Search

Background: Evidence on the impact of dimethyl fumarate (DMF) during pregnancy in women with multiple sclerosis (MS) is limited., Objectives: To investigate disease activity and pregnancy outcomes in a retrospective cohort of women exposed to DMF in early pregnancy., Methods: Women discontinuing DMF after pregnancy confirmation were identified from 29 Italian MS Centers. Disease activity 12 months before conception, during pregnancy, and 12 months postpartum were recorded, exploring reactivation predictors. Pregnancy and fetal outcomes were assessed., Results: The study analyzed 137 pregnancies (12 pregnancy losses, 125 live births) from 137 women (mean age 32.9 ± 4.7 years), discontinuing DMF within a median (interquartile range (IQR)) interval of 4.9 (3.7-5.7) weeks from conception. In live birth pregnancies, annualized relapse rate (ARR) significantly decreased during pregnancy (ARR = 0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03-0.14, p = 0.021) compared to pre-conception (ARR = 0.21 (95% CI: 0.14-0.30)) and increased postpartum ((ARR = 0.22 (95% CI: 0.15-0.32), p = 0.006). Median time to first relapse (TTFR) was 3.16 (IQR: 1:87-5.42) months. Higher pre-conception relapse number (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.33, 95% CI: 1.08-5.02) and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS; HR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.17-2.74) were associated with shorter TTFR, while treatment resumption with longer TTFR (HR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11-0.74). Fetal outcomes were unaffected by DMF exposure., Conclusion: DMF discontinuation does not increase relapse risk during pregnancy. Early therapy restart prevents postpartum relapses. Early DMF exposure shows no adverse fetal outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: D.L. received travel funding from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Mylan, Novartis, Roche, Horizon, Alexion speaking or consultation fees from Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Teva, Biogen, Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer-Schering. S.B. received travel funding from Biogen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. F.B. reported receiving teaching honoraria from Novartis and personal fees from Eisai, Biogen, and Chiesi outside the submitted work. M.P.A. has received research grants honoraria as a speaker and member of Advisory Boards from Biogen, Bayer, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck, Roche Celgene BMS, Janssen, Horizon. S.B. speaker honoraria and/or travel/congress grant from: Novartis, Merck-Serono, Alexion, BMS, Biogen, Roche, Janssen-Cilag. Research grant from Roche. G.B. received honoraria for speaking or consultation fee from Almirall, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, Roche. M.B. declares fees from Biogen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, and Novartis. S.B. has been founded for advisory board, academic purposes and speech honoraria by Genzyme, Roche, Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis and Almirall. P.C. received honoraria for speaking and/or for consultancy and support for participation to scientific congresses from Almirall, Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, Teva, Alexion, Celgene BMS, Janssen, Horizon. M.C. received personal compensations for public speaking from Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva and consulting fees from Roche and Zambon. D.C. is an Advisory Board member of Almirall, Bayer-Schering, Biogen, GW Pharmaceutical, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva and received honoraria for speaking or consultation fee from Almirall, Bayer-Schering, Biogen, GW Pharmaceuticals, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva. He is also the principal investigator in clinical trials for Bayer-Schering, Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme. E.C. received travel grant, speaker fee and consultancy from Biogen Idec, Teva, Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche and Admirall. A.C. has served on scientific advisory boards for Merck-Serono, Sanofi-Genzyme, Biogen, Novartis, Almirall. She has received institutional research support from Roche and Biogen. A.C. received speaker honoraria from Biogen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva and travel grants from Biogen, Merck, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva; advisory boards member honoraria from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Teva. E.D.A. received speaking honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Bayer-Schering. M.D.F. participated on advisory boards and steering committees for and received speaker or writing honoraria, research support and funding for traveling from Alexion, BMS, Bayer, Biogen Idec, Genzyme, Horizon, Merck, Mylan, Novartis, Roche, Siemens Healthineers, Teva and Viatris. R.D. received honoraria as a speaker and member of advisory boards by: Merck-Serono, Roche, Novartis and travel funding from Almirall, Biogen, Novartis and Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, Merck-Serono. R.F. has received consulting fees and honoraria for advisory boards from Biogen Idec, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, and TEVA. E.F. has received travel grants from Biogen, Merck, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, and Roche. M.F. is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Neurology, Associate Editor of Human Brain Mapping, Associate Editor of Radiology, and Associate Editor of Neurological Sciences; received compensation for consulting services from Alexion, Almirall, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi; speaking activities from Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, Chiesi Italia SpA, Eli Lilly, Genzyme, Janssen, Merck-Serono, Neopharmed Gentili, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, and Teva; participation in Advisory Boards for Alexion, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Takeda; scientific direction of educational events for Biogen, Merck, Roche, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme; he receives research support from Biogen Idec, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Italian Ministry of Health, Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla, and Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per la SLA. M.F. published opinions in a medical journal on other pharmaceuticals and received financial support for travel and meeting attendance from Biogen, Merck, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Novartis. A.G. received honoraria for speaking and travel grants from Merck, Genzyme, Teva, Mylan, Roche and Novartis. F.G. received research funding from Sanofi-Genzyme and Biogen, fees for advisory boards and speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono and Roche, travel funding from Biogen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, and Roche. A.I. received consulting fees from Janssen. R.L. received personal compensations for speaking or consultancy from Biogen, BMS, Sanofi, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Alexion. L.L. received travel grant, speaker fee and consultancy from Biogen Idec, Teva, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche and Almirall. M.L. has served on advisory boards and/or has received travel grants and/or speaker honoraria from Merck, Biogen, Almirall, Novartis, and Sanofi-Genzyme. G.L. received speaker honoraria and/or consultancy from Biogen, Teva, Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Almirall, Roche. G.M. received travel funding from Almirall, Biogen, Novartis and Sanofi-Genzyme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Horizon, Roche, Merck-Serono. M.M. received compensation for consulting services, speaking activities, and participation in advisory board from Alexion, Almirall, Bayer, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, CSL Behring, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Janssen, Merck-Serono, and Viatris; he received research support from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, and Roche. L.M. received honoraria for speaking activity at scientific meetings and/or advisory boards from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, Roche, Alexion, Celgene, Almirall. G.N. received travel funding from Almirall, Biogen, Novartis and Sanofi-Genzyme, Horizon, Roche, Merck-Serono. F.P. reports grants from Biogen, grants from Merck, grants from FISM, grants from Onlus association, grants from University of Catania, personal fees from Almirall, personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Biogen, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from TEVA, outside the submitted work. P.R. received travel expenses or honoraria for speaking or participating to advisory board by: Biogen idec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi. S.R. has received travel expenses or honoraria for speaking or participating to advisory boardby: Biogen idec, Merck, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, Teva, Roche, Bristol-Myers squibb. G.S. received travel expenses by Roche and Novartis. E.S. received speaker honoraria and/or consultancy from Biogen, Teva, Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Almirall, and Roche. L.S. received congress grants from Merck-Serono, Biogen and board grants from Norvartis, Merck-Serono. M.P.S. has received consulting fees from Biogen, GeNeuro, MedDay, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi and Teva. V.T. has received honoraria, travel grants and research grant support from FISM, Italian Ministry of Health, Alexion, Roche, Merck, Biogen, Novartis, Viatris, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Almirall, Horizon, Lundbeck, Sanofi, Janssen. D.V. has received travel grants and honoraria for Advisory Boards from Novartis, Roche, Teva, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, and Almirall. G.A.M. received ravel funding, speaking or consultation fees from Almirall, Bayer-Schering, Biogen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva, Mylan, Bristol Mayers Squibb and research grants from Roche and Biogen. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose.

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

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

Background and Objectives: In multiple sclerosis (MS), MRI markers can measure the potential neuroprotective effects of fingolimod beyond its anti-inflammatory activity. In this study we aimed to comprehensively explore, in the real-word setting, whether fingolimod not only reduces clinical/MRI inflammatory activity, but also influences the progression of irreversible focal and whole brain damage in relapsing-remitting [RR] MS patients., Methods: The "EVOLUTION" study, a 24-month observational, prospective, single-arm, multicenter study, enrolled 261 RRMS patients who started fingolimod at 32 Italian MS centers and underwent biannual neurological assessments and annual MRI evaluations. Study outcomes included the proportions of evaluable RRMS patients achieving at 24 months: (1) no new/enlarging T 2 -hyperintense white matter (WM) lesions and/or clinical relapses; (2) a modified classification of "No Evidence of Disease Activity 4" ("modified NEDA-4") defined as no new/enlarging T 2 -hyperintense WM lesions, clinical relapses, and 6-month confirmed disability progression, and a yearly percentage lateral ventricular volume change on T 2 -FLAIR images < 2%; (3) less than 40% of active lesions at baseline and month 12 evolving to permanent black holes (PBHs)., Results: At month 24, 76/160 (47.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 39.8%;55.2%) RRMS patients had no clinical/MRI activity. Thirty-nine of 170 RRMS patients (22.9%; 95% CI = 16.6%;29.3%) achieved "modified NEDA-4" status. Forty-four of 72 RRMS patients (61.1%; 95% CI = 49.8%;72.4%) had less than 40% of active WM lesions evolving to PBHs. The study confirmed the established safety and tolerability profile of fingolimod., Discussion: By comparing our results with those from the literature, the EVOLUTION study seems to indicate a neuroprotective effect of fingolimod, limiting inflammatory activity, brain atrophy and PBH development., (© 2024. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

'Active' and 'non-active' secondary progressive MS (SPMS) have distinct pathophysiological mechanisms and clinical characteristics, but there is still no consensus regarding the frequency of these MS forms in the real-world setting. We aimed to evaluate the frequency of 'active' and 'non-active' SPMS in a large cohort of Italian MS patients and the differences in terms of clinical and MRI characteristics and disease progression. This multicenter study collected data about MS patients who have transitioned to the SP form in the period between 1st January 2014 and 31st December 2019 and followed by the MS centers contributing to the Italian MS Registry. Patients were divided into 'active SPMS' and 'non-active SPMS', based on both reported MRI data and relapse activity in the year before conversion to SPMS. Out of 68,621, 8,316 (12.1%) patients were diagnosed with SPMS. Out of them, 872 (10.5%) were classified into patients with either 'active' or 'non-active' SPMS. A total of 237 were classified into patients with 'active SPMS' (27.2%) and 635 as 'non-active SPMS' (72.8%). 'Non-active SPMS' patients were older, with a longer disease duration compared to those with 'active SPMS'. The percentages of patients showing progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA) at 24 months were similar between 'active' and 'non-active' SPMS patients (67 [27.4%] vs 188 [29.6%]; p = 0.60). In the 'active' group, 36 (15.2%) patients showed relapse-associated worsening (RAW). Comparison of the survival curves to EDSS 6 and 7 according to disease activity did not show significant differences (p = 0.68 and p = 0.71). 'Active' and 'non-active' SPMS patients had a similar risk of achieving disability milestones, suggesting that progression is primarily attributed to PIRA and only to a small extent to disease activity., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: To compare Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) trajectories over time between Multiple Sclerosis (MS) groups with pediatric (POMS), adult (AOMS) and late (LOMS) onset, and between patients with and without progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA)., Methods: Patients with a first visit within 1 year from onset, ≥ 5-year follow-up and ≥ 1 visit every 6 months were selected from the Italian MS Register. Adjusted disability trajectories were assessed by longitudinal models for repeated measures. Comparisons between groups and between patients with and without PIRA in subgroups were performed by evaluating the yearly differences of mean EDSS score changes versus baseline (delta-EDSS). A first CDA event was defined as a 6-months confirmed disability increase from study baseline, measured by EDSS (increase ≥ 1.5 points with baseline EDSS = 0; ≥ 1.0 with baseline EDSS score ≤ 5.0 and ≥ 0.5 point with baseline EDSS > 5.5). PIRA was defined as a CDA event occurring more than 90 days after and more than 30 days before the onset of a relapse., Results: 3777 MS patients (268 POMS, 3282 AOMS, 227 LOMS) were included. The slope of disability trajectories significantly diverged in AOMS vs POMS starting from the second year of follow-up (Year 2: delta2-EDSS 0.18 (0.05; 0.31), p = 0.0054) and then mean delta2-EDSS gradually increased up to 0.23 (0.07; 0.39, p = 0.004) at year 5. Patients with PIRA had significant (p < 0.0001) steeper increase in EDSS scores than those without PIRA in all groups, although in POMS, the disability trajectories began to diverge later and at a lesser extent with delta-EDSS score of 0.48 vs 0.83 in AOMS and 1.57 in LOMS, at 3 years after the first PIRA., Conclusions: Age is relevant in determining disability progression in MS. POMS shows a less steep increase in EDSS scores over time than older patients. The effect of PIRA in accelerating EDSS progression is less pronounced in POMS than in AOMS and LOMS., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: No direct comparisons of the effect of natalizumab and ocrelizumab on progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA) and relapse-associated worsening (RAW) events are currently available. We aimed to compare the risk of achieving first 6 months confirmed PIRA and RAW events and irreversible Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) 4.0 and 6.0 in a cohort of naïve patients treated with natalizumab or ocrelizumab from the Italian Multiple Sclerosis Register., Methods: Patients with a first visit within 1 year from onset, treated with natalizumab or ocrelizumab, and ≥3 visits were extracted. Pairwise propensity score-matched analyses were performed. Risk of reaching the first PIRA, RAW, and EDSS 4.0 and 6.0 events were estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to show cumulative probabilities of reaching outcomes., Results: In total, 770 subjects were included (natalizumab = 568; ocrelizumab = 212) and the propensity score-matching retrieved 195 pairs. No RAW events were found in natalizumab group and only 1 was reported in ocrelizumab group. A first PIRA event was reached by 23 natalizumab and 25 ocrelizumab exposed patients; 7 natalizumab- and 10 ocrelizumab-treated patients obtained an irreversible EDSS 4.0, while 13 natalizumab- and 15 ocrelizumab-treated patients reached an irreversible EDSS 6.0. No differences between the two groups were found in the risk (HR, 95%CI) of reaching a first PIRA (1.04, 0.59-1.84; p = 0.88) event, an irreversible EDSS 4.0 (1.23, 0.57-2.66; p = 0.60) and 6.0 (0.93, 0.32-2.68; p = 0.89)., Interpretation: Both medications strongly suppress RAW events and, in the short term, the risk of achieving PIRA events, EDSS 4.0 and 6.0 milestones is not significantly different., (© 2024 The Author(s). Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Neurological Association.)

Objectives: We investigated the occurrence and relative contribution of relapse-associated worsening (RAW) and progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA) to confirmed disability accrual (CDA) and transition to secondary progression (SP) in relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS)., Methods: Relapsing-onset MS patients with follow-up > / = 5 years (16,130) were extracted from the Italian MS Registry. CDA was a 6-month confirmed increase in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score. Sustained disability accumulation (SDA) was a CDA with no EDSS improvement in all subsequent visits. Predictors of PIRA and RAW and the association between final EDSS score and type of CDA were assessed using logistic multivariable regression and multivariable ordinal regression models, respectively., Results: Over 11.8 ± 5.4 years, 16,731 CDA events occurred in 8998 (55.8%) patients. PIRA (12,175) accounted for 72.3% of CDA. SDA occurred in 8912 (73.2%) PIRA and 2583 (56.7%) RAW (p < 0.001). 4453 (27.6%) patients transitioned to SPMS, 4010 (73.2%) out of 5476 patients with sustained PIRA and 443 (24.8%) out of 1790 patients with non-sustained PIRA. In the multivariable ordinal regression analysis, higher final EDSS score was associated with PIRA (estimated coefficient 0.349, 95% CI 0.120-0.577, p = 0.003)., Discussion: In this real-world relapsing-onset MS cohort, PIRA was the main driver of disability accumulation and was associated with higher disability in the long term. Sustained PIRA was linked to transition to SP and could represent a more accurate PIRA definition and a criterion to mark the putative onset of the progressive phase., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential for understanding the effects of MS and its treatments on patients' lives; they play an important role in multiple sclerosis (MS) research and practice. We present the protocol for an observational study to prospectively assess the effect of cladribine tablets on PROs and their correlation to disability and physical activity in adults with highly active relapsing MS switching from a first disease modifying drug (DMD) to cladribine tablets in routine clinical practice at study sites in Italy. The primary objective will be to evaluate changes from baseline in the impact of highly active MS on self-assessed physical functioning 52 weeks after the switch to cladribine tablets using the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29). Secondary objectives will include self-assessed psychological impact of highly active MS in daily life and general health after the switch to cladribine tablets as well as changes in cognitive function, anxiety, and depression symptoms. Additional PRO measures will include the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Multiple Sclerosis (WPAI:MS), and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Wearable devices will acquire activity data (step counts, walking speed, time asleep, and energy expenditure). Additional clinical, radiological, and laboratory data will be collected when available during routine management. The findings will complement data from controlled trials by providing insight from daily clinical practice into the effect of cladribine tablets on the patient's experience and self-assessed impact of treatment on daily life., Competing Interests: DM received travel grants and honoraria for participating to Advisory Board and invited lectures from Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. MM has received honoraria for speaking, advisory board/consulting from Biogen, Novartis, Merck Serono, Roche, Almirall, Sanofi Genzyme, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Viatris, Alexion. He is principal investigator in clinical trials for Biogen, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, CSL Behring, Ultragenix, Argenx. DP received speaker honoraria from Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Biogen Idech, Merck, Roche, BMS, Almirall. FA and SC are employees of Merck Serono S.p.A., Italy, an affiliate of Merck KGaA. FP received personal fees for advisory and speaking activities by Alexion, Almirall, Biogen, Bristol Meyers & Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi. He also received research grants by Alexion, Almirall, Biogen, Bristol Meyers & Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, FISM, MUR, Italian Health Minister and Reload Onlus Association. The authors declare that this study received funding from Merck Serono S.p.A., Rome, Italy an affiliate of Merck (Cross Ref Funder ID: 10.13039/100009945). The funder had the following involvement in the study: study design, collection, data analysis and interpretation. Medical writing support was provided by EDITAMED S.r.l. and funded by Merck Serono S.p.A., Rome, Italy an affiliate of Merck. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. 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 © 2024 Borriello, Chisari, Maimone, Mirabella, Paolicelli, Assogna, Caradonna and Patti.)

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.)

Introduction: Ocrelizumab is an approved intravenously administered anti-CD20 antibody for multiple sclerosis (MS). The safety profile and patient preference for conventional versus shorter ocrelizumab infusions were investigated in the ENSEMBLE PLUS study., Methods: ENSEMBLE PLUS was a randomized, double-blind substudy to the single-arm ENSEMBLE study (NCT03085810), comparing outcomes in patients with early-stage relapsing-remitting MS receiving ocrelizumab 600 mg over the approved 3.5-h (conventional) versus 2-h (shorter) infusion. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with infusion-related reactions (IRRs) following the first randomized dose (RD); the secondary endpoint included IRR frequency at subsequent RDs., Results: At first RD, the number of patients with an IRR in the conventional (101/373; 27.1%) versus shorter (107/372; 28.8%) infusion group was similar (difference, stratified estimates [95% CI]: 1.9% [- 4.4, 8.2]). Most IRRs (conventional: 99.4%; shorter: 97.7%) were mild/moderate. IRR frequency decreased over the course of RDs; three patients discontinued from the shorter infusion arm but continued with conventional infusion. Overall, > 98% of IRRs resolved without sequelae in both groups. Pre-randomization throat irritation was predictive of future throat irritation as an IRR symptom. Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were consistent with the known ocrelizumab safety profile. On completion of ENSEMBLE PLUS, most patients chose to remain on (95%) or switch to (80%) shorter infusion., Conclusion: ENSEMBLE PLUS demonstrates the safety and tolerability of shorter ocrelizumab infusions. Most patients remained on/switched to shorter infusion after unblinding; IRRs did not strongly influence patient decisions., Clinical Trials Registration: Substudy of ENSEMBLE (NCT03085810)., Registration: March 21, 2017., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: People with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) exhibit a spectrum of needs that extend beyond solely disease-related determinants. Investigating unmet needs from the patient perspective may address daily difficulties and optimize care. Our aim was to identify patterns of unmet needs among PwMS and their determinants., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional multicentre study. Data were collected through an anonymous, self-administered online form. To cluster PwMS according to their main unmet needs, we performed agglomerative hierarchical clustering algorithm. Principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to visualize cluster distribution. Pairwise comparisons were used to evaluate demographics and clinical distribution among clusters., Results: Out of 1764 mailed questionnaires, we received 690 responses. Access to primary care was the main contributor to the overall unmet need burden. Four patterns were identified: cluster C1, 'information-seekers with few unmet needs'; cluster C2, 'high unmet needs'; cluster C3, 'socially and assistance-dependent'; cluster C4, 'self-sufficient with few unmet needs'. PCA identified two main components in determining the patterns: the 'public sphere' (access to information and care) and the 'private sphere' (need for assistance and social life). Older age, lower education, longer disease duration and higher disability characterized clusters with more unmet needs in the private sphere. However, demographic and clinical factors failed in explaining the four identified patterns., Conclusion: Our study identified four unmet need patterns among PwMS, emphasizing the importance of personalized care. While clinical and demographic factors provide some insight, additional variables warrant further investigation to fully understand unmet needs in PwMS., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Treatment options for secondary progressive MS (SPMS) are limited, especially considering that the new drugs recently approved are licensed for actively relapsing patients. We aimed to compare the disability progression in a real-world cohort of SPMS patients treated with natalizumab (NTZ) or interferon beta-1b (IFNb-1b). This multicenter retrospective enrolled patients with a diagnosis of SPMS according to 2014 Lublin criteria, who received NTZ or IFNb-1b for at least 48 months between the 1st June 2012 and the 15th May 2018 ​at 33 Italian MS centers contributing to the Italian MS Registry NTZ or IFNb-1b. Confirmed Expanded Disability Status Scale worsening (CEW) and progression independent of relapse (PIRA) were evaluated. In order to correct for non-randomization, a propensity score matching of the groups was performed. Out of 5206 MS patients identified at the time of data extraction, 421 SPMS patients treated with NTZ (224 [53.2%] females, mean age 45.3 ​± ​25.4 years) and 353 with IFNb-1b (133 [37.8%] females, mean age 48.5 ​± ​19.8 years) were enrolled. After applying the matching procedure, 102 patients were retained in the NTZ group and 98 in the IFNb-2b group. The proportion of patients who reached the 48-month 1-point CEW was significantly higher in IFNb-1b compared to NTZ group (58.2% versus 30.4%, p ​= ​0.01). The proportion of patients who developed PIRA at 48 months were significantly higher in IFNb-1b compared to NTZ (72.4% versus 40.2%, p ​= ​0.01). EDSS before treatment initiation and SPMS duration were risk factors for disability progression in terms of PIRA (HR 2.54, 25%CI 1.67-5.7; p ​= ​0.006 and HR 2.04, 25%CI 1.22-3.35; p ​= ​0.01, respectively). Patients treated with IFNb-1b were 1.64 times more to likely to develop PIRA (HR 1.64, 25%CI 1.04-4.87; p ​= ​0.001). Treatment with NTZ in SPMS patients showed more favorable disability outcomes compared to IFNb-1b with beneficial effects over 48 months., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest CGC has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. UA reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. MPA has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. RB reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. AB has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. SB served as speaker and/or advisory board fee, and/or travel grant from Novartis, Teva, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, Biogen-Idec, Merck-Serono. VBM received fees for consultancies or public speaking from Merck, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Genzyme and Biogen. PC has served as an advisory board member for Almirall, Biogen, Merck-Serono, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, Teva; she has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. EC reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. AC reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. SC has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. GDL reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. ADS reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. MF is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Neurology; received compensation for consulting services and/or speaking activities from Biogen Idec, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries; and receives research support from Biogen Idec, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Roche, Italian Ministry of Health, Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla, and ARiSLA(Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per la SLA). AG reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. CG reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. FG received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. GL reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. DM reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. GTM has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. GAM has served as an advisory board member and received speaker honoraria, congress, travel and accommodation expense compensations from Merck, Teva, Mylan, Bayer, Novartis, Roche, Almirall, Biogen and Sanofi Genzyme. LM reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. DP has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. IP reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. PR reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. MR received travel grants and fees for consulting and public speaking from Almirall, Biogen, Genzyme-Sanofi, Merck Serono, Mylan and Novartis. GS has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. CS has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. RT reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. ST reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. MT has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. MV reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. VL reports no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. MZ has received grants to attend scientific congresses or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva. FP has received honoraria for speaking activities by Almirall, Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA; he also served as advisory board member the following companies: Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA; he was also funded by Pfizer and FISM for epidemiological studies; he received grants for congress participation from Almirall, Bayer Shering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness is a promising biomarker of axonal loss and a potential outcome predictor in Multiple Sclerosis (MS). Cognitive impairment (CoI) exhibits a high prevalence in patients with MS (pwMS), even in the early phases of the disease. Our aim was to explore the role of RNFL thickness as a predictor of physical and cognitive disability in pwMS., Methods: All newly diagnosed pwMS referred to the MS centre of the University-Hospital "Policlinico-San Marco" between 2015-2019 were evaluated at baseline and at 3 years. RNFL and ganglion cell layer (GCL) thickness for right (r.e.) and left eyes (l.e.) were measured with Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT). Disability level and cognitive profile were assessed, using the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS) battery, respectively., Results: We consecutively enrolled 487 pwMS, including 68 (14.0%) with primary progressive MS (PPMS). At baseline, RNFL and GCL were bilaterally thinner in PPMS (r.e. 90.4 ± 12.7; l.e. 90.2 ± 13.5, and r.e. 80.1 ± 11.2; l.e. 80.3 ± 12.6, respectively) compared to relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) (r.e. 94.6 ± 13.1; l.e. 94.3 ± 14.8, and r.e. 85.1 ± 9.5; l.e. 84.9 ± 9.3, respectively) (p < 0.01). Both groups exhibited reduced RNFL and GCL thickness, worse cognitive performance and higher EDSS scores at 3-years follow-up compared with baseline. RNFL thickness ≤ 88.0 μm was an independent predictor of CoI (OR = 5.32; 95% CI = 1.84-9.12; p = 0.02) and disability worsening (OR = 3.18; 95% CI = 1.21-10.33; p = 0.05)., Discussion: RNFL thickness, as a biomarker of neurodegeneration, could be considered a predictive biomarker of cognitive degeneration and physical disability in MS., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: To mimic as closely as possible a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and calibrate the real-world evidence (RWE) studies against a known treatment effect would be helpful to understand if RWE can support causal conclusions in selected circumstances. The aim was to emulate the TRANSFORMS trial comparing Fingolimod (FTY) versus intramuscular interferon β-1a (IFN) using observational data., Methods: We extracted from the MSBase registry all the patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) collected in the period 2011-2021 who received IFN or FTY (0.5 mg) and with the same inclusion and exclusion criteria of the TRANSFORMS RCT. The primary endpoint was the annualised relapse rate (ARR) over 12 months. Patients were 1:1 propensity-score (PS) matched. Relapse-rate ratio (RR) was calculated by mean of a negative binomial regression., Results: A total of 4376 patients with RRMS (1140 in IFN and 3236 in FTY) were selected. After PS, 856 patients in each group were matched. The ARR was 0.45 in IFN and 0.25 in FTY with a significant difference between the two groups (RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.68; p<0.001). The result of the emulation was very similar and fell within the 95% CI of that observed in the RCT (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.64; p<0.001) with a standardised difference of 0.66 (p=0.51)., Conclusions: By applying the same inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the RCT and employing appropriate methodology, we successfully replicated the RCT results with only minor discrepancies. Also, even if the confounding bias cannot be fully eliminated, conducting a rigorous target trial emulation could still yield valuable insights for comparative effectiveness research., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MP, SO, BY, RK, AYS have nothing to disclose; AS received speaker’s honoraria from Chiesi and grant from MSBase outside from this work. TK served on scientific advisory boards for BMS, Roche, Janssen, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Merck and Biogen, steering committee for Brain Atrophy Initiative by Sanofi Genzyme, received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL and Merck and received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene and Merck. DH received speaker honoraria and consulting fees from Biogen, Merck, Teva, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Novartis, as well as support for research activities from Biogen and Czech Minsitry of Education [project Progres Q27/LF1]. EKH received honoraria/research support from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novars, Roche, and Teva; has been member of advisory boards for Actelion, Biogen, Celgene, Merck Serono, Novars, and Sanofi Genzyme; has been supported by the Czech Ministry of Educaon research project PROGRES Q27/LF1. RA received honoraria as a speaker and for serving on scientific advisory boards from Bayer, Biogen, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi-Genzyme. JK received speaker fees, research support, travel support, and/or advisory boards Swiss Multiple Sclerosis Society, SNSF, University of Basel, Progressive Multiple Sclerosis Alliance, Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Octave Bioscience, Roche, Sanofi. FP served an advisory board Alexion, Almirall, Bayer, Biogen, Bristol Meyers&Squibb, Merck, Novartis and Roche; he also received personal fee for speaking activities; he also received research grants by Biogen, Merck, Roche, FISM, Reload Onlus and MIUR Ministero Italiano della Ricerca e della Università. GI received speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Roche, Almirall and Teva. SJK received compensation for scientific advisory board activity from Merck and Roche and for serving on IDMC for Biogen. SE received speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche and Teva. PG has served in advisory boards for Novartis, EMD Serono, Roche, Biogen idec, Sanofi Genzyme, Pendopharm and has received grant support from Genzyme and Roche, has received research grants for his institution from Biogen idec, Sanofi Genzyme, EMD Serono. PD served on editorial boards and has been supported to attend meetings by EMD, Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, and TEVA Neuroscience. He holds grants from the CIHR and the MS Society of Canada and has received funding for investigator-initiated trials from Biogen, Novartis, and Genzyme. HB has received institutional (Monash University) funding from Biogen, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Merck, Alexion, CSL, and Novartis; has carried out contracted research for Novartis, Merck, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Biogen; has taken part in speakers’ bureaus for Biogen, Genzyme, UCB, Novartis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Merck; has received personal compensation from Oxford Health Policy Forum for the Brain Health Steering Committee. AV served on advisory boards for Novartis, Biogen, Merck and Roche and NervGen. She received unrestricted research grants from Novartis, Biogen, Merck and Roche. She is currently a co-Principal investigator on a co-sponsored observational study with Roche, evaluating a Roche-developed smartphone app, Floodlight-MS. She has received speaker’s honoraria and travel support from Novartis, Roche, Biogen and Merck. She serves as the Chief operating Officer of the MSBase Foundation (not for profit). Her primary research support is from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and MS Research Australia. MPS received consulting fees from Roche, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, Celgene, Immunic, Geneuro, GSK, Medday; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Roche, Biogen Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, Celgene; participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Roche, Sanofi, Novartis, Merck., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Cerebrospinal fluid myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein IgG (CSF MOG-IgG) are found in a proportion of patients with MOG antibody-associated disorder (MOGAD) and have been associated with severe disease presentations. However, most studies did not systematically investigate the role of MOG-IgG intrathecal synthesis (ITS)., Methods: We retrospectively studied 960 consecutive patients with paired serum and CSF samples screened for MOG-IgG using a live cell-based assays. MOG-IgG-specific antibody index (AI MOG ) was systematically calculated using serum and CSF titres to assess MOG-IgG ITS, and clinical features were compared between MOG-IgG CSF+/CSF- and ITS+/ITS- patients., Results: MOG-IgG were found in 55/960 patients (5.7%; serum+/CSF-: 58.2%, serum+/CSF+: 34.5%; serum-/CSF+: 7.3%). Serum/CSF MOG-IgG titres showed a moderate correlation in patients without ITS (ρ=0.47 (CI 0.18 to 0.68), p<0.001), but not in those with ITS (ρ=0.14 (CI -0.46 to -0.65), p=0.65). There were no clinical-paraclinical differences between MOG-IgG CSF+ vs CSF- patients. Conversely, patients with MOG-IgG ITS showed pyramidal symptoms (73% vs 32%, p=0.03), spinal cord involvement (82% vs 39%, p=0.02) and severe outcome at follow-up (36% vs 5%, p=0.02) more frequently than those without MOG-IgG ITS. A multivariate logistic regression model indicated that MOG-IgG ITS was an independent predictor of a poor outcome (OR: 14.93 (CI 1.40 to 19.1); p=0.03). AI MOG correlated with Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores at disease nadir and at last follow-up (p=0.02 and p=0.01)., Conclusions: Consistently with physiopathology, MOG-IgG ITS is a promising prognostic factor in MOGAD, and its calculation could enhance the clinical relevance of CSF MOG-IgG testing, making a case for its introduction in clinical practice., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: A comprehensive assessment of upper limb (UL) function is mandatory in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS), and the use of multiple objective and subjective measures is advisable. Findings on the role of cognitive impairment on the assessment of UL function are scant and inconclusive. The present study investigated the influence of cognitive function on the distribution of objective and subjective UL measures and on their association., Methods: In the cross-sectional study, subjects with a diagnosis of MS, age ≥ 18 years, right-hand dominance, no presence of orthopedic UL impairment, or other neurological diseases were recruited. The assessment protocol included the Nine-Hole Peg Test (9-HPT), Box and Block Test (BBT), and hand grip strength (HGS), a validated PROM (MAM-36), and the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT)., Results: Two hundred forty-six PwMS were recruited (158 females, mean age = 51.65 ± 13.45 years; mean EDSS = 5.10 ± 1.88) Subject with mild-to-moderate cognitive impairment (SDMT ≤  - 2 SD of normative values) scored lower on the 9-HPT and higher on the BBT and MAM-36 when compared with subject with no cognitive impairment. Cognitive impairment showed a small but significant effect on the association between 9-HPT scores and the MAM-36., Discussion: Findings suggest that cognitive impairment is associated with subjects' performance on 9-HPT, BBT, and MAM-36 (but not HGS), resulting in scores indicating a poorer UL function. Interestingly, cognitive impairment slightly affected the congruence between subjective and objective UL measures, although only minor differences in the correlation pattern across groups reporting different cognitive performances emerged., (© 2024. Fondazione Società Italiana di Neurologia.)

Locally recurrent rectal cancer is resected with clear margins in only 50% of cases, and these patients achieve a three-year survival rate of 50%. Outcomes and therapeutic strategies for nonresectable locally recurrent rectal cancer have been much less explored. The aim of the study was to assess the three-year progression-free survival and the three-year overall survival in locally recurrent rectal cancer patients treated by chemotherapy/chemoradiation only vs. chemotherapy/chemoradiation and R2 surgical debulking vs. palliative care. A total of 86 patients affected by nonresectable locally recurrent rectal cancer were included: three-year progression-free survival was 15.8% with chemotherapy/chemoradiation vs. 20.3% with R2 surgical debulking (Log-rank p=0.567), but both rates were higher than best palliative care (0.0%, Log-rank p=0.0004). Three-year overall survival rates were respectively 62.0%, 70.8% and 0.0% (Log-rank p<0.0001). Chemotherapy/chemoradiation (HR 0.33, p=0.028) and R2 surgical debulking with or without chemotherapy/chemoradiation (HR 0.23, p=0.005) were independent predictors of improved progression-free survival on multivariate analysis. In conclusion, both chemotherapy/chemoradiation alone and R2 surgery with or without chemotherapy/chemoradiation provide a survival benefit over palliative care in nonresectable locally recurrent rectal cancer. However, considering that pelvic debulking is burdened by a high rate of complications, and considering its negligible impact on progression-free survival and overall survival when associated to medical therapy, surgery should be avoided in this setting., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

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

Objective: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a complex disorder in which environmental and genetic factors interact modifying disease risk and course. This multicentre, case-control study involving 18 Italian MS Centres investigated MS course by ethnicity and native-country economic status in foreign-born patients living in Italy., Methods: We identified 457 MS patients who migrated to Italy and 893 age- and sex-matched native-born Italian patients. In our population, 1225 (93.2%) subjects were White Europeans and White Northern Americans (WENA) and 89 (6.8%) patients were from other ethnical groups (OEG); 1109 (82.1%) patients were born in a high-income (HI) Country and 241 (17.9%) in a low-middle-income (LMI) Country. Medical records and patients interviews were used to collect demographic and disease data., Results: We included 1350 individuals (973 women and 377 men); mean (SD) age was 45.0 (11.7) years. At onset, 25.45% OEG patients vs 12.47% WENA (p = 0.039) had > 3 STIR spine lesions. At recruitment, the same group featured mean (SD) EDSS score of 2.85 (2.23) vs 2.64 (2.28) (p = 0.044) reached in 8.9 (9.0) vs 12.0 (9.0) years (p = 0.018) and underwent 1.10 (4.44) vs. 0.99 (0.40) annual MRI examinations (p = 0.035). At disease onset, patients from LMI countries had higher EDSS score than HI patients (2.40 (1.43) vs 1.99 (1.17); p = 0.032)., Discussion: Our results suggested that both ethnicity and socio-economic status of native country shape MS presentation and course and should be considered for an appropriate management of patients. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study reporting on the impact of ethnicity in MS at an individual level and beyond an ecological population-perspective., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background and Objectives: Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) typically experience higher levels of inflammation with more frequent relapses, and though patients with POMS usually recover from relapses better than adults, patients with POMS reach irreversible disability at a younger age than adult-onset patients. There have been few randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of multiple sclerosis (MS) disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in patients with POMS, and most available data are based on observational studies of off-label use of DMTs approved for adults. We assessed the effectiveness of natalizumab compared with fingolimod using injectable platform therapies as a reference in pediatric patients in the global MSBase registry., Methods: This retrospective study included patients with POMS who initiated treatment with an injectable DMT, natalizumab, or fingolimod between January 1, 2006, and May 3, 2021. Patients were matched using inverse probability treatment weighting. The primary outcome was time to first relapse from index therapy initiation. Secondary study outcomes included annualized relapse rate; proportions of relapse-free patients at 1, 2, and 5 years; time to treatment discontinuation; and times to 24-week confirmed disability worsening and confirmed disability improvement., Results: A total of 1,218 patients with POMS were included in this analysis. Patients treated with fingolimod had a significantly lower risk of relapse than patients treated with injectable DMTs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.83; p = 0.008). After adjustment for prior DMT experience in the unmatched sample, patients treated with natalizumab had a significantly lower risk of relapse than patients treated either with injectable DMTs (HR, 0.15; 95% CI 0.07-0.31; p < 0.001) or fingolimod (HR, 0.37; 95% CI 0.14-1.00; p = 0.049). The adjusted secondary study outcomes were generally consistent with the primary outcome or with previous observations. The findings in the inverse probability treatment weighting-adjusted patient populations were confirmed in multiple sensitivity analyses., Discussion: Our analyses of relapse risk suggest that natalizumab is more effective than fingolimod in the control of relapses in this population with high rates of new inflammatory activity, consistent with previous studies of natalizumab and fingolimod in adult-onset patients and POMS. In addition, both fingolimod and natalizumab were more effective than first-line injectable therapies., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class II evidence that patients with POMS treated with natalizumab had a lower risk of relapse than those with fingolimod.

Background: Generally infrequent, multiple sclerosis (MS) with late onset (LOMS) is characterized by an onset over the age of 50 and a mainly progressive course, while relapsing-remitting (RR) forms are less frequently observed and explored. This study aimed to characterize a large cohort of MS patients with RRMS at onset to assess the baseline factors related to the worst disability trajectories and explore the role of LOMS., Methods: The data were extracted from the Italian MS Register (IMSR). Disability trajectories, defined using at least two and up to twenty expanded disability status scale (EDSS) assessments annually performed, were implemented using group-based trajectory models (GBTMs) to identify different groups with the same trajectories over time. MS profiles were explored using multinomial logistic regression., Results: A total of 16,159 RR patients [1012 (6.26%) presented with LOMS] were analyzed. The GBTM identified four disability trajectories. The group with the most severe EDSS trend included 12.3% of the patients with a mean EDSS score > 4, which increased over time and exceeded 6 score. The group with medium severity EDSS trend comprised 21.9% of the patients and showed a change in EDSS > 3 scores over time. The largest group with 50.8% of patients reported a constant EDSS of 2 score. Finally, the benign group comprised 14.9% of the patients with a low and constant EDSS of 1 score over time. The probability of being in the worst groups increased if the patient was male; had LOMS or experienced brainstem, spinal, or supratentorial symptoms., Conclusions: Four MS severity profiles among RRMS patients in the IMSR have been reported, with LOMS being associated with a rapid worsening of EDSS scores. These findings have important implications for recognizing and managing how older age, aging, and age-related factors interact with MS and its evolution., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany.)

Background: This research aimed to investigate the experience of Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorders (NMOSD) by integrating the perspectives of patients, caregivers and clinicians through narrative-based medicine to provide new insights to improve care relationships., Methods: The research was conducted in the second half of 2022 and involved six Italian centres treating NMOSD and targeted adult patients, their caregivers and healthcare providers to collect the three points of view of living with or caring for this rare disease, still difficult to treat despite the pharmacological options. Narratives followed a structured outline according to the time: yesterday-today-tomorrow, to capture all disease phases., Results: Twenty-five patients diagnosed with NMOSD, ten caregivers and 13 healthcare providers participated in the research. Patients reported symptoms limiting their daily activities and strongly impacting their social dimension. We noticed improvements across disease duration, whilst the persistence of limitations was recurrent in patients with longer diagnoses. Caregivers' narratives mainly share experiences of their daily life changes, the burden of the caregiving role and the solutions identified, if any. Healthcare providers defined their role as a guide., Conclusion: Limitations in activities are prominent in the lives of people with NMOSD, along with fatigue. Family members are the weakest link in the chain and need information and support. Healthcare professionals are attentive to the helping dimension., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Active relapsing-remitting (RR) and secondary progressive (SP) multiple sclerosis (MS) are currently defined as "relapsing MS" (RMS). The aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess drivers of treatment switches due to clinical relapses in a population of RMS patients collected in the Italian MS and Related Disorders Register (I-MS&RD)., Methods: RRMS and SPMS patients with at least one relapse in a time window of 2 years before of data extraction were defined as RMS. Factors associated with disease-modifying therapy (DMT) switching due to clinical activity were assessed through multivariable logistic regression models in which treatment exposure was included as the last recorded DMT and the last DMT's class [moderate-efficacy (ME), high-efficacy (HE) DMTs and anti-CD20 drugs]., Results: A cohort of 4739 RMS patients (4161 RRMS, 578 SPMS) was extracted from the I-MS&RD. A total of 2694 patients switching DMTs due to relapses were identified. Switchers were significantly (p < 0.0001) younger, less disabled, more frequently affected by an RR disease course in comparison to non-switcher patients. The multivariable logistic regression models showed that Alemtuzumab (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02-0.37), Natalizumab (0.48, 0.30-0.76), Ocrelizumab (0.1, 0.02-0.45) and Rituximab (0.23, 0.06-0.82) exposure was a protective factor against treatment switch due to relapses. Moreover, the use of HE DMTs (0.43, 0.31-0.59), especially anti-CD20 drugs (0.14, 0.05-0.37), resulted to be a protective factor against treatment switch due to relapses in comparison with ME DMTs., Conclusions: More than 50% of RMS switched therapy due to disease activity. HE DMTs, especially anti-CD20 drugs, significantly reduce the risk of treatment switch., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany.)

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

Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic, ocrelizumab (OCR) infusions for MS patients were often re-scheduled because of MS center's disruption and concerns regarding immunosuppression. The aim of the present study was to assess changes in OCR schedule during the first wave of pandemic in Italy and to evaluate the effect of delayed infusion on clinical/radiological endpoints., Methods: Data were extracted from the Italian MS Register database. Standard interval dosing was defined as an infusion interval ≤ 30 weeks, while extended interval dosing was defined as an infusion interval > 30 weeks at the time of the observation period. Clinico-demographics variables were tested as potential predictors for treatment delay. Time to first relapse and time to first MRI event were evaluated. Cumulative hazard curves were reported along their 95% confidence intervals. A final sample of one-thousand two patients with MS from 65 centers was included in the analysis: 599 pwMS were selected to evaluate the modification of OCR infusion intervals, while 717 pwRMS were selected to analyze the effect of infusion delay on clinical/MRI activity., Results: Mean interval between two OCR infusions was 28.1 weeks before pandemic compared to 30.8 weeks during the observation period, with a mean delay of 2.74 weeks (p < 0.001). No clinico-demographic factors emerged as predictors of infusion postponement, except for location of MS centers in the North of Italy. Clinical relapses (4 in SID, 0 in EID) and 17 MRI activity reports (4 in SID, 13 in EID) were recorded during follow-up period., Discussion: Despite the significant extension of OCR infusion interval during the first wave of pandemic in Italy, a very small incidence of clinical/radiological events was observed, thus suggesting durable efficacy of OCR, as well as the absence of rebound after its short-term suspension., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Importance: Although up to 20% of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) experience onset before 18 years of age, it has been suggested that people with pediatric-onset MS (POMS) are protected against disability because of greater capacity for repair., Objective: To assess the incidence of and factors associated with progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA) and relapse-associated worsening (RAW) in POMS compared with typical adult-onset MS (AOMS) and late-onset MS (LOMS)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study on prospectively acquired data from the Italian MS Register was performed from June 1, 2000, to September 30, 2021. At the time of data extraction, longitudinal data from 73 564 patients from 120 MS centers were available in the register., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes included age-related cumulative incidence and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for PIRA and RAW and associated factors., Exposures: Clinical and magnetic resonance imaging features, time receiving disease-modifying therapy (DMT), and time to first DMT., Results: After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the study assessed 16 130 patients with MS (median [IQR] age at onset, 28.7 [22.8-36.2 years]; 68.3% female). Compared with AOMS and LOMS, patients with POMS had less disability, exhibited more active disease, and were exposed to DMT for a longer period. A first 48-week-confirmed PIRA occurred in 7176 patients (44.5%): 558 patients with POMS (40.4%), 6258 patients with AOMS (44.3%), and 360 patients with LOMS (56.8%) (P < .001). Factors associated with PIRA were older age at onset (AOMS vs POMS HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.30-1.55; LOMS vs POMS HR, 2.98; 95% CI, 2.60-3.41; P < .001), longer disease duration (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.04-1.05; P < .001), and shorter DMT exposure (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.64-0.74; P < .001). The incidence of PIRA was 1.3% at 20 years of age, but it rapidly increased approximately 7 times between 21 and 30 years of age (9.0%) and nearly doubled for each age decade from 40 to 70 years (21.6% at 40 years, 39.0% at 50 years, 61.0% at 60 years, and 78.7% at 70 years). The cumulative incidence of RAW events followed a similar trend from 20 to 60 years (0.5% at 20 years, 3.5% at 30 years, 7.8% at 40 years, 14.4% at 50 years, and 24.1% at 60 years); no further increase was found at 70 years (27.7%). Delayed DMT initiation was associated with higher risk of PIRA (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.00-1.34; P = .04) and RAW (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.28-2.39; P = .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: PIRA can occur at any age, and although pediatric onset is not fully protective against progression, this study's findings suggest that patients with pediatric onset are less likely to exhibit PIRA over a decade of follow-up. However, these data also reinforce the benefit for DMT initiation in patients with POMS, as treatment was associated with reduced occurrence of both PIRA and RAW regardless of age at onset.

Background: Cladribine tablets are a highly effective option for the treatment of relapsingremitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS)., Objective: The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of cladribine in a real-world setting., Methods: This prospective real-world study consecutively screened all RRMS patients from seven different MS centers in Sicily (Italy) who completed the 2-year treatment course of cladribine tablets in the period between 11 th March 2019 and 31 st October 2021. Data about Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), relapses, previous treatments, adverse events (AEs) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were collected. Patients who were previously treated with other DMTs were further stratified into moderately active treatment (MAT) and highly active treatment (HAT) patients., Results: A total of 217 patients (70% women, with a mean age of 38.4 ± 11.3 years) were enrolled. Fifty patients (23.0%) were naïve to treatment and 167 (77%) switched from other disease modifying therapies. After the second year of treatment, about 80% were EDSS progression free, 88% remained relapse-free at T24, and 48% of patients were MRI activity-free. Kaplan Meier analyses showed significant differences between MT and HAT in terms of time to first clinical relapse (HR: 2.43, IC 1.02- 5.76; p = 0.04), time to the first new T1-gadolinium enhancing lesion (HR: 3.43, IC 1.35-8.70; p = 0.009) and time to MRI worsening (HR: 2.42, IC 1.15-5.09; p = 0.02)., Conclusion: This study confirmed that cladribine is an effective treatment for MS, particularly in naïve patients and those who have switched from MATs., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

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: The intervals between two courses of anti CD20 therapies in the COVID19 pandemic era provided the opportunity to individually delay therapy, known as extended interval dosing (EID)., Methods: We collect real-world data on patients with primary progressive MS (PPMS) treated with Ocrelizumab (OCR) during the COVID'19 pandemic. The observation period in which the standard interval dosing (SID) or EID occurred (always a maintenance cycle, 600 mg) was from January 2020 to June 2021. All patients had two infusions during the observation period. Our first aim was to compare confirmed disability progression (CDP) between SID and EID patients., Results: From a total cohort of 410 patients treated with OCR, 96 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All patients received two infusions during the index window, 71 received only SID infusions whilst 25 received at least one EID infusion throughout the entire follow-up. During the entire available follow-up (median 10 months, IQR 7-11), CDP was recorded in 5 patients (3/71, 4.2% SID and 2/25, 8% EID, V-Cramer = 0.141, p-value = 0.167). EID regimen did not influence the risk of CDP during the investigated follow up., Conclusion: In our multicentre real-world cohort, the EID regimen in PPMS patients did not result in increased CDP during the available follow-up., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

Aim: To evaluate the real-world comparative effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness, from a UK National Health Service perspective, of natalizumab versus fingolimod in patients with rapidly evolving severe relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RES-RRMS)., Methods: Real-world data from the MSBase Registry were obtained for patients with RES-RRMS who were previously either naive to disease-modifying therapies or had been treated with interferon-based therapies, glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, or teriflunomide (collectively known as BRACETD). Matched cohorts were selected by 3-way multinomial propensity score matching, and the annualized relapse rate (ARR) and 6-month-confirmed disability worsening (CDW6M) and improvement (CDI6M) were compared between treatment groups. Comparative effectiveness results were used in a cost-effectiveness model comparing natalizumab and fingolimod, using an established Markov structure over a lifetime horizon with health states based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale. Additional model data sources included the UK MS Survey 2015, published literature, and publicly available sources., Results: In the comparative effectiveness analysis, we found a significantly lower ARR for patients starting natalizumab compared with fingolimod (rate ratio [RR] = 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.73) or BRACETD (RR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.42-0.53). Similarly, CDI6M was higher for patients starting natalizumab compared with fingolimod (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55) and BRACETD (HR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.16-1.85). In patients starting fingolimod, we found a lower ARR (RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.80) compared with starting BRACETD, but no difference in CDI6M (HR = 1.17; 95% CI, 0.91-1.50). Differences in CDW6M were not found between the treatment groups. In the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis, natalizumab dominated fingolimod (0.302 higher quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and £17,141 lower predicted lifetime costs). Similar cost-effectiveness results were observed across sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: This MSBase Registry analysis suggests that natalizumab improves clinical outcomes when compared with fingolimod, which translates to higher QALYs and lower costs in UK patients with RES-RRMS.