Table 1.
Demographic features of the three cohorts of pwMS
| Parameter | ‘MS conference attendees’ (n = 105) | ‘On treatment’(n = 76) | ‘Offered treatment’ (n = 73) | p-value (comparing cohorts) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relapsing MS* | 87 (85%), 2 missing | 74 (100%), 2 missing | 68 (94%), 1 missing | p = 0.0006 | ||||||
| MS diagnosis (0–3 yrs)** | 32 (30%), 3 missing | 0 (0%), 5 missing | 32 (46%), 4 missing | p < 0.0001 | ||||||
| Treatment naïve*** | 14 (13%) | 0 (0%) | 22 (31%), 3 missing | p = 0.003 | ||||||
| Treatment potency (no treatment (0), moderate (1), high (2))**** number on [injectable/orals] | 0 = 17 (16%) | 1 = 28 (27%)[17,11] | 2 = 60 (57%) | 0 = 11 (15%) | 1 = 38 (50%)[11, 27] | 2 = 27 (35%) | 0 = 39 (53%) | 1 = 30 (41%)[7, 22] | 2 = 4 (6%) | p = 0 |
| Male sex | 31 (30%) | 20 (26%) | 17 (23%) | NS | ||||||
| Age 18–44 years | 48 (46%) | 48 (63%) | 40 (55%) | NS | ||||||
| White ethnicity | 89 (85%) | 58 (77%), 1 missing | 59 (82%), 1 missing | NS | ||||||
| With partner | 76 (72%) | 50 (66%) | 33 (52%), 10 missing | NS | ||||||
| Employed | 56 (53%) | 48 (64%), 1 missing | 45 (68%), 7 missing | NS | ||||||
*Differences in the ratios of MS type (PPMS/SPMS & RMS) between the groups (p = 0.0006) was due to SPMS/PPMS participants being excluded from the ‘on treatment’ and ‘offered treatment’ cohorts as a result of their study entry criteria. **There was a higher proportion of newly diagnosed (0–3 yrs) pwMS in the ‘offered treatment’ than the ‘MS conference attendees’ cohort (p = 0.046) and the ‘MS conference attendees’ cohort had a higher proportion of newly diagnosed pwMS than the ‘on treatment’ cohort (p = < 0.0001).
***There were in total 36 (14%) treatment-naïve pwMS, none in the ‘on treatment’ cohort, significantly less than the ‘MS conference attendees’ cohort (14/105 [13%], p = 0.0009), and the ‘offered treatment’ cohort (22/70 [31%], p = < 0.0001). There were significantly more treatment-naïve pwMS in the ‘considering treatment’ versus the ‘MS conference attendees’ cohort (p = 0.003).
****We compared only the moderate and high-potency treatment groups and found a significant difference (2 × 3 Fisher’s Exact Test, p = 0) confirming that the ‘MS conference attendees’ cohort had a higher percentage on high-potency treatment. This cohort also had the lowest percentage of treatment-naïve pwMS. NS – not significant