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 DMTs) covariates were queried, alongside COVID-19 severity outcomes, hospitalisation, ICU admission, 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 and confirmed-only COVID-19, 20.9% and 26.9% were hospitalised, 5.4% and 7.2% were admitted to ICU, 4.1% and 5.4% required artificial ventilation, and 3.2% and 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). 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 wereassociated 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. Stratification by age, MS-phenotype, and EDSS found no indications that DMT associations with COVID-19 severity reflected differential DMT allocation by underlying COVID-19 severity.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. Despite the study’s cross-sectional design, the internal and external consistency of these results with prior studies suggests rituximab/ocrelizumab use may be a risk factor for more severe COVID-19.

BackgroundComparative effectiveness (CE) research allows real-world treatment comparisons using outcome measurements important to physicians/patients. This German NeuroTransData registry-based analysis compared delayed-release dimethyl fumarate (DMF) effectiveness with interferons (IFN), glatiramer acetate (GA), teriflunomide (TERI), or fingolimod (FTY) in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) using propensity score matching (PSM).MethodsData from registry patients aged ≥ 18 years with RRMS, ≥ 1 relapse, and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessment(s) after index therapy initiation underwent 1:1 PSM to match DMF with comparator populations baseline characteristics. Primary outcome measurement was time to first relapse (TTFR). Secondary outcome measurements included annualised relapse rate (ARR), proportion of patients relapse free at 12 and 24 months, time to index therapy discontinuation (TTD), and reasons for discontinuation. Exploratory analyses included time to 3- and 6-month EDSS confirmed disability progression (CDP). Non-pairwise censoring was the primary analysis method; pairwise censoring was the main sensitivity analysis method.FindingsPost-matched cohorts were well-balanced. By non-pairwise censoring, TTFR and ARR were significantly lower in DMF populations versus matched IFN, GA, and TERI, but there was no evidence of difference between DMF and FTY. TTD was similar between DMF and IFN, GA, and TERI, but significantly shorter versus FTY. Time to CDP generally showed no evidence of difference between DMF and comparator populations. Pairwise censored analysis results confirmed the non-pairwise censoring results.InterpretationThese results support previous CE studies in demonstrating relative improvement in real-world effectiveness with DMF versus first-line agents IFN, GA, and TERI, and similar effectiveness versus FTY.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00415-018-9083-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.