Reasons for switching to fingolimod in patients relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in France: the ESGILE study

•Disease worsening is the principal reason for switching to fingolimod•Patient preferences enter into the decision in one-third of cases•Whatever the reason for switching, the improvement rate after switching is similar•Improved treatment acceptability is observed after switching to fingolimod Timely treatment switching is an important strategy in optimising management of patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Patient preferences, as well as clinical benefit, may contribute to the switch decision. Information on reasons determining switching choices and on outcome according to the reason for switching is scarce. Study objectives were to describe the consequences of switching to fingolimod in terms of clinical improvement according to the reasons underlying the switch and to evaluate treatment acceptability from the patient's perspective. This prospective observational study was conducted by 71 neurologists in France and included patients with RRMS switching to fingolimod following ≥6 months treatment with a first-line disease modifying treatment (DMT). Reasons for switching were documented. Patients were evaluated at inclusion and 12 months after initiating fingolimod. Physicians documented clinical status by relapse activity, disability (EDSS) at each visit and improvement with the Clinical Global Impression – Change (CGI-C) at Month 12. Patients rated improvement at Month 12 with the Patient Global Impression – Change (PGI-C) and treatment acceptability with the ACCEPT® questionnaire. Adverse events reported during fingolimod treatment were documented. Overall 232 patients were recruited of whom 190 could be analysed. Multiple reasons for switching were frequently given; 113 patients (59.4%) switched from a first-line injectable DMT. Switching was motivated by disease worsening in 161 patients (84.7%), tolerability in 35 (18.4%) and patient preference in 58 (30.5%). During the follow-up period, 38 patients (20.0%) experienced at least one exacerbation. The mean EDSS score was stable (2.0 ± 1.3 at inclusion; 2.0 ± 1.5 at M12). With the CGI-C, 67 patients (38.7%) were considered improved and 23 (13.3%) worsened. Although no obvious differences in CGI-C ratings were observed as a function of the reason for switching, when patient preferences entered into the decision, the proportion of patients considered minimally improved was somewhat higher (37.7%) and the proportion considered unchanged somewhat lower (41.5%). With the PGI-C, more