European journal of neurology · 2026
Defining Activity-Based Subgroups in Multiple Sclerosis: A Review and Framework Proposal.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lopez Manzano Catalina, Rice Claire M, Tallantyre Emma, Cooper Chris, Wang Hanyu, Tomlinson Eve, Sadek Ayman, Rao-Middleton Ananya, Thom Howard, Whiting Penny
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is commonly stratified into activity-based subgroups to inform treatment decisions and health technology assessments (HTAs). However, the terminology and criteria used to define these subgroups, particularly 'active', 'highly active' and 'rapidly evolving severe' (RES) disease, are inconsistent across clinical trials and regulatory guidance, leading to ambiguity in practice and restricted treatment access. Our objectives were to review how activity-based subgroups in MS are defined across NICE technology appraisals (TAs) and the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that inform them, and to propose a preliminary framework for standardised terminology.
METHODS: We identified and reviewed NICE TAs of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS and the RCTs included in those appraisals. We extracted and compared definitions used to characterise activity-based MS subgroups, and classified them by key components such as relapse history, MRI findings and treatment status. We summarised our findings and highlighted points of consensus and controversy.
RESULTS: Definitions varied widely, especially for 'highly active' RRMS and active SPMS. While most TAs used consistent criteria for 'active' and 'RES' RRMS disease, definitions in RCTs were heterogeneous. We identified frequent overlaps in terminology and proposed a simplified framework comprising three distinct but overlapping subgroups for RMS: active RRMS/RRMS, highly active RRMS (HARRMS) and rapidly evolving severe RRMS (RES-RRMS).
CONCLUSIONS: Standardised definitions are urgently needed to improve evidence synthesis, inform regulatory guidance and ensure equitable treatment access. We propose a formal consensus process to consolidate this framework for use in future research, HTAs and treatment pathways.
METHODS: We identified and reviewed NICE TAs of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS and the RCTs included in those appraisals. We extracted and compared definitions used to characterise activity-based MS subgroups, and classified them by key components such as relapse history, MRI findings and treatment status. We summarised our findings and highlighted points of consensus and controversy.
RESULTS: Definitions varied widely, especially for 'highly active' RRMS and active SPMS. While most TAs used consistent criteria for 'active' and 'RES' RRMS disease, definitions in RCTs were heterogeneous. We identified frequent overlaps in terminology and proposed a simplified framework comprising three distinct but overlapping subgroups for RMS: active RRMS/RRMS, highly active RRMS (HARRMS) and rapidly evolving severe RRMS (RES-RRMS).
CONCLUSIONS: Standardised definitions are urgently needed to improve evidence synthesis, inform regulatory guidance and ensure equitable treatment access. We propose a formal consensus process to consolidate this framework for use in future research, HTAs and treatment pathways.