effect. Methods/Design The primary objective is to investigate whether platelet transfusion improves outcome in intracerebral haemorrhage patients who are on antiplatelet treatment. The PATCH study is a prospective, randomised, multi-centre study with open treatment and blind endpoint evaluation. Patients will be randomised to receive platelet transfusion within six hours or standard care. The primary endpoint is functional health after three months. The main secondary endpoints are safety of platelet transfusion and the occurrence of haematoma growth. To detect an absolute poor outcome reduction of 20%, a total of 190 patients will be included. Discussion To our knowledge this is the first randomised controlled trial of platelet transfusion for an acute haemorrhagic disease. Trial registration The Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR1303)

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

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

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

Background and Objectives: To evaluate the rate of return of disease activity after cessation of multiple sclerosis (MS) disease-modifying therapy., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study from 2 large observational MS registries: MSBase and OFSEP. Patients with relapsing-remitting MS who had ceased a disease-modifying therapy and were followed up for the subsequent 12 months were included in the analysis. The primary study outcome was annualized relapse rate in the 12 months after disease-modifying therapy discontinuation stratified by patients who did, and did not, commence a subsequent therapy. The secondary endpoint was the predictors of first relapse and disability accumulation after treatment discontinuation., Results: A total of 14,213 patients, with 18,029 eligible treatment discontinuation epochs, were identified for 7 therapies. Annualized rates of relapse (ARRs) started to increase 2 months after natalizumab cessation (month 2-4 ARR 0.47, 95% CI 0.43-0.51). Commencement of a subsequent therapy within 2-4 months reduced the magnitude of disease reactivation (mean ARR difference: 0.15, 0.08-0.22). After discontinuation of fingolimod, rates of relapse increased overall (month 1-2 ARR: 0.80, 0.70-0.89) and stabilized faster in patients who started a new therapy within 1-2 months (mean ARR difference: 0.14, -0.01 to 0.29). The magnitude of disease reactivation for other therapies was low but reduced further by commencement of another treatment 1-10 months after treatment discontinuation. Predictors of relapse were a higher relapse rate in the year before cessation, female sex, younger age, and higher EDSS score. Commencement of a subsequent therapy reduced both the risk of relapse (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.72-0.81) and disability accumulation (0.73, 0.65-0.80)., Discussion: The rate of disease reactivation after treatment cessation differs among MS treatments, with the peaks of relapse activity ranging from 1 to 10 months in untreated cohorts that discontinued different therapies. These results suggest that untreated intervals should be minimized after stopping antitrafficking therapies (natalizumab and fingolimod)., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class III that disease reactivation occurs within months of discontinuation of MS disease-modifying therapies. The risk of disease activity is reduced by commencement of a subsequent therapy., (© 2022 American Academy of Neurology.)