Interventions to support risk and benefit understanding of disease-modifying drugs in Multiple Sclerosis patients: A systematic review

Identify the report as a systematic review

Background: To examine the relationship of vitamin B12 and folate concentrations to cognitive function, fatigue measures, physical function, quality of life (patient-centred outcomes) and homocysteine plasma concentrations (intermediate marker of cobalamin and folate deficiency) for patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS). Methods: Systematic searches for eligible articles of MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and OpenGray databases were conducted from 1983 in March 2021. Heterogeneity, Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) and Confidence Intervals (CI) calculated using Random Effects Model. Results: Sixteen studies were included involving; 616 MS patients and 655 healthy controls. 14 of these had acceptable or better quality but there was high heterogeneity. No difference was found between MS, healthy controls for folate and cobalamin concentrations; WMD 0.00ug/L (95% CI: -0.01, 0.01) and WMD 7.01pmol/L (95% CI: -25.54, 39.55) respectively. MS group showed mild-to-moderate disability WMD was 2.78 (95% CI: 2.00, 3.56). MS may be associated with elevated plasma homocysteine concentrations on average 2.47µmol/L more than healthy controls. Discussion: Physical ability of MS group was worse than healthy controls, but there was no difference in folate and cobalamin concentrations. This suggests folate and cobalamin are not influential factors in worsening physical function. There may be an association between worse cognitive function, and increased homocysteine concentrations. Results were inconclusive due to high heterogeneity and limited number of studies. A core outcome set would enable easier synthesis of future results.

Neuroinflammation: The next target of exosomal microRNAs derived from mesenchymal stem cells in the context of neurological disorders

Among different types of mechanisms involved in neurological disorders, neuroinflammation links initial insults to secondary injuries and triggers some chronic outcomes, for example, neurodegenerative disorders. Thus, anti-inflammatory substances can be targeted as a novel therapeutic option for translational and clinical research to improve brain disease outcomes. In this review, we propose to introduce a new insight into the anti-inflammatory effects of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) as the most frequent source for stem cell therapy in neurological diseases. Our insight incorporates a bystander effect of these stem cells in modulating inflammation and microglia/macrophage polarization through exosomes. Exosomes are nano-sized membrane vesicles that carry cell-specific constituents, including protein, lipid, DNA, and RNA. microRNAs (miRNAs) have recently been detected in exosomes that can be taken up by other cells and affect the behavior of recipient cells. In this article, we outline and highlight the potential use of exosomal miRNAs derived from MSCs for inflammatory pathways in the context of neurological disorders. Furthermore, we suggest that focusing on exosomal miRNAs derived from MSCs in the course of neuroinflammatory pathways in the future could reveal their functions for diverse neurological diseases, including brain injuries and neurodegenerative diseases. It is hoped that this study will contribute to a deep understanding of stem cell bystander effects through exosomal miRNAs.

Improving MS patients' understanding of treatment risks and benefits in clinical consultations: A randomised crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) patients find it difficult to understand the complex risk-benefit profiles of disease-modifying drugs. An evidence-based protocol was designed to improve patient's understanding of treatment information: Benefit and Risk Information for Medication in Multiple Sclerosis (BRIMMS).

OBJECTIVE

A feasibility study to evaluate whether the BRIMMS protocol can improve MS patients' treatment understanding and reduce conflict in treatment decisions compared to consultation as usual.

DESIGN

Single-blind 4-condition 4-period randomised crossover trial. Hypothetical treatment information was presented to MS patients in a faux 20 minute consultation session using the BRIMMS protocol (aural and visual) or as a usual consultation (aural and visual). Patients were randomised to the order in which they received the four consultation styles.

PARTICIPANTS

24 patients diagnosed with relapsing-remitting MS.

MEASURES

Patients were assessed on their comprehension of treatment information, decisional conflict and feedback on consultation styles. Disease and demographic information was also collected.

RESULTS

Treatment understanding was greater for both BRIMMS visual and BRIMMS aural, compared to usual consultations in visual or aural format. Similarly, BRIMMS visual and BRIMMS aural reduced decisional conflict compared to usual consultations in visual or aural formats. All comparisons were p<0.001. Cognitive status was not related to understanding in the BRIMMS protocol, but was negatively related with usual consultation. Conversely, mood influenced understanding on the BRIMMS protocol but not for usual consultation.

CONCLUSIONS

BRIMMS protocol offers an effective, evidence-based tool for presenting treatment information in consultations with MS patients and is not influenced by cognition.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN17318966.

Patient Power Revolution in Multiple Sclerosis: Navigating the New Frontier

A debate on shared decision making in multiple sclerosis (MS) was led by a patient advocate and leading neurologists from the MS in the 21st Century Steering Group. Key themes and salient points which emerged from the debate and audience discussions are reported in this article. Arguments against shared decision making included the fact that physicians study and practice for years to reach their level of expertise, and that the level of understanding required to make these decisions may not be possible to communicate to patients within time-limited consultations. Furthermore, unreliable online information, information overload or information with marketing bias may also cloud patients’ judgements. Arguments for patient engagement focussed on how ownership of decisions can lead to improved adherence and outcomes, and a strengthening of the physician–patient relationship. Shared decision making requires educating patients to make informed decisions and to understand the risks and consequences of their choices. However, shared decision making may not be the correct option for every patient, and the level of involvement must be driven by the patient. To support patients’ engagement and promote responsible management of their condition, physicians need to (1) foster and maintain a positive, ongoing relationship with their patients, and (2) provide patients with timely, accurate, and understandable information. There was broad agreement that the patient voice should be heard more in discussions around the future of MS care. MS in the 21st Century offers a model for patient involvement in partnership with MS healthcare specialists, and the steering group is currently considering these issues and developing tools and solutions to enhance patient–physician communication and relationships.

Funding Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Information provision for people with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

People with multiple sclerosis (MS) are confronted with a number of important uncertainties concerning many aspects of the disease. These include diagnosis, prognosis, disease course, disease-modifying therapies, symptomatic therapies, and non-pharmacological interventions, among others. While people with MS demand adequate information to be able to actively participate in medical decision making and to self manage their disease, it has been shown that patients' disease-related knowledge is poor, therefore guidelines recommend clear and concise high-quality information at all stages of the disease. Several studies have outlined communication and information deficits in the care of people with MS. However, only a few information and decision support programmes have been published.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives of this updated review was to evaluate the effectiveness of information provision interventions for people with MS that aim to promote informed choice and improve patient-relevant outcomes, Further objectives were to evaluate the components and the developmental processes of the complex interventions used, to highlight the quantity and the certainty of the research evidence available, and to set an agenda for future research.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Specialised Register, which contains trials from CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 11), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, PEDro, and clinical trials registries (29 November 2017) as well as other sources. We also searched reference lists of identified articles and contacted trialists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised controlled trials, and quasi-randomised trials comparing information provision for people with MS or suspected MS (intervention groups) with usual care or other types of information provision (control groups) were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the retrieved articles for relevance and methodological quality and extracted data. Critical appraisal of studies addressed the risk of selection bias, performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias. We contacted authors of relevant studies for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one new RCT (73 participants), which when added to the 10 previously included RCTs resulted in a total of 11 RCTs that met the inclusion criteria and were analysed (1387 participants overall; mean age, range: 31 to 51; percentage women, range: 63% to 100%; percentage relapsing-remitting MS course, range: 45% to 100%). The interventions addressed a variety of topics using different approaches for information provision in different settings. Topics included disease-modifying therapy, relapse management, self care strategies, fatigue management, family planning, and general health promotion. The active intervention components included decision aids, decision coaching, educational programmes, self care programmes, and personal interviews with physicians. All studies used one or more components, but the number and extent differed markedly between studies. The studies had a variable risk of bias. We did not perform meta-analyses due to marked clinical heterogeneity. All five studies assessing MS-related knowledge (505 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) detected significant differences between groups as a result of the interventions, indicating that information provision may successfully increase participants' knowledge. There were mixed results on decision making (five studies, 793 participants; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (six studies, 671 participants; low-certainty evidence). No adverse events were detected in the seven studies reporting this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Information provision for people with MS seems to increase disease-related knowledge, with less clear results on decision making and quality of life. The included studies in this review reported no negative side effects of providing disease-related information to people with MS. Interpretation of study results remains challenging due to the marked heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures.

Best Methods of Communicating Clinical Trial Data to Improve Understanding of Treatments for Patients with Multiple Sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Patients' understanding of treatment risks and benefits is a prerequisite for shared decision making. Yet, patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) do not accurately understand treatment information provided in regular clinical consultations.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the best methods of communicating clinical trial data to improve the understanding of treatments among patients with MS and to also examine the relationship between patients' understanding with decisional conflict, individual traits, and MS symptoms.

METHODS

A repeated-measures study was used. A sample of relapsing-remitting patients with MS was recruited from National Health Service sites in the United Kingdom. Patients were presented with hypothetical treatment risks and benefits from faux clinical trials. Treatments were communicated using absolute terms, relative terms, and numbers needed to treat/harm. The presence of baseline information with each method was also manipulated. Patients' understanding and conflict in treatment decisions were assessed. Individual traits and MS symptoms were also recorded.

RESULTS

Understanding was better when treatments were communicated in absolute terms (mean 3.99 ± 0.93) compared with relative terms (mean 2.93 ± 0.91; P < 0.001) and numbers needed to treat/harm (mean 2.89 ± 0.88; P < 0.001). Adding baseline information to all methods significantly improved understanding (mean 5.04 ± 0.96) compared with no baseline information (mean 1.50 ± 0.74; P < 0.001). Understanding was not related to conflict in treatment decisions (r = -0.131; P = 0.391). Numeracy, IQ, and cognitive impairments were significantly related to patients' understanding of treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment risks and benefits should ideally be communicated using absolute terms, alongside baseline information. Patients with MS with low numeracy, low IQ, and reduced cognitive skills should be supported during treatment education.

Numeracy of multiple sclerosis patients: A comparison of patients from the PERCEPT study to a German probabilistic sample

OBJECTIVE

A shared decision-making approach is suggested for multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. To properly evaluate benefits and risks of different treatment options accordingly, MS patients require sufficient numeracy - the ability to understand quantitative information. It is unknown whether MS affects numeracy. Therefore, we investigated whether patients' numeracy was impaired compared to a probabilistic national sample.

METHODS

As part of the larger prospective, observational, multicenter study PERCEPT, we assessed numeracy for a clinical study sample of German MS patients (N=725) with a standard test and compared them to a German probabilistic sample (N=1001), controlling for age, sex, and education. Within patients, we assessed whether disease variables (disease duration, disability, annual relapse rate, cognitive impairment) predicted numeracy beyond these demographics.

RESULTS

MS patients showed a comparable level of numeracy as the probabilistic national sample (68.9% vs. 68.5% correct answers, P=0.831). In both samples, numeracy was higher for men and the highly educated. Disease variables did not predict numeracy beyond demographics within patients, and predictability was generally low.

CONCLUSION

This sample of MS patients understood quantitative information on the same level as the general population.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

There is no reason to withhold quantitative information from MS patients.

Unmet needs, burden of treatment, and patient engagement in multiple sclerosis: A combined perspective from the MS in the 21st Century Steering Group

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement is vital in multiple sclerosis (MS) in order to optimise outcomes for patients, society and healthcare systems. It is essential to involve all stakeholders in potential solutions, working in a multidisciplinary way to ensure that people with MS (PwMS) are included in shared decision-making and disease management. To start this process, a collaborative, open environment between PwMS and healthcare professionals (HCPs) is required so that similarities and disparities in the perception of key areas in patient care and unmet needs can be identified. With this patient-centred approach in mind, in 2016 the MS in the 21st Century Steering Group formed a unique collaboration to include PwMS in the Steering Group to provide a platform for the patient voice.

METHODS

The MS in the 21st Century initiative set out to foster engagement through a series of open-forum joint workshops. The aims of these workshops were: to identify similarities and disparities in the perception and prioritisation in three key areas (unmet needs, the treatment burden in MS, and factors that impact patient engagement), and to provide practical advice on how the gaps in perception and understanding in these key areas could be bridged.

RESULTS

Combined practical advice and direction are provided here as eight actions: 1. Improve communication to raise the quality of HCP-patient interaction and optimise the limited time available for consultations. 2. Heighten the awareness of 'hidden' disease symptoms and how these can be managed. 3. Improve the dialogue surrounding the benefit versus risk issues of therapies to help patients become fully informed and active participants in their healthcare decisions. 4. Provide accurate, lucid information in an easily accessible format from reliable sources. 5. Encourage HCPs and multidisciplinary teams to acquire and share new knowledge and information among their teams and with PwMS. 6. Foster greater understanding and awareness of challenges faced by PwMS and HCPs in treating MS. 7. Collaborate to develop local education, communication and patient-engagement initiatives. 8. Motivate PwMS to become advocates for self-management in MS care.

CONCLUSION

Our study of PwMS and HCPs in the MS in the 21st Century initiative has highlighted eight practical actions. These actions identify how differences and gaps in unmet needs, treatment burden, and patient engagement between PwMS and HCPs can be bridged to improve MS disease management. Of particular interest now are patient-centred educational resources that can be used during time-limited consultations to enhance understanding of disease and improve communication. Actively bridging these gaps in a joint approach enables PwMS to take part in shared decision-making; with improved communication and reliable information, patients can make informed decisions with their HCPs, as part of their own personalised disease management.