Implementing Shared Decision-Making for Multiple Sclerosis: The MS-SUPPORT Tool.

BACKGROUND: Disease modifying therapies (DMTs) offer opportunities to improve the course of multiple sclerosis (MS), but decisions about treatment are difficult. People with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) want more involvement in decisions about DMTs, but new approaches are needed to support shared decision-making (SDM) because of the number of treatment options and the range of outcomes affected by treatment. We designed a patient-centered tool, MS-SUPPORT, to facilitate SDM for pwMS. We sought to evaluate the feasibility and impact of MS-SUPPORT on decisions about disease modifying treatments (DMTs), SDM processes, and quality-of-life. METHODS: This multisite randomized controlled trial compared the SDM intervention (MS-SUPPORT) to control (usual care) over a 12-month period. English-speaking adults with relapsing MS were eligible if they had an upcoming MS appointment and an email address. To evaluate clinician perspectives, participants' MS clinicians were invited to participate. Patients were referred between November 11, 2019 and October 23, 2020 by their MS clinician or a patient advocacy organization (the Multiple Sclerosis Association of America). MS-SUPPORT is an online, interactive, evidence-based decision aid that was co-created with pwMS. It clarifies patient treatment goals and values and provides tailored information about MS, DMTs, and adherence. Viewed by patients before their clinic appointment, MS-SUPPORT generates a personalized summary of the patient's treatment goals and preferences, adherence, DMT use, and clinical situation to share with their MS clinician. Outcomes (DMT utilization, adherence, quality-of-life, and SDM) were assessed at enrollment, post-MS-SUPPORT, post-appointment, and quarterly for 1 year. RESULTS: Participants included 501 adults with MS from across the USA (84.6% female, 83% white) and 34 of their MS clinicians (47% neurologists, 41% Nurse Practitioners, 12% Physician Assistants). Among the 203 patients who completed MS-SUPPORT, most (88.2%) reported they would recommend it to others and that it helped them talk to their doctor (85.2%), understand their options (82.3%) and the importance of taking DMTs as prescribed (82.3%). Among non-users of DMTs at baseline, the probability ratio of current DMT use consistently trended higher over one-year follow-up in the MS-SUPPORT group (1.30 [0.86-1.96]), as did the cumulative probability of starting a DMT within 6-months, with shorter time-to-start (46 vs 90 days, p=0.24). Among the 222 responses from 34 participating clinicians, more clinicians in the MS-SUPPORT group (vs control) trended towards recommending their patient start a DMT (9 of 108 (8%) vs 5 of 109 (5%), respectively, p=0.26). Adherence (no missed doses) to daily-dosed DMTs was higher in the MS-SUPPORT group (81.25% vs 56.41%, p=.026). Fewer patients forgot their doses (p=.046). The MS-SUPPORT group (vs control) reported 1.7 fewer days/month of poor mental health (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: MS-SUPPORT was strongly endorsed by patients and is feasible to use in clinical settings. MS-SUPPORT increased the short-term probability of taking and adhering to a DMT, and improved long-term mental health. Study limitations include selection bias, response bias, social desirability bias, and recall bias. Exploring approaches to reinforcement and monitoring its implementation in real-world settings should provide further insights into the value and utility of this new SDM tool.

Impact of Switching to Fingolimod Versus Injectable Disease-Modifying Therapy Cycling on Risk of Multiple Sclerosis-Related Relapses: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and real-world studies have shown significant reductions in multiple sclerosis (MS) relapses with fingolimod versus injectable disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). Multiple sclerosis relapse rate and incidence were compared in patients switching from an injectable DMT to fingolimod and those cycling from one injectable DMT to another or remaining on their original injectable DMT. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed using Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims data (July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2016) of adults with MS receiving ≥1 injectable DMT. Relapses were identified from MS-related hospitalization, outpatient emergency department or office visit, and corticosteroid administration. Annualized relapse rate ratio was estimated. RESULTS: Of 16,352 patients, 1110 were switchers to fingolimod, 908 were injectable DMT cyclers, and 14,334 were nonswitchers. At baseline, rate and incidence of MS relapses were higher in switchers and injectable DMT cyclers versus nonswitchers (P < .001); mean ± SD relapse rates declined from 0.4 ± 0.7, 0.4 ± 0.7, and 0.2 ± 0.5 at baseline to 0.2 ± 0.5, 0.3 ± 0.6, and 0.1 ± 0.4 after follow-up in switchers, injectable DMT cyclers, and nonswitchers, respectively. Relapse incidence declined in each cohort. The highest reductions in relapse rate and incidence were in switchers to fingolimod, where relapse risk was significantly reduced versus injectable DMT cyclers (22%, P = .0433) and nonswitchers (47%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that patients switching from an injectable DMT to fingolimod have the highest reductions in annualized rate and incidence of MS relapses and significantly reduced risk of relapse versus injectable DMT cyclers and nonswitchers.

Patient Assisted Intervention for Neuropathy: Comparison of Treatment in Real Life Situations (PAIN-CONTRoLS): Bayesian Adaptive Comparative Effectiveness Randomized Trial.

Importance: Cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy (CSPN) is a common generalized slowly progressive neuropathy, second in prevalence only to diabetic neuropathy. Most patients with CSPN have significant pain. Many medications have been tried for pain reduction in CSPN, including antiepileptics, antidepressants, and sodium channel blockers. There are no comparative studies that identify the most effective medication for pain reduction in CSPN. Objective: To determine which medication (pregabalin, duloxetine, nortriptyline, or mexiletine) is most effective for reducing neuropathic pain and best tolerated in patients with CSPN. Design, Setting, and Participants: From December 1, 2014, through October 20, 2017, a bayesian adaptive, open-label randomized clinical comparative effectiveness study of pain in 402 participants with CSPN was conducted at 40 neurology care clinics. The trial included response adaptive randomization. Participants were patients with CSPN who were 30 years or older, with a pain score of 4 or greater on a numerical rating scale (range, 0-10, with higher scores indicating a higher level of pain). Participant allocation to 1 of 4 drug groups used the utility function and treatment's sample size for response adaptation randomization. At each interim analysis, a decision was made to continue enrolling (up to 400 participants) or stop the whole trial for success (80% power). Patient engagement was maintained throughout the trial, which helped guide the study and identify ways to communicate and disseminate information. Analysis was performed from December 11, 2015, to January 19, 2018. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive nortriptyline (n = 134), duloxetine (n = 126), pregabalin (n = 73), or mexiletine (n = 69). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a utility function that was a composite of the efficacy (participant reported pain reduction of ≥50% from baseline to week 12) and quit (participants who discontinued medication) rates. Results: Among the 402 participants (213 men [53.0%]; mean [SD] age, 60.1 [13.4] years; 343 White [85.3%]), the utility function of nortriptyline was 0.81 (95% bayesian credible interval [CrI], 0.69-0.93; 34 of 134 [25.4%] efficacious; and 51 of 134 [38.1%] quit), of duloxetine was 0.80 (95% CrI, 0.68-0.92; 29 of 126 [23.0%] efficacious; and 47 of 126 [37.3%] quit), pregabalin was 0.69 (95% CrI, 0.55-0.84; 11 of 73 [15.1%] efficacious; and 31 of 73 [42.5%] quit), and mexiletine was 0.58 (95% CrI, 0.42-0.75; 14 of 69 [20.3%] efficacious; and 40 of 69 [58.0%] quit). The probability each medication yielded the highest utility was 0.52 for nortriptyline, 0.43 for duloxetine, 0.05 for pregabalin, and 0.00 for mexiletine. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that, although there was no clearly superior medication, nortriptyline and duloxetine outperformed pregabalin and mexiletine when pain reduction and undesirable adverse effects are combined to a single end point. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02260388.

A Novel Tool to Improve Shared Decision Making and Adherence in Multiple Sclerosis: Development and Preliminary Testing.

Background. Most people with multiple sclerosis (MS) want to be involved in medical decision making about disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but new approaches are needed to overcome barriers to participation. Objectives. We sought to develop a shared decision-making (SDM) tool for MS DMTs, evaluate patient and provider responses to the tool, and address challenges encountered during development to guide a future trial. Methods. We created a patient-centered design process informed by image theory to develop the MS-SUPPORT SDM tool. Development included semistructured interviews and alpha and beta testing with MS patients and providers. Beta testing assessed dissemination and clinical integration strategies, decision-making processes, communication, and adherence. Patients evaluated the tool before and after a clinic visit. Results. MS-SUPPORT combines self-assessment with tailored feedback to help patients identify their treatment goals and preferences, correct misperceptions, frame decisions, and promote adherence. MS-SUPPORT generates a personal summary of their responses that patients can share with their provider to facilitate communication. Alpha testing (14 patients) identified areas needing improvement, resulting in reorganization and shortening of the tool. MS-SUPPORT was highly rated in beta testing (15 patients, 4 providers) on patient-provider communication, patient preparation, adherence, and other endpoints. Dissemination through both patient and provider networks appeared feasible. All patient testers wanted to share the summary report with their provider, but only 60% did. Limitations. Small sample size, no comparison group. Conclusions. The development process resulted in a patient-centered SDM tool for MS that may facilitate patient involvement in decision making, help providers understand their patients' preferences, and improve adherence, though further testing is needed. Beta testing in real-world conditions was critical to prepare the tool for future testing and inform the design of future studies.

Repository corticotropin injection in multiple sclerosis: an update.

Relapse management is a crucial component of multiple sclerosis care. Acute relapses are defined as new neurological symptoms or worsening of existing symptoms persisting for >24 h that are not attributable to heat, overexertion, or infection. The most commonly used treatment for multiple sclerosis relapse is a 3-5-day course of corticosteroids, primarily intravenous methylprednisolone with or without oral steroid taper. Repository corticotropin injection is also the US FDA-approved option for managing acute relapse, particularly in the patients with inadequate response, intolerability or allergy to corticosteroid treatment; poor venous access; or limited ability to receive home or clinic infusions.

Evaluation of a Novel Preference Assessment Tool for Patients with Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: We developed a preference assessment tool to help assess patient goals, values, and preferences for multiple sclerosis (MS) management. All preference items in the tool were generated by people with MS. The aim of this study was to evaluate this tool in a national sample of people with MS. METHODS: English-speaking patients with MS aged 21 to 75 years with access to the internet were recruited. Participants completed the preference tool online, which included separate modules assessing three core preference areas: treatment goals, preferences for attributes of disease-modifying therapies, and factors influencing a change in treatment. The tool generated a summary of participants' treatment goals and preferences. Immediately after viewing the summary, participants were asked to evaluate the tool. Rankings of preference domains were compared with rankings obtained in another study. RESULTS: In 135 people with MS who completed the tool and evaluation, the highest ranked goal was brain health (memory, thinking, brain), followed by disability concerns (walking, strength, vision). Rankings were highly similar to those in the referent study. Nearly all participants reported that the tool helped them understand their goals and priorities regarding MS and that the summary appropriately reflected what is important to them. Most participants (87%) wanted to discuss their treatment goals and priorities with their clinician. CONCLUSIONS: This preference assessment tool successfully captured patients' goals, values, and preferences for MS treatment and could potentially be used to help patients communicate their preferences to their clinician.

Whose Preferences Matter? A Patient-Centered Approach for Eliciting Treatment Goals.

BACKGROUND: Patients facing a high-stakes clinical decision are often confronted with an overwhelming array of options. High-quality decisions about treatment should reflect patients' preferences as well as their clinical characteristics. Preference-assessment instruments typically focus on pre-selected clinical outcomes and attributes chosen by the investigator. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop a patient-centered approach to elicit and compare the treatment goals of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and healthcare providers (HCPs). METHODS: We conducted five nominal group technique (NGT) meetings to elicit and prioritize treatment goals from patients and HCPs. Five to nine participants in each group responded silently to one question about their treatment goals. Responses were shared, consolidated, and ranked to develop a prioritized list for each group. The ranked lists were combined. Goals were rated and sorted into categories. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis were used to derive a visual representation, or cognitive map, of the data and to identify conceptual clusters, reflecting how frequently items were sorted into the same category. RESULTS: Five NGT groups yielded 34 unique patient-generated treatment goals and 31 unique HCP-generated goals. There were differences between patients and HCPs in the goals generated and how they were clustered. Patients' goals tended to focus on the impact of specific symptoms on their day-to-day lives, whereas providers' goals focused on slowing down the course of disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between the treatment goals of patients and HCPs underscore the limitations of using HCP- or investigator-identified goals. This new adaptation of cognitive mapping is a patient-centered approach that can be used to generate and organize the outcomes and attributes for values clarification exercises while minimizing investigator bias and maximizing relevance to patients.

H.P. Acthar Gel (repository corticotropin injection) treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis and diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) relapses can be complex in patients with concomitant diabetes. Corticosteroids and adrenocorticotropic hormones are known to cause alterations in glucose tolerance. Many patients have poor tolerability to therapy, necessitating alternative treatment options. Adrenocorticotropic hormone (H.P. Acthar Gel, repository corticotropin injection, Mallinckrodt ARD Inc., Hazelwood, MO, USA) is currently indicated for the treatment of MS relapses. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to review patients' experiences of Acthar Gel for the treatment of MS exacerbations in patients with MS and diabetes. METHODS: A retrospective review of 13 patients' experiences with treatment. Qualified healthcare providers completed a questionnaire following Acthar Gel treatment for MS relapse. RESULTS: Previous corticosteroid treatment with either intravenous methylprednisolone or prednisone was reported by 84.6% of patients; eight patients had complications following administration of prior steroid treatment, seven of whom experienced elevated blood glucose levels. Acthar Gel was administered daily for a mean of 5.3 days, with 61.5% of patients reporting relapse resolution. Two patients experienced elevated blood glucose. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients experienced a timely resolution of their MS relapse with few hyperglycemic adverse events. Although more studies are necessary, these data suggest that Acthar Gel may be a well-tolerated and effective treatment option for patients with diabetes experiencing an MS relapse.