Comparison of health-related quality of life across treatment groups in individuals with multiple sclerosis

Background: Outcome measures typically used to evaluate disease modifying therapies (DMTs) provide important information regarding their effects on disease activity, but they do not capture the full impact of living with multiple sclerosis (MS). Patient reported outcome measures (PROs) are increasingly being used to capture an individual's subjective experience of disease. We compared DMTs across a wide range of PRO outcomes in individuals with MS.

Methods: Subjects enrolled in SysteMS completed the computer adaptive testing version of the Neuro-QoL within four weeks of a clinical neurological exam. Neuro-QoL measures included the following 11 health-related quality of life (HRQOL) domains: Ability to participate in Social Roles and Activities, Anxiety, Cognitive Function, Depression, Emotional and Behavioral Dyscontrol, Fatigue, Lower Extremity Function (mobility), Positive Affect and Wellbeing, Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities, Stigma, and Upper Extremity Function (fine motor). Treatments were grouped based on the three main modes of delivery: injectable, oral and infusion. The three treatment groups were compared using linear regression adjusting for two sets of covariates (set 1: age, sex, disease duration and EDSS; set 2: age, sex, disease duration, EDSS and treatment duration). We also compared the individual treatments using linear regression.

Results: After adjusting for the first set of clinical and demographic features of MS, there was a difference between treatment groups for Upper Extremity Function and Stigma. Subjects using injectable treatments reported better functioning in terms of Upper Extremity Function and Stigma than subjects using infusion treatments. In addition, subjects using injectable treatments reported better Upper Extremity Function than subjects treated with oral DMTs. When all individual treatments were compared, interferon-treated subjects reported significantly better functioning in terms of Stigma than natalizumab treated subjects. When further adjusting for time on treatment, the group differences were attenuated and no longer statistically significant.

Conclusion: We examined differences between MS treatment groups across a wide range of HRQOL outcomes. The results suggest that overall there are few differences between treatments on the physical, cognitive and emotional dimensions of well-being.