Dataset Information

Impact of COVID-19 on multiple sclerosis care and management: Results from the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The spread of Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) poses unique challenges in the management of people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS).

Objectives

To collect data about the impact of COVID-19 emergency on access to care for PwMS and on MS treatment practices.

Methods

Between March and July 2020, the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) promoted an online survey covering patient access to care, management of relapses and visits, disease-modifying therapy (DMT) and experience with COVID-19.

Results

Three-hundred and sixty neurologists from 52 countries (68% from Europe) completed the survey. 98% reported COVID-19-related restrictions. Telemedicine was adopted to overcome the limited access to care and was newly activated (73%) or widely implemented (17%). 70% reported changes in DMT management. Interferons and glatiramer were considered safe. Dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide and fingolimod were considered safe except for patients developing lymphopenia. No modifications were considered for natalizumab in 64%, cladribine in 24%, anti-CD20 in 22% and alemtuzumab in 17%; 18% (for alemtuzumab and cladribine) and 43% (for anti-CD20) considered postponing treatment.

Conclusion

The ECTRIMS survey highlighted the challenges in keeping standards of care in clinical practice. Telemedicine clearly needs to be implemented. Gathering data on DMT safety will remain crucial to inform treatment decisions.

SUBMITTER: Portaccio E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8689421 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Autoinjectors are well-established in supporting multiple sclerosis (MS) therapy. This market survey was aimed at investigating patients' rating of three devices for subcutaneous interferon beta formulations: the electronic autoinjectors Betaconnect® and RebiSmart™ as well as the mechanical ExtaviPro™ device.Organization and conduction of structured face-to-face interviews in five German cities were managed through an independent external market research company. After questionnaire validation (n=15), 85 participants currently either using the Betaconnect (n=39), the RebiSmart (n=36) or the ExtaviPro injector (n=10) were asked 22 questions in the same order. First, patients named their current device in use, watched the corresponding instruction video, and were queried about their device. Second, patients were asked about their opinion of an ideal autoinjector. Third, instruction videos for the two non-used devices were presented and participants could dummy-inject into a pillow. Last, patients evaluated device features and indicated their preferred autoinjector.Before having been presented the two other autoinjectors not in use, evaluation of patients' satisfaction with their own device revealed that 82% of the Betaconnect users, 67% of the RebiSmart and 60% of the ExtaviPro users were highly satisfied. All patients desired some improvement of their own device particularly concerning optimization of size and handling. Subsequent to testing and watching instruction videos of all devices, the Betaconnect received the best rating regarding different functions. Finally, participants indicated their preferred autoinjector, provided their own medication was suitable for all three devices: 56.5% of the participants (n=48/85) chose the Betaconnect, 36.5% the RebiSmart (n=31/85), and 5% the ExtaviPro device (n=4/85); 2% did not answer (n=2/85).In this survey, the Betaconnect device was the preferred autoinjector and may currently best meet patients' needs. As it was closest to participants' opinion of an ideal device, the Betaconnect might contribute to treatment adherence. Our results need to be confirmed in further studies.

Project description:BackgroundTo date, there is no coordinated strategy for end-of-life (EOL) cancer care research in Europe. The PRISMA (Reflecting the Positive Diversities of European Priorities for Research and Measurement in End-of-life Care) project is aiming to develop a programme integrating research and measurement in EOL care. This survey aimed to map and describe present EOL cancer care research in Europe and to identify priorities and barriers.Material and methodsA questionnaire of 62 questions was developed and 201 researchers in 41 European countries were invited to complete it online in May 2009. An open invitation to participate was posted on the internet.ResultsInvited contacts in 36 countries sent 127 replies; eight additional responses came through websites. A total of 127 responses were eligible for analysis. Respondents were 69 male and 58 female, mean age 49 (28-74) years; 85% of the scientific team leaders were physicians. Seventy-one of 127 research groups were located in a teaching hospital or cancer centre. Forty-five percent of the groups had only one to five members and 28% six to ten members. Sixty-three of 92 groups reported specific funding for EOL care research. Seventy-five percent of the groups had published papers in journals with impact factor ? 5 in the last 3 years; 8% had published in journals with impact factor >10. Forty-four out of 90 groups reported at least one completed Ph.D. in the last 3 years. The most frequently reported active research areas were pain, assessment and measurement tools, and last days of life and quality of death. Very similar areas--last days of life and quality of death, pain, fatigue and cachexia, and assessment and measurement tools--were ranked as the most important research priorities. The most important research barriers were lack of funding, lack of time, and insufficient knowledge/expertise.ConclusionsMost research groups in EOL care are small. The few large groups (14%) had almost half of the reported publications, and more than half of the current Ph.D. students. There is a lack of a common strategy and coordination in EOL cancer care research and a great need for international collaboration.

Project description:ObjectiveLittle work has evaluated integrated models of care in multiple sclerosis (MS) and the composition of MS care teams across Canada is largely unknown. We aimed to gather information regarding existing models of MS care across Canada, and to assess the perceptions of health care providers (HCPs) regarding the models of care required to fully meet the needs of the person with MS.MethodsWe conducted an anonymous online survey targeting Canadian HCPs working in MS Clinics, and neurologists delivering MS care whether or not they were based in an MS Clinic. We queried the types of HCPs delivering care within formal MS Clinics, wait times for HCPs, the perceived importance of different types of HCPs for good quality care, assessments conducted, and whether clinic databases were used. We summarized survey responses using descriptive statistics.ResultsOf the 716 HCPs to whom the survey was distributed, 100 (13.9%) people responded. Of the 100 respondents, 85 (85%) indicated that their clinical practice included people with MS and responded to specific questions about clinical care. The most common types of providers within MS Clinics with integrated models of care were neurologists and MS nurses. Of 23 responding MS Clinics, 10 (43.5%) indicated that there were not enough neurologists, and 16 (69.6%) indicated that there were not enough non-neurologist HCPs to provide adequate care. More than 50% of clinics reported wait times exceeding 3 months for physiatrists, physiotherapists, psychiatrists, psychologists, neuropsychologists and urologists; in some clinics wait times for these providers exceeded 1 year. Multiple disciplines were identified as important or very important for delivering good quality MS care. Over 90% of respondents thought it was important for neurologists, nurse practitioners, MS nurses and psychiatrists to be co-located within MS Clinics.ConclusionCanadian HCPs viewed the ideal MS service as being multidisciplinary in nature and ideally integrated. Efforts are needed to improve timely access to specialized MS care in Canada, and to evaluate how outcomes are influenced by access to care.