Prospective study validating a multidimensional treatment decision score predicting the 24-month outcome in untreated patients with clinically isolated syndrome and early relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, the ProVal-MS study.

INTRODUCTION: In Multiple Sclerosis (MS), patients´ characteristics and (bio)markers that reliably predict the individual disease prognosis at disease onset are lacking. Cohort studies allow a close follow-up of MS histories and a thorough phenotyping of patients. Therefore, a multicenter cohort study was initiated to implement a wide spectrum of data and (bio)markers in newly diagnosed patients. METHODS: ProVal-MS (Prospective study to validate a multidimensional decision score that predicts treatment outcome at 24 months in untreated patients with clinically isolated syndrome or early Relapsing-Remitting-MS) is a prospective cohort study in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) or Relapsing-Remitting (RR)-MS (McDonald 2017 criteria), diagnosed within the last two years, conducted at five academic centers in Southern Germany. The collection of clinical, laboratory, imaging, and paraclinical data as well as biosamples is harmonized across centers. The primary goal is to validate (discrimination and calibration) the previously published DIFUTURE MS-Treatment Decision score (MS-TDS). The score supports clinical decision-making regarding the options of early (within 6 months after study baseline) platform medication (Interferon beta, glatiramer acetate, dimethyl/diroximel fumarate, teriflunomide), or no immediate treatment (> 6 months after baseline) of patients with early RR-MS and CIS by predicting the probability of new or enlarging lesions in cerebral magnetic resonance images (MRIs) between 6 and 24 months. Further objectives are refining the MS-TDS score and providing data to identify new markers reflecting disease course and severity. The project also provides a technical evaluation of the ProVal-MS cohort within the IT-infrastructure of the DIFUTURE consortium (Data Integration for Future Medicine) and assesses the efficacy of the data sharing techniques developed. PERSPECTIVE: Clinical cohorts provide the infrastructure to discover and to validate relevant disease-specific findings. A successful validation of the MS-TDS will add a new clinical decision tool to the armamentarium of practicing MS neurologists from which newly diagnosed MS patients may take advantage. Trial registration ProVal-MS has been registered in the German Clinical Trials Register, `Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien` (DRKS)-ID: DRKS00014034, date of registration: 21 December 2018; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00014034.

Prognostic models for predicting clinical disease progression, worsening and activity in people with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the central nervous system that affects millions of people worldwide. The disease course varies greatly across individuals and many disease-modifying treatments with different safety and efficacy profiles have been developed recently. Prognostic models evaluated and shown to be valid in different settings have the potential to support people with MS and their physicians during the decision-making process for treatment or disease/life management, allow stratified and more precise interpretation of interventional trials, and provide insights into disease mechanisms. Many researchers have turned to prognostic models to help predict clinical outcomes in people with MS; however, to our knowledge, no widely accepted prognostic model for MS is being used in clinical practice yet. OBJECTIVES: To identify and summarise multivariable prognostic models, and their validation studies for quantifying the risk of clinical disease progression, worsening, and activity in adults with MS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 1996 until July 2021. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews, and references citing the included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all statistically developed multivariable prognostic models aiming to predict clinical disease progression, worsening, and activity, as measured by disability, relapse, conversion to definite MS, conversion to progressive MS, or a composite of these in adult individuals with MS. We also included any studies evaluating the performance of (i.e. validating) these models. There were no restrictions based on language, data source, timing of prognostication, or timing of outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data using a piloted form based on the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS), assessed risk of bias using the Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST), and assessed reporting deficiencies based on the checklist items in Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD). The characteristics of the included models and their validations are described narratively. We planned to meta-analyse the discrimination and calibration of models with at least three external validations outside the model development study but no model met this criterion. We summarised between-study heterogeneity narratively but again could not perform the planned meta-regression. MAIN RESULTS: We included 57 studies, from which we identified 75 model developments, 15 external validations corresponding to only 12 (16%) of the models, and six author-reported validations. Only two models were externally validated multiple times. None of the identified external validations were performed by researchers independent of those that developed the model. The outcome was related to disease progression in 39 (41%), relapses in 8 (8%), conversion to definite MS in 17 (18%), and conversion to progressive MS in 27 (28%) of the 96 models or validations. The disease and treatment-related characteristics of included participants, and definitions of considered predictors and outcome, were highly heterogeneous amongst the studies. Based on the publication year, we observed an increase in the percent of participants on treatment, diversification of the diagnostic criteria used, an increase in consideration of biomarkers or treatment as predictors, and increased use of machine learning methods over time. Usability and reproducibility All identified models contained at least one predictor requiring the skills of a medical specialist for measurement or assessment. Most of the models (44; 59%) contained predictors that require specialist equipment likely to be absent from primary care or standard hospital settings. Over half (52%) of the developed models were not accompanied by model coefficients, tools, or instructions, which hinders their application, independent validation or reproduction. The data used in model developments were made publicly available or reported to be available on request only in a few studies (two and six, respectively). Risk of bias We rated all but one of the model developments or validations as having high overall risk of bias. The main reason for this was the statistical methods used for the development or evaluation of prognostic models; we rated all but two of the included model developments or validations as having high risk of bias in the analysis domain. None of the model developments that were externally validated or these models' external validations had low risk of bias. There were concerns related to applicability of the models to our research question in over one-third (38%) of the models or their validations. Reporting deficiencies Reporting was poor overall and there was no observable increase in the quality of reporting over time. The items that were unclearly reported or not reported at all for most of the included models or validations were related to sample size justification, blinding of outcome assessors, details of the full model or how to obtain predictions from it, amount of missing data, and treatments received by the participants. Reporting of preferred model performance measures of discrimination and calibration was suboptimal. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence is not sufficient for recommending the use of any of the published prognostic prediction models for people with MS in clinical routine today due to lack of independent external validations. The MS prognostic research community should adhere to the current reporting and methodological guidelines and conduct many more state-of-the-art external validation studies for the existing or newly developed models.

Retrospective cohort study to devise a treatment decision score predicting adverse 24-month radiological activity in early multiple sclerosis.

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic neuroinflammatory disease affecting about 2.8 million people worldwide. Disease course after the most common diagnoses of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) is highly variable and cannot be reliably predicted. This impairs early personalized treatment decisions. Objectives: The main objective of this study was to algorithmically support clinical decision-making regarding the options of early platform medication or no immediate treatment of patients with early RRMS and CIS. Design: Retrospective monocentric cohort study within the Data Integration for Future Medicine (DIFUTURE) Consortium. Methods: Multiple data sources of routine clinical, imaging and laboratory data derived from a large and deeply characterized cohort of patients with MS were integrated to conduct a retrospective study to create and internally validate a treatment decision score [Multiple Sclerosis Treatment Decision Score (MS-TDS)] through model-based random forests (RFs). The MS-TDS predicts the probability of no new or enlarging lesions in cerebral magnetic resonance images (cMRIs) between 6 and 24 months after the first cMRI. Results: Data from 65 predictors collected for 475 patients between 2008 and 2017 were included. No medication and platform medication were administered to 277 (58.3%) and 198 (41.7%) patients. The MS-TDS predicted individual outcomes with a cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of 0.624. The respective RF prediction model provides patient-specific MS-TDS and probabilities of treatment success. The latter may increase by 5-20% for half of the patients if the treatment considered superior by the MS-TDS is used. Conclusion: Routine clinical data from multiple sources can be successfully integrated to build prediction models to support treatment decision-making. In this study, the resulting MS-TDS estimates individualized treatment success probabilities that can identify patients who benefit from early platform medication. External validation of the MS-TDS is required, and a prospective study is currently being conducted. In addition, the clinical relevance of the MS-TDS needs to be established.

Antidepressant use and stroke or mortality risk in the elderly.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Current evidence on antidepressant-related stroke or mortality risk is inconsistent. Because the elderly have the highest exposure to antidepressants, the aim was to quantify their association with stroke and mortality risks in this vulnerable population. METHODS: Persons over 65 years old and registered in the Information System for Research in Primary Care of Catalonia during 2010-2015 comprised the study population. Antidepressant exposure was categorized into current-users, recent-users, past-users and antidepressant non-users (controls). The effect of antidepressant exposure on stroke or death, whichever came first, was analyzed by Cox regression adjusted for established risk factors. RESULTS: Of the 1,068,117 participants included, 20% had antidepressant reimbursements during follow-up, 17% had a stroke and 3% died. The risk of experiencing stroke or death was higher in antidepressant current-users (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.06), recent-users (HR 3.34; 95% CI 3.27-3.41) and past-users (HR 2.06; 95% CI 2.02-2.10) compared to antidepressant non-users. Antidepressant current-use was associated with increased stroke (HR 1.56; 95% CI 1.50-1.61) but decreased mortality risk (HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.91-0.94). During antidepressant recent-use and past-use, both stroke and mortality risks were significantly increased compared to no antidepressant use. CONCLUSIONS: Antidepressant use may be associated with increased stroke risk in the elderly. When using antidepressants in this population, the potential risks should be considered.