Jeannette S. Scott-Lechner

Progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA) is a significant contributor to long-term disability accumulation in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). Prior studies have used varying PIRA definitions, hampering the comparability of study results. To compare various definitions of PIRA. This cohort study involved a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the MSBase registry from July 2004 to July 2023. The participants were patients with MS from 186 centers across 43 countries who had clinically definite relapsing-remitting MS, a complete minimal dataset, and 3 or more documented Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessments. Three-hundred sixty definitions of PIRA as combinations of the following criteria: baseline disability (fixed baseline with re-baselining after PIRA, or plus re-baselining after relapses, or plus re-baselining after improvements), minimum confirmation period (6, 12, or 24 months), confirmation magnitude (EDSS score at/above worsening score or at/above threshold compared with baseline), freedom from relapse at EDSS score worsening (90 days prior, 90 days prior and 30 days after, 180 days prior and after, since previous EDSS assessment, or since baseline), and freedom from relapse at confirmation (30 days prior, 90 days prior, 30 days before and after, or between worsening and confirmation). For each definition, we quantified PIRA incidence and persistence (ie, absence of a 3-month confirmed EDSS improvement over ≥5 years). Among 87 239 patients with MS, 33 303 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria; 24 152 (72.5%) were female and 9151 (27.5%) were male. At the first visits, the mean (SD) age was 36.4 (10.9) years; 28 052 patients (84.2%) had relapsing-remitting MS, and the median (IQR) EDSS score was 2.0 (1.0-3.0). Participants had a mean (SD) 15.1 (11.9) visits over 8.9 (5.2) years. PIRA incidence ranged from 0.141 to 0.658 events per decade and persistence from 0.753 to 0.919, depending on the definition. In particular, the baseline and confirmation period influenced PIRA detection. The following definition yielded balanced incidence and persistence: a significant disability worsening compared with a baseline (reset after each PIRA event, relapse, and EDSS score improvement), in absence of relapses since the last EDSS assessment, confirmed with EDSS scores (not preceded by relapses within 30 days) that remained above the worsening threshold for at least 12 months. Incidence and persistence of PIRA are determined by the definition used. The proposed standardized definition aims to enhance comparability among studies.

Background: Monitoring of cognition in multiple sclerosis (MS) is critical. Traditional cognitive testing is resource intensive and insensitive to subtle changes. Digital tests could address this need; however, their long-term usability remains unexplored. Objective: To determine the long-term acceptability and feasibility of digital cognitive measures in MS. Methods: Participants with relapsing or secondary progressive MS were prospectively enrolled. MSReactor, a web-based test evaluating processing speed, attention and working memory, was performed 6-monthly for up to 36 months. Patient acceptability, anxiety, depression and quality of life were collected concurrently. Correlations between test acceptability, psychosocial measures, physical disability and cognition were analysed using Spearman's correlation. Results: This study included participants with complete data at 12 (n = 601), 24 (n = 280) and 36 (n = 317) months. Attrition after 12 months was low (3.5%). Acceptability of MSReactor was high, although interest and enjoyment decreased slightly. Minor correlations were observed between reduced acceptability and increased anxiety, depression and disability and lower quality of life. Conclusions: Long-term cognitive monitoring was highly acceptable. We identified characteristics, such as increased anxiety, that were associated with reduced acceptability. Patients with these characteristics may benefit from support to maintain monitoring. These findings underscore the potential for integrating such tools into MS care.

There is compelling epidemiological evidence that prior infection with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is necessary to develop multiple sclerosis (MS). That people who are EBV-negative are protected from getting MS underpins the primary MS prevention strategy of using a sterilizing EBV vaccine. The mechanism of how EBV causes MS is unknown, but late symptomatic EBV infection, or infectious mononucleosis (IM), is a more significant risk factor than early asymptomatic EBV infection. Preventing IM with an effective EBV vaccine should reduce the incidence of MS and other EBV-associated diseases. Preventing IM at a population level, as a public health initiative, is much more feasible than attempting to target people at high risk of developing MS, such as family members of people with MS.

Background: In relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), extended exposure to high-efficacy disease modifying therapy may increase the risk of side effects, compromise treatment adherence, and inflate medical costs. Treatment de-escalation, here defined as a switch to a lower efficacy therapy, is often considered by patients and physicians, but evidence to guide such decisions is scarce. In this study, we aimed to compare clinical outcomes between patients who de-escalated therapy versus those who continued their therapy. Methods: In this retrospective analysis of data from an observational, longitudinal cohort of 87,239 patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) from 186 centers across 43 countries, we matched treatment episodes of adult patients with RRMS who underwent treatment de-escalation from either high- to medium-, high- to low-, or medium- to low-efficacy therapy with counterparts that continued their treatment, using propensity score matching and incorporating 11 variables. Relapses and 6-month confirmed disability worsening were assessed using proportional and cumulative hazard models. Results: Matching resulted in 876 pairs (de-escalators: 73% females, median [interquartile range], age 40.2 years [33.6, 48.8], Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] 2.5 [1.5, 4.0]; non-de-escalators: 73% females, age 40.8 years [35.5, 47.9], and EDSS 2.5 [1.5, 4.0]), with a median follow-up of 4.8 years (IQR 3.0, 6.8). Patients who underwent de-escalation faced an increased hazard of future relapses (hazard ratio 2.36 and 95% confidence intervals [CI] [1.79-3.11], p < 0.001), which was confirmed when considering recurrent relapses (2.43 [1.97-3.00], p < 0.001). It was also consistent across subgroups stratified by age, sex, disability, disease duration, and time since last relapse. Conclusions: On the basis of this observational analysis, de-escalation may not be recommended as a universal treatment strategy in RRMS. The decision to de-escalate should be considered on an individual basis, as its safety is not clearly guided by specific patient or disease characteristics evaluated in this study.

Background: Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is implicated as a necessary factor in the development of multiple sclerosis (MS) and may also be a driver of disease activity. Although it is not clear whether ongoing viral replication is the driver for MS pathology, MS researchers have considered the prospect of using drugs with potential efficacy against EBV in the treatment of MS. We have undertaken scientific and lived experience expert panel reviews to shortlist existing licensed therapies that could be used in later-stage clinical trials in MS. Methods: A list of therapies with anti-EBV effects was developed from existing reviews. A detailed review of pre-clinical and clinical data was undertaken to assess these candidates for potential usefulness and possible harm in MS. A 'drug-CV' and a plain language version focusing on tolerability aspects was created for each candidate. We used validated criteria to score each candidate with an international scientific panel and people living with MS. Results: A preliminary list of 11 drug candidates was generated. Following review by the scientific and lived experience expert panels, six yielded the same highest score. A further review by the expert panel shortlisted four drugs (famciclovir, tenofovir alafenamide, maribavir and spironolactone) deemed to have the best balance of efficacy, safety and tolerability for use in MS. Conclusions: Scientific and lived experience expert panel review of anti-EBV therapies selected four candidates with evidence for efficacy against EBV and acceptable safety and tolerability for potential use in phase III clinical trials for MS.

A 2-year Prospective Study to Evaluate the Onset of Action of Mavenclad® in Subjects With Highly Active Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis (MAGNIFY)

Effect of MD1003 in Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: a Randomized Double Blind Placebo Controlled Study