Treatment of older patients with multiple sclerosis: Results of an International Delphi Survey.

Background: People over age 50-55 have historically been excluded from randomized clinical trials for multiple sclerosis (MS). However, more than half of those living with an MS diagnosis are over 55. Objective: Explore the unique considerations of treating older people with MS (PwMS) using an iterative and structured Delphi-based assessment to gather expert opinions. Methods: Eight MS neurologists with an interest in older PwMS developed a 2-round survey. Survey respondents were qualified neurologists with ≥3 years' experience, personally responsible for treatment decisions, and treating ≥20 patients per month, of whom ≥10% were ≥50 years old. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement on questions with categorical responses or as a mean score ≥4 on questions with numerical responses. Results: In Survey 1, 224 neurologists responded; 180 of these completed Survey 2. Limited consensus was reached with varying levels of agreement on several topics including identification and assessment of older patients; factors relating to treatment decisions including immunosenescence and comorbidities; considerations for high-efficacy treatments; de-escalation or discontinuation of treatment; effects of COVID-19; and unmet needs for treating this population. Conclusion: The results of this Delphi process highlight the need for targeted studies to create guidance for the care of older PwMS.

Serum neurofilament light-chain levels and long-term treatment outcomes in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients: A post hoc analysis of the randomized CombiRx trial.

Background: CombiRx was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in treatment-naive relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients randomized to intramuscular interferon beta-1a (IM IFN beta-1a), glatiramer acetate (GA), or both therapies. Objective: This analysis investigated changes in serum neurofilament light-chain (sNfL) levels in response to treatment and assessed baseline sNfL as a predictor of relapse. Methods: RRMS patients treated with IM IFN beta-1a 30 µg weekly + placebo (n = 159), GA 20 mg/mL daily + placebo (n = 172), or IM IFN beta-1a + GA (n = 344) were included. A linear mixed model compared sNfL values over time. Cox regression models analyzed baseline sNfL and gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) lesions as predictors of relapse. Results: In all treatment arms, the proportion of patients with sNfL ≥16 pg/mL decreased significantly from baseline to 6 months and was maintained at 36 months. A significantly higher percentage of patients with both baseline sNfL ≥16 pg/mL and ≥1 Gd+ lesion experienced relapses within 90 days compared to patients with sNfL <16 pg/mL and/or no Gd+ lesions. Conclusion: sNfL levels were reduced within 6 months and remained low at 36 months. Results suggest that the combination of lesion activity and sNfL was a stronger predictor of relapse than either factor alone.

Atrial Fibrillation (AFIB) in the ICU: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes: The International AFIB-ICU Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of atrial fibrillation (AF) in the ICU and to describe current practice in the management of AF. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, inception cohort study. SETTING: Forty-four ICUs in 12 countries in four geographical regions. SUBJECTS: Adult, acutely admitted ICU patients without a history of persistent/permanent AF or recent cardiac surgery were enrolled; inception periods were from October 2020 to June 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We included 1,423 ICU patients and analyzed 1,415 (99.4%), among whom 221 patients had 539 episodes of AF. Most (59%) episodes were diagnosed with continuous electrocardiogram monitoring. The incidence of AF was 15.6% (95% CI, 13.8-17.6), of which newly developed AF was 13.3% (11.5-15.1). A history of arterial hypertension, paroxysmal AF, sepsis, or high disease severity at ICU admission was associated with AF. Used interventions to manage AF were fluid bolus 19% (95% CI 16-23), magnesium 16% (13-20), potassium 15% (12-19), amiodarone 51% (47-55), beta-1 selective blockers 34% (30-38), calcium channel blockers 4% (2-6), digoxin 16% (12-19), and direct current cardioversion in 4% (2-6). Patients with AF had more ischemic, thromboembolic (13.6% vs 7.9%), and severe bleeding events (5.9% vs 2.1%), and higher mortality (41.2% vs 25.2%) than those without AF. The adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio for 90-day mortality by AF was 1.38 (95% CI, 0.95-1.99). CONCLUSIONS: In ICU patients, AF occurred in one of six and was associated with different conditions. AF was associated with worse outcomes while not statistically significantly associated with 90-day mortality in the adjusted analyses. We observed variations in the diagnostic and management strategies for AF.

Efficacy of prolonged-release fampridine versus placebo on walking ability, dynamic and static balance, physical impact of multiple sclerosis, and quality of life: an integrated analysis of MOBILE and ENHANCE.

Background: MOBILE and ENHANCE were similarly designed randomized trials of walking-impaired adults with relapsing-remitting or progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) who received placebo or 10 mg prolonged-release (PR)-fampridine twice daily for 24 weeks. Both studies showed sustained and clinically meaningful improvement in broad measures of walking and balance over 24 weeks of PR-fampridine treatment. Objective: To evaluate the functional benefits and safety of PR-fampridine versus placebo using a post hoc integrated efficacy analysis of MOBILE and ENHANCE data. Methods: Data from the intention-to-treat (ITT) populations of MOBILE and ENHANCE studies were pooled in a post hoc analysis based on the following outcome measures: 12-item MS Walking Scale (MSWS-12), Timed Up and Go (TUG) speed, Berg Balance Scale (BBS), MS Impact Scale physical impact subscale (MSIS-29 PHYS), EQ-5D utility index score, visual analogue scale (VAS), and adverse events. The primary analysis was the proportion of people with MS (PwMS) with a mean improvement in MSWS-12 score (⩾8 points) from baseline over 24 weeks. A subgroup analysis based on baseline characteristics was performed. Findings: In the ITT population (N = 765; PR-fampridine, n = 383; placebo, n = 382), a greater proportion of PR-fampridine-treated PwMS than placebo-treated PwMS achieved a clinically meaningful improvement in the MSWS-12 scale over 24 weeks (44.3% versus 33.0%; p < 0.001). PR-fampridine MSWS-12 responders demonstrated greater improvements from baseline in TUG speed, BBS score, MSIS-29 PHYS score, and EQ-5D utility index and VAS scores versus PR-fampridine MSWS-12 nonresponders and placebo. Subgroup analyses based on baseline characteristics showed consistency in the effects of PR-fampridine. Conclusion: The pooled analysis of MOBILE and ENHANCE confirms previous evidence that treatment with PR-fampridine results in clinically meaningful improvements in walking, mobility and balance, self-reported physical impact of MS, and quality of life and is effective across a broad range of PwMS.

Safety and clinical effectiveness of peginterferon beta-1a for relapsing multiple sclerosis in the real-world setting: Interim results from the Plegridy Observational Program.

BACKGROUND: The Plegridy Observational Program (POP) is an ongoing, 5-year, phase 4 real-world study of the safety and effectiveness of subcutaneous peginterferon beta-1a in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). METHODS: This interim analysis from POP assessed the safety and effectiveness of peginterferon beta-1a, including subgroup analyses of patients aged < 50 and ≥ 50 years, newly diagnosed and non-newly diagnosed patients, and new and experienced peginterferon beta-1a users. RESULTS: A total of 1208 patients enrolled in POP. Mean (standard deviation) peginterferon treatment duration in the overall population was 757.0 (529.5) days. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was 65.5%, and the incidence was higher in new than experienced peginterferon beta-1a users (78.1 vs 52.4%). The overall incidence of treatment-emergent serious AEs was 7.6%, and the incidence was lower in younger than older patients (5.8 vs 11.1%). No new or unexpected safety signals were reported. Overall treatment discontinuation due to AEs occurred in 20.7% of patients, with a higher proportion of new than experienced peginterferon beta-1a users (27.0 vs 14.2%) discontinuing treatment due to AEs. Flu-like symptoms and injection site reactions were significant predictors of time to treatment discontinuation. The adjusted annualized relapse rate (ARR) was 0.12 (95% confidence interval 0.11-0.13) in the overall population and was similar across all subgroups. In the overall population at 4 years, 79.1% of patients were relapse free, the estimated cumulative proportion of patients with confirmed disability worsening was 1.8%, and > 67% of patients achieved clinical no evidence of disease activity (NEDA). CONCLUSIONS: Safety data of patients enrolled in POP are consistent with the established clinical safety profile of peginterferon beta-1a. In addition, the low ARR and high proportion of patients achieving clinical NEDA at 4 years across all subgroups indicates the effectiveness of peginterferon beta-1a in treating RMS in real-world clinical settings.

Safety, Patient-Reported Well-Being, and Physician-Reported Assessment of Walking Ability in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis for Prolonged-Release Fampridine Treatment in Routine Clinical Practice: Results of the LIBERATE Study.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged-release fampridine (PR-FAM) 10-mg tablet twice daily is the only approved pharmacological treatment for improvement of walking ability in adults with multiple sclerosis (MS). LIBERATE assessed the safety/effectiveness of PR-FAM in the real-world. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to collect additional safety data, including the incidence rate of seizures and other adverse events (AEs) of interest, from patients with MS taking PR-FAM in routine clinical practice (including patients aged ≥ 65 years and those with pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors). Other objectives included change over time in patient-reported evaluation of physical and psychological impact of MS while taking PR-FAM, and change over time in physician-reported assessment of walking ability in MS patients taking PR-FAM. METHODS: Patients with MS newly prescribed PR-FAM were recruited (201 sites, 13 countries). Demographic/safety data were collected at enrolment through 12 months. Physician-rated Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) scores for walking ability, and Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29) were assessed. RESULTS: Safety analysis included 4646 patients with 3534.8 patient-years of exposure; median (range) age, 52.6 (21-85) years, 87.3% < 65 years, and 65.7% women. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were reported in 2448 (52.7%) patients, and serious TEAEs were reported in 279 (6.0%) patients, of whom 37 (< 1%) experienced treatment-emergent serious AEs (TESAEs) considered related to PR-FAM. AEs of special interest (AESI) occurred in 1799 (38.7%) patients, and serious AESI in 128 (2.8%) patients. Seventeen (< 1%) patients experienced actual events of seizure. Overall, 1158 (24.9%) patients discontinued treatment due to lack of efficacy. At 12 months, a greater proportion of patients on-treatment had improvement from baseline in CGI-I for walking ability versus those who discontinued (61% vs. 11%; p <  0.001). MSIS-29 physical impact score improved significantly for patients on-treatment for 12 months versus those who discontinued (mean change, baseline to 12 months: - 9.99 vs. - 0.34 points; p <  0.001). Results were similar for MSIS-29 psychological impact. CONCLUSION: No new safety concerns were identified in this real-world study, suggesting that routine risk-minimization measures are effective. CGI-I and MSIS-29 scores after 12 months treatment with PR-FAM treatment show clinical benefits consistent with those previously reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01480063.

A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM) of interventions.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM), a new tool for assessing clinical diversity between trials in meta-analyses of interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The development of CDIM was based on consensus work informed by empirical literature and expertise. We drafted the CDIM tool, refined it, and validated CDIM for interrater scale reliability and agreement in three groups. RESULTS: CDIM measures clinical diversity on a scale that includes four domains with 11 items overall: setting (time of conduct/country development status/units type); population (age, sex, patient inclusion criteria/baseline disease severity, comorbidities); interventions (intervention intensity/strength/duration of intervention, timing, control intervention, cointerventions); and outcome (definition of outcome, timing of outcome assessment). The CDIM is completed in two steps: first two authors independently assess clinical diversity in the four domains. Second, after agreeing upon scores of individual items a consensus score is achieved. Interrater scale reliability and agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect depending on the type of raters. CONCLUSION: CDIM is the first tool developed for assessing clinical diversity in meta-analyses of interventions. We found CDIM to be a reliable tool for assessing clinical diversity among trials in meta-analysis.

Apparently conclusive meta-analyses on interventions in critical care may be inconclusive-a meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: Risks of random type I and II errors are associated with false positive and false negative findings. In conventional meta-analyses, the risks of random errors are insufficiently evaluated. Many meta-analyses, which appear conclusive, might, in fact, be inconclusive because of risks of random errors. We hypothesize that, for interventions in critical care, false positive and false negative findings frequently become apparent when accounting for the risks of random error. We aim to investigate to which extent apparently conclusive conventional meta-analyses remain conclusive when adjusting statistical significance levels and confidence intervals considering sparse data and repeated testing through Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for reviews of interventions in critical care. We used TSA with the relative risk reduction from the estimated meta-analyzed intervention effects adjusted for heterogeneity based on the observed diversity. We report proportions of meta-analyses and potential inconclusive findings of positive, neutral, and negative conclusions based on conventional naïve meta-analyses, which use an alpha of 5% and 95% confidence intervals. In TSA-controlled meta-analyses showing a beneficial or harmful intervention effect, we assessed the risk of bias by six Cochrane domains. RESULTS: A total of 464 reviews containing 1,080 meta-analyses of (co-)primary outcomes were analyzed. From the 266 conventional meta-analyses suggesting a beneficial effect, 133 (50%) were true positive and 133 (50%) were potentially false positive according to TSA. From the 755 conventional meta-analyses suggesting a neutral effect, there were 214 (28%) true neutral and 541 (72%) were potentially false neutral according to TSA. From the 59 conventional meta-analyses suggesting a harmful effect, 17 (29%) were true negative and 42 (71%) were potentially false negative according to TSA. When the true beneficial and true harmful meta-analyses according to TSA were evaluated for risk of bias, new TSAs conducted on only trials with overall low risk of bias showed only firm evidence of a beneficial effect on one outcome and a harmful effect on one outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Of all meta-analyses in critical care, a large proportion may reach false conclusions because of unknown risks of random type I or type II errors. Future critical care meta-analyses should aim for establishing an effect of interventions accounting for risks of bias and random errors.