The socioeconomic impact of multiple sclerosis in France: Results from the PETALS study.

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) places a considerable financial burden on the society. However, data quantifying the contemporary cost burden in France are lacking. Objective: This cost-of-illness study aimed to estimate the direct and indirect costs associated with MS in France. Methods: Between October 2020-November 2020, 208 French adults with a confirmed diagnosis of MS were recruited via MSCopilot® (a new MS self-assessment digital solution) and several MS patient networks. Indirect costs were estimated using a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches. Direct costs were retrieved from Assurance Maladie (i.e. national system of health insurance) publications. Out-of-pocket expenses (OOPEs) incurred by MS patients were also reported. All costs were expressed in €2020. Data from the survey were extrapolated to the overall French MS population. Results: MS exerted an annual cost burden of €2.7 billion on the French society (indirect costs: €1.3 billion; direct costs: €1.4 billion). Mean annual costs were €27,164.7 per-patient, with indirect and direct costs accounting for 48.1% and 51.9% of the total annual costs, respectively. OOPEs contributed over €90 million to the total annual costs. Conclusions: MS imposes a substantial cost burden on the French society, with approximately half of the total annual costs driven by indirect costs.

MSCopilot, a new multiple sclerosis self-assessment digital solution: results of a comparative study versus standard tests.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Assessing patients' disability in multiple sclerosis (MS) requires time-consuming batteries of hospital tests. MSCopilot is a software medical device for the self-assessment of patients with MS (PwMS), combining four tests: walking, dexterity, cognition and low contrast vision. The objective was to validate MSCopilot versus the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC). METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled, crossover study enrolled 141 PwMS and 76 healthy controls (HCs). All participants performed MSCopilot and MSFC tests at day 0. To assess reproducibility, 46 PwMS performed the same tests at day 30 ± 3. The primary end-point was the validation of MSCopilot versus MSFC for the identification of PwMS against HCs, quantified using the area under the curve (AUC). The main secondary end-point was the correlation of MSCopilot z-scores with MSFC z-scores. RESULTS: In all, 116 PwMS and 69 HCs were analysed. The primary end-point was achieved: MSCopilot performance was non-inferior to that of MSFC (AUC 0.92 and 0.89 respectively; P = 0.3). MSCopilot and MSFC discriminated PwMS and HCs with 81% and 76% sensitivity and 82% and 88% specificity respectively. Digital and standard test scores were highly correlated (r = 0.81; P < 0.001). The test-retest study demonstrated the good reproducibility of MSCopilot. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the reliability of MSCopilot and its usability in clinical practice for the monitoring of MS-related disability.

Glycaemic threshold for diabetes-specific retinopathy among individuals from Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Portugal.

We studied the glycaemic threshold and prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in screen-detected diabetes in Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Portugal. The prevalence of diabetes-specific retinopathy started to increase at an HbA1c level of 6-6.4% (42-47 mmol/mol) and in individuals with HbA(1c) >7.0% the prevalence was 6.0%.

Risk scores for diabetes and impaired glycaemia in the Middle East and North Africa.

AIMS: To develop risk scores for diabetes and diabetes or impaired glycaemia for individuals living in the Middle East and North Africa region. In addition, to derive national risk scores for Algeria, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and to compare the performance of the regional risk scores with the national risk scores. METHODS: An opportunistic sample of 6588 individuals aged 30-75 years was screened. Screening consisted of a questionnaire and a clinical examination including measurement of HbA(1c). Two regional risk scores and national risk scores for each of the three countries were derived separately by stepwise backwards multiple logistic regression with diabetes [HbA(1c) ≥ 48 mmol/mol (≥ 6.5%)] and diabetes or impaired glycaemia [HbA(1c) ≥ 42 mmol/mol (≥ 6.0%)] as outcome. The performance of the regional and national risk scores was compared in data from each country by receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: The eight risk scores all included age and BMI, while additional variables differed between the scores. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were between 0.67 and 0.70, and for sensitivities approximately 75%; specificities varied between 50% and 57%. The regional and the national risk scores performed equally well in the three national samples. CONCLUSIONS: Two regional risk scores for diabetes and diabetes or impaired glycaemia applicable to the Middle East and North Africa region were identified. The regional risk scores performed as well as the national risk scores derived in the same manner.