Treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis in Hungary - consensus recommendation from the Hungarian neuroimmunology society.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) may impact quality of life, careers and family plans of the affected individuals. The current treatments with disease modifying therapies aim to prevent people with MS (pwMS) from disability accumulation and progression. Different countries have different reimbursement policies resulting in inequalities in patient care among geographical regions. Access to anti-CD20 therapies for relapsing MS is restricted in Hungary because therapy of individual cases only is reimbursed. In the light of the latest research and national guidelines, 17 Hungarian MS experts agreed on 8 recommendations regarding relapsing pwMS using the Delphi round method. Strong agreement (> 80%) was achieved in all except one recommendation after three rounds, which generated a fourth Delphi round. The experts agreed on treatment initiation, switch, follow-up and discontinuation, as well as on special issues such as pregnancy, lactation, elderly population, and vaccination. Well-defined national consensus protocols may facilitate dialogue between policymakers and healthcare professionals and thus contribute to better patient care in the long run.

Do Hungarian multiple sclerosis care units fulfil international criteria?

A PATIENTS: Because of the past 3 decades' extensive research, several disease modifying therapies became available, thus a paradigm change is multiple sclerosis care was necessary. In 2018 a therapeutic guideline was created recommending that treatment of persons with multiple sclerosis should take place in specified care units where the entire spectrum of disease modifying therapies is available, patient monitoring is ensured, and therapy side effects are detected and treated promptly. In 2019 multiple sclerosis care unit criteria were developed, emphasizing personnel and instrumental requirements to provide most professional care. However, no survey was conducted assessing the real-world adaptation of these criteria. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether Hungarian care units fulfil international criteria. METHODS: A self-report questionnaire was assembled based on international guidelines and sent to Hungarian care units focusing on 3 main aspects: personnel and instrumental background, disease-modifying therapy use, number of people living with multiple sclerosis receiving care in care units. Data on number of persons with multiple sclerosis were compared to Hungarian prevalence estimates. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse data. RESULTS: Out of 27 respondent care units, 3 fulfilled minimum requirements and 7 fulfilled minimum and recommended requirements. The least prevalent neighbouring specialties were spasticity and pain specialist, and neuro-ophthalmologist and oto-neurologist. Only 15 centres used all available disease modifying therapies. A total number of 7213 people with multiple sclerosis received care in 27 respondent centres. Compared to prevalence estimates, 2500 persons with multiple sclerosis did not receive multiple sclerosis specific care in Hungary. CONCLUSION: Less than half of Hungarian care units provided sufficient care for people living with multiple sclerosis. Care units employing fewer neighbouring specialties, might have difficulties diagnosing and providing appropriate care for persons with multiple sclerosis, especially for people with progressive disease course, contributing to the reported low number of persons living with multiple sclerosis.

Switch to natalizumab versus fingolimod in active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

OBJECTIVE: In patients suffering multiple sclerosis activity despite treatment with interferon ß 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.