Impact of telehealth on health care in a multiple sclerosis outpatient clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has precipitated expansion of telemedicine in outpatient management of chronic diseases including multiple sclerosis (MS). Studies conducted pre-pandemic, when telehealth was an alternative to in-person consultations, represent a different setting to current practice. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of telehealth on MS outpatient care in a tertiary metropolitan hospital in Melbourne, Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: From March-December 2020, patients and clinicians in the MS outpatient clinic were surveyed regarding their attitudes towards telehealth. Scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) from telehealth and face-to-face appointments during the study period were compared to scores from face-to-face consultations before and after this period. Medical records were reviewed to compare management decisions made during telehealth versus face-to-face consultations. Diagnoses and treatment of MS relapses were compared to 2019. RESULTS: Telehealth was used in 73% of outpatient appointments. Patient satisfaction was generally high. Patients and clinicians preferred face-to-face consultations but were willing to use telehealth longer term. Overall, there were no significant delays in identifying patients experiencing disability worsening via telehealth, but EDSS increase was recorded in more face-to-face than telehealth appointments particularly for those with lower baseline disability. Disease-modifying therapy commencement rates were similar, but symptomatic therapy initiation and investigation requests occurred more frequently in face-to-face visits. Comparable numbers of MS relapses were diagnosed and treated with corticosteroids in 2019 and 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Patient satisfaction with telehealth was high, but both clinicians and patients preferred in-person appointments. Telehealth implementation did not lead to high rates of undetected disability worsening or undiagnosed acute relapses, but telehealth-based EDSS assessment may underestimate lower scores. Treatment inertia may affect some management decisions during telehealth consultations. Telehealth will likely play a role in outpatient settings beyond the COVID-19 pandemic with further studies on its long-term impact on clinical outcomes required.

Impact of telehealth on multiple sclerosis (MS) outpatient clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic

ObjectivesCharacterise telehealth use in MS clinics during the COVID–19 pandemic.Assess patient and clinician attitudes towards telehealth.Compare telehealth–based and physical EDSS obtained during period of telehealth implementation.MethodsClinic records from Mar-Dec 2020 were reviewed. Patients and clinicians completed questionnaires about experiences using Telehealth. The iMed database was searched for EDSS recorded via face-to-face and telehealth appointments during and compared to face-to-face EDSS preceding and following the study period. T-test and Chi-square test were used for between-group comparisons.Results2023 appointments (27% face-to-face, 35% video, 37% telephone) were conducted. New referrals were predominantly face-to-face (66%).89% of patients were satisfied with telehealth. 58% felt they were as good as face-to-face visits, whilst only 11% of clinicians agreed. Many patients favoured a hybrid model. Safety during the COVID-19 pandemic was important to both groups.EDSS increase from the preceding visit was recorded in a significantly higher proportion of face-to-face than telehealth appointments (p=0.027), with the increase driven by patients with baseline EDSS≤4.0. Amongst patients with EDSS increases, similar numbers of suspected relapses were seen via both modalities. Absolute increase in EDSS was also significantly greater amongst patients seen face-to-face (p<0.0001). There was no significant difference in EDSS change at subsequent follow-up in patients with consecutive face-to-face versus intervening telehealth appointments.ConclusionPatient satisfaction with telehealth was high, whilst clinicians preferred face-to-face consultations. EDSS increase was more frequently recorded via face-to-face than telehealth appointments, which may underestimate lower EDSS. Future clinics could combine both modalities.

Evaluating the perspective of patients with MS and related conditions on their DMT in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic in one MS centre in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and on disease modifying therapies (DMTs) that can be immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory form a special group where risk of continuation of DMT needs to be taken into account with risk of contracting Covid-19. This concept can pose a degree of anxiety for patients as well as neurologists. We aimed to evaluate patient perspectives regarding the use of Natalizumab and anti-CD20 therapies (Rituximab and Ocrelizumab) in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: cross-sectional study conducted via voluntary survey filled in by patients with MS and related disorders receiving their infusional treatment in one MS centre in Australia, exploring their concerns regarding their therapy, their therapy and COVID-19, precautions undertaken in response to the pandemic, and factors impacting their decision-making. RESULTS: 170 patients completed the survey. Of patients on Natalizumab, the majority had either no or mild concern regarding their DMT and COVID-19, and of patients on B-cell depleting therapies, again, the majority had no or mild concern, though a slightly higher proportion had a moderate level of concern. Asked to delineate their concerns, an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 was more commonly conveyed than MS-specific factors or poor outcomes pertaining to COVID-19 if contracted, by patients in both groups. Conversely, being invited to specifically consider the possibility of contracting COVID-19 or experience a relapse of MS, almost half of the cohort rated both of equal of concern. More than half of the cohort were self-isolating more stringently than general government advice and government-related resources followed by information provided by patient's neurologist where the commonest means of information to guide decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst a large proportion of patients had some concern regarding the impact of their DMT on COVID-19, whether on their risk of contracting COVID-19 or a theoretical risk for more severe disease, the overall level of concern in most cases was at most mild. Patients on B-cell depleting therapies were more inclined to express a higher level of concern. A similar concern was ascribed to a risk of a relapse or worsening MS symptoms compared to the risk of contracting COVID-19. Such attitudes may underscore a willingness of patients to continue their DMT where benefits outweigh risks during future phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.