Influence of physicians' risk perception on switching treatments between high- efficacy and non-high-efficacy disease‑modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis

Early use of high-efficacy therapies in multiple sclerosis in the United States: benefits, barriers, and strategies for encouraging adoption

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is characterized by progressive neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration from disease onset that, if left untreated, can result in the accumulation of irreversible neurological disability. Early intervention with high-efficacy therapies (HETs) is increasingly recognized as the best strategy to delay or mitigate disease progression from the earliest stages of the disease and to prevent long-term neurodegeneration. Although there is growing clinical and real-world evidence supporting early HET intervention, foregoing this strategy in favor of a traditional escalation approach prioritizing lower-efficacy disease-modifying therapies remains a common approach in clinical practice. This review explores potential health care professional- and patient-related barriers to the early use of HETs in patients with MS in the United States. Barriers can include regulatory and reimbursement restrictions; knowledge gaps and long-term safety concerns among health care professionals; and various individual, cultural, and societal factors affecting patients. Potential strategies for overcoming these barriers and encouraging early HET use are proposed.

Temporal and spatial patterns in the prescriptions of disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis. Results from the Italian Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Register

BACKGROUND

The therapeutic scenario in multiple sclerosis (MS) has evolved over recent years with the progressive introduction of new drugs focused to better balance efficacy, safety and management requirements. The objective of this study was to examine the prescribing patterns of disease-modifying therapies (DMT) over time and across different geographic areas, and the latency between disease onset, first Register center visit, disease diagnosis, and the start of treatment in a large cohort of persons with MS from the Italian Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Register.

METHODS

Up to 2022, the Register collected data from 124 centers on more than 78,000 persons, of whom 56,872 received at least one DMT prescription. Beside baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, we focused on DMT according to their efficacy distinguishing between moderate-efficacy (ME), or high-efficacy (HE).

RESULTS

There was a higher probability of prescribing HE-DMT for increasing calendar years (multivariable odds ratio, OR=11.51 in 2021 or thereafter vs before 2000), in males (OR=1.08 vs females), patients with primary progressive with or without relapse (OR=3.00 vs clinically isolated syndrome), those with a higher Expanded Disability Status Scale score (OR=3.85 for >4 versus 0-1), and those from larger referral centers (OR=1.89 vs smaller ones). Conversely, higher age at onset was associated to a lower probability of prescribing HE-DMT (OR=0.74 at 40 or more vs <20 years). A trend to shorter times was observed in subsequent calendar years for disease onset, first center visit, diagnosis and first DMT prescription. No trend was detected based on the location of the geographic referral centers. The times between disease onset, first center visit, and diagnosis and the first DMT prescription showed significant decreases according to the year, while differences were less evident for the geographic areas.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights some factors influencing the choice of HE-DMT, including aspects of both healthcare and clinical phenotype. The absence of a geographic pattern may indicate some homogeneity in DMT prescriptions across different Italian MS centers.

Evaluation of drivers of treatment switch in relapsing multiple sclerosis: a study from the Italian MS Registry

BACKGROUND

Active relapsing-remitting (RR) and secondary progressive (SP) multiple sclerosis (MS) are currently defined as "relapsing MS" (RMS). The aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess drivers of treatment switches due to clinical relapses in a population of RMS patients collected in the Italian MS and Related Disorders Register (I-MS&RD).

METHODS

RRMS and SPMS patients with at least one relapse in a time window of 2 years before of data extraction were defined as RMS. Factors associated with disease-modifying therapy (DMT) switching due to clinical activity were assessed through multivariable logistic regression models in which treatment exposure was included as the last recorded DMT and the last DMT's class [moderate-efficacy (ME), high-efficacy (HE) DMTs and anti-CD20 drugs].

RESULTS

A cohort of 4739 RMS patients (4161 RRMS, 578 SPMS) was extracted from the I-MS&RD. A total of 2694 patients switching DMTs due to relapses were identified. Switchers were significantly (p < 0.0001) younger, less disabled, more frequently affected by an RR disease course in comparison to non-switcher patients. The multivariable logistic regression models showed that Alemtuzumab (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02-0.37), Natalizumab (0.48, 0.30-0.76), Ocrelizumab (0.1, 0.02-0.45) and Rituximab (0.23, 0.06-0.82) exposure was a protective factor against treatment switch due to relapses. Moreover, the use of HE DMTs (0.43, 0.31-0.59), especially anti-CD20 drugs (0.14, 0.05-0.37), resulted to be a protective factor against treatment switch due to relapses in comparison with ME DMTs.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 50% of RMS switched therapy due to disease activity. HE DMTs, especially anti-CD20 drugs, significantly reduce the risk of treatment switch.

Escalation Versus Induction/High-Efficacy Treatment Strategies for Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis: Which is Best for Patients?

After more than 2 decades of recommending an escalating strategy for the treatment of most patients with multiple sclerosis, there has recently been considerable interest in the use of high-efficacy therapies in the early stage of the disease. Early intervention with induction/high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy may have the best risk-benefit profile for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis who are young and have active disease, numerous focal T2 lesions on spinal and brain magnetic resonance imaging, and no irreversible disability. Although we have no curative treatment, at least seven classes of high-efficacy drugs are available, with two main strategies. The first strategy involves the use of high-efficacy drugs (e.g., natalizumab, sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators, or anti-CD20 drugs) to achieve sustained immunosuppression. These can be used as a first-line therapy in many countries. The second strategy entails the use of one of the induction drugs (short-term use of mitoxantrone, alemtuzumab, cladribine, or autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant) that are mainly recommended as a second-line or third-line treatment in patients with very active or aggressive multiple sclerosis disease. Early sustained immunosuppression exposes patients to heightened risks of infection and cancer proportionate to cumulative exposure, and induction drugs expose patients to similar risks during the initial post-treatment period, although these risks decrease over time. Their initial potential safety risks should now be revisited, taking account of long-term data and some major changes in their regimens: natalizumab with the long-term monitoring of John Cunningham virus; use of monthly courses of mitoxantrone with maximum cumulative doses of 36-72 mg/m2, followed by a safer disease-modifying drug; cladribine with only 2-weekly treatment courses required in years 1 and 2 and no systematic treatment for the following 2 years; alemtuzumab, whose safety and clinical impacts have now been documented for more than 6 years after the last infusion; and autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplant, which dramatically reduces transplantation-related mortality with a new regimen and guidelines. Escalation and induction/high-efficacy treatments need rigorous magnetic resonance imaging monitoring. Monitoring over the first few years, using the MAGNIMS score or American Academy of Neurology guidelines, considerably improves prediction accuracy and facilitates the selection of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis requiring aggressive treatment.