Background and scopeMultiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory-demyelinating disease of the central nervous system (CNS) that is characterized by inflammation, demyelination and degenerative changes. MS usually begins around the age between 20 and 40 years and affects two to three times as many women as men; it also constitutes the most frequent cause of non-traumatic disability in the young adult population. 1 The incidence of MS varies across regions, with rates as high as 8 to 10 new cases per 100,000 in high latitudinal regions. 2,3 Current estimates suggest that over 700,000 people are affected in Europe, with over 2.5 million cases worldwide, 4 which represent a significant burden in terms of impact on quality of life, societal costs and personal expenses. 5,6 Most patients (85%-90%) have a relapsing course from onset that is characterized by relapses and remissions of neurological symptoms Methods: This guideline has been developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology and following the updated EAN recommendations. Clinical questions were formulated in Patients-Intervention-Comparator-Outcome (PICO) format and outcomes were prioritized. The quality of evidence was rated into four categories according to the risk of bias. The recommendations with assigned strength (strong and weak) were formulated based on the quality of evidence and the risk-benefit balance. Consensus between the panelists was reached by use of the modified nominal group technique. Results: A total of 10 questions were agreed, encompassing treatment efficacy, response criteria, strategies to address suboptimal response and safety concerns and treatment strategies in MS and pregnancy. The guideline takes into account all disease-modifying drugs approved by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) at the time of publication. A total of 21 recommendations were agreed by the guideline working group after three rounds of consensus. Conclusion:The present guideline will enable homogeneity of treatment decisions across Europe. associated with areas of CNS inflammation, and over the course of two decades, more than half of untreated patients transition to a phase of gradual worsening independent of acute attacks. 7,8 Progressive forms of MS can be present as the initial disease course (primary-progressive MS) in approximately 10%-15% of patients. 9,10 There is no curative treatment available for MS, and the current therapeutic strategy is aimed at reducing the risk of relapses and potentially disability progression. The treatment era for MS began in 1993, when the first interferon became available, and recent years have seen a large expansion in the therapeutic options for MS, with 11 disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) approved by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) in both injectable and oral formulations by the beginning of 2017. 11 The growing armamentarium of therapies brings new opportunities for individualized therapy where patients and providers must balance considerations around efficacy,...

Background and purpose: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a complex disease with new drugs becoming available in the past years. There is therefore a need for a reference tool compiling current data to aid professionals in treatment decisions. The objective was to develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the pharmacological treatment of people with MS. Methods: This guideline has been developed using the GRADE methodology and following the updated EAN recommendations for guideline development. Clinical questions were formulated in PICO format (patient, intervention, comparator, outcome) and outcomes were prioritized according to their relevance to clinical practice. Literature searches up to December 2016 were performed and the evidence is presented narratively and, when possible, combined in a fax: +34 93 2746084; e-mail: xavier.montalban@cem-cat.org) and for EAN: R. Gold, Department of Neurology, Ruhr University, St Josef-Hospital, Gudrunstr. 56, 44791 Bochum, Germany (tel.: +49-234-509244; fax: +49-234-5092414; e-mail: ralf.gold@rub.de). This is a Continuing Medical Education article, and can be found with corresponding questions on the EAN website, LEARN section https://www.ean. org/CME.2714.0.html. Certificates for correctly answered questions will be issued by EAN directly, you simply have to be logged-in. With positive results, EAN recommends accreditation of 1 hour of CME, which may be claimed with the national body in charge of CME accreditation. This paper is being simultaneously published in European Journal of Neurology and Multiple Sclerosis Journal.[Correction added on 13 February 2018, after online and print publication: (a) The abstract has been updated and a conclusion section in now included; (b) Recommendation 4 and 7 has been amended, and an additional recommendation has been added after the latter]. meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was rated into four categories -very high, high, low and very low À according to the risk of bias. The recommendations with assigned strength (strong, weak) were formulated based on the quality of evidence and the riskÀbenefit balance. Consensus between the panelists was reached by use of the modified nominal group technique. Results: A total of 10 questions have been agreed, encompassing treatment efficacy, response criteria, strategies to address suboptimal response and safety concerns and treatment strategies in MS and pregnancy. The guideline takes into account all disease-modifying drugs approved by the European Medicine Agency at the time of publication. A total of 21 recommendations were agreed by the guideline working group members after three rounds of consensus. Conclusion: The present guideline, which includes descriptions of the evidence together with recommendations, will enable homogeneity of treatment decisions across Europe. © 2018 European Academy of Neurology and European Committee of Treatment of Research in Multiple SclerosisBackground and scope

BackgroundMost research on interventions to counter stigma and discrimination has focused on short-term outcomes and has been conducted in high-income settings.AimsTo synthesise what is known globally about effective interventions to reduce mental illness-based stigma and discrimination, in relation first to effectiveness in the medium and long term (minimum 4 weeks), and second to interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodWe searched six databases from 1980 to 2013 and conducted a multi-language Google search for quantitative studies addressing the research questions. Effect sizes were calculated from eligible studies where possible, and narrative syntheses conducted. Subgroup analysis compared interventions with and without social contact.ResultsEighty studies (n = 422 653) were included in the review. For studies with medium or long-term follow-up (72, of which 21 had calculable effect sizes) median standardised mean differences were 0.54 for knowledge and −0.26 for stigmatising attitudes. Those containing social contact (direct or indirect) were not more effective than those without. The 11 LMIC studies were all from middle-income countries. Effect sizes were rarely calculable for behavioural outcomes or in LMIC studies.ConclusionsThere is modest evidence for the effectiveness of anti-stigma interventions beyond 4 weeks follow-up in terms of increasing knowledge and reducing stigmatising attitudes. Evidence does not support the view that social contact is the more effective type of intervention for improving attitudes in the medium to long term. Methodologically strong research is needed on which to base decisions on investment in stigma-reducing interventions.

No abstract