Back to Search
Start Over
Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey.
- Source :
-
Neurology. Clinical practice [Neurol Clin Pract] 2025 Feb; Vol. 15 (1), pp. e200376. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Oct 09. - Publication Year :
- 2025
-
Abstract
- 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.<br />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).<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br /> (© 2024 American Academy of Neurology.)
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 2163-0402
- Volume :
- 15
- Issue :
- 1
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- Neurology. Clinical practice
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 39399557
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200376