Evaluation of drivers of treatment switch in relapsing multiple sclerosis: a study from the Italian MS Registry.

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

Patients with multiple sclerosis choose a collaborative role in making treatment decision: results from the Italian multicenter SWITCH study.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians are increasingly recognizing the importance of shared decision-making in complex treatment choices, highlighting the importance of the patient's rationale and motivation for switching therapies. This study aimed to evaluate the association between different modalities of changing multiple sclerosis (MS) treatments, cognitive profile and attitude and preferences of patients concerning treatment choice. METHODS: This multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted at 28 Italian MS centers in the period between June 2016 and June 2017. We screened all MS patients treated with any DMT, with a treatment compliance of at least 80% of therapy administered during the 3 last months who needed to modify MS therapy because of efficacy, safety or other reasons during a follow-up visit. At the time of switching the symbol digit modalities test (SDMT) and the Control Preference Scale (CPS) were evaluated. According to the CPS, patients were classified as "active" (i.e. who prefer making the medical decision themselves), "collaborative" (i.e. who prefer decisions be made jointly with the physician), or "passive" (i.e. who prefer the physician make the decision). RESULTS: Out of 13,657 patients recorded in the log, 409 (3%) changed therapy. Of these, 336 (2.5%) patients, 69.6% were female and with mean age 40.6 ± 10.5 years, were enrolled. According to the CPS score evaluation, a significant high percentage of patients (51.1%) were considered collaborative, 74 patients (22.5%) were passive, and 60 (18.2%) patients were active. Stratifying according to CPS results, we found a higher SDMT score among collaborative patients compared to active and passive ones (45.8 ± 12.3 versus 41.0 ± 13.2 versus 41.7 ± 12.8, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this study, the CPS evaluation showed that more than 50% of patients who needed to change therapy chose a "collaborative" role in making treatment decision. Cognitive profile with SDMT seems to correlate with patients' preference on treatment decision, showing better scores in collaborative patients.

Towards a validated definition of the clinical transition to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: A study from the Italian MS Register.

BACKGROUND: Definitions for reliable identification of transition from relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) to secondary progressive (SP)MS in clinical cohorts are not available. OBJECTIVES: To compare diagnostic performances of two different data-driven SPMS definitions. METHODS: Data-driven SPMS definitions based on a version of Lorscheider's algorithm (DDA) and on the EXPAND trial inclusion criteria were compared, using the neurologist's definition (ND) as gold standard, in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), Akaike information criterion (AIC) and area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: A cohort of 10,240 MS patients with ⩾5 years of follow-up was extracted from the Italian MS Registry; 880 (8.5%) patients were classified as SPMS according to the neurologist definition, 1806 (17.6%) applying the DDA and 1134 (11.0%) with the EXPAND definition. The DDA showed greater discrimination power (AUC: 0.8 vs 0.6) and a higher sensitivity (77.1% vs 38.0%) than the EXPAND definition, with similar specificity (88.0% vs 91.5%). PPV and NPV were higher using the DDA than considering EXPAND definition (37.5% vs 29.5%; 97.6% vs 94.0%). CONCLUSION: Data-driven definitions demonstrated greater ability to capture SP transition than neurologist's definition and the global accuracy of DDA seems to be higher than the EXPAND definition.

Disease-modifying drugs can reduce disability progression in relapsing multiple sclerosis.

An ever-expanding number of disease-modifying drugs for multiple sclerosis have become available in recent years, after demonstrating efficacy in clinical trials. In the real-world setting, however, disease-modifying drugs are prescribed in patient populations that differ from those included in pivotal studies, where extreme age patients are usually excluded or under-represented. In this multicentre, observational, retrospective Italian cohort study, we evaluated treatment exposure in three cohorts of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis defined by age at onset: paediatric-onset (≤18 years), adult-onset (18-49 years) and late-onset multiple sclerosis (≥50 years). We included patients with a relapsing-remitting phenotype, ≥5 years follow-up, ≥3 Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) evaluations and a first neurological evaluation within 3 years from the first demyelinating event. Multivariate Cox regression models (adjusted hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals) were used to assess the risk of reaching a first 12-month confirmed disability worsening and the risk of reaching a sustained EDSS of 4.0. The effect of disease-modifying drugs was assessed as quartiles of time exposure. We found that disease-modifying drugs reduced the risk of 12-month confirmed disability worsening, with a progressive risk reduction in different quartiles of exposure in paediatric-onset and adult-onset patients [adjusted hazard ratios in non-exposed versus exposed >62% of the follow-up time: 8.0 (3.5-17.9) for paediatric-onset and 6.3 (4.9-8.0) for adult-onset, P < 0.0001] showing a trend in late-onset patients [adjusted hazard ratio = 1.9 (0.9-4.1), P = 0.07]. These results were confirmed for a sustained EDSS score of 4.0. We also found that relapses were a risk factor for 12-month confirmed disability worsening in all three cohorts, and female sex exerted a protective role in the late-onset cohort. This study provides evidence that sustained exposure to disease-modifying drugs decreases the risk of disability accumulation, seemingly in a dose-dependent manner. It confirms that the effectiveness of disease-modifying drugs is lower in late-onset patients, although still detectable.

Clinical and patient determinants of changing therapy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (SWITCH study).

BACKGROUND: clinical factors and frequency of disease-modifying therapy (DMT) changes/interruptions in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients have not been well defined. The aim of this study was to describe reasons of MS treatment modifications in a large cohort of Italian MS patients. METHODS: this multicenter, cross-sectional non interventional study (SWITCH) conducted at 28 Italian MS centers, screened, by visit/telephone contact between June 2016 and June 2017, all RRMS patients receiving stable DMT treatment and enrolled patients with change in DMT treatment. RESULTS: out of 13,657 recorded in the log, 409 (3%) changed therapy. Of these, 336 (2.5%), met the study criteria and were considered eligible. Among 303 (90.2% of 336) patients switching, the most common reason was "lack of efficacy" (58.4% of 303). Among 30 (8.9%) patients who interrupted treatment temporarily, the most common reason was pregnancy (40.0% of 30). Out of 3 (0.9%) patients who discontinued treatment permanently, 2 (66.7%) had as first reason as "patient decision". Multivariate analysis showed that EDSS was the only variable with statistically significant effect on changing treatments (r = 8.33; p-value of Type III Sum of Squares = 0.016). CONCLUSION: in our study, 303 (90.2% of eligible patients) switched treatment, 30 (8.9%) interrupted treatment temporarily, and 3 (0.9%) discontinued treatment permanently. Efficacy remains the main driving force behind switching behavior, as the primary aim of treatment is to be disease free or reduce disease activity.

Retrospectively acquired cohort study to evaluate the long-term impact of two different treatment strategies on disability outcomes in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (RE.LO.DI.MS): data from the Italian MS Register.

BACKGROUND: The increase in disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) allows individualization of treatment in relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS); however, the long-term impact of different treatment sequences is not well established. This is particularly relevant for MS patients who may need to postpone more aggressive DMD strategies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate different therapeutic strategies and their long-term outcomes, measured as relapses and confirmed disability progression (CDP), in MS 'real-world' settings. METHODS: Multicentre, observational, retrospectively acquired cohort study evaluating the long-term impact of different treatment strategies on disability outcomes in patients with RMS in the Italian MS Register. RESULTS: We evaluated 1152 RMS-naïve patients after propensity-score adjustment. Patients included were receiving: interferon beta-1a (IFN-ß1a) 44 µg switching to fingolimod (FTY; IFN-switchers; n = 97); FTY only (FTY-stayers; n = 157); IFN-ß1a only (IFN-stayers; n = 849). CDP and relapses did not differ between FTY-stayers and IFN-switchers [HR (95% CI) 0.99 (0.48-2.04), p = 0.98 and 0.81 (0.42-1.58), p = 0.55, respectively]. However, IFN-stayers showed increased risk of relapses compared with FTY-stayers [HR (95% CI) 1.46 (1.00-2.12), p = 0.05]. CONCLUSION: The ideal treatment option for MS is becoming increasingly complex, with the need to balance benefit and risks. Our results suggest that starting with FTY affects the long-term disease outcome similarly to escalating from IFN-ß1a to FTY.