Search

Background: The International Multiple Sclerosis Genetics Consortium and MultipleMS Consortium recently reported a genetic variant associated with multiple sclerosis (MS) severity. However, it remains unclear if these variants remain associated with more robust, longitudinal measures of disease severity., Methods: We examined the top variant, rs10191329, from Harroud et al.'s study in 1813 relapse-onset MS patients from the MSBase Registry to assess association with longitudinal disease severity., Results: Our analysis revealed no significant association between rs10191329 genotype and longitudinal binary disease severity ( p > 0.05)., Conclusion: These findings highlight the complexity of genetic factors mediating long-term MS outcomes and the need for further research., 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.

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

Multiple sclerosis is often diagnosed in patients who are planning on having children. Although multiple sclerosis does not negatively influence most pregnancy outcomes, less is known regarding the effects of fetal exposure to novel disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). The withdrawal of some DMTs during pregnancy can modify the natural history of multiple sclerosis, resulting in a substantial risk of pregnancy-related relapse and disability. Drug labels are typically restrictive and favour fetal safety over maternal safety. Emerging data reporting outcomes in neonates exposed to DMTs in utero and through breastfeeding will allow for more careful and individualised treatment decisions. This emerging research is particularly important to guide decision making in women with high disease activity or who are treated with DMTs associated with risk of discontinuation rebound. As increasing data are generated in this field, periodic updates will be required to provide the most up to date guidance on how best to achieve multiple sclerosis stability during pregnancy and post partum, balanced with fetal and newborn safety., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KMK has received grants from the MS Society of Canada; speaking or consulting fees from Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, and Roche; and is an advisory board member for Biogen, Novartis, and Roche, outside the submitted work. RD has received payments to her institution, including grants from Biogen, Merck, Celgene, National MS Society, MS Society UK, Horne Family Trust, and the BMA Foundation; honoraria from Biogen, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Teva; participated on an advisory board for Biogen, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and Roche; and received support for attending meetings or travel from Biogen, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. MPA received grants for a sponsored statistician from Merck; consulting fees from Almirall, Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen-Idec, Sanofi Genzyme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, and Roche; honoraria from Almirall, Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen-Idec, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme; participated on the data safety and monitoring board or advisory board for Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi Genzyme; and reports a leadership role as president of The European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS), outside the submitted work. RB received investigator-initiated grants from Biogen, Novartis, and F Hoffman LaRoche, and sponsored grants from F Hoffman LaRoche; consulting fees from Alexion, Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, F Hoffman Laroche, Genzyme Sanofi, TG Therapeutics, and Janssen. AIC received speaker's honoraria from Bayer Healthcare; and support for attending meetings from Teva, outside the submitted work. MM received grants from the Danish MS Society; consulting fees from Merck, Sanofi, Roche, and Novartis; payment or honoraria from Merck, Sanofi, Roche, Novartis, Biogen, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and participated on the data safety and monitoring board or advisory board for Merck, Sanofi, Roche, Novartis, Biogen, and Bristol Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. ST received speaker honoraria from Bayer Healthcare and Biogen GmbH, and manuscript writing assistance from Hexal AG, outside the submitted work. MT received grants for a sponsored statistician from Biogen; consulting fees from Almirall, Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen-Idec, Genzyme, Janssen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Viela Bio, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; honoraria from Almirall, Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen-Idec, Genzyme, Janssen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Viela Bio, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; and reports a leadership role as ECTRIMS vice president, outside the submitted work. SV has received payments to her institution including grants from Biogen, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi; consulting fees from Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi; honoraria from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Teva; participated on the data safety and monitoring board or advisory board for Biogen; support for attending meetings or travel from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, and Roche, outside the submitted work. KH received grants or contracts from Almirall, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, and Teva; payment or honoraria from Almirall, Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, Teva, Janssen, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; support for attending meetings or travel from Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva; participation on a data safety and monitoring board or advisory board from Biogen, Teva, Roche, Novartis, Jansen, and Merck, outside the submitted work. RA, YF, MH, VGJ, AA, VP declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis commonly switch between disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). Identifying predictors of relapse when switching could improve outcomes., Objective: To determine predictors of relapse hazard when switching to cladribine., Methods: Data of patients who switched to cladribine, grouped by prior disease-modifying therapy (pDMT; interferon-β/glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide, fingolimod or natalizumab (NTZ)), were extracted from the MSBase Registry. Predictors of relapse hazard during the treatment gap and the first year of cladribine therapy were determined., Results: Of 513 patients, 22 relapsed during the treatment gap, and 38 within 1 year of starting cladribine. Relapse in the year before pDMT cessation predicted treatment gap relapse hazard (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI)  = 1.03-5.71). After multivariable adjustment, relapse hazard on cladribine was predicted by relapse before pDMT cessation (HR = 2.00, 95% CI = 1.01-4.02), treatment gap relapse (HR = 6.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.65-14.41), switch from NTZ (HR compared to injectable therapies 4.08, 95% CI = 1.35-12.33) and age at cladribine start (HR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.91-0.99)., Conclusion: Relapse during or prior to the treatment gap, and younger age, are of prognostic relevance in the year after switching to cladribine. Switching from NTZ is also independently associated with greater relapse hazard.

Background: To compare the effectiveness and treatment persistence of ocrelizumab, cladribine and natalizumab in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis switching from fingolimod., Methods: Using data from MSBase registry, this multicentre cohort study included subjects who had used fingolimod for ≥6 months and then switched to ocrelizumab, cladribine or natalizumab within 3 months after fingolimod discontinuation. We analysed relapse and disability outcomes after balancing covariates using an inverse-probability-treatment-weighting method. Propensity scores for the three treatments were obtained using multinomial-logistic regression. Due to the smaller number of cladribine users, comparisons of disability outcomes were limited to natalizumab and ocrelizumab., Results: Overall, 1045 patients switched to ocrelizumab (n=445), cladribine (n=76) or natalizumab (n=524) after fingolimod. The annualised relapse rate (ARR) for ocrelizumab was 0.07, natalizumab 0.11 and cladribine 0.25. Compared with natalizumab, the ARR ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 0.67 (0.47 to 0.96) for ocrelizumab and 2.31 (1.30 to 4.10) for cladribine; the hazard ratio (95% CI) for time to first relapse was 0.57 (0.40 to 0.83) for ocrelizumab and 1.18 (0.47 to 2.93) for cladribine. Ocrelizumab users had an 89% lower discontinuation rate (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.20) than natalizumab, but also a 51% lower probability of confirmed disability improvement (95% CI, 0.32 to 0.73). There was no difference in disability accumulation., Conclusion: After fingolimod cessation, ocrelizumab and natalizumab were more effective in reducing relapses than cladribine. Due to the low ARRs in all three treatment groups, additional observation time is required to determine if statistical difference in ARRs results in long-term disability differences., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CZ, OS, RM, AP, JK, MO, RK, SO, DM, IR and ZZ report no disclosures. VJ received conference travel support from Merck and Roche and speaker’s honoraria from Biogen and Roche outside of the submitted work. She receives research support from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Grant and MS Research Australia. MB received conference travel support from Biogen and Novartis. His institution has received research support from Biogen, Merck and Novartis. TK 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. JL-S received travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Roche and Merck. Her institution receives the honoraria for talks and advisory board commitment and research grants from Biogen, Merck, Roche, TEVA and Novartis. SJK received compensation for scientific advisory board activity from Merck and Roche. SH received honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis, Bayer Schering and Sanofi, and travel grants from Novartis, Biogen Idec and Bayer Schering. MS participated in, but not received honoraria for, advisory board activity for Biogen, Merck, Bayer Schering, Sanofi Aventis and Novartis. AvdW 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 also received grant support from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and MS Research Australia. VVP has received travel grants from Merck Healthcare KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany), Biogen, Sanofi, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Almirall and Roche. His institution has received research grants and consultancy fees from Roche, Biogen, Sanofi, Merck Healthcare KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany), Bristol Meyer Squibb, Janssen, Almirall and Novartis Pharma. JP received travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Genzyme and Teva, and speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme and Teva. 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 Ministry of Education. EKH received honoraria/research support from Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche and Teva. GI received speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Roche, Almirall and Teva. FP 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. 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; he participated in Sanofi Aventis, Roche and Novartis clinical trials. MM has served on advisory board for Merck, has received speaker honoraria from Merck and Biogen. Her institution receives funding from Merck, Australian National Health Medical Research Council, Brain Foundation, Charles and Sylvia Viertel Foundation, Bethlehem Griffith Foundation and MS Research Australia. 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., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Increasingly, people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) are switched to highly effective disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) such as ocrelizumab., Objective: To determine predictors of relapse and disability progression when switching from another DMT to ocrelizumab., Methods: Patients with RRMS who switched to ocrelizumab were identified from the MSBase Registry and grouped by prior disease-modifying therapy (pDMT; interferon-β/glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide, fingolimod or natalizumab) and washout duration (<1 month, 1-2 months or 2-6 months). Survival analyses including multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to identify predictors of on-ocrelizumab relapse within 1 year, and 6-month confirmed disability progression (CDP)., Results: After adjustment, relapse hazard when switching from fingolimod was greater than other pDMTs, but only in the first 3 months of ocrelizumab therapy (hazard ratio (HR) = 3.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.57-11.11, p  = 0.004). The adjusted hazard for CDP was significantly higher with longer washout (2-6 m compared to <1 m: HR = 9.57, 95% CI = 1.92-47.64, p  = 0.006)., Conclusion: The risk of disability worsening during switch to ocrelizumab is reduced by short treatment gaps. Patients who cease fingolimod are at heightened relapse risk in the first 3 months on ocrelizumab. Prospective evaluation of strategies such as washout reduction may help optimise this switch.

Background: Patients with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis inadequately responding to first-line therapies (interferon-based therapies, glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, and teriflunomide, known collectively as "BRACETD") often switch to natalizumab or fingolimod., Objective: The aim was to estimate the comparative effectiveness of switching to natalizumab or fingolimod or within BRACETD using real-world data and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of switching to natalizumab versus fingolimod using a United Kingdom (UK) third-party payer perspective., Methods: Real-world data were obtained from MSBase for patients relapsing on BRACETD in the year before switching to natalizumab or fingolimod or within BRACETD. Three-way-multinomial-propensity-score-matched cohorts were identified, and comparisons between treatment groups were conducted for annualised relapse rate (ARR) and 6-month-confirmed disability worsening (CDW6M) and improvement (CDI6M). Results were applied in a cost-effectiveness model over a lifetime horizon using a published Markov structure with health states based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale. Other model parameters were obtained from the UK MS Survey 2015, published literature, and publicly available UK sources., Results: The MSBase analysis found a significant reduction in ARR (rate ratio [RR] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.72; p < 0.001) and an increase in CDI6M (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.67; 95% CI 1.30-2.15; p < 0.001) for switching to natalizumab compared with BRACETD. For switching to fingolimod, the reduction in ARR (RR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.81-1.03; p = 0.133) and increase in CDI6M (HR = 1.30; 95% CI 0.99-1.72; p = 0.058) compared with BRACETD were not significant. Switching to natalizumab was associated with a significant reduction in ARR (RR = 0.70; 95% CI 0.62-0.79; p < 0.001) and an increase in CDI6M (HR = 1.28; 95% CI 1.01-1.62; p = 0.040) compared to switching to fingolimod. No evidence of difference in CDW6M was found between treatment groups. Natalizumab dominated (higher quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and lower costs) fingolimod in the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis (0.453 higher QALYs and £20,843 lower costs per patient). Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: This novel real-world analysis suggests a clinical benefit for therapy escalation to natalizumab versus fingolimod based on comparative effectiveness results, translating to higher QALYs and lower costs for UK patients inadequately responding to BRACETD., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: The magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis (MAGNIMS) score combines relapses and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions to predict disability outcomes in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) treated with interferon-β., Objective: To validate the MAGNIMS score and extend to other disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). To examine the prognostic value of gadolinium contrast-enhancing (Gd+) lesions., Methods: This RRMS MSBase cohort study ( n  = 2293) used a Cox model to examine the prognostic value of relapses, MRI activity and the MAGNIMS score for disability worsening during treatment with interferon-β and three other DMTs., Results: Three new T2 lesions (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.60, p  = 0.028) or two relapses (HR = 2.24, p  = 0.002) on interferon-β (for 12 months) were predictive of disability worsening over 4 years. MAGNIMS score = 2 (1 relapse and ⩾3 T2 lesions or ⩾2 relapses) was associated with a greater risk of disability worsening on interferon-β (HR = 2.0, p  = 0.001). In pooled cohort of four DMTs, similar associations were seen (MAGNIMS score = 2: HR = 1.72, p  = 0.001). Secondary analyses demonstrated that the addition of Gd+ to the MAGNIMS did not materially improve its prediction of disability worsening., Conclusion: We have validated the MAGNIMS score in RRMS and extended its application to three other DMTs: 1 relapse and ⩾3 T2 lesions or ⩾2 relapses predicted worsening of disability. Contrast-enhancing lesions did not substantially improve the prognostic score.

Objective: To test the hypothesis that immunotherapy prevents long-term disability in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), we modeled disability outcomes in 14,717 patients., Methods: We studied patients from MSBase followed for ≥1 year, with ≥3 visits, ≥1 visit per year, and exposed to MS therapy, and a subset of patients with ≥15-year follow-up. Marginal structural models were used to compare the cumulative hazards of 12-month confirmed increase and decrease in disability, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) step 6, and the incidence of relapses between treated and untreated periods. Marginal structural models were continuously readjusted for patient age, sex, pregnancy, date, disease course, time from first symptom, prior relapse history, disability, and MRI activity., Results: A total of 14,717 patients were studied. During the treated periods, patients were less likely to experience relapses (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-0.82, p = 0.0016), worsening of disability (0.56, 0.38-0.82, p = 0.0026), and progress to EDSS step 6 (0.33, 0.19-0.59, p = 0.00019). Among 1,085 patients with ≥15-year follow-up, the treated patients were less likely to experience relapses (0.59, 0.50-0.70, p = 10 -9 ) and worsening of disability (0.81, 0.67-0.99, p = 0.043)., Conclusion: Continued treatment with MS immunotherapies reduces disability accrual by 19%-44% (95% CI 1%-62%), the risk of need of a walking aid by 67% (95% CI 41%-81%), and the frequency of relapses by 40-41% (95% CI 18%-57%) over 15 years. This study provides evidence that disease-modifying therapies are effective in improving disability outcomes in relapsing-remitting MS over the long term., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class IV evidence that, for patients with relapsing-remitting MS, long-term exposure to immunotherapy prevents neurologic disability., (© 2020 American Academy of Neurology.)

There are a broad range of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) available in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), but limited biomarkers exist to personalise DMT choice. All DMTs, including monoclonal antibodies such as rituximab and ocrelizumab, are effective in preventing relapses and preserving neurological function in MS. However, each agent harbours its own risk of therapeutic failure or adverse events. Pharmacogenetics, the study of the effects of genetic variation on therapeutic response or adverse events, could improve the precision of DMT selection. Pharmacogenetic studies of rituximab in MS patients are lacking, but pharmacogenetic markers in other rituximab-treated autoimmune conditions have been identified. This review will outline the wider implications of pharmacogenetics and the mechanisms of anti-CD20 agents in MS. We explore the non-MS rituximab literature to characterise pharmacogenetic variants that could be of prognostic relevance in those receiving rituximab, ocrelizumab or other monoclonal antibodies for MS.

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.

Objective: Oral immunotherapies have become a standard treatment in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Direct comparison of their effect on relapse and disability is needed., Methods: We identified all patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treated with teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate or fingolimod, with minimum 3-month treatment persistence and disability follow-up in the global MSBase cohort study. Patients were matched using propensity scores. Three pairwise analyses compared annualised relapse rates and hazards of disability accumulation, disability improvement and treatment discontinuation (analysed with negative binomial models and weighted conditional survival models, with pairwise censoring)., Results: The eligible cohorts consisted of 614 (teriflunomide), 782 (dimethyl fumarate) or 2332 (fingolimod) patients, followed over the median of 2.5 years. Annualised relapse rates were lower on fingolimod compared with teriflunomide (0.18 vs 0.24; p=0.05) and dimethyl fumarate (0.20 vs 0.26; p=0.01) and similar on dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide (0.19 vs 0.22; p=0.55). No differences in disability accumulation (p≥0.59) or improvement (p≥0.14) were found between the therapies. In patients with ≥3-month treatment persistence, subsequent discontinuations were less likely on fingolimod than teriflunomide and dimethyl fumarate (p<0.001). Discontinuation rates on teriflunomide and dimethyl fumarate were similar (p=0.68)., Conclusion: The effect of fingolimod on relapse frequency was superior to teriflunomide and dimethyl fumarate. The effect of the three oral therapies on disability outcomes was similar during the initial 2.5 years on treatment. Persistence on fingolimod was superior to the two comparator drugs., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TK served on scientific advisory boards for Roche, Genzyme-Sanofi, Novartis, Merck and Biogen, steering committee for Brain Atrophy Initiative by Genzyme, received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Novartis, Biogen, Genzyme-Sanofi, Teva, BioCSL and Merck and received research support from Biogen. EKH received speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Actelion, Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi and Teva, and support for research activities from Czech Ministry of Education (project PROGRES Q27/LF1). 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 Ministry of Education (project PROGRES Q27/LF1). GI received speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Roche, Almirall and Teva. MG 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. 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. PG is a Merck, Novartis, Teva-Neuroscience, Biogen and Genzyme advisory board member, consultant for Merck, received payments for lectures by Merck, Teva-Neuroscience and Canadian Multiple Sclerosis Society, and received grants for travel from Teva-Neuroscience and Novartis. AL served as a Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme and Teva Advisory Board Member. She received congress and travel/accommodation expense compensations and speaker honoraria from Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi/Genzyme, Teva and Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla (FISM). Her institutions received research grants from Novartis. LK received research support from Acorda, Actelion, Allozyne, BaroFold, Bayer Health Care, 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, Swiss MS Society, Swiss National Research Foundation, Teva Neuroscience, UCB and Wyeth. JK received consulting fees from Novartis, Protagen; speaker fees from the Swiss MS Society, Biogen, Novartis, Roche, Genzyme; travel expenses from Merck Serono, Novartis; grants from ECTRIMS Research Fellowship Programme, University of Basel, Swiss MS Society, Swiss National Research Foundation, Bayer (Schweiz), Genzyme and Novartis. MT received travel grants from Novartis, Bayer Schering, Merck and Teva; has participated in clinical trials by Sanofi Aventis, Roche and Novartis. JLS accepted travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen and Merck. Her institution receives the honoraria for talks and advisory board commitment from Bayer Health Care, Biogen, Genzyme Sanofi, Merck, Novartis and Teva; has been involved in clinical trials with Biogen, Novartis and Teva. CB received conference travel support from Biogen, Novartis, Bayer Schering, Merck and Teva; has participated in clinical trials by Sanofi Aventis, Roche and Novartis. FGM received honoraria or research funding from Biogen, Genzyme, Novartis, Teva Neurosciences, Mitsubishi and ONO Pharmaceuticals. JP accepted travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Genzyme and Teva and speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme and Teva. PS served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen Idec and TEVA; she has received funding for travel and speaker honoraria from Biogen Idec, Merck, Teva, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis and Bayer and 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. FG received an institutional research grant from Biogen and Sanofi Genzyme; served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis, Merck, Sanofi Genzyme and Roche; received funding for travel and speaker honoraria from Biogen, Merck and Sanofi-Aventis. MT received speaker honoraria from Biogen-Idec, Bayer Schering, Sanofi Aventis, Merck, Teva, Novartis and Almirall; has received research grants for her Institution from Biogen-Idec, Merck 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; congress and travel/accommodation expense compensations by Almirall, Bayer Schering, Biogen, Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis and Teva. EP served on scientific advisory boards for Merck, Genzyme and Biogen; he has received honoraria and travel grants from Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Biogen, Merck, Genzyme and Teva; he has received travel grants and equipment from 'Associazione Marchigiana Sclerosi Multipla e altre malattie neurologiche'. VVP received travel grants from Biogen, Bayer Schering, Genzyme, Merck, Teva and Novartis Pharma. His institution receives honoraria for consultancy and lectures from Biogen, Bayer Schering, Genzyme, Merck, Roche, Teva and Novartis Pharma as well as research grants from Novartis Pharma and Bayer Schering. BVW received research and travel grants, honoraria for MS-Expert advisor and speaker fees from Bayer Schering, Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Teva. CS 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. CRT received research funding, compensation for travel or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme and Almirall. MS has participated in, but not received honoraria for, advisory board activity for Biogen, Merck, Bayer Schering, Sanofi Aventis 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. DLS 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. JLSM accepted travel compensation from Novartis and Biogen, speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Almirall, Bayer and Teva and has participated in a clinical trial by Biogen. RA received conference travel support from Novartis, Teva, Biogen, Bayer and Merck and has participated in a clinical trial by Biogen, Novartis, Teva and Actelion. SH received honoraria and consulting fees from Merck, Novartis, Bayer Schering and Sanofi, and travel grants from Novartis, Biogen Idec and Bayer Schering. Ricardo Fernandez Bolaños received speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Merck and Teva. VJ received conference travel support from Teva, Novartis and Merck, and speaker honoraria from Biogen. TS received honoraria for consultancy, funding for travel and compensation for serving on scientific advisory boards from Biogen and speaker honoraria from Novartis. HB served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis and has received conference travel support from Novartis, Biogen and Sanofi Aventis. He serves on steering committees for trials conducted by Biogen and Novartis, and has received research support from Merck, Novartis and Biogen., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Exposure to disease-modifying therapy (DMT) during early pregnancy in women with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) may be increasing., Objective: To retrospectively determine incidence of pregnancy, DMT exposure and pregnancy outcomes in women with RRMS., Methods: We identified all women with RRMS aged 15-45 years in the MSBase Registry between 2005-2016. Annualised pregnancy incidence rates were calculated using Poisson regression models. DMT exposures and pregnancy outcomes were assessed., Results: Of 9,098 women meeting inclusion criteria, 1,178 (13%) women recorded 1,521 pregnancies. The annualised incidence rate of pregnancy was 0.042 (95% CI 0.040, 0.045). A total of 635 (42%) reported pregnancies were conceived on DMT, increasing from 27% in 2006 to 62% in 2016. The median duration of DMT exposure during pregnancy was 30 days (IQR: 9, 50). There were a higher number of induced abortions on FDA pregnancy class C/D drugs compared with pregnancy class B and no DMT (p = 0.010); but no differences in spontaneous abortions, term or preterm births., Conclusions: We report low pregnancy incidence rates, with increasing number of pregnancies conceived on DMT over the past 12-years. The median duration of DMT exposure in pregnancy was relatively short at one month., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Within 2 decades of onset, 80% of untreated patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) convert to a phase of irreversible disability accrual termed secondary progressive MS. The association between disease-modifying treatments (DMTs), and this conversion has rarely been studied and never using a validated definition., Objective: To determine the association between the use, the type of, and the timing of DMTs with the risk of conversion to secondary progressive MS diagnosed with a validated definition., Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study with prospective data from 68 neurology centers in 21 countries examining patients with relapsing-remitting MS commencing DMTs (or clinical monitoring) between 1988-2012 with minimum 4 years' follow-up., Exposures: The use, type, and timing of the following DMTs: interferon beta, glatiramer acetate, fingolimod, natalizumab, or alemtuzumab. After propensity-score matching, 1555 patients were included (last follow-up, February 14, 2017)., Main Outcome and Measure: Conversion to objectively defined secondary progressive MS., Results: Of the 1555 patients, 1123 were female (mean baseline age, 35 years [SD, 10]). Patients initially treated with glatiramer acetate or interferon beta had a lower hazard of conversion to secondary progressive MS than matched untreated patients (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.81; P < .001; 5-year absolute risk, 12% [49 of 407] vs 27% [58 of 213]; median follow-up, 7.6 years [IQR, 5.8-9.6]), as did fingolimod (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.62; P < .001; 5-year absolute risk, 7% [6 of 85] vs 32% [56 of 174]; median follow-up, 4.5 years [IQR, 4.3-5.1]); natalizumab (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.86; P = .005; 5-year absolute risk, 19% [16 of 82] vs 38% [62 of 164]; median follow-up, 4.9 years [IQR, 4.4-5.8]); and alemtuzumab (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.85; P = .009; 5-year absolute risk, 10% [4 of 44] vs 25% [23 of 92]; median follow-up, 7.4 years [IQR, 6.0-8.6]). Initial treatment with fingolimod, alemtuzumab, or natalizumab was associated with a lower risk of conversion than initial treatment with glatiramer acetate or interferon beta (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44-0.99; P = .046); 5-year absolute risk, 7% [16 of 235] vs 12% [46 of 380]; median follow-up, 5.8 years [IQR, 4.7-8.0]). The probability of conversion was lower when glatiramer acetate or interferon beta was started within 5 years of disease onset vs later (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.98; P = .03; 5-year absolute risk, 3% [4 of 120] vs 6% [2 of 38]; median follow-up, 13.4 years [IQR, 11-18.1]). When glatiramer acetate or interferon beta were escalated to fingolimod, alemtuzumab, or natalizumab within 5 years vs later, the HR was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.66-0.88; P < .001; 5-year absolute risk, 8% [25 of 307] vs 14% [46 of 331], median follow-up, 5.3 years [IQR], 4.6-6.1)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with relapsing-remitting MS, initial treatment with fingolimod, alemtuzumab, or natalizumab was associated with a lower risk of conversion to secondary progressive MS vs initial treatment with glatiramer acetate or interferon beta. These findings, considered along with these therapies' risks, may help inform decisions about DMT selection.

Objective: This propensity score-matched analysis from MSBase compared the effectiveness of cladribine with interferon β, fingolimod or natalizumab., Methods: We identified all patients with relapse-onset multiple sclerosis, exposure to the study therapies and ⩾1-year on-treatment follow-up from MSBase. Three pairwise propensity score-matched analyses compared treatment outcomes over 1 year. The outcomes were hazards of first relapse, disability accumulation and disability improvement events. Sensitivity analyses were completed., Results: The cohorts consisted of 37 (cladribine), 1940 (interferon), 1892 (fingolimod) and 1410 patients (natalizumab). The probability of experiencing a relapse on cladribine was lower than on interferon ( p = 0.05), similar to fingolimod ( p = 0.31) and higher than on natalizumab ( p = 0.042). The probability of disability accumulation on cladribine was similar to interferon ( p = 0.37) and fingolimod ( p = 0.089) but greater than natalizumab ( p = 0.021). The probability of disability improvement was higher on cladribine than interferon ( p = 0.00017), fingolimod ( p = 0.0025) or natalizumab ( p = 0.00099). Sensitivity analyses largely confirmed the above results., Conclusion: Cladribine is an effective therapy for relapse-onset multiple sclerosis. Its effect on relapses is comparable to fingolimod and its effect on disability accrual is comparable to interferon β and fingolimod. Cladribine may potentially associate with superior recovery from disability relative to interferon, fingolimod and natalizumab.

Background: Alemtuzumab, an anti-CD52 antibody, is proven to be more efficacious than interferon beta-1a in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, but its efficacy relative to more potent immunotherapies is unknown. We compared the effectiveness of alemtuzumab with natalizumab, fingolimod, and interferon beta in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treated for up to 5 years., Methods: In this international cohort study, we used data from propensity-matched patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis from the MSBase and six other cohorts. Longitudinal clinical data were obtained from 71 MSBase centres in 21 countries and from six non-MSBase centres in the UK and Germany between Nov 1, 2015, and June 30, 2016. Key inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of definite relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, exposure to one of the study therapies (alemtuzumab, interferon beta, fingolimod, or natalizumab), age 65 years or younger, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score 6·5 or lower, and no more than 10 years since the first multiple sclerosis symptom. The primary endpoint was annualised relapse rate. The secondary endpoints were cumulative hazards of relapses, disability accumulation, and disability improvement events. We compared relapse rates with negative binomial models, and estimated cumulative hazards with conditional proportional hazards models., Findings: Patients were treated between Aug 1, 1994, and June 30, 2016. The cohorts consisted of 189 patients given alemtuzumab, 2155 patients given interferon beta, 828 patients given fingolimod, and 1160 patients given natalizumab. Alemtuzumab was associated with a lower annualised relapse rate than interferon beta (0·19 [95% CI 0·14-0·23] vs 0·53 [0·46-0·61], p<0·0001) and fingolimod (0·15 [0·10-0·20] vs 0·34 [0·26-0·41], p<0·0001), and was associated with a similar annualised relapse rate as natalizumab (0·20 [0·14-0·26] vs 0·19 [0·15-0·23], p=0·78). For the disability outcomes, alemtuzumab was associated with similar probabilities of disability accumulation as interferon beta (hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·36-1·22], p=0·37), fingolimod (1·27 [0·60-2·70], p=0·67), and natalizumab (0·81 [0·47-1·39], p=0·60). Alemtuzumab was associated with similar probabilities of disability improvement as interferon beta (0·98 [0·65-1·49], p=0·93) and fingolimod (0·50 [0·25-1·01], p=0·18), and a lower probability of disability improvement than natalizumab (0·35 [0·20-0·59], p=0·0006)., Interpretation: Alemtuzumab and natalizumab seem to have similar effects on annualised relapse rates in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Alemtuzumab seems superior to fingolimod and interferon beta in mitigating relapse activity. Natalizumab seems superior to alemtuzumab in enabling recovery from disability. Both natalizumab and alemtuzumab seem highly effective and viable immunotherapies for multiple sclerosis. Treatment decisions between alemtuzumab and natalizumab should be primarily governed by their safety profiles., Funding: National Health and Medical Research Council, and the University of Melbourne., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate variability and predictability of disability trajectories in moderately advanced and advanced multiple sclerosis (MS), and their modifiability with immunomodulatory therapy., Methods: The epochs between Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) steps 3-6, 4-6 and 6-6.5 were analysed. Patients with relapse-onset MS and having reached 6-month confirmed baseline EDSS step (3/4/6) were identified in MSBase, a global observational MS cohort study. We used multivariable survival models to examine the impact of disease-modifying therapy, clinical and demographic factors on progression to the outcome EDSS step (6/6.5). Sensitivity analyses with varying outcome definitions and inclusion criteria were conducted., Results: For the EDSS 3-6, 4-6 and 6-6.5 epochs, 1560, 1504 and 1231 patients were identified, respectively. Disability trajectories showed large coefficients of variance prebaseline (0.92-1.11) and postbaseline (2.15-2.50), with no significant correlations. The probability of reaching the outcome step was not associated with prebaseline variables, but was increased by higher relapse rates during each epoch (HRs 1.58-3.07; p<0.001). A greater proportion of each epoch treated with higher efficacy therapies was associated with lower risk of reaching the outcome disability step (HRs 0.72-0.91 per 25%; p≤0.02). 3 sensitivity analyses confirmed these results., Conclusions: Disease progression during moderately advanced and advanced MS is highly variable and amnesic to prior disease activity. Lower relapse rates and greater time on higher efficacy immunomodulatory therapy after reaching EDSS steps 3, 4 and 6 are associated with a decreased risk of accumulating further disability. Highly effective immunomodulatory therapy ameliorates accumulation of disability in moderately advanced and advanced relapse-onset MS., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Objective: We aimed to analyse the effect of the introduction of fingolimod, the first oral disease-modifying therapy, on treatment utilisation and persistence in an international cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS)., Methods: MSBASIS, a prospective, observational sub-study of the MSBase registry, collects demographic, clinical and paraclinical data on patients followed from MS onset (n=4718). We conducted a multivariable conditional risk set survival analysis to identify predictors of treatment discontinuation, and to assess if the introduction of fingolimod has altered treatment persistence., Results: A total of 2640 patients commenced immunomodulatory therapy. Following the introduction of fingolimod, patients were more likely to discontinue all other treatments (hazard ratio 1.64, p<0.001) while more patients switched to fingolimod than any other therapy (42.3% of switches). Patients switched to fingolimod due to convenience. Patients treated with fingolimod were less likely to discontinue treatment compared with other therapies (p<0.001). Female sex, country of residence, younger age, a high Expanded Disability Status Scale score and relapse activity were all independently associated with higher rates of treatment discontinuation., Conclusion: Following the availability of fingolimod, patients were more likely to discontinue injectable treatments. Those who switched to fingolimod were more likely to do so for convenience. Persistence was improved on fingolimod compared to other medications., (© The Author(s), 2015.)

Prevention of irreversible disability is currently the most important goal of disease modifying therapy for multiple sclerosis. The disability outcomes used in most clinical trials rely on progression of Expanded Disability Status Scale score confirmed over 3 or 6 months. However, sensitivity and stability of this metric has not been extensively evaluated. Using the global MSBase cohort study, we evaluated 48 criteria of disability progression, testing three definitions of baseline disability, two definitions of progression magnitude, two definitions of long-term irreversibility and four definitions of event confirmation period. The study outcomes comprised the rates of detected progression events per 10 years and the proportions of the recorded events persistent at later time points. To evaluate the ratio of progression frequency and stability for each criterion, we calculated the proportion of events persistent over the five subsequent years once progression was achieved. Finally, we evaluated the clinical and demographic determinants characterising progression events and, for those that regressed back to baseline, determinants of their subsequent regression. The study population consisted of 16 636 patients with the minimum of three recorded disability scores, totalling 112 584 patient-years. The progression rates varied between 0.41 and 1.14 events per 10 years, with the length of required confirmation interval as the most important determinant of the observed variance. The concordance among all tested progression criteria was only 17.3%. Regression of disability occurred in 11-34% of the progression events over the five subsequent years. The most important determinant of progression stability was the length of the confirmation period. For the most accurate set of the progression criteria, the proportions of 3-, 6-, 12- or 24-month confirmed events persistent over 5 years reached 70%, 74%, 80% and 89%, respectively. Regression post progression was more common in younger patients, relapsing-remitting disease course, and after a smaller change in disability, and was inflated by higher visit frequency. These results suggest that the disability outcomes based on 3-6-month confirmed disability progression overestimate the accumulation of permanent disability by up to 30%. This could lead to spurious results in short-term clinical trials, and the issue may be magnified further in cohorts consisting predominantly of younger patients and patients with relapsing-remitting disease. Extension of the required confirmation period increases the persistence of progression events., (© The Author (2015). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The results of head-to-head comparisons of injectable immunomodulators (interferon β, glatiramer acetate) have been inconclusive and a comprehensive analysis of their effectiveness is needed., Objective: We aimed to compare, in a real-world setting, relapse and disability outcomes among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with injectable immunomodulators., Methods: Pairwise analysis of the international MSBase registry data was conducted using propensity-score matching. The four injectable immunomodulators were compared in six head-to-head analyses of relapse and disability outcomes using paired mixed models or frailty proportional hazards models adjusted for magnetic resonance imaging variables. Sensitivity and power analyses were conducted., Results: Of the 3326 included patients, 345-1199 patients per therapy were matched (median pairwise-censored follow-up was 3.7 years). Propensity matching eliminated >95% of the identified indication bias. Slightly lower relapse incidence was found among patients treated with glatiramer acetate or subcutaneous interferon β-1a relative to intramuscular interferon β-1a and interferon β-1b (p≤0.001). No differences in 12-month confirmed progression of disability were observed., Conclusion: Small but statistically significant differences in relapse outcomes exist among the injectable immunomodulators. MSBase is sufficiently powered to identify these differences and reflects practice in tertiary MS centres. While the present study controlled indication, selection and attrition bias, centre-dependent variance in data quality was likely., (© The Author(s), 2014.)

Objective: In patients suffering multiple sclerosis activity despite treatment with interferon β or glatiramer acetate, clinicians often switch therapy to either natalizumab or fingolimod. However, no studies have directly compared the outcomes of switching to either of these agents., Methods: Using MSBase, a large international, observational, prospectively acquired cohort study, we identified patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis experiencing relapses or disability progression within the 6 months immediately preceding switch to either natalizumab or fingolimod. Quasi-randomization with propensity score-based matching was used to select subpopulations with comparable baseline characteristics. Relapse and disability outcomes were compared in paired, pairwise-censored analyses., Results: Of the 792 included patients, 578 patients were matched (natalizumab, n = 407; fingolimod, n = 171). Mean on-study follow-up was 12 months. The annualized relapse rates decreased from 1.5 to 0.2 on natalizumab and from 1.3 to 0.4 on fingolimod, with 50% relative postswitch difference in relapse hazard (p = 0.002). A 2.8 times higher rate of sustained disability regression was observed after the switch to natalizumab in comparison to fingolimod (p < 0.001). No difference in the rate of sustained disability progression events was observed between the groups. The change in overall disability burden (quantified as area under the disability-time curve) differed between natalizumab and fingolimod (-0.12 vs 0.04 per year, respectively, p < 0.001)., Interpretation: This study suggests that in active multiple sclerosis during treatment with injectable disease-modifying therapies, switching to natalizumab is more effective than switching to fingolimod in reducing relapse rate and short-term disability burden., (© 2014 American Neurological Association.)

Objectives: The aim was to analyse risk of relapse phenotype recurrence in multiple sclerosis and to characterise the effect of demographic and clinical features on this phenotype., Methods: Information about relapses was collected using MSBase, an international observational registry. Associations between relapse phenotypes and history of similar relapses or patient characteristics were tested with multivariable logistic regression models. Tendency of relapse phenotypes to recur sequentially was assessed with principal component analysis., Results: Among 14,969 eligible patients (89,949 patient-years), 49,279 phenotypically characterised relapses were recorded. Visual and brainstem relapses occurred more frequently in early disease and in younger patients. Sensory relapses were more frequent in early or non-progressive disease. Pyramidal, sphincter and cerebellar relapses were more common in older patients and in progressive disease. Women presented more often with sensory or visual symptoms. Men were more prone to pyramidal, brainstem and cerebellar relapses. Importantly, relapse phenotype was predicted by the phenotypes of previous relapses. (OR = 1.8-5, p = 10(-14)). Sensory, visual and brainstem relapses showed better recovery than other relapse phenotypes. Relapse severity increased and the ability to recover decreased with age or more advanced disease., Conclusion: Relapse phenotype was associated with demographic and clinical characteristics, with phenotypic recurrence significantly more common than expected by chance., (© The Author(s), 2014.)

Objective: To determine early risk of relapse after switch from natalizumab to fingolimod; to compare the switch experience to that in patients switching from interferon-β/glatiramer acetate (IFN-β/GA) and those previously treatment naive; and to determine predictors of time to first relapse on fingolimod., Methods: Data were obtained from the MSBase Registry. Relapse rates (RRs) for each patient group were compared using adjusted negative binomial regression. Survival analyses coupled with adjusted Cox regression were used to model predictors of time to first relapse on fingolimod., Results: A total of 536 patients (natalizumab-fingolimod [n = 89]; IFN-β/GA-fingolimod [n = 350]; naive-fingolimod [n = 97]) were followed up for a median 10 months. In the natalizumab-fingolimod group, there was a small increase in RR on fingolimod (annualized RR [ARR] 0.38) relative to natalizumab (ARR 0.26; p = 0.002). RRs were generally low across all patient groups in the first 9 months on fingolimod (RR 0.001-0.13). However, 30% of patients with disease activity on natalizumab relapsed within the first 6 months on fingolimod. Independent predictors of time to first relapse on fingolimod were the number of relapses in the prior 6 months (hazard ratio [HR] 1.59 per relapse; p = 0.002) and a gap in treatment of 2-4 months compared to no gap (HR 2.10; p = 0.041)., Conclusions: RRs after switch to fingolimod were low in all patient groups. The strongest predictor of relapse on fingolimod was prior relapse activity. Based on our data, we recommend a maximum 2-month treatment gap for switches to fingolimod to decrease the hazard of relapse., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class IV evidence that RRs are not higher in patients with multiple sclerosis switching to fingolimod from natalizumab compared to those patients switching to fingolimod from other therapies.

Objective: To prospectively characterise treatment persistence and predictors of treatment discontinuation in an Australian relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) population., Methods: Tertiary MS treatment centres participating in the MSBase registry prospectively assessed treatment utilisation, persistence, predictors of treatment discontinuation and switch rates. Multivariable survival analyses were used to compare treatment persistence between drugs and to identify predictors of treatment discontinuation., Results: 1113 RRMS patients were studied. Patients persisted on their first disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for a median of 2.5 years. Treatment persistence on GA was shorter than on all IFNβ products (p<0.03). Younger age at treatment initiation and higher EDSS were predictive of DMT discontinuation. Patients persisted on subsequent DMTs, for 2.3 years. Patients receiving natalizumab (NAT) as a subsequent DMT persisted longer on treatment than those on IFNβ or GA (p<0.000). The primary reason for treatment discontinuation for any drug class was poor tolerability. Annualised switch or cessation rates were 9.5-12.5% for individual IFNβ products, 11.6% for GA and 4.4% for NAT., Conclusion: This multicentre MS cohort study is the first to directly compare treatment persistence on IFNβ and GA to NAT. We report that treatment persistence in our Australian RRMS population is short, although patients receiving IFNβ as a first DMT persisted longer on treatment than those on GA. Additionally, patients receiving NAT as a subsequent DMT were more likely to persist on treatment than those switched to IFNβ or GA. EDSS and age at DMT initiation were predictive of DMT discontinuation. Treatment intolerance was the principal reason for treatment cessation.

Objective: To analyze time-trends in age at disability milestones among MS patients who were enrolled into the MSBase International Registry during 1996-2010 period., Methods: We used linear regression to describe the relationship between mean age at major EDSS benchmarks and calendar time. We then assessed time-trend in age at initial EDSS rating with a three level linear growth model specifying that patients were nested within each of 20 participating countries. The model estimated the average of time-trends in mean age at initial clinical assessment within each country while controlling for patients' EDSS and sex in each country. Analyses were repeated in subsamples of patients diagnosed according to Poser or McDonald criteria., Results: The MSBase Registry contained data on 11,108 MS patients enrolled between 1996 and 2010 who fulfilled our inclusion criteria. During the 1996-2010 period, enrollment age for patients with EDSS 4/4.5 increased by 7.9 years, from 43 to 51 years (p<0.001), and for EDSS 6/6.5 - by 4.9 years, from 48 to 53 year (p<0.001). These trends were consistent across 20 investigator countries and were observed in Poser-diagnosed as well as McDonald-diagnosed patient subsets., Conclusions: The more recent MSBase enrollees in each of the mild-to-moderate disability strata were significantly older than earlier enrollees. Possible explanations for this phenomenon are discussed., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We conducted a prospective study, MSBASIS, to assess factors leading to first treatment discontinuation in patients with a clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) and early relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS)., Methods: The MSBASIS Study, conducted by MSBase Study Group members, enrols patients seen from CIS onset, reporting baseline demographics, cerebral magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores. Follow-up visits report relapses, EDSS scores, and the start and end dates of MS-specific therapies. We performed a multivariable survival analysis to determine factors within this dataset that predict first treatment discontinuation., Results: A total of 2314 CIS patients from 44 centres were followed for a median of 2.7 years, during which time 1247 commenced immunomodulatory drug (IMD) treatment. Ninety percent initiated IMD after a diagnosis of MS was confirmed, and 10% while still in CIS status. Over 40% of these patients stopped their first IMD during the observation period. Females were more likely to cease medication than males (HR 1.36, p = 0.003). Patients treated in Australia were twice as likely to cease their first IMD than patients treated in Spain (HR 1.98, p = 0.001). Increasing EDSS was associated with higher rate of IMD cessation (HR 1.21 per EDSS unit, p<0.001), and intramuscular interferon-β-1a (HR 1.38, p = 0.028) and subcutaneous interferon-β-1a (HR 1.45, p = 0.012) had higher rates of discontinuation than glatiramer acetate, although this varied widely in different countries. Onset cerebral MRI features, age, time to treatment initiation or relapse on treatment were not associated with IMD cessation., Conclusion: In this multivariable survival analysis, female sex, country of residence, EDSS change and IMD choice independently predicted time to first IMD cessation.