Unveiling MS Specialists’ Views on Multiple Sclerosis Prognostication – A
Qualitative
Study
Sofie Aerts, Lotte Geys, Deborah Severijns, Mona Alkhawajah, Thomas Berger, Alexey Boyko, Nikolaos Grigoriadis, Hans-Peter Hartung, Melinda Magyari, Celia Oreja-Guevara, Veronica Popescu, Carlo Pozzilli, Patrick Vermersch, Bassem Yamout, Magd Zakaria, Tjalf Ziemssen, Liesbet M Peeters, Bart Van Wijmeersch
University MS Center UHasselt – Noorderhart, Agoralaan gebouw C, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium
Affiliations: sofie aerts@uhasselt be
Introduction
Prognostication is crucial for personalizing treatment plans and optimizing outcomes in Multiple Sclerosis (MS) However, current algorithms mainly focus on physical disability, often overlooking the broader impact of MS The lack of a universally agreed-upon definition of prognosis creates variability in how neurologists interpret and apply prognostic information, leading to inconsistent clinical decisions
To address these challenges, it is essential to understand how MS specialist neurologists conceptualize prognosis and approach prognostication in their practice while identifying the priority areas that must be addressed to enhance their ability to effectively estimate MS prognosis The insights gained from these areas are vital for refining the prognostication process and guiding the development of practical prognostic tools for MS
Objectives
To investigate how MS specialists conceptualize prognosis and integrate prognostication into their clinical practice, and to identify the priority areas that need to be addressed to better support their prognostic decision-making.
Results
Methods
Graphical overview of
Conclusions
This study highlights the need for a standardized, patient-centered approach to MS prognostication beyond traditional disease metrics, while using a common prediction outcome.
By identifying the current challenges faced by MS specialists, the findings can contribute to the development of prognostic tools that have a higher potential for actual practical implementation in clinical settings
Table 1: Identified MS specialist (n=12) priority areas with % mentioned. PRO: Patient-reported outcome Figure 1: