Search

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).)

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

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

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

Background: The risk factors for conversion from relapsing-remitting to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis remain highly contested., Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the demographic, clinical and paraclinical features that influence the risk of conversion to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis., Methods: Patients with adult-onset relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and at least four recorded disability scores were selected from MSBase, a global observational cohort. The risk of conversion to objectively defined secondary progressive multiple sclerosis was evaluated at multiple time points per patient using multivariable marginal Cox regression models. Sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: A total of 15,717 patients were included in the primary analysis. Older age (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.02, p  < 0.001), longer disease duration (HR = 1.01, p  = 0.038), a higher Expanded Disability Status Scale score (HR = 1.30, p  < 0.001), more rapid disability trajectory (HR = 2.82, p  < 0.001) and greater number of relapses in the previous year (HR = 1.07, p  = 0.010) were independently associated with an increased risk of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Improving disability (HR = 0.62, p  = 0.039) and disease-modifying therapy exposure (HR = 0.71, p  = 0.007) were associated with a lower risk. Recent cerebral magnetic resonance imaging activity, evidence of spinal cord lesions and oligoclonal bands in the cerebrospinal fluid were not associated with the risk of conversion., Conclusion: Risk of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis increases with age, duration of illness and worsening disability and decreases with improving disability. Therapy may delay the onset of secondary progression.

A number of studies have been conducted with the onset of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis as an inclusion criterion or an outcome of interest. However, a standardized objective definition of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis has been lacking. The aim of this work was to evaluate the accuracy and feasibility of an objective definition for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, to enable comparability of future research studies. Using MSBase, a large, prospectively acquired, global cohort study, we analysed the accuracy of 576 data-derived onset definitions for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis and first compared these to a consensus opinion of three neurologists. All definitions were then evaluated against 5-year disease outcomes post-assignment of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: sustained disability, subsequent sustained progression, positive disability trajectory, and accumulation of severe disability. The five best performing definitions were further investigated for their timeliness and overall disability burden. A total of 17 356 patients were analysed. The best definition included a 3-strata progression magnitude in the absence of a relapse, confirmed after 3 months within the leading Functional System and required an Expanded Disability Status Scale step ≥4 and pyramidal score ≥2. It reached an accuracy of 87% compared to the consensus diagnosis. Seventy-eight per cent of the identified patients showed a positive disability trajectory and 70% reached significant disability after 5 years. The time until half of all patients were diagnosed was 32.6 years (95% confidence interval 32-33.6) after disease onset compared with the physicians' diagnosis at 36 (35-39) years. The identified patients experienced a greater disease burden [median annualized area under the disability-time curve 4.7 (quartiles 3.6, 6.0)] versus non-progressive patients [1.8 (1.2, 1.9)]. This objective definition of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale and information about preceding relapses provides a tool for a reproducible, accurate and timely diagnosis that requires a very short confirmation period. If applied broadly, the definition has the potential to strengthen the design and improve comparability of clinical trials and observational studies in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis., (© The Author (2016). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)