Gregory S Day1, Alexander Rae-Grant1, Melissa J Armstrong1, Tamara Pringsheim1, Stacey S Cofield1, Ruth Ann Marrie1. 1. The Charles F. and Joanne Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Department of Neurology (GSD), Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Department of Neurology (AR-G), Cleveland Clinic, OH; Department of Neurology (MJA), University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville; Departments of Community Health Sciences and Clinical Neurosciences and Hotchkiss Brain Institute and O'Brien Institute for Public Health (TP), University of Calgary, Canada; Department of Biostatistics (SSC), University of Alabama Birmingham; and Departments of Internal Medicine and Community Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences (RAM), University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) may now choose from a broad array of approved disease-modifying treatments (DMTs). The priority that patients and practitioners assign to specific clinical outcomes is likely to influence the MS DMT selection process. METHODS: We invited 9,126 participants in the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis (NARCOMS) Registry and 18 members of the American Academy of Neurology MS DMT guideline development panel to complete a brief survey prioritizing outcomes of importance to MS DMT selection. The frequency of outcomes ranked as first, second, or third priority by respondents were compared across groups. RESULTS: A total of 2,056 of 9,126 (23.6%) NARCOMS participants and all 18 members of the MS DMT guideline development panel (100%) completed the survey. Reduced disability progression was identified as a priority by a majority of respondents in both groups. Guideline panelists tended to be more likely than persons with MS to prioritize relapse rate reduction (p = 0.055). Respondents from both groups commonly cited the "selection of therapies most likely to lead to improvements in quality of life measures, MS symptoms, and preservation of cognition" as top priorities in DMT selection; however, these priority outcomes were reported in fewer than 20% of clinical trials used to inform MS DMT guideline development. CONCLUSION: Specific outcomes were defined by similar proportions of persons with MS and guideline panelists as priority outcomes influencing MS DMT selection. Several of these priority outcomes were not routinely reported in clinical trials, identifying areas for future evidence development.
BACKGROUND: Persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) may now choose from a broad array of approved disease-modifying treatments (DMTs). The priority that patients and practitioners assign to specific clinical outcomes is likely to influence the MS DMT selection process. METHODS: We invited 9,126 participants in the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis (NARCOMS) Registry and 18 members of the American Academy of Neurology MS DMT guideline development panel to complete a brief survey prioritizing outcomes of importance to MS DMT selection. The frequency of outcomes ranked as first, second, or third priority by respondents were compared across groups. RESULTS: A total of 2,056 of 9,126 (23.6%) NARCOMS participants and all 18 members of the MS DMT guideline development panel (100%) completed the survey. Reduced disability progression was identified as a priority by a majority of respondents in both groups. Guideline panelists tended to be more likely than persons with MS to prioritize relapse rate reduction (p = 0.055). Respondents from both groups commonly cited the "selection of therapies most likely to lead to improvements in quality of life measures, MS symptoms, and preservation of cognition" as top priorities in DMT selection; however, these priority outcomes were reported in fewer than 20% of clinical trials used to inform MS DMT guideline development. CONCLUSION: Specific outcomes were defined by similar proportions of persons with MS and guideline panelists as priority outcomes influencing MS DMT selection. Several of these priority outcomes were not routinely reported in clinical trials, identifying areas for future evidence development.
Authors: J A Cohen; G R Cutter; J S Fischer; A D Goodman; F R Heidenreich; M F Kooijmans; A W Sandrock; R A Rudick; J H Simon; N A Simonian; E C Tsao; J N Whitaker Journal: Neurology Date: 2002-09-10 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Leslie S Wilson; Aimee Loucks; Gregory Gipson; Lixian Zhong; Christine Bui; Elizabeth Miller; Mary Owen; Daniel Pelletier; Douglas Goodin; Emmanuelle Waubant; Charles E McCulloch Journal: Int J MS Care Date: 2015 Mar-Apr
Authors: Rosalba Rosato; Silvia Testa; Alessandra Oggero; Giorgia Molinengo; Antonio Bertolotto Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Gustavo Saposnik; Angel P Sempere; Daniel Prefasi; Daniel Selchen; Christian C Ruff; Jorge Maurino; Philippe N Tobler Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Thomas Edwards; Anne Sophie Michelsen; Afolasade O Fakolade; Ulrik Dalgas; Lara A Pilutti Journal: J Sport Health Sci Date: 2021-07-27 Impact factor: 13.077
Authors: A Stefanie Mikolaizak; Lynn Rochester; Walter Maetzler; Basil Sharrack; Heleen Demeyer; Claudia Mazzà; Brian Caulfield; Judith Garcia-Aymerich; Beatrix Vereijken; Valdo Arnera; Ram Miller; Paolo Piraino; Nadir Ammour; Mark Forrest Gordon; Thierry Troosters; Alison J Yarnall; Lisa Alcock; Heiko Gaßner; Jürgen Winkler; Jochen Klucken; Christian Schlenstedt; Henrik Watz; Anne-Marie Kirsten; Ioannis Vogiatzis; Nikolaos Chynkiamis; Emily Hume; Dimitrios Megaritis; Alice Nieuwboer; Pieter Ginis; Ellen Buckley; Gavin Brittain; Giancarlo Comi; Letizia Leocani; Jorunn L Helbostad; Lars Gunnar Johnsen; Kristin Taraldsen; Hubert Blain; Valérie Driss; Anja Frei; Milo A Puhan; Ashley Polhemus; Magda Bosch de Basea; Elena Gimeno; Nicholas S Hopkinson; Sara C Buttery; Jeffrey M Hausdorff; Anat Mirelman; Jordi Evers; Isabel Neatrour; David Singleton; Lars Schwickert; Clemens Becker; Carl-Philipp Jansen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-10-06 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Melanie Rinas; Jakob Wirbel; Marti Bernardo-Faura; Inna Pertsovskaya; Vicky Pliaka; Dimitris E Messinis; Gemma Vila; Theodore Sakellaropoulos; Wolfgang Faigle; Pernilla Stridh; Janina R Behrens; Tomas Olsson; Roland Martin; Friedemann Paul; Leonidas G Alexopoulos; Pablo Villoslada; Julio Saez-Rodriguez Journal: Genome Med Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 11.117