Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Predictors of high- versus low-intensity first-line multiple sclerosis treatments.

Created on 13 Sep 2026

Authors

Amanda V Gusovsky Chevalier, Kyle Murray, Anna Lin, Kevin Kerber, James F Burke, Tirisham V Gyang

Published in

Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical. Volume 12. Issue 3. Pages 20552173261487868. Epub Sep 11, 2026.

Abstract

Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) can be either high- or low-intensity. This study aims to examine predictors associated with high-intensity MS treatment strategies using commercial claims data.
We used Merative MarketScan commercial and Medicare supplemental databases to examine patients with: outpatient MS diagnosis (ICD-9/-10: 340.xx, G35.xx); DMT fill; no DMTs 1 year prior to MS diagnosis through DMT fill; and 6 months continuous database enrollment. The first DMT filled was classified as either high- (natalizumab, alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, ofatumumab, cladribine) or low-intensity (interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, ponesimod, siponimod, ozanimod). We used logistic regression to examine factors associated with high-intensity first-line MS treatments, and multilevel modelling to characterize provider-level variance.
A total of 16,405 patients met the study criteria, and they were 48 years old on average (SD = 12), and 75% female. High-intensity first-line DMT was used in 3%, increasing from <1% in 2012 to 13% in 2021. Provider type was most commonly neurologist (49%) or MS specialist (36%). Provider-level effect accounted for 17% of variance.
The minority of MS patients initiated high-intensity treatment although this proportion increased over time, and later years were predictive of high-intensity treatment. Providers had a significant role in the approach selected.

PMID:
42732265
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 13 Sep 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 14
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement