Observational study identifies unmet needs in relapsing multiple sclerosis patients on treatment, suggesting improved patient care.
Background Patient-centred care is essential for effectively managing relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). The PROFILE-RMS study aimed to characterise unmet medical needs using clinically meaningful patient profiles. Methods This 12 month observational study collected real-world data across Germany. Adults with RMS receiving disease-modifying therapy (DMT) were classified into predefined profiles: ongoing disease activity (Profile 1), significant adverse drug reactions (ADRs; Profile 2), or low treatment satisfaction (Profile 3). Outcomes included treatment response, disease activity, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and safety. Results In total, 488 patients were analysed. In Profile 1 (n = 246), 41.6% had insufficient response to therapy, with severe fatigue identified as an indicator (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-3.88), but only 14.2% changed treatment (mainly for disease activity); 4.1% experienced a serious adverse event (SAE). In Profile 2 (n = 179), 31.5% had insufficient response, but only 18.4% changed treatment (mainly for disease activity); 1.6% experienced an SAE. In Profile 3 (n = 63), 33.3% had insufficient response, with male sex identified as an indicator (HR: 3.09; 95% CI: 1.40-6.82), but only 17.5% changed treatment (mainly for low satisfaction); 1.6% experienced an SAE. Across profiles, most patients received low-moderate efficacy DMTs, the percentage of patients without DMTs increased, and PROs were impaired. Conclusions Patient profiling highlights gaps in real-world RMS management, where DMTs are often discontinued without substitution and escalation to high-efficacy regimens often delayed, reinforcing the need for patient-centred care. Fatigue may indicate non‑response (Profile 1), disease activity outweighs ADR burden (Profile 2), and symptom load drives dissatisfaction (Profile 3). Trial Registration Protocol number ML39348.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Penner et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: