Association between clinic-level quality of care and patient-level outcomes in multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) quality of care guidelines are consensus-based. The effectiveness of the recommendations is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether clinic-level quality of care affects clinical and patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: This nationwide observational cohort study included patients with adult-onset MS in the Swedish MS registry with disease onset 2005-2015. Clinic-level quality of care was measured by four indicators: visit density, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) density, mean time to commencement of disease-modifying therapy, and data completeness. Outcomes were Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and patient-reported symptoms measured by the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29). Analyses were adjusted for individual patient characteristics and disease-modifying therapy exposure. RESULTS: In relapsing MS, all quality indicators benefitted EDSS and physical symptoms. Faster treatment, frequent visits, and higher data completeness benefitted psychological symptoms. After controlling for all indicators and individual treatment exposures, faster treatment remained independently associated with lower EDSS (-0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.01, -0.10) and more frequent visits were associated with milder physical symptoms (MSIS-29 physical score: -16.2%, 95% CI: -1.8%, -29.5%). Clinic-level quality of care did not affect any outcomes in progressive-onset disease. CONCLUSION: Certain quality of care indicators correlated to disability and patient-reported outcomes in relapse-onset but not progressive-onset disease. Future guidelines should consider recommendations specific to disease course.

Every 15-min delay in recanalization by intra-arterial therapy in acute ischemic stroke increases risk of poor outcome.

BACKGROUND: Intra-arterial therapy has improved recanalization rates compared with intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke; however, superior clinical efficacy has not been convincingly demonstrated. Time to recanalization is postulated as a mechanism hindering the efficacy of intra-arterial therapy. AIM: To investigate the effects of time to recanalization on clinical outcome postintra-arterial therapy for acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: Clinical data were collected prospectively for consecutive patients undergoing intra-arterial therapy for acute ischemic stroke at a single center between 2009 and 2013. Ninety-day functional outcome was assessed by the modified Rankin scale. Univariate analyses identified candidate clinical variables for inclusion in the multivariable model; multivariable logistic regression analyses identified variables independently associated with good outcome, defined as modified Rankin scale 0-2. RESULTS: One hundred and seven patients were included in the analysis. Median (interquartile range) age was 67 (54-77) years, 41 (38%) were female, and median (interquartile range) baseline National Institute of Health Stroke Severity score was 18 (13-22). Median time from symptom onset to recanalization was 330 min (interquartile range 277-397). Fifty-four (50%) patients achieved a favorable modified Rankin scale at 90 days. Age, successful recanalization, and time to recanalization were independently associated with good outcome at 90 days in multivariable logistic regression analysis. For every 15 min delay in recanalization, the odds of good outcome decreased by 10%. CONCLUSIONS: Longer time to recanalization was associated with poorer functional outcome post intra-arterial therapy. We recommend that a systematic approach to minimize time delay to treatment is warranted in intra-arterial therapy for acute ischemic stroke.