Specifically, “it appears that patient reluctance to start moderate-efficacy DMTs is a major factor and may be impeding a significant uptake of the oral drugs in treatment-naive patients,” said study lead author Virginia Schobel, MSc, of the consulting firm Spherix Global Insights, who spoke in an interview prior to the presentation of the study findings at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.
The third annual survey of neurologists was conducted in December 2018, and 218 neurologists took part. Participants answered questions via an online survey and provided cross-sectional retrospective chart reviews of 1,059 MS patients who started their first DMT over the previous 3 months. The survey participants managed the initial DMT selection in 935 of the cases.
For this survey, Ms. Schobel said, researchers focused on exploring reasons why data aren’t showing a major trend toward oral DMTs as first-line treatment. “A good proportion of neurologists agree that this is their preferred method, but we are not seeing the market move,” she said.
The survey asked neurologists if they agree with this statement: “When initiating a patient on DMT therapy, I prefer to use a DMT aggressive approach, using a high-efficacy agent as opposed to a therapy escalation approach whereby I start with a traditional first-line DMT and only progress to second line if/when the patient does not have an optimal response.” Nearly half (49%) of the neurologists agreed, while 16% disagreed and 36% were neutral.
Neurologists reported initiating their preferred DMT 77% of the time (standard efficacy DMTs), 81% of the time (moderate efficacy), and 75% (high efficacy).
When asked why they weren’t able to prescribe their top recommended DMT, neurologists offered these answers:
** In standard-efficacy cases (n = 96), insurance hitches – formulary limitations or denial – were responsible 67% of the time. Patient refusal or preference for another DMT were responsible 33% of the time, and other reasons accounted for 1%.
Why do patients face insurance hassles for standard-efficacy drugs? Ms. Schobel noted that generics are available for these drugs, and insurers may prefer them.
** In moderate-efficacy cases (n = 63), insurance hitches accounted for 40% of cases, while patient refusal made up 59% with other reasons at 3%.
** In high-efficacy cases (n = 46), insurance hitches accounted for 59% of cases, while patient refusal explained 41% of cases. Of the latter group, reasons included tolerability concerns (42%) and safety concerns other than progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) risks (37%)
No study funding is reported, and the study authors report no relevant disclosures.