Recognition, Description, and Variability of Spasticity in Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis and Potential Barriers to Clinician-Patient Dialogue: Results From SEEN-MSS, a Large-Scale, Self-Reported Survey.

BACKGROUND: The experience with spasticity varies among individuals with multiple sclerosis and spasticity (MSS), as they may not recognize it as spasticity or have the language to describe their symptoms. This can lead to potential delays in diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: Symptoms and Emotions Exploration Needed in Multiple Sclerosis Spasticity was an online survey completed by 1177 individuals with MSS in 2021. It sought to capture symptoms of spasticity, variability of symptoms, specific spasticity triggers, and how conversations with physicians were initiated. RESULTS: The mean age of the cohort was 56.8 years and it was 78% women. Prior to spasticity onset, 65% of respondents felt minimally prepared or unprepared for possibly developing spasticity and were unaware that spasticity manifests as part of MS. Eighty percent experienced spasticity daily, which was variable in severity and duration. Spasticity was triggered by a range of factors and 90% of those surveyed were unable to predict when it would occur or its severity. Day-to-day variability of spasticity prevented 65% of respondents from doing things they wished to do. Sixty percent were confused by their symptoms, not recognizing them as spasticity. Although 91% reported experiencing muscle spasms, only 69% used "muscle spasms" to describe their symptoms. Other descriptors included "muscle tightness," "stiffness," "cramping," and "pain." After recognizing spasticity, 78% proactively initiated discussions with their physicians, 52% wished they had done so sooner, and 42% delayed the conversation by up to or more than a year. CONCLUSIONS: Results emphasize the variable nature of spasticity and the lack of a common language to describe symptoms, underscoring the importance of education, earlier recognition, and customized treatments tailored to the severity and duration of spasticity symptoms.

Insights for Healthcare Providers on Shared Decision-Making in Multiple Sclerosis: A Narrative Review.

Shared decision-making (SDM) between the patient and their healthcare provider (HCP) in developing treatment plans is increasingly recognized as central to improving treatment adherence and, ultimately, patient outcomes. In multiple sclerosis (MS), SDM is particularly crucial for optimizing treatment in a landscape that has grown more complex with the availability of newer, high-efficacy MS therapies. However, little direct evidence on the effectiveness of SDM is available to guide practice. Multiple factors, including patient age, ethnic background, perceptions, invisible MS symptoms, and psychological comorbidities can influence a patient's willingness and ability to participate in SDM. HCPs need to appreciate these factors and ask the right questions to break down obstacles to SDM. The HCP has a responsibility to help patients feel adequately informed and comfortable in having an active role in their care. This review identifies potential barriers to SDM and provides a strategy for HCPs to overcome these obstacles through patient (and caregiver) discussions to ensure optimal patient satisfaction with treatment and thus the best possible outcomes for their patients.

Humoral immune response to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis treated with ofatumumab.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data available regarding the impact of ofatumumab, an anti-CD20 B-cell-depleting monoclonal antibody for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS), on vaccination response. The study objective was to assess humoral immune response (HIR) to non-live coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination in patients with RMS treated with ofatumumab. METHODS: This was an open-label, single-arm, multicenter, prospective pilot study of patients with RMS aged 18-55 years who received 2 or 3 doses of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine after ≥1 month of subcutaneous ofatumumab (20 mg/month) treatment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving HIR, as defined by local laboratory severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 qualitative immunoglobulin G assays. Assay No. 1 was ≥14 days after the second or third vaccine dose. Assay No. 2 was 90 days thereafter. RESULTS: Of the 26 patients enrolled (median [range] age: 42 [27-54] years; median [range] ofatumumab treatment duration: 237 [50-364] days), HIR was achieved by 53.9% (14/26; 95% CI: 33.4 - 73.4%) at Assay No. 1 and 50.0% (13/26; 95% CI: 29.9 - 70.1%) at Assay No. 2. Patients who received 3 vaccine doses had higher HIR rates (Assay No. 1: 70.0% [7/10]; Assay No. 2: 77.8% [7/9]) than those who received 2 doses (Assay No. 1: 46.7% [7/15]; Assay No. 2: 42.9% [6/14]). Of patients aged <40 years without previous anti-CD20 therapy, HIR was achieved by 90.0% (9/10) at Assay No. 1 and 75.0% (6/8) at Assay No. 2. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Patients with RMS treated with ofatumumab can mount HIRs following COVID-19 vaccination. A plain language summary, infographic and a short video summarizing the key results are provided in supplementary material. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04847596 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04847596).

The Clinical and Economic Impact of Employees Who Are Care Partners of Patients with Multiple Sclerosis by Disease Severity.

Background: Research on employee care partners of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is limited. Objectives: The clinical and economic impact on employee care partners was evaluated by MS disease severity. Methods: Employees with spouses/domestic partners with MS from the Workpartners database (Jan. 1, 2010-Dec. 31, 2019) were eligible if: spouse/partner had at least 3 MS-related (ICD-9-CM/ICD-10-CM:340.xx/G35) inpatient/outpatient/disease-modifying therapy claims within 1 year (latest claim = index date); 6-month pre-index/1-year post-index enrollment; and age 18 to 64 years. Employee care partners' demographic/clinical characteristics and direct/indirect costs were compared across predetermined MS severity categories. Logistic and generalized linear regression modeled the costs. Results: Among 1041 employee care partners of patients with MS, 358 (34.4%) patients had mild MS, 491 (47.2%) moderate, and 192 (18.4%) severe. Mean (standard error [SE]) employee care partner age was 49.0 (0.5) for patients with mild disease, 50.5 (0.4) for moderate, 51.7 (0.6) for severe; percent female care partners was 24.6% [2.3%] mild, 19.8% [1.8%] moderate, 27.6% [3.2%] severe; and mean care partner Charlson Comorbidity Index scores 0.28 (0.05) mild, 0.30 (0.04) moderate, 0.27 (0.06) severe. More care partners of patients with moderate/severe vs mild MS had hyperlipidemia (32.6%/31.8% vs 21.2%), hypertension (29.5%/29.7% vs 19.3%), gastrointestinal disease (20.8%/22.9% vs 13.1%), depression (9.2%/10.9% vs 3.9%), and anxiety 10.6%/8.9% vs 4.2%). Adjusted mean medical costs were greater for employee care partners of patients with moderate vs mild/severe disease (P<.001). Pharmacy costs (SE) were lower for employee care partners of mild vs severe/moderate patients (P<.005). Sick leave costs (SE) were greater for employee care partners of mild/severe vs moderate patients (P<.05). Discussion: Employee care partners of patients with moderate/severe vs mild MS had more comorbidities (ie, hypertension, gastrointestinal disease, depression, and anxiety) and higher pharmacy costs. Employee care partners of patients with moderate vs mild/severe MS had higher medical and lower sick leave costs. Treatment strategies that improve patient outcomes may reduce employee care partner burden and lower costs for employers in some instances. Conclusions: Comorbidities and direct/indirect costs of employees whose spouses/partners have MS were considerable and varied with MS severity.

High-Efficacy Therapies for Treatment-Naïve Individuals with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis.

There are > 18 distinct disease-modifying therapy (DMT) options covering 10 mechanisms of action currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Given the multitude of available treatment options, and recent international consensus guidelines offering differing recommendations, there is broad heterogeneity in how the DMTs are used in clinical practice. Choosing a DMT for newly diagnosed patients with MS is currently a topic of significant debate in MS care. Historically, an escalation approach to DMT was used for newly diagnosed patients with RRMS. However, the evidence for clinical benefits of early treatment with high-efficacy therapies (HETs) in this population is emerging. In this review, we provide an overview of the DMT options and MS treatment strategies, and discuss the clinical benefits of HETs (including ofatumumab, ocrelizumab, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, and cladribine) in the early stages of MS, along with safety concerns associated with these DMTs. By minimizing the accumulation of neurological damage early in the disease course, early treatment with HETs may enhance long-term clinical outcomes over the lifetime of the patient.

Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) can help people with multiple sclerosis (MS) by changing the way that their MS develops over time. Some people with MS have relapses when their symptoms get worse, followed by recovery when their MS is remitting. This is called relapsing­remitting MS (RRMS). DMTs can reduce both the number and the severity of relapses. They can also delay the nerve damage that relapses cause. A range of DMTs are approved for treating people with RRMS. These treatments work in different ways, and international treatment guidelines vary on their recommendations for using DMTs in the clinic. Selecting DMTs for people with newly diagnosed RRMS is still a topic of discussion. Previously, people with RRMS only received the more effective high-efficacy therapies (HETs) if their first treatment was not effective. HETs include ofatumumab, ocrelizumab, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, and cladribine. Recently, using HETs at an earlier stage has shown promising results. In this review article, we provide an overview of the clinical strategies and the DMT options that are available for people with MS. Additionally, we discuss the benefits of using HETs for people with newly diagnosed MS and consider the safety issues related to DMTs. We summarize that using HETs to reduce the buildup of nerve damage during the early stages of MS may lead to improved long-term clinical outcomes over a person's lifetime.

Interferons and Multiple Sclerosis: Lessons from 25 Years of Clinical and Real-World Experience with Intramuscular Interferon Beta-1a (Avonex).

Recombinant interferon (IFN) ß-1b was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as the first disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for multiple sclerosis (MS) in 1993. Since that time, clinical trials and real-world observational studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of IFN therapies. The pivotal intramuscular IFN ß-1a phase III trial published in 1996 was the first to demonstrate that a DMT could reduce accumulation of sustained disability in MS. Patient adherence to treatment is higher with intramuscular IFN ß-1a, given once weekly, than with subcutaneous formulations requiring multiple injections per week. Moreover, subcutaneous IFN ß-1a is associated with an increased incidence of injection-site reactions and neutralizing antibodies compared with intramuscular administration. In recent years, revisions to MS diagnostic criteria have improved clinicians' ability to identify patients with MS and have promoted the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diagnosis and disease monitoring. MRI studies show that treatment with IFN ß-1a, relative to placebo, reduces T2 and gadolinium-enhancing lesions and gray matter atrophy. Since the approval of intramuscular IFN ß-1a, a number of high-efficacy therapies have been approved for MS, though the benefit of these high-efficacy therapies should be balanced against the increased risk of serious adverse events associated with their long-term use. For some subpopulations of patients, including pregnant women, the safety profile of IFN ß formulations may provide a particular benefit. In addition, the antiviral properties of IFNs may indicate potential therapeutic opportunities for IFN ß in reducing the risk of viral infections such as COVID-19.

An international discrete choice experiment assessing patients' preferences for disease-modifying therapy attributes in multiple sclerosis.

Aim: This discrete choice experiment aimed to assess patients' preferences for treatment attributes in multiple sclerosis (MS). Patients & methods: Patients with relapsing-remitting MS completed an online survey assessing treatment preferences. Descriptive statistical analysis and discrete choice hierarchical Bayesian modeling were performed. Results: Across the overall sample (n = 485), dosing regimen, efficacy and safety were equally important. Within the whole sample, and among those diagnosed <10 years ago, intravenous infusion ≤3 times/year was the preferred dosing regimen; among patients diagnosed ≥10 years ago it was preferred equally to oral treatments. Patients were more willing to accept frequent but mild over rare but severe side effects. Conclusion: Several factors influence patient preferences for MS treatments and must be considered in patient-centered care.

Patients transitioning from non-pegylated to pegylated interferon beta-1a have a low risk of new flu-like symptoms: ALLOW phase 3b trial results.

BACKGROUND: Flu-like symptoms are common adverse events associated with interferon beta relapsing multiple sclerosis therapies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the incidence and severity of flu-like symptoms after transitioning from non-pegylated interferons to peginterferon beta-1a and assess flu-like symptom mitigation using naproxen. METHODS: ALLOW was a phase 3b open-label study in relapsing multiple sclerosis patients. Patients had received non-pegylated interferon for 4 or more months immediately before beginning a 4-week screening period. At baseline, patients switched to peginterferon beta-1a and were randomly assigned (1:1) to continue their current flu-like symptoms management regimen or start twice-daily naproxen 500 mg for 8 weeks. Patients then switched to their preferred regimen and were followed for 48 weeks in total. RESULTS: Of 201 patients, 89.6% did not experience new/worsening flu-like symptoms during their first 8 weeks on peginterferon beta-1a. Flu-like symptom severity remained low in current-regimen and naproxen patients, with no significant between-group differences. Median flu-like symptom duration per injection was 3.2 hours longer with peginterferon beta-1a versus prior interferon, but the 4-week cumulative duration was reduced 49-78%. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION: Most patients who switched from non-pegylated interferon to peginterferon beta-1a did not experience new/worsening flu-like symptoms. Flu-like symptom duration per injection increased, but the cumulative duration significantly decreased. These data may inform flu-like symptom management guidance.

Peginterferon beta-1a for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis: A case series.

Interferon beta therapies have been effective in the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis for over 2 decades. These therapies have varying routes and schedules of administration but broadly similar clinical and radiologic efficacy. The most commonly reported adverse effects are flu-like symptoms and injection site reactions. The most recent addition to the class is peginterferon beta-1a, which is administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks. Although clinically stable patients with multiple sclerosis may switch between platform therapies (such as interferons) based on tolerability or personal preference, few studies have explored the outcomes of switching. Herein I present 3 cases of patients who either initiated therapy with peginterferon beta-1a or switched from another interferon and had positive outcomes. With appropriate patient education and expectation setting regarding potential flu-like symptoms and injection-site reactions, peginterferon beta-1a may be a beneficial alternative for patients who prefer less frequent injections.

Treatment satisfaction significantly improves in patients with multiple sclerosis switching from interferon beta therapy to peginterferon beta-1a every 2 weeks.

OBJECTIVES: Posthoc analysis of treatment satisfaction in patients switching to subcutaneous (SC) peginterferon beta-1a in the ALLOW study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis treated with intramuscular interferon (IFN) beta-1a or SC IFN beta-1a or beta-1b remained on their current therapy for a 4-week run-in period, followed by a switch to SC peginterferon beta-1a 125 mcg every 2 weeks for 48 weeks. Treatment satisfaction was measured using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), which covers effectiveness, side effects, convenience, and global satisfaction. Patients completed the TSQM at baseline (prior to starting the 4-week run-in period) and 4, 12, 24, 36, and 48 weeks after switching, and scores were analyzed for the overall population and compared to baseline. Patients reported the severity of flu-like symptoms (FLS) at baseline and with each peginterferon beta-1a injection; clinicians evaluated the occurrence of injection-site reactions (ISRs) after the first dose of peginterferon beta-1a and every 12 weeks thereafter. TSQM scores were stratified by the presence of FLS or ISRs during the study period and by prior IFN therapy use. RESULTS: For the overall population (n=194), convenience and global satisfaction scores significantly improved from baseline at all time points, and side effect satisfaction scores significantly improved up to week 36. Convenience scores significantly improved regardless of FLS, ISRs, or prior IFN therapy. Patients without FLS during the study period showed significant improvements in global satisfaction, but not side effect satisfaction, versus those with FLS. Patients switching from SC IFN therapies achieved greater improvements in treatment satisfaction than patients who switched from intramuscular IFN beta-1a. CONCLUSIONS: Switching relapsing multiple sclerosis patients to SC peginterferon beta-1a from other IFN therapies significantly improved treatment satisfaction and convenience.

Subcutaneous peginterferon ß-1a injection-site reaction experience and mitigation: Delphi analysis of the ALLOW study.

AIM: The objective of this Delphi analysis was to obtain consensus on injection-site reaction (ISR) experience and mitigation strategies for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis switching from nonpegylated interferons (IFNs) to peginterferon ß-1a in the ALLOW Phase IIIb trial using a three-step approach. METHODS: Study investigators and coordinators from investigative sites enrolling four or more patients in ALLOW participated in three rounds of questionnaires and interviews. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 37) agreed that the most common ISR, erythema, was not disruptive to daily activities. Patient education, as a conversation with a clinician about ISR potential, was recommended. CONCLUSION: The consensus of Delphi respondents on ISR experience and ISR management after switching from nonpegylated IFNs to peginterferon ß-1a can help inform treatment decisions and manage patient expectations.

Denial or unawareness of cognitive deficit associated with multiple sclerosis? A case report.

A nondemented, 55-year-old woman with a 20-year history of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) recently began having significant difficulties performing her job after several years of successful employment. While the patient acknowledged that others considered her job performance as being below standards, she did not subjectively experience any change in her cognitive functioning that would negatively impact job performance. She had no explanation as to why her job performance was now considered unsatisfactory. She also appeared to be in no distress over her situation. Was the patient's unawareness a form of anosognosia or psychological denial of her clinical condition? We provide neuropsychological, neuroimaging, and behavioral descriptions of the patient that suggest that the underlying disturbance appeared to be a neuropsychologically based, impaired self-awareness (ISA). Clinical suggestions are provided for distinguishing between ISA and denial of disability (DD) in MS patients.