Search

Background: In May 2021, a new guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of multiple sclerosis and related disorders was released in Germany. Since the success of a guideline depends on how it integrates into everyday clinical practice, the German Society for Neurology (DGN) has launched a multimethod implementation project. Here we report on the results based on the consultation version of the guideline. Methods: We used qualitative and quantitative data analyses to capture the nature and extent of barriers and facilitating factors to the implementation. We centered on the guideline's chapter A on diagnosis, relapse therapy, and immunotherapy of multiple sclerosis. We performed nine online focus group discussions and a web-based survey and analyzed emails and letters with comments from stakeholders and independent parties that were sent spontaneously or by invitation. Results: 94 neurologists answered the survey, and >= 70% agreed with the recommendations of the guideline on each major content topic. Barriers to implementation were detected in group discussions and written input. The most controversial issues of the guideline were early treatment, criteria for starting or switching therapy, stepwise escalation versus early aggressive treatment, classification of drugs into three categories of efficacy and the scenarios on treatment cessation. Some appreciated the highly structured recommendations, but others felt that the guideline restricts the free choice of therapy, or they were afraid of recourse claims. Some considered the guideline as too cautious regarding treatment initiation, possibly delaying necessary therapies. Others appreciated that conflicts of interests of the guideline's authoring group were minimized and thought that the new guideline is clearer, more extensive and practical. Conclusion: In contrast to the survey, feedback in the focus group discussions and from individuals was diverse and sometimes more critical. Based on the overall feedback rate

Background: Multiple sclerosis treatment options are increasing. Evidence-based patient information (EBPI) are therefore crucial to enable patient involvement in decision making. Based on earlier work on decision support, patient information handbooks on 8 MS immunotherapies were developed, piloted and evaluated with support from the German Clinical Competence Network MS and the German MS Society. Methods: Handbooks were structured according to EBPI concepts. Drafts were commented by patient representatives and neurologists with an MS expertise. Executive boards of the German MS Society and the Competence Network as well as pharmaceutical companies' feedback was included. Handbooks were distributed among MS neurologists by the German MS Society. Evaluation followed applying a mixed methods approach with interviews, focus groups and surveys. One survey addressed persons with MS (pwMS) based on a questionnaire included in each handbook. Neurologists who received printed patient handbooks were invited to give feedback in a second survey. Results: Eight handbooks were developed providing absolute and relative risk information in numbers and figures as well as monitoring needs and drug fact boxes. Despite the high amount of information and the display of low absolute risk reduction rates of treatments, handbooks were overall appreciated by pwMS (n=107) and mostly also by physicians (n=24). For more than 70% of the pwMS the information was new, understandable and supportive for decision making. But patients felt uncomfortable with relative risk information. However, response rates in the evaluation were low, exposing the challenges when implementing EBPI into clinical care. Therefore, conclusions must be considered preliminary. Conclusion: EBPI on immunotherapies for MS seem feasible and are appreciated by patients and treating neurologists but more implementation research is needed.