Search

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

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

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.)

It is unknown whether the currently known risk factors of multiple sclerosis reflect the etiology of progressive-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) as observational studies rarely included analysis by type of onset. We designed a case-control study to examine associations between environmental factors and POMS and compared effect sizes to relapse-onset MS (ROMS), which will offer insights into the etiology of POMS and potentially contribute to prevention and intervention practice. This study utilizes data from the Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (PPMS) Study and the Australian Multi-center Study of Environment and Immune Function (the AusImmune Study). This report outlines the conduct of the PPMS Study, whether the POMS sample is representative, and the planned analysis methods. The study includes 155 POMS, 204 ROMS, and 558 controls. The distributions of the POMS were largely similar to Australian POMS patients in the MSBase Study, with 54.8% female, 85.8% POMS born before 1970, mean age of onset of 41.44 ± 8.38 years old, and 67.1% living between 28.9 and 39.4° S. The POMS were representative of the Australian POMS population. There are some differences between POMS and ROMS/controls (mean age at interview: POMS 55 years vs. controls 40 years; sex: POMS 53% female vs. controls 78% female; location of residence: 14.3% of POMS at a latitude ≤ 28.9°S vs. 32.8% in controls), which will be taken into account in the analysis. We discuss the methodological issues considered in the study design, including prevalence-incidence bias, cohort effects, interview bias and recall bias, and present strategies to account for it. Associations between exposures of interest and POMS/ROMS will be presented in subsequent publications., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

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

Background: Simultaneous comparisons of multiple disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) over an extended follow-up are lacking. Here we emulate a randomised trial simultaneously comparing the effectiveness of six commonly used therapies over 5 years., Methods: Data from 74 centres in 35 countries were sourced from MSBase. For each patient, the first eligible intervention was analysed, censoring at change/discontinuation of treatment. The compared interventions included natalizumab, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide, interferon beta, glatiramer acetate and no treatment. Marginal structural Cox models (MSMs) were used to estimate the average treatment effects (ATEs) and the average treatment effects among the treated (ATT), rebalancing the compared groups at 6-monthly intervals on age, sex, birth-year, pregnancy status, treatment, relapses, disease duration, disability and disease course. The outcomes analysed were incidence of relapses, 12-month confirmed disability worsening and improvement., Results: 23 236 eligible patients were diagnosed with RRMS or clinically isolated syndrome. Compared with glatiramer acetate (reference), several therapies showed a superior ATE in reducing relapses: natalizumab (HR=0.44, 95% CI=0.40 to 0.50), fingolimod (HR=0.60, 95% CI=0.54 to 0.66) and dimethyl fumarate (HR=0.78, 95% CI=0.66 to 0.92). Further, natalizumab (HR=0.43, 95% CI=0.32 to 0.56) showed a superior ATE in reducing disability worsening and in disability improvement (HR=1.32, 95% CI=1.08 to 1.60). The pairwise ATT comparisons also showed superior effects of natalizumab followed by fingolimod on relapses and disability., Conclusions: The effectiveness of natalizumab and fingolimod in active RRMS is superior to dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide, glatiramer acetate and interferon beta. This study demonstrates the utility of MSM in emulating trials to compare clinical effectiveness among multiple interventions simultaneously., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors report the following relationships: speaker honoraria, advisory board or steering committee fees, research support and/or conference travel support from Acthelion (EKH, RA), Almirall (MT, FG, RB, CRT, JLS-M), Bayer (MT, AL, PS, RA, MT, CB, JL-S, EP, VVP, RB, DS, RA, JO, JLSM, SH, CR, AGK, TC, NS, BT, MS, CAS), BioCSL (TK, AGK, BT), Biogen (TK, TS, DH, EKH, MT, GI, AL, MG, PD, PG, VJ, AVW, FG, PS, DF, RA, RH, CB, JLS, EP, VVP, FG, RB, RA, CRT, JP, JO, MB, JLSM, SH, CR, CSh, OGerlach, AGK, TC, BS, NS, BT, MS, HB), Biologix (RA), BMS/Celgene (EKH, AL), Genpharm (RA), Genzyme-Sanofi (TK, EKH, MT, GI, AL, MG, PD, PG, AVW, FG, PS, DF, RA, RH, MT, CB, JLS, EP, EP, VVP, FG, RB, RB, DS, CRT, JP, JO, MB, JLSM, SH, O Gerlach, AGK, HB), GSK (RA), Innate Immunotherapeutics (AGK), Lundbeck (EP), Merck / EMD (TK, DH, EKH, MT, GI, AL(Merck Serono), MG, PD, PG, VJ, AVW, PS, DF, RA, RH, MT, CB, JLS, EP, VVP, FG, RB, DS, RA, JO, MB, JLSM, CR, FM, O Gerlach, AGK, TC, BS, MS, HB), Mitsubishi (FG),Novartis (TK, TS, DH, EKH, MT, GI, AL, MG, PD, PG, VJ, AVW, FG, PS, DF, RA, RH, MT, CB, JLS, EP, VVP, FG, RB, DS, RA, CRT, JP, JO, MB, JLSM, SH, CR, FM, CSh, OG, AGK, TC, NS, BT, MS, HB), ONO Pharmaceuticals (FG), Roche (TK, EKH, AL, MT, CB, VVP, BT), Teva (TK, DH, EKH, MT, GI, AL, MG, PD, PG, VJ, FG, PS, DF, RH, MT, CB, JLS, VVP, RB, DS, RA, JP, JO, JLSM, CR, AGK, TC, MS, CAS), WebMD (TK), UCB (EP)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Geographical variations in the incidence and prevalence of multiple sclerosis have been reported globally. Latitude as a surrogate for exposure to ultraviolet radiation but also other lifestyle and environmental factors are regarded as drivers of this variation. No previous studies evaluated geographical variation in the risk of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, an advanced form of multiple sclerosis that is characterized by steady accrual of irreversible disability. We evaluated differences in the risk of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis in relation to latitude and country of residence, modified by high-to-moderate efficacy immunotherapy in a geographically diverse cohort of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. The study included relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients from the global MSBase registry with at least one recorded assessment of disability. Secondary progressive multiple sclerosis was identified as per clinician diagnosis. Sensitivity analyses used the operationalized definition of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis and the Swedish decision tree algorithm. A proportional hazards model was used to estimate the cumulative risk of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis by country of residence (latitude), adjusted for sex, age at disease onset, time from onset to relapsing-remitting phase, disability (Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score) and relapse activity at study inclusion, national multiple sclerosis prevalence, government health expenditure, and proportion of time treated with high-to-moderate efficacy disease-modifying therapy. Geographical variation in time from relapsing-remitting phase to secondary progressive phase of multiple sclerosis was modelled through a proportional hazards model with spatially correlated frailties. We included 51 126 patients (72% female) from 27 countries. The median survival time from relapsing-remitting phase to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis among all patients was 39 (95% confidence interval: 37 to 43) years. Higher latitude [median hazard ratio = 1.21, 95% credible interval (1.16, 1.26)], higher national multiple sclerosis prevalence [1.07 (1.03, 1.11)], male sex [1.30 (1.22, 1.39)], older age at onset [1.35 (1.30, 1.39)], higher disability [2.40 (2.34, 2.47)] and frequent relapses [1.18 (1.15, 1.21)] at inclusion were associated with increased hazard of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Higher proportion of time on high-to-moderate efficacy therapy substantially reduced the hazard of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis [0.76 (0.73, 0.79)] and reduced the effect of latitude [interaction: 0.95 (0.92, 0.99)]. At the country-level, patients in Oman, Tunisia, Iran and Canada had higher risks of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis relative to the other studied regions. Higher latitude of residence is associated with a higher probability of developing secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. High-to-moderate efficacy immunotherapy can mitigate some of this geographically co-determined risk., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain.)

Background: Some studies comparing primary and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS, SPMS) report similar ages at onset of the progressive phase and similar rates of subsequent disability accrual. Others report later onset and/or faster accrual in SPMS. Comparisons have been complicated by regional cohort effects, phenotypic differences in sex ratio and management and variable diagnostic criteria for SPMS., Methods: We compared disability accrual in PPMS and operationally diagnosed SPMS in the international, clinic-based MSBase cohort. Inclusion required PPMS or SPMS with onset at age ≥18 years since 1995. We estimated Andersen-Gill hazard ratios for disability accrual on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), adjusted for sex, age, baseline disability, EDSS score frequency and drug therapies, with centre and patient as random effects. We also estimated ages at onset of the progressive phase (Kaplan-Meier) and at EDSS milestones (Turnbull). Analyses were replicated with physician-diagnosed SPMS., Results: Included patients comprised 1872 with PPMS (47% men; 50% with activity) and 2575 with SPMS (32% men; 40% with activity). Relative to PPMS, SPMS had older age at onset of the progressive phase (median 46.7 years (95% CI 46.2-47.3) vs 43.9 (43.3-44.4); p<0.001), greater baseline disability, slower disability accrual (HR 0.86 (0.78-0.94); p<0.001) and similar age at wheelchair dependence., Conclusions: We demonstrate later onset of the progressive phase and slower disability accrual in SPMS versus PPMS. This may balance greater baseline disability in SPMS, yielding convergent disability trajectories across phenotypes. The different rates of disability accrual should be considered before amalgamating PPMS and SPMS in clinical trials., Competing Interests: Competing interests: IR served on scientific advisory boards for Novartis and Merck, and received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Biogen, Teva, Sanofi Genzyme, and Merck. A-LN received grants from MS Research Australia; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Biogen; grants and personal fees from Merck Serono; personal fees from Teva and Novartis; and nonfinancial support from Roche and Sanofi Genzyme. GI received speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Roche, Almirall, and Teva. SE received speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, and Teva. FP received speaker honoraria and advisory board fees from Almirall, Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva, and research funding from Biogen, Merck, FISM (Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla), Reload Onlus Association, and the University of Catania. DH received speaker honoraria and consulting fees from Biogen, Merck, Teva, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Novartis, and support for research activities from Biogen and the Czech Ministry of Education (project PROGRES Q27/LF1). EVH received honoraria or research support from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Teva; has been a member of advisory boards for Actelion, Biogen, Celgene, Merck Serono, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme; and received research support from the Czech Ministry of Education (project PROGRES Q27/LF1). MG received consulting fees from Teva Canada Innovation, Biogen, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme; lecture payments from Teva Canada Innovation, Novartis, and EMD; and research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. PD served on editorial boards for, and has been supported to attend meetings by, EMD, Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, and Teva Neuroscience; he holds grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the MS Society of Canada, and received funding for investigator-initiated trials from Biogen, Novartis, and Genzyme. FG’M received honoraria or research funding from Biogen, Genzyme, Novartis, Teva Neurosciences, Mitsubishi, and ONO Pharmaceuticals. AL received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities from Biogen, Merck Serono, Mylan, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva; her institutions have received research grants from Novartis (in the past 4 years). PG served on advisory boards for Novartis, EMD Serono, Roche, Biogen Idec, Sanofi Genzyme, and Pendopharm; received grant support from Genzyme and Roche; and received research grants for his institution from Biogen Idec, Sanofi Genzyme, and EMD Serono. MPA received honoraria as a consultant on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Bayer Schering, Merck, Teva, and Sanofi-Aventis, and received research grants by Biogen, Bayer Schering, Merck, Teva, and Novartis. PS served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen Idec and Teva; received funding for travel and speaker honoraria from Biogen Idec, Merck, Teva, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, and Bayer; and received research grants for her institution from Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. DF received travel grants and/or speaker honoraria from Merck, Teva, Novartis, Biogen, and Sanofi Genzyme. KB received honoraria and consulting fees from Biogen, Teva, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, Merck, CSL, and Grifols. JL-S received travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Roche, and Merck; her institution received honoraria for talks and advisory board commitments, as well as research grants from Biogen, Merck, Roche, Teva, and Novartis. RA received honoraria as a speaker and for serving on scientific advisory boards from Bayer, Biogen, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi Genzyme. CB received conference travel support from Biogen, Novartis, Bayer Schering, Merck, and Teva, and participated in clinical trials by Sanofi-Aventis, Roche, and Novartis. VVP received travel grants from Merck, Biogen, Sanofi, Celgene, Almirall, and Roche; his institution received research grants and consultancy fees from Roche, Biogen, Sanofi, Celgene, Merck, and Novartis Pharma. MT received travel grants from Novartis, Bayer Schering, Merck, and Teva, and participated in clinical trials by Sanofi-Aventis, Roche, and Novartis. DM received speaker honoraria for advisory board service and travel grants from Almirall, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva. CR-T received research funding, compensation for travel, or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, and Almirall. DLS received honoraria as a consultant on scientific advisory boards from Bayer Schering, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis, and compensation for travel from Novartis, Biogen, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and Merck. FG received an institutional research grant from Biogen and Sanofi Genzyme; served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis, Merck, Sanofi Genzyme, and Roche; and received funding for travel and speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck, and Sanofi-Aventis. MS participated in, but did not receive honoraria for, advisory board activity for Biogen, Merck, Bayer Schering, Sanofi-Aventis, and Novartis. RB received speaker honoraria from Bayer Schering, Biogen, Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, and Teva; research grants from Bayer Schering, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, and Teva; and congress, travel, and accommodation expense compensations from Almirall, Bayer Schering, Biogen, Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, and Teva. RA received conference travel support from Novartis, Teva, Biogen, Bayer, and Merck, and participated in clinical trials by Biogen, Novartis, Teva, and Actelion. JLS-M received travel compensation from Novartis and Biogen; received speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Almirall, Bayer, and Teva; and participated in a clinical trial by Biogen. JP received travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Genzyme, and Teva, and speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme and Teva. TC-T received speaking or consulting fees and/or travel funding from Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva. GL received travel and/or consultancy compensation from Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, Teva, Merck, Novartis, Celgene, and Biogen. JO received research funding from the MS Society of Canada, the National MS Society, Brain Canada, Biogen Idec, Roche, and EMD Serono, and personal compensation for consulting or speaking from EMD Serono, Sanofi Genzyme, Biogen Idec, Roche, Celgene, and Novartis. AA received personal fees and speaker honoraria from Teva, Merck, Biogen Gen Pharma, Roche, Novartis, Bayer, and Sanofi Genzyme, and received travel and registration grants from Merck, Biogen Gen Pharma, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Bayer. HB received compensation for consulting, talks, and advisory or steering board activities from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Genzyme, Alfred Health, and Oxford Health Policy Forum, and research support from Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Merck, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Pennycook Foundation, and MS Research Australia MB served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis, and Genzyme, received conference travel support from Biogen and Novartis, and serves on steering committees for trials conducted by Novartis; his institution received research support from Biogen, Merck, and Novartis. EC Cristiano received honoraria as a consultant on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Bayer Schering, Merck, Genzyme, and Novartis, and participated in clinical trials or other research projects by Merck, Roche, and Novartis. SH received honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis, Bayer Schering, and Sanofi, and travel grants from Novartis, Biogen Idec, and Bayer Schering. GI received compensation for travel, accommodations, and meeting expenses from Bayer Schering, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, and Teva. LK received research support from Acorda, Actelion, Allozyne, BaroFold, Bayer HealthCare, Bayer Schering, Bayhill Therapeutics, Biogen, Elan, European Union, Genmab, Gianni Rubatto Foundation, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, MediciNova, Merck, Novartis, Novartis Research Foundation, Roche, Roche Research Foundation, Sanofi-Aventis, Santhera, the Swiss MS Society, the Swiss National Research Foundation, Teva Neuroscience, UCB, and Wyeth. BW-G participated in speakers' bureaus and/or served as a consultant for Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, Genentech, Celgene/Bristol Meyers Squibb, Sanofi Genzyme, Bayer, Janssen, and Horizon; received grant/research support from these same agencies; and serves on editorial boards for BMJ Neurology, Children, CNS Drugs, MS International, and Frontiers Epidemiology. BVW received research and travel grants and honoraria for advisory and speaking fees from Bayer Schering, Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Teva. TK served on scientific advisory boards for BMS, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Merck, and Biogen, and the steering committee for the Brain Atrophy Initiative by Sanofi Genzyme; received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Novartis, Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL, and Merck; and received support for research or educational events from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene, and Merck., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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

Importance: Natalizumab cessation is associated with a risk of rebound disease activity. It is important to identify the optimal switch disease-modifying therapy strategy after natalizumab to limit the risk of severe relapses., Objectives: To compare the effectiveness and persistence of dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, and ocrelizumab among patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) who discontinued natalizumab., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this observational cohort study, patient data were collected from the MSBase registry between June 15, 2010, and July 6, 2021. The median follow-up was 2.7 years. This was a multicenter study that included patients with RRMS who had used natalizumab for 6 months or longer and then were switched to dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, or ocrelizumab within 3 months after natalizumab discontinuation. Patients without baseline data were excluded from the analysis. Data were analyzed from May 24, 2022, to January 9, 2023., Exposures: Dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, and ocrelizumab., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were annualized relapse rate (ARR) and time to first relapse. Secondary outcomes were confirmed disability accumulation, disability improvement, and subsequent treatment discontinuation, with the comparisons for the first 2 limited to fingolimod and ocrelizumab due to the small number of patients taking dimethyl fumarate. The associations were analyzed after balancing covariates using an inverse probability of treatment weighting method., Results: Among 66 840 patients with RRMS, 1744 had used natalizumab for 6 months or longer and were switched to dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, or ocrelizumab within 3 months of natalizumab discontinuation. After excluding 358 patients without baseline data, a total of 1386 patients (mean [SD] age, 41.3 [10.6] years; 990 female [71%]) switched to dimethyl fumarate (138 [9.9%]), fingolimod (823 [59.4%]), or ocrelizumab (425 [30.7%]) after natalizumab. The ARR for each medication was as follows: ocrelizumab, 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08); fingolimod, 0.26 (95% CI, 0.12-0.48); and dimethyl fumarate, 0.27 (95% CI, 0.12-0.56). The ARR ratio of fingolimod to ocrelizumab was 4.33 (95% CI, 3.12-6.01) and of dimethyl fumarate to ocrelizumab was 4.50 (95% CI, 2.89-7.03). Compared with ocrelizumab, the hazard ratio (HR) of time to first relapse was 4.02 (95% CI, 2.83-5.70) for fingolimod and 3.70 (95% CI, 2.35-5.84) for dimethyl fumarate. The HR of treatment discontinuation was 2.57 (95% CI, 1.74-3.80) for fingolimod and 4.26 (95% CI, 2.65-6.84) for dimethyl fumarate. Fingolimod use was associated with a 49% higher risk for disability accumulation compared with ocrelizumab. There was no significant difference in disability improvement rates between fingolimod and ocrelizumab., Conclusion and Relevance: Study results show that among patients with RRMS who switched from natalizumab to dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, or ocrelizumab, ocrelizumab use was associated with the lowest ARR and discontinuation rates, and the longest time to first relapse.

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

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

Background: Over the decades, several natural history studies on patients with primary (PPMS) or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) were reported from international registries. In PPMS, a consistent heterogeneity on long-term disability trajectories was demonstrated. The aim of this study was to identify subgroups of patients with SPMS with similar longitudinal trajectories of disability over time., Methods: All patients with MS collected within Big MS registries who received an SPMS diagnosis from physicians (cohort 1) or satisfied the Lorscheider criteria (cohort 2) were considered. Longitudinal Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores were modelled by a latent class growth analysis (LCGA), using a non-linear function of time from the first EDSS visit in the range 3-4., Results: A total of 3613 patients with SPMS were included in the cohort 1. LCGA detected three different subgroups of patients with a mild (n=1297; 35.9%), a moderate (n=1936; 53.6%) and a severe (n=380; 10.5%) disability trajectory. Median time to EDSS 6 was 12.1, 5.0 and 1.7 years, for the three groups, respectively; the probability to reach EDSS 6 at 8 years was 14.4%, 78.4% and 98.3%, respectively. Similar results were found among 7613 patients satisfying the Lorscheider criteria., Conclusions: Contrary to previous interpretations, patients with SPMS progress at greatly different rates. Our identification of distinct trajectories can guide better patient selection in future phase 3 SPMS clinical trials. Additionally, distinct trajectories could reflect heterogeneous pathological mechanisms of progression., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AS received research support from MSBase. JL received research support from Innosuisse—Swiss Innovation Agency, Biogen and Novartis; he served on advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis, Roche and Teva. SV received consulting and lecture 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. 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 PI for projects or received unrestricted research support from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, TEVA, Sanofi-Genzyme and Bayer-Schering; his MS research is funded by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Brain Foundation. RH is an employee of Biogen and holds a stock. FP is an employee of Biogen. MM has served on scientific advisory board for Biogen Idec and Teva; and has received honoraria for lecturing from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Sanofi-Aventis and Teva. NK-H has received honoraria for lecturing and participating in advisory councils, travel expenses for attending congresses and meetings, and financial support for monitoring the Danish Multiple Sclerosis Treatment Register from Bayer-Schering, Merck Serono, Biogen Idec, Teva, Sanofi-Aventis and Novartis. PSS has served on scientific advisory boards for Merck Serono, Teva, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis and Biogen Idec; has received research support from Biogen Idec, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis; and received speaker honoraria from Merck Serono, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi-Aventis, Biogen Idec and Genzyme. TS received compensation for serving on scientific advisory boards, honoraria for consultancy and funding for travel from Biogen; and speaker honoraria from Novartis. AvdW reported receiving grants from National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Novartis, Roche and MS Research Australia; and personal fees from Biogen, Merck, Novartis and Roche. DH received compensation for travel, speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Biogen, Novartis, Merck Healthcare (Darmstadt, Germany), Bayer, Sanofi, Roche and Teva, as well as support for research activities from Biogen. She was also supported by the Charles University: Cooperation Program in neuroscience. EH received honoraria/research support from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novars, Roche and Teva; has been a member of advisory boards for Actelion, Biogen, Celgene, Merck Serono, Novars and Sanofi Genzyme. 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 Canadian Institutes of Health Research. SE received speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche and Teva. FG received honoraria or research funding from Biogen, Genzyme, Novartis, Teva Neurosciences, Mitsubishi and ONO Pharmaceuticals. OG has nothing to disclose. MT received travel grants from Novartis, Bayer-Schering, Merck and Teva; and has participated in clinical trials by Sanofi Aventis, Roche and Novartis. SO has nothing to disclose. OS has received honoraria and consulting fees from Bayer Schering, Novartis, Merck, Biogen and Genzyme companies. VVP received travel grants from Merck Healthcare (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 (Darmstadt, Germany), Bristol Meyer Squibb, Janssen, Almirall and Novartis Pharma. 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. JP accepted travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Genzyme and Teva; and speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme and Teva. RA received honoraria as a speaker and for serving on scientific advisory boards from Bayer, Biogen, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi-Genzyme. PAM received speakers fees and travel grants from Novartis, Biogen, T’évalua and Sanofi. RG has nothing to disclose. SM has received a MENACTRIMS clinical fellowship grant (2020). TC-T received speaking/consulting fees and/or travel funding from Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva. CZ has nothing to disclose. KdG has nothing to disclose. 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. BY and SK have nothing to disclose. MPS has received consulting fees from Biogen, Merck, Teva, Genzyme, Roche, Novartis, GeNeuro and MedDay. TK reported receiving grants from MS Research Australia and grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Biogen; personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi Genzyme and Merck; personal fees from Roche, Novartis, WebMD Global, Teva and BioCSL; and grants from NHMRC, MS Research Australia, ARSEP-OFSEP, UK MS Society and Medical Research Future Fund. HB’s institution (Monash University) received compensation for consulting, talks, and advisory/steering board activities from Alfred Health, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche and UCB pharma; research support from Biogen, Merck, Roche, MS Australia, National Health and Medical Research (Australia) and the Medical Research Future Fund (Australia), the Pennycook Foundation, Novartis and Roche. He has received personal compensation for steering group activities from Oxford Health Policy Forum., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

There is no consensus regarding the classification of optic neuritis, and precise diagnostic criteria are not available. This reality means that the diagnosis of disorders that have optic neuritis as the first manifestation can be challenging. Accurate diagnosis of optic neuritis at presentation can facilitate the timely treatment of individuals with multiple sclerosis, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, or myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disease. Epidemiological data show that, cumulatively, optic neuritis is most frequently caused by many conditions other than multiple sclerosis. Worldwide, the cause and management of optic neuritis varies with geographical location, treatment availability, and ethnic background. We have developed diagnostic criteria for optic neuritis and a classification of optic neuritis subgroups. Our diagnostic criteria are based on clinical features that permit a diagnosis of possible optic neuritis; further paraclinical tests, utilising brain, orbital, and retinal imaging, together with antibody and other protein biomarker data, can lead to a diagnosis of definite optic neuritis. Paraclinical tests can also be applied retrospectively on stored samples and historical brain or retinal scans, which will be useful for future validation studies. Our criteria have the potential to reduce the risk of misdiagnosis, provide information on optic neuritis disease course that can guide future treatment trial design, and enable physicians to judge the likelihood of a need for long-term pharmacological management, which might differ according to optic neuritis subgroups., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AP received grant support for remyelination trials in multiple sclerosis to the Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Department of Neurology, MS Centre (RESTORE trial), and UCL, London RECOVER trial; received grant fees from Fight for Sight (nimodipine in optic neuritis trial); received royalties or licenses from Up-to-Date (Wolters Kluwer) for a book chapter; received speaker fees for the Heidelberg Academy; participates on advisory board for SC Zeiss OCTA Angi-Network, and the SC Novartis OCTiMS study; holds leadership roles for governing board IMSVISUAL; was chairman of ERN-EYE Neuro-ophthalmology (until Oct, 2020); is board member of National Dutch Neuro-ophthalmology Association; received equipment from OCTA from Zeiss (Plex Elite); and received medical writing support from Novartis for a manuscript (https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.51473). CF received consulting fees from Invex Therapeutics; received speaker honoraria from University of Dunedin; and holds leadership as Director of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists. VB received personal fees as consultant for Gensight and Neurophoenix. PC obtained grants from Annexon, Biogen, Genentech; received royalties from Cambridge Press for an OCT book; received consulting fees from Disarm Therapeutics, Nervgen, Biogen, Avidea; received honoraria from NY Academy of Sciences; and received equipment from Myelin Repair Foundation, Academic CME, Neuraly, and Landos. FC received speaker honoraria from Alexion, Accure Therapeutics, and the Sumiara Foundation. RDe obtained consulting fees from Alexion. JdS received consulting fees from Biogen, Teva, BMS Celegen, Roche, Novartis, Janssen, Merck, Alexion, CSL Behring; and honoraria from Biogen, Teva, BMS Celegen, Roche, Novartis, Janssen, Merck, Alexion, and CSL Behring. JFR received consulting fees from Roche, and Sanofi. EF holds honoraria from Alexion, Genzyme, Biogen, Novartis, and Janssen. TF holds honoraria from Alexion. CFT received honoraria from Novartis; and received support for attending meetings and travel from Novartis and Teva. KF obtained grants from Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of Japan as well as the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Labor of Japan; received consulting fees from Alexion Chugai-Roche Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Biogen, Eisai, Takeda, Teijin, Viela Bio, UCB, Merck, Japan Tobacco Pharma, and Abbvie; received honoraria from Alexion, Chugai-Roche, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Biogen, Eisai, Takeda, Asahi Kasei Medical, Teijin, and Bayer; participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Alexion, Chugai, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Biogen, Eisai, Takeda, Asahi Kasei Medical, Teijin, UCB, and Viela Bio; and received medical writing support from Oxford PharmaGenesis and Apothecom. RG acquired personal fees for participation on data safety monitoring boards, and served on the advisory boards for Biogen, Hikma, Merck, Roche, and Sanofi as well as receiving a grant from Roche. FG received grants or contracts from Roche (NMO epidemiologic studies) and Novartis (MS epidemiologic studies); received honoraria from for lectures from Roche, Novartis, Stendhal, and Merck; received support for attending meetings from the European Charcot Foundation, and ECTRIMS; and reports leadership of FOCEM (Foro Centroamericano y del Caribe de la Esclerosis Múltiple y otras enfermedades desmielinizantes del Sistema Nervioso Central) and Academia Panameña de Medicina y Cirugía (both unpaid). MHab obtained honoraria from Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Merck, Bayer, Novartis, Pliva-Teva, Roche, and Zentiva; received support for attending meetings from Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Merck, Bayer, Novartis, Pliva-Teva, and Roche; and participated on advisory board for Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Merck, Bayer, Novartis, Pliva-Teva, and Roche. ZIl obtained grants or contracts from Biogen and Alexion; received honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Roche, Merck, and Alexion; received payment for expert testimony from Roche; received support for attending meetings and travel from Biogen and Sanofi; and participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Biogen, Novartis, Merck, Sanofi, Roche, and Alexion. HJK received grants or contracts from National Research Foundation of Korea, Aprilbio, and Eisai; received consulting fees from Aprilbio, Daewoong, HanAll BioPharma, MDimune, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva-Handok, UCB, and Viela Bio; and received honoraria from Alexion, Biogen, Celltrion, Eisai, GC Pharma, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva-Handok. RM received consulting fees from UCB, Alexion, Merck, Viela Bio, Novartis, and Roche; and participated on an advisory board for Viela Bio and Roche. FP obtained research support from Alexion; received grants or contracts from German Ministry for Research Support Recipient Charité Education and Research (BMBF), Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Einstein Foundation, Guthy Jackson Charitable Foundation, EU FP7 Framework Program, Biogen, Genzyme, Merck, Serono, Novartis, Bayer, Roche, Parexel, and Almirall; received honoraria from the Guthy Jackson Foundation, Bayer, Biogen, Merck Serono, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Viela Bio, Roche, UCB, Mitsubishi Tanabe, and Celgene; received support for attending meetings from Guthy Jackson Foundation, Bayer, Biogen, Merck Serono, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Alexion, Viela Bio, Roche, UCB, Mitsubishi Tanabe, and Celgene; participated on an advisory board for Celgene, Roche, UCB, Merck; and reports leadership as academic editor for Plos One, and associate editor for Neurology, Neuroimmunology, and Neuroinflammation. MBR received support for attending meeting from Novartis. BSD received consulting fees from Chiesi; received honoraria from Chiesi and Sanofi; received support for attending meetings from Bausch + Lomb; participated on an advisory board for Chiesi; and has stock options from Accure Therapeutics. DS received grants or contracts from National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), National Institute of Aging (NIA), National Multiple Sclerosis Society (NMSS), and United States Department of State; and was a committee member for Multiple Sclerosis International Federation (MSIF) and American Neurological Association (ANA). AS received grants or contracts from the Turkish MS society, and Istanbul University Research Support Grants; received consulting fees from Roche, Merck Serono, Biogen, Gen Pharma of Türkiye, Sanofi Genzyme, and Novartis; received honoraria from Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Roche, and Teva; and received support for attending meetings from Sanofi Genzyme. VvP obtained grants or contracts from Biogen; received consulting fees from Biogen, Merck, Sanofi, BMS, Novartis, Janssen, Almirall, and Roche; received honoraria from Biogen, Merck, Sanofi, BMS, Novartis, Roche; and received support for attending meetings from Biogen, Roche, and Almirall. MPW received royalties from Springer Healthcare and Elsevier; received consulting fees from Biogen, Roche, Biologix, Novartis, BMS-Celgene, Imcyse, Merck Serono, Sanofi Aventis, IXICO, and Icometrix; received honoraria from Bayer, Biogen, Biologix, Genilac, Novartis, Medison, Merck Serono, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and BMS-Celgene; and participated on a data safety monitoring board for VU University Medical Center. LB received consulting fees as editor for the Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology. GTP is an Emeritus editor for Neuro-ophthalmology. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The MSBase prediction model of treatment response leverages multiple demographic and clinical characteristics to estimate hazards of relapses, confirmed disability accumulation (CDA), and confirmed disability improvement (CDI). The model did not include Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score (MSSS), a disease duration-adjusted ranked score of disability., Objective: To incorporate MSSS into the MSBase prediction model and compare model accuracy with and without MSSS., Methods: The associations between MSSS and relapse, CDA, and CDI were evaluated with marginal proportional hazards models adjusted for three principal components representative of patients' demographic and clinical characteristics. The model fit with and without MSSS was assessed with penalized r2 and Harrell C., Results: A total of 5866 MS patients were started on disease-modifying therapy during prospective follow-up (age 38.4 ± 10.6 years; 72% female; disease duration 8.5 ± 7.7 years). Including MSSS into the model improved the accuracy of individual prediction of relapses by 31%, of CDA by 23%, and of CDI by 24% (Harrell C) and increased the amount of variance explained for relapses by 49%, for CDI by 11%, and for CDA by 10% as compared with the original model., Conclusion: Addition of a single, readily available metric, MSSS, to the comprehensive MSBase prediction model considerably improved the individual accuracy of prognostics in MS.

Introduction: There is poor knowledge on current hospitalizations in the multiple sclerosis (MS) population. The purpose of this study was to determine hospitalization causes and outcomes in a MS hospital-based cohort., Patients and Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients admitted at our centre between August, 2009 and July, 2015, excluding those with no previous established diagnosis., Results: 308 hospitalizations were included, representing a total of 155 patients (female, 67.5%). Median age at hospitalizations was 47 years, with median disease duration of 12 years. The most common overall reason for hospitalization was infectious diseases (22.1%), followed by MS relapses (12.7%) and neurogenic bladder (11%). The median length of hospitalization for all patients was 5 days and the progressive subtype of MS had longer lengths of hospitalization than the relapsing-remitting MS. Intensive care unit admission occurred in 23 cases (7.5%) and were associated with increased mortality and length of hospitalization. Of the 308 hospitalizations, 9 (2.9%) resulted in death., Conclusion: Infections are the most common cause of hospitalizations in our study, although MS relapses or complications related to MS continue to be significant causes of morbidity. Almost 8% of all MS hospitalizations required intensive care unit admission and these were related to longer admission lengths and higher death rates.

INTRODUCTION. Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a disabling disease occurring mainly in women of childbearing age. MS may interfere with family planning and motherhood decision. AIM. To study the influence of MS diagnosis and course of the disease on motherhood decision. PATIENTS AND METHODS. The cohort of 35 to 45-year-old female patients diagnosed with MS for at least ten years was selected from six Portuguese MS centers. A structured questionnaire was applied to all patients in consecutive consultation days. Clinical records were reviewed to characterize and collect information about the disease and pregnancies. RESULTS. One hundred women were included; mean age at MS diagnosis was 26.3 ± 5.0 years; 90% of the participants presented with a relapsing-remitting MS; 57% had no pregnancies after the diagnosis. MS type and number of relapses were not significantly different between women with or without pregnancies after the diagnosis (p = 0.39 and p = 0.50, respectively). Seventy-seven percent of the patients did not have the intended number of pregnancies. Main reasons given were fear of future disability and the possibility of having relapses. Forty-three women considered that pregnancy might worsen MS. CONCLUSION. In our population, motherhood choice was unrelated to the MS type and the number of relapses. However, a relevant number of women had fewer pregnancies than those intended before MS diagnosis and believed that pregnancy could worsen the disease. An effort to better inform the patients should be made to minimize the impact of MS diagnosis on motherhood decision.

Introduction: Studies have shown that natalizumab is an effective treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). To date, no data are available in Portuguese patients., Aim: To determine the efficacy and safety of natalizumab in patients with RRMS in routine clinical practice in Portugal., Patients and Methods: Clinical data for adult patients with RRMS treated with natalizumab at specialist neurology centres in Portugal were entered retrospectively into a database for analysis between October 2010 and February 2012. Changes in annualized relapse rates (ARR), Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores and disability status were analysed., Results: A total of 383 patients from 20 centres were included. Prior to starting natalizumab, the baseline median EDSS score was 4 and the mean ARR was 1.64. Most patients had previously received multiple sclerosis treatment (93.0%). Median natalizumab treatment duration was 12 months. Natalizumab treatment was associated with significant (p < 0.001) reductions from baseline in the mean ARR and EDSS scores in patients treated with natalizumab for >= 12 months (n = 288) and for >= 24 months (n = 160). Natalizumab was more effective in patients with less disability (EDSS < 3) and in those who had not previously received disease-modifying treatments. Two cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy were reported. No new unexpected adverse events occurred., Conclusion: Natalizumab is well tolerated, and is effective in reducing relapse rate and stabilising disease in patients with RRMS in the clinical practice setting in Portugal. Its efficacy persists with continued treatment, and it may be particularly effective in patients with less disability and without prior disease modifying therapy.

Context: Osteoporosis is a skeletal disorder characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue. It may affect the craniomaxillofacial complex and result in less bone-implant contact., Aims: The objective of this study was to measure the endosseous integration of titanium implants using the removal torque test in low-mineral density experimental animal models., Materials and Methods: Thirty female New Zealand white rabbits were divided into two groups: control (n=14), sham-operated; and test (n=16), ovariectomized. All animals received 2.2 mm Χ 4.0 mm titanium implants in the right tibia, 120 days after ovariectomy or sham surgery. Animals were killed at 7 and 14 weeks of postimplant insertion, when implants were removed by reverse torque rotation using a digital torque meter. Statistical analysis used was Student's t-test., Results and Conclusion: At the 7-week period, the mean torque values for the control and test groups were 11.6 Ncm and 10.4 Ncm, respectively, with no statistical significance. Implant removal torque analysis showed statistically lower values (P < 0.05) for the test group at the 14-week period (control=16.7 Ncm and test=9.7 Ncm). The results of this study indicate that hormonal privacy compromise implants biomechanical performance.

Organic diseases can occur with different psychiatric symptoms. Neurosyphilis was considered to be a landmark in the history of organic mental syndromes. The complexity of its clinical picture decreases the boundaries between Neurology and Psychiatry and requires a multidisciplinary approach. We report a case of neurosyphilis that began with psychiatric symptoms in a twenty five years old male.

The removal of large arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) in stages has been advocated to reduce the risk of perioperative hyperemic complications. In three patients who had a two-stage surgical removal of their large (> 6 cm) frontal AVMs, transcranial Doppler (TCD) was performed 1 day before and 1 day after each surgery. Arteries still feeding the AVM after the first procedure had an increase in mean velocity (MV) and a decrease in the pulsatility index (PI) in the period between the two surgeries. MV reactivity to carbon dioxide before each stage was higher in feeding arteries at the second surgery, suggesting that the total magnitude of the shunt through the AVM was lower in spite of flow recruitment. TCD can be used to monitor the hemodynamic changes after embolization or partial surgery and may be of help in better defining the optimal time for final resection.

Cerebral arterial aneurysm associated with arteriovenous malformation (AVM) has been described with a variable incidence, averaging 10% of AVM cases. The present series includes 39 patients with this association, derived from a total of 400 patients with AVM's evaluated and treated since 1970. The aneurysms are classified into four major groups, each carrying particular therapeutic implications. Optimum treatment of these lesions is based in part on a knowledge of the hemodynamic alterations associated with the AVM's. In most of these cases, the symptomatic lesion was treated first; occasionally, when feasible, both lesions were treated during the same operation. All patients had some form of treatment, either surgical or endovascular, directed to at least one of the two types of lesions. All symptomatic lesions were treated and all ruptured aneurysms were obliterated. There were no deaths in this series.