Long-term efficacy and safety of siponimod in patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: Analysis of EXPAND core and extension data up to >5 years.

BACKGROUND: Siponimod significantly reduced the risk of confirmed disability progression (CDP), worsening in cognitive processing speed (CPS), relapses, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures of brain atrophy and inflammation versus placebo in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) patients in the Phase 3 EXPAND study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess long-term efficacy and safety of siponimod 2 mg/day from the EXPAND study including the extension part, up to > 5 years. METHODS: In the open-label extension part, participants receiving placebo during the core part were switched to siponimod (placebo-siponimod group) and those on siponimod continued the same treatment (continuous siponimod group). RESULTS: Continuous siponimod reduced the risk of 6-month CDP by 22% (hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval (CI)): 0.78 (0.66-0.92) p = 0.0026) and 6-month confirmed worsening in CPS by 23% (HR (95% CI): 0.77 (0.65-0.92) p = 0.0047) versus the placebo-siponimod group. Sustained efficacy on annualized relapse rate, total and regional brain atrophy, and inflammatory disease activity was also observed. No new, unexpected safety signals for siponimod were identified over the long term. CONCLUSION: The sustained efficacy and consistent long-term safety profile of siponimod up to > 5 years support its clinical utility for long-term treatment of SPMS. Benefits in the continuous siponimod versus placebo-siponimod group highlight the significance of earlier treatment initiation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01665144.

Effect of siponimod on magnetic resonance imaging measures of neurodegeneration and myelination in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: Gray matter atrophy and magnetization transfer ratio analyses from the EXPAND phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements of gray matter (GM) atrophy and magnetization transfer ratio (MTR; correlate of myelination) may provide better insights than conventional MRI regarding brain tissue integrity/myelination in multiple sclerosis (MS). OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of siponimod in the EXPAND trial on whole-brain and GM atrophy, newly formed normalized magnetization transfer ratio (nMTR) lesions, and nMTR-assessed integrity of normal-appearing brain tissue (NABT), cortical GM (cGM), and normal-appearing white matter (NAWM). METHODS: Patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) received siponimod (2 mg/day; n =1037) or placebo (n = 523). Endpoints included percentage change from baseline to months 12/24 in whole-brain, cGM, and thalamic volumes; change in nMTR from baseline to months 12/24 in NABT, cGM, and NAWM; MTR recovery in newly formed lesions. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, siponimod significantly reduced progression of whole-brain and GM atrophy over 12/24 months, and was associated with improvements in brain tissue integrity/myelination within newly formed nMTR lesions and across NABT, cGM, and NAWM over 24 months. Effects were consistent across age, disease duration, inflammatory activity subgroups, and disease severity. CONCLUSION: Siponimod reduced brain tissue damage in patients with SPMS as evidenced by objective measures of brain tissue integrity/myelination. This is consistent with central nervous system (CNS) effects observed in preclinical models. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01665144.

Disability improvement as a clinically relevant outcome in clinical trials of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) can reduce the risk of disability worsening in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (RMS). High-efficacy DMTs can lead to confirmed or sustained disability improvement (CDI and SDI). OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: Post hoc analyses of data from the TRANSFORMS, FREEDOMS, and FREEDOMS II trials and their extensions assessed the effects of fingolimod (0.5-1.25 mg/day) on stabilizing or improving disability over ⩽8 years in participants with RMS. CDI and SDI rates were compared between participants initially randomized to fingolimod, interferon (IFNß-1a), or placebo. RESULTS: At 8 years' follow-up in TRANSFORMS, 35.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.2%-43.1%) of assessed participants in the IFNß-1a-fingolimod switch group and 41.9% (36.6%-47.6%) on continuous fingolimod experienced CDI; disability did not worsen in approximately 70%. Similar results were seen in the combined FREEDOMS population. Proportionally fewer TRANSFORMS participants achieved SDI in the IFNß-1a-fingolimod switch group than on continuous fingolimod (5.4% [3.0%-9.5%] vs 14.2% [10.8%-18.4%], p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: CDI and SDI are outcomes of interest for clinical trials and for long-term follow-up of participants with RMS. Monitoring CDI and SDI in addition to disability worsening may facilitate understanding of the therapeutic benefit of RMS treatments.

Siponimod: Disentangling disability and relapses in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: In multiple sclerosis, impact of treatment on disability progression can be confounded if treatment also reduces relapses. OBJECTIVE: To distinguish siponimod's direct effects on disability progression from those on relapses in the EXPAND phase 3 trial. METHODS: Three estimands, one based on principal stratum and two on hypothetical scenarios (no relapses, or equal relapses in both treatment arms), were defined to determine the extent to which siponimod's effects on 3- and 6-month confirmed disability progression were independent of on-study relapses. RESULTS: Principal stratum analysis estimated that siponimod reduced the risk of 3- and 6-month confirmed disability progression by 14%-20% and 29%-33%, respectively, compared with placebo in non-relapsing patients. In the hypothetical scenarios, risk reductions independent of relapses were 14%-18% and 23% for 3- and 6-month confirmed disability progression, respectively. CONCLUSION: By controlling the confounding impact of on-study relapses on confirmed disability progression, these statistical approaches provide a methodological framework to assess treatment effects on disability progression in relapsing and non-relapsing patients. The analyses support that siponimod may be useful for treating secondary progressive multiple sclerosis in patients with or without relapses.

Multiple Sclerosis Progression Discussion Tool Usability and Usefulness in Clinical Practice: Cross-sectional, Web-Based Survey.

BACKGROUND: A digital tool, Multiple Sclerosis Progression Discussion Tool (MSProDiscuss), was developed to facilitate discussions between health care professionals (HCPs) and patients in evaluating early, subtle signs of multiple sclerosis (MS) disease progression. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to report the findings on the usability and usefulness of MSProDiscuss in a real-world clinical setting. METHODS: In this cross-sectional, web-based survey, HCPs across 34 countries completed an initial individual questionnaire (comprising 7 questions on comprehensibility, usability, and usefulness after using MSProDiscuss during each patient consultation) and a final questionnaire (comprising 13 questions on comprehensibility, usability, usefulness, and integration and adoption into clinical practice to capture the HCPs' overall experience of using the tool). The responses were provided on a 5-point Likert scale. All analyses were descriptive, and no statistical comparisons were made. RESULTS: In total, 301 HCPs tested the tool in 6974 people with MS, of whom 77% (5370/6974) had relapsing-remitting MS, including those suspected to be transitioning to secondary progressive MS. The time taken to complete MSProDiscuss was reported to be in the range of 1 to 4 minutes in 97.3% (6786/6974; initial) to 98.2% (269/274; final) of the cases. In 93.54% (6524/6974; initial) to 97.1% (266/274; final) of the cases, the HCPs agreed (4 or 5 on the Likert scale) that patients were able to comprehend the questions in the tool. The HCPs were willing to use the tool again in the same patient, 90.47% (6310/6974; initial) of the cases. The HCPs reported MSProDiscuss to be useful in discussing MS symptoms and their impact on daily activities (6121/6974, 87.76% initial and 252/274, 92% final) and cognitive function (5482/6974, 78.61% initial and 271/274, 79.2% final), as well as in discussing progression in general (6102/6974, 87.49% initial and 246/274, 89.8% final). While completing the final questionnaire, 94.9% (260/274) of the HCPs agreed that the questions were similar to those asked in regular consultation, and the tool helped to better understand the impact of MS symptoms on daily activities (249/274, 90.9%) and cognitive function (220/274, 80.3%). Overall, 92% (252/274) of the HCPs reported that they would recommend MSProDiscuss to a colleague, and 85.8% (235/274) were willing to integrate it into their clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: MSProDiscuss is a usable and useful tool to facilitate a physician-patient discussion on MS disease progression in daily clinical practice. Most of the HCPs agreed that the tool is easy to use and were willing to integrate MSProDiscuss into their daily clinical practice.

A Physician-Completed Digital Tool for Evaluating Disease Progression (Multiple Sclerosis Progression Discussion Tool): Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: Defining the transition from relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) can be challenging and delayed. A digital tool (MSProDiscuss) was developed to facilitate physician-patient discussion in evaluating early, subtle signs of multiple sclerosis (MS) disease progression representing this transition. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine cut-off values and corresponding sensitivity and specificity for predefined scoring algorithms, with or without including Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, to differentiate between RRMS and SPMS patients and to evaluate psychometric properties. METHODS: Experienced neurologists completed the tool for patients with confirmed RRMS or SPMS and those suspected to be transitioning to SPMS. In addition to age and EDSS score, each patient's current disease status (disease activity, symptoms, and its impacts on daily life) was collected while completing the draft tool. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves determined optimal cut-off values (sensitivity and specificity) for the classification of RRMS and SPMS. RESULTS: Twenty neurologists completed the draft tool for 198 patients. Mean scores for patients with RRMS (n=89), transitioning to SPMS (n=47), and SPMS (n=62) were 38.1 (SD 12.5), 55.2 (SD 11.1), and 69.6 (SD 12.0), respectively (P<.001, each between-groups comparison). Area under the ROC curve (AUC) including and excluding EDSS were for RRMS (including) AUC 0.91, 95% CI 0.87-0.95, RRMS (excluding) AUC 0.88, 95% CI 0.84-0.93, SPMS (including) AUC 0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.95, and SPMS (excluding) AUC 0.86, 95% CI 0.81-0.91. In the algorithm with EDSS, the optimal cut-off values were ≤51.6 for RRMS patients (sensitivity=0.83; specificity=0.82) and ≥58.9 for SPMS patients (sensitivity=0.82; specificity=0.84). The optimal cut-offs without EDSS were ≤46.3 and ≥57.8 and resulted in similar high sensitivity and specificity (0.76-0.86). The draft tool showed excellent interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=.95). CONCLUSIONS: The MSProDiscuss tool differentiated RRMS patients from SPMS patients with high sensitivity and specificity. In clinical practice, it may be a useful tool to evaluate early, subtle signs of MS disease progression indicating the evolution of RRMS to SPMS. MSProDiscuss will help assess the current level of progression in an individual patient and facilitate a more informed physician-patient discussion.

Learning ability correlates with brain atrophy and disability progression in RRMS.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prognostic value of practice effect on Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT) in multiple sclerosis. METHODS: We compared screening (day -14) and baseline (day 0) PASAT scores of 1009 patients from the FTY720 Research Evaluating Effects of Daily Oral therapy in Multiple Sclerosis (FREEDOMS) trial. We grouped patients into high and low learners if their PASAT score change was above or below the median change in their screening PASAT quartile group. We used Wilcoxon test to compare baseline disease characteristics between high and low learners, and multiple regression models to assess the respective impact of learning ability, baseline normalised brain volume and treatment on brain volume loss and 6-month confirmed disability progression over 2 years. RESULTS: The mean PASAT score at screening was 45.38, increasing on average by 3.18 from day -14 to day 0. High learners were younger (p=0.003), had lower Expanded Disability Status Scale score (p=0.031), higher brain volume (p<0.001) and lower T2 lesion volume (p=0.009) at baseline. Learning status was not significantly associated with disability progression (HR=0.953, p=0.779), when adjusting for baseline normalised brain volume, screening PASAT score and treatment arm. However, the effect of fingolimod on disability progression was more pronounced in high learners (HR=0.396, p<0.001) than in low learners (HR=0.798, p=0.351; p for interaction=0.05). Brain volume loss at month 24 tended to be higher in low learners (0.17%, p=0.058), after adjusting for the same covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term practice effects on PASAT are related to brain volume, disease severity and age and have clinically meaningful prognostic implications. High learners benefited more from fingolimod treatment.

Predicting risk of secondary progression in multiple sclerosis: A nomogram.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed at designing a nomogram, a prediction tool, to predict the individual's risk of conversion to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) at the time of multiple sclerosis (MS) onset. METHODS: One derivation and three validation cohorts were established. The derivation cohort included 8825 relapsing-onset MS patients in Sweden. A nomogram was built based on a survival model with the best statistical fit and prediction accuracy. The nomogram was validated using data from 3967 patients in the British Columbia cohort, 176 patients in the ACROSS and 2355 patients in FREEDOMS/FREEDOMS II extension studies. RESULTS: Sex, calendar year of birth, first-recorded Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, age at the first EDSS and age at disease onset showed significant predictive ability to estimate the risk of SPMS conversion at 10, 15 and 20 years. The nomogram reached 84% (95% confidence intervals (CIs): 83-85) internal and 77% (95% CI: 76-78), 77% (95% CI: 70-85) and 87% (95% CI: 84-89) external accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The SPMS nomogram represents a much-needed complementary tool designed to assist in decision-making and patient counselling in the early phase of MS. The SPMS nomogram may improve outcomes by prompting timely and more efficacious treatment for those with a worse prognosis.

Defining brain volume cutoffs to identify clinically relevant atrophy in RRMS.

OBJECTIVE: To define values of normalized brain volume (NBV) that can be categorized as low, medium, or high, according to baseline characteristics of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients. METHODS: Expected NBV (eNBV) was calculated for each patient based on age, disease duration, sex, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), and T2-lesion volume, entering these variables into a multiple regression model run on 2342 RRMS patients (pooled FREEDOMS/FREEDOMS-II population). According to the difference between their observed NBV and their eNBV, patients were classified as having low NBV, medium NBV, or high NBV. We evaluated whether these NBV categories were clinically meaningful by assessing correlation with disability worsening. RESULTS: The distribution of differences between observed NBV and eNBV was used to categorize patients as having low NBV, medium NBV or high NBV. Taking the high-NBV group as reference, the hazard ratios (HRs) for 2-year disability worsening, adjusted for treatment effect, were 1.23 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92-1.63, p = 0.16) for the medium NBV and 1.75 (95% CI: 1.26-2.44, p = 0.001) for the low NBV. The predictive value of NBV groups was preserved over 4 years. Treatment effect appeared more evident in low-NBV patients (HR = 0.58) than in medium-NBV (HR = 0.72) and in high-NBV (HR = 0.80) patients; however, the difference was not significant ( p = 0.57). CONCLUSION: RRMS patients can be categorized into disability risk groups based on individual eNBV values according to baseline demographics and clinical characteristics.

Inclusion of brain volume loss in a revised measure of 'no evidence of disease activity' (NEDA-4) in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: 'No evidence of disease activity' (NEDA), defined as absence of magnetic resonance imaging activity (T2 and/or gadolinium-enhanced T1 lesions), relapses and disability progression ('NEDA-3'), is used as a comprehensive measure of treatment response in relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS), but is weighted towards inflammatory activity. Accelerated brain volume loss (BVL) occurs in RMS and is an objective measure of disease worsening and progression. OBJECTIVE: To assess the contribution of individual components of NEDA-3 and the impact of adding BVL to NEDA-3 ('NEDA-4') METHODS: We analysed data pooled from two placebo-controlled phase 3 fingolimod trials in RMS and assessed NEDA-4 using different annual BVL mean rate thresholds (0.2%-1.2%). RESULTS: At 2 years, 31.0% (217/700) of patients receiving fingolimod 0.5 mg achieved NEDA-3 versus 9.9% (71/715) on placebo (odds ratio (OR) 4.07; p < 0.0001). Adding BVL (threshold of 0.4%), the respective proportions of patients achieving NEDA-4 were 19.7% (139/706) and 5.3% (38/721; OR 4.41; p < 0.0001). NEDA-4 status favoured fingolimod across all BVL thresholds tested (OR 4.01-4.41; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: NEDA-4 has the potential to capture the impact of therapies on both inflammation and neurodegeneration, and deserves further evaluation across different compounds and in long-term studies.

The effect of disease modifying therapies on fatigue in multiple sclerosis.

INTRODUCTION: Fatigue is one of the most common and debilitating symptoms in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are currently the gold standard in the treatment of MS and their effectiveness has been assessed through randomized clinical trials (RCTs). However, there is limited evidence on the impact of DMTs on fatigue in (PwMS). We conducted a systematic review to 1) understand whether fatigue is included as an outcome in MS trials of DMTs; 2) determine the effects on fatigue of treating MS with DMTs and 3) assess the quality of MS trials including fatigue as an outcome. METHODS: Two independent researchers systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1993 to January 2023 for RCTs that measured fatigue as an outcome. Adherence to reporting standards was assessed with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO), while the risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with the RoB 2 tool by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022383321). RESULTS: The search strategy identified 130 RCTs of DMTs of which 7 (5%) assessed fatigue as an outcome. Of the 7 trials, only two presented statistically significant results. In addition, the reporting of fatigue among RCTs was suboptimal with a mean adherence to the CONSORT-PRO Statement of 36% across all trials. Of the 7 trials included, four were assessed as 'high' RoB.. CONCLUSIONS: Fatigue has a major impact on PwMS yet there is limited trial-based evidence on the impact of DMTs on fatigue. Assessment of fatigue as an outcome is underrepresented in trials of DMTs and the reporting of PRO trial data is suboptimal. Thus, it is imperative that MS researchers conduct RCTs that include fatigue as an outcome, to support clinicians and people with MS (PwMS) to consider the impact of the different DMTs on fatigue.

Rationale for Use of Sphingosine-1-Phosphate Receptor Modulators in COVID-19 Patients: Overview of Scientific Evidence.

Maladjusted immune responses to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), for example, cytokine release syndrome, may result in immunopathology and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P), a bioactive lipid mediator, and its S1P receptor (S1PR) are crucial in maintaining endothelial cell chemotaxis and barrier integrity. Apart from the S1P1 receptor-mediated mechanisms of sequestration of cytotoxic lymphocytes, including Th-17 and S1P1/2/3-mediated endothelial barrier functions, S1PR modulators may also attenuate cytokine release via activation of serine/threonine protein phosphatase 2A and enhance the pulmonary endothelial barrier via the c-Abl tyrosine kinase pathway. Chronic treatment with fingolimod (S1PR1,3,4,5 modulator) and siponimod (S1PR1,5 modulator) has demonstrated efficacy in reducing inflammatory disease activity and slowing down disease progression in multiple sclerosis. The decision to selectively suppress the immunity of a critically ill patient with COVID-19 remains a difficult choice. It has been suggested that treatment with fingolimod or siponimod may be appropriate to attenuate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-induced hyperinflammation in patients with COVID-19 since these patients are already monitored in an intensive care setting. Here, we review the use of S1PR modulators, fingolimod and siponimod, in regulating the inflammatory response to SARS-CoV-2 with the aim of understanding their potential rationale use in patients with COVID-19.

Siponimod vs placebo in active secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: a post hoc analysis from the phase 3 EXPAND study.

BACKGROUND: Siponimod is a sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulator approved for active secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (aSPMS) in most countries; however, phase 3 EXPAND study data are from an SPMS population with/without disease activity. A need exists to characterize efficacy/safety of siponimod in aSPMS. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of participants with aSPMS (≥ 1 relapse in 2 years before study and/or ≥ 1 T1 gadolinium-enhancing [Gd +] magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] lesions at baseline) receiving oral siponimod (2 mg/day) or placebo for up to 3 years in EXPAND. ENDPOINTS: 3-month/6-month confirmed disability progression (3mCDP/6mCDP); 3-month confirmed ≥ 20% worsening in Timed 25-Foot Walk (T25FW); 6-month confirmed improvement/worsening in Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) scores (≥ 4-point change); T2 lesion volume (T2LV) change from baseline; number of T1 Gd + lesions baseline-month 24; number of new/enlarging (N/E) T2 lesions over all visits. RESULTS: Data from 779 participants with aSPMS were analysed. Siponimod reduced risk of 3mCDP/6mCDP vs placebo (by 31%/37%, respectively; p < 0.01); there was no significant effect on T25FW. Siponimod increased likelihood of 6-month confirmed SDMT improvement vs placebo (by 62%; p = 0.007) and reduced risk of 6-month confirmed SDMT worsening (by 27%; p = 0.060). Siponimod was associated with less increase in T2LV (1316.3 vs 13.3 mm3; p < 0.0001), and fewer T1 Gd + and N/E T2 lesions than placebo (85% and 80% reductions, respectively; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In aSPMS, siponimod reduced risk of disability progression and was associated with benefits on cognition and MRI outcomes vs placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01665144.

A Novel, Integrative Approach for Evaluating Progression in Multiple Sclerosis: Development of a Scoring Algorithm.

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet need for a tool that helps to evaluate patients who are at risk of progressing from relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS). A new tool supporting the evaluation of early signs suggestive of progression in multiple sclerosis (MS) has been developed. In the initial stage, concepts relevant to progression were identified using a mixed method approach involving regression on data from a real-world observational study and qualitative research with patients and physicians. The tool was drafted in a questionnaire format to assess these variables. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop the scoring algorithm for the tool, using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. METHODS: The draft scoring algorithm was developed using two approaches: quantitative analysis of real-world data and qualitative analysis based on physician interviews and ranking and weighting exercises. Variables that were included in the draft tool and regarded as most clinically relevant were selected for inclusion in a multiple logistic regression. The analyses were run using physician-reported data and patient-reported data. Subsequently, a ranking and weighting exercise was conducted with 8 experienced neurologists as part of semistructured interviews. Physicians were presented with the variables included in the draft tool and were asked to rank them in order of strength of contribution to progression and assign a weight by providing a percentage of the overall contribution. Physicians were also asked to explain their ranking and weighting choices. Concordance between physicians was explored. RESULTS: Multiple logistic regression identified age, MS disease activity, and Expanded Disability Status Scale score as the most significant physician-reported predictors of progression to SPMS. Patient age, mobility, and self-care were identified as the strongest patient-reported predictors of progression to SPMS. In physician interviews, the variables ranked and weighted as most important were stability or worsening of symptoms, intermittent or persistent symptoms, and presence of ambulatory and cognitive symptoms. Across all physicians, the level of concordance was 0.278 (P<.001), indicating a low to moderate, but statistically significant, level of agreement. Variables were categorized as high (n=8), moderate (n=8), or low (n=10) importance based on the findings from the different approaches described above. Accordingly, the respective questions in the tool were assigned a weight of "three," "two," or "one" to inform the draft scoring algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: This study further confirms the need for a tool to provide a consistent, comprehensive approach across physicians to support the early evaluation of signs indicative of progression to SPMS. The novel and comprehensive approach to develop the draft scoring algorithm triangulates data obtained from ranking and weighting exercises, qualitative interviews, and a real-world observational study. Variables that go beyond the clinically most obvious impairment in lower limbs have been identified as relevant subtle/sensitive signs suggestive of progressive disease.

A mixed methods approach towards understanding key disease characteristics associated with the progression from RRMS to SPMS: Physicians' and patients' views.

OBJECTIVES: The transition from relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) evolves over time and it can be challenging for physicians to identify progression early. Typically, SPMS is diagnosed retrospectively with a significant delay, based on a history of gradual worsening, independent of relapses, following an initial relapsing-remitting disease course. As such, SPMS is often associated with a considerable period of diagnostic uncertainty. This study aimed to explore and characterize key symptoms and impacts associated with transitioning from RRMS to SPMS and inform the content for a tool to support evaluation of early subtle signs suggestive of progressive disease. METHODS: The qualitative study involved 60-min, face-to-face, concept elicitation (CE) interviews with 32 patients with MS (US = 16 and Germany = 16); and 30-min, telephone, CE interviews with 16 neurologists (US = 8 and Germany = 8). Multivariate analysis on data from a real-world observational study of 3294 MS patients assessed the differences between early-RRMS and early-SPMS, and identified factors that were significant drivers of this difference. These studies informed selection of the key variables to be included in a pilot tool. Sixteen physicians used the pilot tool, presented as a paper questionnaire, with a sample of patients whom they suspected were progressing to SPMS (n ≥ 5). Following this, the physicians participated in a 30-min cognitive debriefing (CD) interview to evaluate the relevance and usefulness of the tool. Qualitative analysis of all anonymized, verbatim transcripts was performed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Patients and physicians reported signs that indicated progression to SPMS including gradual worsening of symptoms, lack of clear recovery, increased severity and presence of new symptoms. No specific symptoms definitively indicated progression to SPMS, however a number of potential symptoms associated with progression were identified by SPMS patients and physicians, including worsening ambulation, cognition, balance, muscle weakness, visual symptoms, bladder symptoms and fatigue. Quality of life domains reported to be more severely impacted in SPMS than MS in general included: physical activity, work, daily activities, emotional and social functioning. Multivariate analysis of the observational study data identified several variables strongly associated with progression to SPMS including, requirement of assistance in daily living, presence of motor symptoms, presence of ataxia/coordination symptoms, and unemployment. Physicians reported that items included in the tool were easy to understand and relevant. Physicians also reported that there is an unmet need for a tool to help identify signs of SPMS progression and so the tool would be useful in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first stage of development of a novel, validated, physician-completed tool to support physician-patient interactions in evaluating signs indicative of disease progression to SPMS. Qualitative and quantitative methods (involving physician and patients) were used to determine tool content. The usefulness and unmet need for such a tool in clinical practice was confirmed via CD interviews with physicians. Further work is now warranted to develop a scoring algorithm and validate the tool so that it can be reliably implemented in clinical practice.