Background: There is emerging evidence for poor health outcomes among Black people with MS, and Black people with MS may have worse walking performance than White counterparts. Purpose: The current study examined if Black participants with MS had slower walking speed (timed 25-foot walk, T25FW) and shorter walking distance (six-minute walk, 6MW) than White participants, and if these differences were accounted for by demographic variables, physical activity, disease/clinical characteristics, and Social Determinants of Health (SDOH). Method: The analysis included samples of Black (N = 105) and White (N = 246) participants with MS who completed the T25FW and 6MW, underwent a neurological exam for generating an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, and provided data on demographic variables (i.e., age and gender), physical activity, disease/ clinical characteristics (i.e., EDSS and MS type), and SDOH (i.e., insurance and employment status) as part of screening and baseline data collection for a clinical trial of exercise training in MS. Results: The Black participants (1.75+3.82 f/s) had a slower T25FW speed (-1.16 f/s, 95 % CI = -2.23, -0.82) than the White participants (2.91+4.97 f/s). The Black participants (842.3 + 375.7 f) further had a shorter 6MW distance (-119.2 f, 95 % CI = -213.6, -24.7) than the White participants (961.5 + 339.9 f). The differences in T25FW speed (-0.22 f/s; 95 % CI = -0.40, -0.04) and 6MW distance (-82.2 f; 95 % CI = -158.4, -6.0) were attenuated, but still different when controlling for other variables in multivariable analyses. Conclusion: Black participants with MS had worse walking performance than the White participants. Our results support future research on examining mobility-focused rehabilitation modalities for improving walking performance in Black people with MS. Registration: The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on March 19, 2018 (NCT03468868).

Background Preventing severe COVID-19 associated outcomes continues to be a priority for persons with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). We previously reported in an interim analysis that short-term reactions to the first and second SARS-CoV-2 vaccines experienced by PwMS were mostly self-limiting and similar to reactions experienced by the general population. Objectives First, to report short-term reactogenicity experienced by PwMS in relation to the first through fourth SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Second, to report on short-term reactogenicity in PwMS for different sequences of the first three vaccines. Methods Between March 2021 to March 2023, PwMS electronically self-reported SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, local and systemic reactions within 24 hours for each vaccine, and other clinical and demographic information. Multivariable models examined associations with reactogenicity after the first, second, third, and fourth vaccine. Similar models examined associations with reactogenicity after the third vaccine for specific vaccine sequences. Results There were 1,087 PwMS, 722 PwMS, 263 PwMS, and 110 PwMS who provided information on the first and second vaccine and subsequent vaccines/boosters, respectively. 60% reported a reaction after the first vaccine, compared to 71% after the second, 62% after the third, and 54% after the fourth. 17% reported a severe reaction after the first vaccine, while 22% after the second, 16% after the third, and 14% after the fourth. Across most models, age and being on an sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator were inversely associated with experiencing a reaction. Those who received mRNA-1273 (M) vs BNT162b2 (B) vaccine as the first through third vaccine, appeared to experience a high burden of reactions. Disease course, disease severity, and other demographic attributes were not associated with reactions after the third and fourth vaccines. PwMS who had the M-M-M sequence were more likely to report any and severe local reactions, the B-B-M sequence were more likely to report any severe and any severe systemic reactions, while the M-M-B sequence were less likely to report any reaction, in comparison to PwMS who only had the B-B-B sequence. Discussion Our findings demonstrate that, in general, the short-term vaccine reactions experienced by PwMS are self-limiting, and their frequencies decrease with each subsequent vaccine/booster after peaking in response to the second vaccine. Those receiving mRNA-1273 as the third vaccine reported more reactions than those receiving BNT162b2.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the central nervous system. Common symptoms include physical disability, cognitive impairment, spasticity, fatigue, bowel/bladder dysfunction and depression. The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be used to systematically assess the burden of the disease and its impact on treatment and health-related quality of life. Assessment of PROs in routine care of people with MS provides a unique and personal insight into the multifaceted impact of the disease, while avoiding perpetuating the paternalistic medical approach that privileges objective medical measurement.This review highlights the potential benefits of integrating PROs in MS routine care from the patient and clinician perspective, describes challenges associated with PRO data collection and their use in routine settings. Challenges in the integration of PROs into routine care include (1) selection of PRO measures, (2) provider and technical workflow and (3) equity, diversity and inclusivity challenges. In addition, the review provides solutions and recommendations to facilitate the integration of PROs in MS care. The adoption of PROs in MS routine care is essential to improve MS individuals' quality of care and deliver patient-centred care, which can lead to increased treatment adherence and patient outcomes.

Significant advancements have been achieved in delineating the progress of the Global PROMS (PROMS) Initiative. The PROMS Initiative, a collaborative endeavor by the European Charcot Foundation and the Multiple Sclerosis International Federation, strives to amplify the influence of patient input on MS care and establish a cohesive perspective on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) for diverse stakeholders. This initiative has established an expansive, participatory governance framework launching four dedicated working groups that have made substantive contributions to research, clinical management, eHealth, and healthcare system reform. The initiative prioritizes the global integration of patient (For the purposes of the Global PROMS Initiative, the term “patient” refers to the people with the disease (aka People with Multiple Sclerosis – pwMS): any individual with lived experience of the disease. People affected by the disease/Multiple Sclerosis: any individual or group that is affected by the disease: E.g., family members, caregivers will be also engaged as the other stakeholders in the initiative). insights into the management of MS care. It merges subjective PROs with objective clinical metrics, thereby addressing the complex variability of disease presentation and progression. Following the completion of its second phase, the initiative aims to help increasing the uptake of eHealth tools and passive PROs within research and clinical settings, affirming its unwavering dedication to the progressive refinement of MS care. Looking forward, the initiative is poised to continue enhancing global surveys, rethinking to the relevant statistical approaches in clinical trials, and cultivating a unified stance among ‘industry’, regulatory bodies and health policy making regarding the application of PROs in MS healthcare strategies.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a leading cause of neurological disability among young and middle-aged adults worldwide, and disability is measured using a variety of approaches, including patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) such as the Patient Determined Disease Steps (PDDS) scale. There is limited evidence for the validity of inferences from the middle-range of scores on the PDDS (i.e., 3 “gait disability” – 6 “bilateral support”), but that range of scores seemingly represents moderate disability characterized by varying levels of walking dysfunction. The current study examined whether the middle-range of scores from the PDDS reflect varying levels of walking dysfunction among people with MS. Participants (N = 374) completed the Patient Determined Disease Steps (PDDS) scale, Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale-12 (MSWS-12), timed 25-foot walk (T25FW), six-minute walk (6 MW), Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS), and Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29), and underwent a neurological exam for generating an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score as part of screening and baseline data collection for a clinical trial of exercise training in MS. We undertook a series of linear trend analyses that examined differences in the outcomes of EDSS, T25FW, 6 MW, MSWS-12, MFIS subscales, and MSIS-29 subscales across the 4 levels of PDDS scores (i.e., 3–6). There were statistically significant and strong linear trends for EDSS (F1,370 = 306.1, p < .0001, η2 = 0.48), T25FW (F1,370 = 161.0, p < .0001, η2 = 0.32), 6 MW (F1,370 = 178.9, p < .0001, η2 = 0.34), and MSWS-12 (F1,370 = 97.0, p < .0001, η2 = 0.24). There was a strong correlation between PDDS and EDSS scores (rs = 0.695, 95

BACKGROUND:We propose a Phase III trial that compares the effectiveness of an exercise training program delivered in a facility-based setting with direct, in-person supervision or a home-based setting with remote supervision via telerehabilitation for improving walking performance in persons with multiple sclerosis(MS) who have walking dysfunction and mobility disability.METHODS/DESIGN:The study was developed with stakeholder engagement and is a multi-site trial that follows a 2-stage, randomized choice design. The trial compares the effectiveness of a 16-week evidence-based, individualized exercise program delivered in a supervised, facility-based setting versus a remotely coached/guided, home-based setting using telerehabilitation in physically inactive and cognitively intact people with MS who have walking dysfunction and mobility disability(N = 500). The primary outcome is walking speed. The secondary outcomes are walking endurance, disability status, and patient-reported outcomes of physical activity, walking impairment, fatigue, and quality of life. The components of the exercise program itself are similar between the groups and follow the Guidelines for Exercise in MS protocol. This includes a program manual, exercise prescription, exercise equipment, social-cognitive theory materials including newsletters, logs, and calendars, and one-on-one behavioral coaching by exercise specialists with background in MS. The main difference between groups is the coaching approach and setting for delivering the exercise training program. The outcomes will be collected by treatment-blinded assessors at baseline(week 0), mid-intervention(week 8), post-intervention(week 16), and follow-up(week 52).DISCUSSION:The proposed study will provide evidence for the effectiveness of a novel, widely-scalable program for delivering exercise training in persons with MS who have walking dysfunction and mobility disability.

BACKGROUND:The Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale-12 (MSWS-12) has typically been delivered through paper-and-pencil or computer-based administration. PURPOSE:This study examined the validity of inferences from scores derived via a telephone administration of the MSWS-12 applied as part of screening of participants with walking dysfunction into a clinical trial of exercise training in MS. METHOD:The MSWS-12 was administered on two occasions separated by approximately 2 weeks through the telephone and then in-person (i.e., computer-based administration). Participants further completed the Patient Determined Disease Steps (PDDS) scale, timed 25-foot walk (T25FW), six-minute walk (6MW), Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS), and Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29), and underwent a neurological exam for generating an expanded disability status scale (EDSS) score. The primary set of data (Full Sample) for analyses included all persons who passed the telephone screening for inclusion with MSWS-12 scores between 25 and 75 (N = 374). The secondary set of data (Truncated Sample) included only persons with MSWS-12 scores between 25 and 75 for both the telephone and computer administrations of the MSWS-12 (N = 248). RESULTS:The results in the Full Sample indicated a difference in overall and item levels scores between the telephone and computer data collections, and the computer version had higher internal consistency and stronger unidimensionality. Nevertheless, MSWS-12 scores from both modes of administration had comparable correlations with the T25FW, 6MW, EDSS, PDDS, MFIS, and MSIS-29, but the correlation between the two MSWS-12 administrations did not approach unity. There was a systematic difference in scores between telephone and computer administrations across levels of walking dysfunction based on a Bland-Altman plot, and the difference was predicted by MFIS physical, 6MW, and EDSS scores. The comparison of results between the Full and Truncated Samples suggested that the primary analysis might have been influenced by the larger range of scores on the computer than telephone administrations of the MSWS-12. CONCLUSION:The telephone administration of the MSWS-12 provides an efficient and cost-effective measure of walking dysfunction in persons with MS.

Introduction: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is the most common progressive neurological condition with onset in young adulthood. Because people with MS (PwMS) are often separated from specialty care by distance or disability, telemedicine can help alleviate that burden by removing obstacles to accessing care. Methods: We surveyed 762 PwMS in the iConquerMS research network about their use of in-person and telemedicine services prepandemic (January-February 2020) and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (September-November 2020). The survey asked PwMS about their use of in-person and telemedicine services, technology access, perceptions and preferences of telemedicine, their most recent telemedicine encounter, and reasons for not using telemedicine. Results: Prepandemic, the most cited reason for not using telemedicine was providers not offering remote visits. During the pandemic, there was a decrease in the use of in-person health care (100% to ∼78%) and an increase in telemedicine utilization (25% to ∼80%). Most participants had access to telemedicine-enabling technologies and a large portion indicated a preference for using telemedicine for some or most/all of their MS health care (41-57%). Before the pandemic, telemedicine utilization was highest for primary care, while during the pandemic, utilization of telemedicine was greatest for general MS care. Mental health telemedicine encounters increased during the pandemic. Discussion: The dramatic increase in telemedicine utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic has provided access for PwMS to multispecialty care. Maintaining the policy changes that enabled remote health care to expand during the pandemic will be critical for sustained access to MS specialty care for this vulnerable population.

OBJECTIVE:The study objective was to prioritize topics for future patient-centered research to increase uptake of common vaccines, such as for pneumococcal pneumonia, influenza, herpes zoster, human papillomavirus, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, among adults living with autoimmune conditions.METHODS:A steering committee (SC) was formed that included clinicians, patients, patient advocates, and researchers associated with rheumatic diseases (psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, vasculitis), inflammatory bowel disease, and multiple sclerosis. Through a scoping review and discussions, SC members identified research topics regarding vaccine uptake and/or hesitancy for prioritization. A larger multistakeholder alliance that included patients and patient advocates, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, regulators, and vaccine manufacturers conducted a modified Delphi exercise online with three rating rounds and one ranking round. Frequency analysis and comparisons across stakeholder groups were conducted. A weighted ranking score was generated for each item in the ranking round for final prioritization.RESULTS:Through the Delphi process, 33 research topics were identified, of which 13 topics were rated as critical by more than 70% of all stakeholders (n = 31). The two highest ranked critical topics per the full stakeholder group were "How well a vaccine works for adults with autoimmune conditions" and "How beliefs about vaccine safety affect vaccine uptake."CONCLUSION:A multistakeholder group identified key topics as critically important priorities for future research to decrease vaccine hesitancy and improve uptake of vaccines for adults with autoimmune conditions.

Background Mindfulness can improve overall well-being by training individuals to focus on the present moment without judging their thoughts. However, it is unknown how much mindfulness practice and training are necessary to improve well-being. Objective The primary aim of this study was to determine whether a standard 8-session web-based mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) program, compared with a brief 3-session mindfulness intervention, improved overall participant well-being. In addition, we sought to explore whether the treatment effects differed based on the baseline characteristics of the participants (ie, moderators). Methods Participants were recruited from 17 patient-powered research networks, web-based communities of stakeholders interested in a common research area. Participants were randomized to either a standard 8-session MBCT or a brief 3-session mindfulness training intervention accessed on the web. The participants were followed for 12 weeks. The primary outcome of the study was well-being, as measured by the World Health Organization—Five Well-Being Index. We hypothesized that MBCT would be superior to a brief mindfulness training. Results We randomized 4411 participants, 3873 (87.80%) of whom were White and 3547 (80.41%) of female sex assigned at birth. The mean baseline World Health Organization—Five Well-Being Index score was 50.3 (SD 20.7). The average self-reported well-being in each group increased over the intervention period (baseline to 8 weeks; model-based slope for the MBCT group: 0.78, 95% CI 0.63-0.93, and brief mindfulness group: 0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.91) as well as the full study period (ie, intervention plus follow-up; baseline to 20 weeks; model-based slope for MBCT group: 0.41, 95% CI 0.34-0.48; and brief mindfulness group: 0.33, 95% CI 0.26-0.40). Changes in self-reported well-being were not significantly different between MBCT and brief mindfulness during the intervention period (model-based difference in slopes: −0.02, 95% CI −0.24 to 0.19; P=.80) or during the intervention period plus 12-week follow-up (−0.08, 95% CI −0.18 to 0.02; P=.10). During the intervention period, younger participants (P=.05) and participants who completed a higher percentage of intervention sessions (P=.005) experienced greater improvements in well-being across both interventions, with effects that were stronger for participants in the MBCT condition. Attrition was high (ie, 2142/4411, 48.56%), which is an important limitation of this study. Conclusions Standard MBCT improved well-being but was not superior to a brief mindfulness intervention. This finding suggests that shorter mindfulness programs could yield important benefits across the general population of individuals with various medical conditions. Younger people and participants who completed more intervention sessions reported greater improvements in well-being, an effect that was more pronounced for participants in the MBCT condition. This finding suggests that standard MBCT may be a better choice for younger people as well as treatment-adherent individuals. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03844321; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03844321

Background: Interferon-beta, a disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for MS, may be associated with less severe COVID-19 in people with MS. Results: Among 5,568 patients (83.4% confirmed COVID-19), interferon-treated patients had lower risk of severe COVID-19 compared to untreated, but not to glatiramer-acetate, dimethyl-fumarate, or pooled other DMTs. Conclusions: In comparison to other DMTs, we did not find evidence of protective effects of interferon-beta on the severity of COVID-19, though compared to the untreated, the course of COVID-19 was milder among those on interferon-beta. This study does not support the use of interferon-beta as a treatment to reduce COVID-19 severity in MS.

Background and Objectives Certain demographic and clinical characteristics, including the use of some disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), are associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection severity in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Comprehensive exploration of these relationships in large international samples is needed. Methods Clinician-reported demographic/clinical data from 27 countries were aggregated into a data set of 5,648 patients with suspected/confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). COVID-19 severity outcomes (hospitalization, admission to intensive care unit [ICU], requiring artificial ventilation, and death) were assessed using multilevel mixed-effects ordered probit and logistic regression, adjusted for age, sex, disability, and MS phenotype. DMTs were individually compared with glatiramer acetate, and anti-CD20 DMTs with pooled other DMTs and with natalizumab. Results Of 5,648 patients, 922 (16.6%) with suspected and 4,646 (83.4%) with confirmed COVID-19 were included. Male sex, older age, progressive MS, and higher disability were associated with more severe COVID-19. Compared with glatiramer acetate, ocrelizumab and rituximab were associated with higher probabilities of hospitalization (4% [95% CI 1-7] and 7% [95% CI 4-11]), ICU/artificial ventilation (2% [95% CI 0-4] and 4% [95% CI 2-6]), and death (1% [95% CI 0-2] and 2% [95% CI 1-4]) (predicted marginal effects). Untreated patients had 5% (95% CI 2-8), 3% (95% CI 1-5), and 1% (95% CI 0-3) higher probabilities of the 3 respective levels of COVID-19 severity than glatiramer acetate. Compared with pooled other DMTs and with natalizumab, the associations of ocrelizumab and rituximab with COVID-19 severity were also more pronounced. All associations persisted/enhanced on restriction to confirmed COVID-19. Discussion Analyzing the largest international real-world data set of people with MS with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 confirms that the use of anti-CD20 medication (both ocrelizumab and rituximab), as well as male sex, older age, progressive MS, and higher disability are associated with more severe course of COVID-19.

Interferon-β, a disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for MS, may be associated with less severe COVID-19 in people with MS.Among 5,568 patients (83.4% confirmed COVID-19), interferon-treated patients had lower risk of severe COVID-19 compared to untreated, but not to glatiramer-acetate, dimethyl-fumarate, or pooled other DMTs.In comparison to other DMTs, we did not find evidence of protective effects of interferon-β on the severity of COVID-19, though compared to the untreated, the course of COVID19 was milder among those on interferon-β. This study does not support the use of interferon-β as a treatment to reduce COVID-19 severity in MS.

Background and Objectives Certain demographic and clinical characteristics, including the use of some disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), are associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection severity in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Comprehensive exploration of these relationships in large international samples is needed. Methods Clinician-reported demographic/clinical data from 27 countries were aggregated into a data set of 5,648 patients with suspected/confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). COVID-19 severity outcomes (hospitalization, admission to intensive care unit [ICU], requiring artificial ventilation, and death) were assessed using multilevel mixed-effects ordered probit and logistic regression, adjusted for age, sex, disability, and MS phenotype. DMTs were individually compared with glatiramer acetate, and anti-CD20 DMTs with pooled other DMTs and with natalizumab. Results Of 5,648 patients, 922 (16.6%) with suspected and 4,646 (83.4%) with confirmed COVID-19 were included. Male sex, older age, progressive MS, and higher disability were associated with more severe COVID-19. Compared with glatiramer acetate, ocrelizumab and rituximab were associated with higher probabilities of hospitalization (4% [95% CI 1–7] and 7% [95% CI 4–11]), ICU/artificial ventilation (2% [95% CI 0–4] and 4% [95% CI 2–6]), and death (1% [95% CI 0–2] and 2% [95% CI 1–4]) (predicted marginal effects). Untreated patients had 5% (95% CI 2–8), 3% (95% CI 1–5), and 1% (95% CI 0–3) higher probabilities of the 3 respective levels of COVID-19 severity than glatiramer acetate. Compared with pooled other DMTs and with natalizumab, the associations of ocrelizumab and rituximab with COVID-19 severity were also more pronounced. All associations persisted/enhanced on restriction to confirmed COVID-19. Discussion Analyzing the largest international real-world data set of people with MS with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 confirms that the use of anti-CD20 medication (both ocrelizumab and rituximab), as well as male sex, older age, progressive MS, and higher disability are associated with more severe course of COVID-19.

On 12 September 2019, the global Patient Reported Outcome for Multiple Sclerosis (PROMS) Initiative was launched at the 35th Congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). The multi-stakeholder PROMS Initiative is jointly led by the European Charcot Foundation (ECF) and the Multiple Sclerosis International Federation (MSIF), with the Italian Multiple Sclerosis Society (AISM) acting as the lead agency for and on behalf of the global MSIF movement. The initiative has the ambitious mission to (i) maximize the impact of science with and of patient input on the life of people affected by MS, and (ii) to represent a unified view on Patient-Reported Outcomes for MS to people affected by MS, healthcare providers, regulatory agencies and Health Technologies Assessments agencies. Equipped with an innovative participatory governance of an international and interdisciplinary network of different stakeholders, PROMS has the potential to guide future breakthroughs in MS patient-focused research and care. In this paper we present the progresses of the global PROMS Initiative and discuss the open questions that we aim to address.

Objectives Some disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) have been associated with COVID-19 severity in people with MS. Comprehensive exploration of these relationships in large international samples is needed. Methods Clinician-reported demographic/clinical data from 27 countries were aggregated into a dataset of 5,648 patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19. COVID-19 severity outcomes (hospitalisation, admission to ICU, requiring artificial ventilation, death) assessed using multilevel mixed-effect ordered probit and logistic regression, adjusted for age, sex, disability, and MS phenotype. DMTs were compared to glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, pooled other DMTs, and natalizumab. Results Of 5,648 patients (83.4% confirmed COVID-19) were included. Compared to glatiramer acetate, ocrelizumab and rituximab were associated with higher probability of hospitalisation (4%(95%CI=1–7) & 7%(95%CI=4–11)), ICU/artificial ventilation (2%(95%CI=0–4) & 4%(95%CI=2–6)), and death (1%(95%CI=0–2) & 2%(95%CI=1–4)) [predicted marginal effects]. Untreated patients had 5%(95%CI=2–8), 3%(95%CI=1–5), and 1%(95%CI=0–3) higher probabilities of the three respective levels of COVID-19 severity than glatiramer acetate. Compared to pooled other DMTs and to natalizumab, the associations of ocrelizumab and rituximab with COVID-19 severity were also more pronounced. Evaluation of interferon associations with COVID-19 severity found these only apparent in comparison with the untreated but not vs individual or pooled other DMTs. All associations persisted/enhanced on restriction to confirmed COVID-19. Conclusions Analysing the largest international real-world dataset of people with MS with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 confirms that the use of anti-CD20 medication (both ocrelizumab and rituximab) are associated with more severe course of COVID-19, while interferon-based DMTs have no intrinsic protective benefit from other treatment.

Background: People with multiple sclerosis (MS) are a vulnerable group for severe COVID-19, particularly those taking immunosuppressive disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). We examined the characteristics of COVID-19 severity in an international sample of people with MS. Methods: Data from 12 data-sources in 28 countries were aggregated. Demographic and clinical covariates were queried, alongside COVID-19 clinical severity outcomes, hospitalisation, admission to ICU, requiring artificial ventilation, and death. Characteristics of outcomes were assessed in patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression. Results: 657 (28.1%) with suspected and 1,683 (61.9%) with confirmed COVID-19 were analysed. Older age, progressive MS-phenotype, and higher disability were associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. Compared to dimethyl fumarate, ocrelizumab and rituximab were associated with hospitalisation (aOR=1.56,95%CI=1.01-2.41; aOR=2.43,95%CI=1.48-4.02) and ICU admission (aOR=2.30,95%CI=0.98-5.39; aOR=3.93,95%CI=1.56-9.89), though only rituximab was associated with higher risk of artificial ventilation (aOR=4.00,95%CI=1.54-10.39). Compared to pooled other DMTs, ocrelizumab and rituximab were associated with hospitalisation (aOR=1.75,95%CI=1.29-2.38; aOR=2.76,95%CI=1.87-4.07) and ICU admission (aOR=2.55,95%CI=1.49-4.36; aOR=4.32,95%CI=2.27-8.23) but only rituximab with artificial ventilation (aOR=6.15,95%CI=3.09-12.27). Compared to natalizumab, ocrelizumab and rituximab were associated with hospitalisation (aOR=1.86,95%CI=1.13-3.07; aOR=2.88,95%CI=1.68-4.92) and ICU admission (aOR=2.13,95%CI=0.85-5.35; aOR=3.23,95%CI=1.17-8.91), but only rituximab with ventilation (aOR=5.52,95%CI=1.71-17.84). Importantly, associations persisted on restriction to confirmed COVID-19 cases. No associations were observed between DMTs and death. Conclusions: Using the largest cohort of people with MS and COVID-19 available, we demonstrated consistent associations of rituximab with increased risk of hospitalisation, ICU admission, and requiring artificial ventilation, and ocrelizumab with hospitalisation and ICU admission, suggesting their use may be a risk factor for more severe COVID-19.

Mindfulness can improve overall well-being by training individuals to focus on the present moment without judging their thoughts. However, it is unknown how much mindfulness practice and training are necessary to improve well-being. The purpose of this study was to compare standard with brief mindfulness training to improve overall well-being. Participants were recruited from 17 Patient-Powered Research Networks, online communities of stakeholders interested in a common area of research. Participants were randomized to either a standard 8-session mindfulness based cognitive therapy (MBCT) or a brief 3-session mindfulness training intervention accessed online. Participants were followed for 12 weeks. The primary outcome of the study was well-being as measured by the World Health Organization (WHO)-5 Index. We hypothesized that MBCT would be superior to brief mindfulness training. We randomized 4,411 participants, 88% of whom were white and 80% female sex assigned at birth. Baseline WHO-5 score mean was 50.3 (SD = 20.7). Average self-reported well-being in each group increased over the intervention period (baseline to 8 weeks) (model-based slope [95% CI] for MBCT group: 0.78 [0.63, 0.93]; brief mindfulness group: 0.76 [0.60, 0.91]) as well as the full study period (i.e., intervention plus follow-up; baseline to 20 weeks) (model-based slope [95% CI] for MBCT group: 0.41 [0.34, 0.48]; brief mindfulness group: 0.33 [0.26, 0.40]). Change in self-reported well-being was not statistically significantly different between MBCT and brief mindfulness during the intervention period (model-based difference in slopes [95% CI]: -0.02 [-0.24, 0.19], P = .80) or during the intervention period plus 12-week follow-up (-0.08 [-0.18, 0.02], P = .10). During the intervention period, younger participants (P = .05) and participants who completed a higher percentage of intervention sessions (P = .005) experienced greater improvements in well-being across both interventions, effects that were stronger for participants in the MBCT condition. Standard MBCT improved well-being but was not superior to a brief mindfulness intervention. Younger patients and those able to complete more training sessions improved the most. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03844321, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03844321

Abstract Background People with multiple sclerosis (MS) are a vulnerable group for severe COVID-19, particularly those taking immunosuppressive disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). We examined the characteristics of COVID-19 severity in an international sample of people with MS. Methods Data from 12 data-sources in 28 countries were aggregated (sources could include patients from 1-12 countries). Demographic (age, sex), clinical (MS phenotype, disability), and DMT (untreated, alemtuzumab, cladribine, dimethyl-fumarate, glatiramer-acetate, interferon, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, siponimod, other) covariates were queried, alongside COVID-19 hospitalisation, admission to ICU, requiring artificial ventilation, and death. Characteristics of outcomes were assessed in patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression, adjusted for age, sex, MS phenotype, and EDSS. Results 657 (28.1%) with suspected and 1,683 (61.9%) with confirmed COVID-19 were analysed. Among suspected+confirmed/confirmed-only COVID-19, 20.9%/26.9% were hospitalised, 5.4%/7.2% were admitted to ICU, 4.1%/5.4% required artificial ventilation, and 3.2%/3.9% died. Older age, progressive MS-phenotype, and higher disability were associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. Compared to dimethyl-fumarate, ocrelizumab and rituximab were associated with hospitalisation (aOR=1.56,95%CI=1.01-2.41; aOR=2.43,95%CI=1.48-4.02) and ICU admission (aOR=2.30,95%CI=0.98-5.39; aOR=3.93,95%CI=1.56-9.89), though only rituximab was associated with higher risk of artificial ventilation (aOR=4.00,95%CI=1.54-10.39). Importantly, associations persisted on restriction to confirmed COVID-19 cases. No associations were observed between DMTs and death. Conclusions Despite the cross-sectional design of this study, the internal and external consistency of these results with prior studies suggests their use may be a risk factor for more severe COVID-19. Key messages Anti-CD20 DMTs may be associated with worse COVID-19 severity amongst people with multiple sclerosis.