Evaluation of an integrated multidisciplinary approach in multiple sclerosis care: A prospective, randomized, controlled study

Use of pragmatic randomized trials in multiple sclerosis: A systematic overview

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized for providing real-world evidence on treatment choices.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to investigate the use and characteristics of pragmatic trials in multiple sclerosis (MS).

METHODS

Systematic literature search and analysis of pragmatic trials on any intervention published up to 2022. The assessment of pragmatism with PRECIS-2 (PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2) is performed.

RESULTS

We identified 48 pragmatic trials published 1967-2022 that included a median of 82 participants (interquartile range (IQR) = 42-160) to assess typically supportive care interventions (n = 41; 85%). Only seven trials assessed drugs (15%). Only three trials (6%) included >500 participants. Trials were mostly from the United Kingdom (n = 18; 38%), Italy (n = 6; 13%), the United States and Denmark (each n = 5; 10%). Primary outcomes were diverse, for example, quality-of-life, physical functioning, or disease activity. Only 1 trial (2%) used routinely collected data for outcome ascertainment. No trial was very pragmatic in all design aspects, but 14 trials (29%) were widely pragmatic (i.e. PRECIS-2 score ⩾ 4/5 in all domains).

CONCLUSION

Only few and mostly small pragmatic trials exist in MS which rarely assess drugs. Despite the widely available routine data infrastructures, very few trials utilize them. There is an urgent need to leverage the potential of this pioneering study design to provide useful randomized real-world evidence.

Good multiple sclerosis (MS) care and how to get there in Canada: Perspectives of Canadian healthcare providers working with persons with MS

Objective

The literature that has examined healthcare access and needs of the multiple sclerosis (MS) population is limited. Currently, no research has engaged healthcare providers delivering services to this population to examine their perspectives on the provision of MS care in Canada. We aimed to summarize what good MS care should look like according to Canadian healthcare providers working with people with MS, and to identify the supports and resources required, within their care setting, to enable this standard of care.

Methods

A qualitative descriptive approach was taken to analyze data from participants who responded to additional open-ended survey questions, within a larger "MS Models of Care Survey" targeting Canadian healthcare providers working with persons with MS.

Results

Currently, a gap exists between what healthcare providers working with persons with MS believe MS care should encompass and what they are able to offer. Participants emphasized that their MS clinics are currently understaffed and patient-to-provider ratios are high, leaving very little time to address the array of healthcare concerns their patients present with. The healthcare providers overwhelmingly described that moving toward multidisciplinary team-based MS care that includes appropriate numbers of MS-trained neurologists, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and mental health providers working within one location would be their prioritized approach to comprehensively managing MS care. This model of care enables all professionals to effectively coordinate care and use their time efficiently by only focusing on their area of expertise, all while meeting the needs of their patient in one setting, reducing wait-times and improving overall care.

Conclusion

To meet the care needs of Canadians with MS, the healthcare system must consider standardizing and funding multidisciplinary team-based MS clinics, comparable to Stroke units, which continue to show favorable health outcomes after years of implementation.

The effect of nurse practitioner (NP-led) care on health-related quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis - a randomized trial

Background

Care for People with Multiple Sclerosis (PwMS) is increasingly complex, requiring innovations in care. Canada has high rates of MS; it is challenging for general neurologists to optimally care for PwMS with busy office practices. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of add-on Nurse Practitioner (NP)-led care for PwMS on depression and anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS), compared to usual care (community neurologist, family physician).

Methods

PwMS followed by community neurologists were randomized to add-on NP-led or Usual care for 6 months. Primary outcome was the change in HADS at 3 months. Secondary outcomes were HADS (6 months), EQ5D, MSIF, CAREQOL-MS, at 3 and 6 months, and Consultant Satisfaction Survey (6 months).

Results

We recruited 248 participants; 228 completed the trial (NP-led care arm n = 120, Usual care arm n = 108). There were no significant baseline differences between groups. Study subjects were highly educated (71.05%), working full-time (41.23%), living independently (68.86%), with mean age of 47.32 (11.09), mean EDSS 2.53 (SD 2.06), mean duration since MS diagnosis 12.18 years (SD 8.82) and 85% had relapsing remitting MS. Mean change in HADS depression (3 months) was: -0.41 (SD 2.81) NP-led care group vs 1.11 (2.98) Usual care group p = 0.001, sustained at 6 months; for anxiety, − 0.32 (2.73) NP-led care group vs 0.42 (2.82) Usual care group, p = 0.059. Other secondary outcomes were not significantly different. There was no difference in satisfaction of care in the NP-led care arm (63.83 (5.63)) vs Usual care (62.82 (5.45)), p = 0.194).

Conclusion

Add-on NP-led care improved depression compared to usual neurologist care and 3 and 6 months in PwMS, and there was no difference in satisfaction with care. Further research is needed to explore how NPs could enrich care provided for PwMS in healthcare settings.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered on clinicaltrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04388592, 14/05/2020).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12883-022-02809-9.

Identifying unanswered questions and setting the agenda for future systematic research in Multiple Sclerosis. A worldwide, multi-stakeholder Priority Setting project

BACKGROUND

Eliciting the research priorities of people affected by a condition, carers and health care professionals can increase research value and reduce research waste. The Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Disease of CNS Group, in collaboration with the Cochrane Neurological Sciences Field, launched a priority setting exercise with the aim of prioritizing pressing questions to ensure that future systematic reviews are as useful as possible to the people who need them, in all countries, regardless of their economic status.

METHOD

Sixteen high priority questions on different aspects of MS were developed by members of a multi-stakeholder priority setting Steering Group (SG). In an anonymous online survey translated into 12 languages researchers, clinicians, people with MS (PwMS) and carers were asked to identify and rank, 5 out of 16 questions as high priority and to provide an explanation for their choice. An additional free-text priority research topic suggestion was allowed.

RESULTS

The survey was accessible through MS advocacy associations' social media and Cochrane web pages from October 20, 2020 to February 6, 2021. 1.190 responses (86.73% of all web contacts) were evaluable and included in the analysis. Responses came from 55 countries worldwide, 7 of which provided >75% of respondents and 95% of which were high and upper-middle income countries. 58.8% of respondents live in the EU, 23% in the Americas, 8.9% in the Western Pacific, 2.8% in the Eastern Mediterranean and 0.3% in South Eastern Asia. About 75% of the respondents were PwMS. The five research questions to be answered with the highest priority were: Question (Q)1 "Does MRI help predict disability worsening of PwMS?" (19.9%), Q5 "What are the benefits and harms of treating PwMS with one disease-modifying drug compared to another?" (19.3%), Q3 "Does multidisciplinary care by teams of different social and health professionals improve health outcomes and experiences for PwMS?" (11.9%), Q16 "Does psychological health affect disease progression in PwMS?" (9.2%) and Q10 "What are the benefits and harms of exercise for PwMS?" (7.2%). The multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated a significant influence of geographic area and income level on the ranking of Q1 and a marginal for Q16 as top a priority after accounting for the effect of all other predictors. Approximately 50% of the respondents indicated that they had an important additional suggestion to be considered.

CONCLUSION

This international collaborative initiative in the field of MS offers a worldwide perspective on the research questions perceived as pivotal by a geographically representative sample of multiple stakeholders in the field of MS. The results of the survey could guide the prioritization of research on pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions which could be meaningful and useful for PwMS and carers, avoiding the duplication of efforts and research waste. High quality systematic reviews elicited by priority setting exercises may offer the best available evidence and inform decisions by healthcare providers and policy-makers which can be adapted to the different realities around the world.

The Multiple Sclerosis Care Unit

Treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) has become increasingly multifaceted and comprises not only a variety of disease-modifying drugs with different mechanism of action but also a wide range of symptomatic therapies. Today, it is not possible for the family physician or even many general neurologists to master the current treatment algorithm, and this calls for the establishment of multidisciplinary MS Care Units. The core of the MS Care Unit would, in addition to MS neurologists and nurses, typically comprise neuropsychologists, clinical psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and secretaries, and will work together with a group of different specialists on formalized diagnostic workup procedures, protocols for initiation and follow-up of disease-modifying therapies. It is obvious that the terms of performance of different MS Care Units will vary across regions and need to be balanced with clinical practice according to local conditions. Although the main objective for establishment of MS Care Units will be to offer the single MS patient seamless and correct management of the disease to increase patient satisfaction and quality of life, it may even be cost-effective for the society by maintaining the working ability and reducing the costs of home help and custodial care by keeping people with MS resourceful.